Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
It is clear to us that visible policing is essential to restoring public confidence in our police, which is why there will be 3,000 more neighbourhood police on the beat by April next year under this Labour Government. The Metropolitan police will receive up to £3.8 billion in 2025-26, a £262 million increase in funding through the settlement.
Munira Wilson
May I, as a London Member, begin by paying tribute to the brave police officers from the Met and many other forces who were policing protests on Saturday, a number of whom were injured in the line of duty as a result of abhorrent attacks? I am sure that the thoughts and prayers of all Members, in all parts of the House, are with them.
Last week we discovered that Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, had admitted that he had known as long ago as November that the Met planned to close a number of police front counters across London, having promised just six months earlier in his election manifesto that not a single borough would be left without a police front counter. The decision to close Twickenham’s counter means that Richmond upon Thames will be left without one. Does the Minister agree that, given the importance of police counters in maintaining trust in and accessibility to our police, this decision needs to be reversed? Does she also agree that the Mayor of London has broken his promises, and that the Metropolitan police should be funded properly?
Sarah Jones
May I associate myself with the comments made by the hon. Member at the start of her question? As she would expect, we have been in close contact with the Met throughout the weekend. Our thoughts are with the officers who were injured, some of them seriously, and we must of course ensure that justice is done for them: they run into danger for us every day.
It is clear to me that the Mayor of London is making the right decisions on policing across London. Of course Members will feel that their particular police stations are important, and of course visible policing is important. What our communities are saying—what my communities in Croydon are saying to me—is that they want to see police on our streets tackling crime, not sitting behind desks doing the jobs that unwarranted police officers could be doing, and that is why we are putting neighbourhood policing at the heart of our policies and putting those 3,000 officers back on our streets by April next year.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
A constituent of mine tried to act as a good samaritan by handing in a handbag that they had found in the town centre, but they could not do so because Hemel Hempstead police station’s front desk had been closed under the last Government. They were told that they would have to travel to Hatfield police station, which is half an hour away. Does the Minister—I welcome her to her place—agree that the Hemel Hempstead front desk should be reopened so that the police can be even more accessible to our constituents?
Mr Speaker
Order. I am not sure that the Minister has responsibility for matters such as this.
Sarah Jones
I am of course happy to talk to my hon. Friend about the situation in his local community so we can ensure that the police are doing all they can to tackle all the crimes that were not considered a priority under the last Government, from antisocial behaviour to low-level threat. That is extremely important to our communities.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Let me begin by welcoming the new Ministers to their places.
The last Conservative Government recruited a record number of police officers, but earlier this year we discovered that despite Labour’s promise of more police, the headcount had already fallen by 1,316 since it came to office. Both the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner have warned that we will lose even more officers. When will the Minister restore police numbers to the levels they were at under the last Conservative Government?
Sarah Jones
I thank my opposite number for his welcome. Let me also use this opportunity to thank the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), who did a brilliant job as Policing Minister over the past year.
Under the last couple of years of the Conservative Government, shoplifting soared: we saw a 70% increase. Street theft rose by 60% in two years, and the Conservatives ignored antisocial behaviour. Violence and abuse against shop workers was at epidemic levels, and the yo-yoing of the police numbers did not help; the hon. Gentleman may remember that the Conservatives cut them by 20,000. We are prioritising neighbourhood policing. We will ensure that the police have the resources that they need, and we will use new technology to ensure that we are tackling crime as much as we can. Those 3,000 neighbourhood police officers will be in place by next year, and the 13,000 police officers that we have pledged in our manifesto will make a real difference to people’s lives.
Mr Speaker
May I gently say that the question is about the Mayor of London and police closures? We have allowed a little bit of leeway. Let us see how we go from here and try to stick to the questions before us.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Ind)
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
The Department takes its responsibilities under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act extremely seriously. Approvals for the use of animals in science are given only when no alternatives exist and where the scientific benefit justifies the potential harm. The Government will soon publish a strategy on how we will work towards phasing out the use of animals in science.
Chris Hinchliff
More than 1.6 million animals have been approved for testing over the next five years, including through licences for invasive brain research on monkeys and for looking at different methods of killing animals in laboratories. Labour’s manifesto committed to phasing out animal testing. Can the Minister reassure me that the non-animal methods strategy will commit to Herbie’s law and provide a clear framework for phasing out animal experiments within the next decade?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member. Herbie’s law is a proposed legislative framework to phase out animal experiments, specifically in medical research, in the UK by 2035. The Government’s commitment is clear: we will partner with scientists, industry and civil society to work towards a long-term goal of phasing out the use of animals in scientific research and testing. I will ensure that he receives a letter from the relevant Minister.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answer. It is quite clear that people have had their lives saved through scientific experiments with animals, and we thank the scientists for that. At the same time, a growing number of people have grave concerns, including my constituents and probably the Minister’s constituents as well. Can he assure us that when it comes to doing animal experiments of any sort, the priority will always be the people who can be saved as a result of the experiments, but it will also be the care of the animals? That is what my people want, and I think it is what everybody wants.
Dan Jarvis
I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The Government authorise the use of animals in science under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in order to support critical national objectives in public health, scientific innovation and environmental protection. The authorisations provided by the regulator are not a blanket approval, but a tightly regulated process that has rigorous and robust ethical, legal and scientific scrutiny.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
Under this Government, the National Crime Agency has led 347 disruptions of immigration crime networks—its highest level on record, and a 40% increase on the previous year. We are passing legislation to give both the National Crime Agency and law enforcement more powers to arrest those suspected of facilitating people smuggling at a much earlier stage. I was very sorry to see that the hon. Member did not match his rhetoric with real action by voting for those measures when they were before the House.
Lee Anderson
I have it on good authority that the people smugglers in northern Europe are absolutely delighted with Labour’s new Front-Bench team, and especially with the promotion of the hon. Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp), because they know we will get more of the same from this Labour Government. The boats will keep coming, the boats will get bigger and the people smugglers will make more money. What difference is this Home Secretary going to make that the last Home Secretary could not?
Shabana Mahmood
I think the hon. Member has just admitted to having a hotline to a bunch of people smugglers. Perhaps he would like to contact the National Crime Agency and tell it that he is in touch with a bunch of criminals, so that they can be appropriately dealt with. All he and his party have is a bunch of rhetoric and no answers to the problems that the previous Government left behind. It is this Government who will clean up the mess and secure our borders.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Illegal immigration is, by definition, an international crime. That is why it is so important that we work with our allies, such as France, in targeting this issue, which affects our communities. I welcome the Government’s “one in, one out” deal with France, which has the potential to be the most game-changing step in British migration policy in decades. Can the Minister give us an update on how the “one in, one out” deal is going, and has she spoken to her counterparts in France in her new role?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that international co-operation is the key to us securing our borders here at home and assisting our international partners to do the same with theirs. I am already in touch with my French counterparts. That was a landmark agreement, which the Conservatives tried to achieve for many years, but they were all words and no action. It is this Government who struck that landmark deal, and we are working with our partners in France to get the first flights off the ground as soon as possible.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her appointment and I wish her every success. It is in the national interest and the national security interest that this issue is tackled, but her Front-Bench colleagues and the Prime Minister are absolutely wrong to get rid of a deterrent. Notwithstanding all the new policies, all the new Bills, and all the new relabelling and rebadging of organisations, unless there is a deterrent the illegal migrants will continue to cross the channel, as they have done since this Government came to power. When is a deterrent going to be put in place, and what will it look like?
Shabana Mahmood
I welcome the tone of the first part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question. It is in our collective national interest that we secure our borders, and I look forward to working with Members from across the House as we get on with that important task. It is important not just to prevent criminality, but to hold our own country together, which is why I have always said I will do whatever it takes.
The Rwanda agreement, which is what the right hon. Gentleman referred to as a deterrent, was nothing of the sort. From the day that agreement was signed to the day it was cancelled, 84,000 people crossed into this country. That shows it was not a deterrent that was ever going to work. I am clear that I will do whatever it takes. I am already considering other measures that will deter people from making that crossing in the first place, and I will update the House in due course.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
Immigration is still a big issue for my constituents—they email about it and it comes up when I am in the pub—but people’s frustration is turning to direct action, and Northampton is now filled with flags. Does the Home Secretary agree that flags are a symbol of our pride in our country, and they should not be hijacked by plastic patriots and those who do not work in our country’s interest?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me be very clear: I understand the strength of feeling across communities in this country about the use of hotels, in particular—the right to protest is an ancient right in this country, and we will protect it—but it is important that we do not slip into rhetoric that incites violence or hatred towards other communities. I love the St George’s flag and I love the Union Jack. Those flags belong to me as much as they do to anybody else, and we must never allow any of our flags to become symbols of division.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Lots of people know that under this Government, the number of people arriving illegally has hit a record high. What many do not know is that this Labour Government are repealing the power to scientifically test the age of those arriving and are hiding the data on the number making false claims about their age. Why are the Government doing away with powers that could prevent adult migrants from getting into classrooms with children, and why are they hiding this data from the British people?
Shabana Mahmood
Coming from one of the Conservative Members who, frankly, did nothing across their period in office and who are responsible for the mess I am having to clear up, I think that is a little bit rich. This Government have been absolutely transparent. We will carry on being so, and we will publish all the relevant data at the appropriate time. I am very clear that nobody who tries to game our system will get away with it. We will strengthen our rules, rather than weaken them, which is what we saw under the Conservative party.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Many of those who come to this country by crossing the channel go on to be granted refugee status. Earlier this month, the Government backtracked on their promise to continue with the 56-day move-on period for those granted refugee status, barely weeks after a Home Office Minister assured this House that the policy would last until the end of the year. The move-on period extension was working, in that it was giving refugees time to secure work and housing while shielding local councils from sudden surges in homelessness caused by people being forced out of asylum accommodation too quickly. Halving the move-on period is worse for refugees who want to support themselves, worse for the communities supporting them until they can get on their feet and certainly worse for already stretched council budgets. Does the Home Secretary agree that it is better to do what works, both for refugees and for communities welcoming them, and will she look again at reinstating a policy that worked, rather than chasing headlines?
Shabana Mahmood
I say to the hon. Lady that we are following what is working. Rather than having an arbitrary time period, we are working with local authorities to make sure we have the appropriate move-on period. It is in nobody’s interest that people remain in hotels for longer than is absolutely necessary, and of course this Government will end the use of asylum hotels.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
Every day the police make us safer, but the public are rightly concerned that there are crimes that blight their communities and too often go unpunished. We are focusing police on the crimes that matter to local communities. We have delivered the neighbourhood policing guarantee, including a dedicated named officer in each neighbourhood, guaranteed response times and 3,000 more officers by April 2026.
Perran Moon
The Devon-based Devon and Cornwall police and crime commissioner announced months ago, with great fanfare, that Camborne in my constituency would be a focus for her. There has been very little evidence of that increased focus since. She also said that Redruth would not be a focus because it was not a business improvement district. Neighbourhood policing performance in the towns of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle are inextricably linked. Will the Home Secretary meet me and Cornish colleagues to discuss neighbourhood policing across Cornwall?
Shabana Mahmood
I am very sorry to hear about those issues with the police and crime commissioner in my hon. Friend’s local area. It is important that those concerns are listened to. I would be very happy for him to meet the Minister for Policing and Crime, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones).
Mrs Brackenridge
I welcome the action the Government are taking to strengthen neighbourhood policing in Wolverhampton, with 27 additional roles and officers newly allocated or moved back into neighbourhood roles. Fourteen years of cuts have left west midlands police with around 700 fewer officers than in 2010 and a funding formula that short-changes our region by £40 million every year. Will my right hon. Friend commit to reviewing the Tories’ funding formula so my constituency can have the same level of neighbourhood policing and security as other parts of the country?
Shabana Mahmood
As a fellow west midlands Member of Parliament, I of course hear my hon. Friend’s concerns, but she will understand that, as with previous years, decisions on police force funding allocations will be made via the police funding settlement, which is taking place later in the year.
Kevin Bonavia
I commend the Government for their commitment to neighbourhood policing, not least the proposed powers in the Crime and Policing Bill that will empower officers to stop antisocial and illegal e-scooter riding, which has been a dangerous blight across Stevenage town centre. However, does my right hon. Friend not agree that we should be giving police the legislation and guidance they need to keep our local neighbourhoods safe, rather than arresting individuals for posting on social media views that, while considered offensive by some, are nowhere near the bar for inciting criminal behaviour?
Shabana Mahmood
On the first part of my hon. Friend’s question, he is absolutely right about strengthening neighbourhood policing to deal with the concerns he raises. That is why we have brought forward new powers in the Crime and Policing Bill. I agree that it is important that the line between that which is perfectly legal fair comment, even if offensive, and that which is illegal is maintained as strongly as possible. I have already had conversations with senior police officers on this matter, and I am pleased to see statements from, for example, the chief of the Met police. I will be meeting them in more detail to make sure that that line is not crossed, so we can maintain confidence in our police.
Mr Morrison
The Prime Minister promised there would be a summer blitz on antisocial behaviour, with more funding and more community police officers promised for our constituencies, yet this summer in Cheadle village we have seen even more antisocial behaviour in the community. Throughout the summer I was contacted by residents about crime in the area, including police officers attacked, a local school broken into and neighbours threatened for simply asking gangs not to throw rocks at their houses. One of my constituents, Adam, told me it is the worst he has ever seen it. Why did the summer blitz on antisocial behaviour not include Cheadle?
Shabana Mahmood
More than 500 town centres across England and Wales have seen the benefits of that summer initiative. I will ask my officials questions about the hon. Gentleman’s area in particular, but it is an important model that we have trialled this year. We look forward to building on it as we ensure we have the local responses and neighbourhood policing to deal with local concerns, building confidence so that people can enjoy our town centres as they used to do.
Lorraine Beavers
I welcome the Government’s commitment to the neighbourhood policing guarantee to restore bobbies on the beat in our town centres, following 14 years of Conservative cuts that have left our towns and villages at the mercy of shoplifters and antisocial behaviour. Will the Home Secretary outline how Lancashire, and in particular my constituency of Blackpool North and Fleetwood, will benefit from that guarantee?
Shabana Mahmood
The neighbourhood policing guarantee is absolutely critical to dealing with the issues that my hon. Friend raises and to raising confidence more generally. The guarantee will ensure that all areas, including her constituency, will have a named, dedicated officer, guaranteed patrols and reliable response times, and will give communities absolute clarity about local policing priorities.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
How can persistent shoplifters be deterred if short sentences are abolished?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman is asking me a question relating to my previous brief, but he will be pleased to know that I expect the new Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor to set out proposals for dealing with prolific shoplifters in particular, based on some of the conversations and exchanges he and I have had. I know it is a big problem, but the Government will have a response to tackle the scourge of prolific shoplifting.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
I was contacted by constituents yesterday from the Pound Street mosque and Riverside Community Centre mosque who had heard comments from the Unite the Kingdom rally about Islam not being welcome in this country or in Europe. How can neighbourhood policing help to reassure my constituents and the 3.9 million practising Muslims in this country that they have the right to practise their faith without fear?
Shabana Mahmood
Freedom of conscience, religion and belief is a protected freedom in this country; it is part of the rights and responsibilities that we have as citizens of this great nation, and nothing should get in the way of that. Freedom of speech is also protected in this country. There will always be some crossover between those freedoms, but, as I said in answer to a previous question, I am absolutely clear that there is a line between content that is offensive, rude or ill-mannered and incitement, whether to violence or hatred, which is a crime. It is important that we police the line between those types of comments effectively so that everybody in this country can have confidence in our policing system, as well as confidence in exercising their rights under the law of our land.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Last week was Rural Crime Action Week. I recently had an opportunity to join Cambridgeshire constabulary’s rural crime action team to see the work that it does, despite having to cover a huge county of eight constituencies with just 14 officers. Those officers have recently been reallocated from being designated operational support unit officers to neighbourhood policing officers, thus bolstering the number of officers the Government will classify as neighbourhood police and helping them to reach the target of 3,000 officers. However, those officers are neither new nor dedicated neighbourhood police. Can the Home Secretary explain why she is artificially inflating neighbourhood policing numbers by reclassifying those in specialist roles?
Shabana Mahmood
The Government’s policy position is to ensure that the policing resource that we have focuses on neighbourhood policing, because we know that visible neighbourhood policing increases the confidence that communities have in going about their business and helps us to take back our town centres from those who indulge in low-level criminality—which is not low level, because it harms people and their confidence in their own communities. That is why we make no secret and are not ashamed of our neighbourhood policing guarantee.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Very simple question: why are police numbers coming down under a Labour Government?
Shabana Mahmood
This Government are focusing on delivering neighbourhood policing. We are going to have 3,000 neighbourhood police officers by April 2026, with 13,000—as we committed in our manifesto—by the end of the Parliament.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
This Government remain committed to supporting Ukraine following Russia’s vile, illegal invasion. I acknowledge the warmth and generosity shown by so many local communities in supporting Ukrainians in the UK. Since the conflict began, more than 300,000 Ukrainians have been offered temporary sanctuary through the dedicated Ukraine schemes. Ukrainians can still apply to the Homes for Ukraine scheme with a UK sponsor and, once here, extend their stay to a total of 3.5 years, as recently announced.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I start by congratulating the Minister and welcoming him to his place. My constituent Lesley has been hosting and supporting a Ukrainian refugee, Ella, who, after months of delay and difficulty, has thankfully now received a visa extension. Ella’s case highlights the wider problems in the system: long waits, radio silence and a lack of communication, causing huge distress for the refugees and their hosts. Can the Minister set out first what is being done to improve the visa application system generally, and secondly whether the Government will consider looking again at allowing Ukrainian refugees who do not want to, or cannot, return to Ukraine the pathway and the chance of applying for indefinite leave to remain?
Mike Tapp
I thank my hon. Friend for her congratulations and her hard work in this area. The UK Government have been clear from the outset that the Ukraine schemes are temporary and do not offer a direct route to settlement. The Ukraine permission extension scheme reflects our strong humanitarian commitment while also—this is important—respecting Ukraine’s wish for its citizens to return, when safe, to support national recovery. The long-term position is under active consideration, and further details will be provided at the earliest opportunity.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
The United Kingdom boasts a fantastic array of cities, each of which has a unique character and appeal. In order to thrive, our city centres must be safe. That is why this Government are putting policing back on the beat and bringing in stronger powers to crack down on shop theft and antisocial behaviour.
Jessica Morden
I was pleased to see Newport city council announce last week £300,000 for new CCTV in our city centre, and I commend the work of trading standards, whose efforts have seized almost £2 million of illegal cigarettes and vapes. While trading standards and the police are working really hard to tackle this issue, the time-limited nature of shop closure orders means that the shops often quickly reopen. What more can the Government do to strengthen powers to stop this?
Sarah Jones
I welcome the actions in Newport city; it is good to hear. The Tobacco and Vapes Bill will strengthen enforcement and crack down on rogue retailers, and a raft of other measures in the Bill will crack down on these pernicious crimes. I look forward to talking more with my hon. Friend about this.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Sometimes crime wears a suit, as happened in Brechin in my constituency, where Mackie Motors had equity in their vehicles stolen by a French bank based in London. Then, through mendacity or incompetence or both, the bank turned off the oxygen for that business of 50 years. I have met with Home Office and Treasury Ministers to try to get around this. My constituent has been to the Financial Conduct Authority, who told them to go to the police, who then told them to go back to the FCA, who then told them to go to Citizens Advice—you could not make this cluster-fankle up. Is it not the case that in the UK today, if a small or medium-sized enterprise is in dispute with a bank, the FCA will demonstrate that it is neither use nor ornament?
Sarah Jones
I cannot comment on the specific details, as I am not aware of that case, but I am very happy to have a conversation with the hon. Member. Some SMEs in my constituency have had similar issues, so I am very happy to take that forward.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
Antisocial behaviour causes untold distress and misery across our communities. Under the previous Government, the response to this menace was weak and ineffective, and visible neighbourhood policing declined dramatically. This Government are putting that right by rebuilding neighbourhood policing and introducing respect orders to tackle persistent perpetrators and stronger powers to seize dangerous and deafening off-road bikes.
Peter Swallow
I thank the almost 500 constituents who responded to my summer road safety campaign. One of the top issues raised is the use of antisocial off-road bikes. I warmly welcome new measures in the Crime and Policing Bill to allow the police to seize these bikes without warning. Will my hon. Friend also look at the sale of off-road bikes to see what can be done to restrict them at source?
Sarah Jones
I think the number of constituents who responded to my hon. Friend’s survey shows that this is really important for our communities and something that we have to get a grip of. There has been a worrying increase in such crimes. As part of our safer streets mission, this Government are cracking down on the crimes that make people feel unsafe in our communities, including snatch, theft, pickpocketing and robbery. Our safer streets initiative has been running this summer in town centres, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency, I think. We aim to prevent crime and antisocial behaviour, and the sale of off-road bikes is at the heart of that.
Andrew Ranger
In Wrexham, North Wales police is doing very important work to tackle persistent antisocial behaviour and low-level crime, but local people are, quite rightly, seeking further reassurance that these issues will continue to be dealt with and tackled head on. Will the Minister please update the House on how police recruitment and training is progressing in north Wales and beyond so that communities like mine can feel safe and secure in the place they call home?
Sarah Jones
As part of our commitment to restore neighbourhood policing, the neighbourhood policing programme career pathway developed by the College of Policing is creating a structured training pathway to professionalise neighbourhood policing, benefiting communities across England and Wales, including in Wrexham. In terms of recruitment, North Wales police has been allocated just over £2 million to support its projected neighbourhood policing growth over 2025-26, which is made up of 26 additional police officers and 15 police community support officers.
Alex McIntyre
In Gloucester, thanks to the Government investing £1 million in neighbourhood policing and a further £1 million in its safer streets initiative, we have seen more police on our streets this summer, leading to an increase in arrests and seizures of illegal e-bikes and vapes. Some of that funding is to come to an end this autumn. Will the Minister please update me on how she will ensure that Gloucestershire constabulary builds on the great work it has done this summer to make Gloucester a safer place to live and work?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It is encouraging to see the work going on in his constituency. It is our intention to ensure that the police have the resources they need to do the jobs we need them to do, whether in hotspot policing, neighbourhood policing or tackling anti-social behaviour. We will change legislation here in Parliament to ensure they have the powers as well as the resources they need to act locally in the interests of our constituents.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Local youth provision goes hand in hand with a decrease in antisocial behaviour committed by young people, with even something as simple as a ping-pong table in a closed shop able to make a difference in a community. Will the Minister outline what work she is doing with the Department for Education and the Treasury to ensure that we solve this problem once and for all and we do not just move it on and move people around the place?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: if we want to ensure that people are not getting into crime, we need to ensure they have activities and things to do. We are working closely with both the Department for Education and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure we have a programme of activities for our young people that gives them things to do and a purpose in life, including mentoring and support so that they can take the right path.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Residents of Long Hanborough in my constituency have described to me a summer of misery characterised by antisocial behaviour in the local playing field. I understand that the local rural policing constabulary does not have sufficient vehicles for all its officers to be out at any one time. Is the Minister satisfied that Thames Valley police has sufficient resources in its rural community policing forces to deal with antisocial behaviour in our villages?
Sarah Jones
Antisocial behaviour is pernicious wherever it happens. Of course, we need to ensure that the police have the right resources. As the Home Secretary said, police allocation decisions will be made in the autumn, but I am happy to have a conversation with the hon. Member about the particular issues he is facing in his constituency to ensure that, when it comes to issues such as police cars and vehicles, we are making the most of taxpayers’ money and making as many efficiencies as we can on that front.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
In line with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) about how we best tackle antisocial behaviour among young people, does the Minister agree that it is really important that outdoor education is integrated in the Government’s youth strategy? The first draft made no reference to outdoor learning whatsoever, yet it is proven to broaden people’s horizons, give people things to do with their lives and make them much less likely to fall into antisocial behaviour.
Sarah Jones
I am happy to take that question on board. I have spoken to the heads of all the violence reduction units across the country today, and it is clear that some of the most important work they can do is in partnership with other agencies and other bodies, whether in education, our youth services or others. We need to pull the resources we have together, use what works and follow the evidence.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
The Government are committed to tackling bureaucracy and are investing tens of millions of pounds this year in technology to get officers on to the frontline. That includes working with police to reduce admin, using tools such as automated redaction and artificial intelligence, and deploying cutting-edge technology such as facial recognition and video response to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of policing.
Dr Evans
I recently met the chief constable of Leicestershire, and he explained some of the red tape that his force faces. Between April 2024 and March 2025,
it used 14,769 “use of force” forms. These are for when people go into handcuffs. Some 6,500 of those were for people who were complicit and were happy to be handcuffed. Each time that happens, it takes an average of 23 minutes to fill in one of those forms. If that could be taken away, it would save the force about £50,000. Will the Minister look at this, and will she meet me to discuss some of the other red tape that we could remove to make policing much more streamlined?
Sarah Jones
We need to ensure that the police are doing what we need them to be doing, and that they are out on the streets solving crime and not tied up in red tape. That is absolutely certain. The way to be tough on crime is to be smart on crime, and I am happy to look at the hon. Gentleman’s suggestions.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
I recently met a police officer in Cambridgeshire who told me that that force had a policy requiring all footage from stop and searches to be reviewed by a more senior officer. Due to this, they feel discouraged from doing proactive patrols due to the extra work that it adds for already stretched supervisors. Will the Policing Minister write to Cambridgeshire’s Conservative police and crime commissioner and urge him to be more proactive on challenging these issues so that our frontline police can spend as much time as possible out in our communities?
Sarah Jones
I am sorry that my hon. Friend’s police and crime commissioner is not doing what is needed. We need to empower the police to be out doing what they do best, not creating barriers for them to do so.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
Shop theft hit a record high in the last year of the previous Government, but our Crime and Policing Bill will remove the effective immunity for shop thefts under £200. We are investing over £7 million to support police efforts against retail crime over the next three years, including supporting a specialist team to target organised gangs and offenders. We also back the Tackling Retail Crime Together strategy, in which industry and police are collaborating to better target perpetrators.
Ben Goldsborough
As a proud member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and formerly the youngest deputy store manager for Halford’s in the east of England, I know at first hand the fear that shoplifting causes to retail workers. What action is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that the police have the powers they need to use the full force of the law to tackle those who steal from our shops?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Every Member of Parliament hears about this issue, and knows how distressing it is. The intimidation of shop workers must stop, and the thieves who target shops and are stealing to order must be targeted. We are repealing the legislation that makes shop theft of and below £200 a summary-only offence, which will send a clear message that we will not tolerate this crime.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
Recently, A. C. Models in my constituency was targeted by a series of thefts that cost the owners, Annette and Clive, thousands of pounds, yet the shoplifter was ordered to pay them just £240 in compensation. With retail losses due to theft at record highs, what measures are the Government taking to support small businesses that are preyed on by shoplifters?
Sarah Jones
We need to protect retail workers, and we need to do more to tackle shop theft. As I have just outlined, we are doing just that. I am very sorry that the hon. Lady’s constituents have had to suffer this terrible crime. We need to ensure that the message is loud and clear that we will not accept it.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
Clearly the balance between the human rights of illegal migrants and the wider public interest is out of kilter. This Government will legislate to limit the application of article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which covers the right to a family life. This will mean that we can deport and remove more illegal migrants, and we will pursue international reform, too. In my previous role, I was already involved in conversations with other member states of the Council of Europe, and this Government will continue that work.
Mr Snowden
I welcome the Home Secretary to her position. Every new appointment comes with an opportunity to take a fresh look at these matters. Clearly, since the 1950s, when the refugee convention and the European convention on human rights were first written, the world has changed significantly. Successive Governments have tweaked various bits, working with partners, but does she agree that if we are to stop the small boats that are crossing the channel and illegal migration, the Government will need a more wholesale change?
Shabana Mahmood
I hope the hon. Gentleman will take a bit of time to look at the speech I made to the Council of Europe just before the summer recess, in which I made a very similar argument to the one he is making. For those of us who are supporters of the convention and who want to see it stand the test of time, we have to recognise that it is a treaty formed many decades ago in a different reality and we should have a conversation about whether it is still fit for purpose. It is a conversation that others in Europe are having, and we are taking a leading role in those discussions. We will pursue international reform and also reform of our domestic legislation.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
By leaving the EU, the Tories tore up our returns agreement with the EU, and they completely failed to negotiate a new one, but this Government have now rectified that. Does the Home Secretary agree that the Tories and Reform are in cloud cuckoo land if they think that the French would have signed a returns deal with us if we had left the European convention on human rights?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right to point out that the fact that we are signed up to the European convention underpins other international agreements that we have with partners. It underpins the Good Friday agreement. It also underpins our treaty with the French on the France returns pilot. That is why we should be responsible in taking forward a conversation on reform of the convention, and that is the approach we are taking. I was taking that approach in my previous role, and I will carry on doing so as Home Secretary.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Home Secretary to her place. I very much look forward to the exchanges that we will have, so long as the Prime Minister leaves her in post. When it comes to human rights, does she not accept that tinkering around the edges simply will not work? She said in her answer a second ago that she wants to see the ECHR reformed, but her own Government’s Attorney General Lord Hermer said just four days ago that ECHR reform is a “political trick”. Perhaps she and the Attorney General should get themselves on the same page. Given that the Attorney General says that reform is not possible, does she not agree that more fundamental changes are needed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) said a moment ago? This year has been the worst in history for illegal immigrants crossing the channel—the number is up 38%, compared with last year. Only radical change will fix this mess, so will the Home Secretary back the Conservative plans to completely disapply the Human Rights Act 1998 and ensure that all illegal immigrants are immediately removed upon arrival?
Mr Speaker
Order. You know the score; you know we have to get through questions. When colleagues do not get in, they will blame the shadow Home Secretary. Please try to help others.
Shabana Mahmood
After that performance, I have to confess that I find myself rather missing the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). The shadow Minister says that we are tinkering at the edges. He could not be more wrong; we have a proper plan for looking at legislative reform. But tinkering at the edges would have been fantastic under the Conservatives, because their track record is that they did nothing—sod all—in 14 years. Suddenly, they have found their reforming instincts now that they are in opposition. This Government will take forward domestic as well as international reform.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
The process of selecting a respected and independent chair for the national inquiry into group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse is under way. A dedicated victims and survivors panel is supporting the process. The inquiry’s terms of reference will of course follow, shaped by a public consultation. The inquiry will be trauma-informed and time-limited, as recommended by Baroness Casey, ensuring accountability, truth and change.
John Cooper
It beggars belief that the inquiry inches along at such a dreadfully slow pace. With the Scottish Government ruling out an inquiry there, will the Home Secretary please commit to fast-tracking a thoroughgoing inquiry into the grooming gang scandal, for the sake of the victims?
Sarah Jones
For the sake of the victims, who we all think about today, we must ensure that we get this right. There were multiple issues with the chair at the start of Baroness Jay’s inquiry, which took many years. We want to do what Baroness Casey has recommended, do this right and properly, and do this alongside the victims, whom we are talking to. We must, of course, lead the way on this. We will ensure that we get the right strategy; it is for Scotland and the Scottish Government to decide on whether to have a similar strategy. It is important to say that, alongside having this important national strategy, we are putting in place lots of other policies to tackle this kind of crime.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The Conservatives raised the issue of a national statutory inquiry in January. The Government attempted to block our calls for an inquiry until they were forced into a U-turn in June. On 2 September, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), said,
“this Government will not lose any more time in pursuing truth and justice for victims and survivors,” —[Official Report, 2 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 160.]
yet here we stand today—no start date, no chair announced, and no terms of reference agreed. The victims need actions, not words, so will the Minister please tell the victims of these abhorrent crimes when the national inquiry will begin—or will this Secretary of State have to be forced into action, just like the last?
Sarah Jones
I will not take any lessons from the hon. Lady, given that the previous inquiry was not implemented in any way, shape or form by the previous Government. Through the Crime and Policing Bill, we are putting in place Baroness Jay’s key recommendations, which is the right thing to do. It is so important that we make the right decisions about the chair, the terms of reference and the process for this inquiry, which has victims at its heart. We are following Baroness Casey’s advice, and as the hon. Lady will hear soon, we will ensure that we have the right chair and the right approach for the victims. We can do no less.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
I would like to use this statement to address the subject of this weekend’s events. On Saturday, well over 100,000 protesters marched in London. Many were exercising the ancient right to peaceful protest,—but not everyone did. Some turned on the brave police officers who were there to keep the peace; 26 officers were injured and 24 protesters were arrested. Those violent thugs will face the full force of the law. Those who turned to violence on Saturday do not represent what this country really is. When a foreign billionaire calls on our citizens to fight against our ancient democracy, I know that is met by the vast majority with a shake of the head. That is because we are in truth a tolerant country, and, yes, a diverse one, too. You can be English and have roots here that stretch back 1,000 years, but you can also be English and look like me. The St George’s cross and the Union Jack belong to us all. They are symbols of unity—a kingdom united—and must never be used to divide us.
Bradley Thomas
I welcome the Home Secretary to her position. Does she have plans to introduce a statutory cap on in-bound migration?
Shabana Mahmood
I have one job, and it is to secure our borders. I will do whatever it takes, but what I will never do is take the approach of the previous Government, who were led by gimmicks and false promises that were never met.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
This year, £200 million has been made available to forces to kick-start the delivery of 13,000 more neighbourhood officers across England and Wales. I would be very happy to talk to my hon. Friend about the issues that he is facing. We must tackle antisocial behaviour.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary accept that her predecessor was moved because this Government are failing on immigration? Indeed, 75% of the public think that the Government are failing. Illegal migration is up 38%, making this the worst year in history. Let me try again: will the Home Secretary take this opportunity to commit to real action, back our plans to disapply the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to all immigration matters, and immediately remove every illegal immigrant upon arrival?
Shabana Mahmood
I will take no lessons from anyone sitting on the Conservative Benches. Their Government utterly failed on both legal and illegal migration. This Government, and this Home Secretary, will clean up their mess.
Chris Philp
The Home Secretary has some brass neck. This has been the worst year in history, with illegal migration up by 38%. Press reports this week suggest that a handful of illegal migrants might be removed to France—she has been silent about that so far—but that amounts to only 5% of people crossing. Does she accept that allowing 95% of illegal immigrants to stay will be no deterrent, and will she commit to publishing full data on a weekly basis?
Shabana Mahmood
On the subject of brass neck, I will have to buy the shadow Home Secretary a mirror, so that he can stare at one. As I said, I will not take any lessons from him or any Conservative. This Government have got removals up to 35,000, got asylum decisions moving again, and struck an historic agreement with France. We are working with our partners in France to get flights off the ground.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the question, because the targeted intimidation and harassment of elected representatives is completely unacceptable. The defending democracy taskforce works to ensure the safety and security of all electoral processes and democratic institutions, and to strengthen democratic society. We are conducting a review of the harassment and intimidation faced by elected representatives. The taskforce has also concluded a review of transnational repression, and we have updated Parliament on that. I hope this will be a shared endeavour, right across the House.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
This weekend, as the Home Secretary said, Elon Musk used a rally to call—alongside convicted criminal, so-called Tommy Robinson—for the Dissolution of Parliament, and to incite violence on our streets. Given the seriousness of a high-profile figure apparently urging attacks on our democracy, what assessment has the Home Office made of these statements, and what steps are being taken across Government to respond to them, and to protect our democracy?
Shabana Mahmood
There is both a legal question here and a political question. On the legal question, in all cases, including the one that the hon. Lady raises, it is for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to decide independently whether the law has been broken and charges should be brought. We would never expect a Minister to comment on that; it would be improper to do so. On the political question, let me say this: the words that were used at the weekend are abhorrent, and I know that the vast majority of people in this country will feel the same way. Whether you are a hostile state or a hostile foreign billionaire, no one gets to mess with British democracy.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and the APPG for their work. The Government are absolutely committed to tackling high street money laundering to deliver safer streets and economic growth working closely with partners through multi-agency initiatives like Operation Machinize. We have strengthened the powers under the Economic, Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, and have funded 475 new roles under the anti-money laundering and asset recovery programme to detect and investigate offences.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Dan Jarvis
Any attack on the police is utterly shameful. The right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our democracy—it is a freedom that we protect fiercely—but Palestine Action’s activities have met the thresholds for proscription established in the Terrorism Act 2000. The organisation has conducted an escalating campaign, involving sustained criminal damage to national security infrastructure, intimidation and alleged violence, including the use of weapons resulting in serious injuries to individuals.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Weaponisation of social media has become a real cancer in our society, with MPs and others being targeted. What steps are the Government taking on hostile state threats on social media that might be being used to undermine our democracy?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend is right to raise this. New and emerging artificial intelligence technology has the potential to amplify threats to democracy, including through hyper-realistic bots, which are used to spread disinformation and misinformation at speed. The Government are absolutely committed to addressing the threats, including by ensuring that social media platforms have the right systems in place to identify and tackle harmful material that breaches their terms of service.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
The hon. Gentleman heard the Home Secretary’s point on the convention, but it is clear that gimmicks such as Rwanda do not work—£700 million for merely four volunteers to go. What works is effective processing, quick decisions and quick removals. That is what we will get under this Government, and it is what we do not get from those who carp from the Opposition Benches.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield Heeley) (Lab)
Earlier this year, 15-year-old Harvey Willgoose was murdered by a fellow pupil when attending school. His murderer has now been convicted and a national child safeguarding review panel set up, but time and time again such panels make the same recommendations and we fail to implement the kind of learnings and culture change that would ensure that another tragedy like this does not happen. Will the Home Secretary reassure Harvey’s family that she will ensure that those panel recommendations are implemented and that we can avoid any family like Harvey’s suffering that same tragedy again?
Sarah Jones
We offer our sympathy to the family of Harvey, whose death is a heartbreaking tragedy that has devastated the entire community. Our thoughts remain with his family and friends. Of course we recognise that pattern—I have seen it, too, in my constituency. That is why we are creating a child protection authority, as was recommended in a previous inquiry, to provide effective national oversight to ensure that lessons are learned.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Sarah Jones
That is a concern that many Members in the House share. The Crime and Policing Bill will give the police powers to seize vehicles being used antisocially. I am happy to have a conversation with the hon. Lady about what more we need to do.
Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)
Last year, a report by the charity Justice and Care highlighted that a lack of regulation allows unscrupulous business owners to exploit vulnerable people. Nottingham Trent University showed that 90% of hand car wash businesses operate in a way that makes them high risk for forced or compulsory labour. Will the Government consider licensing sectors such as hand car washes to improve compliance and prevent illegal workers and modern slavery?
Alex Norris
In the view of the Home Office, the most important safeguard is the right-to-work checks. That is why we will strengthen them under the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill that is making its way through Parliament, but that will have to be underpinned with rigorous enforcement. That is why I am pleased that enforcement visits are up 50% in the past year, as are arrests.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Shabana Mahmood
That definition sought to give context to patterns of behaviour. Let me be clear for the hon. Gentleman and the whole House: there is absolutely no excuse for, or hiding of, the criminality of those who engage in heinous crimes such as those involving rape or grooming gangs. That is why the Government will take forward the Casey recommendations and have that national inquiry. He knows that the Government are working with a working group on a definition of Islamophobia. We have been absolutely clear that we will not pursue any measures that would impinge on our ancient right of freedom of speech.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
Ensuring that our town centres are safe, vibrant and welcoming is hugely important in Clwyd North. I warmly welcome the Government’s safer streets summer initiative in Rhyl and Colwyn Bay. From walkabouts I have done recently with local police, it is clear that a strong community police presence is crucial to tackling antisocial behaviour where it arises. Will the Home Secretary ensure that North Wales police have all the resources they need all year around in Rhyl, Denbigh, Abergele and Colwyn Bay to help build back our town centres?
Sarah Jones
So far, we have had really good feedback from over 500 town centres that have taken part in the safer streets summer initiative. That initiative finishes at the end of September, so we will have proper analysis then, but it is our priority to ensure that our police have the resources they need all year round.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Sarah Jones
As we were discussing earlier, targeting shoplifting is an absolute priority for this Government. We have a raft of interventions and we are taking legislative action to protect our retail workers, who have been particularly affected by a massive increase in abuse as well as a rise in crime.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the new team and welcome them to the Government Front Bench. A week is a long time, but I had a promise to meet the previous Minister to discuss the immigration system, because one of the challenges that the Home Secretary has inherited is a broken processing system. As one of the Home Office’s largest customers for my constituents, I know where the gaps and the problems are, so I would welcome a meeting with the Minister about that, if the Home Secretary agrees.
Alex Norris
I share my hon. Friend’s important interest in that issue. I would never miss a chance to meet her and I would be very glad to do so.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I welcome members of the new Government Front Bench team to their places. The previous ministerial team had been clear that they wanted to stop the use of large sites to house asylum seekers, but there has been some indication that that position may have changed. Will the Home Secretary or the Minister clarify the position, and confirm that if they are changing that position, they will learn the lessons of what went wrong previously?
Alex Norris
I look forward to working with the right hon. Lady and her Committee in its important work. We have made a significant commitment to the closure of asylum hotels, which is crucial for public conference. It is a matter of record that we are looking at big sites, including Ministry of Defence sites, but we will of course look very closely at the history in this space to ensure that anything that we do is effective and sustained.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Home Secretary and her team to their places. The Home Secretary will be aware of the recent horrific attack and rape of a Sikh woman in Oldbury, in my constituency, who reportedly had racist abuse directed at her. The case is being treated as a hate crime and a suspect is under arrest. What steps is the Home Secretary taking to support West Midlands police in securing justice in the case, and to address the wider concerns of the Sikh and other ethnic minority communities regarding the increase of racism in the public discourse, which can lead to targeted violence and damage community safety?
Shabana Mahmood
The horror of a sexual assault motivated by race or ethnicity is absolutely appalling. I am sure that the whole House will join me in condemning such crimes in the strongest possible terms. On the specifics of the case, it is an ongoing criminal investigation and it is imperative that we allow the justice system to do its work. I urge anyone with any further information about the case to get in touch with West Midlands police as soon as possible. I hope that my hon. Friend and Members across the House will have heard my comments earlier, when I said that this Government will not stand for any incitement to racial hatred or violence. It is imperative and incumbent on all Members of the House to ensure that we all jointly and collectively hold that line.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
In an earlier answer, the Minister referred to the increasing use by police of live facial recognition. While that may well have some effect on tackling crime, it is being used without any legal framework and no national instructions. Will she say when those will be put in place?
Sarah Jones
Facial recognition is being used in a controlled way for high harm individuals. There is guidance about how it should be used, but I am happy to have a further conversation with the right hon. Gentleman about that, as I am aware that Members from across the House have raised the issue of the framework within which it operates.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my former colleagues for the way that they professionally policed the protests over the weekend, and I wish those who were injured a speedy recovery. Police officers cannot join a union and they have only one staff association—the Police Federation—to choose from, the chief executive of which reportedly took home over £600,000 last year. Will the new ministerial team commit to reviewing whether that monopoly can really serve the interests of our brave police officers?
Sarah Jones
We need to ensure that our police officers are given the best support that they can be given through the Police Federation, which is the vehicle by which they are supported through any incidents they have. I will be working very closely with it to ensure that it is doing the right thing on behalf of its members.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I would not be here today without Wimbledon police station; in 2014, two brave officers from that station saved me from a murderous attack. Wimbledon police station is now under threat, with its front counter due to close. Does the Home Secretary agree that local police stations such as Wimbledon’s are critical to neighbourhood policing and community safety?
Sarah Jones
I am very sorry to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s incident; that must have been absolutely terrifying. We need to ensure that our neighbourhood police are responsive and are there when we need them most, which is why we are targeting the resources we have to ensure that we have neighbourhood policing. The response teams must be there when we need them through any means of getting in touch with them, whether it is on the phone, online or in person, and we need to ensure that they are there.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
When police officers up and down the country—like my former colleagues—reach 20 years of service, they receive a long-term service medal, but police community support officers do not seem to receive any recognition for long service. Will the Minister agree to look into providing similar recompense and recognition for the service that PCSOs provide?
Sarah Jones
I hesitate to announce new policy in week one, but I certainly think there needs to be some kind of recognition for our PCSOs, who do such an incredible job across all our communities.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Is the Home Secretary aware that 20% of officers in the Metropolitan police are currently either suspended or on restricted duties, with senior officers warning that the situation is unsustainable? Does she agree that we need urgently to review both welfare and disciplinary processes in our police services so that towns such as Romford can get more police actually patrolling our streets?
Sarah Jones
I agree. We need to ensure that resources are targeted in the places where we need them. We have made significant reforms to police standards already, ensuring that officers who fail background checks, for example, are sacked and that gross misconduct leads to dismissal, but we need to ensure that that is right, proper and appropriate and that our police are out on the streets where we need them to be. I am very happy to have a conversation with the hon. Gentleman about how these incidents are being operated; I will be having that conversation with the mayor, and I have already had it with the commissioner.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Last week, our US allies pulled back from the Global Engagement Centre their international effort to tackle cyber-threats. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that our democracy is protected from foreign interference, cyber-threats and misinformation?
Dan Jarvis
We take all those threats incredibly seriously. We hosted the five country ministerial meetings with our American, Canadian, Australian and Kiwi allies just last week. We work incredibly closely with our partners to ensure that we are doing everything we can to support UK businesses and to target the perpetrators of these attacks.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
People in my constituency have raised with me problems of hare coursing, thefts, speeding and fly-tipping. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can tackle the wide range of crimes in rural areas?
Official Secrets Act
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Minister, I wish to make a brief statement. I found out only this morning that the charges against the two individuals relating to espionage for the Chinese authorities were to be dropped. I do not think that is good. Of course, we do not discuss the detail of security matters relating to Parliament on the Floor of the House, but given the very important issues raised by this case, I ask officials to consider whether any further steps should be taken—operational, strategic or legal—to ensure that all those who work in this Parliament are able to undertake their activities securely and without interference. I am a very unhappy Speaker with what has happened. The fact that it has taken two years, until today, for somebody to withdraw this case is not good enough.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
This morning, the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to proceed with the prosecution of Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry, who had been charged with espionage for China under the Official Secrets Act 1911. Members right across the House will be aware that the charges related to allegations of Chinese espionage within Parliament and will want reassurance, as will you, Mr Speaker. Many Members will be as extremely disappointed as I am that there will now not be a trial.
The decision not to proceed with this prosecution is an independent one for the CPS to make in its role as the UK’s independent prosecuting authority. However, I want to be clear that the Government remain gravely concerned about the threat of Chinese espionage. Parliament and our democracy are sacrosanct, and any attempt by any foreign power to infiltrate or interfere with parliamentary proceedings is completely unacceptable. With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will therefore set out the measures the Government are taking to tackle any residual risks arising from this case and outline the wider approach the Government are taking to protecting our democracy and countering state threats, including those from China.
The decision of the CPS related to charges under the Official Secrets Act 1911, which was the relevant legislation in force at the time. It is well known that state threats legislation had not kept pace with the changing threats we face. The Official Secrets Act was passed to counter the threat from German spies before the first world war. It referred to espionage as obtaining
“any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document, or information”
that
“might be…useful to an enemy”.
Clearly, that language—drafted well over 100 years ago —does not reflect the types of espionage or state threats we face in the modern day, nor the breadth of states that engage directly in that activity.
For that reason, the UK passed and has now commenced the National Security Act 2023 with cross-party support. That legislation, which replaced the Official Secrets Act 1911, brings new criminal offences and powers to bear against the full range of modern-day state threats. Moreover, the National Security Act is state agnostic, removing the unhelpful “enemy” language from the Official Secrets Act and focusing on the malign activity we are all concerned about.
The Act also introduced the foreign influence registration scheme, which the Government brought into force on 1 July. FIRS encourages transparency, strengthening the resilience of our democratic institutions against covert influence, and gives our intelligence agencies and law enforcement additional tools to detect, deter, disrupt and prosecute state threat actors. It requires that any foreign influence in our democracy, including from China, be declared. We can now be confident that should cases of espionage or state threats be uncovered in the future, we will be in a much better position to prosecute them under the new National Security Act.
This case hits at the heart of our democracy, so let me be clear: the Government will not tolerate any state threats to the UK and its democratic institutions. We will robustly challenge China when necessary, as we would challenge any country for unacceptable behaviour on our soil. I can confirm that the Foreign Office has démarched the chargé d’affaires of the Chinese embassy in London to make clear that we will not tolerate any activity that interferes in our democracy. MI5 is considering the provision of additional advice to those most at risk of being targeted by state-led espionage, and the Government are taking robust action to counter state threats and continue to build up the UK’s resilience.
In April, we established a new cross-Government state threats unit to better co-ordinate our response to state threats. As I set out following the recently completed review of transnational repression, new training modules on identifying and countering state threats are being offered to all 45 territorial police forces through the College of Policing and are mandatory for counter-terrorism policing officers. We have committed to legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows to take forward the recommendations of Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism and state threats legislation. That includes creating a new proscription-style tool for state threats.
As the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) set out in his statement to the House following the conclusion of the China audit, we are investing £600 million in our intelligence services to support them in detecting and disrupting state threats to the UK. In September, the National Cyber Security Centre co-sealed a US-led technical advisory calling out Chinese state-sponsored cyber-threat actors targeting global networks, including in the UK. I know there will be calls to go further, and I reassure the House and the country that we will keep all tools under review and act as necessary.
As you are aware, Mr Speaker, the safety and security of our Parliament is of the utmost importance. That is why the National Protective Security Authority will issue new protective security guidance to parliamentarians and political staff on protection against foreign interference and espionage. That guidance outlines the potential risks we all may face in our day-to-day work, and how we can all better protect ourselves. I urge colleagues to read and follow the advice once issued. I also urge Members to take up the National Cyber Security Centre’s important opt-in service for Members of both Houses. It allows the NCSC to alert individuals if it identifies evidence of malicious activity on their personal devices or accounts, and swiftly advise them on steps to take to protect their information.
The strategic defence review was clear that China presents a sophisticated and persistent challenge. As the national security strategy reinforced, instances of China’s espionage, interference in our democracy and undermining of our economic security have increased in recent years. As I have set out, we are addressing those threats, but there are also opportunities we need to grasp as we navigate our complex relationship with China. The last Government did not describe China as an enemy, and this Government do not think our relationship can be simplified down to a single word. Instead, we are taking a consistent, long-term approach to China, firmly rooted in the UK’s global interests.
I finish by paying tribute to our law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies, who do so much to keep us all safe. They operate often in secret, often in the shadows and often at great personal danger, but they have our enduring gratitude. While we are extremely disappointed with the outcome in this case, the legislation it relied on has already been changed. Should we need to go further, we will not hesitate to do what is necessary to keep our country safe. I commend this statement to the House.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Let me start by thanking the Security Minister for the briefing and information he provided ahead of his statement. Let me also join him in paying tribute to the officers in our police force and in the security service. They work so hard and take personal risks to keep us safe.
Let us start with Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee’s assessment of China, published a year or two ago. It found that China had penetrated every sector of our economy. When the Security Minister a moment ago said that China merely posed a “challenge”, he was wrong I think to use that word. China poses a threat. It poses a threat because it participates and organises systemic espionage into our public institutions, including Parliament. It purloins intellectual property from universities and from companies, particularly in the technology sectors, and it routinely spies on the UK as a state. They also engage in transnational repression of Chinese citizens here, for instance running secret, undeclared police stations and putting bounties on the heads of individuals. The word “challenge” is not strong enough; the state of China poses a threat.
The Security Minister said that the Government would “robustly challenge China”, but let me gently point to some of the decisions that the Government have taken in practice. We saw a signal back at the G7 last year, when the Prime Minister was, I am afraid to say, obsequious in dealing with President Xi, appearing to prioritise economic links above security considerations. We have not seen any decision to place China in the enhanced tier of the FIRS scheme, although that regime has been in place for several months, and the Government seem to be viewing with favour the application for a new super-embassy in London, to which our allies, including America, are urging us not to consent and which many of our intelligence services say will be used as a base for espionage activities. So the Government’s record on China causes deep concern, but of equal concern is this specific case—and, Mr Speaker, you explained why that is of particular concern to Parliament, given that the alleged espionage activities touch directly on Parliament and the way in which Members of Parliament do their duty.
I have in front of me a briefing provided to the press by the Crown Prosecution Service, dated 26 April 2024, when these charges were first laid. That briefing states that one of the subjects was commissioned over a period exceeding a year, between December 2021 and February 2023, by a Chinese intelligence asset. There are 34 reports on what this note describes as “very specific topics”, some of which relate directly and personally to Members of Parliament. One of the deputy national security advisers told the Crown Prosecution Service that he assessed this information to be “directly or indirectly, useful” to the Chinese state, and said that it was
“prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.”
Given the gravity of that assessment, it is astonishing that these charges have now been withdrawn. The Crown Prosecution Service clearly assessed these allegations, and the evidence, against the law—against the 1911 Act —in 2024, and found the test to have been met; so why today, more than a year later, have we suddenly been told that the test is no longer met? My question to the Security Minister is a simple one: given the gravity of the charges that I have just read out, what has changed between last year and this year? Why has a case that met the threshold and met the test in April 2024 all of a sudden been determined not to do so?
May I ask specifically whether anyone in the Government put any pressure on the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to this case? Did the Government co-operate fully with the police, the security services and the CPS in providing the information required, including information relating to the definition of “an enemy”? Can the Security Minister give the House those express assurances? I certainly share your concern, Mr Speaker, and, I am sure, the concern of many others, that what appears to be extremely serious espionage, assessed as such in the written disclosure that I read out—assessed by the deputy national security adviser as being prejudicial to our national interests—has all of a sudden, and with no explanation, been dropped, even though previously, just a year and a bit ago, it was assessed that this case did meet the threshold. The House and the country need to know what exactly has changed.
Dan Jarvis
Let me seek to address the shadow Home Secretary’s points. He raised the question of whether China constitutes a threat or not. I think I was very clear in the language that I used. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, and as the Government set out in the strategic defence review, China presents a “sophisticated and persistent challenge”. The reality is that, in government, there is an absolute requirement to co-operate with nations all around the world. When there are areas in which we need to challenge China, of course we will do so. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members will completely understand that when there are areas, in terms of economic co-operation, in which we need to work closely with China, of course we will do so, because it is absolutely in our national interest.
I referenced the comments of the previous Foreign Secretary, and the shadow Home Secretary might want to look back at what was said following the China audit. The previous Foreign Secretary was absolutely crystal clear: we will take a long-term, strategic approach to China that is rooted in the UK’s national interest. I understand why the shadow Home Secretary wants to boil down such a complex bilateral relationship into a single word, but the reality is that it is neither helpful nor sensible to do so.
The shadow Home Secretary will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with his characterisations of what he described as the “signals” that this Government have sent to China. In truth, I will not take any lessons from him on that, not least because—I have said this to him previously—it was not so long ago that a Conservative Prime Minister took the leader of China to the pub. When it comes to signals, I am not sure that the shadow Home Secretary speaks with a huge amount of authority.
The shadow Home Secretary spoke about FIRS. He knows that the Government’s position is that no decision has been taken with regard to the enhanced tier and China, and any decision taken by the Government will be announced in the normal way. FIRS is a crucial tool, and I am proud that this Government have got on and implemented it as of 1 July.
The shadow Home Secretary specifically raised the issue of the embassy in London, as I am sure other hon. Members will. He will know that China’s application to build a new embassy in London is going through an independent planning process. A final decision on planning permission will be made in due course by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, but I can be absolutely clear, in relation to FIRS, the nature of the threat and the embassy, that national security has been, and will continue to be, a core priority for this Government throughout the process.
The shadow Home Secretary asked about the CPS decision. I know that he understands that he is asking me about decisions made by the CPS that are entirely independent of Government. This was an independent decision made by the CPS, and it is not for any Government Minister to speculate on the reasons behind it. As I have said—I have been crystal clear—the Government are extremely disappointed with the outcome in this case, and we remain extremely concerned about the espionage threat posed to the United Kingdom.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I hope that the Intelligence and Security Committee will get a good chance to dig into what has happened in this place, because we are hampered in the Chamber by not being able to look at sensitive issues. I also hope that the Minister will lend his weight to the approval of many senior Members of this House, prior to the last election—it got as far as the last Prime Minister—to create a Committee to look at sensitive spending, but also sensitive issues. In the summer, this Government chose to reintroduce extradition arrangements with Hong Kong, despite the application of the Chinese security Act. Given what the Minister has said today, how can we square both of those positions?
Dan Jarvis
I hope that my hon. Friend knows that this Government hugely appreciate and respect the relationship we have with Hongkongers. Through the processes in place, we will absolutely ensure that nobody, be they a Hongkonger or any other nationality, is extradited for reasons of political expediency. I can also point her to the important work, which we take incredibly seriously, on transnational repression. I previously made a statement to this House, and I hope that she and others understand the seriousness with which we take these activities. We are working closely with our international allies, and we are doing everything we can to ensure that the UK is a hard target for these threats, wherever they might originate.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
As always, I am very grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
For years, the Chinese Communist party has worked to undermine the democratic institutions and values that underpin our society. This House is all too aware of the warnings, not least from the Intelligence and Security Committee’s excoriating report on China. That report made it clear that the previous Government lacked a coherent strategy for dealing with the threat posed by the Chinese state and that insufficient resources had been committed to meet that challenge. We expect to see better from this Government.
We are faced with a case in which two men, one of them a parliamentary researcher with close links to senior MPs, were accused of serious offences under the Official Secrets Act, only for the Crown Prosecution Service to drop those charges due to insufficient evidence. In this context, the decision is deeply worrying. It raises serious questions about the UK’s capacity to detect and prosecute espionage linked to hostile states, particularly China. So what specific issues with the evidence led the CPS to conclude that the threshold for prosecution was no longer met?
More broadly, what does this outcome say about our preparedness to respond to threats from foreign intelligence services operating on our soil, and even within the corridors of this Parliament? The Government must make protecting our democracy a national security priority. That means implementing the recommendations of the ISC’s China report in full, and ensuring that we are not left exposed to foreign interference simply because our systems are not equipped to respond.
Finally, the Minister again today committed to introduce legislation for a proscription mechanism for state and state-linked bodies as soon as parliamentary time allows. Could he update us on the timeline for bringing this forward and what its scope will be?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member, as I aways am, for the very sensible and reasonable way in which she has made her comments. She raises a number of important observations, many of which I agree with. I do have to say to her what I said to the shadow Home Secretary, which is that it would be completely inappropriate for me to speculate about the reasons why the CPS sought to make this decision. I completely understand why right hon. and hon. Members would ask me about it, but I hope they also understand that I am not able to talk about why the CPS has decided to make this decision. That is very much a matter for it, not for the Government.
On the other points the hon. Member raised, let me give her an assurance that the Government do everything we possibly can to ensure that the UK is a hard target to guard against those malign forces, wherever they may come from, that seek to infiltrate or interfere with our democratic processes. We will ensure that our security and intelligence services and agencies and law enforcement have the necessary tools and resources they need to do the difficult job of guarding against the threats we face. Obviously, as she understands very well, there is also a legislative framework for that, and that is why, I understand, she asked the question about Jonathan Hall KC and the recommendations that she has made recently. As she knows, we have made an absolute commitment that we will legislate as soon as we can, and I give her an assurance that that work continues at pace.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I think we have a duty—all democracies have a duty—to protect democracy from its enemies. I do not doubt that our allies face exactly the same challenges, so I would be interested to know what discussions we have had with our allies about this very challenge. The Minister mentioned that MPs and their offices would get new guidance. Can he commit to a date for that being issued?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend raises an important point about our allies. Many of the threats and challenges we face are shared ones, which is precisely why the UK Government convened the five countries ministerial conference last week. We were proud to host our allies from the Five Eyes nations, with which we work very closely, along with other important international co-operation arrangements. We do work very closely with our allies to ensure that, collaboratively and collectively, we are best able to guard against the threat we face.
I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that we will seek to ensure that the new guidance is in place as soon possible. I also point to the fact that I wrote to all Members of this House just before the recess with advice on protective security and other matters. However, should any Member feel that they need additional support, we will work very closely with you, Mr Speaker, and the Parliamentary Security Department to ensure that they get it.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
The Minister made the point that the charges brought were under the old legislation, the Official Secrets Act, which has now been superseded. Has he made an assessment of whether the charges would have proceeded had the new offences been in place at the time the charges were brought? Will he be working with ministerial colleagues, law enforcement and others to look at whether new offences are needed in this case and in others?
Dan Jarvis
If I may say so, that is a very clever question from the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. I hope that the right hon. Lady will understand that, given that the decision was communicated this morning, the Department and the Government will be looking at it very closely. I am confident that the new National Security Act gives the Government—I genuinely pay tribute to the previous Government for their work in introducing that groundbreaking legislation—the tools we need, but I know she will understand that we will look very closely at the decision communicated this morning and satisfy ourselves that we have all the necessary powers and tools to guard against the nature of the threat we face.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his statement. The first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, and I know that he has a track record of doing just that. He also rightly recognises that politics is not just about MPs or Members of the other place; it is also about political staff, the Clerks, everybody who works in this place, and everybody in local government. What reassurances can he give my constituents and the greater population that he will ensure that we stop foreign influence over our democratic processes for everybody?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises an important point. I can give him and his constituents the assurances he seeks. The Government take these threats incredibly seriously and we will do everything we need to do to keep the public safe. On behalf of the Prime Minister, I chair the Defending Democracy taskforce. The Prime Minister recently renewed the mandate of that cross-departmental mechanism, which ensures that we are able to provide a whole-of-Government approach to the threats we face. The Government take these matters incredibly seriously. These are not party political issues. I have always believed that these are matters that should be a shared endeavour. I will want to work with him and Members right across the House to ensure that, collectively, we keep ourselves safe.
Mr Speaker
I call the Member who has been heavily involved in this, Alicia Kearns.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
I will be responding in a personal capacity, but may I start by thanking you, Mr Speaker, for the support you have given to us over the past two years? I also place on record my gratitude to our intelligence community and counter-terrorism police, who are exceptional.
From a securities perspective, today’s events are disastrous. They will embolden our enemies and make us look unwilling to defend our own nation, even when attacked in this place, the mother of all Parliaments. I am relieved that the National Security Act will make it safer and easier in future to prosecute foreign spies, but I urge the Minister to reform the Treason Act so that traitors are prosecuted and face justice, put China in the enhanced tier, and support private prosecution.
It remains unclear to me why Chris Cash and Christopher Berry cannot be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act. The evidence shows a clear line between those two, the United Front Work Department and the politburo—the very top of the Chinese Communist party. The information shared was prejudicial to the safety and interests of the UK, and I believe it put Members at personal risk. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) was told by agency heads that the evidence was overwhelming and the case beyond doubt. Counter-terrorism police this morning agreed and said the same to me—that the evidential standard had been met at the time of charges.
My question for the Minister is simple: if officials, the security services and the police agree that the case was a slam dunk, why has the Crown Prosecution Service not been able to get it over the line? If the CPS was not confident, why, given the compelling evidence, did it not put it to a jury and test it? Whoever is responsible for this decision—whether the Director of Public Prosecutions, an official in his own Department or the Attorney General—they have weakened the defence of our country today and I am desperately sorry to see it.
Dan Jarvis
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her remarks, and I completely understand why she has phrased them in the way that she has. Let me also join her in thanking you, Mr Speaker, for the work you have done to keep parliamentarians safe. Over the next few days, weeks, months and years, it is vital that we work together. I look forward to meeting you later on today to discuss how we can ensure that we work together to safeguard all our parliamentary colleagues.
Turning to the substance of the remarks made by the hon. Lady, I agree with her characterisation of the National Security Act. I will look very carefully at the points she made specifically with regard to treason. On her assessment of the decision that has been made, I completely understand why she has arrived at that conclusion, as will Members right across the House. In my opening remarks, I expressed my extreme disappointment at the decision that has been made. These remarks, and the judgments people are forming in the House this afternoon, will be heard by the CPS. I know that she will take every opportunity—as will the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), whom she referenced in her introductory remarks—to seek a meeting with the CPS at the earliest available opportunity to hear and better understand the decision-making process it has been through.
As I have said previously, I am not able to speculate on the reason why the CPS has taken this decision. I am extremely disappointed that it has done so, but I will do everything I can to ensure that Government are organised so that we can ensure we have the resources in the right place to stand against the threats that we face.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I have raised with the Security Minister on several occasions the fears of the Hong Kong community in Bracknell and across the country, and today is just another reminder of the long arm of the Chinese state that so worries my constituents. Given that, and given the real and genuine fears of the Hong Kong community, does the Minister agree that it is important that as we seek, rightly, to reform the immigration system—it is good to see the Migration Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp), in his place next to the Security Minister—we nevertheless safeguard and protect the bespoke route of the British national overseas visa, recognising the historic commitment we have to the Hong Kong community?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work he has done to support his constituents and champion Hongkongers. Hopefully he heard my earlier remarks about the respect and admiration that we have for Hongkongers and the importance that we attach to our relationship. I completely understand the fears that have been represented by my hon. Friend and a number of his constituents; I have had a number of meetings with members of that community and will have further such meetings. I look forward to working with him and with colleagues in the Department to ensure that those from the community feel that the Government will protect them, because that is what we will always want to do.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I make the following comments as somebody who has been sanctioned and hounded by the Chinese Government all the way through the past few years. I was briefed by the security services at the beginning that this was a slam-dunk prosecution—they were clear that they had met every single requirement within the Official Secrets Act. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) said earlier, the deputy national security adviser was very clear in his assessment of the information communicated by the two characters who were being prosecuted that at least 10 of the 34 charges that were laid were absolutely about passing secure information to the Chinese intelligence agency that would be “directly or indirectly, useful” to the Chinese state. That is very clear. It cannot, therefore, be for a lack of evidence that this has been dropped by the CPS.
The key here was the whole idea of the Official Secrets Act defining that work as against an enemy—that is the key. So why in heaven’s name did the Government not take the opportunity, when it arose after the China audit, to raise China into the upper tier, as they did with Russia, North Korea and Iran? The Minister speaks of threats, but he does not say that China is a threat; he says it is a “challenge”, which is a ludicrous position to take.
I honestly feel today that this Government have let you down, Mr Speaker—the Speaker of this Parliament—after you bravely stood for people like me to protect us against the overtures of the Chinese. They have let down Parliament. Nobody knows now whether they are safe, because these charges have been dropped. It is absolutely key, furthermore, that until we define China as what it is—a persistent threat that targets individuals, like me and others, and states—this will be a shame and a blot on our reputation as a strong state against terrorism.
Dan Jarvis
I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has, for entirely understandable reasons, a very long-standing interest in these matters, but I am afraid I do not agree with the assessment he has just offered. This Government take the threats that we face, regardless of where they come from, incredibly seriously. We will do everything that we need to do to safeguard our Parliament and our parliamentarians and to ensure that our democracy is not undermined or infiltrated by malign forces, wherever they might come from. I give the right hon. Gentleman and the House a categorical assurance that we understand that national security is the first duty of Government, and nothing—nothing—will get in the way of that.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As someone who chaired the Intelligence and Security Committee throughout its China inquiry and who criticised the previous Government’s position on China, I am sad to see that this Government do not seem to understand the importance of signals. It sends a signal to describe “Chinese challenges” but not “Chinese communist threats”. It sends a signal to allow China to build a super-embassy against the advice of the security services. It sends a signal not to put China in the top tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, and it sends a signal above all to allow it to buy up increasingly important parts of our economy and national infrastructure. Can we stop sending the wrong signals?
Dan Jarvis
The only signal that this Government will send is that threats to our country, wherever they come from, will not be tolerated.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
China has broken international agreements with the UK. It has placed bounties on the heads of Hongkongers seeking refuge in this country. Today’s announcement that charges have been dropped will only embolden China in its efforts to interfere with our democracy. The Minister has mentioned the effectiveness of the foreign influence registration scheme, so will he now assure us that all relevant officials, including those in the Administration of Hong Kong, will be placed in the enhanced tier of the scheme?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his remarks, but I hope that he would acknowledge that the incidents he described, about which he rightly has concerns, were condemned by the UK Government at the time. The UK Government have been clear about the fact that we will not tolerate transnational repression on those living in the UK. FIRS falls out of the National Security Act, and he knows that we have already announced that two nations will be included on the enhanced tier. Any further decision about other nations being included will be made in due course.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Minister euphemistically described our relationship with China as “complex”. It is not complex. It is characterised by espionage, malign behaviour and a massive trade imbalance. How is that complex, and why do this Government persist in opposing the views of their advisers and permitting—even facilitating—this massive centre for espionage close to the centre of our financial quarter?
Dan Jarvis
I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not agree with what he has just said, I am afraid, nor do I agree with the characterisation he makes around the embassy. I have said to him and the House previously that national security will be the overriding priority with regard to any decision that is made independently in a quasi-judicial process led by the Secretary of State. I can again give him an assurance that when it comes to any decision about the embassy, as has been detailed in letters that the previous Foreign Secretary and I have sent, national security will absolutely be at the forefront of any consideration.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
There is a very nasty smell about the collapse of this Chinese spying affair case. Just over a year ago, the Crown Prosecution Service counter-terrorism unit said after complex investigations that these were very serious allegations and that charges were brought, but now we are supposed to believe that it cannot provide any evidence whatsoever. It feels to me as if one of two things has happened here: either the Crown Prosecution Service was wrong—potentially incompetent—or someone very high up in the Government has interfered with this situation. Which is it, Minister?
Dan Jarvis
When the hon. Member takes a moment to think carefully about these things, he will understand that Government Ministers should not speculate on the reasons provided for a particular decision by the Crown Prosecution Service, which is independent of Government. It would be entirely improper for any Minister to do that. I am happy to give him and any other Member who needs it an absolute assurance of how seriously we take the threats we face from a range of different malign forces around the country. This Government will ensure that we are best able, best prepared and best resourced to guard against the nature of the threat, and nothing will stop us doing that.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The Security Minister mentioned the Official Secrets Act 1911, but he will know that it was updated in 1920 and, indeed, in 1989. As one of the co-authors of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s China report, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), I say to the Minister, following the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), that that report highlighted China as a threat, not a challenge.
There has been reference to the ISC looking at the case as it is currently looking at the data leak around the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, but the reality is that the legislation that set up the Committee—one part over 30 years ago and one part over a decade ago —is not fit for purpose. A lot of trust is invested in that Committee. Is it not time that with more power and funding going to the Intelligence and Security Committee —with even more responsibility being put on it, to be fair—it should be given more powers so that this Parliament and the people we represent know there is proper democratic parliamentary oversight of the intelligence community in this country? They are wonderful and they do a fantastic job, but they are sometimes fallible.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his remarks, as well as the work he has done in this area and his service on the Committee. As a former Committee member, he will understand that the Committee is fiercely independent of Government, and rightly so, but I happen to think it does an outstanding job. It is a great asset for Parliament.
As Security Minister, I will want to work incredibly closely with the Committee and co-operate with it whenever we can. It is clearly not for me to suggest particular matters that it may wish to investigate, but knowing the Chair and the deputy Chair as I do, I think it entirely likely that it may decide to look closely at this particular matter.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Minister is clearly not happy with the CPS’s decision, and therefore the Government are not, and the House is obviously not either. Because the two suspects did not face a trial, double jeopardy does not come into play. Will the Minister undertake to explore with the Attorney General the scope for him to bring a case against those two, if not under the Official Secrets Act to test the case with a jury, then under the new legislation, which clearly would present no problem in court terms?
Dan Jarvis
I certainly agree with the hon. Member in his assessment of my being not happy. The decision was communicated this morning. The points he raised were reasonable, constructive and helpful, so let me take them away and consider them with colleagues across Government.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The threat to our national security from China is real, and I share the disappointment and concern expressed. However, the Minister will also be aware that China has used entirely bogus national security charges to imprison a British citizen, Jimmy Lai, who has now been in solitary confinement for five years and whose health is deteriorating rapidly. This morning, his son Sebastien Lai asked to see the Prime Minister to press him to do more. Will the Minister reinforce that case and take every action possible to get the Chinese to release Jimmy Lai?
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, published an inquiry report into transnational repression earlier this year. It welcomed the introduction of a foreign influence registration scheme but expressed concern about the absence of China on the enhanced tier. Its absence risks undermining the credibility and coherence of the scheme. Will the Minister listen to colleagues from across the House, pick up the recommendations of the report and include China on the enhanced tier?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member for the work he does on the Committee. I hope that when I gave evidence to the Committee, I conveyed the seriousness and importance that we attach to matters relating to transnational repression. I am genuinely grateful to the Committee for the work it has done and the report it published. I will respond to it as soon as I am able to do so.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister has repeatedly said that it is not his job to speculate on the CPS. He is right, but it is his job to defend the security of this country and therefore to ask the CPS why it has not brought charges. Has he done that? Has he rung the CPS before he came to the House to speak to it and to understand why it has not gone ahead? If not, why not?
Dan Jarvis
I accept the charge the hon. Gentleman makes against me that it is my responsibility to defend our national security, and I hope he understands that that is something I take incredibly seriously. The decision was communicated this morning. This was an independent decision, but I give him and others an assurance that we will, of course, look incredibly closely at it.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
In early June, the Government told me that the report regarding the inclusion of China in the enhanced tier would come forward in due course. As the Minister said in his statement, the chargé d’affaires at the Chinese embassy has now been démarched. Can the Minister outline why China has not been included in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, because if national security is the first duty of Government and nothing will get in the way of that, why are the Government dithering when it comes to formally challenging China?
Dan Jarvis
We are not doing what the hon. Gentleman suggests we are. What we are seeking to do is ensure that we have all the right tools to guard against the nature of the threats that we face. We take that incredibly seriously. He knows our policy with regard to FIRS, which this Government introduced on 1 July, but no doubt we will have more to say about it in due course.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Is the alarming takeaway from this, both for this House and for any potential spy, that we are being asked to believe that the espionage in which Messrs Cash and Berry engaged is not a criminal offence? Is that where our defence of national security has got to?
Dan Jarvis
The takeaway is that the CPS made an independent decision this morning, and that this Government will do everything we can to keep the country safe. That is the takeaway.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister is an honourable man, but our disquiet and our constituents’ concerns run very deep. While I welcome the improved legislation in place to deal with the issue, the fact of the matter is that once again—I say this with great respect—the Government are being seen nationally as weak on criminal activity, and particularly on the action of the three defendants. When will the Government remind the world that this great nation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is a strong nation that meets our enemies face to face and on any footing? Will the Government send the message that any foreign operatives on our soil will be rooted out and will pay a price for working against this sovereign nation?
Dan Jarvis
I hold the hon. Gentleman in the highest regard, so I hope that he will not mind me gently pointing out to him that I could not have been clearer in my earlier remarks about how seriously we take these issues. We will work very closely with allies and partners right around the world to ensure that we do everything we can to guard against the threats that we face.
Mr Speaker
I call Alicia Kearns on a point of order. May I just say what a pleasure it is to see you back?
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. That is very kind. I shall be returning home to my four-month-old in a couple of hours.
On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Government Front Benchers are unable to answer the questions of this House regarding the decision making of the Crown Prosecution Service, so can you kindly advise how this House can scrutinise the Crown Prosecution Service and its decisions, as that is clearly the will of the House?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me notice of her point of order. I believe that this is a matter for the Attorney General—who is responsible for the CPS—and as he sits in the other place, maybe we will have to use the Solicitor General as a way forward. In this case, I hope that a clear message has gone back to everybody that when we still have Members of Parliament who have sanctions, we cannot let this go in the way that seems to have been done.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, I am one of the MPs who is currently sanctioned by China, and as one of the founders of the China Research Group I am one of the MPs who was spied upon here. I find it astonishing not just that this case, which was a slam dunk last year, has now been dropped, but that we are not even being told why it has been dropped. The one bright spot in this whole process has been your leadership on the issue, Mr Speaker, and in particular your decision to ban the Chinese ambassador from this building for as long as Members of this House are sanctioned. I worry that certain people will now come to you with honeyed words. How can I put on the record our thanks to you for your leadership, and also our hope that you will continue to stand strong on behalf of Members of this House?
Mr Speaker
I think you have certainly put it on the record.
I take seriously the sanctions that have been laid. My worry is that we have foreign state actors who do not believe in democracy, and democracy within this House. We must defend our democracy; we must defend Members of Parliament. I have to say a big thank you to our head of security, who has worked very hard on this. I am sure—not that they would make this judgment—that we are all disappointed with the outcome, including the Minister.
Ambassador to the United States: Appointment and Dismissal
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
I seek leave to propose that the House debates a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the appointment process and circumstances leading to the dismissal of the former ambassador of the United Kingdom to the United States, Lord Mandelson.
This is a matter of utmost concern across the House and across party lines. Our ambassador in Washington stands at the centre of Britain’s most vital bilateral relationship. It is a role of exceptional sensitivity, with more classified intelligence crossing the ambassador’s desk than reaches most Cabinet Ministers. The post carries immense responsibility. The ambassador represents Britain’s interests to our most powerful ally and, in so doing, shapes our reputation abroad. His conduct, both prior to appointment and during, must reflect the highest standards of professionalism, discretion and integrity—nothing less will do.
Lord Mandelson failed that test long before last week’s revelation, long before the understandable public outrage at the disgraceful behaviour with the paedophile Epstein, and long before the families of his victims quite rightly criticised the appointment. What was public about Mandelson’s past is more than enough to disqualify him from consideration for ambassador, from his resignation from Government not once but twice—first in 1998 for not telling the truth about an interest-free loan, and then in 2001 for helping a wealthy businessman get a passport—to his links to the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a gangster capitalist who benefited to the tune of many millions of pounds from policies promoted and signed off by Lord Mandelson when he was EU Trade Commissioner, and, particularly relevant today, his commercial links defending China.
All of that was in the public domain before the Prime Minister appointed Lord Mandelson as our ambassador. Why was it ever thought acceptable to appoint a man with such a chequered and murky background to such a vitally important position? The House needs to know what vetting was done and when, what the opinions were of the Foreign Office, the Foreign Secretary, the Cabinet Office and the security services, and when the Prime Minister was told. We need to know who knew what, and when.
The Government must take the House with them on these appointments, but their behaviour to date on this issue has been marked by obfuscation and delay, by recrimination and cover-up. It is not just a question of the Prime Minister’s political judgment, important as that is; it is a question of ethics. It is a question of what is deemed acceptable behaviour, when in positions of power. The House must have the opportunity to debate this matter before the recess.
Mr Speaker
I have listened carefully to the application from the right hon. Member and am satisfied that the matter raised is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24. I put it to the House.
Application agreed to.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Member has obtained the leave of the House. The debate will be held tomorrow, Tuesday 16 September, as the first item of public business. The debate will last for up to three hours and will arise on a motion that the House has considered the specified matter set out in the right hon. Member’s application.
Point of Order
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your guidance? I led an Adjournment debate last Wednesday. In an intervention on the Minister for Secondary Care, the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) made reference to
“the misquoting of things that have been said”.—[Official Report, 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 1010.]
The quotation that I referred to in the debate were his words, sourced from My London news, which reported that the hon. Member told the Local Democracy Reporting Service that the Hillingdon Conservatives who organised the petition against the closure of the hospital were guilty of
“faux outrage on this matter”,
which he said was “both laughable and offensive”. If the hon. Member has been notified of my intent to raise this point of order and disputes the words reported by the Local Democracy Reporting Service, I am sure that he can say so, but how can I place on the record that the words I ascribed to him—“faux outrage”—were a direct quotation of his?
Mr Speaker
I assume that the hon. Member has given notice to the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) of his intention to raise this matter?
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for the point of order and for giving notice of it. There are mechanisms for Members to correct the record if they so wish. He has put the matter on the record, but if he wishes to continue, I am sure that the Government Front Benchers will have heard him.
Bill Presented
Road Traffic (Horse and Rider Safety) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Lee Dillon, supported by Sarah Dyke, Liz Jarvis, James MacCleary, Edward Morello, Martin Wrigley and Andrew George, presented a Bill to make provision about the required speed and distance for passing horses in a moving vehicle; to provide for the inclusion of equestrian safety in driving theory tests; to make provision about the teaching of equestrian safety in driving education; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 October, and to be printed (Bill 305).
Employment Rights Bill: Programme (NO. 3)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Employment Rights Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 21 October 2024 (Employment Rights Bill: Programme), as varied by the Order of 11 March 2025 (Employment Rights Bill: Programme (No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion five hours after their commencement.
(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 22, 1, 7, 8, 21, 23, 106 to 120, 46 to 49, 60 to 62, 72, 121, 2 to 6, 9 to 20, 24 to 45, 50 to 59, 63 to 71, 73 to 105 and 122 to 169.
Subsequent stages
(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(4) Proceedings on the first of any further Messages from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.
(5) Proceedings on any subsequent Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Gen Kitchen.)
Question agreed to.
Employment Rights Bill
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:27 - The House divided: - Ayes: 326 / Noes: 160 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:41 - The House divided: - Ayes: 330 / Noes: 158 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:53 - The House divided: - Ayes: 316 / Noes: 172 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:05 - The House divided: - Ayes: 329 / Noes: 163 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:23 - The House divided: - Ayes: 314 / Noes: 178 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 327 / Noes: 164 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:46 - The House divided: - Ayes: 328 / Noes: 160 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:57 - The House divided: - Ayes: 332 / Noes: 160 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:10 - The House divided: - Ayes: 318 / Noes: 170 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:21 - The House divided: - Ayes: 330 / Noes: 161 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:33 - The House divided: - Ayes: 330 / Noes: 161 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:45 - The House divided: - Ayes: 316 / Noes: 161 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that Lords amendments 66, 88, 90, 91 and 101 engage Commons financial privilege. If any of those Lords amendments is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
After Clause 22
Contractual duties of confidentiality relating to harassment and discrimination
4.43 pm
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
I beg to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment 22.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 22 and Government amendment (b).
Lords amendment 1, and Government motion to disagree. Lords amendment 7, and Government motion to disagree. Lords amendment 8, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 21, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendment 23, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 106, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) to the words so restored to the Bill.
Lords amendments 107 to 120, and Government motions to disagree.
Lords amendments 46 to 49, and Government motions to disagree.
Lords amendments 60 to 62, and Government motions to disagree.
Lords amendment 72, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 121, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 2 to 6, 9 to 20, 24 to 45, 50 to 59, 63 to 71, 73 to 105 and 122 to 169.
Peter Kyle
It is a pleasure to make my first appearance at the Dispatch Box as Secretary of State for Business and Trade to deliver the biggest improvements in workers’ rights for a generation, as part of the Labour Government’s Employment Rights Bill, which formed a key plank of my party’s manifesto commitments.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), for his work on the Bill and, more widely, in supporting our country to get to growth. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) for her tireless fight for the rights of working people. Without her, this Bill would simply not exist. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who worked so hard to get the legislation to this point, and to my dear friend Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, whose indefatigable work in the other place has ensured that this Bill was steered through the legislative process with a very steady hand. To many who have worked on this Bill, it has been a life’s work, and the culmination of an enormous amount of effort on their part, for which I am extremely grateful.
This is a landmark Bill. It is pro-worker and pro-business, and it supports the Government’s objectives of boosting growth and improving living standards across the country.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Peter Kyle
Of course I can. Many businesses have now come out in support of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman asked for a small business or a large business; let me give him one of each. I have talked to small and medium-sized enterprises. R & W Scott Ltd, a leading UK manufacturer based in south Lancashire specialising in high-quality ingredients for jams, came out in steadfast support. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know of large businesses who back this Bill, I could mention the Co-op, Centrica and Richer Sounds—all businesses that, as he will know, serve his community and his constituents. He should get behind those businesses in their support of the Bill.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his new role. He will be aware—as will the Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), who is next to him—that IKEA in my constituency welcomed this legislation, but when the Conservatives heard that, they heckled, and said, “Oh, they’re Swedish.” Will my right hon. Friend recognise the huge amount of employment that IKEA provides in this country, and welcome its foreign investment? Does he agree that IKEA welcomes this legislation because it realises that supporting its staff leads to better productivity and more loyalty to the company?
Peter Kyle
I congratulate my hon. Friend on being a champion for investment in our country, unlike the Conservative party, which did down the country while it was in government, and is doing it down while in opposition, too.
The task this Government have set themself is formidable: to update employment law and make it fit for the age in which we live; and to reward good employers, and ensure that the employment protections given by the best are extended to millions more workers.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I have a letter from the Hampshire chamber of commerce, which, the Secretary of State will be pleased to hear, says that businesses are not opposed to all the changes that will be made to employment legislation, but it does focus on several areas of concern, such as the involvement of a tribunal in deciding whether an employee has been legitimately dismissed during their probation period, removing statutory sick pay waiting days, and changes to trade union recognition and industrial action thresholds. Will the Secretary of State do more to engage with chambers of commerce about these concerns?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful contribution, and for reflecting the voice of chambers, who do an incredible job right around our country—and around the world. I say to the chambers, and to him, that the Bill reflects the best standards that are already in use right around the country by the very best employers—indeed, by most employers. Those employers have nothing to fear and a lot to gain from this legislation.
On consultation, this is a Government who listen constantly, and we will continue to listen. On those measures for which an implementation phase is really important, there are, unusually, formal consultations in which businesses can engage. This is a listening Government and an acting Government, and we will deliver on our manifesto commitments.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
We welcome many aspects of the legislation, but I put this question on behalf of my small businesses. They say that sickness absence costs them £3,500 a year—it costs some £5 billion across all the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—and they are worried that the legislation could dramatically raise their fees and costs for the next year. How will this Bill support small businesses that literally cannot afford to pay sick pay as well as hire someone in the place of the sick? That is a constructive question, and my small businesses need the answer.
Peter Kyle
In all the Front-Bench jobs I have had, I have enjoyed my exchanges with the hon. Gentleman, who is always constructive and well intentioned. I did not expect that we would enjoy that renewed relationship so soon in my new position. I say to him, and to the incredible businesses in his community, which I have had the pleasure of visiting, that a healthy workforce is a productive workforce. We intend to ensure the health and wellbeing of employees, and to ensure support for them in the workplace, structured in a way to get the very best out of them. That will be of benefit to employees, and certainly to employers as well.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend will, without doubt, remember those dark days of covid, when people had to turn up in the workplace, despite being poorly. That contributed to the spread of the pandemic. Does that not illustrate the need to ensure that when people are ill, they can rely on a sickness absence framework that supports them, and allows them to return to work when they have recovered?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. Both in times of crisis, such as during covid, and in good times, there are good employers and those who sometimes fall beneath standards. Covid shone a light on the challenges that can be faced in the workforce. In those times, we needed to see the best from everyone. The majority of businesses supported their employees through that time of challenge. We want to ensure that the floor is high enough, and that the standards for every workforce are those that were set by the best, not by those who fell short of what we expect in Britain in the 2020s.
Today, I ask the House to renew its commitment to this legislation. I will ask hon. Members to endorse Government amendments that seek to clarify and strengthen a number of measures, and to reject the amendments of Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers who joined forces to undermine the progress that we are attempting to make. I make an exception of those in the other place who had the sincere aim of scrutinising, and who ensured that the Bill was steered through the legislative process there with a steady hand.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
In opposition, those now in government probably rightly criticised the Conservative Government for introducing Henry VIII powers, yet the Bill is absolutely riddled with them. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Attorney General that such powers strike at the heart of the rule of law?
Peter Kyle
I agree that such powers need to be used wisely. The House will notice that many clauses provide for guidance in primary legislation during the implementation phase, and consultation with the businesses affected. Members will have their voice heard, as will businesses and workers affected by the Bill. During the passage of the Bill through both Houses, there have been improvements to the legislation, and I am grateful to Members of both Houses for their tireless work.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The vast majority of the Employment Rights Bill is very much to be welcomed. Amendment 61, which relates to heritage railways and heritage tramways, would allow people under the age of 16 to volunteer on those heritage railway lines. It has been so narrowly worded as to be specifically for those sectors, and it would give young people fantastic opportunities to learn about technology, to work across generations, and to contribute to their communities. Will the Government please consider it again?
Peter Kyle
I know that this is something that affects the community that right hon. Lady represents, and that she is a tireless champion for her community here in Parliament, via the all-party parliamentary group on heritage rail. I will come to that amendment specifically, so I think it is best that I leave the answer until then. If she wants to come back to me once she has heard the explanation as to why we will not support amendment 61, I will happily take another intervention.
I will start by speaking to the amendments that the Government made in another place. The majority of them reinforce and strengthen existing measures in the Bill by making technical adjustments. They close loopholes to safeguard policy functionality, resolve uncertainty and ensure that measures are comprehensive and effectively deliver the policy as intended, as set out by the plan to make work pay. Some of the substantial amendments follow excellent campaigning by Members of this House and the other place, and demonstrate that the Government are listening and taking action, where appropriate.
The Government’s amendments on zero-hours contracts strengthen and clarify provisions that were already in the Bill when it left this place. Our commitment to banning exploitative zero-hours contracts is the culmination of years of campaigning by Labour MPs, trade unions and the wider Labour movement. For too long, these contracts have been used to replace full-time jobs. The Government amendments tabled in the other place reflect our commitment to getting the detail right, and were informed by extensive engagement with a wide range of businesses, trade unions and other expert stakeholders.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
My husband suffered a catastrophic brain haemorrhage, which meant that he could not return to his work, but after he began to recover, he started to work again in another job, helped by a zero-hours contract. It meant that if he was not well enough to work, he could agree with his employer that his hours could be adjusted to suit. The practical and fair solution is to give staff a right to request a zero-hours contract, rather than replacing a requirement for businesses to offer a zero-hours contract.
Peter Kyle
I hope that the hon. Lady will pass on my sympathy and encouragement, and that of the whole House, to her husband, who has shown tenacity and resilience. I will come to the relevant part of the Bill shortly but, in summary, we feel that putting the onus on employees to request, rather than on employers to deliver, such contracts would alienate several categories of workers, particularly younger workers and those with vulnerabilities. I will come to that in a minute, and it would be a delight to take any further interventions that she might have then.
Technical changes include clarification of how zero-hours contract provisions apply to agency workers; reinforcement of the guaranteed hours provisions in relation to workers with annualised contracts and interaction with unfair dismissal; refinement of the right to payment for short-notice provisions, in relation to when payments and notices of exemptions are due; and expansion of those provisions to staff employed by both Houses. Together, these amendments strengthen the legislation by ensuring it is fair, proportionate and clear.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
On short-notice periods for zero-hour contracts, there was an opportunity in the House of Lords to support the Liberal Democrat amendment that would require employers to give employees at least 48 hours’ notice. Labour peers voted against that amendment and the Government have not come forward with an alternative, suggesting that it will take until 2027 before there will be consideration of those measures. Will the Minister explain why we will have to wait nearly three years before we can get a response to that?
Peter Kyle
The powers that the hon. Gentleman refers to are strident powers. We have firmly committed to consulting on those powers and to reporting back, based on the outcome of the consultation, and that shows that we are listening. We will learn from the consultation and, if necessary, we will act.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
When the Minister consults on those powers, will he include the agricultural sector? With seasonal work, there is a big concern that employers will not necessarily have time to provide a notice period as the weather changes. On behalf of all our farmers, I ask him to consider that.
Peter Kyle
As a Member of Parliament representing a constituency in the beautiful county of Sussex, I am aware of the needs of seasonal workers, including those in the agricultural sector. We believe that the Bill allows flexibility for that sector, but if the hon. Lady would like to write to me with further updates, I am always willing to listen.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
On that point, will the Minister give way?
Peter Kyle
Let me make a little progress, then I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman; I am sure he will understand.
We move on to bereavement leave. The Bill will ensure that every employee has an immediate right to bereavement leave from the first day of employment. As both Houses have agreed, bereavement is not an illness or a holiday, and it needs its own special category. The Government amendments in the other place expand bereavement leave entitlement in the Bill to include pregnancy loss occurring before 24 weeks. I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned on that change, such as the Women and Equalities Committee—specifically my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen)—and countless women who have told their own very personal and painful stories of loss as part of the campaign for this important change. I have been very open about my own experiences with grief and loss, and I feel strongly that people need time away from work to grieve. No one going through the heartache of pregnancy loss should be worrying about work; they must be able to take time to recover.
I give way to the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne).
Sir Desmond Swayne
Let me take the Secretary of State back to zero-hours contracts. The seasonality of the hospitality industry and, indeed, boat building down in my constituency, where large numbers of students are taken on, means that scheduling for guaranteed hours is very difficult, particularly when those students benefit from the provision, because they want to partake in races and other seasonal activities of a leisure nature.
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising his concerns in this area. I represent a constituency in Brighton and Hove that has a vibrant hospitality and night-time economy and two universities, so I have paid particularly close attention to these issues. I reassure him that the Bill refers to exploitative zero-hours contracts. It is clear that some people will want employment on different terms, and we have flexibility in the Bill for those circumstances. Where there is exploitation or the potential for it—which surely we all agree exists in the economy at the present time—we should act against those sorts of things.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
In the positive spirit in which the Secretary of State speaks, will he commit on the Floor of the House that the reference period used to calculate hours for sectors that have serious seasonality—we have heard about boat building, hospitality, tourism and farming—will not be a ridiculously short period, such as 12 weeks? Will it be long enough to reflect the seasonal nature of that type of work?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the passion with which he speaks. That is a very important point, and that is why we are consulting on the time threshold; we want to get it right. As my predecessors and I have said repeatedly, this Bill is good for workers and good for business, and that is the spirit in which we will continue.
Let me move on to fire and rehire, on which hon. Members will know there has been a long-running campaign led by trade unions. The provisions in the Bill will ensure that employers are no longer able to use cruel fire and rehire practices. No longer will unscrupulous employers be able to fire employees to replace them on low pay. The Bill also ensures protection for employees replaced by non-employee workers, such as agency staff, to do the same role. As we said in our manifesto, these reforms are a pro-business, pro-worker set of measures. They strike a balance, curbing misuse while allowing fair businesses time for adaptation.
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
This Bill will make work fairer for thousands in my constituency. However, my constituents are worried that Conservative Members seek to water down this legislation. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will resist their attempts and are committed to introducing the Bill in full?
Peter Kyle
I understand that there will be workers around the country who are worried about the watering down of such legislation. I reassure my hon. Friend that as long as they vote Labour, that will never happen.
In the other place, the Government made amendments to strengthen protections for social care workers and school support staff, ensuring that workers whose employers go above and beyond the minimum standards set out by the negotiating bodies will have those better terms protected.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?
Mrs Brackenridge
As a former schoolteacher and leader, I know the value of support staff and how critical they are, but does the Secretary of State agree that Lords amendment 121 is unnecessary? The Bill already ensures that no negotiating body can prevent employers from offering better terms and conditions where they wish to do so. The school support staff negotiating body was regrettably abolished in 2010, but this Government will reinstate it. The amendment would add needless bureaucracy and would risk impeding the flexibility that schools and staff rightly expect.
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend has demonstrated many things in that intervention, including what a great teacher she was. As a former chair of governors and a governor of a couple of schools, I can assure her that I too understand the value of teaching assistants and all those who support the education of young people. I agree that the Bill gets the balance right—that is why we are proceeding as we are.
I turn to the Lords amendments dealing with the international maritime provisions. The Government amendment clarifies that a regulation to implement future agreements may not be brought into force before the agreement is ratified, but by implication, such regulations may be made before it is ratified. This will allow the UK to meet its international obligations by ensuring such regulations can be made ahead of the deadline for bringing them into force.
The Fair Work Agency provisions will establish a single body to enforce a wide range of employment rights. The Government amendments are technical refinements to improve enforcement and co-ordination. They clarify definitions of “worker” and “employer”, enable summary sheriffs in Scotland to act on underpayment notices, and refine provisions on data sharing between enforcement bodies. The amendments will ensure that the Fair Work Agency can operate smoothly and effectively.
In another place, the Government also made an amendment to change the time limit in the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Consultation by Employers and Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2006 from three months to six months, ensuring consistency with wider employment tribunal time limit reforms.
Amendments were made in another place to the trade union provisions. The Government have refined the provisions on trade union recognition by adding sanctions for non-compliance, requiring timely sharing of worker data, and tightening timelines to protect bargaining units. Together, these amendments enhance fairness, transparency and enforceability in trade union recognition.
I now turn to non-disclosure agreements. The Government are committed to ending the misuse of NDAs, which silence victims of sexual harassment, discrimination and bullying. I thank Members of this House and those in another place for their work on this issue, as well as Zelda Perkins, the founder of Can’t Buy My Silence, for her tireless campaigning, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), who has championed this cause for many years. Today must be a good day for her, as she sees another step forward taken in delivering those rights.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield Heeley) (Lab)
I am sure all Members of the House would like to note that Zelda Perkins joins us in the Under-Gallery today, and to thank her for her tireless work in campaigning on this issue. The road map for implementation of this legislation was published before the Government tabled their amendments, so will the Secretary of State confirm when he will commence consultation, and when the Government are aiming for this primary legislation to commence so that the ban on NDAs can come into force?
Peter Kyle
It is great to know that Zelda is in the Chamber with us today, and that my right hon. Friend is also in the Chamber to give voice to so many campaigners and the work she has done. The Prime Minister has confirmed that the road map remains as is.
In another place, we made two amendments to strengthen the provisions in the Bill that protect victims, while preserving NDAs to protect legitimate business interests. The new clause will allow workers to speak freely about their experiences and allow those who have witnessed misconduct or have knowledge of it to call it out by voiding a non-disclosure agreement that has been used to try to silence victims. The Government will consult on related secondary legislation before commencing the measure.
The Government propose two new amendments. The first will extend the scope of the clause to include staff of both Houses. We are proposing that change following discussions with parliamentary authorities. The second amendment is designed to give disabled workers more protection. It will extend the scope of relevant discrimination to include a failure to make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons under section 21 of the Equality Act 2010. That will ensure that all forms of harassment and discrimination in the Equality Act are covered.
I will now set out the Government’s position on the 28 non-Government amendments made to the Bill in the other place, which cover 12 policy areas. Lords amendment 1 addresses provisions on zero-hours contracts and seeks to change the onus from the employer to the employee on the right to guaranteed hours. The amendment shifts it from a duty on employers to offer guaranteed hours to qualifying workers to a model where employees must actively request them. The Government believe that the duty to offer guaranteed hours should lie with the employer. A right-to-request model could create undesirable barriers, making it especially difficult for vulnerable workers on exploitative zero-hours contracts to access their right to guaranteed hours, especially as many such workers are younger and may be in their first job. As of June 2025, approximately 480,000 people in employment aged 16 to 24 are on zero-hours contracts. That is out of a total of 1.18 million workers on zero-hours contracts overall. Our position strikes a fair balance between protection and choice. For that reason, the Government do not support the amendment.
Susan Murray
I think we have a difference in how we look at Lords amendment 1. It does not water down the Bill; it adds more flexibility so that people get the opportunity to have the kind of employment that works for them. That is particularly important in an environment where we are trying to get people off disability benefits and back into work.
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s thoughtful intervention. I still believe that in order to exercise rights, people have to know that they exist. The majority of people—young people in particular—entering the workforce in such numbers via zero-hours contracts simply would not know that those rights exist for them. By changing the onus so it is on employers, it clarifies the rights they have and ensures that every workplace must offer equal access to employment hours. This Bill includes flexibilities, and I think those will encompass the situations over which she has legitimate concern.
Lords amendments 7 and 8 seek to provide that a short-notice cancellation payment is due only where the shift is cancelled less than 48 hours before it is due to start. The Government intend to set out short notice period regulations following a consultation.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
I know that 48 hours seems a long time to some Ministers, but does he agree that having a shift cancelled at short notice would be bad news for many workers across the country? This Bill should be amended to specify an acceptable notice period.
Peter Kyle
I think the Bill gets the balance right. For most people in most workplaces, 48 hours is a long time, although I have witnessed some speeches in this place that have been a lot shorter than that, but seemed a lot longer—perhaps the one currently unfolding is an example.
The consultation will determine a fair short notice period that works for businesses and workers. Putting the implementation detail in regulations will retain the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances. The Government have already stated in the Bill that “short notice” will not be more than seven days, and we are committed to continuing to work closely with businesses and trade unions and considering carefully the right approach to this matter. That is why the Government will be rejecting the amendment.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; he is being very generous. Can he explain why, before he took up his present post and took responsibility for the Bill, no assessment was made of the hiring practices that would occur if the unfair dismissal period was reduced from two years? Why was no modelling done? It is in the Labour party manifesto, but where is the evidence of what it will do to jobs and economy? That is what my constituents are concerned about.
Peter Kyle
Of course many of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will be concerned about their workforce protections, and those who are setting up, running and managing businesses will want us to get the balance right as well, but we have many years of experience that have informed the decisions we have taken, and our engagement with trade unions and other bodies has ensured that we have got that balance right.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
I am glad that the Secretary of State has mentioned trade unions, because that allows me a moment to return to his earlier point about banning fire and rehire. In July, the general secretary of Unite said that what Birmingham was proposing for its bin workers was fire and rehire. If this Labour Government do not like the idea of fire and rehire, when will they tell their colleagues in Birmingham about that?
Peter Kyle
I think that the hon. Gentleman is making an argument for the Bill. We want to ensure that every employer in the country has the same legislative framework in which to operate.
Peter Kyle
I will, but I must alert all Members to the fact that I want to have time to listen to their own speeches, so I shall be rattling through from now on.
Sir Desmond Swayne
What can the Secretary of State say to those in the boatbuilding industry who have made representations to me about protection from day one? When someone takes on a craftsman, it can take quite a long time to establish whether he is any good and up to the job.
Peter Kyle
The reassurance that I give is that we will implement this policy, having listened to employers. We will make sure that the rights to which we have committed in our manifesto are fully upheld.
What employers want is to have workers who are fully committed to their life in the workplace. If employees feel that they have an unreasonable sword of Damocles over their head, employers will not get the best productivity out of those workers.
Peter Kyle
I am going to make some progress.
We have said explicitly that our intention is to provide a less onerous approach for businesses to follow in order to dismiss someone during the statutory probation period for reasons to do with their performance and suitability for the role. The Government are committed to undertaking a public consultation to get the details of the statutory probation period right, to keep it light touch and to get the standards right. Most employers who use contractual probation periods operate them for six months or less. The Government’s preference is for the statutory probation period to be nine months long. That will enable an employer to operate a basic six-month probation period, with an option for extension where employers wish to give their employees further time to improve their performance. We will consult on the duration, which is why the Government will not agree to Lords amendments 23 and 106 to 120.
Lords amendment 48 seeks to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the requirements for seasonal workers when making regulations. The Government do not believe the amendment is necessary, because the Bill already reflects the realities of seasonal work. For example, it allows guaranteed offers for limited-term contracts where appropriate, such as for task-based or time-bound roles. This Government do not believe the amendment is necessary, as the approach taken in the Bill already protects seasonal jobs while ensuring fair rights for workers, which is why the Government decline to support this amendment.
Lords amendment 49 seeks to require a consultation on the effects of provisions in part 1, and to ensure that at least 500 small and medium-sized businesses are included in the consultation. SMEs are the backbone of the British economy, and their insights are vital to shaping policy that works in practice. That is why our approach to the implementation of the Bill includes 13 targeted consultations, running through to 2026. We think it is more effective and proportionate for us to engage extensively with SMEs, as planned through the consultation that we have described in our road map, and to ensure that SMEs’ views help shape the implementation. Given the comprehensive process, the Government consider that the amendment must be rejected.
Lords amendment 46 would have the effect of requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations within six months to extend the circumstances in which an employee is automatically considered to have been unfairly dismissed for whistleblowing. It would require certain employers to take responsible steps to investigate whistleblowing claims. The Government do not support the amendment. We recognise that the whistleblowing framework in the Employment Rights Act 1996 may not be operating as effectively as it should be, but we believe that any reform should be considered as part of a broader assessment of that framework. That is why the Government consider that the amendment must be rejected.
Lords amendment 47 would insert a new clause into the Bill that relates to workplace representation. The amendment would allow workers and employees to be accompanied at grievance hearings by a certified professional companion. The law already guarantees workers the right to be accompanied at a disciplinary or grievance hearing by a fellow worker, a trade union representative or an official employed by a trade union. Employers may allow other companions to attend formal meetings on a discretionary basis. The current law has served workers and employees for well over two decades. It strikes the right balance between fairness, flexibility and practicality, and we believe it should remain this way.
Lords amendment 60 seeks to remove the restrictions on young people aged 14 to 16 working on a heritage railway or a heritage tramway from the meaning of
“employment in an industrial undertaking”.
The Government do not believe that this amendment is necessary. The benefits of youth volunteering in heritage railways cannot be overestimated and, with proper health and safety management, it already works well. The Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920 does not ban youth volunteering in appropriate roles on heritage railways. Well-run schemes, such as the one in Swanage, show that young people can still take part safely and legally.
Liz Saville Roberts
I politely remind the Secretary of State that he is therefore advising heritage railways to in effect break the law, because that is how the law stands. If parents or a local authority were to bring an action against a heritage railway, it would find itself in such a position. If he cannot change that in this legislation, I really urge him to discuss with me how to bring this forward in another way.
Peter Kyle
This matter has been the source of a lot of consternation and examination in my Department. I assure the right hon. Member that we have looked very closely at it and believe that the existing law is fit for purpose in this case. We will proceed on that basis, but as she will have found during the time we have both been in this place, I am always happy to sit down with her, and especially, being so new in the job, so to learn about that specific case. However, we will proceed in that way because the advice is very clear on this matter.
Lords amendments 61 and 72 seek to remove clause 59 relating to trade union political funds from the Bill. Clause 59 reverses the changes introduced by the Trade Union Act 2016, reinstating arrangements whereby union members are automatically opted in to contribute to political funds, unless they choose to opt out. This is a key step in lifting the burden of the 2016 Act and returning to a long-standing precedent that worked for 70 years. Removing clause 59 would break a clear Government commitment, which is why the Government consider that Lords amendment 61 should be rejected.
Lords amendment 62 seeks to remove clause 65(2) from the Bill, the effect of which would be to retain the 50% turnout threshold requirement for industrial action ballots. The Government do not support this amendment. The Bill brings union democracy into line with other democratic mandates, including votes in this Parliament and elections for each and every one of us. Clause 65 is a step towards fairness and consistency in how we respect collective voices, which is why this Government consider that the amendment must be rejected.
Lords amendment 121 is another duplicate amendment. We agree that the school support staff negotiating body should not block employers that wish to go further than the minimum terms and conditions, but that is already stipulated in the Bill. The amendment duplicates the effect of proposed new section 148M(6)(b), which is why the Government will be rejecting the amendment.
I urge Members to support the Government amendments before the House, including the amendments in lieu in relation to the extension of rights to time off for special constables. We have listened throughout the Bill’s passage, and we have made meaningful changes where needed, including on bereavement leave and non-disclosure arrangements. We will continue to listen in relation to the further work to be undertaken when implementing the Bill.
The Employment Rights Bill is a major step forward in modernising protections and delivering on our commitment to make work pay. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the Bill, and I will now allow others to speak.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I welcome the new Secretary of State to his place, and congratulate him as well as the hon. Members for Halifax (Kate Dearden) and for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) on their appointments. His is a vital role in Government, and it will surely be a delight and a privilege for him to champion our hard-working, innovative businesses in Cabinet and on the world stage as President of the Board of Trade. I particularly welcome his comments that the Government’s priority must be to “double down” on growth and position themselves as
“an active partner that delivers success, supports new business and backs wealth creation.”
Where he does that, he can be assured of our support, but if that is really his view, we should not be debating this Bill today and the Government should never have brought it forward.
In fact, I well understand why Ministers may well be concerned about job insecurity and last-minute shift cancellations. After all, their predecessors, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) and the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), had their own Front Bench shifts today cancelled by the Prime Minister with barely a week’s notice. Apparently, that boss did not even have the decency to fire them in person, but at least they can take comfort in knowing that with the current rate of departures from No. 10, there will soon not be anyone left to do the sacking.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Does the shadow Minister understand the difference between fair dismissal and unfair dismissal?
Andrew Griffith
The shadow Minister absolutely understands that. He does so and understands the implication of clause 23 from having spoken to Make UK, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the British Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses, all of whom urge the Government to rethink on this clause. Business does not recognise a process that ends in a full legal tribunal, flanked by lawyers, after typically a two-year wait and lost management time, as light-touch. Legal fees alone for defending an unfair dismissal case range from £15,000 to £20,000.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that very few cases end up in a tribunal, particularly at a point where all due process happens? Not all dismissals are unfair.
Andrew Griffith
Of course not all dismissals are unfair, but if it was not a process that ended up in court or in a tribunal, we would not be facing a backlog of 491,000 individuals with current open cases—by the Government’s own figures—and business organisations would not be citing legal fees in that order of magnitude.
Sir Desmond Swayne
One reason that so many of those cases do not end up in a tribunal is that businesses, cognisant of the loss of management time and £15,000 to £20,000 in fees, simply pay up rather than contest.
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend, with his experience, is exactly right. Just think about the impact on a small business of a fee of that magnitude and the length of time it takes to get justice.
What is going to happen? This is a really important point. Those on the Government Benches will be living this reality over the remainder of their term, and they will have to account for it. Businesses will be discouraged from hiring anybody without a perfect CV and a proven track record of work. Who are we talking about? We are talking about young people, people with dyslexia and related conditions, and people with a period of inactivity on their CVs—such as former prisoners seeking a second chance to go straight. Those will be the victims of that particular measure.
Labour Ministers should realise that they will be the first victims of disagreeing with Lords amendment 62. The long-standing principle here is a simple one: we should not be allowing strikes to be called when a majority of union members have not even voted, let alone voted in favour. A strike could still proceed with just over a quarter of those eligible. Opposing this amendment will guarantee that unions are held hostage by a militant minority who force strikes even when the union’s own members do not support one. We can ill afford more strikes that crush growth, prevent workers from getting to work and endanger lives, and the public will not forget the change that this Government seek to make.
Amendment 61 is a Cross-Bench Lords amendment that would maintain a consensus arrived at by the Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding Committee—that only those who actively choose to contribute to a political fund opt in to do so. This is a basic principle that the Government have applied to services everywhere else in the economy, from beauty boxes, gyms and meditation apps to Netflix and newspaper subscriptions. Why should Britain’s workers not enjoy the same right? The only conceivable reason—it brings shame on anyone who votes against the amendment—is to swell the coffers of one political party.
Lords amendment 47, on the right to be accompanied, tries to finally level the playing field for the 80% of workers who are not in a union, but should have the same rights as trade union members to be supported in a disciplinary or grievance hearing. By voting against this modest but important reform, Labour is preserving what is essentially a closed shop that unions use to push people who do not want to join into doing so. We scrapped the closed shop decades ago, and no one should be bringing it back as a means of pressuring vulnerable workers into paying into union coffers.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Andrew Griffith
I will happily give way if the hon. Gentleman will talk about the other organisations that will do a brilliant job of representing employees.
Gareth Snell
Well, that wouldn’t be the Tory party, would it, Madam Deputy Speaker?
What the shadow Secretary of State seems not to understand is that workers cannot turn up to a trade union and go, “I’ve got a problem. Can I join and get representation, please?”. Almost every union in this country requires a qualifying period to get the representation he talks about—the idea that this is a closed shop is just nonsense.
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Member has probably wilfully misinterpreted what I said. I am talking about the right for individuals to be represented by a trade union or by a qualified professional from another domain, such as a qualified lawyer.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?
Andrew Griffith
Of course I will give way to the hon. Gentleman—we are missing him already.
Justin Madders
I am glad to be back.
The shadow Secretary of State just talked about legal fees for firms when it comes to defending tribunal cases. If the right to be accompanied is expanded to include lawyers, the response of firms will be, “We had better get a lawyer too”, and that will just put up costs, will it not?
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Member has done a great deal of work on the Bill, and it is a great shame that he was cut short in his prime, but with respect the point is about choice for the individual. In many cases, the long-standing right will be to be represented by a trade union, but it could also be a mediator or a qualified professional in any other domain. The point is not to extinguish that choice, which is absolutely—he will know this—what the amendment would do. The Bill—from a Government who in too many domains are now tolerant of a two-tier system—creates a two-tier system for workers’ rights.
Lords amendment 1 is a typical example of where the Government do not understand or have failed to listen to businesses, particularly hospitality and seasonal businesses. What started as an attempt to ban zero-hours contracts has morphed into a chain around the necks of both employers and workers. The Government will no doubt cry about unintended consequences when the time comes, but I can tell them now that the consequences will be clear, and a cacophony of business groups such as UK Hospitality, the British Retail Consortium and the Federation of Small Businesses have explained this precisely to them. I gently say that if the Government feel so strongly about zero-hours contracts, the best way of putting their own house in order would be to start with tackling precisely those that operate in the armed forces reserves.
Lords amendment 48 would protect the countless businesses across the country that rely directly on seasonal work. From the coasts of Devon and Cornwall to Great Yarmouth, and from the Secretary of State’s and my own county of Sussex to Ayrshire, there are millions of workers employed in seasonal industries. Seasonal work often takes place in communities that are heavily reliant on tourism, both foreign and domestic, and that are competing in a competitive international market. The Government have already taken an axe to the hospitality and retail industries with the removals of relief. The amendment would be a very good way of going in some direction to support them.
In opposing Lords amendment 49, the Government are showing their commitment to ignore small business above all others. The Secretary of State says that he wants to listen to businesses, and I take him at his word, but why then oppose this amendment, which would codify precisely that? Countless small business will have a real challenge in dealing with this Bill, which is now 330 pages of red tape. Why on earth would the Government put their Members through the Lobby to oppose listening and consulting with small businesses?
We support Lords amendment 60, which has cross-party support, at the behest of millions of those who enjoy heritage railway attractions. If the Secretary of State has not yet made it to the Amberley museum, which is not that far from his constituency—[Interruption.] He knows of it? Well, he is welcome to come and visit and listen to how the volunteers who are gaining valuable experience will be affected.
I am perplexed about why the Government are so opposed to Lords amendment 46 on the protection of whistleblowers. It is genuinely confusing. Time and again Ministers on both sides of this House have come to the Dispatch Box to talk about Government scandals. We have seen brave people in organisations try to speak up and raise their concerns, only to have them dismissed. The Government claim that the Bill is about workers’ rights yet seem to have zero interest in protecting workers who try to reveal serious problems in the private and public sectors. I urge all colleagues to read that for themselves and to make up their own minds on where they think the right place to be is. Good luck to those who vote against that entirely reasonable amendment, which would protect people who do the right thing, and then have to try to explain to their constituents why they did so.
Justin Madders
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which includes an election donation from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and my membership of the Unite and GMB unions.
I welcome the Bill’s return to the House and the opportunity to consider the amendments made in the other place. I also welcome the new Secretary of State to his place and thank him for his kind words. I also welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), to her ministerial position—undoubtedly the best job in Government—and wish her every success in that role. I know that she will be a champion for workers and that she will be committed to introducing the “make work pay” agenda in full, as we promised in our manifesto.
I am speaking a few rows back from where I had expected to be today. The shadow Secretary of State mentioned getting a short-notice cancellation payment—I am afraid that has not winged its way to me yet. However, I am delighted to be speaking in any capacity, because this Bill really is what a Labour Government should be delivering on. I was able, alongside my right hon. Friends the Members for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), to take the new deal for working people—a policy programme carefully developed in opposition—and turn it into legislation that was laid before the House within 100 days of taking office, as we promised we would. While I started my ministerial role as I ended it—fired with enthusiasm—my hopes for the meaningful change that the Bill can deliver remain undimmed.
That we are here entering the Bill’s final stages is testament to the hard work and dedication of those who developed the policy programme both in opposition and in government. I place on record my thanks to those in the Department for Business and Trade who helped shape those manifesto commitments into the Bill. I also pay tribute to Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, who did a sterling job of guiding the legislation through the other place amid intense scrutiny and opposition, which of course we will talk about.
I will not go through every Lords amendment; I will just pick out a few of those I consider to be most damaging and undermining of the intentions that we set out in our manifesto about how we will rebalance the workplace to make it work for ordinary people. First, Lords amendment 1 completely undermines the principle, set out in our manifesto, of banning exploitative zero-hours contracts. The amendment would water down the commitment we gave to provide workers with an offer of a guaranteed-hours contract to a right to request guaranteed hours.
There has long been a misunderstanding—perhaps a wilful misunderstanding—of how the policy operates. It does not prevent those who want to remain on zero-hours contracts from continuing to do so, and neither does it prevent employers from hiring seasonal workers. It simply provides the opportunity for those who want certainty about the hours they work, week to week and month to month, to have guaranteed hours. We understand that not everyone will take advantage of that, but it might just be a lifeline for those who struggle to balance fixed costs such as bills, housing and childcare by taking out the stress of the potential variations that we see so often in zero-hours contracts at the moment. This is a very good thing for the Government to be doing, because one of the key principles in the Bill is the need to restore security and dignity at work, which would be damaged by the amendment.
I understand that the noble Lords argued that the wording of the amendment would prevent employers from rejecting guaranteed-hours requests. It is presented as a reasonable compromise that achieves the same outcome, maintaining workers’ rights to guaranteed hours while removing the employer’s requirement to make offers. I disagree with that analysis. It shifts the right from one that is passively applied to one that has to be actively invoked by workers. This means that an individual would have to know their rights and have the confidence to approach their employer in order to benefit from them.
As the Secretary of State said, those working on zero-hours contracts are some of the least empowered workers in this country, their contracts are inherently precarious, and those working on them are more likely to be younger, working part time and in low-paid sectors. There are plenty of examples out there of how the allocation of hours has been used by management as a tool of control and, in some cases, a tool of abuse. The Bill already sets out a number of anti-avoidance measures, because we know that that massive power imbalance has to be addressed, and this amendment would fatally undermine all that good work.
I have similar concerns about Lords amendments 6 and 7, which seek to impose 48 hours as a reasonable notice period. If passed, these amendments would remove any chance for workers or employers to make representations in a consultation process, and instead force an arbitrary cut-off of 48 hours. Throughout my time as a Minister, we were committed to consulting widely on changes and incorporating the feedback we received into our approach. I remember the Conservatives complaining during the original passage of the Bill that we were not consulting enough, yet now they lend their support to amendments that would chop that consultation off entirely.
That said, I must welcome the comments from Opposition Front Benchers in the other place, who indicated that they supported the principle of compensation for cancelled or curtailed shifts. I note that Lord Hunt of Wirral said:
“We are fully in agreement that workers deserve reasonable notice of shifts. That is a fair and modern expectation.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 2025; Vol. 847, c. 1612.]
Quite how that fits with the Tory pledge to scrap the entire Bill, I do not know. Of course, it is to be expected, as night follows day, that they will object to measures that improve the rights of working people, but that would mean scrapping things that I thought even they supported, including ending non-disclosure agreements for victims of sexual harassment, a new right for bereavement leave for those who have suffered a pregnancy loss, and finally an end to fire and rehire, which they did so much to condemn while in government but did nothing of substance to deal with. That is the Conservative position on this, and it is something that the British people will completely and wholeheartedly reject.
Lords amendment 23 relates to unfair dismissal, which is something I know rather a lot about. It seeks to impose a six-month qualifying period for unfair dismissal rights rather than day one rights, which everyone on the Labour Benches has campaigned for. This is another brazen attempt by the other place to remove a clear manifesto commitment. I and other Labour Members were elected on a mandate to introduce basic rights, including unfair dismissal rights, from day one. How can we allow people who essentially have a job for life to prevent millions of people in this country from getting basic employment protections on day one? It is fundamentally wrong that workers can currently be treated so disposably, and that they can be dismissed arbitrarily with no legal recourse for two years. This is about fairness. A worker deserves to be treated with dignity, fairness and respect, no matter how long they have worked for an employer.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend for the work that he has done and that the Department continues to do on this. One of the interesting things about this provision is that, in 2013, the Conservatives changed the period from 12 months to 24 months. They increased the amount of time that people were in an insecure position in the workplace. It is essential that we support working families and working people, so does he agree that this is absolutely the right step forward?
Justin Madders
I certainly do. In my conversations with employers, I did not come across any who were prepared to defend the status quo of a two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal, because they recognise that is an awfully long time to be in employment without any protection at all.
The Government are sensitive to concerns about hiring, however, and we have included provisions in the Bill to establish a statutory probationary period during which an employee’s performance and suitability can be established, and a lighter-touch dismissal procedure will apply during that time. This will mean that, to coin a phrase, if a new hire is not working out, an employer will be able to follow a lighter-touch procedure to dismiss them fairly. But crucially, there will still have to be a process; there cannot be an arbitrary dismissal without explanation, as happens far too often now.
We know that recruiting someone is an expensive and time-consuming business, if it is done properly, so why would we not expect the same care and attention to be put into determining whether someone had a future in the business at all? This country, to our shame, has one of the least regulated approaches to dismissal protection in the OECD, leaving an estimated 9 million workers vulnerable to dismissals without protections. How can someone plan their life, make financial commitments and so forth if they can be sacked at the drop of a hat? We believe that this must change. People deserve greater security and dignity at work, and they deserve to be treated fairly, not just as disposable commodities.
This Bill strikes the right balance, and although much of the detail is to be determined by consultation and regulations—I will come back to that later—it sends an important message that we will not accept the race to the bottom any more and that dignity and security at work start from day one. That is the lodestone of what a Labour Government should be about.
I am delighted that the Bill is on track to become law in a matter of weeks. It is a landmark piece of legislation that will end the race to the bottom and provide the biggest uplift in workers’ rights in a generation. We on the Labour side have long been clear that it will benefit everyone across the country. It will be good for workers and it will be good for businesses.
Passing this Bill is not, of course, the end of the matter. There is so much more that needs to be done outside the Bill, particularly on finally ending the industrial-scale exploitation that is bogus self-employment. We cannot have a Bill that massively increases protections for millions of people at work but fails to address the growing scandal of a deliberate manipulation of the law to deny people the same basic protections. Over the coming years, there will be a range of secondary legislation, codes of practice and guidance issued to implement the Bill’s provisions. I wish the new Minister every success in working through and navigating the 80 or so statutory instruments that will be needed to ensure that the Bill is implemented in full and that we stick to the road map that was published earlier in the summer. I welcome the Secretary of State’s comment that the road map remains in place in full.
However, given the volume and complexity of all this—the details of the consultations, the scope of the regulations, the language in the codes of practice and even the commencement dates—it goes without saying that there are plenty of opportunities for those who do not want to see workers’ rights improved in this country to chip away at the strong baseline that the Bill represents, and of course it is far easier to do that in some stuffy Committee Room away from the main Chamber. I do not think that is the Minister’s intention, but I am not sure that everyone shares our enthusiasm for improving the rights of millions of working people, so we will all be looking at this closely and encouraging the Minister to keep to our manifesto commitments that we all believe so strongly in.
On that point, I know how enthusiastic Labour Members are about the Bill, and how enthusiastic many of the people we represent are about it, so let us see that enthusiasm replicated across the whole of Government. What better way to demonstrate that we are still the party of working people, and what better way to show that democratic politics can still make a difference than by championing the many ways that this Bill will improve people’s lives? From the shop worker on a zero-hours contract who for the first time will have a right to guaranteed hours, to the social care assistant whose voice will finally be heard through a national negotiating body, to the warehouse operative who will be able to have a trade union collectively bargain on their behalf, this Bill can be the antidote to the politics of division and despair. Let us not be timid in our backing of improved employment rights. Let us not apologise for at last restoring balance to the workplace. Let us be confident, and committed to all the good things the Bill can achieve, and let us shout them from the rooftops.
This Bill is Labour at its best. It shows us what can be done when the broadest experiences and the voices of our movement are harnessed together to deliver change. I am proud that I played my part in that, and I will do all I can to ensure that we deliver on the promises we made to the British people to truly make sure that work pays.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), and to hear his passion for the Bill; I wish him every success. I also welcome the new Secretary of State for Business and Trade to his place. I look forward to opposing him.
The Liberal Democrats support many of the Bill’s aims. We have long called for employment rights to be strengthened in several ways, including by boosting statutory sick pay, strengthening support for whistleblowers and increasing support for carers. There is a lot in the Bill that we support in principle, and that moves the country in the right direction. However, we remain concerned about how many of the measures will be implemented. We must ensure that the legislation strikes the right balance for both employees and business. Some of our worries arose from the extent to which crucial detail has been left to secondary legislation, or will be subject to consultations. That does not facilitate stability and certainty for business or workers, and it precludes long-term planning. That will particularly impact small businesses, start-up businesses and those businesses looking to grow. That is why we are supportive of, for example, the amendment that sets the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims at six months; that would create certainty for business. Any new measures to support workers must go hand in hand with much-needed reforms to support our small businesses, which provide employment. Those reforms include reform of the broken business rates system, a removal of trade barriers, and proper reform of the apprenticeship levy.
I am in favour of Lords amendment 1, which would change the obligation to offer guaranteed hours to a right to request them. The Liberal Democrats have long stood for giving zero-hours workers security about their working patterns, and we are deeply concerned that too many zero-hours workers struggle with unstable incomes, job insecurity and difficulties in planning for the future. However, we also recognise that many value the flexibility that such arrangements provide. Many young people and those balancing caring responsibilities alongside work value adaptability in their shift patterns. It is therefore important to strike a balance that ensures that workers can have security and flexibility.
Katrina Murray
I spoke to a hospital catering worker in my constituency who was contracted to work 12 hours a week, but she regularly worked 36 hours a week. However, when she took annual leave, she was paid for 12 hours a week. Does the hon. Lady not think that this catering worker deserves the respect of actually being paid for the hours she works, and of having a contract for the hours she works?
Sarah Olney
If the hon. Lady supported Lords amendment 1, the catering worker would have a right to request, and could get the certainty she requires. The amendment would very much offer that right, which she currently does not have, but it would also mean there was no requirement on the employer to maintain records, and the employer would not have the administrative burden of being forced to offer those hours to workers in the industry who did not require such flexibility. That is why we think the amendment strikes the right balance.
We strongly support the principle of enabling workers to obtain fixed-hours contracts, but we have concerns about the implementation method proposed in the Bill. Small businesses have highlighted that having to offer employees fixed-hours contracts on a rolling basis could impose significant administrative burdens. Many small employers lack human resource or legal departments, and the change could be a significant cost for those with limited resources. That would compound other challenges, such as the recent increase in employers’ national insurance contributions and the fallout from the previous Government’s damaging Brexit deal. In the retail and hospitality sector, part-time and entry-level roles are often taken up by young people looking for flexible hours, people with caring responsibilities, and others who may not want to make long-term work commitments. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) offered a compelling example of a zero-hours contract giving someone what they required from work. For all those groups, flexibility is key.
The amendment is in line with our long-standing manifesto commitment to give zero-hours and agency workers the right to request fixed-hours contracts—a right that employers could not refuse unreasonably. The measure would maintain a flexibility that benefits both parties, whereas an obligation to offer guaranteed hours imposes a significant burden, which does not benefit either party.
We are clear that employees should be supported to exercise this right—and all employment rights—without fear of any negative consequences in their workplace, and we are pleased that the Government have taken steps to set up a unified Fair Work Agency. We hope that the Government will look into our other proposals—for example, the proposal to give zero-hours workers a 20% higher minimum wage to compensate them for the uncertainty of fluctuating hours.
The amendment strikes a balance between security for workers and flexibility for employers. Much of the contention about the Bill relates to the lack of detail and clarity around key definitions, which makes it hard for businesses and employers to plan. That is why I also wish to speak in favour of Lords amendment 8, which would define a short-notice cancellation as a cancellation with 48 hours’ notice. That provides a workable balance. It gives employers clarity, while ensuring that workers are compensated when shifts are cancelled late.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member agree that fair notice may be relative to the industry we are talking about? What is fair notice in, say, the retail sector may be completely different from what is fair notice for someone working on an offshore oil rig.
Sarah Olney
No, I do not think so. Forty-eight hours is a reasonable amount of notice in any sector. That is the kind of notice that enables, for example, parents to rearrange childcare, or other members of the family to rearrange their shifts. The 48 hours is a proper definition of reasonable notice, and 48 hours is 48 hours, whether you work on an oil rig or in a shop. I disagree that it is context-dependent.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I am passionate about ensuring that single parents can enter the workforce, and a big barrier to that is childcare. When thinking about which amendments the hon. Member will support, has she discussed the matter with any organisations representing single parents? Forty-eight hours does not seem like a lot of time.
Sarah Olney
As someone with a long history of having to arrange childcare at short notice, I am well aware of the limitations that needing to arrange childcare presents, particularly for working women, both those who are single parents and those in a relationship. Forty-eight hours is not ideal, but it is a reasonable compromise, and it is absolutely vital that employers have clarity about what “reasonable notice” looks like in this circumstance.
I wish to speak in favour of Lords amendment 48. Businesses, particularly those in the hospitality sector, that rely on seasonal workers are particularly vulnerable to changes in labour regulations and the knock-on impacts on the cost and availability of labour. The sustainability of farming businesses, for example, depends on being able to get the right people to the right place at the right time, and obstacles to that can have a big impact on ability to generate produce for sale, and therefore on the sustainability of the business. If we allow a different set of regulations to apply to seasonal work, a clear definition of “seasonal work” must be created to prevent employers from avoiding their legitimate responsibilities by claiming seasonal work in inappropriate circumstances. While we do not believe that this legislation should create contrasting employment law requirements for businesses, we continue to defend the principle that businesses should be properly considered when secondary legislation is created, so I urge Members to support the amendment.
Lords amendment 46, tabled by my good friend and Richmond Park predecessor Baroness Kramer, would introduce protections for whistleblowers. It follows her long-standing campaign for support for whistleblowers, and I pay tribute to her commitment to the cause.
Ian Roome
There is no standard requirement for most companies to have a whistleblowing policy. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill would be a good opportunity to put in place real protections for whistleblowers who try to highlight crime, danger and malpractice in the workplace?
Sarah Olney
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The current framework for whistleblowing applies only if somebody has lost their job. It does not address the duty on businesses to follow up whistleblowers’ serious concerns about crimes. That urgently needs to be addressed.
Too many whistleblowers who raised serious concerns about matters ranging from fraud to patient safety are ignored by their employers, or are reticent to speak out because of fears of unfair repercussions. The new clause in Lords amendment 46 has received the support of numerous international civil society organisations, including Protect and Spotlight on Corruption. It would be a long-overdue update to our once world-leading whistleblowing legislation, and I urge colleagues from across the House to support the change.
I support Lords amendment 47, which would expand the right to be accompanied to employment hearings to include certified professional companions. Currently, employees may be accompanied only by certified trade union representatives, leaving many workers to navigate proceedings alone. Although trade unions provide valuable support to their members, only 22% of workers are in a trade union, including only 12% of private sector workers, with recent figures at a record low. The current provisions made sense at a time when trade union membership was higher nationally, but those provisions have become largely outdated as trade union membership has fallen and the labour market has modernised. Without the amendment, we consign many employees facing unfair dismissal to navigating the requirements of disciplinary hearings on their own, without any kind of professional or educated support.
Sarah Olney
No, I do not. I think that people should have the freedom not to join a trade union if that is what they wish, not least because their trade union contributions might go to a party that they do not vote for. Many professions these days are better represented not by trade unions that cover a whole range of different employment categories but by professional bodies. As an accountant, I was a member of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants. Had I been facing a disciplinary in relation to my professional duties, I would have been much better represented by a fellow member of that body than by a trade union.
Katrina Murray
I am a member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Professional bodies are there to set the standards of the profession. Does the hon. Lady not recognise the conflict of interest that could arise from the professional body representing an employee at a disciplinary hearing when it has to uphold the standards of the profession?
Sarah Olney
I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but a fellow qualified accountant would be better able to advise somebody facing a disciplinary than an official from a general trade union, who would not necessarily understand the points in dispute.
Gareth Snell
The hon. Lady makes good points in some parts of her speech, but not in others. The point of a trade union representative—or any representative who goes with an individual to a disciplinary process—is not to advise on the particulars of the worker’s skillset, but to ensure that processes are followed and the worker’s rights are protected. I fully understand what she says about accountancy, but are there people in her professional organisation who can give her employment rights advice? Disciplinaries relate to employees’ rights, not their professional skillsets.
Sarah Olney
As the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) have said, that has not been a requirement for professional bodies, but if we create the right for suitably qualified professionals to accompany employees, I fully expect that those bodies would go on to develop that capability. It is surely up to an employee to decide whether they want a fellow professional or a trade union official to protect and defend their interests. They should have the opportunity to make that choice for themselves.
The Liberal Democrats also support the retention of the opt-in system for contributions to trade union political funds. We believe in maximising choice and transparency for individuals in relation to the political funds to which they contribute. We therefore oppose measures that would make it an opt-out system.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my support of the trade unions. On the thresholds, does my hon. Friend agree that those who choose to abstain should be counted as “no” votes?
Sarah Olney
I am slightly surprised to be referred to as “hon. Friend”, not least because I am probably going to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. To undertake such massive action, including in the NHS, and on the tube—we saw the level of disruption that that caused the public last week—there needs to be a positive vote in favour of strike action, which is why I back this amendment.
Ian Lavery
I simply mean that if there is a threshold of 50% and it is not met, are those who did not participate in the ballot classed as “no” votes? Is that correct? It is pretty simple.
Sarah Olney
I think the point that the hon. Gentleman is making is that people who did not express a view either way should be counted as voting against. What I am saying is that in order to justify the levels of disruption that strike action has caused recently, it is important that a trade union can demonstrate that it has majority support from its workforce. That is why I support the amendment. We believe that the current threshold for strike action is suitable, and that making it easier to strike risks putting further pressure on public services and damaging the economy, as we saw last week with the disruption across the capital caused by the tube strikes.
Most employers are responsible businesses that want to do the right thing by their staff, and many of them support the aims of the Bill. However, they have significant concerns about the lack of clarity and the proposed implementation process. So much of the detail of the legislation is still undecided and will compound the challenges that small businesses are facing—from the Government’s changes to employers’ national insurance and the reduction in business rates relief, to the absence of any meaningful action to bring down commercial energy prices. We must find a way to support and provide clarity for businesses that are trying to plan ahead. The Liberal Democrats support many aims of the Bill and the spirit of measures that strengthen employment rights, but we will support the Lords amendments that will help to ensure that the legislation strikes the right balance for workers and businesses.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
I welcome the Government amendments, and thank those who have steered the legislation to this point.
This is a generational upgrade in employment rights, and as a Labour MP, I am very proud to support it. It is a landmark shift in some ways—a declaration that in modern Britain, hard work should be rewarded with decent, stable work, security, dignity and fairness. Having worked in the private and public sectors at different times in my life, I believe that the Bill strikes a fair balance between the workplace rights of the individual and the rights of the employer. That is why I welcome the extensive consultation that the Government have undertaken with the private sector and with trade unions and other organisations. I am a member of USDAW—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—and the National Education Union and have proudly represented and spoken for them in my career to date.
I wish to speak about a number of the Opposition Lords amendments and my concerns about them in short order. I have concerns about Lords amendment 1. Zero-hours contracts have allowed people to be trapped by insecure work, low pay and one-sided flexibility. I know from speaking to shop workers in my constituency that they have not been able to plan ahead with their finances because of the unscrupulous nature of some working relationships with employers. That has left families unable to plan their weekly shopping and childcare as well as their futures, especially in respect of securing loans and other financial settlements. It has become a way for employers to manage down by allowing too many people to take very short hours and then not allowing them to gain other forms of employment.
The Government’s measures to ensure zero-hours contracts are controlled—where the individual can request zero-hours contracts but there is an onus on the employer to support guaranteed hours—strike the correct balance. I therefore reject Lords amendment 1 as the Government’s measures strike a fair balance between the employee requesting and the employer giving.
Lords amendments 23, 106 and 120 relate to sensible changes on unfair dismissal. As has been mentioned, under the last Government the unfair dismissal provision was set at 12 months and that was extended to two years under the current Government. This does not take into account the fact that many who are subject to unfair dismissal might have been working for the employer for a significant period and also be subject to paternity leave, parental leave and other types of support. We should be supporting people with secure provision in work, and I believe that six months is a fair period in which most employers would be able to grade that assessment.
I do not accept Lords amendment 48 on seasonal work. It would add a loophole by which employers could exploit workers. The Bill pays due regard to the realities of seasonal work, both at Christmas and in farming and other types of practice, and I would welcome consultation on such provision continuing.
On political funds, I urge colleagues to reject Lords amendments 61 and 72. We must return to a model that has worked for over 70 years where people choose to opt out of political funds, because securing employment rights is one of the endeavours of a trade union. The trade unions were set up to secure rights for employees, and seeking to achieve that is one of their political endeavours.
I have concerns about Lords amendment 62. The Conservatives complain about the 50% threshold but they did not adopt that in their former leadership election, and perhaps it will not be the threshold in their leadership election to come in the next six months. If they adopted their recommended 50% threshold of members, we might not see a replacement. If they cannot use it for their own internal processes, that raises questions about why others should be made to do so. I also encourage the Government to consider online balloting as a next necessary step. We do online balloting for many of our leadership processes and it is a sensible way forward, as well as other forms of engagement by post.
As a former teacher, I do not support Lords amendment 121. Negotiations should be conducted in a fair way and the Bill covers that, preventing one-sided correspondence between teachers and their professional body.
As a former special constable, while I accept Lords amendment 21 in principle in supporting our special constables on the ground, that should not just be for a single group of people but should be considered for others, perhaps including carers and other support workers. I welcome the Government’s review of employees’ right to take time off; that is the most sensible approach.
On balance, I am not surprised that the Conservatives and others do not support the Bill—I and others have written as USDAW MPs. I believe that we should support a balanced approach between employees and employers. I welcome the work the Government and former Ministers have done to that end. The Bill strikes a fair balance between those who work in the private and public sectors and the obligations employers are to offer, which is why I will be supporting the Government tonight.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to two specific Lords amendments proposed in turn by Lord Burns and Lord Sharpe in the other place. While addressing different clauses, both amendments essentially come down to the same principle: defending fairness, transparency and democratic legitimacy against narrow sectional interests.
On Lords amendment 61, in 2016, after long and at times fraught debate, Parliament reached a carefully constructed settlement on the question of trade union political funds. That settlement was not only fair and balanced but, crucially, was broadly accepted by all sides. The compromise was a simple one: it resulted in new members contributing to a union’s political fund only if that member gave their active, informed consent. In contrast, existing members were left untouched and, importantly, unions were required to remind all members annually of their right to change their decision. This is both a fair and a balanced settlement. It is not a carve-up; it is a genuine compromise. It respected both the collective strength of unions and the personal liberty of individuals.
Yet what do we see now? We see a Government seeking to dismantle that settlement, and the result is a return to an era where consent was assumed and where individuals found themselves supporting causes they did not share simply because the rules made it cumbersome to say otherwise. That is not a positive reform; it is regression. In every walk of life—whether a subscription service, an insurance policy, or a mobile phone contract—the public quite properly expect clarity in respect of the terms they are committing to. Why should those standards of fairness be cast aside when it comes to political funds of unions closely bound to the governing party?
Lords amendment 62 deals with the threshold for industrial action. Strikes have consequences. We have seen that only in the last week, with transport links across London brought to a standstill, commutes drastically prolonged, and the consequential significant disruption to people’s day-to-day lives. As a former doctor who, I should point out, did not go on strike in years gone by, I have seen at first hand the consequences of medics taking industrial action: operations cancelled; out-patient appointments postponed; and the provision of healthcare delayed. When the livelihoods and wellbeing of citizens up and down this country are so significantly impacted, it is neither unreasonable nor undesirable that such action rests upon a clear majority. The 50% threshold is precisely that safeguard. It serves as a clear assurance that industrial action has broad legitimacy and is not just the preserve of a militant minority. Yet this Government seek to sweep away that protection by voting down this very sensible and considered improvement to the legislation.
Both these amendments remind us that democracy depends upon consent, transparency and legitimacy. Those values have been the bedrock of Britain for generations. It would be a poor bargain indeed if they were set aside to placate the financial and political interests of a narrow few.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield Heeley) (Lab)
I rise to speak to new clause 22, which will ban the use of non-disclosure agreements in cases of harassment and discrimination.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) who did remarkable work in pushing this huge Employment Rights Bill through in a relatively short space of time. I am incredibly grateful for their support and hard work. I also place on the record my thanks to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) who has worked on this issue over many years, and to the countless other campaigners in both Houses who have not stopped until this legislation was to become law.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Sadly, we are not here to relitigate this entire Bill, which is so wide in scope and impact, and yet so skimpy in detail, having been cobbled together for a headline under Labour’s “first 100 days” banner. I refer the House to Lords amendment 61, which without doubt will be dashed aside as Labour seeks to salvage something, anything, as a legacy for its deposed red queen, the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), whose Bill this very much remains.
Lords amendment 61 would reinstate the requirement for trade union members to opt in to contribute to the political fund. Incredibly, Labour Members, who bristle at commercial subscriptions that rely on consumer inertia, will likely vote down this sensible and proportionate change. The reasons why demonstrate the wider issue with the Bill. The left’s hive mind aside, the Bill is a love letter to the unions—a thank you for all the support.
Labour has been bought with union gold, with donations totalling almost £40 million since the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) took the helm of his party. It means that the Bill is payback for the unions, all the time masquerading as a fillip for the working class. We know how important that working-class concept is for the Labour party from watching the candidates for the vacant deputy leadership engage in a “prolier than thou” contest, with hairshirt-and-gravel shades of Monty Python’s “Four Yorkshiremen” sketch thrown in.
In reality, the Bill has little to do with actual working-class people, and the Labour party has no monopoly on them in their ranks. Instead, the Bill does rather more for what is sometimes called the “boutique left”—the trade union apparatchiks and their ilk. The Bill only makes sense if we see it through the skewed prism of every employer being a robber baron and every union organiser a saint. It does nothing for all those who will struggle to find a job in the first place, as its granting of day one rights will give companies—already facing big bills thanks to employer national insurance contribution rises—pause for thought. Other amendments fight a rearguard action with a sensible six-month qualification period. The Bill means that unions are going to party like it is 1979—but they should have a care. In ’79, restive unions triggered strike after strike, sounding the death knell for both their own unfettered power and for the Labour Government.
Lords amendment 62 addresses the threshold for strike action, meaning that 50% of eligible members would have to vote for action. Are the unions not better being sure of the complete backing of their members before lighting the picket-line braziers? Again, the unions should learn the lessons of the past. Next year marks a century since the general strike. Although often talked of in reverential tones by the left, the strike left the unions’ proud red banners in the dirt and the miners it was meant to support back in the underground galleries with worse pay conditions. Why? Because the strike alienated the public. Last week, the chat from the man forced on to the Clapham omnibus when London was crippled by transport strikes was less, “Up the workers!” than, “Right up the workers,” with their £65,000 base salaries and demands for a still shorter working week.
Business cannot afford the Bill unamended, as it will take an estimated £5 billion out at a time of belt tightening. The public cannot afford the Bill unamended, as it will facilitate more frequent and more damaging strikes, and it will make jobs harder to come by. Labour itself cannot afford the Bill unamended. Labour Members may think that, with scandal and crisis all around, they cannot sink any lower in the popularity stakes. Oh, they can, and the Bill is the ticking timebomb that could take them to their nadir faster than they imagine.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to my proud membership of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the GMB. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who has just popped out for some well-earned tea, for his hard work steering the Bill through the House. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my equally hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), to her place; we both know that she has big shoes to fill.
Today, we finally arrive at the concluding stages of this historic Bill’s long journey through Parliament. It is a moment that has been many years in the making. For well over a decade, working people have been calling for the protections that this landmark piece of legislation will introduce. It is our duty to deliver them, and to deliver them in full. Last year, people voted for change. They are crying out for change, and this Bill delivers real, meaningful and positive change. It is therefore immensely frustrating, although sadly not surprising, to see the old coalition band get back together in the other place, to have one final go at obstructing this Bill through changes, like Lords amendment 1, which will be the focus of my remarks.
One of the defining aims of the Bill is to end exploitative short and zero-hours contracts. The right to a guaranteed-hours contract is at the heart of the new deal for working people because, as I said on Report, the rise of one-sided flexibility has been one of the most damaging labour market developments of the past 14 years. Such contracts leave workers—often the lowest paid—vulnerable to sudden changes in income, with weekly working hours varying unpredictably. It is an unstable, precarious life that many are forced into, and it is long past time that this exploitative practice was brought to an end.
Lords amendment 1, a throwback team effort from the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, seeks to replace the Bill’s right to a guaranteed-hours contract with a far weaker “right to request”. At just five words long, the amendment may seem minor, but it is anything but. As working people know from bitter experience, a right to request often means no right at all. Unfortunately, it is clear from the comments made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) that either Liberal Democrats do not understand or they are wilfully misrepresenting the amendment.
Lords amendment 1 creates a loophole, enabling unscrupulous employers to use pressure or coercion to deter employees from making requests. It also puts that crucial protection out of reach of those who simply are not aware of their rights in the first place. Far from delivering a new right, it reopens the door to workplace conflict, insecurity and exploitation, something of which I am sure the Liberal Democrats would not be proud. It is completely at odds with the spirit and purpose of the provision, and it must be rejected.
We must deliver greater security, stability and dignity to people in their working lives. The right to a guaranteed-hours contract, and the increased financial security that brings with it, is central to achieving that. It will be transformative for living standards, productivity and the economy. I urge colleagues from across the House not to undermine this essential provision and to reject Lords amendment 1. Working people are counting on all of us to do the right thing by them.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I am pleased to speak in favour of the Government amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 21, which commits the Government to reviewing whether to add special constables to the list of roles that entitle an employee to request unpaid time off work from their employer under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Special constables are volunteers who give their time freely, at no cost to the taxpayer, to support our police forces and keep our communities safe. They hold the same powers as regular constables: the power to arrest, to search and to detain. They carry the same responsibilities, face the same dangers and accept the same risks. Yet, unlike their regular colleagues, they are unpaid.
The special constabulary is one of the most remarkable institutions of British policing, with its history stretching back almost two centuries. The Special Constables Act 1831 allowed justices of the peace to conscript volunteers to help restore order during riots and unrest. The specials were called upon again during the first world war, when regular officers enlisted to fight. Their success led to the Special Constables Act 1923, which ensured their permanent place in policing.
From their inception, specials were designed to be a national contingency force: citizens stepping forward in times of crisis to strengthen the police service when needed most. That role is no less relevant today. The Government recently published a resilience plan, addressing the higher level of threat we face from Russia, global instability and multiple risks here at home. In such a context, specials are not a relic of the past, but a vital part of our security and civil defence framework, and a reserve force in all but name.
Andy McDonald
I proudly refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which relates to support from trades unions. I welcome the Secretary of State and the new Employment Rights Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), to their places. I especially pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax for her support and hard work in the taskforce, when I was shadow Secretary of State for Employment Rights and Protections, that led to the production of the new deal for working people. We are in good hands as she carries on the excellent work. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) for his excellent stewardship in securing the Employment Rights Bill and taking it thus far.
I welcome the return of the Employment Rights Bill and the opportunity to address the urgent priorities of the people of this country, which are improving employment rights for better security at work and, ultimately, better pay from work. The cost of living crisis remains a burning issue, and giving people the tools at work to tackle in-work poverty is crucial. This Bill starts the process of delivering much-needed dignity and security for working people. It will not have escaped the attention of colleagues that Members of the party now purporting to speak for working people are nowhere to be seen in this debate. We know whose side the Reform party is on, and it is not working people.
These Lords amendments demonstrate the problems before us. I urge the House to reject the Opposition’s amendments, which, if passed, would weaken the rights and protections that this Bill seeks to deliver.
On Lords amendment 1, which would water down the right to guaranteed hours, let us be clear: moving from a duty on employers to proactively offer secure contracts to a model in which workers must request them would completely undermine the purpose of the Bill. Vulnerable workers, often young people on their very first job, should not be left in the position of having to plead with their employer for basic security. We have heard from Unite members such as Izzy, a pub worker who felt unable to raise issues for fear that her hours would be cut, and Caren, a restaurant worker who was left with 40 hours one week and barely any the next, with her mental health paying the price. This House cannot endorse a model that forces workers into the role of Oliver Twist, asking, “Please, Sir, may I have some more?” The duty must rest firmly with employers.
Lords amendments 7 and 8 would reduce access to short-notice cancellation payments. Again, the effect is to let employers off the hook. A 48-hour limit is wholly inadequate. Imagine a parent who is told late on a Friday night that their Monday shift has been cancelled; there is no compensation, but there is still childcare to pay for.
Mr Joshua Reynolds
The hon. Gentleman says that a 48-hour time period is unacceptable, yet the Bill does not specify what time period would be acceptable. Does he have an idea in mind of what that number would be? How many businesses has he spoken to about that?
Andy McDonald
The amendment speaks to those sorts of figures. I am making the point that that sort of notice is simply not acceptable.
People cannot live structured lives and be able to plan for their futures under such a dreadful regime, and I reject it wholeheartedly. That is not reasonable notice; it is a transfer of cost and stress on to the worker. USDAW’s evidence shows that, in many sectors, workers already get four weeks’ notice of shifts. The risk here is that by lowering the standard, we drag conditions down across the board. That is why the Government have rightly committed to setting notice periods through consultation, not through arbitrary amendment.
Andy McDonald
We want to get through this consultation as quickly as possible and to get this Bill on the statute book so that the position is clear, but I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. We need to move on these issues as a matter of urgency, and he is right to point that out.
Lords amendments 23 and 106 to 120 propose to reduce the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from two years to six months. We cannot support that halfway measure. Our manifesto is clear: Labour will deliver day one rights. Accepting these amendments risks entrenching insecurity and delaying meaningful reform. Workers should not have to serve a probationary period of six months or two years before being protected from arbitrary dismissal. We will fully consult on probationary arrangements to get them right, but we will not compromise on our principle of security from day one.
I must urge the rejection of Lords amendment 62, which seeks to retain the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots. The threshold was a deliberate barrier imposed by the Trade Union Act 2016. No other democratic process in this country faces such a hurdle—not parliamentary votes or local elections. This House was elected without such restrictions. Trade unions must not be uniquely singled out. Removing the threshold restores fairness, strengthens industrial relations and honours our commitment to repeal draconian Conservative legislation.
Finally, Lords amendment 121 would permit academies to deviate from pay and conditions agreed through the school support staff negotiating body, which risks entrenching inequality. It could mean teaching assistants in the same trust being on wildly different terms, creating a postcode lottery in education and exposing staff to equal pay disputes. Instead of undermining sectoral bargaining, we should be expanding it, ensuring fair, consistent and collectively agreed standards across the board. Let us be frank: after years of pay erosion, school support staff truly need a pay restoration deal that values the vital work they do.
In every case, the Lords amendments before us risk weakening rights, not strengthening them. Our task is to make work pay, end one-sided flexibility and ensure fairness and dignity for every worker. If this legislation does not go far enough to meet union demands for sectoral bargaining and a single worker status, Members of this House will rightly call for a second employment Bill this autumn. We cannot sustain this anathema of fragile, insecure work for so many millions of people in this country; they need that security to plan their futures, and they need to have the protections that those in employment enjoy. In addition, were they to be brought into that architecture, the Treasury would benefit to the tune of more than £10 billion per annum, opposite the uncollected tax and national insurance contributions.
Working people have waited long enough. It is time for us to deliver the stronger rights and protections that they truly deserve.
Damian Hinds
I intend to speak mainly to the provisions dealing with guaranteed hours, but I begin with a word of thanks to the Government for what they have announced about special constables. It is not quite as good as adopting the amendment, but I welcome the review. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) for the work he has done. I hope the review will report quickly, and I hope for a growth in the number of special constables, not only in neighbourhood policing, which my hon. Friend rightly mentioned, but among people working in the tech sector. We need cyber-specials to tackle the scourge of cyber-crime and fraud, which is now the single largest category of crime, and is, sadly, growing once again.
Damian Hinds
I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for suggesting that he will try.
I turn to the provisions dealing with guaranteed hours and zero-hours contracts. I understand why it is attractive to the Government and the Labour party to seek to restrict the availability of contracts that do not have a guaranteed number of hours. From listening to Labour colleagues, it seems almost as if “exploitative zero-hours contracts” is one word. It is as if those words must always go together. We all want to end exploitation—that is why, in 2015, the then Government passed legislation to stop employers imposing exclusivity. We said, “If you are not going to guarantee your employee a minimum number of hours, it is not all right to say that they must not work for somebody else.” But not all zero-hours contracts are necessarily exploitative.
One of the biggest users of zero-hours contracts in our country is none other than the national health service, through its use of bank staff. I notice that the Liberal Democrats announced a new policy today, which would require extra pay for people on zero-hours contracts; I do not know whether they have yet costed that policy. By the way, for many of the people working as bank staff in the NHS, that is not their primary job but a second job. This allows a hospital or other setting to respond to spikes in demand. For many people with a zero-hours contract job, it is their second job, not their primary source of income. Zero-hours contract jobs are also very important to people coming back into work, as the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) said powerfully in an intervention.
Many people on zero-hours contracts are students. Particularly in hospitality, there is a pattern of work whereby an employee lives in two places: at home, and at their term-time address. They can stay on the books of their employer at home—it might be a local pub—while they are away studying during term time. It could be the other way around: they could have a job in their university town, and stay on the books when they come home. They can dial up or dial down their hours; for example, many students do not want to work a lot of hours, or any hours, during exam time. Contrary to what we might expect, and contrary to the all-one-word conception of “exploitative zero-hours contracts”, some people actually prefer a zero-hours contract.
Damian Hinds
And some people do not, as the hon. Gentleman quite rightly says.
When I was working at the Department for Work and Pensions, the issue of zero-hours contracts became a totemic issue under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the immediate predecessor of the current leader of the Labour party. There was this idea that there had been a huge increase in the number of people in the country on a zero-hours contract. We discovered that less than 3% of people had a zero-hours contract as their primary source of income, and the average number of hours those people worked was not zero or close to zero, but 25. Even more unexpectedly—this was the bit that really got people—the average job satisfaction of people on a zero-hours contract was higher than it was for the rest of the workforce.
I think we understand why the Labour Government wish to legislate in this way. It is something for Labour MPs to bring home. When so much else in their manifesto is falling apart before our eyes, they can say, “At least we’ve killed off this modern scourge, this huge growth in zero-hours contracts.” As I say, the number of those contracts is not nearly as big as most people think. If you think about it, we have always had zero-hours contracts in all sorts of forms, whether it be piecework, commission-only sales, agency catalogue work or casual labour. In fact, it is possible that today, there are fewer people on a zero-hours contract than ever before in the history of the labour market. Many colleagues might reflect on their first job. Mine was washing dishes in a restaurant. We did not have the phrase at that time, but it certainly would have been a zero-hours contract, apart from the fact that there was no contract at all.
If the Government wish to reform this area, as they may, I ask them to consider the situation in sectors with great seasonality, including hospitality, tourism and retail, and to please look again at the concept of a 12-week reference period, which does not reflect the reality of seasonality. I know that this will be introduced through regulations, not the primary legislation, and I welcome what the Secretary of State said; I think he indicated that the Government were open to looking at a more sensible length of time. The Government could also do things differentially by sector; there could be one period for employers in general, and another for sectors or sub-sectors that have particularly strong patterns of seasonality.
I also ask the Government to reconsider the requirement to not just offer guaranteed hours once, but keep on doing it. That is introducing unnecessary bureaucracy. If the Government want to make changes in this area, I encourage them to at least ensure that once an employer has made the offer once, the right can become an opt-in right.
The Government think that these provisions are something for Back-Bench Labour MPs to take home, but I ask Labour colleagues whether they really want to take them home. Do they want to take home higher unemployment, and particularly youth unemployment? Do they want to take home fewer opportunities for people returning to the workplace after many years away? Do they want to take home fewer opportunities for ex-offenders—those furthest from the labour market? Do they want to take home—because this will come as well, as night follows day—a further trend away from permanent employment and towards fixed-term temporary employment? Do they want to take home a shift from waged or salaried work to more self-employment? Is that really what Labour wants to deliver?
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I start by saying a massive thank you to the new ministerial team and the new Secretary of State, who I welcome to his role, for keeping in clauses 14 to 18 of the Bill, as well as for their warm words at the Dispatch Box. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), but we heard all those arguments before from Conservative Members when they opposed the minimum wage, which did none of the things they warned about.
I turn to my declaration of interests. It is a shame that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), is not in his place, because he asked all Labour Members to declare our trade union affiliations. I will proudly do so—they are in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—but my interest in this Bill does not stop there. I have worked a zero-hours contract, and I would have benefited from this Bill. I have been a care worker who would have benefited from the collective bargaining that this Bill will introduce, and the Bill would also have meant that I was paid for time spent travelling between the jobs I had to travel to. I am proud to stand by my declaration of interests. It is a real shame that the shadow Secretary of State did not mention that he used to be a non-executive director for Just Eat, a company that has faced a number of claims for giving employees bogus self-employed status. Perhaps that would have been of interest to everybody in the Chamber.
The Employment Rights Bill has been called lots of things by lots of critics, but to me, it is about ensuring that all people can work safely, with respect and dignity, and have security in their work. For the past 15 years, we have seen people at the sharp end. We have heard stories of businesses struggling, and nobody wants that, but we have not heard the stories of what the previous Government subjected working people to. They called it a living wage, when actually it was a minimum wage, which ensured that people were stuck in in-work poverty. A woman is 34% more likely to be stuck in a zero-hours contract than a man. If we are talking about black and Asian minority people, that figure reaches 103%. Disabled workers are 49% more likely to be stuck on such a contract. This Bill is about protecting all workers, not just some.
On the right to sick pay, no one chooses to be sick. There are 1.3 million people without the right to any sick pay whatever. That is the difference that this Bill will make, and the difference that a Labour Government will make to working people’s rights. As has been mentioned, where are the grifters who sit on the Opposition Benches? They pretend that they care about the ordinary working man—not often mentioning women; often they talk only about the working man—but where are they? They probably have their hand out for some more of Elon Musk’s bitcoin, shall we say.
I will talk about clauses that touch on our work on the Women and Equalities Committee. The parental leave review, although not specifically in this Bill, will impact on so many workers. It is a pleasure to hear that being talked about under a Labour Government. We know that parental leave is also a problem for self-employed people. We have heard a lot about the impact of bogus self-employment and rogue bosses, but we have not heard enough about the protections for self-employed people. In the course of our Committee’s parental leave review, we heard that 31% of self-employed people do not take a single day off after their child is born. That is a shocking statistic. It is damaging not just for our economy, but for individuals and families.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) and all the campaigners for their work on misogyny in music and on banning non-disclosure agreements following sexual harassment and bullying. We heard loud and clear how many people in the music industry are self-employed, and many have been subjected to NDAs. That goes unreported and is unknown. The measure before us will make such a difference for so many people in many sectors, and it is so important that we get it through. The Conservatives and the Lib Dems talk about bits of the Bill that they do not like, and they list things that will be problems, but I ask them to think of the people we are trying to protect, because there will be a real impact.
Lords amendments 14 to 18 concern an issue that has a special place in my heart, and the hearts of many people, both in this Chamber and outside it. I am pleased that in spring the Government accepted the principle of two weeks of bereavement leave for parents who lose a pregnancy before 24 weeks. There is no sliding scale on pain for bereavement and loss, particularly for expecting parents. As a result of this change, grieving parents will no longer need to push through their pain to carry on working. Women who experience baby loss will not need to use sick leave, which implies that their body had something wrong with it. Arguments against the measure were founded on, “Well, you can always just take sick leave,” but a person who has lost a child blames themselves. It is natural instinct. Your first reaction is, “Did I do something wrong? Could I have done something differently? Should I have not eaten that? Should I have not done this? Should I have not jumped? Should I not have gone to an exercise class?” You think of all the things that you could have done to prevent it. For someone to go to their employer and say, “I need to take sick leave”, as if there is something wrong with them, is fundamentally different from how society sees pregnancy loss and miscarriage now, and I am grateful for that.
Chris Law
I thank the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for her brave and personal testimony, and for sharing the testimonies of many others on the importance of bereavement leave.
Let me begin by welcoming the news that the bus manufacturer Alexander Dennis will keep its sites in Scotland open after the announcement by the First Minister, John Swinney, that the Scottish Government have committed £4 million to a furlough scheme while the company obtains new orders over the next six months. I am sure the whole House will welcome the action taken by the SNP Government in giving domestic manufacturing businesses the opportunity to succeed and protecting skilled manufacturing jobs.
From the outset of this Bill, we in the SNP have been clear in our support for legislation that will strengthen the rights of workers, having long campaigned for many of its provisions. There are progressive attempts to guarantee working hours and protections against unfair dismissal, and the Bill begins to reverse some of the most damaging and insulting anti-union legislation of the previous Government. None the less, throughout its passage in the House of Commons we have called on the Government to be bolder and to use this opportunity to deliver transformational change for workers. We proposed amendments to be more robust on fire and rehire, to improve statutory sick pay and to strengthen protections for migrant workers in accessing their rights, all of which were sadly rejected by the Government. Disappointingly, none of those issues has returned to this House in the amendments agreed to by the House of Lords. Instead, we see a series of amendments that seek to weaken the Bill and weaken the rights of employees by watering down provisions on protections against unfair dismissal, the right to guaranteed hours, and the capabilities of trade unions. Let me be crystal clear: the SNP will not accept proposals that seek to diminish workers’ rights.
One of the most important elements of the Bill is the provision ensuring that workers have rights from day one, a significant change from the current two years. Workers should not have to wait to be protected from unfair dismissal. Unfair dismissal is unfair no matter what time limit is imposed, so there should be none. The Lords amendments would still allow for employees to be dismissed without the right to claim unfair dismissal for the first six months of their employment. Failing to reject this amendment today would fundamentally undermine the principles and objects of the Bill.
The provisions on sexual harassment are also significant, particularly those that void agreements preventing workers from making allegations of harassment or discrimination, and void provisions preventing workers from speaking out about their employer’s response to the relevant harassment or discrimination. We have heard some eloquent speeches today about the very reasons why that can never continue. Astonishingly, the Lords are attempting to except parliamentary staff from the protection from non-disclosure agreements. I have not heard that mentioned today, but it is a disgusting attempt by the House of Lords to protect itself from allegations of sexual harassment and to silence those who are victims of sexual harassment in Parliament. What is it about that unelected Chamber, which brazenly seeks to use its power to protect and entrench its own privileges time and time again? This is just another ludicrous example of why the House of Lords needs to be abolished: it is utterly shameless.
It has long been recognised that insecure work is one of the biggest problems facing our society. I have been listening carefully to what has been said about zero-hours contracts, and I want to register a few facts. Contrary to what was said earlier, in the past decade there has been an increase in the number of zero-hours contract workers—not a small increase, but a 65% increase. More than a million workers are on zero-hours contracts, including over 100,000 in Scotland, and many more are on very short-hours contracts. Rather than providing flexibility, zero-hours contracts offer little or no control or ability to forward-plan. Let me give an example. A recent report from the Work Foundation noted that when Wetherspoons introduced an option for guaranteed hours—guess what?—99% of its workers opted for guaranteed-hours contracts, with only 1% choosing zero-hours contracts.
The Bill seeks to require employers to make an offer of guaranteed hours to a qualifying worker after the end of every reference period, but once again the Lords have attempted to weaken that by taking the onus away from employers and putting it on employees, requiring them to request guaranteed hours. It is important for the Government, as well as rejecting this amendment, to provide clarity on the duration of the reference period and to define what constitutes a “low” number of guaranteed hours.
Similarly, the Government seek to reject Lords amendment 8, which defines “short notice” for the purpose of an employer cancelling a shift as 48 hours, with Ministers in the Lords suggesting that when the regulations are made, “short notice” will be defined as a period greater than 48 hours. That is fine, but, as I have pointed out a number of times today, it is cold comfort for those who are currently on zero-hours contracts, who will have to wait until 2027 at the earliest to find out what comes back from the Government’s consultation.
One of the biggest problems with the Bill is that so much of it will not be clarified until further down the line, through secondary legislation and regulations, which means that much of it is still uncertain, much of it will avoid scrutiny, and much of it will be easy for future Governments to reverse. Indeed, the Opposition are on the record as having made that last point today.
Of course, voters in Scotland know that devolution of employment law is a far better way to protect workers’ rights in Scotland from a future UK Government who might remove those protections. Fair work practices are already being delivered by the SNP Scottish Government, such as supporting collective bargaining, achieving real living wage employer status, and closing the gender pay gap faster than other parts of the UK. Workers in Scotland should never again have to see their employment rights eroded by any Tory-led Government, and we in the SNP will continue to campaign—as Scottish Labour was previously committed to doing—to ensure that employment law is devolved to Scotland or, better still, that Scotland gains independence from consecutive Westminster Governments who seek to erode Scottish workers’ rights.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and my proud membership of the GMB and Community unions.
In Bassetlaw, where the average hourly rate is £14.16 per hour for women and £14.69 for men—over £5 per hour less than the national average and not much higher than the national living wage—levels of pay and working conditions are issues that really matter to my constituents. My constituents are not afraid of hard work, but they want to go out each day in the knowledge that they have rights under the law that will protect them from unfair dismissal and guarantee that they can bring home a good wage and put a meal on the table.
The Employment Rights Bill has now ping-ponged its way back to this place, and my constituents cannot wait for the fairness and rights that it will bring. This is their chance to level the playing field. The Bill is not a handout; it is a foundation for fair treatment at work. It ensures that when people go to work they are treated with dignity and respect. It is about strengthening rights, about no more hire and refire, about no more exploitative zero-hours contracts, and about job security from day one. It gives workers the power to have guaranteed hours of work, and to receive compensation for cancelled shifts. It gives them the power to demand safer workplaces where no one has to choose between their pay cheque and their health. It gives them the power to stand up against unfair firing and discrimination. This is not just about the law; it is about restoring a sense of justice in the workplace.
The other House has attempted to water down those rights, and Reform has opposed the Bill all the way through Parliament. While the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) keeps telling us that he “doesn’t know” when he is pushed on the difficult questions, I have no doubt that he and his colleagues will be making their way through the “vote against workers’ rights” Lobbies later this evening. Reform has aligned itself with the powerful interests—the corporate lobbyists and the chief executives—who are fighting the Bill, telling us that it is bad for business and that it will hurt the economy. It is no friend of working people.
As local people often tell me, good business is based on strong partnership, whereby employers and the workforce strive to meet the daily challenges in the workplace and the ups and downs of the economy. This legislation will work to strengthen those alliances. The Bill is aligned with this Government’s ambitious industrial strategy and commitment to rebuild our economy, and I am focused on getting new jobs, and skills and training, into Bassetlaw.
Laurence Turner
I am grateful for being able to contribute to this debate. It is a privilege to follow so many powerful speeches, and the speech delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) was the most powerful I have heard in this place. Her words rose to the moment; mine are inadequate by comparison. I can only thank her for speaking so powerfully about an issue that affects so many of us.
I welcome the new Secretary of State to his place, and thank him for the way in which he opened this debate.
At the outset, I draw the House’s attention to my background as an officer of the GMB union and my current unpaid role as chair of the GMB parliamentary group. In that capacity, I thank the hon. Member for Dundee Central (Chris Law), as he leaves the Chamber, for what he said about Members’ staff in this place. GMB is the union that represents the majority of people who work in support of us as Members of this House. I am sad to say that they are perhaps uniquely vulnerable to some of the abusive practices that have shamed our democracy for too long, and I am at a loss to understand how the relevant Lords amendments were ever brought forward from the other place.
I wish to speak specifically against Lords amendments 121, 11 and 1, and in support of the Government amendments that seek to strike them out. Before doing so, I want to say a few words about my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who is not in his place at the moment. As a former shadow Minister and latterly as the sponsoring Minister for this Bill, he unfailingly and characteristically brought graft, industry and good humour to the brief. This will be a weaker and lesser Bill without him, and those of us who support the Bill and its principles owe him a debt of thanks. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), who brings a real depth of knowledge and understanding to the role of Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, is now guarding the Bill’s passage to Royal Assent. I know that she will be both pro-worker and pro-business in her approach.
I believe that Lords amendment 121 contains significant drafting weaknesses and would fundamentally alter the nature of the proposed and restored school support staff negotiating body. First, the amendment states that employers may introduce new terms and conditions of employment that
“meet or exceed any minimum standards set by the SSSNB.”
In legal terms, however, the SSSNB will not set or determine those standards; it is a statutory forum for negotiation. The actual conditions of employment will be set through regulations drafted by the Secretary of State and approved by Parliament.
Secondly, the actual parameters of a future pay and grading structure will be negotiated by the relevant parties: the representatives of employers, and the representatives of employees. That was the spirit of the original 2008 Act and the actual operation of the SSSNB in its original incarnation. Given my experience as a former trade union officer representing school support staff, I know the contractual issues that need to be addressed are so complicated that they cannot be satisfactorily resolved on the Floor of the House. That complexity is a result of 14 years of drift, dither and political disinterest in the 800,000 support staff workers in England who keep our schools going, and it is a damning indictment of the decision to cancel the original SSSNB.
Finally, Lords amendment 121 risks creating confusion at a local level. The amendment states that employers must not be restricted from introducing “improved terms and conditions”, but changes to contracts are not merely introduced; they are consulted on and agreed, either individually or collectively, under existing statutes. The effect of the somewhat loose wording in the amendment may be to encourage local attempts to make unilateral variations to contracts and terms and conditions. Members who support this amendment might say that only improvements could be made under it, but both “improvement” and “detriment” are subjective terms. They are in the eye of the beholder, and I believe that if the amendment were to be carried through, the actual effect may be to increase the number of court cases concerning school support staff.
I urge the Opposition not to push a point, and to reconsider their wider opposition to the school support staff negotiating body. School support staff undertake essential roles, and they deserve the same professional standards and professional respect that is afforded to teachers. That is what the restoration of the school support staff negotiating body will achieve.
We have debated the official Opposition’s amendments many times at various stages, but I want to comment on some of the Lords amendments that stand in the names of Liberal Democrat peers, either in whole or in part. When I entered this Chamber at the start of the debate, I did not presume that those amendments necessarily enjoyed the support of the Liberal Democrat Front Benchers in the Commons, but I am afraid that impression was dispelled by the contribution from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney).
I am at a loss to understand how the radical change in approach has come about among the Liberal Democrats in this House between Committee stage, Report, Third Reading and the debate that we are holding today. In fact, listening to the hon. Lady, I felt an uncomfortable sense of déjà vu: it was like watching the Rose Garden press conference all over again. After all, her Front-Bench colleagues—the hon. Members for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) and for Torbay (Steve Darling)—were at all times appropriately critical in Committee, but they were essentially supportive of the principle of enhancing workers’ rights. Lords amendment 11, which was originally a Conservative amendment in the Commons but now stands in the name of a Liberal Democrat peer, was not supported by the Liberal Democrats in Committee.
Lords amendment 1, which stands in the names of both Liberal Democrat and Conservative peers, seeks to amend clause 1. However, the Liberal Democrats supported that clause in Committee and only voiced concern, which was reasonable, that timely guidance to employers must be issued to accompany it; indeed, they voted with Labour Members when it was put to a vote in Committee. I fear that this amendment, too, could have serious unintended consequences.
The clause that it seeks to amend puts a duty on employers to offer regular-hours contracts to “workers”—that is the language used in the legislation as it stands at the moment—but the amendment seeks to convert that duty into a right to request by employees. “Employees” is, of course, a more restrictive category than “workers”; indeed, clause 148 of the Bill as drafted makes it clear that for the purpose of the interpretation of this Bill, “workers” and “employees” mean two different things. Many of the people who are classed only as “workers” are precisely those who may benefit the most from these protections. Some 5 million people who are nominally casual workers in sectors such as social care, construction, hospitality, security and retail could be excluded from these protections if the amendment, which stands in the names of Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers, were to be carried. I hope it is not the intention of those on the Conservative Benches to exclude those 5 million people. At the start of this debate, I could not believe that that was the intention of the Liberal Democrats, but now I am not so sure.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
The Women and Equalities Committee heard compelling evidence earlier this year about misogyny in the music industry. That is exactly one of the areas where people who are classed as “workers” need protection, so I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue.
Laurence Turner
I thank my hon. Friend for raising a very powerful and relevant point. She is absolutely right that those are the groups of workers who would enjoy greater protection as a result of this legislation being carried.
I want to respond to a couple of points that have been made in this debate. It was a shame that the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who is not currently in his place, did not have the self-confidence in his arguments to take interventions on his points. He referred repeatedly to the validity of estimates of the number of workers employed on zero-hours contracts, but there are good reasons for not having confidence in these estimates. After all, they are derived from the Office for National Statistics labour force survey, which has had well-advertised and well-understood problems with response rates that have wider implications for both the current Government and the previous Government. It is well known that the number of people who identify as being on a zero-hours contract corresponds to changes in the wording of that particular question. In addition, the labour force survey has well-understood limitations when it comes to reaching people who are employed in what might be called the most marginalised parts of the economy. I therefore urge Conservative Members not to have too much confidence in those estimates, but to look instead at the surveys of workers undertaken by many organisations, such as the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and trade unions.
It was a shame to hear during the debate the number of references to trade union political funds only in the context of party funding. Of course, the great majority of trade union political funds are operated by trade unions that are not affiliated to any political party. Furthermore, the political funds even of Labour-affiliated unions in practice often support meaningful and consequential campaigns that are supported by Members across the House. One example to which I would draw Members’ attention is the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018—sometimes called the protect the protectors legislation—which began as a result of trade union campaigning that was not party political in its nature, and that legislation has since been broadened. I pay tribute to USDAW’s “Freedom From Fear” campaign and the work that has been done to extend the same protections to retail workers. These are exactly the sort of valuable campaigns that, sadly, Members from both the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats are looking to restrict.
Finally on points raised, I had not intended at the start of the debate to talk about heritage railways. Indeed, it must be said that during those long years in opposition, when we were looking closely as trade union officials at the potential future issues that would be covered by trade union legislation, I think it is fair to say that that issue never once came up, but perhaps we were guilty of tunnel vision. [Interruption.] Sorry, I will not do that again. Throughout all the debates on this matter in the other place and here, it has been discussed purely in theoretical terms. The contention has been that the 1920 Act has had a chilling effect on the of operation heritage railways across the country. I do not think, but I would be glad to be corrected, that any actual examples have been brought forward of either court cases being taken or legal advice being received from those organisations, but it certainly feels like an issue that the Transport Committee may wish to consider.
I have tried to limit my comments only to the details of the Lords amendments, but if I may, I will make two general comments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough said, the Labour manifesto committed to
“implementing ‘Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay…’ in full…and introducing basic rights from day one to parental leave, sick pay, and protection from unfair dismissal.”
Yet in front of us are Lords amendments that would either obviate many of those commitments or reduce their potency to homeopathic levels. As he also rightly said, there can be no question of nodding through amendments that contradict the clear mandate we first received a year ago, and which commands broad support among voters of all parties.
Sam Rushworth
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—like most Labour Members, I am proud to be supported by trade unions. Others have mentioned the absence of Reform Members from this debate, and of course we know why they are not here: they do not support the measures in the Employment Rights Bill, but they do not have the guts to say that to their voters.
I am here to speak on behalf of my constituents, particularly those who feel insecure at work. They are the people who do not have assets and safety nets, who are not mobile and confident, who live pay day to pay day, and who feel that they must take whatever pay and conditions they are offered because they are terrified of the alternative. It is 12 years since this party announced a commitment to end exploitative zero-hours contracts as a means of controlling workers and avoiding employment obligations.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I am a former teaching assistant, and many teaching assistants were working under a form of zero-hours contracts. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill, as well as bringing back the negotiating body for teaching assistants and support staff at school, will greatly help them by taking away the zero-hours contracts under which they previously suffered?
Sam Rushworth
The Bill absolutely will do so.
I remember speaking to a young couple when I was canvassing 12 years ago. The young woman had just had a baby, but because she was on a zero-hours contract, she was unable to get the maternity rights to which she was otherwise entitled. Her young partner, who likewise was on a zero-hours contract, talked about his pay and conditions at work, and after asking him why he did not challenge his employer, I understood that so many young people do not feel able to do so because they feel so insecure and sometimes just so grateful to be in a job. That is why I am speaking against Lords amendment 1.
It is absolutely right that the onus be placed on the employer to ensure that people are given regular contracts, and that we are not asking people who are often the most vulnerable and insecure workers to go to their employer and start asserting and demanding their rights. I have met many constituents over the past year or so, and I have learnt about the sheer vulnerability that, sadly, many working people feel, such as a tenant who tells me that they are frightened of demanding rights from their landlord because they fear they will be evicted. Of course, Reform also voted against our reforms banning no-fault evictions.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. He quite rightly mentioned that the Reform UK Members are not in their place, and does he agree with me that this really is a travesty? When we think about the social media posts that they put out and the grand speeches they give up and down this land, does he agree with me that it really is a travesty for them to claim to be on the side of working people when they have the audacity to vote in this House against a Bill introduced by a Labour Government on the side of working people?
Sam Rushworth
It will not surprise my hon. Friend to hear that I completely agree with that assessment. They are clearly not on the side of my constituents or the people I am talking about, who just do not feel that they can assert their rights. Too many feel completely powerless, so it is right that we put the onus where it is. I will vote against the attempts in the Lords to water down that part of the Bill.
Michael Wheeler
On accessing the rights in the Bill, does my hon. Friend agree that, for people going about their busy daily lives at work and possibly struggling to make ends meet, there is a fundamental difference between a right to a contract with guaranteed hours and a right to request one?
Sam Rushworth
There is a difference. My hon. Friend is an expert in this field, having come to us from USDAW, and I know that those who worked on the Bill will have thought this through carefully. It certainly chimes with my experience. People should not need to have to request and assert their rights; they should be given those rights. That is what this Government are doing.
Gareth Snell
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of Unison and the GMB, and during the election I received financial support from trade unions. One thing I found when I was a trade union official was that it was not necessarily people who were not confident in asserting their own rights. A number of workers simply did not know what their rights were. Oddly enough, employers were not running around handing out little laminated cards saying, “Here are all the rights you can ask me for.” If employers are not made to tell them their rights, how else are employees meant to find out?
Sam Rushworth
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That is what the Bill speaks to. There is a power gap between the ordinary working person who does not necessarily know their rights and is unable to assert them, and the sort of person who, for example, might buy a house in their girlfriend’s name. I will progress.
I also oppose the attempt, in Lords amendment 106, to water down the Bill by requiring six months for protection from unfair dismissal. There is of course a difference between unfair dismissal and fair dismissal. No employer is prevented from using fair grounds to dismiss an employee. The previous Government extended the time before you could even claim unfair dismissal to two years. That left far too many people vulnerable to being dismissed at a whim, or dismissed because they had demanded their rights at work.
I had an experience of that myself. I have never talked about it before, because I signed a non-disclosure agreement. Shortly after becoming the branch rep for the University and College Union when I was a college lecturer, I pointed out that the college I was teaching at was not paying the minimum wage to some of its staff. The college then attempted to dismiss me for bringing it into disrepute. Thankfully, I was able to take on one of the top employment lawyers in the area at the time—only because they had forced me to teach an HR course—and give myself a crash course in human rights law. I left that place with a payout.
I remember the shame I felt at the time for signing the non-disclosure agreement. I wanted to fight for other people, but at the end of the day I was terrified that I was going to miss my next mortgage payment and I was thinking of my children. That is the position that far too many people find themselves in. So what we are doing on non-disclosure is right. I have to ask all Members, as they vote on whether to water this down, whose side they are on. Will they be on the side of those seeking to cover up sexual harassment, rather than on the side of the whistleblowers?
In my mind’s eye, as I vote this evening, will be real people in my Bishop Auckland constituency. I want to tell the House about two or three of them. A few months ago, I received correspondence from a parish councillor who is also a local farmer and a member of the Labour party. He told me of his concern that every day he saw two women sitting in the bus shelter in a cold hilltop village. He approached them to ask them what they were doing there, because they were there for several hours. It turned out that they were care workers. They were dropped off in the morning and did a visit. At another point in the day they would do another visit, and another visit later. But they were only paid for the specific time that they were in people’s houses; they were not paid for the entirety of the day. That is a workaround to avoid paying them the minimum wage. The Bill makes provision for a fair pay agreement in adult social care to address such practices. By the way, he then opened the village hall for them and made sure they had a warm space to wait in each day between shifts.
Jayne Kirkham
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I, too, was a Unison rep, and I have taken contributions from Unison and other unions towards my election expenses. The point my hon. Friend makes is very real in Cornwall too. Migrant care workers were left on a bench in a village from the early morning shift to the late evening shift. That must be addressed, and it will be addressed under the Bill.
Sam Rushworth
It will, absolutely. We should not have people working in those kinds of conditions and that sort of poverty in 2025.
Laurence Turner
My hon. Friend speaks about care workers. Does he agree that one issue so brutally exposed during the pandemic was the fact that many thousands of care workers were classed as workers, not employees? As a consequence, they could not get full access to sick pay. One consequence of that was that the fatality rates among both residents and workers were much higher in the care homes that did not make that provision available. If the provisions in the Bill were in place then, many thousands of lives could have been saved.
Sam Rushworth
My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. Another great provision in the Bill is that right to sick pay, which is so important and would have been so important for many care workers during the pandemic.
In my mind’s eye are those women sitting at that bus stop in the cold. Two other people I met who were also care workers—one lives in High Etherley and the other in Etherley Dene—told me similar stories. They did not vote for me. They did not vote for anybody, because they did not believe that anybody could fix their problems. They just told me that their lives were tough. They had to pay for their own uniforms. They were not really getting the minimum wage for their work. They felt disrespected by everybody. They felt vulnerable and left behind. But I made them a promise that if I came to this place, I would speak up for them. I am doing that today and I am voting for them today.
Finally, the Employment Rights Bill is not just good for workers; it is also good for businesses. So many family businesses in Bishop Auckland, Shildon, Crook and Barnard Castle all tell me the same thing. They tell me how much they enjoy contributing to our local economy and how important it is to them that they are a responsible, decent employer. But they tell me how tough it is when there is a race to the bottom. They want employment rights strengthened. They do not want the watered-down version coming to us from the Lords. They want the full-fat version of this Bill, because they know it is good for their workers and good for their businesses.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
I would like to start by thanking all Members who have contributed to the debate, but especially the new ministerial team and senior Ministers across the Government who recommitted to this legislation in public, and especially to the previous ministerial team who advanced the Bill as it went through the Commons.
In my constituency, of the six key pledges on our leaflets, this was the one that got the younger generation interested and engaged. They were worried about where they would work, how they would work and how they would get ahead in life. The vast majority of young people across this country are aware that the path to a better life comes through the workplace.
What do we see when we look at these Lords amendments? It is another week, another paltry attempt by the Opposition parties in the Lords to undermine my constituents’ rights at work. A couple of weeks back, there was an Opposition day motion that told my constituents that if they worked behind a bar, they should have fewer rights than if they worked behind a desk. These amendments are just another feeble attempt at watering down a popular and generationally crucial piece of legislation.
Gareth Snell
I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that when Conservative Members oppose day one rights, they are not really worried about the day on which the rights start; they are actually opposed to the rights. That is why many of them cannot muster an argument that is about more than, as he says, spreadsheet efficiency.
Euan Stainbank
I agree, especially if we look at unfair dismissal. The issue is not the cause of the dismissal; at its core, this is about denying people recourse. If a worker cannot claim unfair dismissal because of the two-year threshold, their recourse is substantially weaker. The course of the conduct is not changed simply because a worker has been in a place of employment for 23 months, as opposed to two years.
This issue is real and corrosive. I have had young people in my constituency office who have experienced this issue, especially in the run-up to consideration of this Bill. There has been a course of conduct in the workplace that has resulted in them wanting to leave, or somebody wanting to force them out, and this issue makes it substantially easier for bad employers—not every employer, of course—to force an employee out. It does not change the nature of the conduct, or what we should be tackling, which is poor employment practices.
I do understand the concern that has been raised, but a two-year threshold often leads to workers, early on in their careers, being taken out of the workplace without process or prior warning. Their only right of recourse, as I have said, is taking the employer to court through a far weaker form of redress that is often time-consuming, exhausting, fruitless and restrictive, and so deters them from pursuing their rights.
Sir Ashley Fox
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many small businesses are fearful of day one rights because they worry that they might take someone on, only for it to become apparent within a few days that they are not appropriate for their business, and they then fear an employment tribunal for procedurally unfair dismissal, and the costs involved. The result of granting day one rights is that small businesses will be less likely to employ more people, and far less likely to employ people at the margins of the labour market, such as someone recently out of prison or someone with mental health problems. The Bill will increase unemployment.
Euan Stainbank
I have to disagree with the characterisation of the Bill as increasing unemployment. We have heard the same about other measures. To tackle the hon. Gentleman’s point about somebody coming into a workforce and not being cut out for it, which I have seen happen in hospitality and retail industries, I believe that is addressed by the probation provisions in the Bill.
Michael Wheeler
I fully agree with my hon. Friend that the probation period is the core of the answer to the question from the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox). Does my hon. Friend agree that a large part of the fear we see is due to scaremongering and misinformation spread by Opposition Members?
Euan Stainbank
I agree on the misinformation being put out about hypothetical situations, which are often talked about when we discuss hospitality.
I recognise the point being put forward for small businesses, but I also recognise that those businesses have the right to a probation period, and to other employment models, such as part time working. I have seen that happen quite frequently.
Sam Rushworth
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservatives bequeathed us an economy in which more and more people were moving out of work and becoming long-term sick? A lot of that sickness was driven by mental health disorders— in particular, anxiety, worry and stress, which are driven by an insecure labour market. Does he also agree that the measures in the Bill to make people safer and more protected at work will improve mental wellbeing and productivity, and be good for economic growth?
Euan Stainbank
I fully agree that the economic benefit of security in the workplace is evident. I have worked in some of the most insecure industries in hospitality, and people trying to rush themselves back into work was a severe issue, especially just after the pandemic, because they did not have another source of income. If they had to isolate, there was financial support, luckily, which was just about enough to cover wages for a period, administered by local authorities. However, there were still a lot more people who tried to drive themselves back into the workplace. I remember coming back after a 10-day isolation period after having covid, and I could tell that I was not prepared physically or mentally to re-enter the workplace. It did make me think that I wanted to call in sick. It is then substantially more difficult for someone to re-enter work, especially in high-intensity industries. We often forget how physically intensive hospitality and retail workplaces, where people are working on zero-hours contracts, can be.
Laurence Turner
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. I rise merely to support what he is saying. About a decade ago, the University of Manchester published research that found that being in forms of insecure employment may be more damaging to health than being unemployed.
Euan Stainbank
That is substantially clear. I would add the concern that long-term sickness translates into long-term unemployment, which is often seen in the most insecure workplaces. We often think of people burning out in a very high-stress, high-income job, but it happens right through our labour market. In my experience, it has led to devastating consequences, but those are personal stories that I do not have the permission or time to go into.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is trying to get through his speech, and I very much respect the position he has taken, but I have to fundamentally disagree. We Opposition Members have been accused of scaremongering and of misinformation, but what does the hon. Gentleman say to the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chamber of Commerce and the Confederation of British Industry, all of which have said that because of the Bill and the regulations it will impose, employers will be letting go of staff, and that there will be a damaging consequence to employment and jobs? Does he think that that is misinformation and scaremongering, or is that just expert voices urging caution about the Bill?
Euan Stainbank
To address the point about substantial issues facing businesses, I acknowledge that is the case at the moment. We are not talking about energy costs or business rates, but I have a local business improvement district on my high street and I am well aware that it is talking about the costs that are put on business.
This Bill is a fundamental rebalancing in favour of workers, and frankly that would have to happen, irrespective of economic conditions. We need it to get people to believe that work pays again, because sadly much of my generation have not had that perception of work for too long. They may have seen other avenues—easier, passive income that does not come from hard graft, and from learning skills that are needed at a fundamental level.
The problem is that the entry point to work for many young people has been casualised and is insecure, and often it does not seem as though there are any prospects. I believe the Bill will change that perception substantially. To go back to doorstep conversations, this was one of the pledges in our manifesto that got young people engaged and thinking about how politics could fundamentally change their life and their experience in the workplace.
Turning to Lords amendment 1, I want to Members to put themselves in the mind of somebody experiencing a zero-hours contract for the first time. The hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) made some reasonable points about the right to request, rather than the right to have a contract that reflects hours, but in my experience of who zero-hours contracts are meant for in society, they are extensively given to the younger generation at the entry point of their career. There is a fundamental flaw in the concept of a right to request. Someone may be in their first job behind the till at Argos, or at a pie kiosk, or at a hotel bar or a restaurant—I do not have to imagine it; this is essentially my CV, prior to entering politics, all done in the last 10 years. At age 18, people do not necessary know their rights beyond what their mum and dad tell them, and this is a point I have heard addressed by several Members.
Imagine a person who, after years of zero-hours contracts, reliance on casualised working and low pay, is in an industry that is still adapting to the Bill’s provisions. They ask for a contract that reflects their hours, rather than what they would be entitled to under the Bill if we reject the amendment. How likely would they be to press the issue with their employer in this market? How likely is it that somebody will bang their fist on the table and say, “I want the contract that I can request, rather than the one I am entitled to”? People often want to make a career in the retail and hospitality fields, but how likely are they to do so if they cannot get the hours they are entitled to, or foresee their income for the coming year? They can get a contract that reflects the shift that they are putting in.
The problem with the amendment is that it shifts the power dynamic ever so slightly back to the employer, when the legislation quite rightly tips the balance in favour of the worker—the working people who have endured the acute impacts of a pandemic. I lost my job and my ability to privately rent, and I had to move back home, aged 20, in a cost of living crisis.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend talks about tipping things in favour of the employee. How important is that, when we have heard of employees who have been exploited through zero-hours contracts, and who cannot say no, or pay their bills? Some people, especially young women, have been sexually abused at work when they try to adjust their contracts. These measures are a vital part of the legislation.
Euan Stainbank
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent intervention. That dynamic is apparent in the workplace, from the smallest perceived grievance all the way up to the very serious criminal allegations she refers to. It is a power dynamic that we need to address through the Bill. Zero-hours contracts put far too much power in the hands of the employer over the employee.
To address the point about notice of cancellation, I have worked as agency staff, and have been told not to come in the night before a shift. It is demoralising, quite frankly. In the workplace, it alienates people from colleagues they have had a good laugh with the day before. They may have worked closely beside them and said, “See you tomorrow”. Most good employers know that and do not cancel shifts the night before. Sadly, short-term cancellation has increased, especially post pandemic. This is something I endured, having lost my job during the pandemic picking up takeaways.
Imagine young parents working payslip to payslip who have to arrange childcare on a Friday night and are then sent a text at 3 am on a Saturday by their boss that says, “Don’t bother coming in on Monday.” Are we seriously saying that that gives them enough time to arrange their life and that it is fine to arrange their life around the employer, or should we rightly acknowledge that it is insufficient to provide legitimate flexibility? It is a cover for the rare but corrosive practices of bad employers. We must keep this purpose in mind during the consultation with Ministers. That moral clarity should negate the need for a lengthy consultation.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With the leave of the House, I call the Secretary of State.
Peter Kyle
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and your colleagues for conducting this debate so efficiently and effectively. I am grateful to Members from across the House for the contributions they have made to the debate today and throughout the development of this legislation. It has been exhaustively debated—in Committee and in both Chambers—and now it has come back again to be exhaustively voted on this evening.
The Employment Rights Bill will benefit millions of people across the country, raising the floor for workers and strengthening protections in the modern workplace. It will help unlock higher productivity, drive innovation and create the right conditions for long-term, sustainable and secure economic growth. This has been a constructive debate, and I thank Members from across the House for their varied and valuable views. I will now turn to individual contributions. Many Members spoke about their broad views on the Bill without asking specific questions, but I would like to unpick as many as I can, because it was a good, high-quality debate.
I start with the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), whose contribution I enjoyed very much, particularly because we are both Sussex MPs. He referred to many places in his constituency and asked whether I had visited some of them. I grew up in Bognor Regis just down the road and at weekends would often walk to places that he now represents in Parliament. It is one of the most beautiful parts of the Sussex Downs.
The shadow Secretary of State said that the Bill was a bad day for democracy. He is not unknown for overstatement, but given that the Bill was in the manifesto that won the trust of the public, I would say that today is a good day for democracy. It is a day when the Government elected by the people deliver on a promise made to the people, when a Bill that was introduced in the House of Commons, debated here in Committee, and debated extensively in House of Lords, has come back. This is democracy at its very best. I hope he will reflect on that.
There are a lot of issues with voting percentage thresholds, which the shadow Secretary of State also raised. I point out that he was elected to this place on 28% of the vote of the community that he represents. If we apply his logic, he is advocating one rule for him and another for every other worker in the country. To the Labour party, that simply does not stand.
I also point out that during the Conservatives’ period in government from 2010 onwards, employment tribunal delays increased by 60%. We therefore take no lectures from those who criticise some of the costs that may or may not be incurred as a result of the Bill, because they inflicted enormous measures and costs on businesses around the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) made a passionate, detailed and personal speech about the Bill. It is clear that the Bill is the culmination of his career before coming into politics and in politics, both in opposition and in government. I cannot thank him enough for his work and for how he has engaged with me since I was appointed to this job just over a week ago. I hope that he sees in the debate and the approach of this Front-Bench team the legacy he left being represented loud and clear.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) spoke passionately about the cause of seasonal workers. He spoke for the consultation that we have pledged to have to ensure that we get this right. Several hon. Members from across the House spoke about seasonal workers; it was good to see them represented. As a Member of Parliament for Sussex—my hon. Friend is a Member of Parliament for Kent—we care deeply about these issues, and we will strive to ensure that we get it right.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) raised an important point on non-disclosure arrangements, which she has campaigned so hard for. I thank her not only for speaking with passion but for standing on a record of delivery on this matter. She is an advocate for whom we should all be proud, because she has used her parliamentary prowess to deliver the real change needed on NDA reform. I thank Zelda Perkins —I believe she is not in the Gallery now, but she was here—who has shown extraordinary bravery through her advocacy for victims of harassment and discrimination. I have stood by in admiration of the work she has undertaken.
My right hon. Friend asked what the consultation will cover. We will consult on the regulations that expand the types of individuals and measures that apply beyond those who were within the definition of “employee” and “worker”, and on the conditions for excepted NDAs. To give an example, where a victim requests one and workers are covered by an excepted NDA, they can speak about the relevant harassment and discrimination to, for example, a lawyer or a medical professional.
My right hon. Friend also asked about the timings. Unfortunately, I cannot provide a timetable tonight, but I want to be clear that this is a personal priority for me. I reassure her that we will be moving as fast as possible to consult on the related secondary legislation and commence the measure. I will stay in touch with her so that she is fully informed along the way.
I am grateful to hon. Members across the House for their contributions today and for their hard work in getting the Bill where it is. It is of paramount importance that we get the Bill on to the statute book and start delivering for businesses and workers as soon as possible.
Laurence Turner
My right hon. Friend is rightly talking about the contributions made in the debate by hon. Members of various parties. I am always reluctant to criticise individual Members who may not attend a debate, because they often have good reasons, but there has now become a pattern: at no point in the Bill’s passage has any Reform Member spoken to justify their stance of scrapping thousands of laws, including employment laws. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a democratic deficit in not one Reform Member ever having spoken to defend their stance?
Peter Kyle
Yes, indeed. When we talk about seasonal workers, we do not mean Reform Members. Of course, Members have lots of duties elsewhere, but it is not surprising to me that a party led by somebody who goes to another country and invites that country to punish this country would be absent from a debate all about giving rights to workers right across the country. Reform wants to strip our workers of their rights, their dignity and, through its actions, the pay in their pockets. The absence of Reform Members today suggests nothing else.
I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to consider carefully the amendments I have proposed in lieu of those made in the other place. One of my predecessors as President of the Board of Trade once argued that workers need protection because, without it,
“the good employer is undercut by the bad, and the bad employer is undercut by the worst”.—[Official Report, 28 April 1909; Vol. 4, c. 388.]
That predecessor was Winston Churchill. He knew that the best employers need protecting from unfair competition by companies who trade at the expense of rights at work. The Bill protects workers from exploitation and protects businesses from unfair competition. That is why the Bill is pro-worker and pro-business.
Government amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 22.
Government amendment (b) made to Lords amendment 22.
Lords amendment 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 1
Right to guaranteed hours
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.—(Peter Kyle.)
Delegated Legislation
Proposed expansion of Plymouth City Council into the South Hams
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Further to a similar online petition of just under 1,800 signatures, I present this petition.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that Plymouth City Council’s proposed expansion into 13 parishes in the South Hams is strongly opposed by local residents; further declares that Plymouth City Council’s proposal threatens the identity, autonomy and rural character of long-established parish communities; further declares that Devon’s District Councils have presented an alternative 1-4-5 model for local government reorganisation in Devon which takes account of local residents’ wishes; and further notes that this plan would retain Plymouth as a unitary authority within its current boundaries, create a second unitary authority comprising South Hams, Teignbridge, West Devon and Torbay, and a third authority covering East Devon, Mid Devon, North Devon, Torridge and Exeter.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to reject Plymouth City Council’s proposed boundary expansion into the South Hams and instead adopt the 1-4-5 model proposed by South Hams District Council, which respects existing boundaries and reflects the preferences and interests of local residents.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003113]
Provision of Council Housing
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Ind)
Council housing is the first, most important and only viable solution to the housing crisis and to creating a society that matches the hopes of both the Labour movement and the wider public. Not long ago, under the leadership of the current Prime Minister, Labour Front Benchers now sitting in Cabinet declared that housing is a fundamental human right, that Labour would restore social housing as the second-largest tenure ahead of the private rented sector and that the mantra of Ministers as they did so would be “council housing, council housing, council housing”.
As voters continue to demand the change that the Labour Government were elected to deliver, now is the time to recapture the clarity and optimism of that vision. It bears repeating at the outset that solely expanding the market supply of housing is not a solution to providing the genuinely affordable homes that so many families across our country desperately need.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
According to the charity Crisis, only 1.4% of one to three-bedroom properties in my constituency are affordable to renters who need housing benefits, while the number of people on the social housing waiting list in Wolverhampton has nearly tripled in three years and rents have surged by over 35% in the last five years. Does my hon. Friend agree that the housing emergency demands urgent and sustained action, and does he therefore welcome, as I do, this Government’s commitment to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation?
Chris Hinchliff
I fully agree with my hon. Friend. The points he raises perfectly exemplify why the provision of council housing is so important.
England has seen 724,000 more net additional dwellings than new households since 2015, yet in the same period the number of households in England on local authority housing waiting lists rose by more than 74,000.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Given that 1.3 million households are on council housing waiting lists, and given the previous Labour commitments to tackling the social housing crisis that he presented, does the hon. Member agree that it is extraordinary that the Minister has repeatedly refused to set a target for social housing? The Government think that setting a target for building any type of housing will address the housing crisis, but they are failing to address the specific problem of building social housing.
Chris Hinchliff
I fully agree that council housing is essential to meeting the housing crisis that we face, and I hope that we will hear ambitious remarks from the Minister.
The question is not simply how much housing is built, but the type of housing built and for whom. As has been referenced, more than 1.3 million households in England are trapped on waiting lists—a rise of 10% in the past two years alone. The scale of our failure to provide homes for all our citizens is staggering and reveals in the starkest possible terms the absolute folly of relying on the private sector to meet the public’s basic needs.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for securing the debate. In my office, as I suspect in everybody else’s, benefits are the first issue of importance and housing is the second. One possible solution—I want to be constructive, and I showed him this suggestion—is to focus on building smaller social housing units, enabling older couples to move out of family homes, which are larger and more difficult to heat. That would enable younger families to stay within their community and older people to have homes that are easier to heat. When it comes to solutions, it is also about that.
Chris Hinchliff
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. As usual, he makes a good point, and I wholly agree.
As our whole nation loses out on the stifled energy, talent and creativity of so many people held back by not having a secure home where they can put down roots and flourish, it is ever clearer that the magic of the invisible hand of the free market is little more than a fairy tale told by economists to justify a refusal to meet our obligations to the least well-off members of society. However, if we look to our past for inspiration, we see many parallels between the challenges confronting us now and those facing the great post-war Labour Government who took office 80 years ago. Then, Labour came into office determined to change the “devil take the hindmost” approach to housing policy in which, as Aneurin Bevan described:
“The higher income groups had their houses; the lower income groups had not. Speculative builders, supported enthusiastically, and even voraciously, by money-lending organisations, solved the problem of the higher income groups in the matter of housing”—[Official Report, 17 October 1945; Vol. 414, c. 1222.]
while the rest were left behind. Bevan’s solution was to start at the other end and focus on meeting the needs of the working class.
Our current state of affairs is much the same. We need the same priorities to get to the root of the contemporary housing crisis, because while house prices in many parts of the country are eye-wateringly high for all, the reality is that higher-income earners—frustrated though some of their ambitions may be—can find a home, while too often those at the other end of the spectrum cannot. Simply flooding the market with speculative developments will not address the problem. The only way to get high-quality homes that those on waiting lists can actually afford is to directly plan and deliver housing for people on low incomes. That is why we must have council housing —not housing built to maximise profits for developers’ shareholders—offering rents linked to local incomes, and hundreds of thousands of them. I will be quoting Bevan extensively, given his achievements in delivering high-quality council housing in this country.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Since the Labour Government established the social housing policy and built the houses that were needed, the number of council houses has reduced as the Thatcher Government decided to sell those houses off. I will not object to people buying their own homes, but the Government of that time did not allow the money generated to be reinvested in social housing, so the social housing stock reduced over time and has not been replaced. Does he agree that the only way to address the issue is to replace the housing that was lost?
Chris Hinchliff
I agree with my hon. Friend and will come to right to buy later in my speech.
As Bevan described,
“the speculative builder, by his very nature, is not a plannable instrument.”—[Official Report, 6 March 1946; Vol. 420, c. 451.]
They build what makes them most money, while we need our councils empowered to assess the needs of their communities and directly deliver for them, because that is in the public interest.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend extensively quotes Aneurin Bevan, a man with whom he shares the honour of being unfairly suspended from the parliamentary Labour party. I am sure that, like Aneurin Bevan, he will return and go on to deliver greater things. Does he agree that a mass council house building programme could help to drive down rents in the private sector, because it is the lack of council house provision that has allowed private rents to rocket, pricing people out?
Chris Hinchliff
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct in his assessment of one of the many benefits of council housing.
The provision of council housing is uniquely important for meeting the Government’s objectives, because of the risk in designing housing policy around a target delivered by a market over which we have limited control. Once again, Bevan was right when he said that committing to general housing targets would be “crystal gazing” and “demagogic”. He also stated:
“The fact is that if at this moment we attempted to say that, by a certain date, we will be building a certain number of houses, that statement would rest upon no firm basis of veracity”.—[Official Report, 17 October 1945; Vol. 414, c. 1232.]
It is only with council housing supplied directly by public authorities that we can give real confidence to the electorate in our ability to deliver. The last time we were building 300,000 homes a year, nearly half the total was council housing, and if we want to secure an increase in construction to 1.5 million new homes over the course of this Parliament, the lion’s share of the balance must come through council housing.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for securing today’s debate. Bevan also said that only municipal authorities could build the housing for our communities, and it was in my constituency that council housing originated, thanks to that great Committee with Wedgwood Benn and Joseph Rowntree. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to restructure the housing revenue account debt so that local authorities can borrow more in order to build the new council housing that we need?
Chris Hinchliff
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I fully agree.
Before I get to costs, I would like us for a moment to lift our eyes to the potential prizes to be won by a new generation of council housing across the country, because council housing is not just the most effective tool we have to cut waiting lists, it is not just the best policy for transforming the futures of the tens of thousands of children going to sleep every night in temporary accommodation, and it is not just the surest way to save billions of pounds from the housing benefits bill. As if each of those were not justification enough in their own right, council housing is also the best hope we have to create the new communities that foster the sort of life and society that the labour movement has always dreamed of and strived for.
This does not seem to be debated too often in this place, but the built environment we go about our daily lives in matters profoundly. The provision of council housing is not just about progress towards social justice and the eradication of inequality; it is also about building a world around ourselves that contributes every day to the experience of self-worth, happiness, peace, connection and leisure in all our lives. If we are to be judged by future generations, not just on how many houses we build but on what we build, a policy dominated by council housing, with local authorities in the driving seat able to plan and design developments matching the hopes and identity of each community, is essential to avoiding the condemnation of history.
Far too many of the estates thrown up in recent years by the private sector have been notable mainly for their identikit and bland miserablism. Even leaving aside the appalling quality of new build housing on many speculative developments, the status quo approach that housing policy has sunk into has in effect created a new phenomenon of spiritual slums, where a near total lack of facilities or features capable of instilling any sense of interest or civic pride condemns the young to a sentence of boredom. When we are building estates with more land given to car parking than space for children to play, rising disaffection and antisocial behaviour should not be a surprise to anyone. The choice facing the Labour Government in the provision of council housing is therefore between socialism and delinquency.
Similarly, the record of private housing development when it comes to integrating nature into our lives, a basic need that we know more and more clearly is essential to our mental health, is shocking. Research has found that environmental features promised in planning conditions are not being delivered almost half of the time. Simple measures to help declining insect populations, birds, bats and other iconic species have all been regularly shirked by developers, and nearly half of the native hedges that were supposed to be laid do not exist. Once again, public goods, even when legally committed to, routinely fail to materialise when we rely on private interests to meet our nation’s housing needs.
Public-led housing—council housing—offers the opportunity for different priorities that at last deliver something better. Just as 100 years ago the Independent Labour party trailblazer Ada Salter set about housing the working class of Bermondsey while also improving their lives by planting thousands of trees and filling open spaces with flowers, so now we can have council housing that goes hand in hand with nature.
What is more, while so-called affordable housing set at 80% of market rates is often used to justify speculative developments, in reality it continues to price key workers out of many parts of the country. The promise of a new era of council housing, in which rents were linked to local incomes, would create a more democratic and less stratified society in which people of all incomes lived side by side. I would welcome the Minister’s reassurance that at least 60% of the affordable homes programme will be homes for social rent or council housing.
Prioritising council-led delivery should also mean greater public accountability for maintenance and tenant support. That, sadly, is often lacking where housing associations have moved too far from their original purpose. If we want genuinely affordable homes for those currently priced out of the housing market, better place making, greener and more integrated communities, and all the things that our constituents are demanding, so that we can go from wishing for a better society to that being the lived reality across our nation, we must have housing funded by patient capital that can focus on wider benefits, rather than mere monetary calculations.
Across the country, the evidence could not be clearer: only public funding is capable of mobilising the necessary resources at the scale required through long-term investments to deliver the public goods so conspicuously absent in recent years. Over six years, at a time of shortages, debt, constraints, and competing demands on public expenditure that were even greater than ours, the post-war Labour Government oversaw the construction of more than 800,000 council houses—some of the best ever built in this country.
Chris Hinchliff
I had better make some progress.
That is the yardstick the Government should measure themselves against. I now come at last to how we might go about achieving this. The place to start, as we have already heard, is with plugging the gap. We must stop draining our stock of council houses, year on year. It is a fact of mesmerising absurdity that in the last year of the previous Conservative Government, there was a net loss of social housing in this country, as over 20,000 homes for social rent were lost to right to buy. I welcome the determination of Labour Ministers to reform the right to buy, and to ensure that more homes are built than lost, and I especially welcome the planned 35-year exemption for newly built properties. I urge the Government to bring forward the necessary legislation for those changes as swiftly as possible.
Next, we need further planning reform to empower our local authorities to drive forward a council housing renaissance up and down the land. We need new social housing targets, to make the delivery of council housing the urgent priority of every local planning authority. Ministers must bring together local authorities and charities like Crisis to create fairer rules for eligibility for social housing, so that homeless people are no longer unfairly excluded. We need to build on the welcome measures that Ministers have already brought forward on hope value, by allowing local authorities to disregard it entirely for the purposes of purchasing land to meet housing targets. That would not only make the provision of council housing on a vastly increased scale viable by ending the payment of inflated sums of public money to wealthy landowners, slashing an estimated 38% off the total development costs of a mass-scale building programme; it would also allow local authorities to capture the full uplift in land values associated with the delivery of their local plans, and to fund projects that combine high-quality council housing with improved space for nature and expanded public infrastructure.
We must also face up to the reality of serious constraints on construction capacity due to a workforce that is too small and an inadequate supply of key materials. If we are to have the hundreds of thousands of council houses that we need in order to swiftly tackle the housing crisis, the Government should ensure that the new strategic planning authorities created through devolution have tools at their disposal to direct available resources where they are needed most, even if that means putting limits on construction for private profit.
Of course, many of our local authorities will need substantial support to rebuild the capacity necessary for a major council house building programme. As Shelter has said, in trying to balance budgets after years of funding cuts, local authorities have been forced to shut down their building operations, transfer their council stock to housing associations or focus on building private homes for sale. We will only see the council housing that our country desperately needs if we reverse that trend.
Alongside making more low-interest loans available to councils through the Public Works Loan Board, the Government should raise the money needed to invest in a new generation of local authority planners, ecologists, designers and architects through a windfall tax on the largest property developers, which have dominated the market and enjoyed super-normal profits for too long.
On funding, the Government have already committed to a transformative £39 billion over 10 years for the new affordable homes programme. I will not try the Minister’s patience by calling for additional money today, but front-loading this investment and driving it primarily towards council housing could see us well on our way.
I recognise that, even with all that, matching the scale of council housing delivery overseen by Attlee’s Government is a daunting task, but in the context of the upcoming Budget and increasingly vociferous debates on the merits of a wealth tax, I will take this opportunity to briefly fly the flag for the comparatively straightforward proposal of a levy on multiple home ownership. With so many in our society unable to access suitable housing at all, requiring those who own multiple homes to contribute to the public coffers a small percentage of the value of their additional properties would be both fair and proportionate.
That leaves a final, concluding point. The case for more council housing and what it could deliver for our society is overwhelming in its own right, but even if we were to reduce ourselves to desiccated calculating machines, concerned only with economic statistics, the irrefutable fact is that we cannot afford not to invest in hundreds of thousands of new council houses over the coming years. A major council house building programme would deliver a huge counter-cyclical boost to economic activity in every region of the country. Alongside the vast savings to be made on the cost of temporary accommodation provided by councils, there would be knock-on benefits from secure decent homes: they would reduce costs right across the public sector, from the NHS to our schools. In short, it would be fiscally reckless not to invest in a new generation of council housing.
We all deserve a warm, safe and affordable home, where we can put down roots and have the safety and security to flourish and grow. It is our duty to make that a reality. Hundreds of thousands of families cannot afford for us to delay or go slow. Now is the time for the Government to live up to their heritage and provide a new era of council housing that transforms lives up and down the country.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) on securing the debate, and thank the other hon. Members who have made contributions to it.
The provision of council housing is of the utmost importance to this Government. After decades of marginalisation, we are once again asserting the necessity and value of social and council housing, as a crucial national asset to be proud of, to invest in, to protect and to maintain. Doing so is imperative, because successive Government have, for decades, failed to build sufficient numbers of social and council homes in England, and that failure is at the heart of the acute and entrenched housing crisis we face today.
As has been noted, as a result of diminished social and affordable housing supply, particularly in the wake of the coalition Government’s decision in 2010 to slash grant funding for affordable homes, over 1.3 million households now languish on local authority waiting lists, millions of low-income families have been forced into insecure, unaffordable and often substandard private rented housing, and, to our shame as a nation, over 169,000 children will go to sleep tonight in temporary accommodation. Acutely conscious that it would not be quick or easy, we entered government determined to turn that situation around, and that is precisely what we have begun to do. In the brief time available to me, I will detail how the Government are kick-starting a decade of social and affordable housing renewal, and set out the ways in which we have laid the groundwork for a reinvigoration of council house building.
As the House will know, the Government stood for election on a clear manifesto commitment to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation. We did so to address the urgent need to provide homes for those for whom the market cannot cater, but also because the provision of social and affordable housing supports wider housing delivery. We know, for example, that on sites where more than 40% of homes are affordable, build-out rates are twice as fast. Boosting the supply of social and affordable homes is therefore at the heart of our efforts to ramp up housing supply more generally, and to meet housing need and housing demand in full across the country.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Member will know that we have not set a target as things stand, for the reasons that we have debated on many occasions, but we keep the matter under review.
Matthew Pennycook
And we have debated that issue on many, many occasions. I have given the hon. Member very detailed answers as to why, at this point in time, we have not set a target, but we will keep it under review.
As I have said, boosting the supply of social and affordable homes is at the heart of our efforts to ramp up housing supply more generally, and because direct delivery by councils has been key to high rates of house building in the past, getting councils building again is an essential part of our strategy.
On social and council housing, the Government have put their money where their mouth is. As the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire made clear, at the spending review we announced £39 billion for a successor to the affordable homes programme over 10 years from 2026-27 to 2035-36. I can confirm that given the priority this Government accord to social rented housing, at least 60% of homes delivered through the programme will be for social rent.
Accurately forecasting long-term delivery is inherently challenging—that is one of the reasons we have not set a social affordable housing target to date—but we believe our grant-funded social and affordable homes programme could deliver around 300,000 social and affordable homes over its lifetime, with around 180,000 being for social rent. The programme will continue to support regeneration schemes that provide a net increase in homes. It will also permit a limited number of acquisitions. We know these two delivery avenues are important to councils, including those with older homes and those who are looking to rapidly grow their housing portfolios to deal with acute local pressures. We also recognise that certain types of much-needed social and affordable housing can cost more to deliver, including those built by councils. That is why the programme has been designed to be flexible in order to support the greater diversity of supply required, with councils encouraged not to self-censor when coming forward with bids.
To improve financial capacity, to deliver new supply and support long-term planning, for the first time, we announced a 10-year social housing rent policy at the spending review. In addition, we have recently completed a consultation on how to implement a social rent convergence mechanism, the outcome of which will be confirmed at the autumn Budget. The inclusion of this mechanism will be beneficial to councils, with many authorities letting homes below formula rent. Both these measures will support their capacity to borrow and invest in new and existing homes.
Beyond investment, we have developed a series of measures designed to enhance councils’ confidence, capacity and capability to deliver, and I want to cover some of them as they directly address the subject of the debate. As the hon. Gentleman is aware and has noted, one of the Government’s earliest acts was to introduce transformative changes to the right to buy. We want to retain a scheme that helps long-standing tenants to buy their own homes, but we could not ignore the detrimental impact the right to buy was having on existing stock and councils’ confidence to deliver new social and affordable housing. So we took decisive action to deliver a fairer, more sustainable scheme that provides better value for money and creates the certainty for councils to once again build at scale. Changes that have already come into effect include returning the maximum cash discounts to between £16,000 and £38,000. We have also enabled councils to keep 100% of their right to buy receipts for reinvestment in new and existing homes. But we will not stop there. Following consultation, we will legislate for a more comprehensive set of reforms when parliamentary time allows. These reforms will include a 35-year exemption from the scheme for newly built homes, and a first option for councils to repurchase homes acquired through right to buy if they are sold on. On top of this, from 2026-27, we will act on a long-standing ask from councils by allowing them to combine right to buy receipts with grant funding from the social and affordable homes programme.
In addition to revenue generated from sales through right to buy and capital subsidy, we know how important borrowing is to councils’ delivery plans. Since 2023, a preferential borrowing rate has been available from the Public Works Loan Board for council house building. So far, this preferential rate has enabled councils to borrow £6 billion for investment in new and existing homes. I am conscious that this rate is due to expire at the end of this financial year, and recognise the calls from councils for long-term certainty. Considering this, we will confirm our approach to this discounted rate at the autumn Budget.
Many of the measures I have mentioned so far relate to councils’ financial capacity, yet we know—the hon. Gentleman again mentioned this—that the challenges they face are not solely financial, and that as rates of delivery have declined in recent decades, so too have the skills and capacity of their housing teams. In response, in partnership with Homes England and the Local Government Association, we have launched the council house building skills and capacity programme, backed by £12 million of funding this year. This programme aims to upskill councils’ existing workforces, recruit and train new graduates to become qualified surveyors and construction project managers, and drive engagement with the social and affordable homes programme.
To conclude, this Government remain firmly committed to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation. Within that commitment, we have prioritised the delivery of social rented homes, and we are taking steps to enable councils—whether those already delivering or those with closed housing revenue accounts who want to deliver—to once again build at scale. We have achieved an incredible amount over the space of just 14 months, but there is much more to come. We will continue to engage with councils and pull every lever at our disposal to increase their confidence, capacity and capability to deliver the social homes that low-income families across the nation need to live, grow and build a better life for themselves.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Building Safety Levy (England) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Building Safety Levy (England) Regulations 2025.
Is it a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, in my first outing as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Building Safety, Fire and Democracy. This Government are committed to the remediation of residential buildings with unsafe cladding in England. Our remediation acceleration plan sets out how we will remove barriers so that buildings are fixed faster. Crucially, that will allow residents to be, and feel, safe in their homes.
The Government have already committed £5.1 billion of taxpayers’ money to the cost of remediation. We want to protect leaseholders and residents from further costs that are not of their making, and the building safety levy is an essential step in achieving this. Its purpose is to fund the Government’s building safety remediation programme—we estimate that we need to raise £3.4 billion over 10 years—and these draft regulations enable the levy to be imposed. The levy will be charged on certain building control applications for new residential floorspace in England. Subject to the approval of both Houses, it will start being charged from 1 October 2026.
Local authorities will collect the levy on behalf of central Government. They are well placed to carry out this role, as custodians of local building control with tax collection expertise. I thank local authorities for the vital role they will play and for the steps they are already taking to prepare. My officials are supporting them to ensure that they are ready for levy launch. We will provide collecting authorities with grant funding for set-up costs. All ongoing costs will be recoverable from levy revenue received.
The levy provides essential funding to deliver a safe built environment that meets residents’ needs. It complements our broader housing goals, including the delivery of 1.5 million high-quality homes over this Parliament. The levy is designed to minimise any detrimental impact on housing supply, while securing the required revenue. To achieve that, there are different levy rates for each local authority, reflecting local house prices. That protects viability in areas where house prices are lower. Development on previously developed land will benefit from a 50% discount rate. That discount compensates for the often higher cost of developing that type of land, ensuring that more sites remain viable.
The Government are committed to getting Britain building again. Small and medium-sized builders play a crucial role in driving up house building rates, but they have faced significant challenges in recent years. We are therefore helping SME developers by exempting developments of fewer than 10 dwellings from the levy charge.
Earlier this year, we announced the biggest boost to social and affordable housing investment in a generation. The building of more good-quality, affordable housing must be accelerated. With that in mind, all affordable housing is exempt from the levy charge. However, we have gone further: any housing built by a non-profit registered provider of social housing is also exempt. Profits from sales of such homes are often reinvested into the provision of further much-needed affordable housing.
In addition, supported housing and other types of important community facilities, such as hospices and care homes, are also exempt from this charge. We will keep the rates and processes under review and will report at least every three years. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I am sure you will be pleased to hear that His Majesty’s Opposition do not propose to divide the Committee on the regulations. As the Minister set out, they arise from the Building Safety Act 2022, which was passed by the Conservative party in Government.
After extensive consultation, the regulations should command broad support. We welcome in particular the commitment to enshrine the exemptions for smaller sites and for other types of development, about which extensive representation has been made about how the imposition of a costly levy would significantly inhibit their deliverability. We support the proposal for regular reporting on the outcome. We are aware that there has been extensive consultation with the 295 local authorities that act as building regulations authorities, and that their representations are reflected in the grant award to ensure that there are sufficient resources to get the system up and running. I am sure we will scrutinise the resulting reports in due course.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I take this opportunity to welcome the Minister to her place. I am pleased that she mentioned the importance of moving rapidly to remediate buildings, because it is a matter not only of safety but of justice, and of providing reassurance and security for people. That has become starkly apparent in my constituency of Worcester, where the residents of Barbourne Works have found themselves facing not only the difficulties of an unsafe building but the uncertainty over who pays. I am pleased that the Government are moving forward with this quickly to bring about that certainty and the fast remediation of buildings. I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations, which I strongly support, and for all her hard work.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond, and I welcome the Minister to her place. The Liberal Democrats do not intend to divide the Committee either. Along with the Opposition spokesperson, we welcome the seriousness with which the Government are taking the matter and their positive steps to deal with the fact that thousands of people in our country still live in buildings with dangerous cladding, getting on for 10 years after the terrible 2017 Grenfell tragedy. We are pleased that the Government have thought hard about exempting certain types of social and affordable housing, as well as hospices and care homes. We therefore support what is being proposed.
We have a bit of concern about whether the proposed levy will provide sufficient funding for all the necessary remediation. We would welcome hearing a bit more from the Minister about the financial appraisal of how much money needs to be raised, whether that will be adequate and, if not, what other avenues are being looked at to ensure that we have all the funding we need to deal with these risks for ever more, so that we have no more Grenfells.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I had not indicated that I wished to speak, Sir Desmond, but I briefly welcome the regulations and welcome the Minister to her place. I would be glad to have further conversation with her on some of my concerns about care homes. I wrote to her predecessor about that, and I will write to her in due course. Sorry, Sir Desmond, for the confusion.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I welcome these measures, and it is good to see that they are welcomed across the Committee. Too many people in this country live in poor quality or dangerous housing, and unfortunately on a number of occasions we have seen the result of that. I also welcome the efforts to protect hospices and social housing from additional costs as a consequence of the regulations.
My specific question relates to the redevelopment of sites where there is a significant conservation deficit. In my own constituency of Mid Derbyshire, which includes the UNESCO world heritage site of the Derwent valley, is a very significant regeneration project, the Belper Mills. The building has sat empty for many years, but it played an important role in the development of the industrial revolution and has had a significant architectural impact on the town and the landscape of the UNESCO world heritage site. I am keen for us to make progress on the project, and I want to see movement on it as soon as possible. Can the Minister clarify, either in her summing up or later, how the redevelopment of heritage sites such as former mills will not be jeopardised by any additional costs that developers face, or where the wider development of a site is actually paying for its heritage aspect?
Will the Minister also provide clarity about the new burdens money? As a former local councillor, I appreciate that councils are well placed to implement these regulations; however, when the Government come up with an idea and ask councils to implement it, the new burdens money has helped at the start, but later down the line, councils have struggled to keep up with what the Government originally intended. I am also thinking about asset of community value status as part of that, which was introduced by the previous Government to help communities to take to control of locally important buildings and facilities. However, councils were insulated for only a certain amount of the costs, which has presented a challenge to local authorities.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I want to put on record my support for this legislation, but I would also like to flag the case of Amanda Walker. Her mother, Glenda, lives in my constituency and has been in touch with me about Amanda, who sadly took her life in 2024 because she felt trapped in a flat that she could not sell. Amanda had been involved in giving evidence to the House of Lords about her situation until she decided that she could go no further, and she brought forward some proposed amendments to the Building Safety Act 2022, which I appreciate is now in legislation. Will the Minister do me the courtesy of spending time with Glenda so that we can discuss where Amanda got to, and whether anything can be done to recognise her positive legacy in relation to the Act?
Samantha Dixon
I thank all hon. Members for their comments; I will try to respond to them as fully as I can.
First, on the ability of local authorities to respond to this change, the point is that the levy rates are set out in regulations, and any change would require further regulations approved by Parliament. We will undertake reviews every three years on the operation of the regulations. Should the amount of funding increase or decrease, decisions on those changes will be taken at that time. Our intention is to shorten or extend the anticipated duration of time over which the levy is collected, rather than increase or decrease the levy rates, which allows certainty for developers and landowners.
Of course, I would be more than happy to meet with my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe and his constituent Glenda to discuss the very sad case of Amanda. The whole point of these regulations is to remediate buildings, particularly for leaseholders, as soon as possible so that such anxiety and a sense of being trapped is no longer experienced by residents across the country, so I will certainly do what my hon. Friend asks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire asked about exemptions. I will write to him on the detail, but the point is that there is the exemption, or reduction in the rates, for brownfield sites, which may be appropriate in that particular case. I will ask officials to write to him on the details of that particular issue.
The building safety level is essential to fund the remediation of historic building safety issues without further burdening residents and leaseholders. The Government are committed to delivering 1.5 million homes this Parliament to meet the country’s long-term housing needs and unlock growth. That mission must work in parallel with our commitment to remedying the building safety failures of the past. The industry that contributed to such problems must pay to remedy them. The draft regulations before the Committee set out a fair approach to collect the required funds, while ensuring minimal impact on housing supply and industry.
Question put and agreed to.
Online gambling platforms
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
Children with SEND: Assessments and Support
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 711021 relating to assessments and support for children with SEND.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this extremely popular debate, Dr Huq, and it is a privilege to open it on behalf of the Petitions Committee. Over 122,000 people have signed this petition, led by Save Our Children’s Rights, parents and organisations including the Independent Provider of Special Education Advice, Special Needs Jungle and SOS!SEN. Their message is clear: the primary goal of education policy must be to ensure that every child fulfils their potential to the maximum degree possible. They are deeply concerned that weakening statutory duties would reduce not just rights but opportunities.
What do we mean by SEND? It is a legal term: a child has special educational needs if they have a learning difficulty or disability that means they cannot use standard educational facilities without extra help, and if they require special educational provision—extra or different support from what is normally provided. This can include one-to-one support, smaller classes, adapted curricula or therapies such as speech and language support. A diagnosis is not required. What matters is whether the child’s needs make learning harder and whether extra help is essential to their participation and progress.
We all know that the system is under immense pressure.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s allocation of £740 million to the 10,000 new places for pupils with SEND. However, there are still serious funding concerns in my constituency. One school told me that its funding shortfall is around £22,000 per pupil for those requiring one-to-one support. Does the hon. Member agree that, without adequate and sustainable funding, local authorities and schools will struggle to deliver on their legal duty to support children with SEND?
Dr Savage
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Given the number of people who want to take part, I will proceed with my speech to allow the maximum number possible the chance to speak.
We extended support from birth to 25 in 2014, replacing statements with holistic education, health and care plans, but those reforms coincided with major funding pressures. Families now routinely have to enforce their rights through tribunals, with almost all appeals finding in their favour.
Last week, a new Institute for Fiscal Studies report confirmed the seriousness of this crisis. It found that, since 2018, the number of pupils with EHCPs has grown by nearly 80%, from under 3% to over 5% of pupils, while local authorities face cumulative high-needs deficits, which are projected to reach £8 billion by 2027. The report also shows that the cost of independent special school places is now more than double that of state special schools on average. The IFS warns that, without reform, spending pressures will balloon over the next few years.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Lady is making a very powerful case, and we all agree that we want to get the system right. Can we also all agree, because there is not a Reform Member here, that the comments about the system being “hijacked” were completely inappropriate and do not speak for the needs of the children we all want to represent, and that we all in this room condemn that as being without foundation? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Only one in five children leaves school with their dyslexia identified. A constituent of mine told me that, although he was diagnosed with autism in lower school, it was not until upper school—thanks to the excellent support at Grange academy in my constituency—that teachers truly understood his needs and he began to flourish. Does the hon. Lady agree that we must improve routine screening for neurodivergent conditions so that every child can be identified and supported early, and given the best chance to learn and reach their full potential?
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Early intervention is exactly the issue at play here. The reality is that for many families in my constituency who have managed to acquire an EHCP, it has come only after considerable delay. Does the hon. Lady agree that we must protect legal rights and move from a system that focuses too much on later interventions to one that focuses more on earlier interventions, and that the right test will be whether the new system gets more support to more young people more quickly?
Dr Savage
I totally agree with the hon. Member’s intervention. Change must focus on early support, mainstream inclusion and capacity, which is exactly what the petitioners are calling for today. In the light of that evidence, the legal rights given by EHCPs are not a luxury but a necessary tool for ensuring that children get the support to fulfil their true potential. Without these legal rights intact, many families face months or years of legal challenge or delay just to obtain what should be automatic.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Recently, I held a roundtable for parents and carers, and we had a very moving discussion. One parent spoke about how her son had not been to school since January and had missed out on his GCSEs. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need a holistic procedure whereby schools and local authorities work with the NHS; that we should have dedicated special educational needs co-ordinators in schools; and that teacher training should include SEND so that teachers are equipped to deal with these children?
Dr Savage
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I, too, have hosted roundtable events such as the one that he describes, and I agree that collaboration and greater education across the board is the way forward.
Three guiding principles should underpin the Government’s White Paper and coming reforms. First, early intervention must be real. If mainstream schools had better statutory support earlier, fewer children would need EHCPs. Making SEND support stronger and more reliably available would allow many needs to be met before they escalate.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for her fantastic speech. In Staffordshire, I met representatives of one of my local specialist schools, who said that it receives 200 applications for just 20 places. On top of that, many of our state schools and those who wish to provide support to students with special educational needs are struggling with capacity. Does she agree that it is of the utmost urgency that our county councils, such as Staffordshire, start to get to grips with the issue of placement and support in schools?
Dr Savage
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and I agree.
Secondly, individual need absolutely must be at the heart of provision. Every child, and their needs, is different. Generic packages or waiting until needs become acute undermines potential. Provision must be tailored so that each child can achieve as much as they are capable of. Thirdly, we need capacity and accountability. The system should get decisions right the first time.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
There are some tragic stories of horrendous errors with EHCPs in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is incredibly important that accountability is maintained in the system? If we cannot get it right now, how will we be able to—under the potential threat of EHCPs no longer existing—ensure that families and children are protected and get the support they need, and that the accountability of county councils and local authorities is maintained?
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
Last week, I was contacted by a mother in my constituency who was not happy with the plan. She wanted to challenge it at a tribunal, but the date she was given for a hearing is September next year. Does the hon. Member agree not only that the plans need to be well resourced and individualised, but that the tribunals need to meet more quickly and be adequately resourced, so that children do not miss out on the support they need to ensure that their journey through learning is not impacted negatively?
Dr Savage
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I agree that, at this formative stage of a child’s life, a year is forever. It is unacceptable to have to wait that long.
Without capacity and timely support, costs rise and outcomes worsen. This autumn, the Government will publish a SEND White Paper. This is a critical opportunity, but it is also a moment of danger. Change that simply cuts legal rights or dilutes statutory support to reduce short-term costs will fail children and ultimately cost more in the long run. The petitioners and the IFS urge the Government to ensure that the White Paper retains and protects legal rights, including EHCPs, so that each child can access what they are entitled to.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I have spoken to many parents and teachers, and part of the problem, certainly in Birmingham Perry Barr, was that EHCPs were being designed in relation to the budget, as opposed to what the needs were. Does the hon. Member agree that the only way we can reform the whole system is to make sure we have sufficient resources?
Dr Savage
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and would emphasise that point. We know that investing money up front early in a child’s life ultimately ends up costing less.
The White Paper should also invest in early support in mainstream schools to ensure that SEND support is strengthened, so that schools are properly resourced and not forced to chase EHCPs just to unlock basic help.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Before the summer recess, I ran a consultation session in Dartford for parents, carers, schools and local organisations to discuss their experiences of SEND. I have provided a full report to the Department for Education to inform the White Paper. Would the hon. Member agree with my constituents’ top three priorities: a faster, simpler EHCP system, investment to provide early interventions for under-fives, and more specialist places in properly resourced mainstream schools?
Dr Savage
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think he is echoing the same points that I am making.
The White Paper must also close funding gaps and workforce shortages, so that element 2 funding keeps pace with inflation and so that the capacity of speech and language therapists, educational psychologists and occupational therapists is rebuilt. It needs to ensure fairness and accountability, with clear expectations of quality and reducing postcode lotteries. Finally, the White Paper must embed inclusion across mainstream settings, so that children with SEND are supported close to home whenever possible, rather than having to spend many hours a day travelling, often at great cost to their families.
At its heart, this petition and today’s debate are about one fundamental, non-negotiable principle: that every child, in mainstream or special settings, has the right to an education that meets their needs and allows them to fulfil their potential. The IFS report confirms what parents, teachers and schools are saying. The current system is creaking. It is overburdened and under-resourced, and it is operating under legal obligations that are increasingly hard to meet. My call to the Government is simple. When they publish the White Paper, let it align squarely with the arguments made here today by protecting legal rights, strengthening early support, investing in capacity, ensuring inclusion and creating accountability. If the White Paper delivers on those points, children will not just get by, but will be given the firm foundation they need to realise their potential to its full.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Order. I would usually ask Members to stand and bob so that I know they want to speak, but not everyone has a seat. I think people are already doing this, but once Members have spoken, could they vacate their seat so that someone else can speak, because they have to be on the mic for the broadcast? I will try to get everyone in by setting a formal time limit. The clock will count backwards from two and a half minutes.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I congratulate the petitioners on bringing forward this very important issue. I also want to thank the families in York I have consulted throughout the summer and over the 10 years I have been in this place; I have written a report to give to the Minister on the back of that.
The first key thing that I want the Minister to focus on is culture in our schools, which must change to a therapeutic and nurturing culture that is inclusive, with a focus on belonging. I urge the Minister and all hon. Members to take time to listen to Sir Ken Robinson, particularly his YouTube video, “How to escape education’s death valley”. In 20 minutes, we can learn so much about why culture has to change across our education system, because all our children are unique and need an environment in which every child can thrive. If we got the culture right, so many children would not need EHCPs, because they would have the supportive learning environment and health support that they need in order to thrive.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The hon. Member touches on an important point about culture, which is borne out by my own experience as the parent of a neurodivergent child whose secondary school education was made all the more traumatic by a profound lack of understanding and training among the teachers in the school. It was also borne out on Saturday when I held an event in my constituency: sadly, too many comments from parents were about the responses that they had received from staff in schools. Does the hon. Member agree that we absolutely must take the opportunity to get the culture right in our mainstream schools?
Rachael Maskell
I absolutely do, and I congratulate the hon. Member on all the work that she has done in this area. We certainly know, for instance, that emotionally based school avoidance often happens because the culture is wrong in the classroom. We need the right culture not only in the school, but in the community, because a child’s life continues through school vacations, into the summer and so on.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Some 122,000 people have signed the petition, many of them from my constituency of Blyth and Ashington. I have met the teachers, the educators, the authorities, the parents and the schools. The default position, rather than assisting and supporting the individuals involved and the families who are in most need, appears to be putting as many barriers in their way as practicably possible. Does my hon. Friend share those views? Is that something that she has recognised in her discussions?
Rachael Maskell
I really do congratulate my hon. Friend: I know how hard he works on behalf of children in his constituency, and they could have no better champion. His observations are absolutely right. Parents in particular face so many barriers and are often pushed away from the learning environment. When I went to Scandinavia to look at the education system around SEND there, they drew parents right into the heart of the school. Parents had co-produced the support that their children could have and ensured that they could get full support around their education.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Rachael Maskell
I will make a little progress, if I may.
In my constituency this month, we are establishing a SEND hub. It is very much like the concept of Sure Start but for children with SEND, so that throughout their journey—up to the age of 25, but with no fixed barrier at that age limit either—parents and young people can get the support that they need from multi-agency provision, whether that is around stay and play, expert health advice, support for parents, peer support or the advice that teachers and others in our communities can get to make sure that the provision for their children is absolutely the best.
When we look at culture, we have to look at the physical environments in which our children can learn to make sure that they are therapeutic, from colours and lights right through to the ways people can navigate school uniforms. Why do we dress our children in the way we do in this modern age? I urge the Government to look at the whole area of exams and assessments, which cause so many children, particularly those with SEND, so much stress and anxiety. I also want to raise the issue of transition. We need to do transition far, far better, because it is often at the point of transition between primary and secondary that children face the greatest anxiety.
Finally, I want to talk about the issue of governance. Risk, responsibility and accountability sit in the wrong place within our system. There needs to be a controlling mind. I urge the Minister to look at local authorities holding that controlling mind, because often the ask on local authorities is not under their control: ultimately, multi-academy trusts are making decisions that are pushing these children out of the education system, and local authorities are having to pick up the pieces. I believe that we can get this right, but we need local authorities to be really in control.
Will the Minister consider giving special educational needs co-ordinators roles similar to directors of public health in the way they relate to their local authorities, so that they have more power and authority to determine what happens within their educational environment?
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for opening this Petitions Committee debate.
I want to take this opportunity to address the 208 people in Amber Valley who put their names to the petition, and the more than 100 constituents I am supporting with their fight to get the SEND provision they need. In November last year, Ofsted released a damning report that found that the then Conservative-run Derbyshire county council’s SEND provision had “widespread and…systemic failings” and that it created a postcode lottery. Fast-forward less than a year, and now the Reform-led council has done no better. In one of my first meetings with the new leadership, I asked them whether they agreed with the comments of their party leader, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), about the overdiagnosis of SEND. They told me that they did not believe that. Imagine my shock when just weeks later, the leader of Derbyshire county council said that he agreed with the hon. Member entirely.
Among all this chaos and uncertainty in Derbyshire, it is hardly surprising that over 208 of my constituents and 124,000 people nationwide who have experienced similar struggles have signed this petition. It reflects the anxiety felt up and down the country about what the proposed reforms in the schools White Paper might look like. Although families, teachers, parents, children and educators all know that the SEND system absolutely needs to be reformed and better enforced, they are worried and scared that these changes could let them down yet again. My constituents in Derbyshire have experienced that for many, many years.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly compelling case on behalf of her constituents. Does she agree that families have to fight so incredibly hard for an EHCP, and face so many anxieties and so many battles to get one, that they feel that it is a golden ticket? Behind that, however, there is often a lack of sufficient resource, sufficient funding and sufficient support. Any reforms and any discussions in the White Paper must look at improving resources, within schools and externally, through separate specialist provision.
Linsey Farnsworth
I absolutely agree. Unfortunately, in Derbyshire, obtaining an EHCP is merely the start of the struggle. It is certainly not the end of the struggle for those families who desperately need the support that their children deserve.
Many view the legal right to which the petition relates—the right for SEND children to get assessment and support in education—as an important guarantee in what for far too long has been an unstable, broken and chaotic system characterised by long wait times and prolonged poor communication with little or no meaningful action. Having legal protections in place will absolutely guarantee that my constituents in Amber Valley will continue to be able to fight for the support that they need, even though they are battling against a council whose leadership do not even believe that SEND is an issue that they need to address. On that basis, I ask the Minister to confirm today that, going forward, legal protections will be in place for those families who so desperately need that support.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq, and a privilege to speak on behalf of the 204 people in the Taunton and Wellington constituency who signed the petition and all the other families who are deeply concerned. It is not abstract for me, because of the support my wife gives to many families who have children with special needs, including in our own home. From my experiences with my own children and from my surgeries, I know the regular trials, the pain and the often extreme debilitating stress that families go through trying to get a basic, decent education for their children. Parents are driven to the very edge by a system that they have had to battle through every step of the way. It should not be like this.
Let me tell the House about Luke, a bright, motivated young man. Luke loves school and has high hopes for his career, but he needs help to get there. His parents now have to provide two-to-one transport support just to get him to and from school. Juggling in that way has resulted in Luke being more dangerous, lashing out on transport while travelling. His parents are working, paying taxes and, in short, doing everything that society asks of them, as well as caring for Luke with extraordinary dedication all the time when he is not at school, but how are they supposed to work and hold down full-time jobs while being denied the transport that they need for Luke? Every day that his education, health and care plan fails to be delivered takes him a step closer to full residential care, at hugely greater human and financial cost to everyone involved.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
My hon. Friend is right to point out all the problems. We are going to hear a lot about problems; there are also solutions. In my constituency, we have a wonderful school called Muntham House, which teaches high-needs autistic boys, 40% of whom go on to hold down a job and to be able to sustain themselves. That is what we can do if we do the job properly. Think of the saving to the state, as well as the huge reward for the families.
Gideon Amos
I very much agree with my hon. Friend, who is a great champion of families in that position in his constituency. As the 122,000 signatures on today’s petition show, too many families are forced into crisis before help arrives. Many fear that the Government’s forthcoming reforms will make things even harder.
To its credit, Somerset council recognises that the system is not working, and it is working hard to turn around the position. The super-tanker needs to be turned around. The council has invested in the provision of more than 20 new in-school SEND units, which are now coming forward across the county. It has increased the number of EHCPs by 46%, even though applications have risen by 26%, and it has begun to see some reductions in complaints and tribunal cases.
Our councillors and I continue to challenge the team to do a lot better. These are only the early signs of improvement. It has to go further: that improvement has to be sustained. The system is not good enough, and it is failing our families. Government funding has to be part of the change, but families in Taunton and Wellington and elsewhere are worried that that change will threaten the future of children’s education. Their right to assessment and support must be maintained and there must be enhanced investment in both special provision and mainstream special educational needs provision.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I thank everybody across the country who signed this important petition, and the Petitions Committee for granting time for the debate. It is no surprise that the petition attracted such interest. Across the country, children and their families are being failed by a SEND system that the previous Conservative Education Secretary described as “lose, lose, lose”. For too many children and their parents and carers, the system is slow, adversarial and fundamentally failing to meet children’s needs.
The Education Committee, which I chair, chose to focus its first full inquiry of this Parliament on solving the SEND crisis, because it is the single biggest challenge in the education system, from the early years all the way through to further and higher education. Many Members from both sides of the House heard directly from their constituents during the general election campaign, and subsequently—over and again—about the impact that the failing system has on their daily lives.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Four-year-old Maeve lives in my constituency and has cerebral palsy. She requires constant care, is unable to walk, has limited speech and has multiple ongoing medical conditions that require attention. Despite that, and despite the fact that her parents applied to Surrey county council almost a year ago, the council has refused to even assess her for an EHCP. She started last week, but still does not have an agreed plan in place. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government must improve funding, tackle waiting lists and boost specialist care so that SEND families get the support that they need?
Helen Hayes
My speech will turn to some of the points that the hon. Member raised. I will not give way to further interventions, because many Members want to speak and it would eat into their time.
The Committee spent eight months examining evidence and hearing in person from a wide range of witnesses, including children and young people with SEND. I put on record my thanks to every person who took the time to submit evidence or who gave evidence to us in person. We also travelled to Ontario in Canada and within the UK to look at examples of good practice. We will publish our report later this week, so I cannot speak about its content today, but I am very much looking forward to sharing it with everybody.
I began the inquiry with only a sense of the overwhelming difficulty of the challenge, but at the end of it I am convinced that meaningful reform of the SEND system is possible and deliverable.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Helen Hayes
I will not give way again because of the time constraints.
I will point to a few of the big themes that came through in our evidence, to which our report will speak. There are major problems with accountability in the SEND system. Accountability is overwhelmingly loaded on to the statutory part of the system, which means that if ordinarily available provision is not there or goes wrong, there is no recourse for parents. That problem needs to be fixed.
There is a problem with how we equip teachers. There are children with SEND in every single school, in every classroom, up and down the country, but we do not routinely equip teachers to teach the children who are in front of them. The funding system is broken. There are problems about place planning, both in the inclusivity of mainstream schools and for specialist schools within the state sector.
Most importantly, the trust and confidence of parents in the system is utterly broken. In seeking to solve the crisis, the Government must turn their attention to the ways in which that trust and confidence can be rebuilt, so that children across the country who deserve far better than they get at the moment can access the education to which they are entitled.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I thank all the people who signed this petition, including 202 in my constituency, as well as the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for presenting it today. We all recognise the challenges in the system. Far too many families are let down, and I hear from them all the time in my inbox and surgeries, as do Members on both sides of the House.
We face a huge challenge. Indeed, in my constituency, we have a larger proportion of children with recognised special educational needs but lower-than-average education funding. The challenges are huge, and the deficit in my council looks like it will go up from around £6 million last year to £40 million next year. These are councils, systems and families at crisis point.
I recognise that the Government are trying to square a very difficult circle with the White Paper they are seeking to bring forward, but fundamentally, the voices of the children and young people, and of the families and those who work most closely with them, are most important. I ask the Minister to confirm: will she ensure that those voices are at the centre of every part of the plan that the Government set out? Will she defend the rights of those children who have benefited from being able to get EHCPs? Families have told me that their children are now thriving because of the support that they have. Will she defend the rights of children who are currently not accessing support, and ensure that they have what they need, whether that is specialist provision or integration into the mainstream?
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I am sorry to stop the hon. Lady’s very well delivered speech mid-stream. Does she agree that we need to hear from not only families but educators? Teachers in schools are up against the system, and families come into our surgeries in tears because they cannot get provision. Some 1,800 children in Surrey are missing education because they do not have provision from Surrey county council.
Dr Chowns
I absolutely recognise that. That is who I meant when I talked about the people who work most closely with these children and young people—the teachers and educators who support them. In my constituency, numerous children have to travel out of county to get the support they need, and numerous teachers are frustrated and tearing their hair out because they do not have the resources needed.
There are fantastic examples of excellent SEND provision in my constituency, including in mainstream settings, as well as excellent examples of special schools. We all recognise, however, that there are nowhere near enough state-funded special school places.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Milton Keynes has more than 15,000 specialist school places, but there has been a 114% increase in children with EHCPs. Even with the level of specialist provision that the council has been able to provide, it still cannot meet the demand. How should we square that circle?
Dr Chowns
A key part of that is about ensuring there is more state-run special school provision. As the hon. Member for South Cotswolds mentioned, the evidence shows that independent school places cost about two and a half times more than state special school places. We need investment to expand state educational provision so that we can get more bang for our buck in what we are providing for our children.
On that topic, I would like to ask the Minister about special school places specifically. Last May, the Department for Education announced that Herefordshire had succeeded in its bid for a new special school with 80 places for children with autistic spectrum disorder and severe learning difficulties, but we have heard nothing further since. Will the Minister confirm whether we can count on that funding coming forward soon, and will she outline the timetable for it?
We need to ensure a fair system across the country. I am making a bid for resources for North Herefordshire, but we need to sort out fairness across the entire country. We need to end the postcode lottery in which people have a better chance of accessing support in some places than others, and end the problem of people having to jump through extraordinary hoops and fight unbelievable battles to access the support that should be every child’s birthright. We need a system that enables every child to thrive, and I hope that the Minister will outline how to achieve that.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for her brilliant speech, and I thank the petitioners.
Over the summer, like many hon. Members, I hosted a SEND coffee morning. From those 25 parents, I heard stories of not only love, resilience and determination, but a system they feel is all too often rigged against them. Again and again, I heard about services that do not speak to one another and processes that feel confusing and adversarial. The impact on parents’ mental health and relationships, and on children’s ability to learn and make friends, is real.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
In line with my hon. Friend’s experience, I have heard from numerous families in Mansfield who have engaged in long battles to obtain EHCPs for their children. Many of them are utterly exhausted by the process, and often they are not offered the support that they are legally entitled to within the statutory timelines. Does he agree that such delays are completely unacceptable, and that they must change?
Josh Newbury
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I, too, have heard many examples of families who feel that they have had to work almost full time to manage their children’s EHCP processes, and even of some relationships that have broken down because of the strain—on top of the strains that already come with supporting a SEND child.
Parents also constantly raised the issue of waiting times. One mum in Wimblebury told me that she started the process for her daughter in reception but did not get an EHCP until just before she started year 7—and even then only with intensive support from one of our fantastic local councillors, Julie Aston. In fairness to Staffordshire county council, it faces an increase in the number of EHCP applications from around 600 a year up to 2019 to over 2,000 now, but after such a wait, too many children are left with an EHCP drafted by someone who has never even met them.
Another shocking reality is the profiteering that fills the void where state provision falls woefully short: the most expensive placement in my constituency is £166,000 for a single school year. Now, the last thing I would call for is to take the support away from that child—I hope that they are thriving in that setting—but it should shame us that ever more expensive private provision is the only way of meeting the spiralling need.
I have three practical asks rooted in what families have told me. First, we need a fair funding model that is based on need, not postcode. A child supported through the high needs block in Staffordshire receives less than £1,000, but in Camden a child gets more than £3,500. That discrepancy is not defensible. Secondly, we need true multi-agency working in practice—with a single front door for shared assessments, clear escalation routes and shared records—so that parents do not have to retell their story over and over.
Josh Newbury
I will proceed with my speech in the interest of time.
Thirdly, on transparent timings, we need to meet statutory deadlines, publish a dashboard of local waiting times and outcomes, and co-produce communications with parent-carer forums using clear, respectful and up-to-date language.
I could say reams more on things such as off-rolling and intermediate support, but I will end with this request: let us rebuild a SEND system with people, not processes, at the heart of its provision and with good communication and joined-up services as the norm. We can do better than this—and for the future of the children and young people stuck in a failing system, we must.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for introducing this important debate. It is not the first time that the Liberal Democrats have highlighted the serious issue of the SEND crisis, and the urgent need to solve it. Since being elected as the Member of Parliament for Woking, I have spoken to 68 parents and carers brought to the brink of despair by fighting tooth and nail every step of the way to ensure that their child gets an education. Their child has disabilities or special educational needs, and that means that the system tries to fight against them, but that is not acceptable.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
Kent county council has spent over £1.1 billion, including in my constituency, on legal fees to fight families. That is nearly 80% of its yearly revenue. Does the hon. Member agree that, for parents and families up against that system, the money would be better spent on provision for their children?
Mr Forster
I completely agree with the hon. Member. The system that we have all inherited from the previous Government fails vulnerable children and their families, and it fails taxpayers as well. Education is a right; it should not have to be fought for.
Data from the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman shows that the number of complaints and inquiries about SEND has surged in the last few years. There is a national crisis, whether that is in the lack of school places, support or just not keeping up with demand. Things are especially bad in my constituency of Woking. The Conservatives running Surrey county council are the worst offenders, according to the ombudsman. It has received an unacceptable 348 complaints about my local county council, which is the highest number in England over six years. It is a failing institution.
That level of complaint, whether in Surrey or across the country, shows why parents must have a legal right—the importance of having an ECHP has already been highlighted, and I will say a bit more—and why they feel they need that right to fight the system. They are really worried that their right will be revoked or restricted by upcoming legislation. Whatever the changes introduced by the new Government look like, they must give families the right they deserve, and a choice and hope for the education of their child.
Manuela Perteghella
SEND families in Stratford-on-Avon want to work in partnership with schools and councils, but too often they are left without the support they need. They are battling an adversarial system. Does my hon. Friend agree that any reforms should strengthen, not weaken, co-operation between families, schools, health services and local authorities?
Mr Forster
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We need a duty to co-operate to support vulnerable children. One of my constituents has two children, both with SEND. Her youngest has an EHCP, which is a battle that took years. That child should have started school in September 2024, but they still have no specialist school place and no alternative provision. They have missed a whole year of education. In exchange, they are offered one hour of remote learning. That is not acceptable.
I dealt with a case this week of a parent being offered a school place that both they and the school do not think will meet their child’s needs. The parent has been told that they can appeal, but that it will not be heard until October—not next month, but next year. That is not acceptable, and that is a failure of the previous Government and my county council. That is a sad state of affairs.
The SEND crisis was created by the Conservatives. I hope that the Labour Government live up to the hope of my constituents, and others across the country, by solving it. We need leadership to tackle it. We cannot allow another generation of children to be failed by inaction. These children deserve a school place, support and, above all, hope for their future. To the Government: please change the system and invest in it, but do not take away parents’ rights.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Special educational needs and disabilities are not a niche issue. It is a matter of justice, opportunity and inclusion. For too long, families have had to fight for the support their children deserve. The system has been adversarial, slow and inconsistent—this must change.
I am pleased that we are seeing the seeds of change across my constituency. Schools such as St John’s Church of England voluntary aided junior and infant school, Upperthong junior and infant school and Wellhouse junior and infant school are participating in the partnerships for inclusion of neurodiversity in schools programme. This initiative is training teachers to better understand and support neurodiverse children, fostering inclusive classrooms in which every child feels seen and supported.
The Government are providing additional funds. Kirklees council has received more than £6.1 million in capital funding for high-needs provision in 2025-26, but funding alone is not enough. We need a system built on collaboration between schools, families, healthcare professionals and local authorities. We need early intervention, not late reaction. We need to move from a model in which parents fight for support to one in which support wraps around the child from the start.
James Naish
My hon. Friend has referenced training. One of the biggest single asks from my constituents in Rushcliffe is for autism-specific training for school staff, yet most teachers report that very little specialist training takes place. Does he agree that there ought to be a standardised national professional development framework for teachers and support staff to make sure that this is embedded?
Paul Davies
You put it very eloquently. I absolutely agree with you, and that is crucial within the teaching profession. I am sure it would have 100% support from the professional bodies.
It is good to see the Government engaging directly with families, educators and experts ahead of the schools White Paper this autumn. That will help to ensure that we shape reforms that deliver better and more relevant outcomes for families and children.
In Kirklees, we are making real strides in supporting children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. The mainstream school clusters are fostering collaboration and early intervention, and as many people have mentioned, early intervention is crucial. Those developments not only reflect the council’s commitment to inclusive education, but will also reduce reliance on costly independent placements, ensuring that every child in Kirklees has the opportunity to thrive. So let us keep pushing this forward. Let us ensure that every child in Kirklees and across the country has the chance to succeed—
Jamie Stone
I intervene on a Welshman as a Scotsman. We have the same problems in Scotland. You only have to look at the map of the constituencies in Scotland. Would the hon. Member agree that whatever way forward the Government establish, it would be best for it to be shared with the Scottish Government?
Paul Davies
I absolutely agree. This cannot be one part of the UK, one region or one city; it has to be across the UK. We have to see every child have that opportunity. I completely agree with you.
This is about us working together. It is about collaboration. It is very much about how, together, we can build a system that works for everyone.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Order. The word “you” keeps creeping in. A lot of people have said it during this debate, but “you” means me, and I certainly have not done any of those things. Can we refer to each other as hon. Members or hon. Friends? The next speaker, who will be exemplary in this, is Greg Stafford.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Thank you very much, Dr Huq. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for leading the debate on this petition.
Across my Farnham and Bordon constituency, we are fortunate to have excellent specialist provision: in the community, we have Hollywater school; on the independent side, we have the Undershaw Education Trust, More House and Pathways; and in the academy sector, we have The Abbey and Ridgeway. But however good those providers are, the wider picture is stark. Demand is surging, particularly for autism and social, emotional and mental health needs.
Surrey is rightly investing, with nearly £190 million committed to expand provision and create thousands of new places, and an extra £4.9 million was approved in July to recruit staff and reduce caseloads. Three new special schools are planned as part of the long-term SEND capital programme, but that programme and that progress is in jeopardy. The Department for Education has just paused the capital funding for those schools—funding agreed under the last Conservative Government to expand local provision and reduce reliance on the independent sector. Without it, Surrey faces a shortfall of 500 places, forcing children into the independent sector at an extra cost of roughly £26.5 million each year. Surrey has made it clear that it cannot meet the Department’s targets without that funding, which is why I wrote to the Secretary of State to ask why this funding has been withheld, what bridging support will be offered and how the Department will ensure that vulnerable children are not left waiting at the start of the term. So far, there has been no response.
In Surrey, there have been constructive cross-party discussions on these issues. I particularly want to recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) has worked closely with me, not just for her constituents, but to push this agenda across Surrey. Instead, we hear rumours that this Government may scrap EHCPs altogether. That would be disastrous. Such a move would not be reform; it would be abdication, driven not by evidence but by ideology. It betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the lifechanging role that specialist provision plays in our system.
I urge the Minister to act to end the delays in EHCP assessments and convene a cross-party MPs’ forum with parents and stakeholders to drive urgent solutions, to commit to long-term investment to reinstate that capital grant and back bids from high-pressure areas like Surrey and Hampshire, and to protect parental rights, uphold children’s legal entitlements and guarantee that EHCPs remain the foundation of SEND support.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
In anticipation of the White Paper, I held a roundtable with parents and children with SEND in my constituency of Bolton South and Walkden. They told me that it is still very much a postcode lottery when it comes to SEND provision, and that children with autism and other SEND conditions are being placed in classrooms that do not meet their needs.
Simon Hoare
Does the hon. Lady agree that it is not just a postcode lottery but that it is often about the confidence of the parents or carers in standing up to, questioning and challenging officialdom? Some are very comfortable, others less so. Some people use the phrase, “It is the sharp-elbowed who get ahead”, but it needs to be a fairer system, reflective of that issue.
Yasmin Qureshi
That point was made by the parents, and I was going to come to it in my speech.
Children are being placed in classrooms that do not meet their needs, and some of them are being forced out of school—others attend for just a few hours. Often, teaching assistants are given just one afternoon of generic training; they are not even experienced in these matters. Quite often, they have not even seen the plan, so implementation is inconsistent or absent. Schools, particularly academies, are very difficult to hold accountable. And one of the big frustrations that parents talked about is that there are no systems in place to deal with complaints, and that they often had to navigate the system and work very hard to try to get provision for their children.
I know that, since last year, the Labour Government have invested £1 billion in high-needs budgets and supporting children with complex needs, and that £740 million has been committed to adapt school rooms and build specialist facilities, even in mainstream schools. Great progress is being made, but I am sure that many of you find, when you go to your local junior schools, that headteachers are saying that since covid—
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Order. I think the hon. Member means “many hon. Members”, not “many of you”.
Yasmin Qureshi
Sorry. I am sure that many hon. Members have been to their local schools and been told that, since covid, the number of children with SEND has gone up, so the White Paper and the consultation are really important, and I know the Government will listen to everything we have been saying.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq.
It is with a great sense of pride that I speak in this debate, because it was my constituent, Rachel Filmer, who launched this petition, which has secured over 100,000 signatures. It is great to see Rachel in the Public Gallery today.
Some weeks ago, I held an event in my constituency with SEND families to discuss the challenges they face and to hear what needs to change. Some specific issues arose. First, class is a huge issue in the current system. Many parents resort to private diagnosis after waiting for extended periods, which has concerning implications for low-income families who might not have the resources to get such a diagnosis.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, when a class element applies with less favourable outcomes for those who cannot pay, the very concept of universalism is in jeopardy?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
As I am a keen universalist, I have to agree with my hon. Friend.
There is also a bureaucracy to navigate. It takes massive amounts of time, effort and knowledge of process for parents to navigate the system to get the support they need. That puts parents with lower educational attainment, complex personal needs or busy working lives at a disadvantage. It is no wonder that 62% of parent-carers of SEND children are not in paid employment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Today, I attended the Adoption Barometer event, which many other hon. Members probably also attended. It showed that adopted and fostered children can have not only trauma and other medical issues but educational issues—it is a double whammy for those who look after those children. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in summing up, perhaps the Minister should consider the double issues facing foster parents and foster children?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Of course, there is also a wider impact on our society from the failings of the current system, because if we do not get the education system right, these children will not be able to access work in the future. Lack of action now will create a bigger problem for us further down the line.
It often feels like too much is being left to parents to do to fight for their children rather than there being external scrutiny on those who are letting them down, such as schools, local authorities or the NHS.
Through my work, I am convinced that there are certain principles that we need to adopt in any new system. First, there must be an assessment process that can identify the scale of needs and the appropriate setting in which education can be delivered, acknowledging that early intervention is always best. Secondly, legal rights should be given to all those with needs, regardless of the severity of those needs, and there should be a way of confirming those rights by way of an entitlement, as we currently have through EHCPs.
In my view, all children should have an educational guarantee that sets out what they are entitled to receive from the state. We need better training and facilities in mainstream schools, but we have to reject tokenistic warehousing just to say that SEND children are in a school, and any new system must avoid that.
We also need wider acknowledgment that, even with this investment and a wider offer, mainstream education will still not be suitable for all children, and some will still need provision. We need state investment in specialist provision, rather than relying on the private and independent sector. We need a commitment to fund the new system properly. The transitional arrangements that move us from where we are now to where we will be must ensure that existing recipients of support are protected in that transition. There is no doubt in my mind that SEND families feel that they are often unseen and unheard, and that is why it is our duty to ensure that any new system has their voices at the heart of any change.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for opening this important debate, as well as everyone who signed the petition and those who filled in my survey on SEND matters this summer. The level of distress that the current system is causing to both children and their parents is difficult to overstate. The parents I see in my surgeries are so distressed, and so are their children.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
My constituent’s seven-year-old son has been waiting 13 months for an assessment, and she has had to give up her job to care for him. Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue has an impact on not only the children and their parents—as she rightly says—but the economy, if we are losing people who are already in work?
Sarah Russell
I agree with my hon. Friend; in fact, that is a matter I will come on to. The distress I see within this system is staggering. I see parents making decisions about taking their children to school, when they suspect that the school place might be damaging for their child, but they also strongly suspect that not taking their child to school is damaging that child—that is a horrific position for parents and children to be placed in.
I see two big points of problem in the system. The first is when children or their parents are seeking a diagnosis. In response to my survey, I heard from parents who had got into thousands of pounds—sometimes tens of thousands of pounds—of debt in seeking diagnoses for their children, because they were so desperate to get them some help. However, when they get that EHCP, after a great fight and sometimes legal confrontation, they often find that the support that it gives is not consistently maintained, despite schools doing their absolute best—I have never met a teacher who did not want to help children with special educational needs. Those parents are then incredibly distressed, and those children struggle to stay in school.
The second difficulty, I find, occurs as their children get somewhat older: the parents have the diagnosis that they desperately wanted, but their teenage child’s mental health goes down sharply. At that point, they often find that a neurodivergent diagnosis is a hindrance to getting their children the mental health support that they need. That is shocking; it is appalling that people appear to think, on a widespread basis, that autism inherently involves anxiety, and therefore children with an autism diagnosis do not need support with their mental health. That is what I am hearing from parents in my constituency.
I could give so many stories. I recently spoke to one parent who explained that her son had repeatedly gone missing from home. She has had referrals to CAMHS from the police, social services and other organisations, and her son is 13 years old and suicidal, but there is a two-year wait for a child’s mental health assessment in my constituency and he is not deemed to meet the threshold. This is life and death for our children, and it is really frightening.
These parents are terrified; as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) mentioned, they are so frightened for their children that they cannot go to work and leave them unattended. I ask the Minister to please process as quickly as possible the applications for special schools at Westfields and Flag Lane Baths, previously flagged to her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell).
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. Under the weight of surging demand, our system for handling special educational needs is crumbling. Since 2019, the number of new EHCPs year on year has almost doubled from 54,000 to 98,000. The total number of active plans has surged from 353,000 to 639,000 over the same period. Quite simply, the system in place is not able to cope with the level of demand. I hope the Minister will be able to provide some of the fundamental reform that the system urgently needs.
There are two issues that need to be tackled—and in isolation, neither will work. The first is the funding and management system. With SEND falling on local councils to fund, but with councils lacking the powers to properly raise money to support increasing demand, the current situation is inevitable. Parents are waiting months, if not years, to receive the support and documentation that they need. Even if that is secured, overstretched caseworkers are making mistakes, referencing out-of-date or draft EHCPs as part of negotiations with schools and councils. SEND needs central funding, and potentially centralised management. Politicians can then have serious conversations with the public about what they are willing to fund through taxation as part of the SEND system.
I know only too well what total collapse can look like: Bradford council’s children’s services have been taken into trust after the council’s total failure to fix failing services. The resulting costs are directly responsible for Bradford council’s consistent flirtation with bankruptcy. All that has a negative impact on those in my constituency with special educational needs.
However, in parallel to those reforms, we must have a serious conversation about what is happening to our young people. The figures at the start of my speech are nothing short of a surge in demand. Something is happening to our young people: not only are diagnoses of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism rising, but social, emotional and mental health needs are the third largest category of primary need for EHCPs. Alarmingly, speech, language and communication needs are second. What on earth is going on? I urge the Minister to take this issue incredibly seriously—she will take note of the level of presence in this Chamber.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I am pleased to contribute to the debate, because the petition speaks to the level of anxiety and concern that many parents and carers of children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities are currently carrying. That is why I am pleased that the Government have shared that any changes we make to the system will stop parents having to fight for support and, importantly, protect provision that is currently in place. That is reassurance for the parents and carers in Hyndburn.
We find ourselves in a bizarre and damaging place: the adversarial process that families must go through to access support for their child, often before their child can even get access to support in schools, has not only led to an existential financial crisis for councils, but traumatised parents and carers. I am sure many in the Public Gallery can attest to that from their own experiences. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to end this adversarial system, which does not work for children, parents or teachers, and to build an inclusive education system to benefit our teachers, children and young people.
The system is truly broken in Lancashire, where Reform currently leads our county council. It is failing far too many families. I was not surprised to see 280 signatories from Hyndburn, many of whom I have met either in my surgeries or at the SEND roundtables that I have held. Just last Friday, I visited one of the most inclusive mainstream primary schools in my constituency, which had had to purchase a portacabin out of its own budget because it had no support from the county council to support eight non-verbal children between reception and year 2 who, as I witnessed, needed personal care and significant support. I met one of the parents, who had received an EHC plan from the council that morning telling her that her child did not meet the threshold to go into specialist provision, and another child who had been waiting three years to get a plan at all.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The hon. Lady is making a powerful point. She will note that in excess of 90 MPs are taking part, or seeking to take part, in this debate. Given that she is sitting next to the Minister, I hope she will lean on, or nudge, her to recognise that we should not necessarily wait for the provisions of the—no doubt welcome—White Paper when it comes. There is a need to act now, not only to address early intervention and early diagnosis, but to get to children during the earliest years and give them the help they need.
Sarah Smith
Since the new Government came in, there have been significant changes and investment coming forward, but we all understand the urgency. I am sure the Minister will respond by emphasising how she wants to take forward this important agenda—although it is not an agenda at all; it is about meeting the needs of our most vulnerable children, and the families who most need us as a Government to deliver.
There has been no apology from Reform about the state of the Lancashire county council situation, which I find utterly appalling. An apology is the least that parents might expect as they endeavour to proceed with changes locally. I would welcome the Minister outlining in her response how we can end the postcode lottery that we have heard about time and again, to ensure that every child is at an inclusive school, with their needs met, and that every child across this country has a fair and equal chance to realise their potential and build a fulfilling and full life
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
Although education is devolved in Wales, I speak in my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for education and parliamentary convenor of the Socialist Educational Association. Before getting elected, I was a teacher for nearly two decades, so I know all too well the realities of our education system. Dyslexic, dyscalculic and completely illiterate until age 11, I was placed in bottom sets and written off by many teachers, so I also know all too well the pressures of going through the system with SEND, or additional learning needs, as it is called in Wales.
As of January 2025, more than 1.7 million pupils in England have been identified with SEND, and the number of children with education, health and care plans has more than doubled since 2015. Despite that increase in identification, the Department for Education has admitted there has been no consistent improvement in outcomes for these children.
Exam pressure is especially acute for students with SEND. Research from Omnisis shows that 88% of parents of children with SEND said their child was worried about this year’s SATs and one in five described their child as “very worried”—twice the national average. Our all-party parliamentary group’s “Loss of the Love of Learning” inquiry found that the stress of test preparation has serious negative effects: disrupted sleep, increased school refusal and declining self-esteem among SEND pupils.
We must recognise the disproportionate effect of our current assessment framework on SEND children, and begin to prioritise children’s wellbeing and their love of learning, rather than just performance metrics. Though high-needs funding has increased since 2015, it falls short of what is needed. The 14 years of austerity have pushed our schools to the brink. The sharp decline in teaching assistants—often lifelines for SEND children—and the overworking of teachers, as they struggle to meet the diverse needs of all their students, have only deepened the crisis. What guarantees can be given that the SEND reforms promised in the schools White Paper this autumn will not simply be a vehicle for further cuts?
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq.
Parents do everything for their children, especially when they have special needs. That is why I am fed up with the demonisation of parents. They are blamed for gaming the system, for having failed as parents, for being too soft, for not putting in boundaries, for bothering overstretched teachers; they are blamed for going private, but also for costing the state too much money. The crisis in SEND is not the fault of parents. As Catherine, a Mid Sussex parent, said to me:
“They need to see what it is like for parents twenty-four hours a day whose children are at a mainstream school that does not have the SEND facilities and teachers that it needs to meet the demands of its pupils. Teachers have enough to do. Why would any parent try to play the system for SEND, when it’s so much paperwork and time? You just would not do it.”
Please let us listen to the voices of the parents who gathered outside earlier today. They know their children, they know what they need, and they know that the current system is failing not only their children but society at large.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq.
I welcome the opportunity to speak about special educational needs and disability support. I know how important the issue is to many of my constituents, because every week, like many of us here, I receive heartbreaking casework and have to try to help so many children whom the system is failing. I have spoken before about the importance of early intervention, as many colleagues have today, and I very much welcome the Labour Government’s roll-out of Best Start centres. Only through that early help and early intervention will we really get on top of this issue.
The crisis has been a long time in the making and will take time to solve. Years of austerity have left our system unequipped to cope with rising demand and meet the needs of students. The cost of the failing system is staggering. We are firefighting. It costs loads of money, but is not actually helping anyone.
I know that so many parents have spent so many years advocating for their children, and that the prospect of reform is understandably very worrying and frightening. These people have been let down again and again by a system that is meant to support them, so they have good reason not to trust it, but I know that the Government and their Ministers are listening and trying to engage with families, including groups in my constituency. I was very pleased to hear the Secretary of State say in the main Chamber that, under a Labour Government, children will absolutely still retain a legal right to support. That is really important, but the way we deliver that support has to change, because it is not working. It is absolutely failing our families. There has to be a better way of doing it.
Kids who are waiting years for an EHCP, and parents who are at their wits’ end, cannot go on any longer. We cannot keep doing this harm to our children. We need to deal with this carefully, with responsibility, and in tandem with parents and children—that is the only way to get it right—but we cannot leave it as it is.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Let me start with huge congratulations to Save Our Children’s Rights on securing more than 120,000 signatures. I was pleased to see that Special Needs Jungle is one of the organisations supporting the campaign; its co-director is one of my constituents.
Children in Hertfordshire suffered a double whammy under the Conservatives. The Conservatives had a broken funding formula that they refused to fix, which meant that children in Hertfordshire were short-changed, and the former Conservative administration at Hertfordshire county council was rated by Ofsted as one of the worst in the country. I am pleased to say that the Liberal Democrats have taken control of Hertfordshire county council, and our new leader’s very first announcement was on the creation of a SEND summit. That summit took place this morning. Ahead of it, there was a SEND listening survey, and 130 people attended community engagement events, because we Liberal Democrats know that the voices of children, parents, carers and teachers must be at the heart of any reforms.
Political will at the local level goes some way, but of course we require the Government to act as well. Hertfordshire faces a number of challenges, which are not inconsiderable. Due to the various reforms under way by the Labour Government, we are facing a move to one or a number of unitary authorities; there is a reorganisation of our health body, the integrated care board; and the so-called fairer funding review could see the loss of up to £54 million by 2028-29. Our SEND budgets have necessarily been overspent for the last number of years, with an accounting tool used to keep the deficit off the balance sheet, but that tool is set to expire in May 2026. Hertfordshire is still under an improvement notice. It was due a monitoring visit, but that has been delayed, awaiting the Government’s national announcement.
These top-down reforms are taking up valuable political oxygen among the political leadership and the senior leadership team at the council, taking them away from helping families. The drip-feeding of information on the changes the Government are considering is causing enormous anxiety, too. Children, parents, carers and teachers cannot wait any more. As many other hon. Members have said, they are at breaking point. Please, we need action.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in this clearly popular debate.
As many Members will know, I have the privilege of being mum to two incredible girls, one of whom has additional needs. Like many parents of a disabled child, I feel keenly the unfairness and the challenges that my child will face throughout her life—challenges that are exacerbated throughout her childhood by a system that is far too often adversarial, baffling and unsupportive.
Many of my constituents have gone through that experience when trying to access the right support for their children. I carried out a survey and a roundtable, and I will share some comments that drive home what people have experienced. One said:
“It’s like living in a world where you feel no one believes your children and their struggles, and all you can do is be on constant fight or flight mode.”
Someone else said:
“Everything is looked at like a system, like a machine…all the compassion is gone.”
Another said:
“It’s a constant battle to get help, support and anything our children need.”
Someone else said, heartbreakingly, of their son:
“In his mind, he will go in, get no help, get in trouble and go home.”
The system currently fails our children, but what can be done? There is a lot: truly inclusive schools; a commitment to meeting need wherever it arises; support for teachers and, crucially, school support staff; training for people who deal with our children on a day-to-day basis; early intervention; speech and language support; social, emotional and mental health support; funding for high-needs placements; holistic partnership working between local authorities; education placements; healthcare services; incentives for inclusivity, and sanctions for schools that do not pull their weight on SEND. Above all, we need an acknowledgment that every single child deserves an education.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for children with SEND right across the country. Given her personal experience, and the experience of many of our constituents, it is clear that the system is broken. Across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages, I have set up a network of people looking to challenge Staffordshire county council, which significantly underperforms even the atrocious national standards. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that the voices of those with experience of the system are heard as we move towards the White Paper and the Government work to fix the mess they inherited?
Jen Craft
Absolutely. It is crucial that those with experience of the system are heard. The only way we can fix it is by taking the approach of those who have experienced it. My interest in my child does not stop at the school gates; it is holistic, looking forward to her life as she goes through childhood into young adulthood and adulthood.
This is a matter of social justice, fairness, equality and equity. Like many parents of a disabled child, I am tired, I am constantly anxious and I am constantly ready to go into battle for my child, but what I am not, and what my beautiful child is not, is a burden. We did not cause this crisis, but we want to fix it. We want to work with the Government to make things better for our children. I do not want a single other parent to have to fight for the very basic rights of their child—for what parents of non-disabled children do not have to fight for. The Disabled Children’s Partnership was in Parliament today talking to MPs about its “Fight for Ordinary”. So far, our rights have been hard fought for and hard won. We hope that the next generation of children and families will have a much easier time.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq, and a privilege to follow the powerful speech of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft). I thank all the petitioners, including the 221 from Glastonbury and Somerton.
As vice-chair of the f40 group, which represents the worst-funded 43 local education authorities in the country, I have spoken many times about the broken SEND system. It is adversarial, fails the most vulnerable children and puts councils on the brink of bankruptcy. Caroline from North Cadbury recently wrote to me regarding her daughter, Lucy, whom she described as an “intelligent and capable girl” who is on track to do well in her GCSEs but has been left to fall through the cracks. She told me:
“The very systems that are supposed to support her are, in fact, ignoring her.”
Lucy has autism and challenges with her mental health, and she has had a long wait for a diagnosis and is fighting for an EHCP.
I recently spoke to the director of education at Somerset council. She told me that it costs the council £6,000 to create an EHCP and that the number of EHCP applications is up 26%. EHCPs are not one size fits all. They were developed to provide a long-term plan for relatively stable conditions, but children with social, emotional and mental health issues and behavioural challenges do not have stable conditions. Therefore, an EHCP is not always the right solution, but it is the only solution for children and young people that is presented to parents and schools. Changing an EHCP requires a full consultation process, which is arduous, expensive and time consuming—a structural barrier that is impeding common sense. It often does not matter whether a child has an EHCP if the school they attend is not equipped to provide the support outlined in the plan.
We are all awaiting the publication of the Government’s schools White Paper. We need clarity, and I hope that the Minister will outline that today. If these priorities are not central to the system, we will continue to fail a generation of children. We need to recognise diversity and provide the education of the future now.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for leading this important debate and the 163 people in the Birmingham Erdington constituency who signed the petition. Their voices make it clear that SEND provision is a pressing priority in our community.
SEND provision is a daily reality in the Birmingham area. More than 17% of our pupils receive SEND support, and we are proud to be the home of seven special schools, with many more offering SEND provision, so the issue of SEND reform affects thousands of families in my area. I wrote to more than 40 schools in my area earlier this month, and I visited Hawthorn primary school in Kingstanding. The dedicated staff made three issues crystal clear to me: they face a funding crisis, there is a dire need for extra places at special schools, and specialist support in mainstream settings is, in their words, “patchy at best”.
[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan in the Chair]
That story was repeated across my constituency. People described a process that is failing families. They spend three years or more on a waiting list, followed by the 20-week wait for an EHCP—a deadline that the local authority constantly misses. The Public Accounts Committee warned that the SEND system is arguably already at “crisis point”. Despite extra funding being provided, councils face a projected deficit of more than £8 billion by 2027. We all know that the system must be reformed, but that must not come at the cost of removing children’s right to learn, thrive and live their lives to the fullest.
For children who can thrive in mainstream schools, we must guarantee the support and staffing that make inclusion a reality, not just a promise. We cannot afford more delays. We cannot afford more uncertainty. Let this debate be the moment that we take a stand a build a SEND system that works for every child.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the petitioners and my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for leading this important debate.
We all know from our inboxes that the system is not working and that change is necessary. It is incumbent on all of us to fix the situation for the sake of children and their families. According to data from the House of Commons Library, the total percentage of pupils in Ely and East Cambridgeshire’s mainstream schools with EHCPs is 4%, which is higher than the regional and national averages, at 3.4% and 3.3% respectively. That means that specialist units and schools in Ely and East Cambridgeshire face a difficult task, as they have more pupils with EHCPs to accommodate than the national average. The council has plans for more specialist schools, but it is still waiting for Government clearance to build them, so I would be grateful if the Minister could say when it can expect to get that clearance.
The wide distances across the constituency create a further challenge in transporting pupils to and from schools. In 2023-24, Cambridgeshire county council spent over £25 million just on school taxis. That is linked to the rising demand for the service, and the rising cost of fuel. I take this opportunity to thank the specialist schools in my constituency, including Spring Meadow infant school, Highfield Ely and Highfield Littleport academies, the Centre School Cottenham, and Cambridge Regional College for the tremendous work that they do every day to support SEND learners and help them fulfil their potential. I urge the Government to ensure that their voices are heard in any change process.
My constituents are worried about potential changes in the SEND system, so I hope that the Minister’s response will provide clarity to pupils, parents and councils that the changes will not lead to cuts or reduced support for SEND pupils. To put it bluntly, parents should not have to fight for their children’s rights. The Government must ensure high-quality, well-funded education for all pupils with special educational needs.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. As a SEND parent myself, and an MP who has received extensive correspondence and held many face-to-face meetings on this issue, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the topic. The issues around SEND affect some of the most vulnerable members of our society. Too often our debates, reviews and policy considerations on this matter are disproportionately centred around the cost implications for local authorities and educational institutions. Families in North Somerset must routinely fight hard to obtain the special educational provision their children need, and that the law says they should have, and keep fighting to hold on to it.
After previous years of underfunding of the system, however, the SEND system is now in dire need of change. But that cannot come at the cost of any child’s future. We cannot have changes that mean that any child is worse off, has less of an education or less of a chance at a successful and happy life. Families in North Somerset are telling me that they are fearful and that even though support as it stands is inconsistent and often delayed, changes to SEND legal rights would leave families and their children with even less.
It is crucial that we focus on the human impact rather than the numerical bottom line. Every child deserves the support they need to succeed, and it is our legal and moral obligation to ensure that they receive it.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. In Dorking the other day, a mum called Jenny came to see me about her daughters, Isabelle and Sienna. They are severely learning disabled, epileptic, blind, non-verbal and tube fed. Isabelle and Sienna have difficult lives, but they thrive when they are together. Jenny had to take Surrey county council to tribunal four times to fight for their rights—not only to get their needs met, but simply to get them together in the same school. Although she ultimately won her fight, that cost Jenny her life savings and her marriage. I said to her that if she were my mum, I would be incredibly grateful. I hope she is proud of what she is doing, because she should be.
It is not only profoundly disabled children who are mistreated by local authorities. I have today published almost 500 family testimonies of unlawful, harmful and unethical behaviour on SEND by 92 local authorities across the entire country. I will continue to collect these testimonies and I will be taking this further. These local authorities are led by every major political party, including my own, so this is not a party political issue. Rather, it suggests that there is something systemically wrong with local authority governance in this country—a failure of accountability to locally elected councillors. My own local authority, Surrey, hid for over 14 months the fact that it had the highest level of complaints on SEND in the country.
We know that local authorities are financially overwhelmed on SEND, but too often their response to the suffering of children such as Isabelle and Sienna is to be desensitised and to breed a culture of denial and dishonesty—a brutalised system. If we reduce SEND rights and throw children away to local authorities we cannot trust, we throw away their lives. The answer is early intervention.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, especially during such a powerful speech. He raises the issue of early intervention. I have seen this in my own constituency, where if people can catch special educational needs early enough, they can get the right packages of support in place. Does my hon. Friend recognise, as I do, that early intervention is critical to the future of our children and the next generation?
Chris Coghlan
I entirely agree, because by the age of three a child has 1,000 trillion brain connections, but that declines to 500 trillion by adolescence. That is why the earlier the intervention, the more effective the outcome and the lower the total cost. That is even before we consider the cost of a parent who has to leave work to look after a child unable to cope at school, or an adult who ends up in social services instead of a job.
The Government must resist the siren calls of local authorities to reduce SEND rights. There are too many people in despair right now, but if the Government focus on early intervention for our children, they can set out a path for hope.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
Order. I am keen to get everybody in because this is such an important topic. To do so, I will have to change the time limit to two minutes.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the 123 constituents in my constituency of Wolverhampton West who have signed this petition for support for children with SEND. In Wolverhampton, nearly one in five is currently receiving SEND support or has an education, health and care plan, and that number is continuously increasing. We need the infrastructure and investment in place so that every child has the opportunity that they deserve to thrive in our country. Too many of our children are being let down. They are often waiting months or years to get the support that they need and they are stuck in an over-bureaucratic system.
I welcome the Government’s extra £1 billion of funding. In my city of Wolverhampton, we are receiving £2.7 million of that funding. But the funding needs to go further and the money needs to be used in an efficient way. We need to reform an outdated system for SEND, so that parents and children are the ones kept at the heart of the debate. I often hear teachers say that they would rather have the money given to the school than to private providers, so that they could provide the provision that the children need.
One of the major complaints that I receive is about a total lack of transparency and accountability in the provision of SEND support. It has already been mentioned that we need there to be early intervention. We need to provide support before students reach a crisis point. There should be a legal requirement for each school to have a dedicated SENCO, and SEND education needs to be mandatory as part of teacher training.
Iqbal Mohamed
The hon. Member is making an important and passionate speech. Councils across the country are spending upwards of £100 million a year fighting EHCPs and going to tribunal instead of issuing those plans and providing the education that those children need. Does he agree that that money could be better spent on serving the children rather than fighting the parents?
Warinder Juss
The hon. Member is absolutely correct. What is more, when parents appeal, they succeed in the vast majority of cases. Why is that decision not made earlier to save the money, which could be used for the children?
We also need to have that funding ringfenced so that the money directly goes to our schools. As parliamentarians, it is our duty to ensure that every child receives the support that they deserve. We can see from the many debates that we have had that the strength of feeling is immense. We need to make sure that our children not only get the childhood that they deserve, but also the future that they are entitled to.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
For families in my constituency of Lewes, this is not an abstract policy debate but their daily reality. That includes the 229 constituents who responded to this petition, to whom I am very grateful.
The failures of the SEND system are in my inbox every week. Take the little boy in my constituency who travels 56 miles every day just to attend a school in Hastings, because there simply is not a suitable place closer to home. It is not fair on him or his parents, and it is not sustainable for the system. Or take the children whose parents wrote to me, as they still did not know—even as September loomed—where or if their children would be starting school. For families, that limbo is agonising. It is not just individual cases; the system as a whole is failing.
In East Sussex, almost 5,000 pupils have EHCPs, yet time and again parents are forced to take the council to tribunal to secure the support to which their children are legally entitled. Between 2020 and this summer, over 92% of those cases were decided in favour of the parents. That is not evidence of pushy families gaming the system; it is proof that councils are getting it wrong at huge cost to the taxpayer and enormous stress to families.
What is more, tribunals are becoming ever more expensive. East Sussex county council has gone from spending a few hundred pounds on SEND tribunals in 2020 to well over £100,000 in the past year. Every pound wasted fighting parents is a pound not spent on children. Meanwhile, special schools in my constituency, Bowden House and Cuckmere House, which I visited recently, are oversubscribed. Families are increasingly turning to independent special schools, such as Northease Manor school, which do extraordinary work, but are now facing VAT changes that will hit parents and local authorities hard.
That is the picture across the south-east. Families in Newhaven, Seaford, Lewes, Polegate and across our local villages are not asking for the earth. Until this Government show that they are willing to act with urgency and ambition, families will continue to be failed by a system that is meant to serve them.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. In my constituency, 158 families signed the petition. We have heard that too many disabled children, not just in my constituency of Chelsea and Fulham, but across the country, are being let down. Parents feel that they must fight every step of the way just to get the help that their children are entitled to.
One problem is that under current law, schools are only required to use their “best endeavours” to support children with special educational needs. That is quite a vague obligation. Some schools—including in my constituency—step up magnificently, but others, under financial pressure, reduce or remove support and nothing holds them to account.
The results are stark. A recent survey found that 60% of disabled children who do not have an education, health and care plan are avoiding school due to the lack of support. Because of this broken system, families are often cruelly forced into—as we have heard—lengthy and difficult procedures to get EHCPs, even though their children’s needs could have been met earlier through proper support in mainstream schools if it existed. As we have heard, that is driving up costs, with councils having to pay for expensive private placements to the extent that some are in significant distress.
I welcome the Government’s confirmation that the legal right to assessment support is going to be retained, but we need stronger, clearer protections for disabled children’s education. That is why I support a proposal from the charities Contact and IPSEA to amend section 66 of the Children and Families Act 2014. Let us replace the vague phrase “best endeavours” with clear statutory duties, so that schools are legally required to identify a child’s needs, put a plan in writing, and either deliver that support or refer the case to the local authority. If funding accompanies those new rights, we will reduce the cost of EHCPs, because people will not want to get them as much, and we will reduce the cost of tribunals and costly private provision.
Ben Coleman
I am afraid I am running out of time—ah yes, I will happily give way.
Josh Babarinde
The hon. Gentleman can thank me for intervening. He talks about costs and legal requirements, but does he agree that in many areas hedge-fund-backed independent specialist schools are taking cash from our starving system? There is no cap on their profits, they do not have to report on their attainment and they do not have the same level of transparency as maintained schools. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to get to grips with the unscrupulous hedge-fund-backed providers, to make sure that kids and families are not taken advantage of?
Ben Coleman
I am most grateful for that question, for many reasons. There is a huge problem with private equity hedge-funds going into private education, just as they have gone into care homes. That problem needs to be addressed, first, by making provision in the state sector much better than it is now. It should be as good as it can be so that people do not find they need an EHCP, because the SEND support is there anyway, and if they do get one, their needs can be met in the state sector and we do not have to go to the expensive private sector. That is why I hope that in the Budget the Treasury will see the need for funding proper SEND provision, because that will save money in the long term. The Treasury does not like the term “invest to save”, but I think it is a good one in this context.
We have a wonderful new Minister. I commend her for the time she has already spent listening to families and teachers. I hope she will now act, in co-production with families, to put SEND support on a solid legal footing, to ditch the Conservatives’ legacy of failure and to build an education system in which every child matters.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
Order. Much as I appreciate the love and support that you are showing one another, I really want to get everybody in, because Members have sat through the debate for a long time in order to be heard.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of parents from Eastleigh.
I frequently hear from constituents who are exhausted emotionally, financially and physically by a system that too often feels like an adversarial battle. Alex, who is a police officer, told me:
“Just managing our child’s medical appointments, EHCP paperwork, medication and occupational therapy exercises is enough work for one person…somehow I squeeze it all in around my busy day job. But the trauma caused by dealing with this in your own home is beyond anything I have witnessed at work. Unpaid carers all over the country are drowning. Don’t we deserve more than this?”
They do deserve more.
In Eastleigh, 12.5% of students receive SEN support. However, there are critical delays in securing an EHCP assessment, which significantly impacts the wellbeing of children while their parents battle with the system. According to the latest figures, 59% of EHCPs in Hampshire take between 20 weeks and a year to be issued. Hampshire county council has declined assessments for 23% of EHCP applications.
My constituent Justine had to deal with considerable back and forth with Hampshire county council over getting transport to school for her son. She said that the uncertainty was
“making his anxiety worse. The lack of routine and structure is frankly cruel.”
Routes have been changed without notice and drivers swapped at the last minute, and some families have been refused transport all together. The result has been distressing for children and young people who understandably rely on routine and predictability, some of whom have been left so anxious by the confusion that they refuse to travel. Families who are already stretched to breaking point should not have to face this level of disruption on top of everything else.
It is welcome that the Government recognise the need for reforms, but families desperately need and deserve clarity about what the plans look like. All children deserve a fair system that recognises their needs and gives them a chance to thrive.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the 150,000 people who signed the petition. As I have said in previous speeches in this place, although SEND is very much now a national issue, we have been battling this crisis in Ipswich and Suffolk for a decade. Just last month, at my public event, I sat with desperate families who told me heartbreaking stories of their children being failed time and again.
I welcome the early changes that our Government have made in looking to address some of the problems in Suffolk. They have approved more than 100 new specialist places in our county, including through the building of a brand-new hub at Ipswich academy. That is in addition to the multimillion pound uplift to the core funding and a near £10 million settlement, meaning that even more specialist places can be created. However, while extra funding is incredibly encouraging, it is just one element that needs to be resolved.
I want to highlight a few areas that require attention. The first is the extortionate and unregulated private provision that was allowed to grow and prosper under the previous Conservative Government. The problem is not just that the provision is grossly expensive, driving up costs for local authorities; it is also incredibly poor.
Secondly, while we desperately need more SEND places, they have to differentiate according to need. We cannot keep shoehorning kids into the few settings that are available, regardless of whether the provision is right for them. That effort must include special schools, but it should also involve specialist hubs within mainstream schools. I have seen that work so effectively, most recently at Hillside primary school, and it was a cornerstone of the plans that I helped to deliver in Suffolk when we created 800 new places. Hubs provide the specialist support that meets the needs of many children, while keeping them close to home in a local setting.
The last thing I want to mention is teacher training. As a former teaching assistant, I worked with some brilliant teachers who knew how to be inclusive and to differentiate, but I also know that it is still a postcode lottery. There is a lot of good practice, but we have to be honest: we do not have an education system that allows every child with SEND to thrive. In my view, making SEND training mandatory for teachers is long overdue, and I hope the Government can strongly consider that in the upcoming White Paper, because every teacher must be a SEND teacher.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for presenting this important petition debate.
The fact that the petition has more than 122,000 signatures, with 244 from my own constituency, is an indictment of our current system. We are letting down far too many of our children, parents and carers. Wiltshire council has one of the lowest levels of per-pupil funding for SEND in the country. Despite children there having the same needs as anywhere else, the county receives nearly 30% less than other councils to support its children and young people with SEND. Wiltshire is the 20th lowest-funded county in the country.
Families in my constituency and the families who signed this petition are not asking for the impossible. They just want their children to get the best possible support—the same support as other parents and children get. Instead, they are battling long waiting times for assessments, overstretched schools, and councils making difficult choices with too little money.
A SEND White Paper was originally promised in the spring. It was deferred to the summer and has now been confirmed as part of a schools White Paper in the autumn. Drift and delay in the publication of the reforms has caused frustration and anxiety for families. The SEND crisis cannot be fixed without fixing the funding system behind it. Grand ideas remain only ideas if the basics are not funded properly. The Treasury must play its part. Early intervention, properly trained staff, accessible local specialist provisions—none of that will happen unless councils like ours have real, sustained backing.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) and other colleagues on setting out the case so clearly. I want to focus on solutions and some asks for the Minister. I also want to highlight some of the work done in Hackney, where we have a high number of children with special educational needs. In the last financial year the council spent over £50,000 on top-up funding just to support pupils with SEND. That is an unsustainable position, although the funding is absolutely right for those children and families.
City Academy in Homerton, which the Minister’s predecessor came to visit, does very good work to integrate neurodiversity considerations into all teaching. It says that every teacher is a SENCO, and ensures that pupils with special educational needs and neurodisabilities in particular have a voice by being active on the school council and helping to shape it. That is co-production really living—nothing done about them without them. It means they have great trust among parents. It spreads the support available across the whole school and makes sure that lesson planning and support are shared. There might not always be one-to-one support next to someone; the one-to-one support might involve helping a teacher to create a curriculum that will work across the piece.
One in five children in Hackney have special educational needs and disabilities, so it is a very important issue, but cost shunting is also an issue. We have heard about the cost of tribunals. In London, with schools closing, which is a terribly sad thing, we need to look at opportunities when it comes to the premises available. On average, it costs £12,000 to transport a pupil to an outside placement, £58,000 for a place in an independent special school and up to £300,000 for residential placements. The cost is enormous.
There are signs of the green shoots of hope, with the Government focusing on early intervention—something the Secretary of State has really been emphasising—but can we see more early intervention to prevent the escalation to crisis point and, where it is more appropriate, can we integrate to make sure that we have swift support? Crucially, we need accountability so that parents can have trust in a system that is going to have to change, because the costs are spiralling out of control and children are being failed.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the many petitioners from Wimbledon and beyond, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for securing this important debate.
As we have heard throughout the debate, children with special educational needs are navigating a system in crisis. In Merton, the borough that covers most of my Wimbledon constituency, the pressures on the SEND system are stark and growing. Almost 2,500 children currently receive support—that is 50% above the national average. Only 24% of them attend a state-funded special school—that is below the national average—while 13%, which is more than double the national average and one of the highest rates in the entire country, are placed in expensive independent or non-maintained schools.
SEND provision in Merton continues to remain problematic. One constituent told me how her son, who has ADHD, spent almost a year out of school because no suitable place could be found, despite their applying to 15 schools. Another constituent was told that the school would not even apply for an EHCP because the borough had already reached its so-called quota, although that claim has no basis in law.
Despite the obstacles placed in parents’ paths, since 2018 Merton has spent more than its high needs block allocation, creating a substantial accumulated deficit. The council consequently entered the safety valve programme and received £26 million to reduce the deficit, but the high needs budget remains under strain.
Let me be crystal clear: the Liberal Democrats believe that SEND reform is unavoidable. But reform must strengthen rights and deliver real capacity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) will outline. After years of Conservative neglect, SEND reform is overdue, but it must be rooted in the rights and needs of children, not in short-term financial decisions.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
Three hundred of my constituents signed the petition. SEND is a major issue in North Northumberland and, over the summer, 130 families completed a consultation that I carried out on the issue. I will share the information with the Secretary of State in due course. The conclusion was unanimous: the system has to change.
Let me share three points that those families would want me to share. First, the EHCP process is complicated and isolating. Only 6% of respondents described it as “very positive”. Parents said that the majority of EHCPs granted on the first application took over 30 weeks to be completed.
Secondly, a persistent theme was that there was a lack of teacher and staff understanding of how to support pupils with ADHD or autism. Schools are reluctant to acknowledge needs until a crisis point is reached. One respondent said:
“It took for my child to have a breakdown”
and
“get medically signed off before they listened”.
Our overstretched teachers do not have the capacity to manage, and they need support and training.
Thirdly, perhaps most concerning is the increase in non-school attendance. Some 25% of the parents who responded to my consultation said that they had home-schooled their children for a time due to a lack of suitable provision.
This is not just a SEND crisis; it is a crisis of trust between families and parents, and teachers and local authorities. It is a crisis that has been a decade in the making, and our children are growing up bearing the consequences. That is why I welcome the fact that the Government are tackling the issue head on. The Conservative party watched the SEND crisis destroy families, yet was unable to fix it, while Reform seems to think that children who need support are just badly behaved. But parents in North Northumberland are desperate for their children to thrive. They are desperate for someone to listen to their children and to them. That is why I look forward to the reform of the system that the Government will shortly introduce.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. When it comes to the welfare of our children, the details should never be drip-fed to parents and carers. They do not deserve worrying speculation about potential changes to their children’s futures. Teachers should not be kept out of the loop about the way they will need to run their classrooms. For months now, the Government have kept the potential reform of SEND services secret and under review. Families up and down the country have spent the entire summer on tenterhooks after the Government’s vague pledge for reform during the spending review in June. That is a whole school holiday of uncertainty.
Confusion around reform has only been made worse against the backdrop of changes to council funding, which will see councils across London lose vital funding as demand for EHCPs increases, as it has in my constituency of Sutton and Cheam by more than 8% in the last year. Councils cannot cope with that rise in demand alone. Across Britain, they are in need of real financial backing.
I have worked hard to secure confirmation from the Government of extra SEND places in my constituency, and I am delighted that work should begin soon on the Angel Hill school in Sutton. If we are going to fix the crisis in SEND, however, the funding must be properly ringfenced for local authorities so that children can receive the best possible education. If reform is to be serious, it must be rooted in the genuine improvement of children’s lives, not just the improvement of balance sheets. Without the right funds, and without addressing the looming cliff edge for council finances when SEND deficits are shifted on to the main balance sheet, we risk a collapse of services.
I am sure that the Government are keen to avoid that, so I invite them to reassure us by ending this uncertainty, agreeing to make any changes transparently, and putting any child on an EHCP at the heart of the discussion. Reforms must ensure that those thousands of children with SEND have the right to support, not just because it is a legal requirement, but because we owe it to them and their families.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the over 124,000 people who signed this petition, including 178 from my constituency. I join them by speaking in support of retaining the legal right to assessment and adequate support for children with special educational needs and disabilities. Appropriate and fit-for-purpose education is a fundamental human right. We all agree that the current system is not just at breaking point, but broken, and the broken system perpetuates the mistreatment of parents and children. Families are going through that broken system daily, and are being broken themselves.
The system was deliberately managed into decline by the previous Government, and mismanagement by local authorities means that a lot of resources are being misspent and wasted. We have heard that when parents are forced to take legal action, they are overwhelmingly successful. In 2022-23, 99% of tribunal cases challenging local authority SEND decisions were upheld in favour of families. The first step that the Government could take is to abolish the right for local authorities to deny EHCPs. That would immediately save millions of pounds across our country.
I have heard from a constituent whose experience speaks to that wider problem. She has repeatedly tried to work with the council on her daughter’s EHCP, but has been met with silence and delay. Last year, she had to fight simply to secure the exam materials to which her daughter was entitled. More recently, her formal complaint about how the EHCP was being handled received little response. That is why legal rights must remain. Without them, families like that of my constituent would have no route to redress when things go wrong.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Although it is great to see so many Members here to debate this issue, it shows how dire things are in the SEND system. Somerset is one of the 40 lowest-funded education authorities in the UK. I have heard from many constituents, such as Becky, whose son has been denied mainstream education for over a year because no school feels that it has the resources to support him, and Kayleigh, who is struggling to get the one-to-one provision that her child’s EHCP requires. People in Yeovil are worried about the planned changes in the upcoming SEND White Paper: Ministers have failed to rule out scrapping EHCPs without a clear vision of what comes next, and people fear a similar mess to the recent attempts at personal independence payment reforms.
In the time that I have, I will focus not on negativity, but on what steps we can take to change things. The Government have to make sure that they do several things if they want to start fixing the SEND system. They must not just cut provision to save money. A child’s right to assessment must be protected. For a start, I suggest that the Government support my ten-minute rule Bill on universal screening and teacher training on neurodivergence. We also need to invest in new special school places and education centres. Finally, all our councils need funding fairly, by extending the profit cap from children’s social care to SEND provision, and by making sure that the national Government support any child whose needs exceed a specific cost threshold.
The Government cannot afford to get this wrong. Change cannot just mean more cuts; it has to be built on the experience and knowledge of everyone involved in education. Young people across the country deserve so much better. Since my ten-minute rule Bill, I have had thousands of people across the country support that motion, and my casework is going through the roof. We need change now, and I hope the Government listen.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. This debate is incredibly important, and I am grateful to all the members of the public from my constituency who signed the e-petition. I am also grateful to the parents and primary and secondary school headteachers who took the time to meet me at the one of the roundtables I hosted for constituents with direct experience of the SEND system. I appreciate how honest they were and the constructive way they approached our discussions. I have written a letter to the Secretary of State with all the feedback, and I am hearing that many Members of Parliament have done a similar exercise. I hope the Minister will take that into consideration when the White Paper is published.
My constituents request that Ministers do not make any abrupt changes to the existing system, as some parents have fought for a long time, and some children have now started to get help, so any changes should not be abrupt. My constituents would also like reassurance regarding education, health and care plans. They do not want them to be scrapped; they would like a personalised plan, such as the EHCP, to remain in the reformed system.
My constituents would like a national training programme to be introduced for EHCPs. If they were well written from the start, there would be no need for the constant reviews that currently take place. We also heard that in Kent, EHCPs are not being reviewed in time, and when they are eventually reviewed, key provisions are being left out—often those that cost money. It was clear that Kent county council is not consulting parents properly or giving them the full information they are entitled to.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I thank the Petitions Committee for accepting this debate. The e-petition received over 200 signatures from my constituents in Chichester. It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I put on record thanks from the parental organisations and advocacy organisations, because I know she has reached out and asked to speak to them ahead of the White Paper’s publication, which is really appreciated. Time and again, when talking to parents, teachers and those in local authority about the SEND system, I hear the word “adversarial” and that it is failing to deliver for our young people. Parents often feel pitted against their school, or even against other parents, in a system that is complex to navigate and distressing for all involved.
Where West Sussex county council is concerned, parents report a pattern that has been cited by many Members on both sides of the Chamber today. In the latest quarterly figures, it managed to put in place just 14.3% of all EHCPs within the 20-week statutory framework, which puts it among the worst councils in England on timelines. When an EHCP is refused, even after lengthy assessments, families appeal, then on the eve of the tribunal, the council concedes and issues the plan—but often, that is only the start of the process for those families. It wastes months that a child does not get back, and it wastes public money on process rather than provision.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
On exactly that point, the problem often starts earlier than that—in schools. My mum, a councillor in Wakefield, has been fighting to get my sister assessed for two years, but the school has lost the paperwork so we are no further forward. Does my hon. Friend agree, similar to what my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) said, that we need more support in schools to make sure that people get the assessments they need?
Jess Brown-Fuller
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many schools that I have spoken to in my constituency say they cannot fund a full-time SENCO; instead, they might share them with other primary schools in the area. SENCOs are at the frontline of this issue. They want to deliver for the children they are asked to represent, but they are not paid enough nor given enough hours to do the job. We need decisions that get it right first time and support that starts when the need is identified, not after a courtroom date is set.
I welcome the ten-minute rule Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) on neurodivergent screening and teacher training. His principle is simple: we must identify needs early, including dyslexia; equip teachers with the knowledge and confidence to respond in class; and make specialist pathways clear and timely for those who need them. As he rightly said in his moving contribution in the main Chamber, neurodivergence is not a weakness or a flaw; with the right support, it can be a superpower. If Ministers are serious about addressing the crisis in SEND, parent voice must be at the centre. Parents know their children best and what works, because they live with the consequences of policy every day. Change will command confidence only if families can see and feel the difference.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
I am afraid that I have to take the time limit down to one and a half minutes to get everybody in.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
The current SEND system is simply not working, and nowhere is that more obvious than in my constituency, where 450 people signed the petition. Of students in Calder Valley, 12.2% receive SEND support, but behind that figure is a world of parents who are not having the family time they need with their children because they are focused on the fight for support. Getting an education, health and care plan should be straightforward and the end of the process, but far too often, an EHCP is just the start of the fight. As a statemented dyslexic in the ’90s, I would simply not be here were it not for my mother’s indefatigability.
In Calder Valley, we have seen children with EHCPs who still do not get access to schools. Some are out of education altogether because there is not the right support. A constituent I have been supporting has two children currently out of school because their needs cannot be met, with no placement or interim support from the local authority. Several others are in mainstream school but their needs are not being met, and no alternative provision has been found. That is not just a failure of provision; it is a failure of duty. Other children are waiting months and years for assessments. We have three special schools in Calder Valley, including two primaries and one secondary, but they are all at capacity.
This is a system that embeds inequality. The families who understand it best—who know how to push, appeal and fight, and who have the time and resources to do so—are the ones who get the help. It is like a second job for them, but it is just not right. We need more investment, professionalism and ambition. We need a system that works with parents, not against them. I urge the Minister to look seriously at how we can restructure SEND provision in the upcoming reforms. We need schools, parents, the NHS and local authorities to work together, not against each other. Too frequently, children are falling through the gaps created by disputes over who is responsible for paying.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
The system facing children with additional needs and their parents is badly broken. I have heard truly horrific stories of deep failures of duty to vulnerable children. Many hon. Members have covered the same points, so I will use my limited time to outline the reforms that parents at my Darlington SEND surgeries want, and which I support. First, we should educate all school staff to improve the understanding of children’s needs by everyone who supports them. Secondly, we should improve physical environments in all schools—it is cheap, hurts no one, and dramatically improves some children’s ability to attend mainstream. Thirdly, we should stagger play times and break times, increase exercise, and stagger start and finish times.
Fourthly, we should introduce a statutory SENCO-to-child ratio. SENCOs need to be full time. It is for the birds that somebody can go back into the classroom, cover supply, and also do the role of a SENCO in the current conditions. Some schools need more than one; it needs to be a SENCO-to-child ratio based on need. Fifthly, mainstream with some easy estate improvements works really well at primary level. Mount Pleasant school in Darlington is a great example where all pupils are excelling because of an inclusive mainstream provision and culture.
Sixthly, the transition between primary and secondary is in desperate, acute need of attention. It is where children who survived or thrived in primary are hitting crisis and dropping out of school altogether. Seventhly, this is not just about children; many parents are having to drop out of the workforce as a consequence of having to meet their children’s needs. They are exhausted and burnt out as a result of an adversarial, burden-laden system that is failing them. I cannot finish the rest of my list because of time.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
I thank the 257 constituents in Thornbury and Yate who signed the petition. I want to focus on one symptom of the broken system: emotionally based school non-attendance. Children whose needs are not met can struggle to attend school and, too often, the response is to punish the parents rather than to provide extra support. As a sign at the rally earlier today said:
“EBSNA is not a crime, provision not punishment, stop prosecuting parents”.
Talking tough is not the answer. The relentless focus on exam results and strict zero tolerance behaviour policies create an environment that can be hostile for children with additional needs. I hear from parents in my surgeries that policies have been applied without reasonable adjustments for disabilities. It is only in a compassionate and supportive environment that a child can be helped to move beyond their current comfort zone. Making schools more inclusive has to be about more than physical changes to the buildings; it requires an overhaul of culture and practices.
Beyond stopping prosecutions, I believe that we need to switch the focus from attendance at school to engagement with education. A child in isolation is attending, but often is not engaging, and for some, engagement might require a period outside a traditional school environment.
I have spoken to senior educational psychologists who are frustrated that the Department for Education, under successive Governments, has failed to engage with them on this issue. I have also spoken to charities, including Contact, Square Peg and Not Fine in School, and I urge Ministers to meet them with me to discuss attendance in more depth.
Not supporting children with SEND is not just bad for children, but bad for society as a whole. Whatever the new system looks like, it must give legal backing to ensure that all children get an appropriate education, and it must see parents as partners, not adversaries, in that.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
As someone who has ADHD, I know how much difference the right support makes. For me, this issue is simple. Support in education is not a favour—it is a legal right, yet too many families have to battle to get what the law already promises. That includes families like that of my constituent, Vicky James, who not only fights for her own child, but gives up her time to help others through the maze of forms, delays and appeals. The SEND system should not have to depend on a parent’s stamina.
Families want to know that their rights will be kept. They want the 20-week duty to mean something and not be a best-case scenario. They want to know that when deadlines are missed, their child will not be left without support in the meantime. Families must have confidence that when their child needs support, it will arrive without unnecessary barriers, without a postcode lottery, and without their having to beg for what they are entitled to.
Families are not asking for the world. They are asking for the basics—that the law is upheld and that support arrives when it is needed. Our job is to make sure that children with SEND and their families are at the heart of any reforms, shaping change through their lived experience, because every child deserves the right support at the right time to reach their full potential and thrive in the classroom.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I thank the 125,000 petitioners, some of whom are in the Chamber today or who were in Parliament Square earlier, for bringing this issue to the House.
In a recent survey, more than 70% of respondents described SEND services in Surrey as poor or very poor. The now former chair of Surrey’s children’s services select committee stated that the current system should be “broken up”, arguing that it is too large to effectively meet the needs of the families that it is meant to support. She criticised the lack of accountability to elected councillors and described the service as a “cold, uncaring bureaucracy”, more focused on preserving its own structure than on prioritising the wellbeing of children. Perhaps it is little surprise, then, that the senior leaders at Surrey county council claimed in a meeting with MPs late last year that
“Surrey does not have a SEND issue”
at all—what it has are parents who are “too articulate”. How many more lives need to be put at risk by Surrey county council, by that kind of gaslighting and parent blaming?
The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) raised the funding of specialist free schools, three of which are in Surrey and one of which, Lakeside school, is supposed to be in my constituency—forgive me, Chair; I did not realise the time.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. The SEND crisis is destroying the life chances of children—not only those with additional needs, but their classmates, whose education also suffers as teachers struggle to cope with an unmanageable range of needs. Families are failed and unable to work or enjoy family time as negotiating SEND consumes all their energies. Teachers are leaving the profession in record numbers, and nearly half cite SEND-related stress as a key reason.
Local councils are overwhelmed. One caseworker I spoke to had 200 families on her books, each requiring annual reviews, school searches and funding decisions. The backlog in NHS diagnosis is forcing families to go private and get into debt, and transport providers and some SEND schools are profiting from desperate families and desperate councils. But most tragically, the system is stealing our children’s childhoods. Every child has a right to an education that nurtures their personality, talents and abilities. The current system fails everyone.
Like the lead petitioner, Rachel Filmer, whom I met on Friday, I fear that if we do not raise our voices now, we risk eroding children’s rights. Children must be at the heart of reform. Some children will always need a specialist school, but every school should be special, because every one of our children deserves an education.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the 393 Gloucester constituents who signed the petition and all those who have contacted me over the past year about SEND provision in our city.
Far too many children with SEND in my city did not start school with their peers last week, and many of those who have been lucky enough to get a school place have still been left without the support that they need. Parents are having to fight against a system that was meant to support them and their families, teachers are struggling to keep up with the demand of increasingly complex needs in their classes, and council officers are operating in a system that seems designed to antagonise and frustrate at every stage. It is clear that the system is broken.
I hope that the Minister will reassure parents in my constituency that, although reform is needed to fix the Tories’ broken system, this Government will guarantee that all children’s needs will be met. I hope that, in fixing the system, the Government will pay particular attention to early years settings. I recently visited the fantastic Dingley’s Promise early years centre in Coney Hill, where I spoke with staff and parents. The team at Dingley’s are determined to give every child with SEND the best start in life. Importantly, the team are also working with schools to create more inclusive environments in mainstream settings. Sadly, not all schools are open to this collaborative working, so I hope that through their reforms, the Government will ensure that such partnerships are supported.
Finally, on fixing the broken SEND system, I make a plea on behalf of all the parents who are, frankly, exhausted and who feel like they have been lied to for years: as part of the reforms, please remove the adversarial relationship between parents and local authorities, and put the experience of families at the heart of our proposals.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I thank the families who were at the rally outside Parliament today for their continuous fight, which is a battle that has been going on for many years. It was wonderful to see so many of them keeping up the fight and making sure that MPs are hearing their stories. That is why so many hon. Members are in the room today.
I could tell Members about the stories that those families told me just today. One parent has been waiting 91 weeks to get an EHCP. Another parent told me about the rigid attendance rules that punish children who are unable to attend school because of their special educational needs. One grandmother was in tears because she was worried that she would not be able to get the support that her granddaughter needed.
Most of all, they told me about the worry that the EHCP rug would be pulled from underneath them, with nothing left to catch them. That is what I am particularly worried about. I am sorry that the Minister is not in her place at the moment, but if she were, I would say to her that parents need the support to be there. Any new system has to be properly tested. It also has to be trusted by parents, and that trust simply is not there at the moment.
I say to the Government: tread very carefully, because parents are really worried, and they will be very cross indeed if they do not get the support they absolutely need. Governments do not have a very good reputation for getting things right: think of the many disabled children affected by the Primodos scandal, or the terrible birth defects suffered because of sodium valproate. They have special educational needs and disabilities too, and they all need support.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I thank the many petitioners who brought forward this debate, which is fundamental to parents in my Halesowen constituency. I have been speaking to many of them, and the message I am receiving is clear: the system is not working.
Parents raised three major themes with me. First, getting support for children with special needs is too much of a fight. Time and again, EHCP processes in Halesowen have breached the 20-week timeline, and in many cases, parents are waiting for more than a year to get support. Secondly, the waiting list for child and adolescent mental health services is much too high; many families have told me that they must wait years and meet ridiculous thresholds to receive support. Thirdly, I hear from teachers and parents that capacity in mainstream schools is stretched to the limit. They know what children need but are unable to deliver in a complex and under-resourced system.
That is best described in parents’ own words. One parent said to me:
“I cannot underestimate the battle that parents have with the system and local authorities: to get an assessment; to get an EHCP that is meaningful and lawful; to get suitable education provision; and to get healthcare and social care support. The constant fight is exhausting.”
The only conclusion must be that fundamental reform of the system is needed. It is not working for parents, teachers or the children themselves. There are no easy solutions to these very complex problems. When it comes to reform, I ask that parents—like the parents here today—are at the very heart of any changes we make.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I and many of my constituents would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for introducing the debate. People living with special educational needs and disabilities are like everyone else: they have dreams, passions, interests and their own individual identities. They do not want to be defined by the challenges they face, but by the capabilities they possess.
Early assessment is vital. Early identification leads to better outcomes. Early support prevents difficulties from escalating, improving long-term educational and other outcomes. After years of Conservative neglect, the SEND system needs fundamental change. All stakeholders must be listened to and understood. Reforms must be ambitious; reform is an opportunity to address enormous, complex issues.
In my Wokingham constituency, the number of children with EHCPs has grown by nearly 100% between 2019 and 2025. Many of these children have been out of school and in alternative provision for a long time, often because there are simply no schools available and willing to meet their needs. A fair society requires that every child is valued, supported and empowered to reach their full potential. We must ensure that vital reforms to SEND are approached with the honesty and ambition that will improve outcomes for children with special educational needs.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan, and it is delightful to hear so many voices in agreement today. In my Newton Abbot constituency, we have helped nearly 100 families navigate the SEND EHCP system—families who are desperate to help their children, but who are met with delays and a system that is constantly exhausting and failing our vulnerable children. In Devon, there is a SEND off-book debt of some £170 million, and that is growing. To combat this, the approach has been to deny help to SEND children until it is forced upon the council, making it an adversarial process. Just over 3% of EHCPs are issued within 20 weeks. Nearly a quarter take a year to set up. That is a year of missed everything.
What we need is change that improves the system and saves families from falling through the cracks in the first place. We need to focus on early intervention. That means getting support in place before the children reach crisis. Early intervention is key to fixing the funding, too. If we wait years to provide help, the situation will get far worse, with children and families far more traumatised. The current system is failing children and failing financially. The numbers do not add up and local authorities are being pushed to the brink.
We need a system that works more flexibly and fairly. I welcome the ten-minute rule Bill, the Neurodivergence (Screening and Teacher Training) Bill, presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance). I urge the Minister to take this opportunity to commit to meaningful improvement.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the Petitions Committee for granting this important debate and my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for opening the debate with such a powerful speech. I welcome the new Minister to her place, and I look forward to working with her. As I think she has heard today, she has her work cut out.
I start by paying tribute to the now over 125,000 people, including 323 in my Twickenham constituency, who have signed the petition and brought this important debate to the House. I pay tribute to the numerous campaign groups and charities that have been championing this cause, and I thank the many thousands of teachers and support staff up and down the country who are trying their very best to make our broken SEND system work in the best interests of our children.
Many of those who signed the petition will be parents, carers and family members of children with special educational needs or disabilities, who are deeply worried about the proposals that have been reported in the media over recent months. These are not families who are gaming or hijacking the system, as I think some Reform Members have suggested, or taking the system for a ride. They are simply parents and carers who are juggling advocating and caring for their children, while also being subjected to a drip-feed of rumours in the press about their children’s future and how their rights might be reduced.
MPs across the House know only too well from their inbox and mailbag, as we have heard so clearly and powerfully today, the many painful stories of how their constituents have had to fight for their child or children to get the support they need to learn and thrive. Sadly, some have struggled for so long that they have had no choice but to remove their child from school. Those are not decisions that parents or carers make lightly.
It is clear for many families that the current SEND system is not working. The Conservatives left a system that their own former Education Seretary, Gillian Keegan, described as “lose, lose, lose”. Despite increased funding, outcomes for children and young people have not improved, and far too many are left without adequate support. At the same time, as we have heard, local authorities are being driven to the financial brink.
The system is far too adversarial. Parents should not have to fight for their child to receive an education. We urgently need an overhaul of the whole system—but any reforms without children and families at their heart will fail. Scrapping EHCPs in a vacuum will not work; we need to see fundamental changes in how we deliver SEND support.
The Minister may be aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) and I wrote to the Prime Minister and the Education Secretary back in July, outlining five principles for SEND reform. We Liberal Democrats believe that these five principles should be the guiding light for any reform of our SEND system. First, we must put children and families first. Any reforms cannot be a repeat of the welfare reform disaster, which was a Treasury-driven, cost-cutting exercise. The voices of children and families should be at the heart of any reforms brought forward. However, it was clear from the rally today that many feel that their voices are not being heard. Children’s rights to SEND assessment and support must be maintained.
Secondly, as many hon. Members have said, early identification is key. We know that the earlier we act, the quicker we can prevent needs from spiralling. That means investing in early identification and intervention now. There are several educational and developmental checkpoints during a child’s early years and throughout primary school that could be expanded to identify additional needs; I would welcome information on what work Ministers are doing in that area. The Education Policy Institute has found that children with special educational needs who started reception last year were more than a year behind their peers. Staggeringly, those with an EHCP were already 20 months behind. We must work on narrowing that gap in the early years, and on giving children the help they need as soon as possible.
The former Minister for Early Years, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), failed to answer this question when I asked him on the Floor of the House. I hope the new schools Minister will address how much of the £760 million for SEND transformation announced in the spending review will go towards early identification and intervention.
Thirdly, we need to boost specialist capacity. With 19.5% of pupils in England identified as having special educational needs, capacity in state school provision must be increased, alongside improvements to inclusive mainstream provision. That means investment in new school buildings and staff training. The Liberal Democrats urge the Government to proceed rapidly with the opening of the 67 special free schools stuck in the pipeline, and I welcome measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that will allow local authorities to open special schools. We know that applications were repeatedly blocked by the previous Conservative Government, despite the desperate need for our state special schools, which are bursting at the seams.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
On the point about upskilling teachers, the Mulberry Bush school in my constituency does a fantastic job with outreach from specialist schools to regular schools. Does my hon. Friend agree that upskilling teachers and using skills inside the SEND schools to teach teachers in the broader environment would be a great thing?
Munira Wilson
I agree with my hon. Friend. I have heard about that hub-and-spoke model and would like to go and see it; I think it could be a good model to scale up.
I also implore Ministers to look at the bureaucratic hurdles that local authorities face in putting specialist units in mainstream schools. I think it was the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) who mentioned that London and other areas have falling school rolls. There is space opening up in our school estate for specialist units. My own local authority managed to take advantage of that in Nelson school, which is a primary school but, as of last week, has a specialist unit for secondary pupils with SEMH needs. That could provide a rapid expansion of specialist provision for children to be educated closer to home and among their friends and peers.
Fourthly, we need support for local government. We have heard today that local authorities are racking up billions of pounds of deficits. Some of those costs are driven by the eye-watering fees charged by private equity-run special schools, some of which have a profit margin upwards of 20%. That is just wrong and immoral, and it is bleeding our councils dry. Local authorities are also spending £2.26 billion on SEND transport.
In the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the Government have proposed a potential profit cap on private social care providers. I was disappointed that every Labour MP voted down Liberal Democrat proposals earlier this year to cap the profits of private special schools; I hope that, with the new Minister in her place, they will think again on their stance on that amendment while the Bill is in the other place. Liberal Democrats are also calling for a new national SEND body to oversee and fund some of the most complex cases, where needs exceed a particular cost, to put an end to the postcode lottery of support, so that no child is left waiting and no council is left with unmanageable costs.
Finally, we need a fair funding arrangement. We need to get rid of the perverse incentives enshrined in the £6,000 notional budget that schools are given for SEND support. The performance and accountability regime should not penalise schools for accepting SEND pupils. Mainstream inclusion is vital, but it is not a silver bullet; for inclusion to work, it must be properly resourced. Teachers need training, classrooms need resources and schools need the capacity to meet needs, but we know that budgets are already stretched to the max. I hear in my own constituency that teaching assistants are among the first to go, yet they are the ones supporting the children with special needs.
Reform must be rooted in improving children’s lives, not simply managing down costs or limiting access to support. As we have heard today, some of the local authority funding reforms will significantly penalise local authorities—particularly my own, but also authorities across London and other parts of the country.
In conclusion, it is abundantly clear that the SEND system in its current form is too slow, too inconsistent and too adversarial. We need and want a system in which children get the right support at the right time, regardless of where they live. Change is urgently needed for families across the country. They cannot afford to wait.
I sincerely hope that the Government reshuffle will not cause further delay to the White Paper. We Liberal Democrats have offered to work constructively with Ministers on getting this issue right, with our five principles for reform. The Government cannot afford to sleepwalk into another Treasury-led disaster. They have to get this right, because every child, no matter their background or their needs, deserves every opportunity to thrive.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and a privilege to take part in this excellent and well-thought-out debate on assessment and support for children with SEND. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for introducing this important debate and for her opening remarks. I welcome the Minister to her place and look forward to working constructively with her to improve educational outcomes across the country for all children. I pay particular tribute to the more than 125,000 people who have signed the petition, including almost 200 people in Meriden and Solihull East.
As you and every other Member of this House are no doubt aware, Dr Allin-Khan, providing for children with special educational needs is one of the most complex issues facing the country today. All our inboxes are inundated with SEND issues from parents needing our support. I pay tribute to all the parents and children in my own constituency who get in touch with me, especially those from Solihull Parent Carer Voice and the North Solihull Additional Needs Support Group. Having heard their stories, I know at first hand their anguish, pain and anxieties.
The SEND system has been struggling under its own weight. That is no secret; we have heard it in the debate over and over again, and it would be insincere of me not to acknowledge it. Frankly, it would be disrespectful to the parents whom I work with on a daily basis to say otherwise. However, in that same spirit of sincerity, I say to all the parties present that this debate will succeed, and we will achieve better improvements to the system only if we all work together and put parents and children first. For a party not present in this debate—namely Reform—to say that parents have “hijacked” the system is grossly offensive, and it should apologise.
The Conservatives will work constructively by putting children and parents first, but we will also not allow anyone to play politics either. Personally, I repeatedly lobbied the last Government for further funding for SEND, and in March 2024, £2.6 billion was allocated to help with SEND school places. I am pleased that my own borough of Solihull received £3 million to support the system but, with an above-average rate of diagnoses for SEND children, I can attest that much more is needed.
The fact of the matter is that the burdens on the system are huge. A growing number of children now require additional support to manage their needs, with a 10.8% increase in the number of children with an education, health and care plan in the last year alone.
Many children with SEND rely on the tailored support that an EHCP can provide, setting out binding legal commitments to meet a child’s individual needs. However, there has been an unprecedented increase in the number of children needing an EHCP since the covid-19 pandemic. There is no doubt that ensuring that children with SEND receive the best-quality education, while also grappling with increasing demand, is one of the great challenges that is pressing schools at the moment. I am sure that all Members present in the debate want to ensure that no child loses out on the opportunities that a quality education can provide.
Not only children with SEND, but their parents too, rely on the tailored support provided through an EHCP. That EHCP, once secured, provides a written document with statutory backing on which parents can rely. The Minister should not be surprised, as we have heard during the debate, that many parents have felt blindsided when it unexpectedly emerged that the Government would consider scrapping EHCPs.
Some 60% of children with SEND who have an EHCP in place are in mainstream schools. While Ministers have said that the Government will not remove effective support because of their planned reforms, there has been no clarity from them on what exactly the Government are providing. I ask the Minister, for the sake of all the parents who will be watching this debate: what exactly are the Government proposing? Who will decide what is effective support? If there are no EHCPs, will there be recourse for parents whose children have SEND and do not get that effective or appropriate support?
Ministers have repeatedly refused to rule out taking away EHCPs from kids with special needs in mainstream schools, yet at the same time they are announcing plans to place more children with SEND away from special schools into mainstream schools. How will that work? Does the Minister acknowledge that the Government’s dithering, delay and confused messaging are hurting parents and causing them distress and anxiety? Do those parents not deserve certainty and clarity?
EHCPs must not be taken away from those children with SEND who already have them. Our position is very clear. Despite repeated questions from my Opposition colleagues on whether any parent or child will have their right to support reduced, replaced or removed because of the Government’s planned changes, Ministers have failed to provide any concrete guarantees that that will not be the case. When previously questioned on whether EHCPs would be restricted to apply only to children in special schools, the Government’s own strategic adviser on SEND said that they are still “in the middle of” that conversation.
The Government must recognise the severe financial implications that the lack of clarity on SEND is having on local authorities. Despite funding increases of more than £10 billion in recent years, it is clear that the demand for funding is increasing, not decreasing. EHCPs are incredibly valuable documents, but they are also very difficult to get. I acknowledge that there was more to be done on EHCPs by the end of the last Government, but surely the answer is not to remove them.
As with many of the parents I work with, in 98% of the cases that go to tribunal, the tribunal finds in favour of the family. How will the Minister improve that decision-making process, to prevent parents from needing to go to tribunal in the first place? I will happily work with her to improve outcomes there. Can she confirm that she is aware of the severe pressures on local authorities? Can she provide any clarity on what the Government are going to do to ensure that local authorities remain solvent and are not forced into section 114 notices?
Only last week, the Children’s Commissioner published her school census and made a number of recommendations to reform the assessments and support for children with SEND, including restricting EHCPs to only those pupils with the most severe needs and creating several different tiers of support for children with SEND. Can the Minister confirm whether that is also the position of the Government?
Getting this right is of paramount importance. We can see that across the Chamber. Do the Government have any information on the number of people with SEND who will go on to be among the nearly 1 million young people not in education, employment or training? Do they have any information on the number of young people who transition from SEND to claiming personal independence payment, for example? Those with the most severe needs must get support from the Government, but it is vital that there are clear pathways for people with SEND to get into work and obtain all the benefits that come with it: a routine, new friendships and opportunities, and the sense of accomplishment that one can get from a hard day’s work. Has the Minister or her predecessor, or the Secretary of State, met the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—the new one or the previous one—to discuss that?
I recently met some of the parents, campaigners and lawyers who took the Government to the High Court over the impact of the Education Secretary’s decision to impose VAT on independent schools. Her disastrous education tax could impact 90,000 pupils with SEND in independent schools who do not have an EHCP. Specialist state schools could be overwhelmed if those students are forced to relocate to the state sector because parents are being taxed out of education. Those calls have been echoed by Michelle Catterson, the head of Moon Hall school, a specialist dyslexia school in Reigate, who said that Labour’s disastrous policies could disproportionately impact the state sector. Can the Minister share with the House the impact on the state sector of children with special educational needs being forced out of the private sector by this Government?
SEND provision is also being threatened by the Government’s decision to tax nurseries and other early years providers out of business. We know that the Chancellor is scrambling to find savings. Can the Minister confirm that no parent or child will have their right to support reduced, replaced or removed because of the Chancellor’s need to balance the books? My hon. Friends the Members for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) and for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) made that point well. There is huge demand among Members for reform of the system. Funding will be essential. Can the Minister tell the House how the changes will be funded?
If EHCPs are removed, will parents have a statutory document that they can rely on outlining the level of support that their child can expect to receive? I urge the Minister to use this opportunity to provide much-needed clarity for parents and spell out how the Government’s planned reforms to assessments and support for children with SEND will affect them. Will they finally announce today a publication date for the White Paper, which will give Members across the House and their constituents the clarity they desperately need? I implore the Minister not just to give us the Government lines, but to give parents, their children and their teachers the answers that they need.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Georgia Gould)
I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for introducing the debate. The strength of feeling expressed by everyone in the room shows how important it is; I feel that the voices of children and families from every part of the country were heard in the Chamber today. It was such a powerful discussion, partly because so much work has gone on to set up listening exercises in constituencies and hear voices around the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) said that a report was coming to the Secretary of State, and many have written in. I would like to take the time to meet those who have spent so much time with their constituents and hear directly from them. I know that one or two minutes is not enough time to get across the depth of these issues and the depth of concern.
I look forward to the publication of the Education Committee report this week. The Committee’s Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), spoke powerfully about it and I know that it was deeply researched. I hope that I can spend time with her to hear her findings.
I thank the parents who have sat through the debate in the Public Gallery for bringing their voices into the room. I know how hard it is for many parents of children with special educational needs to travel. Even if they are not in the room today, the voices of the more than 125,000 parents who signed the petition have been heard.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
From the SEND rally to the petition and the Lib Dems’ SEND summit in Hertfordshire today, those voices are being heard. I thank the Minister, who met Rachel and Siouxsie from my constituency today. Siouxsie has developmental language disorder and often feels invisible. Will the Minister guarantee that voices such as hers truly will be heard and that children’s individual needs will be brought forward for proper provision?
Georgia Gould
Siouxsie gave me a flag by which to remember young people with speech and language issues. That will be in my office, and I will think about those young people every day in this job. I am grateful to all the organisations and parents who have met me. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), who hosted a really powerful roundtable and drop-in earlier so that I could hear from amazing schools that are leading inclusive practice, want to do this work and want to work with the Government.
I ran a council for seven years and spent 14 years in local government. I met so many parents in my own borough and many others who told me the problems with the system, which we have heard about really powerfully today. I met parents who could see that issues were starting early but were not listened to and had to fight for support. I met parents who found that there was no support available until there was a diagnosis. We heard so many stories of the months, and sometimes years, that parents and young people have had to wait. I met parents who found that not only education but wider services, such as playgrounds and youth services, were not set up for their children, or were living in very overcrowded housing and found it difficult to manage their children’s needs. I met parents who could not find local schools that could meet their children’s needs and parents—we heard examples of this today—who had had to give up work to be able to support their children.
I have met children who do not feel comfortable going to school because of their experiences when they were younger; one talked to me earlier about the trauma she had from having to go to a school that was not set up to meet her needs.
Georgia Gould
I will make some progress as we do not have much time and there were so many different comments.
I have heard from young people who found when applying for college that their EHCP had not been updated since they were very young and colleges said they could not meet their needs. Some of the stories that are hardest to hear are those of people who have had to fight every single year, whose child is now 18, and who can see all the missed opportunities and feel so deeply let down, and of children have lost confidence in the support available.
Too many parents feel they have to arm up for battle when interacting with the system. They do not want to resort to the tribunal, but sometimes feel that is the only way to get support. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) said that parents are exhausted. So many parents say that they are exhausted by having to fight and, heartbreakingly, that they feel broken by the system. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), who criticised the comments by the Reform leadership attacking parents who are just fighting for their children to get the support that they need. I know parents will never give up, because they want to support their children.
We cannot start this discussion without acknowledging how many children and families have been badly let down by the system. Many within the system are also struggling: teachers who do not feel like they have the right training or support to meet need in the classroom, as we heard from so many Members today; schools that want more specialist support, such as speech and language therapy, for their children but do not have access to it; and local authorities that did not get the investment they needed to build a local offer and so are paying for expensive private provision far away from communities.
Gregory Stafford
I thank the Minister for outlining many of the problems in the system. She has now had six out of her 10 minutes and she has not told us what the Government are going to do. Can I press her to tell us what the Government are actually going to do?
Georgia Gould
I think it is just very important that we hear from parents. When I spoke to them yesterday, one of the things they said was that it is critical that they hear from the Government that we understand the challenges that they face before we move forward.
There is also some amazing practice going on, and we heard about it today: schools that are supporting children and young people, and teaching assistants who are investing in that support. We heard the wonderful example from Colne Valley, where neurodiversity training has been put in place.
Georgia Gould
I am going to make progress.
This morning I visited a school that is doing amazing work to provide support in the classroom, in mainstream provision, for children and young people. The children I meet have big dreams and deserve the chance to thrive. The Secretary of State for Education has made it absolutely clear that under this Government no child will be left behind, and we will reform the system so that children with special educational needs are at the heart of the education system. There will always be a legal right to additional support for children and young people with special educational needs.
As I approach this new role, there are a number of principles guiding me. First, the voices of children, young people and their families, and of teachers and those supporting them, must be at the forefront of reform.
Georgia Gould
I will make progress, because we do not have much time.
Over the last year, the Secretary of State and my predecessor have spent a huge amount of time with families to make sure that their voices are heard. Secondly, children should get support when they need it, as early as possible.
Adam Dance
With my ten-minute rule Bill, I have given the Minister good ideas to take forward. Will she look at including them in the White Paper?
Georgia Gould
I heard the hon. Member introduce his Bill. He spoke so powerfully about his personal journey, and this House is a better place because he is in it. The points he raised about investing in teacher training across the board are critical and have to be part of the future.
The second principle, which we have heard about from almost every speaker, is that children need to get support when issues first appear; early intervention has to be the basis of reform. Thirdly, children with special educational needs should not have to go miles away from their families and communities to get the right support. We need to invest in support within our communities.
Finally, support for young people to thrive is not just for schools. I have heard the words “collaboration” and “co-design” so many times in this debate. It is about play, it is about youth clubs, it is about local health services; it is about workplaces that celebrate neurodiversity. We are talking about one in five of our young people: we all know somebody who has special educational needs, and those individuals bring so much creativity and so many ideas.
Georgia Gould
I have 29 seconds left.
It is really important to acknowledge that in 14 years of local government I saw so many families let down. My commitment, as we move forward, is to work with the parents who have turned up and the parents who signed the petition to get this right for families and to set out reforms that will really transform young people’s lives.
Dr Savage
I thank the petitioners again for making today’s debate possible, and I thank everybody who spoke. I hope the breadth and depth of both feeling and understanding across the House is clear to the petitioners.
I thank the Minister for her response and welcome her to her place. I hope she will forgive me for observing that I heard a great deal of empathy but not a great deal of action. I trust that the forthcoming White Paper will set out in much more detail and far more concrete terms what the Government will do to address the crisis in SEND. There is a crisis of funding and of trust, but behind the national crisis are countless families in crisis, pushed to breaking point by the fight to get their children the provision they deserve. We need accountability, training and funding; we need early and timely intervention; we need a system that works with and for parents, not against them; and above all else, we need a system that enables all children, no matter what their challenges, to fulfil their potential. I, for one, look forward very much to hearing what the Government will do to provide that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 711021 relating to assessments and support for children with SEND.
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Technical Expert Group
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
On 21 July, I updated the House that the Government would be bringing forward further regulations to respond to the recommendations of the Infected Blood Inquiry’s additional report. I also informed the House that to make the proposed changes to the infected blood compensation scheme would require further technical clinical and legal advice. I can now confirm that this advice will be provided by a new Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Technical Expert Group.
The technical expert group will assist the Government in developing proposals, in response to the inquiry’s additional report, for public consultation. Following that consultation, the Government will be in a position to finalise any changes to the infected blood compensation scheme, informed by the consultation findings and the technical expert group’s advice.
I have published the terms of reference for the technical expert group, including full membership, as well as its work programme. To ensure the necessary changes to the compensation scheme can be implemented with the minimum possible delay to the Infected Blood Compensation Authority’s ongoing delivery of compensation, I am appointing all members of the previous expert group to the new group. In addition, I am pleased to have personally appointed five further experts to broaden the group’s expertise and ensure any changes to the scheme are thoroughly assessed and validated. The new additional members to the technical expert group are as follows:
Dr Lise Estcourt, Transfusion Medicine specialist
Dr Susie Shapiro, Haematology Specialist
Dr Chloe Beale, Psychological medicine—psychiatrist
Professor Deborah Christie, Psychological medicine—psychologist
Professor John Weinman, Psychological medicine—psychologist
The appointments I have made reflect feedback from infected blood community stakeholders and I thank the community representatives for their valuable input into this process.
While the previous expert group, appointed by my predecessor, provided advice which enabled the Government to take critical decisions on the design of the infected blood compensation scheme, I acknowledge the inquiry’s and community’s criticisms about the transparency of its work.
After reflecting on the inquiry’s report, I gave the House an undertaking that transparency will be at the heart of any expert group going forward. Today I published an open letter to Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery, who I have asked to chair the new technical expert group, setting out my expectations on how it will operate. This includes an expectation that the group will undertake targeted engagement with the infected blood community on issues raised in the inquiry’s additional report, to inform its work and help it answer the questions set out in its work programme.
[HCWS922]
Independent National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I am announcing today the 14 hospital trusts that will be looked at as part of a rapid, independent, national investigation into maternity and neonatal services. In June, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), announced this urgent investigation because of concerning patterns in baby deaths and maternal mortality, and because of the extremely harrowing and traumatic stories that bereaved families brought directly to the Secretary of State and the Department.
The Secretary of State asked Baroness Valerie Amos to chair this review—a former diplomat with vast leadership experience and a passion for driving change. Baroness Amos has selected the 14 trusts for local investigations, based on a range of factors. These include data and metrics, such as data from the Care Quality Commission maternity patient survey and MBRRACE-UK perinatal mortality rates, as well as criteria to ensure: a diverse mix of trusts; variation in case mix, trust type, and geographic coverage; and provision of care to individuals from diverse backgrounds, including consideration of social, economic and racial inequalities, family feedback, and where previous investigations have taken place.
From smaller hospital trusts to those operating in our bigger cities, the 14 trusts will help Baroness Amos and her expert advisers to assess maternity and neonatal units of all shapes and sizes. Rest assured that the voices of women and families remain at the heart of this process, as evidence is gathered directly from those with lived experience. I know that for families who are carrying a traumatic burden from what they have gone through, helping us shape this is yet another extremely difficult process to bear. The Secretary of State and I are incredibly grateful to all the families who have taken part and fed into this investigation.
To be clear, this is not about naming and shaming trusts. Expecting parents should not be discouraged from visiting their local hospital, wherever it is, because of this investigation. Hard-working maternity staff should know that this is a sincere and focused effort to support trusts across the country by giving them the tools to provide the best possible care. The Secretary of State has now agreed the final terms of reference with Baroness Amos, and these will be published today.
The 14 hospital trusts are:
Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust
Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
East Kent Hospitals NHS Trust
Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Trust
Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
Oxford University Hospital
Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust
Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust
The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King’s Lynn
University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust
University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust
Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust / Somerset NHS Foundation Trust
The investigation will start detailed work with the 14 trusts straight away, looking closely at the care for women, babies and families. There have already been a raft of reviews and reports, and Baroness Amos and her team will draw on these to create one clear, national set of actions to improve care across the country.
Importantly, the investigation will gather evidence directly from women and families, including fathers and non-birthing partners. This evidence will inform recommendations and result in an initial set of findings and recommendations by December 2025.
Baroness Amos will develop one clear set of recommendations for achieving consistently high-quality, safe maternity and neonatal care. The chair will be supported by a small team of expert advisers and will engage regularly with affected families throughout the investigation process.
This investigation is separate from the National Maternity and Neonatal Taskforce, which the Secretary of State will chair, and will take forward the recommendations of the investigation, forming them into a national action plan to drive improvements across maternity and neonatal care. These recommendations will supersede the multiple existing actions and recommendations already in place.
[HCWS923]
Civil Aviation Authority Annual Progress Report
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
This Government are committed to accelerating the airspace modernisation programme, as a key enabler to unlocking economic growth through expanding the aviation sector.
The impacts of our outdated airspace are felt by both the sector and passengers, and it is vital that we deliver modernisation of UK airspace to reduce flight times, improve reliability of services, and deliver on our climate and environmental obligations. Modernisation does not stop at conventional passenger aircraft but will also enable the integration of emerging aviation technologies, future-proofing our skies for the next generation of aircraft and making meaningful contributions towards our net zero targets.
Since the start of this Government, we have seen considerable progress on a number of elements within the airspace modernisation strategy. Some of our most significant developments include:
The announcement of the formation of the UK airspace design service, which will deliver holistic and modernised airspace design for the complex London terminal airspace by taking forward airports’ airspace change proposals in a co-ordinated manner.
The successful conclusion of the consultation on the scope and funding model for the UKADS. This will help deliver a step change in how airspace change is delivered, and work is under way to establish the UKADS so it can be operational this year.
The intent to create a new UK airspace design support fund to cover relevant costs of the sponsors of eligible UK airport ACPs that are outside the scope of UKADS.
Progress being made by the 20 airports advancing their ACPs as part of the terminal airspace redesign element, with almost all of the London airports now progressing on to stage 3 of the process, including Heathrow and Gatwick.
The deployment of Pairwise at Heathrow, which has enabled an innovative new way to safely reduce the separation of aircraft upon landing, improving efficiency and reducing delays at Britain’s busiest airport.
Work progressing well on enabling the full integration of UK airspace, including supporting the safe integration of new airspace users, like drones. Following the completion of extensive research projects and stakeholder engagement, the development of an electronic conspicuity concept of operations, outlining the requirements to enable integration, is complete and under review.
The publication of part 3 of the strategy, consisting of the deployment plan, in July 2024, outlining the delivery milestones for the projects in progress or due to commence over the next 7 years.
The airspace modernisation annual progress report, produced by the Civil Aviation Authority, is a requirement by the Secretary of State for Transport and provides details of the progress made within the programme, as well as the policy development work carried out by the CAA against each of the AMS’s elements. This report covers the period from January to December 2024.
It provides a clear overview of the progress that has been delivered across the nine delivery elements and the multiple projects within each one. It also illustrates areas of delay or concern, and what mitigations and measures are in place to reduce them. The full report is available on the CAA website.
This annual progress report, as with previous ones, will be filed in the Library of each House as a record of the work conducted by the CAA during the period of 1 January to 31 December 2024.
[HCWS920]
UK Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
In March 2025, the Department for Transport published the maritime decarbonisation strategy, which set out the pathway for our domestic maritime sector to reach zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and included policies and regulations to drive emissions reductions. Research and development is needed to ensure that clean maritime technologies are available at scale as early as possible at an affordable price for the sector to adopt. Supporting UK R&D builds on UK expertise and innovation—a guiding principle of the MDS.
Since 2022, the UK Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions—UK SHORE—programme in the DfT has allocated £240 million R&D funding to develop clean maritime technologies. UK SHORE has funded more than 200 projects leveraging over £110 million direct private investment. This funding has benefited all UK nations and regions, supporting over 500 organisations including over 250 SMEs. UK SHORE has enabled the sector to develop electric and efficiency solutions for various vessel types, like ferries, cargo vessels and offshore wind vessels, and progressed zero and near zero greenhouse gas emission solutions, such as hydrogen, ammonia and methanol. Further R&D is required to develop solutions to maturity and increase commercial viability.
That is why I am pleased to announce that we intend to fund £448 million of R&D investment for UK SHORE between 2026 and 2030. Building on the successes to date, the second phase of UK SHORE will further accelerate the technologies necessary to decarbonise the UK maritime sector and meet MDS aims through R&D, and capture economic growth opportunities by cementing the UK as a place for maritime innovation. Subject to business case approval, this will unlock innovation and investment potential in UK technologies, in UK businesses, at UK ports and in UK shipyards.
Today, I am providing our proposed outline of the future UK SHORE programme to allow industry to plan the next five years of clean maritime innovation. In collaboration with Innovate UK as a delivery partner, UK SHORE will:
Accelerate the commercialisation of developed technologies, including through a future round of the zero emission vessels and infrastructure competition—ZEVI2—to be launched in 2026. This will fund the build and commercial trial of clean maritime solutions.
Develop emerging technologies through to being ready for market, including through a seventh round of the clean maritime demonstration competition—CMDC7—to be launched in 2026, focusing on real-world demonstration projects concluding in 2030. This will be followed by two more rounds to be launched between 2027 and 2029.
Support early scientific research of novel technologies through the ongoing work of the Clean Maritime Research Hub until at least 2028 in collaboration with the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.
Enable development of whole system solutions and penetration of international markets through international R&D. This includes participation in the global Eureka research programme to conduct pre-deployment trials.
We will also focus efforts on tackling the barriers to the scale up of the technologies and companies supported through this funding, working with Innovate UK, across Government, the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank.
Through supporting UK businesses to accelerate technologies through to market-readiness, UK SHORE will advance competitive advantage in clean maritime solutions while complementing wider UK strengths in R&D like automotive, battery systems and hydrogen propulsion. The work to scale up UK technologies and penetrate international markets will strengthen the UK supply chain, increase exports and bolster international leadership. Finally, UK SHORE will aim to continue investment in each devolved Administration and all regions of the UK, supporting growth in coastal communities and manufacturing heartlands.
[HCWS921]
IPP Sentences
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan
To ask His Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to the recommendations in the report by the Howard League for Penal Reform entitled Ending the detention of people on IPP sentences: expert recommendations, published in June.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
This Government welcome and share the Howard League’s determination to support those serving the IPP sentence, but we cannot take any steps that would put the public at risk. For that reason, we remain firmly of the view that the Parole Board must determine that a prisoner serving the IPP sentence is safe to be released, having regard to the statutory release test, and that the IPP action plan is the best way to prepare offenders for release. The report includes a range of additional, complex recommendations which we are exploring in full.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the new Justice Secretary, David Lammy, wrote to a constituent in 2021:
“As IPP prisoners spend longer and longer in prison without any prospect of release, their mental health continues to decline, and they start to display behavioural traits which makes their release even less likely”.
So he gets it. The Howard League report, which has a foreword by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, makes innovative recommendations as to how the residual prisoners—those who have never been released; there are about 1,000 of them—could make progress through the Parole Board systems. Will the noble Lord agree to discuss this with his new colleague and to make a formal response to the Howard League report, ideally in writing?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister, my new boss, shares my determination to do all we can for those serving IPP sentences and their families while ensuring that we do not take any steps that put the public at risk. Having visited prisons for over 20 years and met many IPP prisoners, I completely agree that a number of them need support with their mental health. That is why the IPP action plan is the right place to support those people, especially as we updated it on 17 July, and the progression panels with senior psychiatrists are already making a difference. In the last year, 154 IPPs have been released who have never been released before. But we have a lot more to do, and I will write to the noble Lord in due course.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister inform the House of how many of these prisoners are now refusing to engage with the processes required to satisfy the Parole Board’s current tests for release because they have lost confidence in the system? If they have, is it not time to think again?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The Parole Board is the best way to determine whether someone’s risk is sufficient to be managed in the community. It is important that when IPP prisoners go in front of the Parole Board, they are prepared in a way to have a successful release. That is why the IPP action plan is the right way to go, and why we are seeing significant increases in the number of people released and rereleased. We need to make sure that the IPP action plan works but also—this is one of the things I am doing for most of my days—that our prisons are good prisons that rehabilitate people and that when they leave, they do not come back.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, can I commend the Minister’s approach? There are two sides to this story. One of them is obviously the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about the difficulties faced by people who are indefinitely detained, but the other, which the Minister has, thankfully, mentioned every time he has had to speak on this issue, is the interests of the public and public safety. Therefore, the action plan, which tries to balance those two interests, is exactly the right way to approach this.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his comments. What is important is that the Parole Board is doing a fantastic job; its staff are fantastic public servants. The release decisions are steady: 45% of hearings over the past five years have led to a positive release. The reason why I think that this is going in the right direction is that these people are increasingly complex individuals. That is why the IPP action plan is working; we need to keep the pressure on. One thing that I bring from my experience of running a business is improving everything, having targets, having real focus and holding people to account.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, as the Minister well knows, much of the pressure on our prisons, including on IPP prisoners, comes from the constant probationary pressing of the panic recall button. I know that the Minister’s folder will say, “Don’t say anything negative about probation”, but might he consider something in the Sentencing Bill that allows the power of recall to rest with the courts and not with probation officers, who, as we discovered on Thursday in HMP Belmarsh, are sending people back with such excessive frequency that it is unjust?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The Sentencing Bill implements the independent sentencing review. IPPs were not in scope of that review because it focused on sentences that are still on the statute books. I do not want to repeat myself, but the IPP action plan is the best way to prepare those people for release. I am really pleased that the noble Lord and others enjoyed the visit to HMP Belmarsh on Thursday; we had a really good opportunity to meet a number of prisoners, including an IPP prisoner.
What is also important, as the noble Lord mentioned, is our Probation Service. It is where the heaving lifting in the justice system is done, which is why I am proud that we are increasing the funding for probation by £700 million—a 45% increase.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, the current system is failing both prisoners and the public. It keeps prisoners in indefinite limbo, as we saw on our visit to HMP Belmarsh last week. It offers no clear route to safer release. My question is specific: what is wrong with the proposal for a two-year conditional release process?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question and for coming along on Thursday. The Parole Board is the best body to decide who is safe to be released, because public protection is our priority. If we went with the Howard League’s suggestion, it would mean people being released without their risk being assessed, which is not something that we are prepared to do.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
Sorry—a lot of us are very keen to speak up on this matter.
The six recommendations in the report are a brilliant way to ensure that IPP prisoners can be looked after properly and released safely. One recommendation that particularly struck me was one that I had moved previously: recommendation 4, which recommended that the aftercare duty provided under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act be extended to all ex-IPP prisoners. If someone happens to be sectioned under that section, many safe and timely ways to give additional help to high-needs individuals are available so that they can be released safely and remain in the community. Why not give the rest of them the same multiagency support as they would have received had they been incarcerated in a mental hospital?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
We have 233 IPP prisoners in secure mental health hospitals. From having been to the hospitals and met the individuals, I know that the care that they get from our nursing professionals is exceptional. It is also important that when they come back into the prison system, they have a soft landing and not a hard landing. That is an area that I am working on as we speak. Also important is that when people leave prison, they go to an approved premises. We have a trial going on where we are extending them going there from 12 to 16 weeks but also having a dedicated individual psychologist to support them. That is already having gains now.
Lord Garnier (Con)
Does the Minister accept that the current recall system for IPP offenders is confused, confusing, overly bureaucratic and irrational, and that it creates injustice and just increases the number of mentally ill people and those without any hope in custody? Would he please accelerate his efforts to mend it?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble and learned Lord for his question, and for the work that he and the noble and learned Lord Thomas have done on this area. It is really important, and the focus has been very helpful. Already, the documents are clearer and more focused. Senior managers now oversee all recall decisions. From 3 November this year, we are extending the post-recall timeframes to improve planning and decision-making. That is thanks to Shirley Debono, who has helped us on that as well. The multidisciplinary progression panels are the way to do this, because we need to make sure that everybody who is in prison on an IPP sentence has hope, engages with the action plan, gets out and stays out.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister explain why IPP prisoners have to go to such lengths to prove that they are safe to leave custody before being released, while others in prison for similar offences do not? Does he agree that this difference in treatment is a further injustice against IPP prisoners, and that it is vital and urgent that we make progress in this area?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The Parole Board are the experts in deciding who is safe to be released. The release tests that it has are robust and fair, but we need to make sure that when people are in front of it, they are in a really good position to be released and released safely.
Online Safety Act 2023: Virtual Private Networks
Lord Clement-Jones
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the increased use of virtual private networks since the implementation of age verification requirements for access to primary priority content under the Online Safety Act 2023.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government and Ofcom are monitoring the potential impact of circumvention techniques on the effectiveness of the Online Safety Act, especially since the child safety duties came into effect in July 2025. Services promoting VPN use to bypass age checks could face enforcement action. These duties represent a major milestone in protecting children online, making it harder for children to access harmful content. We must allow sufficient time for these measures to embed before considering further action.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, there are concerns and some misinformation circulating about VPNs and other aspects of the Act. In this light, is the Minister confident that the Act is still fit for purpose, and that platforms have a clear existing responsibility to prevent children bypassing safety protections? Does all this not mean that Parliament needs an early chance at post-legislative scrutiny of the implementation and operation of the Act to ensure, in particular, that it fulfils its aims of keeping users, particularly children, safe online while preserving free speech for adults?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, the Online Safety Act places very clear duties on platforms to protect children, including tackling methods of circumvention. The use of VPNs to bypass safeguards is a known risk, and platforms must act decisively. They are already required to assess such risks and implement proportionate measures. Ofcom will hold platforms to account. The Act requires Ofcom to produce and publish a report assessing how effective the use of age assurance has been and whether there are factors that prevented or hindered the effective use of age assurance. These will be published by June 2026.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister support calls for app stores not to provide VPNs to children in this country?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, many people use VPNs for entirely legitimate purposes. Their use does not negate the protections of the Online Safety Act, particularly when it comes to keeping children safe online. We have seen a significant increase in the use of age-verification tools as UK users attempt to access age-restricted content. Since the child safety duties came into force, the Age Verification Providers Association has reported an additional 5 million age checks being carried out each day in the initial period. The Act is already driving real change and stronger protections for children.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, what estimate have the Government made since the implementation of these new regulations of the number of additional VPNs that are being taken up by users in the United Kingdom? If a figure is not immediately available, will the noble Lord write to me and let the House know?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, online providers now have a legal duty to protect children from harmful content. As I said earlier, VPNs are here to stay, and people use VPNs for entirely legitimate purposes. It does not negate the protections which the Online Safety Act has put in place. Those duties prevent children accessing the most dangerous material online, such as pornography and content promoting self-harm or eating disorders. They also protect children from other harmful content, including bullying, abuse or material that encourages dangerous stunts or risky behaviour. The Government will hold services to account. The era of platforms turning a blind eye to the risks that children face online is over.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, while the introduction of age checking has increased the use of VPNs, we must not automatically assume that the increase is entirely attributable to under-18s. On the contrary, Ofcom’s research suggests that only one in 10 VPN users is a child. The vast majority of children are benefiting from the protection from unwanted and unasked-for pornography that has hitherto been sent to them routinely.
However, it is likely that at least some of the increased use of VPNs by adults is the result of a legitimate concern that the introduction of age checks has not been accompanied by a rigorous focus on user privacy. Until privacy is central to Ofcom’s concern, it will always meet resistance to age checking. How many services have been referred by Ofcom to the ICO for failing to uphold users’ privacy rights while performing age checks? If the Minister does not have that information, will he commit to asking Ofcom to provide it and write to noble Lords who have an interest?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, Ofcom has clear enforcement powers against platforms that fail to implement highly effective age assurance. This includes issuing fines of up to £18 million or 10% of global revenue, whichever is greater. Ofcom is already using these powers, with investigations opened into at least 47 sites and apps that are suspected of non-compliance.
I will provide the noble Baroness the figures. On false communication offences, Ofcom has proceeded against 17 cases, of which 14 were convicted and sentenced. On the offence of threatening communication, Ofcom has taken action in 462 cases, of which 294 were convicted and 239 were sentenced. Platforms have legal duties under the Online Safety Act. If they fall short, particularly in protecting children, they will face serious consequences. We will not allow safety standards to be ignored.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the head of the Free Speech Union. As I am sure the—
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
It is the turn of the Conservative Benches. Please make up your minds about which noble Lord will ask a question.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I was interested to read comments from Republican politicians over the weekend calling out the role of social media in polluting political discourse, particularly after the horrific events in America last week. Can we please recognise that we are pioneers in this country in terms of regulating platforms and that Ofcom is doing a terrific job? While parliamentary oversight is very important, can we please allow Ofcom the time to implement this very complex legislation and find time to applaud the effective job that it is doing?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, online safety regulation is a priority not only for this Government but for Governments around the world. A number of democratic nations are introducing legislation to better protect users from serious online harm, including child sexual abuse, terrorist content and misinformation. The UK’s approach is proportionate, transparent and rooted in the rule of law.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, as I am sure the Minister is aware, two of the duties in the Online Safety Act that are designed to safeguard free speech are those imposed on category 1 providers to not remove content of democratic importance and journalistic content. But those duties come into force only once Ofcom has drawn up a list of the category 1 providers and registered them. But Ofcom has not done that yet, which has led, I believe, to over-removal of content of democratic importance and journalistic content by the large social media platforms. Can the Minister tell us when Ofcom is likely to designate providers as category 1 so that those duties come into force and free speech is better protected?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, the UK has a proud and enduring tradition of free speech, and we remain fully committed to protecting it as a fundamental human right. In respect of the noble Lord’s question, I will have to write to him as to when Ofcom will make the classification. The Online Safety Act is not about censoring lawful opinions or stifling debate. Its purpose is to tackle illegal content and to ensure that children are better protected online. It does not and will not restrict lawful political speech or limit adults from accessing or posting content that is legal, even if others may find it offensive. Free speech in the UK is not only alive, it is safeguarded.
Lord Sugar (CB)
My Lords, on a lighter note, I, like most noble Lords here, am a BBC licence fee payer. I get very frustrated that I am unable to access the content of, for example, BBC iPlayer and have resorted to using VPN services to do so. The BBC has gone out of its way to block the use of VPNs, but can the Minister have a word with it to allow us to log in using our details? I recognise that some of the content there is not for broadcast outside the UK, but nevertheless it has the technology to work out how to deal with that.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that point, and I will speak to my colleagues in DCMS accordingly.
Plastic Pollution
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on the environment in the United Kingdom of the failure to reach agreement on a Global Plastics Treaty, and what immediate steps they are taking to tackle plastic pollution in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK supports an ambitious treaty to end plastic pollution, and I am very disappointed that no agreement has been reached. Plastic pollution is an urgent issue, with amounts of plastic entering the ocean set to triple by 2040 compared with 2016. The Government therefore remain committed to reaching an agreement on global action. Domestically, we have taken significant steps towards a circular economy for plastics and will publish the circular economy strategy for England this autumn.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I take this opportunity to congratulate successive Governments on their efforts to reach agreement for a global plastic pollution treaty. What are this Government doing to reduce the use of plastics in the economy, mindful of the fact that the Government set up a Circular Economy Taskforce in March, one of the top five priorities of which was reducing the use of plastics? How often has the task force met and what progress has it made to reduce the use of plastics, so that we can at least control our own use in the absence of a global treaty?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are taking a number of steps domestically to tackle plastic pollution. First, we have banned the supply of single-use vapes which, when littered, can introduce plastic, among other substances, into the environment. We are also working with the devolved Governments to bring forward a ban across the UK on wet wipes that contain plastic. The collection of packaging reforms that we have brought in is the first step in the transition to the circular economy for all materials, including plastic. For example, the deposit return scheme includes plastic drinks containers. We have also extended producer responsibility for packaging, so that producers are incentivised to consider reducing the packaging that they use. Increasing the circularity of the plastic sector will reduce the need to produce virgin materials, which will reduce the plastic pollution associated with that. I will have to write to the noble Baroness on the number of times that the task force has met.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, beyond health deception, cigarette filters are the single most-littered item on the planet. They are an environmental disaster: they do not biodegrade but break down into microplastics, polluting our rivers and oceans. Banning them would remove the illusion of safety from filtered cigarettes, at the same time preventing hundreds of thousands of tonnes of plastic waste. If we can ban plastic straws, surely we can ban cigarette filters.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend asks an interesting question. According to Defra’s work, we know that cigarette butts are the most-littered item. People do not tend to notice them, because they are very small, but they cause enormous damage through pollution, particularly because of the chemicals that get into water systems. I congratulate Keep Britain Tidy, which has done an enormous amount of work on this and has brought it into public perception more that you should not just chuck cigarette butts away; they can cause huge damage. We are going to monitor this further, working with organisations such as Keep Britain Tidy, but clearly the best thing is for people to give up smoking in the first place.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, what discussions have the Government had with retailers and manufacturers about stopping the use of plastic in chocolate selection boxes for Christmas? It will not be long before they are stacked up in supermarkets again, demonstrating the mountains of unnecessary single-use plastic being used.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We talk regularly to supermarkets and other retailers, plus organisations that actually package the goods in the first place. We need to reduce the amount of damaging packaging that goes into our environment because, as I have said before, recycling is great—we encourage it—but it is better if do not need it in the first place or if we can reduce the need for recycling. The noble Baroness is absolutely right: Christmas chocolate boxes are a good example of overpackaging, but Easter eggs are another. We need to work with the industry to reduce this packaging in the first place.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, when countries fail to reach a global agreement, often you find a coalition of the willing who will sign a plurilateral agreement and perhaps allow other countries to join later. Have the Government thought about signing a plurilateral treaty or agreement on the use of plastics, which other countries can join later?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Our ambition at the moment is to try to get the global treaty that we have been pressing for. We believe that the more countries that we can bring into that treaty, including those that produce the plastics and the materials for them, the more likely we are to have a larger global impact. But we are considering all options, because we need to move forward in this space.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister explain what assessment the Government have made of the pros and cons of requiring road builders to replace some of the fossil fuel-based bitumen with plastic pellets?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
At the moment, I am not aware of Defra having had such conversations. It may be that the Department for Transport has, so I will go back to my department, ask for more information on this subject and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, what efforts are the Government making to promote more switching to cost-effective, reusable or non-plastic, biodegradable packaging products to reduce the cost burden on industry and consumers of waste recycling and reduction?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The UK works very much with other authorities, the devolved Administrations and other countries on how we can do exactly that. As I said, it is all very well to recycle, but we need to reduce the amount of plastic in the first place because, even when things are recycled, that plastic is still in the system. So, we will continue with our efforts to do just that.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the failure of the negotiations was a great disappointment. Is it now the view of the Government that that is the end of the main story, that opposition is so entrenched that there is no serious prospect of progress on the main issue and that, therefore, we will have to have minor, lesser or subsidiary agreements between different parties?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I said, we are still working towards getting the treaty that we want. We think it will have the biggest impact, which is why we want to try to achieve that. The UK has played a leading role throughout the negotiations. We are a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution, and we want to continue with that high ambition. We have worked with other countries. We are supporting developing countries and are trying to bring other countries on board to gain the really big prize that we need.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, when the Minister was at the Dispatch Box answering Questions on plastics last week, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, drew attention to the extraordinarily high levels of plastics involved in home deliveries from supermarkets. The Minister said that they met regularly with supermarkets to discuss this matter. Can she please press the supermarkets far harder? You can stand at any supermarket vegetable section and see that the vast majority of vegetables and fruit are wrapped unnecessarily in plastics. There are weighing machines at every checkout and they should be the way to restrain the use of plastics by supermarkets.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I can confirm to the noble Lord that I have had exactly those sorts of conversations with some supermarkets. There are certain items that they say they need to wrap in plastic—cucumbers, for example. I am waiting to be convinced as to the need for everything to be wrapped, but I am happy to work with and listen to supermarkets. I was very frustrated the other week when I found a swede wrapped in plastic, which I thought was completely and utterly unnecessary.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, as someone who campaigned on the need to reduce the use of plastics, I was devastated by the collapse of the treaty negotiations. When does the Minister think they will start again? What are the milestones for that? How can we get this international action finished? That is what is necessary, because this is a pollution problem right around the world.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her support and for continuing to press for this. As she said, it is the thing that will make the biggest difference. As she is aware, the session was adjourned. It was agreed that it would reconvene, but the place and time are yet to be confirmed.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Government’s approach of seeking international agreement. There seems to me no point in us pursuing something on our own and showing leadership if no one is following.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that comment. If we are genuinely to make real progress in reducing the amount of plastic pollution, including the tiny microplastics that we are finding everywhere, we have to work globally and with countries such as Saudi Arabia that we need to bring on board if we are to make a real difference.
Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards: Cost Caps for Landlords
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Carrington
To ask His Majesty’s Government why the cost caps proposed for landlords in the social and private rented sectors to meet the Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards are different.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare my interest in the private rented sector, with rented cottages in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, all renters deserve warm and safe homes. Both consultations on the minimum energy efficiency standards for private and social rented homes sought views on the options of a £10,000 and £15,000 maximum spend requirement. During the consultation, we engaged extensively with a broad range of stakeholders to understand the potential impact of the policy and how we can ensure that requirements are fair and proportionate for landlords and tenants. The difference between the proposals reflects the different starting positions of the sectors and the need to support social landlords to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. Final decisions have not yet been taken. We will consider responses to both consultations to ensure that an appropriate figure is set for each tenure.
Lord Carrington (CB)
I thank the Minister for her response. Surely the guiding principle should be that tenants in the social rented sector should have the same level of investment in their properties as those in the private sector. I think that is an important principle. The Government are proposing to increase the current cap from £3,500 to £15,000, and to achieve this requires a fair and workable funding model. Given this, will the Government consider a graduated cap on the amount landlords would be expected to spend to meet the planned energy efficiency standards, taking into account factors such as the rental value of the property, its location, its age and its heritage? With such a balanced approach, I think we will see landlords staying in the private sector, but without it we may see sales.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. Obviously, there is clear value in common standards. The reason we consulted on a different level for the social housing sector was twofold: to provide finance for social housing delivery and due to the fact that social housing landlords can often achieve an economy of scale in dealing with their properties. As I said, no decisions have been taken yet. To respond to the noble Lord’s point on financing, there were a number of proposals in the consultation about managing the cost burden on private landlords, including a cap on the maximum investment required per property, an affordability exemption and a range of other exemptions for circumstances in which upgrades may not be feasible or appropriate, such as in the case of traditionally constructed and heritage buildings.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, there is a significant number of homes that remain hard to decarbonise for which the interventions required to meet energy efficiency standards can be extremely costly. In the social housing sector, while the majority of housing associations are on track to meet EER C by 2030, for some they can meet it only by selling homes, unless there is a cost cap. I note what my noble friend said in her reply, but I urge her to say a little more about whether the Government plan to implement the £10,000 spend exemption for MEES for the social rented sector, either in a time-limited way or as a permanent exemption.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand the points the noble Baroness is making. That is one of the reasons why we consulted on two different levels. The consultation for the implementation of MEES would require social homes to have energy performance certificates at rating C or equivalent by 2030. There is currently no minimum energy efficiency standard in the social rented sector. Some 72% of social rented homes are already at EPC bands A to C. More than 600,000 social homes are in fuel poverty, so improving the energy efficiency of social homes will help reduce energy bills and tackle fuel poverty. This is important. Having gone through the debate on Awaab’s law the other day, I know it is vital that social homes are brought up to the standards we all want to see.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
That is very generous of the noble Baroness. Further to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has the Minister seen a survey by the National Residential Landlords Association indicating that 31% of private landlords are planning to leave the market in the near future, aggravating the existing shortage? What steps is the Minister taking to encourage long-term institutional investment by institutions—insurance companies and pension funds—to remedy this shortage?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The Government value the contribution made by responsible landlords and believe that they must enjoy robust grounds for possession and so on, but there is good reason for them to think about these reforms. They have nothing to fear from our reforms. The sector has doubled in size since the early 2000s. There is no evidence of exodus since reform has been put on the table. Our proposals make sure that landlords have the confidence and support that they need to continue to invest and operate in the sector. However, we are determined to level the playing field between landlords and private tenants by providing the latter with greater security. The noble Lord mentioned institutional investment. There is already institutional investment taking place through our major banking organisations to support private landlords to do the work that they need to do. That goes alongside a range of government funding, which will help with the differences that we all want to see.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
Thanks to my generosity, the noble Lord, Lord Young, has covered half of my question, so I will make a quick switch. The minimum energy efficiency standards consultation made no mention of heat networks, which are mainly used by the social housing sector. Many are inefficient, old and very expensive to upgrade. What assessment has been made of the impact of these proposals on the viability of heat networks? As some are privately owned, how can this sector be responsible for improvements of networks that it does not own?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
This is a very important question for those tenants who find themselves on heat networks. The noble Baroness is right to point to the fact that, while some of them have been maintained well and looked after, for others that is not so much so. We have allocated £1.29 billion of funding from the warm homes plan specifically to support energy efficiency improvements in social homes as part of wave 3 of the warm homes social housing fund. We are generally very much in favour of heat networks, and I hope that those organisations that operate heat networks will approach the department for that funding. The funding will deliver support to 144 projects across England. I hope that will provide some financial support for those organisations facing that dilemma.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we agree that it is desirable to have energy-efficient homes but for many older and, in particular, listed homes this can be difficult. The Government are lifting the cap for private rental landlords to meet the EPC C rating by 2030 from £3,500 to £15,000. Already, this is a potentially significant burden on landlords. Many might consider it no longer worthwhile and seek to sell, meaning fewer desperately needed rental homes. Given this change, what assurance can the Minister give to landlords that the cap will not be increased further and that the requirement will not go beyond the EPC C rating?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I hope I made it clear in my earlier answer that no decisions have been taken yet. We will report on the outcome of the consultation. We consulted on a number of proposals to manage the cost burden, including a cap on the maximum investment required per property, which I think is what the noble Lord was getting at, and the other exemptions that may not be feasible or appropriate, including heritage buildings, for which I understand it might be difficult in those circumstances. We have a number of avenues of support for landlords to improve their properties. The boiler upgrade scheme offers £7,500 off the cost of a heat pump. There is the warm homes local grant, which will fund measures such as insulation and solar panels for eligible low-income households. We are doing what we can to support private landlords with a package of measures that will help them to introduce safe and warm homes.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, given the announcement in the comprehensive spending review of £39 billion in grant funding to boost social and affordable housing, can my noble friend the Minister assure me that all councils will be required to ensure that all new housing stock is built to meet the highest standards of energy efficiency, and that her department has a clear plan to implement this?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend touches on an important point. There are two developments coming forward: one is a revision of the decent homes standard and the other is the future homes standard, which will be published shortly. We have confirmed the new 10-year £39 billion programme for social and affordable homes that she referred to, and our ambition is to deliver 300,000 social and affordable homes over the programme’s lifetime, at least 60% of those for social rent. We of course want to make sure that those homes do not need any retrofitting once they are built, so they will be built to the highest standards and in accordance with both the decent homes standard and the future homes standard.
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal of Prisoners for Deportation) Order 2025
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Timpson
That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 25 and 26 June be approved.
Relevant document: 31st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 8 September.
Free-Range Poultrymeat Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 1 July be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 10 September.
Register of People with Significant Control (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Lord Leong
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 26 and 30 June be approved.
Relevant document: 31st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 8 and 10 September.
Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 25 June be approved.
Relevant document: 31st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 September.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to remind noble Lords that we have a large number of groups on this Bill to get through today. While this is Committee, I rise to remind noble Lords of the guidance in the Companian at paragraph 8.81 on speeches at the amending stages of Bills:
“Members taking part in debate at an amending stage should not use their speech simply to summarise or repeat at length points made by others. They should not make ‘second reading’ speeches or make discursive interventions which are not relevant to the amendment(s) under discussion”.
While there have many important contributions from all sides of the Committee, parts of our recent debates have strayed into Second Reading speeches and away from the amendments. So that we can make progress on the remaining groups, I therefore ask all noble Lords to ensure that their remarks on further amendments are relevant to the topic under discussion, and brief.
Amendment 185N
Earl Russell
“Energy consumption of AI and technology-related infrastructure(1) The Secretary of State must, within 18 months of this Act coming into force, prepare and publish a National AI Energy Efficiency Strategy for the purposes of informing planning policy and guiding the development of artificial intelligence and technology-related infrastructure under this Act, in so far as it relates to energy consumption.(2) For the purposes of this section, “artificial intelligence and technology-related infrastructure” includes, but is not limited to—(a) data centres,(b) high-performance computing facilities,(c) server farms,(d) AI research, training, and testing facilities, and(e) any other installations primarily designed to support AI and large-scale digital processing.(3) The purpose of the strategy is to—(a) balance the energy demands of artificial intelligence against the energy efficiencies enabled by artificial intelligence,(b) achieve a national objective of ensuring that AI energy use is better than carbon neutral before 2030, and(c) support the integration of AI-enabled efficiencies into national energy planning.(4) The projected energy consumption of a proposed development and its contribution to national energy efficiencies, as set out in the National AI Energy Efficiency Strategy, shall be treated as material planning considerations.(5) An application for planning permission relating to such infrastructure must be accompanied by an assessment covering—(a) the expected level of energy demand arising from the development,(b) proposed measures to improve the energy efficiency of the development, and(c) proposed steps to reduce or mitigate the impact of energy consumption on local and national energy supply. (6) In determining an application to which this section applies, a planning authority must have regard to—(a) the extent to which the development will utilise renewable or other low-carbon sources of energy, and(b) the consistency of the development with the National AI Energy Efficiency Strategy.(7) The Secretary of State must issue guidance specifying minimum energy efficiency standards for such infrastructure.(8) Planning authorities must have regard to guidance issued under subsection (7) in exercising their functions under the Planning Acts.(9) Planning conditions attached to permissions under this section must include local arrangements enabling independent AI-related energy sources to provide surplus capacity to the national grid at times of surplus or at times of national demand, including requirements for grid-balancing.(10) The Secretary of State must, not later than 18 months after the publication of the National AI Energy Efficiency Strategy, and every three years thereafter, lay before Parliament a report reviewing—(a) the progress made in reducing the energy consumption of AI and technology-related infrastructure,(b) the contribution of such infrastructure to national energy efficiencies,(c) the effectiveness of planning conditions imposed under this section, and(d) whether additional measures are required to meet the objectives set out in subsection (3)(b).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to make the energy use and efficiency of AI-related infrastructure a statutory planning consideration supported by a national strategy, guidance, and reporting duties.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, in opening this group of amendments on AI infrastructure and community energy I will move my Amendment 185N and speak also to Amendment 185P. The simple truth is that AI’s energy and water demands are outpacing our development of policies to regulate AI’s energy and water usage. AI’s expected energy usage is due to go up from 7 terawatt hours to 62 terawatt hours by 2050, which is enough to power 27 million homes. Some estimate that it could go up to 71 terawatt hours by 2050. AI is exceptionally power-hungry just at the pinch point when we are desperately trying to reach clean power.
Against this background, our overall electricity demand is set to double by 2050. SMRs will help, but we should note that they will not come online until the mid-2030s. Meanwhile, many big tech companies are rowing back from their clean energy targets; Google is one example. This Bill is notably silent on AI, meaning that planning frameworks lack explicit provisions to assess or moderate the substantial energy and water demands of AI. I believe that, with the right legislation, we can make provision to require that AI is used for public good by ensuring that its power is also applied to finding ways we can drive national energy savings and efficiencies. AI is a powerful tool used to drive energy efficiencies, for example by enhancing the electricity grid, providing stability and efficiency and improving forecasting and integrations of variable amounts of new renewable energy generation and unlocking substantial transmission capacity savings without the need for new power lines.
More widely, AI can be used to heat and cool our buildings, improve our transport sector and to improve any number of industrial processes requiring large amounts of energy. So there is potential for huge savings by employing AI. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a national AI energy efficiency strategy within 18 months. This would establish projections of energy use as material planning considerations and mandate developers to account for both supply and efficiency measures in their applications. The measure also aims to ensure that surplus energy resources from data centres can be fed back into the national grid at times of energy need.
Amendment 185P also looks at the significant issue of projected water usage by AI. A typical data centre can use as much water as 100,000 homes. At present, 8.5 million homes in the UK are subject to hosepipe bans. Seven out of 17 regions in England are expected to have water stress by 2030 and 12 by 2040. The shortfall between sustainable water supplies and expected demand is projected by Defra to be nearly 5 billion litres per day by 2050. This represents more than one-third of the 14 million litres we use daily. Facing a warmer world, it is essential that national policy demands a clear water efficiency strategy, enforces targets for alternative cooling technologies and ensures that planning authorities rigorously assess water availability and resilience before consenting to new developments.
I absolutely welcome the relatively newly established AI Energy Council and the work being done but, to date, this is an evolving project without any clear outcomes. Will the Government, at the very least, mandate that the AI Energy Council formulates clear policies and formally reports on these matters within a set timeframe? I also ask the Government to give a clear commitment to an energy and water efficiency strategy for AI and to develop a national energy policy statement on AI energy use.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He referred to two different utilities. Energy should, in effect, be unlimited in the resource available, but it is concerning to a number of communities that, suddenly, energy projects, substations and so on are popping up around the country and lots of planning applications are going in alongside them from solar farms and for other significant uses of data, including data centres and other AI infrastructure. As a consequence, what proportion of grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3a land is now being taken up with planning applications, due to not only solar farms but all the AI-related infrastructure to which the amendments refer? I do not know whether the Minister has that information; if not, I would be grateful if she could write to us.
On Amendment 185P, unlike electricity and energy, water is very much a constrained utility in this country. The amount of water available to keep powering homes, businesses and other activities, including energy stations, is significantly under threat. That is one reason why there will be one of the most significant contractions in the amount of water available to the farming sector in just two years’ time. There is something to be said about the amount of water that we think will be used by AI data centres and the like. At the moment, there seems to be no thinking about how we prioritise the different industrial sectors across our country. Nor am I aware—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that we are necessarily considering this in planning guidance, although there will be something more widely about whether water is available. This is a really important activity and the Government should absolutely be looking at it, regardless of whether this goes into the Bill.
When I did the plan for water, on making sure there was a clean supply of water—that was part of the intention—and thinking ahead, I do not think that we had really given much thought to this sort of consumption that we are now due to have. To give an example, one reason for the major delays to Sizewell C was that, all of a sudden, the water company responsible said that it could not necessarily guarantee the amount of water to be used in the construction and operation of the nuclear energy plant. That has led to Sizewell C having to think about desalination plants and reservoirs but, at the moment, there are constraints on how some of these things can be spread across sectors in the generation of a nuclear energy station. It is imperative that we think about where else this could happen; to be serious, in terms of the building planned and business growth in the east of England, after Sizewell C was given its consent, no other business has been eligible to get or ask for any more water.
This is a genuinely critical area that the Government need to look at, which is why I welcome the amendment put forward by the noble Earl today. I hope that they will give it serious consideration and I encourage the noble Earl to bring it back on Report.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I suspect that many noble Lords across your Lordships’ House are not yet fully aware of the growth, scale and significance of what we call AI-related infrastructure—the hardware and software required to create, train and deploy AI-powered applications and solutions. If we are to fully harness the benefits of AI, unlocking these new efficiencies, fuelling economic growth and creating opportunities for infrastructure investment, we must be mindful of the practical impacts that come with it, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lady Coffey have pointed out, with the two key areas being energy use and water.
As the noble Earl has highlighted, the sheer computational power required for advanced AI models is immense, leading to rising energy demand. Equally, the cooling systems necessary for AI data centres can involve significant water usage. These are important considerations and it makes sense that our planning system and national guidance should take them into account to ensure that infrastructure growth is both sustainable and resilient. I do not believe it is the noble Earl’s intention that these amendments hold back innovation; rather, they call for statutory recognition of these impacts within the planning system, supported by a clear national strategy, guidance and reporting requirements. That seems to me both proportionate and sensible.
The noble Earl’s Amendments 185R and 185S rightly highlight the urgent challenge of climate change and the central role that planning and development must play in addressing it. Their emphasis on ensuring a resilient and sustainable built environment is both timely and welcome, and I place on record our appreciation of the sentiment behind them. At the same time, however, it is important to strike a balance, supporting sustainability while avoiding overly burdensome requirements or excessive regulation that could impede housing delivery or economic growth. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to respond to these concerns.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his amendments on AI infrastructure and community energy projects. He is absolutely right to highlight the issue of the water and power required by data centres. Before I respond, I should say that we need to be very proud of our AI in this country. We have the third largest AI market in the world. The AI sector was valued at £72 billion in 2024 and is projected to be worth over £800 billion by 2035. Over £44 billion of investment has been announced for data centres in the UK since July 2024, which is a very good record, but of course the noble Earl raises some very important issues that run alongside this.
Turning first to Amendment 185N, noble Lords will be aware that we had an in-depth discussion in Committee last week on overheating and climate change, and I appreciate the intent behind this amendment of considering this matter in the context of emerging AI technologies. During my time as a Minister—and until last week I had responsibility for AI in my department; it has moved on now—I had the chance to see some of the real opportunities that AI presents. It has the potential to transform our public services, secure growth and raise living standards, and not least to support our colleagues in planning in order to help them move things on much more quickly. It is this Government’s ambition to harness it for the good of our country, which is why we are actively monitoring the data centre sector and published the first government Estimate of Data Centre Capacity in May 2025, which includes measures indicating energy use.
Some data centre applications will have the option of being consented through the nationally significant infrastructure project regime. Officials from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology are in the process of developing a national policy statement to guide this process, which will also be treated, importantly, as a materially significant consideration in the local authority-led planning process. This statement will include an assessment of the sustainability of the sector, and we are aiming for publication in 2026. The Government have also, as the noble Earl mentioned, established the AI Energy Council, co-chaired by the Secretaries of State for DSIT and DESNZ, to provide expert insight into the energy needs of AI and the role of AI in an efficient and sustainable energy system. To do this, the council has established a sustainability working group which will explore options to accelerate the development of low-carbon energy solutions to power AI, tools to reduce carbon emissions from AI, and metrics to support energy efficiency.
Amendment 185P is focused on the water use of AI infrastructure. The Government are committed to reducing the use of public water supply by 20% by 2037-38, with a 9% interim target for non-household reduction by 31 March 2038. As part of this commitment, Defra is working with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Department for Business and Trade and the Environment Agency to determine how water efficiency and demand in data centres can be improved. Data centres use a variety of cooling systems, with only a small proportion using entirely water-based ones. Water-cooled data centres can use water very intensively, as has already been highlighted, particularly at times of peak demand, such as hotter periods. In summer 2025, the Environment Agency conducted a survey with the data centre sector, through techUK, the trade association for data centres, to gain a better understanding of current water needs. As set out, the Government are developing a national policy statement to guide data centre planning applications, and the water efficiency of data centres will form part of this assessment, including options for water reuse and non-potable water systems.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asked me about the use of agricultural land for data centres. The MPPF is, and the future land use framework will be, very clear that grade 1, 2 and 3 agricultural land should be protected and used only where there is no alternative. That is already set out in planning policy.
Amendment 185R, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would require planning authorities to consider and support the inclusion of community energy projects in new developments. I agree with the noble Earl that renewable energy generation in households—we have already had a discussion on this—is a vital approach to help cut bills for families, boost our national energy security and deliver the clean energy mission. On the practicalities of increasing renewable energy generation in new developments, I am pleased to say that my department is working very closely with DESNZ on the future homes standard. The future homes standard will include renewable electricity generation on the majority of new homes through routes like rooftop solar. I therefore consider this amendment to be unnecessary.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, there is a lot of opportunity in the context of this Bill to mandate that new towns be preferred as sites for data centres, because the excess heat can be used in the district heating scheme.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, makes an important point about reusing the energy created by data centres, which we are exploring. It is very important that the new towns task force has a chance to do its work. They will be subject to the planning process, just like all other applicants, when they put them forward. But, as I said, we are aiming to protect grades 1, 2 and 3 agricultural land, and I hope that other areas come forward to site the data centres. They are very important; we cannot do without them, that is for sure, so we need to consider very carefully where they might be sited, and the land use framework will give us a good indication about that.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, it was right to bring these amendments forward; they are important considerations on the future of AI and community energy. I thank all those who have spoken and broadly supported the amendments—the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the Conservative Front Bench—and the Minister for the detailed response I have received to the issues I raised. I welcome the fact that a national policy statement will be forthcoming; it is needed, and I look forward to seeing that.
The bit that is still slightly missing on AI is embedding the idea of energy efficiency in the planning system and making sure that we hold these big tech companies to account, because it is very easy for them to consume energy, and that causes a lot of problems for us as we transition to clean power. If the Government allow them to build data centres, they need a system to get access to those data centres to drive energy efficiency. I was trying to create a mechanism to do that with these amendments. My mechanism might not be the right one, but there is a conversation to be had about being able to use the power of AI to redesign the energy network according to how we best plug in renewables, for example, to drive energy efficiencies. I will leave that as a problem for all of us to think about going forward.
I also welcome the commitment and work from the Government on community energy; they added it as one the objectives of the Great British Energy Act and are coming forward with further guidance on that. I very much welcome the efforts being made to ensure that communities can not only generate power but benefit from it. That is essential to ensure that the public’s support stays with all of us who support the transition and that the next wave of energy is not done “to people” but “for people”, so that they get to benefit from the transition in the longer term. I look forward to that. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“Restriction on works affecting listed buildings: exemptionAfter section 7(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (restriction on works affecting listed buildings), insert—“(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to any internal maintenance, repairs or changes to Grade II listed buildings.””Member's explanatory statement
This removes the requirement for listed building consent being required for internal maintenance, repairs or changes to Grade II listed buildings.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I start by declaring that I own a grade 2 listed property.
This is intended to be a probing amendment and a deregulatory measure. We read in the newspapers today that the Chancellor has recently recruited a planning and infrastructure adviser; clearly, the advice from the ministry is not enough for her. However, it is reported that Rachel Reeves is also keen to have fewer regulators and to get on with a deregulatory approach.
In England, there are about 400,000 grade 1, 2* or 2 listed buildings. Of those, according to Historic England, 91.7% are grade 2, 5.8% are grade 2* and 2.5% are grade 1. We often think about what a grade 2 listed building is. When I did my research, I randomly sampled 100 grade 2 properties on the Historic England database. Only six had any internal features. Nevertheless, the guidance is that one has to apply for listed building consent if there is any concern not just about painting but about whether you might change aspects of the internal character or any of the original materials.
From that research—my sample was of 100 properties, but the ONS uses 1,000 as its statistically relevant sample size when it does surveys—I think it is fair to say that very few are currently considered to have internal features that are deemed worthy for listing. Consequently, it feels like a lot of work—through a lot of approaches—is done on exploring listed building consent. Dare I say it, people will often ask for forgiveness rather than permission, in case somebody in the local village or town suddenly decides to dob them in if they have heard that some internal work has been done. Perhaps that is more a story for “Midsomer Murders” than for a learned debate here today.
I completely understand that, for grade 2* listed buildings, we start to see much more consideration of internal features such as prominent fireplaces, prominent staircases and a lot of other relevant things. However, quite often, for grade 2 listed buildings, the focus is on the external. For example, the house that I own is thatched. Apparently, the brickwork was done with a particular thing called Flemish bond; you can see that only on the chimney, which is however high up. Bearing in mind those sorts of features, this amendment would offer a simple, deregulatory approach that would not particularly harm the heritage of our country. Therefore, I beg to move.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that I am not completely in tune with my noble friend Lady Coffey, for which I hope she will forgive me. While I agree that maintenance and repairs are essential and should not be held up in any way, I urge caution about some internal changes.
In recent years, a minimalistic approach has gained popularity. In the case of grade 2 listed buildings, this may mean ripping out features of historic importance and changing floor levels, ruining the proportions and character of beautiful, old buildings. While I acknowledge that there is a balance to be struck, as sometimes, with modern living, removing a wall or making small changes can be beneficial, I would urge that this is not done without oversight.
I draw the House’s attention to the fact that buildings of 1850 and before receive pretty much automatic listing. However, there are many lovely houses that are built after this, especially Victorian houses from 1850 to 1900, and they do not qualify because they are not considered special. They have no real protection. Even where those houses fall in a conservation area, it will mean that only the façade is preserved.
We are losing internal features of many historically interesting buildings. We need to put a brake on this, because once gone, we will never get them back.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the whole purpose of listed building legislation is to ensure the integrity of the listed structure. The requirement to apply for listed building consent is in order to protect the building from inappropriate changes which would compromise the listing. Many people in civic society care deeply about retaining and protecting listed buildings. As listed building applications are free, as we debated on an earlier day in Committee, that helps those who own listed buildings—there is no cost to it. Heritage planning officers know that some buildings need a fundamental change of use if they are not to lie empty and decay. That is okay, as long as it goes through a listed building consent application.
I know that these are large changes, but I will give one example. In my own town, there is a grade 2* listed building which is a former united reformed chapel—there are lots of great methodist, congregational or united reform chapels in the north. It was altered to become an Indian restaurant, allegedly the largest in the world, with room for 1,000 people. Subsequent alterations to the access, inevitably with lots of stairs to reach the front, were given permission, but the listed building consent application enabled local people to know that a treasured building was not being changed without the appropriate permissions. Even if such changes are relatively minor in comparison to the structure as a whole, constant minor changes could nevertheless add up to a big change that would not be appropriate and compromise the integrity of the listing.
As your Lordships can perhaps tell from the comments I have made, I am not a supporter of the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Coffey raises an interesting issue on exemption for listed buildings for internal repairs and renovations. I understand the desire for a lightening of the regulatory burden and that this a probing amendment, but there is also a need for balance. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her amendment, which would remove the requirement to get listed building consent for internal repairs, maintenance or changes to grade 2 listed buildings. I will just very briefly recount a cautionary retail in this respect. We do not have many old properties in Stevenage, and listed ones are even rarer. There was one in my ward, which was an 18th-century farmhouse. A builder put a planning application in and we tried very quickly to get a listing for it, because in the context of my town it is quite an unusual feature, but we could not. That was because the internal alterations to the building that had been done were so extensive that the listing people held that it was no longer representative of the properties that the listing would have recognised. So, although I very much appreciate the intention behind the amendment, which is to streamline the process and free up capacity in the system, we must be careful not inadvertently to remove important protections for our heritage assets.
The Government are committed to the protection of the historic environment, which is an irreplaceable resource, so that these important assets can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations. Our listed building framework offers legal protection for buildings of special architectural or historic interest. Many of these listings include those internal features that the noble Baroness mentioned—staircases, fireplaces and decorative plasterwork—and internal changes such as removing walls or exposing brickwork can erode the historic character of the building if not carefully considered. That is why we believe it is important that changes, including internal works, should continue to be subject to listed building consent. Without this vital scrutiny, we risk losing and damaging some of our most important heritage assets. The process of applying for listed building consent encourages owners to design any alterations sensitively.
We have, however, given local authorities powers to create listed building consent orders locally, which would allow them to grant a general listed building consent for specific types of work across their area. We have seen examples of this, including in Cheshire East, which grant permission for working—including, for example, relocation of loft hatches in certain listed properties in the area. We think these tools are a useful opportunity to streamline the consent process where there are specific works that would be suitable in their area.
I add that I had a first meeting last week and I now have a regular round table with DCMS colleagues and many of the bodies that support and champion the need of historic houses, so we will continue to have a dialogue with them about how we move this forward. For all those reasons, I kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I thank noble Lords who participated. I say gently to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that I specifically did not include 2*, which I think is the example to which she referred. I am also conscious of what the Minister has said. It could be worth considering. I am encouraged to hear what Cheshire East Council has done, but it feels very limited for moving a loft hatch, which I cannot believe would in any way necessarily have been representative of pre-1850 homes. But, going further, I think that there could be something to be said for having a further category, where the listing does not include internal features, whether listed building consents are needed. But with that, I beg leave to withdraw.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a drafting change that would be helpful because subsection (1B), referred to in the clause, is not yet in force and therefore is not yet shown on legislation.gov.uk.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 187, 200, 201, 202 and 203, which relate to the relationship between development corporations.
Development corporations are important vehicles for delivering large-scale and complex regeneration and development projects. As we continue to deliver the many homes that this country desperately needs, we expect the number of development corporations to increase in the coming years. Different types of development corporations have been created in law to respond to the circumstances of that time. This has created ambiguities within the current legislative framework so that multiple development corporations could be created within the same locality. This risks creating confusion and delaying the speed of delivery for key strategic projects, which can be unhelpful and frustrating for all.
As the intention of our reforms in this Bill is to create a clearer, more flexible and robust development corporation legislative framework, I believe that these amendments are necessary. This is because they will set out the relationship between different types of development corporations by aligning their boundaries and removing any doubt over decision-making. These amendments will create a backstop so that, for example, if, following consultation, a centrally led development corporation had an overlap with a mayoral development corporation or a locally led development corporation, the overlapping part would automatically become part of the government-led area. The same would apply for a mayoral development corporation, which would have the same power over a locally led development corporation.
I hope that noble Lords understand why the amendments are necessary. Before I respond to the other amendments in this group, it would be helpful to listen to noble Lords’ views, so I shall reserve any comment on them until I wind up. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 206A, 351ZA and 362 in this group, which also relate to mayoral development corporations. I am supportive of what the Minister is proposing in Amendment 186 and the related amendments. It is helpful to see that there is an established hierarchy between development corporations so that, if the Government establish a development corporation, it trumps a mayoral development corporation, in effect, while a mayoral development corporation trumps a locally led development corporation. However, my amendments raise an additional—and, I hope, helpful—issue.
Before I come on to that, let me say this: the underlying purpose of the development corporations in Part 4 of this Bill is to give mayors, through such corporations, the scope to engage in not just regeneration but development. So mayoral development corporations can be the vehicle for significant new settlements, both as urban extensions and in new sites. That is helpful, too.
Of course, what we do not have in this hierarchy of development corporations is the availability of local authorities to propose locally led development corporations on the same basis as the Government and mayors can do. That was in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act but has not yet, with the exception of one of the accountability measures at the back of the section, been brought into force. Unless the Minister tells me otherwise, as I understand it, it is not the Government’s intention to bring into force the further provisions of that Act on locally led development corporations. For the avoidance of doubt, if I am wrong about that, I would be most grateful if the Minister could tell us so in her response to this debate.
Members who were attentive to the running list of amendments will recall that I tabled Amendments 204 and 205 back in July. Their purpose is to give other mayors access to the same powers to establish—I should say “propose”, since the Government establish them—mayoral development corporations as are available to the Mayor of London under the Localism Act. This is not to say that mayors do not have any such powers. However, since the Localism Act, they have generally been established under statutory instruments. Some of those have given mayors similar powers to those of the Mayor of London, but there are often gaps; the time pressures on these debates does not permit me the pleasure of examining precisely which gaps have been identified and for which mayors, but that does not matter. The point is that my Amendments 204 and 205 had the objective of giving mayors—all mayors—the same powers as are available to the London mayor.
I then found, when the Government published the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill in the other place, that Clause 36 and Schedule 17 of that Bill provided for other mayors to have the same powers as the London mayor. It struck me that, under those circumstances, there was no merit in my continuing to push Amendments 204 and 205, so I withdrew them. It further struck me that, if we provide for other mayors to have those powers under the English devolution Bill, it will run to a slower timetable than this Bill.
Therefore, Amendment 206A, which would bring into the Bill the new schedule proposed in Amendment 351ZA, is drafted in the same terms, substantially, as the Government’s English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. It would have the same effect—to give mayors generally the same powers as the London mayor—but it would do so in this Bill. Instead of waiting until some time next year—a time to be determined—and given that this is the Government’s number one legislative priority and that we are going to debate into the night if we have to, we can be confident that the provision would reach the statute book this year.
Based on the past experience of the unwillingness of Ministers to bring provisions of Bills that we have passed into force, Amendment 362 requires that the provision be brought into force within two months after the passing of this Bill. Therefore, we would be looking at all mayors having the powers by the early part of next year. This is important and relevant because we are already beyond the point at which the New Towns Taskforce said that it would publish its recommendations, including sites for new towns. It said in its interim report that it would publish the final report and recommendations in the summer; it is definitely now no longer the summer. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that it will do so shortly, as there is a degree of planning blight associated with their not being published. There is benefit to delivering on the objective to build more homes if we publish them sooner rather than later.
I hope that this Bill will secure Royal Assent this year—ideally, by the end of November—and that, by the end of January, with the inclusion of Amendment 206A and the proposed new schedule, the mayors will have access to those powers by the end of January.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 195A and to our probing opposition to Clause 93 standing part of the Bill.
Starting with Amendment 195A, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what is meant in practice by the provision that allows a development corporation to
“do anything necessary … for the purposes or incidental purposes of the new town”.
How is such a wide power to be defined, limited and safeguarded in its use? I would be grateful for a clear answer on that point.
Turning to Clause 93 more broadly, I make it clear that we are supportive of development corporations. Our concern is to understand more fully how they are intended to function under the Bill and to ensure that they are established on a sound and accountable footing.
I ask the Minister how local accountability will be preserved under the changes to the development corporations, given that they already have the ability to operate across multiple non-contiguous sites, an ability that will no doubt take on greater significance with the advance of devolution. How will such corporations function in practice alongside devolution? What safeguards will be in place to avoid confusion or diluted accountability, particularly in the context of local government reorganisation? This question seems especially pressing in the light of the changes that may arise from the forthcoming English devolution Bill, which your Lordships’ House will be considering in the coming months. How will the Government ensure that the role of development corporations sits coherently alongside wider reforms to local and regional governance?
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, having listened very carefully to the debate so far, I think the next best step would be to hear from the Minister, but I want to express some support for Amendment 362 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and Amendment 195A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. I hope the Minister will provide clarity on those when she replies.
On 3 April, guidance was issued by the Government to clarify the legislation, scrutiny and governance of mayoral development corporations in combined authorities and combined county authorities. I am pleased that steps have been taken to incorporate the recommendations of the Tees Valley Review, published over 18 months ago, to clarify the regulations for the Tees Valley Combined Authority and the South Tees Development Corporation. It is important to ensure that there is absolute clarity about oversight, reserved matters, consent and stranded liabilities, and I welcome the Government’s firm intention to do so.
However, it has puzzled me that the words “risk” and “risk management” do not appear in the guidance published in April. There is also nothing about capacity building; that point was raised a moment ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. It is very important that development corporations have the capacity to fulfil the expectations of the Government.
There is an issue, which we may come to in the next group of amendments, about where the development corporations will get their income from. I look forward to that discussion. I am concerned about how the mayoral development corporations will be structured to ensure that full risk analysis takes place on the decision-making for what will be major capital infrastructure investment. Overview and scrutiny are overview and scrutiny: scrutiny is scrutiny of a decision, and overview is overview of how decisions are being made. Risk and risk analysis come at the start of a decision to invest money, so this is not just about overview and scrutiny; it is about preventing risky investments.
When the Minister replies, will she explain who is going to pick up the bill if risk is not properly considered at the right point in the decision-making process? At the moment, I suspect that the bill will be carried by council tax payers in the area concerned and I would like that point to be clarified, because I do not think that a system based on the council tax payer being the body of last resort to make up a loss would be appropriate. I very much hope to hear the Minister’s views on those matters.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I will start with the notice from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, opposing Clause 93 standing part. I welcome the opportunity to explain the intentions behind this clause. Clause 93 clarifies and extends areas for development and the remit of development corporation models. It includes changes to legislation that would extend the remit of mayoral development corporations, so that they can deliver regeneration and new town development rather than just regeneration. It also allows that separate parcels of land can be designated as one new town area, overseen by one new town development corporation.
The current framework is outdated and not fit for purpose. Each development corporation model was developed to address a specific circumstance at the time of its introduction. This poses a significant risk to the effective delivery of the development corporations. For example, mayoral development corporations can be used only for regeneration projects, as the model was developed initially for London but then widened out to areas outside London, including rural areas. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill will enable strategic authorities to create more mayoral development corporations, so it is even more important to ensure that the legislation is fit for purpose.
Amendment 195A aims to remove the power permitting new town development corporations
“to do anything necessary or expedient for the purposes or incidental purposes of the new town”.
I reassure the noble Baroness that this is not a new addition to the new town development corporation framework. This provision is already written into primary legislation underpinning new town development corporations, as well as urban development corporation models. The changes to the infrastructure provision include listing specific functions and bringing them in line with mayoral development corporations, with the addition of heat pumps, which have been added to the list of infrastructure that can be delivered by all models.
As development corporations are used to respond to the specific needs of developments or regeneration schemes, it is important that the legislation offers this level of flexibility so that they can be tailored accordingly. We all want to see large-scale developments and infrastructure projects that will support housing and economic growth, but they need to be supported by the right infrastructure without compromising existing provisions. It would be a step backwards if we were to take the power away from new town development corporations and instead provide only a list of infrastructure, as some developments may require new technologies. Decisions to establish development corporations and the powers each will have will be made via regulations. Their oversight will be carefully designed and subject to statutory consultation.
Amendments 351ZA and 362, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would standardise and extend powers in respect of mayoral development corporations to mayors of all strategic authorities outside London. I welcome his proposal. It is vital that we empower local leaders to transform underused sites to create thriving communities tailored to local needs. For this purpose, mayoral development corporations should be part of every mayor’s toolkit. However, we believe these amendments are unnecessary. The changes the noble Lord is proposing are already being made through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill introduced on 10 July 2025. Given its scope, that Bill is the most appropriate vehicle for these changes. I take the noble Lord’s point about delay, but I am not under the impression that there is going to be any grass growing under the feet of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I think that is going to get moved on at pace and I hope that it will be appropriate for the changes that we are talking about.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Since we have in this Bill Part 4 relating to development corporations, I fail to see why it is not the appropriate place to legislate for mayoral development corporations, rather than the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I think the evidence points to completely the opposite conclusion to the one the Minister just used.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think it sits alongside other measures in that Bill. That is why it has been put into the EDCE Bill rather than this Bill.
Amendment 362 would commence provisions in relation to the development corporations within two months of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill passing. I welcome the noble Lord’s enthusiasm in wanting the changes to be implemented quickly, and I share his passion for that. We recognise that they are important measures, creating a clear, flexible and robust development corporation legislative framework to unlock more housing across the country, co-ordinating that with infrastructure and transport to support sustained economic growth. We also want the changes to come into force as soon as practically possible. However—and I would say this—there is further legislative work and guidance to ensure that development corporations are set up for success. It takes a significant amount of time to establish a development corporation, including essential preparatory and scoping work. We do not envisage that this will cause any delays to those interested in setting up a mayoral development corporation, but I do not think the progress of the other Bill is going to hold things up unnecessarily either.
It might be helpful if I cover some issues around how this is going to work. We know that development corporations are a vital tool for delivering large-scale, complex property developments, particularly where the risk—the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned risk—is too great for private sector delivery alone. To encourage the use of development corporations and reduce the risk of challenge, there should be clarity around their remit and functions.
Decisions to designate and grant powers to development corporations must be made by regulations. They are subject to statutory consultation, and they must be made with careful consideration of all the issues of oversight that we have heard about. The department consulted on oversight regulations for locally led urban development corporations last year, and the Government’s response is expected later this calendar year—I hope it does not run out before “later” arrives. Locally led urban development corporations cannot be set up before provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 are commenced.
In relation to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about South Tees, the Government have issued a response to the independent review of the South Tees Development Corporation and Teesworks joint venture, which included clarifying the available measures to strengthen the oversight for mayoral development corporations. On 3 April 2025, guidance was published which clarified legislation and scrutiny of mayoral development corporations. I hope that that gives an adequate response to his question.
Lord Shipley (LD)
Can the Minister explain who the funder of last resort is when a loss is delivered by a mayoral development corporation? Is it the council tax payer for the geographical area of the development corporation, the combined authority or the Government? To put it another way, who makes up, pays for, a loss if a development corporation makes one?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Of course, we all hope there will not be a loss, but we must always have provision in place for that. I know that there is ongoing discussion with Sir Michael Lyons and others in the taskforce about how the financial details and programme work, so it is probably best if I reply to noble Lords in writing on that issue.
In relation to the points about capacity, which were very well made, again, discussions are going on with Sir Michael Lyons about how we make all this happen. We have already allocated £46 million to planning, but we will continue to have those discussions with the taskforce about what the delivery mechanisms are to be. That said, I hope that the noble Lord has had some reassurance and that he will agree not to press his amendments.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, in respect of my noble friend’s Amendment 195A, and reading the words in the Bill, I would be really interested in the Minister helping me understand what places limits on the last words on page 123 of the Bill. Would it be open to a development corporation, for instance, to do an Ireland and say that any business moving its headquarters to the area of the development corporation would pay half the tax rate current in the United Kingdom?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is not my understanding that there will be fiscal devolution powers in that way, but I will take that back and write to the noble Lord if I am wrong.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I understood from what the Minister was saying that it is the Government’s intention to bring all of Section 172 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act relating to locally led new towns into force. Am I correct in that? I got the impression that that is the Government’s intention, but it was not quite explicit.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My understanding is that the powers in the Act relating to locally led development corporations will be brought into force, but I have committed to write to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, with a full explanation. I will circulate that letter when I have published it.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The Minister also mentioned the money that has been put aside by the Government to support further planning, skills training et cetera. Did she say that that could be used also by development corporations? I had the understanding that it was for local government and not for development corporations.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sorry if I misled the noble Baroness. I meant to say that the Government recognise the issue around planning capacity. We have already allocated that £46 million for local government, and we must have the discussions with Sir Michael Lyons that recognise that we need to make sure that the capacity is there to deal with new town development corporations as well.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Can the Minister tell us when we can expect to see the report of the New Towns Taskforce?
“Relationship between different types of development corporation(1) The New Towns Act 1981 is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (5).(2) In section 1 (designation of areas), after subsection (3) insert—“(3ZA) An order under this section may designate an area of land that includes any area (the “overlap area”) that is, or forms part of, an area that has already been designated (the “previously designated area”) under— (a) section 1ZB(2) (designation of locally-led new town in England),(b) section 134(1B) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (designation of locally-led urban development area), or(c) section 197 of the Localism Act 2011 (designation of Mayoral development area).(3ZB) On the coming into force of an order that makes provision as mentioned in subsection (3ZA), the overlap area no longer forms part of the previously designated area.(3ZC) Where the Secretary of State makes an order that contains provision as mentioned in subsection (3ZA), the Secretary of State may also make regulations—(a) amending any order relating to the previously designated area to show the new boundaries of the area, which may reflect not only the removal of the overlap area but also any other changes that are necessary or appropriate in consequence of its removal;(b) providing for the transfer of functions relating to the overlap area to the development corporation established for the purposes of the new town;(c) where the overlap area completely covers the previously designated area, providing for the dissolution of the development corporation for the previously designated area;(d) making consequential, incidental, supplementary, transitional or saving provision.(3ZD) The Secretary of State may, in connection with regulations under subsection (3ZC), make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities relating to the overlap area to the development corporation established for the purposes of the new town (see also section 9B (transfer schemes: general provisions)).”(3) In section 1ZA (local authority proposal for designation of locally-led new town in England, as inserted by section 172(2) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) A proposal area must not include any area of land that is, or forms part of, an area that is designated under—(a) section 1 (designation of new town area by Secretary of State),(b) section 134(1) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (designation of urban development area by Secretary of State), or(c) section 197 of the Localism Act 2011 (designation of Mayoral development area).(See also section 1(3ZB) and (3ZC), section 197(2B) and (2C) of the Localism Act 2011 and section 134(1E) and (1F) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.)”(4) In section 1ZB (designation of locally-led new town in England, as inserted by section 172(2) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023), in subsection (2)—(a) for “may” substitute “must”;(b) omit from “if” to the end.(5) In section 77 (regulations and orders)—(a) in subsection (2A), after “section” insert “1(3ZC) or”;(b) in subsection (3C), after “order” insert “or regulations”.(6) The Localism Act 2011 is amended as set out in subsections (7) to (9).(7) In section 197 (designation of Mayoral development areas)—(a) in subsection (1), for “any” substitute “an”; (b) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) An area of land designated under subsection (1)—(a) may include any area (the “overlap area”) that is, or forms part of, an area of land that has already been designated (the “previously designated area”) under—(i) section 1ZB(2) of the New Towns Act 1981 (designation of locally-led new town in England), or(ii) section 134(1B) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (designation of locally-led urban development area);(b) may not include any area that is, or forms part of, an area that is designated under—(i) section 1 of the New Towns Act 1981 (designation of new town area by Secretary of State), or(ii) section 134(1) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (designation of urban development area by Secretary of State).(See also section 1(3ZB) and (3ZC) of the New Towns Act 1981 and section 134(1E) and (1F) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.)(2B) Where the Mayor designates an area as mentioned in subsection (2A)(a), the Secretary of State must make regulations providing that the overlap area no longer forms part of the previously designated area.(2C) The regulations may also—(a) amend any order relating to the previously designated area to show the new boundaries of the area, which may reflect not only the removal of the overlap area but also any other changes that are necessary or appropriate in consequence of its removal;(b) provide for the transfer of functions relating to the overlap area to the development corporation established for the purposes of the Mayoral development area;(c) where the overlap area completely covers the previously designated area, provide for the dissolution of the development corporation for the previously designated area.(2D) The Secretary of State may, in connection with regulations under this section, make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities relating to the overlap area to the development corporation established for the purposes of the Mayoral development area (see also section 218 (transfer schemes: general provisions)).”(8) In section 218 (transfer schemes: general provisions, in the definition of “transfer scheme” in subsection (1), after “section” insert “197(2D),”.(9) In section 235 (orders and regulations)—(a) in subsection (7), after paragraph (j) insert—“(ja) regulations under section 197;”;(b) in subsection (14), after “52” insert “or regulations under section 197”.(10) The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 is amended as set out in subsections (11) to (13).(11) In section 134 (urban development areas)—(a) in subsection (1B) (as inserted by section 171(2) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023)—(i) in the words before paragraph (a), for “may” substitute “must”;(ii) omit paragraph (b) (and the “and” immediately before it);(b) after subsection (1C) (inserted by section 93) insert— “(1D) An order under subsection (1) may designate any area of land that includes an area (the “overlap area”) that is, or forms part of, an area that has already been designated (the “previously designated area”) under—(a) subsection (1B) (designation of locally-led urban development area),(b) section 1ZB(2) of the New Towns Act 1981 (designation of locally-led new town in England), or(c) section 197 of the Localism Act 2011 (designation of Mayoral development area).(1E) On the coming into force of an order that makes provision as mentioned in subsection (1D), the overlap area no longer forms part of the previously designated area.(1F) Where the Secretary of State makes an order that contains provision as mentioned in subsection (1D), the Secretary of State may also by regulations made by statutory instrument—(a) amend any order relating to the previously designated area to show the new boundaries of the area, which may reflect not only the removal of the overlap area but also any other changes that are necessary or appropriate in consequence of its removal;(b) provide for the transfer of functions relating to the overlap area to the development corporation established for the purposes of the urban development area;(c) where the overlap area completely covers the previously designated area, provide for the dissolution of the development corporation for the previously designated area;(d) make consequential, incidental, supplementary, transitional or saving provision.(1G) The Secretary of State may, in connection with regulations under subsection (1F), make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities relating to the overlap area to the development corporation established for the purposes of the urban development area (see also section 140B (transfer schemes: general provisions)).”;(c) in subsection (4), after “(1B)” insert “or regulations made by the Secretary of State under subsection (1F)”;(d) in subsection (4A), after “(1B)” insert “or regulations made by the Secretary of State under subsection (1F)”.(12) In section 134A (local authority proposal for designation of locally-led urban development area in England, as inserted by section 171(3) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) A proposal area must not include any area of land that is, or forms part of, an area that is designated under—(a) section 134(1) (designation of urban development area by Secretary of State),(b) section 1 of the New Towns Act 1981 (designation of new town area by Secretary of State), or(c) section 197 of the Localism Act 2011 (designation of Mayoral development area).(See also section 134(1E) and (1F), section 1(3ZB) and (3ZC) of the New Towns Act 1981 and section 197(2B) and (2C) of the Localism Act 2011.)”(13) In section 171 (interpretation), in the definition of “urban development area”, after “it” insert “by virtue of subsection (1E) of that section or”.” Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would clarify the relationship between different types of development corporation so that any area of overlap in proposed new corporations will be resolved in favour of the higher-tier authority.
Lord Fuller
“(c) the funding and financing of development proposals, which may extend to the issuance of bonds, debt or similar financial instruments.”
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to my Amendments 190 and 192. I welcome the broad thrust of empowering and reinvigorating the development corporations contemplated in the legislation. This is the best part of a complex Bill, although we know that it has already been overtaken by the devolution Bill launched in the other place.
Clause 94 seeks the achievement of sustainable development, and the mitigation of and adaption to climate change, but there would be no sustainable development without commercially sustainable financing of the proposals that the corporations bring forward. My amendment seeks to bring sustainable finance alongside those other sustainability issues. I approach this subject in the knowledge that local authorities may be reorganised and that mayors may be created in what we now learn to be a cat’s cradle of overlapping and competing responsibilities. Regardless of that, the day-to-day financial pressures felt by national and local government have never been greater.
In a former time, development corporations would simply hold out their hand to the Government or local councils for funding. Of course, that route may still be open, but we need to recognise that the old ways, with joint severability between various tiers of local government, are falling away. Building new towns is the work of generations; it goes beyond political cycles. Relying on national and local politicians will not be enough in a world where building a secondary school costs £40 million and a flyover £100 million. In the pursuit of sustainable development and delivery on the plans, the money needs to be right, because without the money, how can all the desirable options in Clause 94 be delivered?
We need to give the development corporations powers to exploit the difference between funding and financing—by explanation, funding is writing the cheque, but financing is putting the deal together. It is no surprise that it is the financiers in the City of London who are the highest paid, because their task of turning those good ideas into reality is the hardest.
Development corporations are independent, but they have the benefit of being able to lean on the covenant strength that comes from being a statutory body. I will not dwell too much on the significance of the governance of development corporations, but I will make the factual observation that strong governance leads to higher covenant strength, the ability to take a higher credit rating, and the willingness of institutional investors to pony up the cash. We need to make it easy for development corporations to raise funds in new and creative ways at the lowest possible coupon. My amendments would path find those.
Get this right and we will provide investable opportunities for pension funds that desire to invest in infrastructure bonds, for local people who want to invest in local facilities that benefit their area, or for sovereign wealth that seeks a home for its money within an advanced economy with well-defined property rights. But the well of wealth from these sources may not be enough, and there may be other ways to skin the cat. The corporations need to be empowered to engage in all manner of financial instruments, including the traditional issuance of bonds, debt or similar instruments. But we should contemplate other sources of finance. That extends to entering into joint ventures with landowners whose land is to be incorporated as an in-kind contribution to the whole, so that they may enjoy the uplift over a long period rather than cash up front.
It should not be right that development corporations feel they need to reach for the CPO lever by default and then be forced to pony-up a premium price to the owner up front after the unpleasantness of the process—there are lots of “p”s in that sentence. In other words, development corporations need to have powers not just to assemble land but to be creative in the assembly of that land. The creative concept of the joint venture would allow more money to be spent on upfront infrastructure than on land acquisition. That is a better-value enterprise. By thinking creatively like this, the amount of upfront funding will be less and the ability to deliver essential infrastructure at the outset greater.
I want to place finance in its widest possible context, not just rooting it in the sort of funding where you stand on the street corner with your hand out. Let us seed these stand-alone corporations away from the other financial pressures that afflict local government and free them from the apron strings of those local authorities. While I accept that the development corporations can plan for an area and have regard to all manner of desirable outcomes, contemplated in Clause 93, ultimately those plans or outcomes will stand or fall on whether the money can be raised and the finance deals put together. That is what my amendments seek to achieve. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, in the absence of other speakers, I am interested in the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and will be even more interested in the Minister’s response, bearing in mind what I said in the previous group about management of risk and who underpins a development corporation in the event of financial loss.
Amendment 197 is very important. There are two issues: the automatic
“removal of hope value from the valuation of the relevant land”
proposed for development and, secondly, whether land purchases by development corporations should be seen as
“public sector investments to be counted against departmental expenditure limits”.
This amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, is important and I hope that the Minister will respond to it.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for his amendments. The financing of development corporations is an important issue and we will continue to engage on it. I look forward to the views of Sir Michael Lyons’s task force on the issues raised by noble Lords in this and the previous group on the financial aspects of development corporations.
We need to ensure that financing is long term and sustainable. If corporations are to take on debt to fund infrastructure, they and their lenders will need confidence that the debt will be repaid. This is a particular issue as a current Government cannot bind a future one. I will not comment on the issues in Amendment 197 as it has not been spoken to, but I assume that they will be discussed in group seven.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 188, 190 and 192 would add to the objectives of development corporations, such that all development corporations would be obliged to aim to contribute to the funding and financing of development proposals, with the option of using financial instruments such as bonds and debts to achieve this objective.
In addition to my earlier comments about how there are still further discussions to take place in relation to financing, I should have mentioned that resource funding will be available for the costs associated with running a development corporation. There are capital grant programmes as well, such as the national housing delivery fund and the social and affordable housing programme. Development corporations will be able to enter joint ventures and land agreements to obtain private capital. They will also be able to obtain further capital financing through loans and equity from the national housing bank and the national wealth fund. I thought it was important to clarify all that.
It is vital that development corporations, as well as the developments they co-ordinate and deliver, are properly financed. I therefore welcome the intent of the noble Lord’s amendments. They should not, however, be brought forward for two main reasons.
First, the amendments would unnecessarily constrain the use of development corporations. This Bill seeks to ensure that the development corporation legislative framework is clear, flexible and robust. Importantly, development corporations are used to address different types of development challenges depending on the nature of the project, including planning, land assembly and convening private sector investment. Development corporations need not directly fund development to be successful, as, for example, is the case for the Stockport Mayoral Development Corporation. Requiring that all development corporations fund or finance development would unnecessarily constrain the use of development corporations, rendering the model unnecessarily inflexible.
Secondly, development corporations are able to borrow more affordably from central government. The existing legislation provides that both new town development corporations and urban development corporations can borrow directly from central government, irrespective of whether they are centrally or locally led. A mayoral development corporation can also borrow indirectly via its oversight authority, including from the Public Works Loan Board. If, instead, development corporations were to issue bonds or raise debt directly to fund development, this would likely be at a higher interest rate and less affordable than if they borrowed from government.
Amendment 197 relates to the technical area of compulsory purchase compensation. This seeks to amend the New Towns Act 1981 to allow new town development corporations to use their compulsory purchase powers under that Act to acquire land for large-scale housing and transport schemes without paying hope value compensation or needing to justify a direction in the public interest. This amendment would also ensure that land purchased under these powers would not count against departmental expenditure limits.
While I sympathise with the spirit of the amendment and the aims it seeks to achieve, I am not able to support it. Compensation for the compulsory purchase of land is calculated on the basis of the value of the land if it was sold on the open market where no development is being proposed. The assessment of the open market value of land includes value attributed to the prospect of planning permission being granted for development other than for development which has planning permission. I think that is the term described as hope value.
Compulsorily purchasing land raises questions of common-law fairness and engages the European Convention on Human Rights. Any reforms to compulsory purchase compensation rules must be made in accordance with the convention. To respond to this constraint, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 introduced the power to allow development corporations, when making CPOs under the New Towns Act 1981 to facilitate affordable housing provision, to seek directions for the non-payment of hope value from compensation providing there is justification in the public interest. The power introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 allows a fair balance test to be conducted in each case between the public and private interests in making a direction and ensures compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The proposed amendment is a blanket, non-discretionary approach to removing hope value. The Government do not consider they have sufficient evidence to be confident that the amendment is consistent with ECHR rights, because it is not clear that the public benefit of removing hope value in these situations would outweigh the impact on the individual landowners affected by the proposed measure in all cases.
Under proposed new subsection (2B) in the amendment, land purchases would create an asset that does not have a direct financial return. Allowing development corporation land purchases to be excluded from departmental expenditure limits could significantly increase levels of public sector borrowing. The Government are committed to ensuring economic stability and sustainable levels of public debt through their fiscal rules. I therefore cannot support this change.
For these reasons, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, as part of my research for this series of amendments, I looked at the New Towns Act and I note that it is 80 years since the Minister’s home town of Stevenage was seeded, so to speak; it is now time to bring things up to date. At that time, central government had the power and the finance to get these things off the ground, but things have moved on and we need some more creative thinking. There are wider sources of capital and finance in the world and more players want to participate.
I do not accept that my amendment would arbitrarily constrain the development corporations in pursuance of financing their quite weighty objectives, many of which are enumerated in the next clause, Clause 95. It would not constrain them, but would give them a choice: an option—not a compulsion—to widen the pool of finance should they wish.
The Minister in her winding suggested that powers exist to borrow from central government. She referred specifically to the Public Works Loan Board. Anybody who knows anything about the Public Works Loan Board knows that, as a result of some rather ill-advised advances, it is now capped. I believe the sum is at £90 million; I cannot remember exactly, but that does not matter. The fact is that it is thus far and no further. The Minister asserts that the Public Works Loan Board is always cheaper than others. We know that not to be the case. As the example of the Municipal Bonds Agency demonstrated, there was a well of capital for international markets willing to invest in local infrastructure projects at lower rates than the councils were able to borrow from the PWLB—had the headroom existed. So the premise not only that central government is the only route but that any other routes would be more expensive is demonstrably false.
That is further the case if, as in the example I gave earlier, a landowner may wish to cede some of his land to the development corporations as part of the red line, in kind rather than in cash, it is possible that there would be no coupon to be paid at all. The interest—the return—would come long-term as the development proceeded.
So I do not accept that this is a constraining amendment. I take from what the Minister said that is its highly likely that the consequence of not accepting this option is that, first of all, capital may be constrained, it is possible the development corporations may pay more, and the opportunity to assemble land in a creative manner may be taken away. Clearly, we are in Committee; perhaps we ought to engage on this between now and Report. I fear that the Minister’s brief is labouring under a false premise. I think we can say that this can be resolved, and should be if the promise of development corporations is to be fulfilled. I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I do not think I said that PWLB was the only source of funding for development corporations. I did mention that they will be able to enter into joint ventures and land agreements to obtain private capital and use the National Housing Bank and the National Wealth Fund.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I thank the Minister for that. I beg leave to withdraw. Perhaps we can return to this on Report.
“(6A) The Secretary of State may, in connection with regulations under subsection (3), make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities between the corporation and the relevant transport authority to which the regulations relate (see also section 9B (transfer schemes: general provisions)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 96, leaving out lines 33 to 38 of page 127.
“Transfer schemes: general
9B Transfer schemes under sections 1 and 9A: general provisions(1) In this section “transfer scheme” means a scheme under section 1(3ZD) or 9A(6A).”Member’s explanatory statement
The effect of this amendment would be to extend the provision about transfer schemes, drafted to cover schemes under new section 9A of the New Towns Act 1981 (transfer of transport functions) to schemes under section 1(3ZD) (transfer schemes in case of overlapping development corporation areas), inserted by my amendment inserting a new clause after clause 93.
“(7A) The Secretary of State may, in connection with regulations under subsection (3), make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities between the corporation and the relevant transport authority to which the regulations relate (see also section 140B (transfer schemes: general provisions)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 96, leaving out lines 1 to 6 of page 130.
“Transfer schemes: general
140B Transfer schemes under sections 134 and 140A: general provisions(1) In this section “transfer scheme” means a scheme under section 134(1G) or 140A(7A).”Member’s explanatory statement
The effect of this amendment would be to extend the provision about transfer schemes, drafted to cover schemes under new section 140A of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (transfer of transport functions) to schemes under section 134(1G) (transfer schemes in case of overlapping development corporation areas), inserted by my amendment inserting a new clause after clause 93.
Lord Lucas
“(A1) In section 7 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, after the definition of “local authority” insert—““local news publisher” has the meaning prescribed to it in Schedule 2ZA.”(A2) After Schedule 2 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, insert—“Schedule 2ZALocal news publishersDefinition of local news publisher
1 The term “local news publisher” means—(a) a business that—(i) has as its principal purpose the publication of original, local news content, where such material—(A) concerns issues or events that are relevant in engaging the British public in public debate and in informing democratic decision-making,(B) is reported and published in the United Kingdom,(C) is published, online or in print, no less than once every 31 days, and(D) is subject to editorial control,(ii) is legally resident in the United Kingdom,(iii) possesses at least one director who is legally resident in the United Kingdom,(iv) employs on a salaried, freelance or voluntary basis at least one journalist,(v) is not funded or operated by a government, political party or legislative institution,(vi) is subject to a code of ethical standards—(A) which is recognised in this schedule, and(B) which is published or administered by an independent regulator,(vii) has in place publicly available policies and procedures for handling complaints and resolving editorial inaccuracies and mistakes transparently, and that these policies and procedures are reasonably accessible to the public,(viii) maintains editorial independence from political parties, organisations that engage in lobbying or advocacy, and advertisers, and(ix) can demonstrate strong connections to the locality in which it operates.2 It is not relevant to the definition whether publication of such material as described in paragraph 1(a)(i) is done so with a view to making profit.3 Material is “subject to editorial control” under paragraph 1(a)(i)(D) if it meets the like definition set out in section 41(2) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.4 For the purposes of paragraph 1(a)(v), “government” means— (a) the Government of the United Kingdom, or the government of the devolved nations, or local, municipal and regional governments within the United Kingdom, or any departments, agencies, corporations or subsidiary bodies thereof,(b) the government of a foreign nation, whether recognised by the Government of the United Kingdom or otherwise, or any departments, agencies, corporations or subsidiary bodies thereof, or any devolved administrations, local, municipal or regional governments therein, or(c) any other body or international movement holding itself out as the legitimate government of a foreign nation, and/or any departments, agencies, corporations or subsidiary bodies thereof.5 For the purposes of paragraph 1(a)(v), “legislative institution” means—(a) the Parliament of the United Kingdom, or a constituent house or committee thereof, or any officer thereof,(b) the devolved legislatures of the devolved nations, or a constituent house or committee thereof,(c) the legislative assembly of a local, regional or municipal authority, such as the London Assembly, or a constituent house or committee thereof, or any officer thereof, or(d) the legislative assembly, local, regional, municipal or national, in or of a foreign nation as described in paragraphs 4(b) or (c).6 Further to paragraph 1(a)(vi)(B), the following organisations are considered valid independent regulators for the purpose of recognition as a local news publisher—(a) IMPRESS, and(b) the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO).7 The Secretary of State may, by statutory instrument, amend paragraph 6 to add or remove organisations.8 A statutory instrument containing regulations under paragraph 7 not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament9 Any statutory instrument issued to effect the Secretary of State’s authority under paragraph 7 must—(a) be laid before Parliament for 60 days before enactment, and(b) in the event that an organisation is to be delisted, be published and transmitted to the organisation at issue in such a way as to entitle them to make representations to the contrary.10 A local news publisher is advantaged in demonstrating strong connections to the locality in which it operates under paragraph 1(a)(ix) where it—(a) is owned and operated by or within its community;(b) can demonstrate a high level of local readership;(c) employs a large number of locally resident journalists;(d) can demonstrate a positive relationship with its readership.11 Where an authority is required under this Act to publish a notice with a local news publisher, as in section 11(1)(a), it is required to give preference to local news publishers that—(a) can demonstrate high local readership comparative to other local news publishers in its locality, or(b) can demonstrate low financial burden to access for customers in its locality.””
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, in moving my Amendment 207 I will speak also to my Amendments 208 and 209. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich, for adding her name to these; I am sorry that she cannot be here today.
Clause 98 refers to newspaper notices. The purpose of requiring notices in local newspapers is to inform the public. Most of the public now get their local news from sources other than traditional local newspapers. As the Government accept the need for notices—as evidenced by Clause 98—and we are looking at a system that costs the public purse around 50 million quid a year, I hope that they will agree that the notices that they are requiring and paying for should be placed where people will read them.
My amendments propose a much-needed update to the 1881 definition of a newspaper, which is what rules these notices at the moment, to allow local councils to place public notices in relation to planning and infrastructure with trusted, professional and widely read online local news outlets. That was what the 1881 legislation achieved in its day—it made sure that these notices were placed where people would read them and in publications that they could access and trust. We need to move that on a bit.
The local news industry has undergone a deep transformation with the rise of online news and the decline of printed papers. Last year, more than half of traditional regional dailies had a circulation of below 5,000 copies. Comparatively, the average local independent online news outlet attracted almost 500,000 unique users. Across the UK, digital outlets established in the past decade or so are connecting with growing audiences; I would name the Bristol Cable, the Waltham Forest Echo, the Manchester Mill, the Greater Govanhill in Glasgow, VIEWdigital in Belfast, and many others—including, of course, my local Eastbourne Reporter.
There have been countless calls in recent years to review the public notices system to support the regeneration of local news, including by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s Sustainability of Local Journalism report and the House of Lords report The Future of News, published less than a year ago.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I am amazed that no other Members of your Lordships’ House want to speak about local news and newspapers. I broadly agree with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He is absolutely right that the question we have to ask ourselves is: with the sad decline, as I see it, of printed local news, how best do we make sure that important public notices, as defined in legislation, that are currently placed only in printed news outlets, get a greater reading and more information about them spread by including them in reputable or quality online news outlets?
I agree with the noble Lord that it should be both, because a number of people still read a paper version of a local newspaper. I am amazed that there are people where I live—they contact me—who read these public notices and ask, “What on earth is going on here?”, even though they are printed in font size 6 or 7, so you need a magnifying glass to read them. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has considered that public notices in the print media are very tightly printed, and how they can be accessible online. Sometimes, you get a whole page of public notices. I generally agree that we have to do something to make sure that more people have access to important information.
My understanding is that currently there is a public notice portal—public notices are gathered from the print media and put on to this portal. It would be interesting to know whether the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is thinking about enabling councils, through legislation, to choose whether to publish directly on to that public portal.
Generally, I more or less support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. We have to have reform and your Lordships’ House and others have considered this in detail, so the question is how we set about it. With those remarks, I look forward to other comments on this group of amendments.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas highlight and reaffirm the importance of local news publishers. Increasingly, these are online, but not always. Some areas still have quite successful newspapers that have print runs, sometimes daily but now often weekly, but this differs in local areas, so I think that local authorities are best placed to decide what medium they use for advertising all things planning.
On this side of the Committee, we support the existence of local news publishers across the United Kingdom. As we have heard, they serve as an important conduit between local people and their authorities and are crucial for upholding community engagement and local democracy, values which I hope all noble Lords will join me in supporting. Indeed, the importance of local news publishers is even more significant when we consider it in context of important planning and development decisions. Local people are those most affected by such decisions and it is important that their voices are heard and meaningfully listened to. Local news publishers play a vital role in making sure both that local people are represented and that the relevant information is disseminated to them. I hope that the Government will take these amendments seriously and I look forward to hearing how they will be addressed.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for tabling these interesting amendments, which relate to the publicity of notices on compulsory purchase orders. I cannot help thinking that there is a solution to this, but perhaps not exactly this one. We have to have a think about this. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, I support local news publications. I am one of the sad local government geeks who always turns straight to the public notices, not just because I want to see what my own council is doing—now that I am not there anymore—but because I want to see what the next-door councils are doing as well.
Local newspapers are an important part of the way that information is shared, but they also play an important role in supporting democracy, communicating with our residents and being a signpost to all kinds of events that are going on locally. I know that they have been through a very tough time recently. In my area, if we did not have the paper edition of the newspaper, we would probably not have an online paper either—the paper is produced online but also produced as a paper copy. It is not delivered anymore but you can pick it up in a supermarket, so it is an important part of our local life.
The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would reform the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and constrain acquiring authorities in the type of local newspaper that notices of making and confirmation of compulsory purchase orders must be published in. The type of local newspaper would have to meet certain quality and readership criteria, including possessing at least one director legally resident in the United Kingdom, employing at least one journalist not funded or operated by a government, political party or legislative institution, being subject to a code of ethical standards and demonstrating strong connections to the locality in which they operate.
The legislation currently requires acquiring authorities to publish notices of the making and confirmation of CPOs in newspapers circulating in the locality of the land included in the relevant CPO, but it does not prescribe the type of local newspaper. The Government consider that the requirement to publish notices in newspapers is an important part of the CPO process. Acquiring authorities are already motivated to ensure that notices are well publicised, because that helps them to avoid legal challenge.
However, these amendments would constrain and place unnecessary burdens on acquiring authorities when attempting to comply with the requirement to publish notices. The amendments would make it more difficult for authorities to navigate the process, increase the potential risk of legal challenges, which would result in additional costs, and delay decision-making and the delivery of benefits in the public interest. The amendments would therefore complicate and delay the CPO process further, which is contrary to the Government’s objectives.
It would be helpful if the notices could be published in a bigger font. I believe that the noble Baroness said that it is usually size 6, but it is more like size 2 in my local newspaper. Something I find helpful is taking a picture of them on my phone and then expanding that.
For all the reasons I have given, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I understand what the Minister said about the quality criteria I put in the amendment. I included them for discussion.
However, I do not understand her willingness to restrict the publication of these notices to 1881-style newspapers. Why? Surely the purpose of publishing these notices is that they get noticed. Therefore, the Government should say that they will create a website on which all such notices will be placed, and people will know to go there to find them. They could be sorted by locality or whatever. It would cost a few hundred thousand pounds a year, rather than the £50 million a year we are paying at the moment. They would all be available there, and people would know where to go. What they are currently doing is paying £50 million for people to have to pay even more to buy the newspaper, just to see the public notices page.
Local newspapers used to be vibrant, argumentative and full of interesting journalists. Now, you are lucky if they have one journalist. Mostly, they include just reprinted press announcements and syndicated competitions. If these notices are meant to get into the press where people will notice them randomly, they need to be much more widely distributed. Alternatively, if they should be publicly available, so that the people who know that they are of interest can find them, they should be on a government website. The Government are paying a lot of money for no value with the current system.
I would be interested to know—if not now then in writing—whether the Government’s intention is that notices are to be published so that interested people can find them, or whether it is more important that people can find the notices at random. If it is the former, I will bring back an amendment on Report to seek to create a government website instead of the newspaper requirement. If it is the latter, I will try to table a simplified version of this amendment. I would be happy to receive an answer in writing. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Meston
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to mitigate the potentially harsh and punitive application of the proposed new section 32A of the 1973 Act when a dwelling is compulsorily acquired.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 209A concerns the scope of exceptions to home loss payments in Clause 103. The compulsory acquisition of property, particularly a dwelling, is a serious step for which clear and proper justification should be required. The person displaced is usually compensated by a statutory home loss payment. In Clause 103, new Section 32A of the 1973 Act stipulates exceptions to the right to such a home loss payment when the property has been allowed to get into disrepair or there have been other failures. Under the Bill, people covered by those exceptions are to be denied any home loss payment. However, in reality, the price the individual receives on compulsory purchase will always already reflect any lack of repair. Deprivation of the home loss payment would therefore be in addition to the reduced price, which reflects a poor state of repair.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, the principle behind this amendment is an important one and the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, deserve careful consideration. It is a sensitive matter, particularly where an individual’s poor health or other infirmities are concerned, and we will want to look at this area closely. More broadly, we are concerned about the extensive nature of this section of the Bill, and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s explanation.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for bringing us this amendment on compulsory purchase compensation rules. The amendment would ensure that home owners still receive home loss payments, even where they have failed to take action required by an improvement notice or order served on them, if that failure is due to the person’s poor health or other infirmity, or their inability to afford the cost of the action. A home loss payment is an additional amount of compensation paid to a person to recognise the inconvenience and disruption caused where a person is displaced from their home as a result of a CPO.
Under the current provisions in the Land Compensation Act 1973, where property owners have failed to comply with an improvement notice, their right to basic and occupier’s loss payments is excluded. There are, however, currently no similar exclusions for home loss payments. This Bill amends the 1973 Act to apply this exclusion to home loss payments also. However, where the exclusion of a home loss payment applies, owners would still be entitled to compensation for the market value of their property, disturbance compensation or other costs of the CPO process, such as legal or other professional costs. The provision introduced by this Bill will lower local authorities’ costs of using their CPO powers to bring sub-standard properties back into use as housing and ensure that the compensation regime is fair.
The amendment would ensure that, where an owner can show that they did not deliberately allow their property—subject to an improvement notice or order—to fall into disrepair or to remain derelict and that it was the result of ill health, other infirmity or a lack of financial resources, they can still make a claim for a home loss payment. We believe that it is for individual local authorities to determine whether it is appropriate to serve an improvement notice or order under the provisions listed in the Land Compensation Act, taking into account the personal circumstances of the property owner. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for both the supportive remarks from the Opposition Front Bench and the considered response from the Government. I would like to think about that—in particular, the wider implications of what is being proposed—more closely. On that basis, although I reserve the right to return on Report, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Pinnock
“(za) in subsection (2), at end insert “unless the acquiring authority states that the whole of the land is being acquired for the purpose (or for the main purpose) of provision of sporting or recreational facilities in which case subsection (5) shall not apply.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable hope value to be disregarded in calculating the compulsory purchase value of land, where it is being purchased for recreational facilities.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this amendment relates to removing—or “disregarding”, to use the legislative term—hope value from recreational land that is to be purchased for public use.
The principle of hope value was debated at length and in detail during consideration of the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill in your Lordships’ House. It was agreed by the Government of the time that hope value could be disregarded by acquiring authorities for a number of purposes—including for schools, for example. However, hope value for public recreational uses was not included in the list of categories where hope value could be disregarded.
So Amendments 209B and 209C in my name seek to add the disregarding of hope value by acquiring authorities into the legislation. The reason for that is fairly straightforward and obvious. On a previous day in Committee, we had a debate on the importance of recreational land. My noble friend Lord Addington and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made a strong case for better planning and more openness to planning applications for sporting use. These two amendments seek to add to that.
The importance of the availability of public recreational land cannot be overstated. In days gone by, children could go out of their front door and play in the street without risk. Now that is not possible because of the obvious influx in terms of every household having a car. So, in order for them to play outside, children have to be taken somewhere. If there are not enough “somewheres” to go to—somewhere to kick a ball in a local recreation area; a park, somewhere to go and walk round a lake; or somewhere to play on playing equipment that is provided—it is a huge loss to the development of young people.
Sport, such as the World Athletics Championships—I am an athletics fan, although I could not get to Tokyo—is really important to this country, so it is important that all children have opportunities for play. If local authorities wish to extend the use of recreational areas, it is best if the cost of that land is not added to by hope value.
Those two simple amendments have the same purpose: to enable local authorities to buy land for recreational use without hope value attached to it. I look forward to hearing about the other amendments in this group, and will respond to them when I reply to the Minister. With those short but, I hope, strong messages showing that this is an important issue, I beg to move.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 210 and 211 in my name and Amendment 227G in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. I refer the Committee to my register of interests, as I have previously disclosed on this Bill.
When we say that the Conservative Party is under new management, we mean it. We are rightly proud of much of the work that went into the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, but we are also clear about areas where improvement is needed. I have tabled Amendment 210 to address one such issue, an issue that sits uncomfortably with our core principles of property rights and fair compensation. We believe deeply in the right of individuals to own property, and that such ownership should not be disturbed lightly. When it is, compensation must be fair and transparent and reflect the true value of what is being lost. That includes hope value.
Hope value is not a vague or abstract notion; it is a well-established component in the valuation of land and property, used not only in sales but in inheritance tax assessments and a wide range of commercial transactions. It reflects the possibility that land might in future obtain planning permission for a more valuable use. It is the very element that allows developers and others to bring forward land for development, persuading reluctant landowners to sell by recognising the future potential of their land.
To disregard hope value is to ignore how the market works. It risks undermining confidence in the land market and creating new barriers to development rather than removing them. The valuation methodologies underpinning hope value are well understood, professionally governed and economically rational. They are consistent with option valuations in financial markets, although I am not sure they go so far as to use the Black-Scholes option pricing model.
If a site has no realistic prospect of future development, its hope value will naturally be nil or negligible. However, where a site has a reasonable expectation of future change in use, reflected in prices agreed between buyers and sellers, we must ask why the Government or local authorities should be entitled to disregard that. In doing so, they risk ignoring market signals and distorting resource allocation. If the market values a piece of land as having the future potential for residential development but the authority wants to use it for a different, potentially less efficient use, that should prompt reflection, not concealment.
In a helpful Written Answer following Second Reading, the Minister set out the intended application of these provisions. That response included reference to land for educational and health purposes but also to housing, and not necessarily affordable housing. That gives little comfort. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has moved her Amendment 209B, which seeks to expand this to recreational facilities. Needless to say, we do not support that.
We are told that the powers will be used to support affordable housing schemes, but in practice the drafting is broad, the safeguards are weak, and I see no mechanism that protects landowners should the purpose of the CPO change after acquisition. Could the Minister clarify? Would these provisions still apply if the land were no longer used for the original purpose stated in the CPO? Clear guidance—or, better still, an amendment to the Bill—could help to avoid costly litigation in the years to come.
The Minister’s letter also cited examples where removing hope value might help to bring forward certain sites, such as brownfield land where viability is an issue, infill plots, and allocated sites that have not yet come forward, but that analysis does not hold. If viability truly is an issue, the hope value will already be low or nil, and on infill or allocated sites it is not the price that delays development but the length and complexity of the planning process and the delays caused by responses from statutory consultees and agencies.
I hope I have persuaded the Committee that removing hope value does not unlock land or accelerate housing delivery. On the contrary, it undermines property rights, weakens trust in the planning system and may ultimately deter landowners from bringing land forward.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 227G, which stands in my name. This amendment would insert a new clause after Clause 106 that would require the Secretary of State, within one month of the Bill being passed, to publish a report on whether the exercise of compulsory purchase powers by local authorities remains compatible with the rights and freedoms protected under the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 1 of Protocol 1, “Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions”.
The issue relating to Clause 105 is that it allows acquiring authorities, when calculating compensation for compulsorily purchased land, to exclude hope value. That is so even where that hope value is genuine, long-established and grounded in realistic prospects of future development. This risks leaving landowners with compensation that does not reflect the true value of what they are losing. Indeed, it is not just a risk; it is more than that, and it will surely come to pass. There is also no statutory mechanism preventing acquired land later being disposed of at full value—potentially by a private entity—without redress to the original owner. This raises clear questions of fairness, proportionality and potential misuse of public power, and I look to the Minister for clarification on this.
Equally troubling is the absence of safeguards to ensure that land taken compulsorily is actually used for its intended purpose and not sold on later for profit, with no compensation or benefit to the original owner. This risks opening the door to misuse of state power; it diminishes public trust. This would be contrary to the principles of fair dealing that were established at least 70 years ago and have been acted on by Governments of all persuasions ever since.
In this, I refer to the Crichel Down affair, which should be etched on every Minister’s heart. This was a British Government scandal in the 1950s. It involved the compulsory purchase of agricultural land in Dorset for RAF bombing practice. The land was later transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture. The ministry then significantly increased the land’s price, making it unaffordable for the original owner’s successors. The ensuing public inquiry, which criticised the ministry’s actions, led to the resignation of the Minister of Agriculture—note that; the resignation—and the establishment of the Crichel Down rules. This requires government departments to offer surplus land back to former owners or their successors.
Although this situation is not exactly the same as the one my amendment addresses, the mischief is similar. The principles underlying it should be no different. It is called “fair dealing”. I invite the Minister to say plainly that, where property is taken by compulsion, there must always be fair dealing.
The Crichel Down scandal established that principle. Public bodies making use of CPOs should not later, if they change their minds, make a financial gain at the expense of the original landowner—so much for the English common-law position. As I have explained, those principles apply to a different but comparable position to that which this amendment addresses.
I turn shortly to Article 6 of the convention. This requires access to an effective remedy, yet the opacity around how compensation is assessed in the absence of procedural safeguards in some cases may give rise to a challenge under that provision.
This amendment does not seek to obstruct regeneration; it seeks legal clarity, transparency and reassurance that the Government remain committed to fair dealing and to honouring their obligations under the convention. I urge the Minister to recognise the importance of these protections and accept the need for a report when the Bill becomes law.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 325 in this group but, first, I would like to support the remarks made by my noble friends Lord Roborough and Lord Sandhurst. I echo what has been said about compulsory purchase orders. We live in a country that is meant to have property rights. What can be worse than forcibly removing property that someone rightfully owns? Which one of us would like our property to be compulsorily removed?
Generally, in the past, this has been done only for huge infrastructure projects—not that that makes it better for those whose property it affects. It has been rarely done, although we have just heard of a very awful example from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. However, I am sure that many of your Lordships will have read about the property removed to make way for HS2: the family farms that were taken and the homes that people had to leave. Do the general public really think this is a good thing? Surely, it is a human rights abuse. The Bill incentivises this approach by allowing acquiring agencies to buy the land at agricultural prices and then sell it on for development. We are meant to be making life easier and better for people, not causing utter misery.
I thank noble Lords who have allowed me to insert Amendment 325 into the group. Amendment 325 would insert new subsection (2A) into Clause 83 to ensure that fields used by people to graze their animals and high-quality agricultural land that could be used for food production cannot be compulsorily purchased by Natural England as part of its environmental delivery plans.
I spoke earlier in the debate about how one of the advantages of living in a democracy is that we have these property rights. In the Bill, there are provisions to make compulsory purchase easier and for local authorities to be able to seize land more cheaply, as I just said, where it is required for new development.
I spoke last week about how high-quality agricultural land should be used to produce food, which is in proposed new paragraph (b) of this amendment, so I will not repeat all that we talked about then. I would like to focus on proposed new paragraph (a), which concerns
“land … that is in personal use for the grazing of animals”.
People who have a few fields, for horses, donkeys or maybe llamas, goats, the odd pet sheep or anything else, need those fields to keep their livestock and pets. These fields are often on the outskirts of villages or towns. They therefore look rather attractive for development but, if this land were removed, what would happen to the animals and livestock?
A while ago, the Prime Minister himself purchased a field, so that his mother could care for neglected donkeys. Sadly, she has now died and the field has been sold, but what would have happened if this field had been taken while it was being used for the donkeys? In short, as I have said before, I believe that compulsory purchase—seizing someone’s property—is against human rights and should be used by a Government in only the most extreme of circumstances, and that land that is being utilised for family animals should never be considered.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I start by declaring that I have shares in a family company that owns a farm in the Midlands. To avoid giving a Second Reading speech, and to save us all quite a lot of time, I will jump over what I was going to say on Amendment 210 and just say that I agree thoroughly with the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Sandhurst, on those matters. After all, so-called hope value is just another term for what the market is prepared to pay—in other words, market value.
When we look at land, the owner may already have paid inheritance tax on it, invested in its maintenance and improvement, and spent substantial sums, time and effort seeking planning permission. For the state or local authority simply to swipe the increase in value that the owner has nurtured and invested in over the years is not only deeply unjust but a powerful disincentive to bring forward land for development, for EDPs or anything else.
There is a different perspective, at least in the case of land: the increase of value may be derived from societal need—for example, space for housing—rather than entirely from the efforts and investments of the owner of that land. As such, perhaps society should be entitled to at least a share of the uplift in value. But it already is. The state, without lifting a finger, receives at least 20% capital gains tax on the price achieved by all vendors and other very valuable benefits in exchange for granting planning permission—in the form of planning conditions, Section 106 agreements and so on.
We will be discussing the closely related matter of compulsory purchase shortly in subsequent amendments, but this is on hope value. In February 2025, the Compulsory Purchase Association, in its response to the consultation on the process and rules for compulsory purchase, had strong objections to the removal of hope value on the grounds that it would—I will try to list these briefly: make the development process slower and more complex; produce distortions in a two-tier market with some land taken from its owners subject to the removal of hope value via compulsory purchase and some land sold at true market price; discourage developers and owners from promoting land for allocation or development; encourage owners to fight attempts to compel them to part with their property; and have equalities impacts on the human rights of those affected—for example, through potential abuse by acquiring authorities and time pressure put on owners to accept terms. As one lawyer in a government department put it to me recently, compulsory purchase brings people to the table. I would argue that it brings them to their knees. Finally, it would damage the reputation of the compulsory purchase process as a fair and equal one.
There is a case for society to capture some of the value from development. As I have tried briefly to illustrate, society already does so in the form of significant tax and planning conditions. The real issue is not to confiscate hope value but to ensure that land, once given planning permission by the state, is actually developed. This requires, first, a review of how long a planning permission can run before being lost, and, secondly, an end to the practice of a planning permission being acquired with the expectation that, for example, affordable housing percentages will later be haggled downwards. Contractual obligations in this area need to be far tougher. Putting together the time limit and this contractual aspect with limited planning permissions would address issues such as land banking, which are the subject of other amendments. I support this amendment because such state confiscations would be an economic mistake and a deeply negative pressure on the possibility of land being brought forward voluntarily. I look forward, albeit with some scepticism, to hearing the Minister’s response to this amendment.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 211. I support what my noble friend Lord Roborough said on it, and indeed what my noble friend Lord Sandhurst said on his amendment.
I was a chartered surveyor back in 1976 when development land tax was introduced, and I recall the disastrous effect it had on the market for land becoming available for development. There is no doubt that clauses such as those we have in the Bill will have the same deleterious effect on the natural process of buying and selling land and encouraging landowners to provide land for development and therefore fulfil some of the housing needs of this country.
It seems to me quite wrong to get rid of hope value in the way that the Government are doing. It is not, in the words of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, a fair deal. It is unjust. I too remember the Crichel Down case, which my noble friend mentioned. In fact, I remember talking to Lord Nugent of Guildford, the Minister who resigned over the affair. That shows how old I am now, but it reinforces my dislike of the chances of the land not being returned to the original owner. That is the purport of Amendment 211. I wish my noble friend Lord Nugent was still alive and in his place, because he would be able to give an erudite summary of the difficult problems. I hope that the Government will think again on this issue.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their amendments in this group. Amendments 209B and 209C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seek to amend Clause 105 and expand the power introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act for compulsory purchase orders to be confirmed with directions for the non-payment of hope value compensation where justified in the public interest. The amendments propose to extend the types of CPOs for which directions removing hope value may be sought to CPOs for the provision of sporting and recreational facilities. The amendments seek to introduce a change so that CPOs for the provision of sporting and recreational facilities would not have to facilitate affordable housing provision when seeking directions removing hope value.
While the Government recognise the value of parks and playing fields to our communities—we had a very interesting debate on this subject twice in last week’s Committee—I am afraid we are not able to support these amendments. The non-payment of hope value to landowners through the use of CPO powers must be proportionate and carefully justified in the public interest.
Affordable housing, education and health are types of public sector-led development where the public benefits to be facilitated through the non-payment of hope value can be directly demonstrable to local communities. The Government have concerns that the public benefits and the justification for lower compensation for landowners are likely to be less compelling for sporting and recreational facilities. The proposed changes could make it difficult for authorities to justify directions removing hope value in the public interest, as the benefits to be delivered are clearly less identifiable.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for his Amendment 210. This seeks to repeal Section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961, which provides the power for CPOs to be confirmed with directions removing hope value where justified in the public interest for certain types of schemes. The amendment also seeks to remove Clause 105 from the Bill, which proposes to expand the direction power to CPOs made on behalf of town and parish councils for schemes that include affordable housing, and to make the process for determining CPOs with directions more efficient. The amendment would remove the power, which was introduced, as he rightly said, by the last Government under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. It allows authorities to take forward certain types of schemes by compulsory purchase, and to pay reduced value for land where it will deliver clear and significant benefits and is justified in the public interest. To support the delivery of housing and infrastructure that this country desperately needs, we must make better use of underutilised land across the country. We know that many local authorities share this objective, but their plans can be delayed by heightened expectations of land values by landowners. This can result in the delivery of benefits to the public through the building of homes, transport links and schools being more costly, and significant amounts of developable land remaining unused.
The Government are committed to improving land assembly, speeding up site delivery and delivering development for the benefit of communities. We also remain committed to ensuring that landowners are awarded fair compensation where compulsory purchase powers are used to deliver schemes in the public interest. I therefore kindly ask the noble Lord not to move his amendment.
Amendment 211, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would require Natural England to return any land obtained through compulsory purchase orders where the value of the work carried out exceeded the price of the original contract offered to the landowner. I thank him for his amendment. As noble Lords will be aware, we will discuss the nature restoration fund and the role and powers granted to Natural England in more detail later this afternoon. To successfully deliver this new strategic approach, we must ensure that Natural England has sufficient powers and resources to implement the conservation measures required. We expect Natural England to consider using compulsory purchase powers only once other options to acquire the land have been exhausted, especially trying to acquire that land by agreement. Where land is acquired by compulsory purchase, this will be subject to appropriate scrutiny and oversight, including authorisation by the Secretary of State. The landowner will receive compensation in line with the existing approach.
Requiring Natural England to return land in the circumstances set out in the amendment would undermine the rationale for allowing Natural England to have these powers in the first place. Some conservation measures will require Natural England to acquire land, whether by agreement or, where the Secretary of State considers it appropriate, through compulsory purchase. Having this range of options provides certainty that conservation measures can be delivered. It is fundamental to the Secretary of State being satisfied that the overall improvement test will be met.
In line with the safeguards provided in the Bill, if land were required to be returned as envisaged by this amendment, this could lead to the environmental delivery plan needing to be amended because conservation measures would no longer be delivering as intended. That would reduce the amount of development that the EDP would cover; increase cost to developers; or trigger the need to revoke the EDP, requiring the Secretary of State to consider appropriate remedial action to ensure that the impact of development is addressed in line with the overall improvement test.
I recognise that the use of compulsory purchase powers is an issue close to the hearts of many noble Lords. However, I trust that the Committee can recognise the need for these targeted powers, to ensure that the nature recovery fund delivers the much-needed win-win for nature and development. In a meeting with Natural England and a number of noble Lords who are here today, Natural England said that it had used the power only three times ever. I do not anticipate it doing this all the time.
Lord Roborough (Con)
In relation to Amendment 211, can the Minister indicate whether a CPO would happen only once a landowner or farmer had been offered a contract to carry out the EDP works themselves—after they had been offered the option of doing the work that Natural England was intending to do on that land under its CPO ownership?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I cannot give the noble Lord that reassurance this afternoon. I am sure that he will understand that that is not included in the Bill at the moment—he may want to consider something on that later—but I understand the reason that he is saying it. We have, however, said very clearly that there will be the possibility for the private sector to contribute to EDPs. We are encouraging our colleagues in Natural England to develop that further.
Amendment 325, tabled by the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Hodgson, would restrict Natural England’s ability to use CPO powers to purchase land that is in use for the grazing of animals or is high-quality agricultural land. As I have just set out, there is an extremely high bar for the compulsory purchase powers under the NRF, with the Secretary of State having to approve any use of these powers. As I said in my response to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, there is a clear need to ensure that CPO is available, albeit with this very high bar. The use or future use of land will of course be taken into consideration by the Secretary of State, and I set out earlier this afternoon the consideration in both the land-use framework and the NPPF that land in other use must be considered before resorting to agricultural land. The Secretary of State will take that into consideration when considering whether to allow the CPO, and will ensure that sensible choices are made that align with the Government’s wider objectives, not least in respect of food security, which is a discussion we have had many times in your Lordships’ House. With this explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
Amendment 227G, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, relates to the use of compulsory purchase powers and compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. It seeks to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament, within one month of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, a report assessing whether the rights of individuals under the European Convention on Human Rights are adequately protected in the exercise of compulsory purchase powers by local authorities.
The power to compulsorily acquire a person’s land is a draconian power which engages the ECHR and raises questions of common-law fairness; I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, referred to that himself. A fundamental principle of the compulsory purchase process is that the confirming authority should be sure that the purposes for which a compulsory purchase power is proposed justify interfering with the human rights of those with an interest in the land affected. Acquiring authorities must demonstrate to the confirming authority that such an interference is so justified. When making their decision on whether there is a compelling case in the public interest for each individual CPO, the confirming authority must always give consideration to the provisions of Article 1 and, in the case of a dwelling, Article 8 of the ECHR and the impact of the proposed CPO on the individuals affected.
The compulsory purchase process also enables the exchange of written representations and the holding of inquiries and hearings into objections conducted by an independent inspector, reporting to the Secretary of State, whose decision is subject to legal challenge to uphold the rights enshrined in Article 6 of the ECHR. When justifying their CPOs, the Government guidance on compulsory purchase is clear that acquiring authorities should address the potential harm to private rights and how the impacts on human rights from the respective order have been considered. The compulsory purchase process already provides protections to the rights of individuals affected by compulsory purchase and, for these reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very detailed response to this group of amendments, but I am rather disappointed that the Government did not feel able to add a public recreational use to land that is to be disregarded for hope value by acquiring authorities.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
“Building regulations: swift bricks(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, introduce regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 (power to make building regulations) to make provision for the installation of an average of one swift brick per dwelling or unit greater than 5 metres in height.(2) Regulations must require the installation of swift bricks in line with best practice guidance, except where such installation is not practicable or appropriate.(3) For the purposes of this section—“swift brick” means an integral nest box integrated into the wall of a building suitable for the nesting of the common swift and other cavity nesting species;“best practice guidance” means the British Standard BS 42021:2022.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to require the installation of integral bird nest boxes and swift boxes in developments greater than 5 metres in height. Swift bricks provide nesting habitat for all bird species reliant on cavity nesting habitat in buildings to breed.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
In the absence of my noble friend Lord Goldsmith, I shall move Amendment 212, to which I have added my name. My noble friend sends his apologies to the Committee that he is detained elsewhere and cannot be here today. I am grateful, as is he, that my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Hintze have also added their names to the amendment.
At the beginning of our deliberations today, the Government Whip exhorted that we have swift debates, and I have moved a swift amendment. So, I am helping the Government yet again.
This is a subject we discussed in the levelling-up Bill and it was mentioned at Second Reading of this Bill. It is a simple amendment, which is probably why I am able to speak to it. It asks that a swift brick, which allows a swift potentially to breed in it, be added when a new build is made. This would apply only when appropriate. I point that out because some people have said that it may not always be appropriate.
I am sure that Members of this House know all about swifts, but here is a very brief résumé. They are migrants that come here quite late—normally at the end of April or in May—having flown all the way from sub-Saharan Africa or the Congo Basin. They do not stop flying. They mate on the wing. The only time they are not flying is when they are nesting.
These poor swifts have been declining in numbers. There may be a variety of reasons, such as a lack of insects and so forth, but one reason that has been identified is the success of insulation in houses. Cavity insulation means that the nesting areas that would normally be under eaves or wherever are not there. Imagine these poor swifts: they have flown all the way from the Congo, they are looking forward to going into the building that generations of swifts have been going to and they find that it is effectively blocked up.
The simple thing we are asking for is that the swift brick is placed in building regulations. I have a feeling that the Government might suggest that this could be planning policy, but I do not think that that is sufficient. I cannot understand why Governments—the previous Government were a little shy on this as well—will not accept this. I know that some people think it is perhaps overregulation or burdensome, and I heard it whispered, but I could not believe it is true, that there is lobbying from developers and builders. I cannot believe that that could in any way influence a Government, so I just ask the Government to reconsider.
This is in fact a great opportunity because, literally just a year ago, I think by a few days, campaigners, including my noble friend Lord Goldsmith, the swift campaigner the indefatigable Hannah Bourne-Taylor and others—I will not mention them all—met the then Secretary of State in Defra, the right honourable Steve Reed. He said that they were pushing at an open door because Defra has always been in favour—they are the friends of the environment—but sometimes other departments get in the way. This is therefore a great opportunity because we now have a convert to swift bricks in the ideal position to sanction this particular thing, so I am hoping that it can be done. It has been done successfully elsewhere, such as in Gibraltar. Some people might ask what happens if swifts do not come in. Other birds, including house sparrows, which are not as common as they used to be, can also utilise them, so it as a very good measure.
I say, finally, to the Government Benches that some of the measures in this Bill have not been quite to the flavour of environmental groups and members of the public who think that their language on bats and newts was a little bit extreme. So, in that same spirit of helping the Government regardless of the political party and in order to help them to get a win-win, this is the ideal time to allow this measure and put it into the Bill.
I support the other amendments in this group: Amendments 225—to which I have added my name—227GA and 338. I wanted to make sure that this is a swift debate. I beg to move.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I also support all the amendments in this group, which I think would support the Government’s stated aim to help nature in this Bill by making sure that the places that we build for humans at least minimise harm to wildlife and, in the case of swift bricks, actually help it.
I speak to Amendment 225 in my name and thank the noble Lords who have also put their names to it and support it. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on bird-safe design of buildings and to ensure that new buildings and significant changes to existing but not exempted heritage buildings incorporate this guidance as far as is practicable. Incorporating this amendment would not only bring the United Kingdom into alignment with what is seen in other jurisdictions around the world but would make the UK the first to introduce national bird safety legislation, which is something that could provide a welcome positive message for the Government to project.
I know that there are broader environmental concerns with the Bill, which we shall come on to later tonight, but the potential positive effects of this single amendment are enormous. Remember that the number of birds thought to be killed by flying into glass in buildings in the UK is over 30 million per year. The problems are simple. First, birds cannot see glass. Clear glass or glass that is reflecting nearby trees or sky is a hazard. Secondly, at night, artificial lighting, particularly in tall buildings, can disorientate migrating birds, making them end up circling the lights until they are exhausted and crash into a building.
The solutions are also simple, well researched and legislated for in many places. I have been able to base the wording of this amendment on that in many other jurisdictions, such as San Francisco, which has mandated bird-safe standards since 2011, Washington DC, New York, Portland in Oregon, Toronto, Calgary, Hesse and Zurich. There are also bird-safe design guides based on 40 years’ worth of research that can provide an easy reference from the United States, Canada and Singapore. We have experts in the UK too. They all agree on some simple features of buildings to avoid—essentially, ones that make it look as though a bird can fly through safely to reach sky or a perch in a tree, but where there is actually a sheet of lethal glass. These can be removed through thoughtful architectural design, or you can use bird-safe glass. That is simply glass that is made visible to birds, either through patterns that we can also see or through patterns that reflect ultraviolet, which are invisible to us but visible to birds.
Research has shown that specific patterns, such as lines no thinner than two millimetres, spaced no wider than 50 millimetres apart, can effectively stop a bird flying into glass—a more than 90% reduction in collisions in tests. These test centres can therefore certify bird-safe glass, and there are many designs available from different manufacturers, including the UK’s Pilkington glass, which has a certified variety.
Then there is night-time lighting. Many cities around the world now have lights-out times. Even New York’s Twin Towers memorial beams get switched off for periods during bird migrations to help birds escape their fatal attraction. In the UK, awareness of this problem and its simple solutions is surprisingly low compared to North America. Experts I have spoken to around the world were delighted to hear from me, because they think of Britain as being so far behind in bird-safe buildings despite a world-leading status in so much animal welfare research and legislation. This amendment could put us back as global leaders in having the first national bird safety legislation, it would help put the Bill in line with the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, as the Animal Sentience Committee has already pointed out, and it could save tens of millions of birds every year.
As for the cost, producing guidelines is easy, as I say, given the plethora of sources already available. Bird-safe architectural design is also easy once you know the guidelines. In a double win, many of the coatings and shades that help make glass less dangerous to birds also help with thermal issues and energy efficiency in glass buildings. The regulations on night-time lighting could help energy efficiency too. The cost of glass varies depending on specifications, but manufacturers that I have spoken to estimate that, at the moment, the cost of bird-safe glass in commercial buildings is about 5% more than normal glass and about 10% more for a domestic glazing unit, but all have said that those costs would come down quickly with scale. Not only that, but bird-safe glass apparently used to be made here in the UK, with 90% of it exported to projects in China, Europe and North America, driven by their legislation. With the market mainly being overseas, manufacturers have now mostly moved from the UK to Germany to follow demand, but could return if we caught up with global bird-safe legislation.
Amendment 225 seems to me an example of the much sought after win-win. Putting it into this Bill, alongside others in this group, would help demonstrate the Government’s stated commitment to helping nature and nature recovery, alongside helping British businesses and not slowing down any housebuilding. I very much hope that the Minister will agree.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Grender, I will speak to her Amendment 338. I am grateful, as I am sure she would be if she were here, for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon. This is a debate where I think we are going to have unanimity around the House; we on these Benches agree with all the amendments in this group. I will make a few swift points about the specifics of the amendment from my noble friend, which is about homes for nature at the same time as homes for people; it would amend building regulations to protect biodiversity in all new developments.
If we are to have homes where nature can live, feed and breed, we will have to take specific measures. I absolutely support what the noble Lord, Lord Randall, articulated so well in moving the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. I am not going to talk about swift bricks, which are included in the amendment from my noble friend Lady Grender, but I want to talk about some of the other very much endangered species which it also covers, including bird boxes, bat boxes and hedgehog highways.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I give the Green group’s strongest possible support for all the amendments in this group. I am pleased to say that my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb is recovering well from her operation last week.
If there is one amendment that my noble friend will regret not being here for, it is Amendment 212 on swift bricks. She is very passionate about swifts, and is it any wonder? These amazing creatures, with their top speed of 110 kilometres per hour, travelling 5,500 kilometres each way for their migrations, are long-distance athletes. They are making that journey, and then finding nowhere to raise their young. That is the reality of what we, by our actions, have created. Of course, they are now red-listed.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall, has already set this out very clearly and carefully, and the other noble Baronesses have already said a lot. I just note that, when we debated a very similar amendment to what is now the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, then on the Opposition Benches, said that she was “delighted” to see the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that it was
“justified because of the unique nature of these precious birds’ nesting habits ”.—[Official Report, 6/9/23; col. 541.]
and that it had the Labour Party’s full support. Can we get to there, please? This is such a small measure. Why not? It is such a tiny action and a small cost. Yet, if you are a swift, this is not a small thing. This is a matter of life or extinction.
The other amendments are on other things we need to do, but there is a lot of discussion that the situation of swifts is unique. I fully back the hedgehog highways, the gaps in fences and other simple things, but swift bricks are just so simple.
Amendment 225, which was clearly introduced by the noble Baroness, is on bird-safe buildings. The British Trust for Ornithology has done a great deal of work on this, estimating that 100 million birds crash into the windows of buildings in the UK each year. One-third die as a result. That is a huge toll that is almost invisible. Back in 2022, the BTO did some research looking at local planning rules and essentially, there is no protection in any of our major cities and communities.
I will take noble Lords back to a case study that illustrates what happens on a day-to-day basis. It happened in a single day, so it really made an impact. Back in 2023 in Chicago, as a result of citizen science efforts, all the sad carcasses of more than 1,000 birds that had flown into one building in the US were collected. You may recall the pictures; a huge array of bird bodies was laid out. As was set out then, some very simple measures would have stopped that happening—the measures this amendment calls for.
Amendment 227GA is in my name and has considerable similarities to the amendment introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, but perhaps goes a little further. It says that, within 18 months of this Act coming into force—I am allowing more time because this is much broader than what we need for swifts—regulations under the Building Act should be brought in to protect, and to ensure
“opportunities for living and feeding space for nature, mammals, birds, reptiles and insects”.
I also talk about the need for resources for plants.
The inspiration for this is probably not unique, but fairly unusual. It comes from an exhibition now on—I urge noble Lords to go and see it—at the Design Museum. It is called “More than Human” and is the first major exhibition of a growing movement of more than human design: a new generation of designers who understand that humans can flourish only alongside other activities and systems. It is part of the future observatory, the Design Museum’s national research programme for the green transition.
Let me give one example. There is a piece of artwork by Andres Jaque, “Transspecies Rosette”. It is a piece of a façade of a building made of cork, which is ideal for mosses, grasses, bacteria and mould. Normally, the façade of a building is designed to be impermeable—to stop anything growing and to keep everything out. What if we turned that around, and started to think about what a different kind of society would look like? I will very briefly mention “Sculpture for Octopuses” by Shimabuku, who experimented to see what colours octopuses liked and made artwork as a result.
I will conclude with a recollection from my youth. In 1988 I was a young journalist, and some Australians were marking the bicentenary of the start of the genocide of the Aboriginal people and the massive destruction of the environment of Australia that followed. The Australian parliament building was opened, but it was bogong moth migration season, and almost immediately the building filled up with bogong moths. No one had thought about this. They had brought in British western design traditions, plonked them down in Australia, and that was the result. So many decades later, the bogong moth, which the Aboriginal communities had feasted on over centuries—they had eaten them but also protected them—is now on the IUCN red list. It is gravely endangered. Something that, only decades ago, existed in great numbers is now threatened with extinction. We have to stop making buildings that have that kind of impact.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I will be even swifter than the noble Lord, Lord Randall. There are some good ideas in these amendments. If we can protect bats in the belfry and great crested newts in the pond, why can we not do the same for swifts? They are such wonderful birds.
I am also interested in Amendment 225, because I have witnessed, very distressingly, quite a few birds smashing into windows and glass on my small farm in mid-Wales. To see these beautiful creatures lying on the ground, either stunned or dead, is very upsetting. Any efforts we could make to protect our dwindling bird population from crashing into buildings is to be supported.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I speak from a building that is full of moths—but I have never tried eating them.
I approve of Amendment 227GA, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle; it goes to the root of the fact that we must find ways of living with and closer to nature. It ought to be slightly more detailed, so that I am allowed to exclude mice, but the overall principle—that we provide for wildlife living alongside us—is right.
Although I have had provision for swifts for the past 15 years, it has never had a swift in it—principally, I think, because there are probably not enough insects for the swifts to live on. We therefore need to provide a full habitat and not just a nesting place. Swift bricks sound far too much like an easy exit for the Government that will allow them to say, “Tick. Don’t need to do anything more”. I very much hope they can be tempted in the direction that the noble Baroness has outlined for them.
I also hope that they will do something about birds crashing into glass. It is simple: there are technical solutions, and we can live with them. We ought not to do this to birds. Just change the rules and, over time, we will do much less damage.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Randall’s amendment, but I ask the Government not to accept it. I do that for two reasons. First, swifts are not the only migratory birds to come back on migration. Secondly, I believe that if the Government conceded to swifts, they would be able to say, “We’ve done something, we’ve pleased the environmental lobby and now we need not do anything more”. That is a typical reaction of government. I am therefore more attracted to Amendments 225 and 227GA.
The noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, reminded us that 30 million birds in the UK get killed on migration. In America, the figure is up to 1 billion, and in Canada it is over 40 million. In this country, cats do not cause as many bird deaths, but they are responsible for a significant number. Therefore, we need to look at this subject much more holistically.
On the question of migration, a huge problem was identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, when she discussed the convention centre in Chicago. I would like to add a PS to her story about 1,000 birds in a single night. Since some people have done the simple remedial work of applying small white dots and a two-inch grid pattern to the surface of windows, there has been a 95% reduction in fatalities during the migration period. That is a bonus for the environment and biodiversity that we should aim for.
I will mention one thing that other noble Lords have not mentioned: the planting around buildings. It has been proven that birds get very confused by some types of hedging and trees. When that is reflected in the glass, it disorientates the birds. Although we are all pressing for more trees, shrubbery and greenery, we need to be very careful that we are not building in bird deaths in the process. I hope that the Government will take a holistic look at this and do something that benefits biodiversity and the birds.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, this is the first time I have had the opportunity to congratulate the Minister on surviving the Defra ministerial massacre. I am absolutely delighted and hope she enjoins all her female colleagues in her attempts to improve the environment.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 212, to which I was delighted to add my name. I am conscious that this may seem like a single-minded approach, but it matters in a particular way. I say that because it is widely known that swifts are now on the conservation red list. They moved from green to amber in 2009 and to red in 2015. Between 1995 and 2021 there was a 62% decline. My noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge set out eloquently that some of this is about habitat and food but also about places for the birds to rest.
When I was in the Commons, I tried to press the case with other Ministers, but also as a Member of Parliament. I used to represent the parts of the east coast of the country that have a very natural stopping point for many migratory birds. In fact, Felixstowe port, in the words of Coldplay, has lights to guide them home. It is a very prominent place for many migratory birds, leading to the excellent and well-known Landguard reserve, as well as the RSPB’s world-famous Minsmere reserve up the coast.
On the subject of light, I am conscious of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon. I would not necessarily want us to turn everywhere into a dark space when such lights may well be needed for safety in other commercial activities. But that does not mean we have them just for the sake of it.
On swift bricks, councils can already put in their plan that buildings are supposed to have swift bricks. I know that East Suffolk council has that in its plan, but it does not enforce it. We come back to the age-old arguments, “It’s going to add cost to development”, “It’s not convenient” and all these other things. We need to take action to stop the decline not only of this species but of many others. I am conscious that there is another amendment in this group which refers to a wider element.
The estimated cost of this brick is between £20 and £35. I genuinely do not believe that puts it beyond profitability. Frankly, that would be hard to swallow in terms of consideration of the cost of a particular house. But, as has been said, the Minister, when in opposition, thought this would be a slam dunk. It has already been yet another easy decision for Steve Reed, the new Secretary of State at MHCLG, to make—in the past it was actually MHCLG and probably the Treasury that held these things up.
There is another bird which often nests and is often thought to be similar to a swift. It is the house martin, and all I will say is, give us a happy hour and make sure we can have the swifts going for the future for evermore.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I congratulated the noble Baroness in Grand Committee last week and I am delighted to be able to repeat my congratulations today. It is lovely to see her in her place.
I have considerable sympathy for Amendment 212, moved by my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I saw in the press last week that my noble friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park had been married, and I assume he is on honeymoon. My noble friend said he was being detained in another place, which makes it sound like a rather interesting honeymoon.
However, moving swiftly on, the swifts are magnificent birds, but swifts in the UK have experienced a severe population decline, with numbers falling by over 60% between 1995 and 2022. That has now placed them on the red list of birds of conservation concern. This alarming drop is primarily due to the loss of suitable nesting sites and buildings, as my noble friend said, and a reduction in their insect food supply. Modern buildings lack the crevices and cavities swifts need, while building renovations and demolitions destroy their existing nests. A widespread lack of insects further threatens their survival, impacting their ability to raise young.
I have the privilege of serving on the Council of Europe, and I go to Strasbourg four times a year. It is amazing the number of swifts one sees there. That is because, in the old part of Strasbourg, near the cathedral in Place Gutenberg, there are thousands of these old-fashioned buildings with cavities, crevices and little garrets, and what I consider to be holes all over the roof, which are perfect for swifts. Last year, for some reason, there were hardly any and we were infested with midges and mosquitoes. This year, one could sit outside with a little glass of wine and watch hundreds of them at dusk, swooping and diving, with no midges or mosquitoes. They had the right facilities for them to nest and they had them there.
The cost of swift bricks is roughly £30. One can get more expensive ones, of course, but they are not necessary. The Government might say that, if they make it compulsory for all buildings to have swift bricks, that will drive up the cost of housing. But not all housing is suitable for these bricks and buildings need to be higher than five metres above ground. Even if all the 300,000 houses were suitable, and if the ideal three boxes per house were installed, we are looking at £90 per house or £18 million for the whole 300,000 homes. The Government’s green levy for their fanatical drive for net zero will add 20% to all heating bills. Last year, it was an extra £30 per household. As from 1 April this year, the average household has had an increase of £9.25 to its monthly bill. That £111 is far in excess of the cost of swift bricks.
The Government are splashing out about £7,500 per household on subsidising heat pumps, and they have paid out more than £148 million for heat pump installations through the boiler upgrade scheme as of May 2024, with additional funding planned to bring the total up to £1.5 billion until March 2028. That is £1.5 billion for inadequate heat pumps, so do not tell us that a £30 brick would drive up housing costs to unacceptable levels. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers to that.
As far as the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, is concerned, I am not fully up to speed on the cost of safety glass, but I can comment on the comments by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. Up at our house in Penrith, we plant an awful lot of trees near the window. The trees are full of nesting birds, but we found that the reflection from the glass was causing bird strikes. The problem was quickly solved, because one can get packets of little decals at three for £5 to put on the windows. Since then, it has not been a 90% drop: it has been a 100% drop—no deaths. I am not sure that is a solution for commercial buildings or high-rise ones, but one can stop all these bird deaths in ordinary houses by simple, cheap decals that you can get from the RSPB, and the decals can say anything they like.
On Amendment 338, I can only make a personal comment. If colleagues wish to go to the new government building in Peterborough, a building which houses the Passport Office, Natural England, the Environment Agency, Defra and the JNCC, in the foyer they will find something called the Blencathra—a green wall. This came about when I served on the JNCC a few years ago. The new government building was designed, and late on in the day they shared the design with all the organisations that were to occupy it. They boasted that the windows were 100% net zero, the air conditioning was net zero, and everything else was net zero. I said, “But have you got any greenery in the place?” Ah, no, they had not thought of that. We could not put anything on the roof—it was full of air conditioning and other things—so after a considerable battle we got a green wall inside.
I appreciate that that might not be a full answer to the amendments moved by the noble Baroness. I do not suggest that we should have a compulsory law on this—that would drive up enormous costs—but, if organisations are willing to do it, the solution is quite simple.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting debate on the planning features around birds and other wildlife. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Blencathra, for their kind welcome of the fact I am still here in front of noble Lords today.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for tabling this amendment, and to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for introducing it so swiftly and beautifully. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Freeman, Lady Grender and Lady Bennett, for their amendments; I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for introducing the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, on her behalf. These amendments seek to use building regulations to mandate the use of swift bricks; seek to require buildings to include measures to prevent bird fatality; and seek to require developers to use a range of elements to support wildlife.
The protection of species is crucial to ensuring the health of our ecosystems and the growth of our natural capital. I fully support the objective of increasing biodiversity and ensuring that new development contributes positively to nature. The Government acknowledge the dramatic decline of swifts, which we have heard about during this debate, alongside much of our other most precious wildlife. We are committed to driving nature’s recovery while building the homes that we desperately need.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall, mentioned being converted to swift bricks. I assure him that I have already been converted to them and other building materials that can be used to increase wildlife. What we are looking at here, though, is how we can go about achieving that, not whether we support it in principle; in principle, we do. We do not believe that building regulations are the best route to achieving the objective of protecting species and providing habitats alongside new homes.
This is because building regulations in the UK are focused primarily on safeguarding the health, safety and well-being of individuals in and around buildings. They have not, historically, been applied to the protection of wildlife or biodiversity. Expanding their scope to include measures aimed at conserving species would represent a significant shift in regulatory intent. Such an expansion would also place considerable additional pressure on a system that is already adapting to the enhanced requirements introduced by the Building Safety Act.
The planning system is, we believe, the more appropriate route to secure these outcomes. Existing protections in planning policy support the use of wildlife-friendly features in and around new buildings to improve biodiversity. The national design guidance also promotes biodiversity enhancement through site-specific measures to support biodiversity net gains at the neighbourhood, street and household levels, as well as encouraging the protection and improvement of existing areas of valuable biodiversity—including through wildlife-friendly features.
Many animals in England are already protected by law. How development proposals need to consider these animals varies from species to species. We expect local planning authorities to use the standing advice published by Natural England to assess whether a planning application would harm or disturb a protected species. In particular, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, it is an offence to kill, injure or disturb wild birds.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I was a bit remiss in not congratulating the Minister on remaining in post. Prime Ministers make, from time to time, crazy decisions—I have seen it happen—but nothing would have been crazier than to remove the noble Baroness from her position. That is why I did not even think about it.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this very interesting debate. It is a subject that I care very passionately about. I agree with my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord Lucas, but I am testing the Government to see whether they can get one tiny thing through. I think the answer is no—not yet anyway.
Bird-friendly buildings is a really important subject. It does not have to mean that you switch the lights off all the time, it is about reflections and so forth. We may return to this.
My noble friend Lord Blencathra might speculate about where my noble friend Lord Goldsmith is, but I could not possibly comment.
I say to the Minister: in the same way as the swifts return every year, albeit in smaller numbers, this too will return on Report, albeit with greater numbers and more vehemence. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Review: rights of wayWithin six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the effect of the provisions in this Act on—(a) access to,(b) enjoyment of, and(c) preservation of,rights of way, especially unrecorded rights of way.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe the effect of the Bill on rights of way, including unrecorded rights of way which are due to be extinguished on 31 December 2030.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I have not spoken in Committee so far, but in my four-minute contribution at Second Reading I raised two issues, which are the subject of these next two amendments. The first may be described as being in the weeds and the other in the stratosphere.
Perhaps I should begin with the weeds. Amendment 213 is about footpaths. I have three asks to make of the Government. The footpath issue is one that a cross-party group of Members of your Lordships’ House have been following—“chasing down” might be a better phrase—for many years. I am therefore grateful for the support of two of the group, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked me to give an apology as she cannot be here this evening. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has left the Chamber because we had extensive debates on the footpath issue when she had her responsibilities as a shadow spokesman before the general election, and I wish her well in her new role.
However, one name is missing from the Government Benches, that of Lord Rosser. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I add a short personal note. Lord Rosser was a doughty supporter of the footpath cause over many years and, despite his increasing frailty and looking exceptionally unwell, he came, possibly to speak for the last time, in support of a regret Motion that I had tabled. It is of course quite right that when one of us leaves your Lordships’ House the water should close over us quietly and soundlessly, but I wanted on this occasion for one last time to record my thanks to Lord Rosser for his support over the years.
With that, to horse. First, I need to declare an interest, as I am a member of the Ramblers, which campaigns on behalf of footpaths and open access. I am currently making use of our footpaths by walking from Land’s End to John O’Groats—in stages, I hasten to add—and I am just reaching Inverness. In the 1,000 or so miles that I have so far covered, I have seen at first hand how our network of public rights of way provides physical and mental support. In effect, it lifts the soul, even if, after seven hours on the road, the feet and the muscles may be a little sore.
The background to this issue is as follows. The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 required local authorities to provide and prepare official records of public rights of way, known as definitive maps. As a result, some 120,000 miles of rights of way were recorded in England. That leads me to my first ask of the Government: the reason for paragraph (c) in my amendment, “preservation”, is to get the Minister’s commitment that nothing in the Bill will be allowed to end the network of these paths in whole or in part. The key word here is “network” because, if a path can be brought to an end, even for a few hundred yards, the utility and value of the surrounding paths is greatly reduced. Can the Minister confirm that the provisions of the Bill will not put at risk this important national asset, which is the primary means by which the public can get outdoors?
There is a further challenge. While the recording of 120,000 miles of footpaths was a terrific achievement, research suggests that some 40,000 further miles were not recorded and therefore remain unprotected. There are over 3,000 miles in Cornwall and just under 3,000 miles in Herefordshire. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 attempted to bring this issue to a conclusion by setting a deadline for applications to be submitted to local highway authorities for adding these hitherto unrecorded rights of way to the official definitive maps. The deadline was set for 25 years later, 1 January 2026, three months from where we are now. After that date, applications for adding unrecorded public rights of way based on historic evidence will no longer be possible and any of those miles would be lost for ever.
Progress on recording those 20,000 miles was disappointingly slow: first, because local authorities had many other uses for funds and found it hard to justify putting additional resources into this activity, balanced against all those other pressures; secondly, because the actual process of recording is rather clunky and expensive, both financially as well as in management time and effort. I have first-hand experience of that because my family company owns a few acres of agricultural land in Shropshire, where we needed the diversion of a footpath; although it was not contested, it took over three years to achieve. I place on record my thanks to Shropshire County Council and Mr Rodenhurst, who is the county council footpath officer, but he too had to work to an existing system.
Some anecdotal evidence suggests that many councils can process only two or three applications every year. At one point, a working party of interested stakeholders was set up to streamline the system, but it seems to have gone nowhere. Therefore, my second ask of the Minister is whether that working party still exists and whether it has any role in the Government’s thinking on how to speed up this recording process.
Finally, as the deadline of 1 January 2026 became ever closer, I, together with a cross-party group of Members of your Lordships’ House, began to campaign for a better, permanent solution. At first, it looked as though we had had success. In February 2022, the then Conservative Government announced that the deadline would be abolished entirely, but a year later, in March 2023—presumably after lobbying by landowners and farmers—that decision was reversed and, instead, the deadline was extended by regulation by five years, to 1 January 2031. In my view, this is an exercise in pushing the pea around the plate, if ever I saw one.
On Boxing Day 2024, the new Labour Government announced that they would fulfil the prior undertaking of the Conservative Government to repeal the deadline but that they could do so only when, in that hallowed phrase, parliamentary time allows. This Bill provides parliamentary time within which the Government could fulfil that commitment, so my third and final ask of the Minister is whether the Government are prepared to bring forward amendments to the Bill to fulfil the commitment they have given to remove the recording deadline for ever. If the Government cannot accept and answer my questions, perhaps they could accept Amendment 213, which provides for a review in six months. That at least enables your Lordships’ House to monitor progress on this important topic. I beg to move.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, having heard such eloquent advocacy for swifts and other birds, I will make a case for humans in Amendment 213. I will explain. First, let me thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, for tabling this amendment. I am very keen to support him.
My particular interest is actively to promote the case for the restoration of ancient rights of way—the unregistered ones that we have heard about already. I declare my interest as the owner of a property, a family farm, with a right of way laced right through the middle. I am also grateful to the Ramblers for its briefing.
In considering this, we should start from the premise that rights of way, whether registered or not, are a national asset. They belong to the nation—to citizens and individuals. No reasons were given except for the need for certainty as to whether these unregistered rights of way would be terminated or disallowed in future. The only certainty was that UK citizens would be stripped of their property rights because, in that rediscovered but unregistered place, these rights of way would have been disallowed. What possible benefit to the community arises from disallowing the registration of rights of way?
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly on Amendment 213 tabled by my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, which probes the potential impacts of the Bill on rights of way, including those currently unrecorded and due to be extinguished at the end of 2030. He raises an important and timely point. The matter of unrecorded rights of way has long been a subject of interest and concern, particularly among landowners, local authorities and the walking public. The 2026 cut-off date originally proposed under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, later extended to 31 December 2030, was intended to provide certainty and finality. This amendment, while probing in nature, rightly encourages the Government to clarify how the provisions of the Bill will interact with that approaching deadline, particularly with the ongoing digitisation and modernisation of the definitive map process and how planning reforms may affect local authority resourcing for such work.
While there are undoubtedly historic rights of way that are not currently identified, mapped and protected, given the effort that has been put into doing so by various organisations perhaps one might assume that those long-unused rights of way are defunct. Rights of way were created through constant use establishing those rights. Surely if they are no longer used and are forgotten, their original purpose and right is gone. Rights of way were rarely established through leisure use, but were commonly the way that travel and commerce was conducted in this country. It is unhelpful to planning and infrastructure delivery, as well as to farmers and land managers, that claims can be brought at any time and can consume considerable time and resource to resist. I encourage the Government to stick to the existing deadline.
Amendment 213 prompts a worthwhile discussion. I think the idea of a review in six months is worth considering to ensure that our rights of way are properly protected. I thank my noble friend for raising the matter, and I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for his amendment, which seeks to probe the effects of the Bill on rights of way, including unrecorded rights of way. I thank him for his kind comments about Lord Rosser; we still miss him very much, so I am grateful.
As we heard, the Government announced on Boxing Day 2024 their intention to repeal the cut-off date of 1 January 2031 for recording historic rights of way. This means that paths used by walkers, cyclists and equestrians can continue to be officially recorded after this date and will not be lost to the public. This is a significant step in preserving access to well-used but often unrecorded paths across England, many of which have been in place, as the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, said, for hundreds of years.
Local highway authorities have statutory duties to record and maintain public rights of way, allowing them to be accessed and enjoyed by the public. They must also have a rights of way improvement plan which explains how improvements will be made to public rights of way, preserving them and providing a better experience for users. Given the statutory duty placed on local authorities to maintain and protect public rights of way, an additional review is not necessary.
A thorough and meaningful review would also not be possible within six months of publication of the Act. Local authorities are already handling a significant volume of unrecorded rights of way registrations, and the requirement to conduct a review would result in further delays to this process. In addition, the repeal of the cut-off date means that historic public rights of way can still be officially recorded, so will not be lost but can continue to be enjoyed by the public.
I will pick up a couple of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I will check whether the working party is still in place; I do not know the answer to that. I hope it is, because working parties like that help us to shape government policy. On the question of why we should not use this Bill for the repeal, I suspect that a deal of consultation would have to be carried out, and that is probably why it is not in this Bill, but I will respond in writing to him on that point.
For these reasons, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this short debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow; I say to my noble friend Lord Roborough that the reality is that unrecorded does not mean unused. I mentioned that over 3,000 miles of footpath in Cornwall and about 2,700 in Herefordshire are used but unrecorded, so he is not quite right to say that if they are unrecorded they are unused. There are certainly some that have not been recorded that are unused, and I understand the force of his point. But I do not think it gets to the nub of the matter to say that, because they have not been recorded, they must be unused.
I am also grateful to the Minister for her reaffirming the intention to bring forward legislation that will enable this cut-off debt to be removed for ever. I am sorry she cannot find a way to put it into the Bill, on the grounds that it will be gratifying to have a conclusion to this as soon as possible. But two-thirds of a loaf is better than no bread, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Review: impact on food and water security(1) At the end of the period of 12 months, beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report detailing the total area, in hectares, of any land that has been taken out of food production as a result of the provisions of this Act—(a) in the previous twelve months, and(b) cumulatively since the Act came into force.(2) The report must include the total area, in hectares, of any land taken out of food production and used for—(a) the construction of houses and associated infrastructure,(b) the construction of reservoirs or other water catchment devices,(c) the installation of solar panels, and(d) the production of maize and other crops grown to support the generation of electricity.(3) The report must provide an assessment of the increased risk, if any, to the food and water security of the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the Government provides annual updates on any agricultural land lost as a result of this Bill and any consequent risks to this country’s food and water security.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, we now move from the weeds to the stratosphere. I begin by expressing some sympathy for the Minister and her department, which is being asked to provide housing for a very large number of additional people without upsetting those people already here, whose communities and immediate environment will be radically reshaped for ever.
It is worth putting a couple of numbers on the record as background to this issue and indeed to my amendment. We are expecting the population of this country to increase by 6.6 million people by 2035—that is equivalent to two and a half cities the size of Greater Manchester. By the 2040s, this country will have overtaken Germany as the most populous country in Europe; by the way, Germany is one and a half times our size in geographical area. So, as regards population pressure, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
Let me be clear that this is absolutely not a rant or an attack on refugees and asylum seekers. While there are clearly many knotty problems to be addressed, those unfortunate people make up less than 10% of the total increase in our population. The major reasons behind the growth are British industry’s insatiable desire to recruit overseas—the “default option”, as the Migration Advisory Committee has described it—and British higher education, which has built its business model on overseas recruitment, many of whom then morph into our permanent population during or at the end of their degrees. The consequences of these increases and decisions ricochet around Whitehall and impact on nearly every aspect of our national life. For the Minister’s department, the policy about housing can best be described as, “Please empty the bath, but you can’t touch the taps”. That is why the Minister and the Government find this such a difficult area to tackle.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said at Second Reading, no one anywhere in the Government—this Government or the previous Government—is responsible for joining up the dots. Amendment 214 is an attempt, for once, to join two of the dots, because it is about the security of this nation’s food supplies. In February 1945, with the war in Europe nearly won and the U-boat menace history, the Cabinet was alarmed to receive a report that the country had food reserves for only about two months. Now, 80 years later, how long would our food reserves last? Essentially, they would last for three or four days. Modern supply chains are run to minimise the use of working capital. It is believed that they carry about three days’ supplies at any one time, a situation which some have described as being nine meals from anarchy.
We currently grow just over half the food that we need as a nation. This Bill, when enacted, will undoubtedly result in the loss of yet more land capable of producing food, as we cover it with houses and solar panels and we grow maize and similar crops not to feed people but to feed biodigesters to generate electricity in pursuit of net zero. All the while, our population is growing by half a million a year, and we are in a confused, uncertain and ever more dangerous world. Yet with the exception of our farmers, and groups such as the NFU, the discussion of food security, our ability to feed our population, is nowhere to be seen.
What is the reason for the silence on this critical issue? Essentially, it is because it falls between two stools of different government departments. Today we are discussing the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It is the child of the Department of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which has no knowledge of or responsibility for the provision of food. Food is the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but Defra has no influence on planning decisions—which are likely to impact directly on its areas of responsibility. My amendment is an attempt to join up these two dots by seeking to require the Secretary of State for this department to provide annually an account of the land being taken out of food production.
I will say a brief word about why food security should be an issue of increasing concern. For the past couple of centuries, the economic theory of comparative advantage has dominated Treasury thinking and, in turn, has had major influence on government departments’ policies. The theory of comparative advantage argues that the country will be better off if it specialises in producing things that it is best at producing rather than trying to produce everything that it needs. If you accept this theory, it follows that we do not need to worry that we produce only half the food we eat; we can buy the remainder on the world market more cheaply than we can produce it ourselves.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I support this amendment, which my noble friend has proposed with a very powerful argument indeed. He is not asking for a stop to housing or these other developments; he is asking for an audit so we have the information to hand.
I want to make just three quick points. Quite often, when it comes to housing, there is not a choice as to where the housing goes for obvious reasons. Most new housing developments will be adjacent to existing settlements; they will be adjacent to towns, villages and often, inevitably, they will be put on really good, grade 1 agricultural land that will get gobbled up. To some extent, that is accepted.
On food security, my noble friend made a very good point about the historic context and raised briefly the Ukraine war. One of the lessons of the Ukraine war is the fact that we cannot take our food security for granted. He touched on solar arrays, and I suggest to the Minister that, in building out solar arrays, we indeed have choice. We do not have so much choice over housing, but surely we have choice over where we put these solar arrays.
I just wanted to tell the Minister what is going on in part of my old constituency of North West Norfolk. There is a large wave of planning applications for solar arrays along the A47 corridor between Swaffham and Dereham. Much of that is going to take in grade 1 or grade 2 agricultural land. The serious worry I have is that we are not talking about willing seller, willing buyer—or willing farmer, willing buyer. We are talking about tenant farmers who are going to have their livelihoods taken away. We are talking also about some farmers who may have holdings adjacent to larger landowners who are putting their land forward for this development. The companies in question proposing the developments have come forward with a threat of compulsory purchase. We are moving away from the willing seller, willing buyer concept—at the same time putting at risk a huge amount of really good agricultural land.
The Minister should look at this amendment in the spirit in which it has been drafted. We are not trying to order the Government what to do. My noble friend is not trying to stop these developments. Of course, he wants some of them modified, but we need to have that information. We need to have a proper audit, so I support this clause wholeheartedly. I very much hope that the Minister will realise that the potential damage to our farming communities is huge—damage is being done already.
We have sites such as warehouses on industrial estates—go around any new industrial estate; you will not see a single solar panel. Look at a modern school or hospital; a new hospital is to be built in my old constituency, and there is no provision there for solar panels on what are to be flat roofs. Yet down the road, we are going to see the demise of really first-class agricultural land. The Minister needs to get a grip of this and, above all, have information to hand, so that we can be properly informed in future, so I support my noble friend.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to support Amendment 214. My noble friend nearly said that we are no more than three meals away from societal breakdown, but we are—and, in the hierarchy of needs, food in the belly is the number one requirement. Land is the principal resource that provides bread, beer, biscuits, as well as broccoli, and they are not making land anymore.
I am concerned, because the land use framework that has been proposed by the Government contemplates that fully 9% of our farmland will be used for non-growing purposes. Your Lordships will have heard me say before, in respect of solar panels particularly, that it is beyond careless to allow the best land to be consumed for non-farmland purposes before the worst land is exhausted. Last year, the national wheat yield was down 20% on account of wet weather. This year, there is an impairment in many areas on account of the dry weather. The weather changes, but we cannot be careless about our food supply.
The better news is that we have recently heard encouraging noises from former Defra Ministers who belatedly realise that the risks of food security are greater than they have ever been. It is noteworthy that, while we no longer have a Minister for Agriculture, we have a Minister for Food Security, and I think we should all welcome that, provided that the title of food security flows through into recognising the importance to national security, ensuring that the greatest proportion of the food in this country can meet our needs.
I had a commercial meeting this morning with one of the UK’s largest participants in the agricultural supply chain in this country. Its agricultural director gave me what I felt was a stunning statistic, and I will relay it to noble Lords. He said that, over the last 30 years, the amount of arable farmland in this country has diminished by 30%. I questioned him: “You mean 1% per year, each year, for the last 30 years?”, and he said, “Yes, we used to count on a 15 million tonne a year wheat harvest, now we’re lucky to get 12”. These are big reductions with large consequences, so I enthusiastically endorse Amendment 214. If we are going to have a Minister for Food Security, doing this arithmetic is going to be an essential part of her task—how else can she benchmark her success? I think the amendment is fully in tune with the direction this Government are going in.
Had it been my amendment, I would have probably asked for the data to be embellished by an assessment of the underlying agricultural land quality—the ALC, or agricultural land classification—so that we could work out not just the number of hectares that are lost but how they apportioned between the best and most versatile land versus the lower ranks. I wonder whether the noble Lord might consider enhancing the amendment with agricultural land classification, if he sustains it on Report. Otherwise, I give it my full support in Committee.
Lord Deben (Con)
I very much want to support this amendment, because it is asking for information, and one of the problems we have in this country is that when we do not like the answers, we do not ask the question. That seems to me to be the fundamental issue here.
I am rather in favour of properly placed solar farms, but I use the wording “properly placed”. I also think that, in many ways, at least you can get rid of them. The problem with building houses is that you cannot, and I am very concerned about the way in which we constantly use greenfield sites instead of insisting on the development of already used land. I have to say that this Government have really not faced up to the reality, which is that the housebuilding industry does not like anything but a greenfield site and will take those long before it will try to develop inside our already used towns and the like.
This is not only bad for food security but bad for the environment, because it means that people, instead of living relatively hugger-mugger, able to live and move within the same area, have in fact to use transport to get anywhere. In Suffolk, where I come from, I see this all the time: more and more people are commuting from villages which have never had the jobs, and will not have the jobs, to towns increasingly far away. So, the issue of housebuilding is crucial, and we have not thought it through. Merely saying “1.5 million new homes over five years” does not actually face the real issue.
I declare an interest as a small organic farmer. I am very concerned about the failure of the Government to face food security. I am not sure that I myself would have chosen Angela Eagle for that job. The fact of the matter is that it is a very important job, but it is not one that is being faced up to. When I was Minister of Agriculture, I was interviewed by Peter Jay, the cleverest man in Europe, and he said to me, “I don’t know why we have a Minister of Agriculture, because we can always buy food elsewhere in the world”. That is the ignorant position, which I am afraid has been carried on either publicly or privately, and not only by this Government, but I fear by previous Governments too.
It is a serious matter that no member of this Cabinet has real agricultural connections of any kind. No member represents a fully agricultural seat, although I am pleased to see that the new Secretary of State for Defra—who is an extremely intelligent and useful addition to the Cabinet—has the most agricultural seat of any Cabinet Minister: Wycombe. Anyone who knows where Wycombe is knows that the agricultural bit is ancillary rather than central.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I briefly remind the Committee, and also the Minister, that much of this could be avoided by implementing the land use framework approach to land use, which is a method and tool intended entirely at various scales—national, local, regional and on individual land holdings—to balance all these competing demands for land. I am very much looking forward to it coming out, hopefully before this Christmas, but noble Lords have heard my Christmas speech before.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has made the point that we on these Benches would wish to make.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 214 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and thank him for bringing forward what is, I believe, a thoughtful and timely intervention. The amendment seeks to ensure that the Government provide annual updates on agricultural land lost as a result of the Bill, along with any consequent risks to the UK’s food and water security.
We have heard, both in and beyond this Chamber, growing concern about the pressures being placed on agricultural land—particularly the cumulative effect of development, including infrastructure and renewable energy projects, on land that has long supported our domestic food production. This is not an abstract concern. Recent debates around the siting of solar farms on high-grade best and most versatile agricultural land have brought this issue into sharp relief. Although renewable energy is vital for our long-term sustainability, it must not come at the cost of food security.
Food security is a strategic national interest. The experience of recent global shocks, from the pandemic to the war in Ukraine, has reminded us just how important it is to maintain a strong, resilient domestic food supply. Once high-quality agricultural land is lost to development, it is not recovered. We must therefore be careful stewards of this finite resource, particularly the best and most versatile land, as my noble friend Lord Fuller pointed out.
My noble friend’s amendment rightly presses the Government to monitor and report on these risks with due seriousness. The principle of ensuring that we do not undermine our food and water security through planning reforms is one that I believe all sides of this House can support. If I may provide some reassurances to my noble friends, global food production has grown at 0.7% on average per annum for decades, in line with global population growth. That is on stable acres, with lost acres in some regions of the world balanced by other regions, such as Brazil. Acres of land that are lost in this country to development are most likely being replaced by the Cerrado, and possibly even rainforest, being cleared in Brazil. There is a serious leakage issue when we lose our agricultural land. On that, I highlight my register of interests, including as a shareholder of SLC Agrícola in Brazil.
I look forward to the Minister’s response to this amendment and to hearing how the Government intend to safeguard these critical national interests as the Bill progresses. I also support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on the land use framework.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, seeks to require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report
“detailing the total area … of any land that has been taken out of food production as a result of the provisions of this Act”,
as well as an assessment of any increase in risk to the water and food security of the UK.
As noble Lords know, the measures in this Bill provide changes to the existing planning process to speed up housebuilding and infrastructure delivery. In other words, they are levers within an existing planning system. It is therefore impossible to measure whether any land use change from development is as a result of specific measures in the Bill. Furthermore, the Government already publish regular reports on land use change and food security. These include: statistics on land use change from agricultural land to residential use every three years; a report by Natural England on agricultural land take to development over the period 2013 to 2022, following previous reviews undertaken by Defra; annual analysis on agricultural land use change through the annual June survey of agriculture and horticulture; statutory annual analysis of agricultural statistics through Agriculture in the United Kingdom; and statutory analysis of statistical data relating to food security in the UK at least every three years. The Government therefore already have legal requirements to report regularly on matters relevant to food security in the UK.
To address the concern driving this amendment, I reassure noble Lords once again that the Government are clear that food security is national security. We absolutely understand that point, made powerfully by noble Lords during this debate. In July, Defra published the good food cycle as part of the UK food strategy. It outlined the development of work on sustainable, resilient domestic production of food. There are planning policy measures in place to ensure that non-agricultural land is encouraged over agricultural land.
As I have mentioned a couple of times already today, the National Planning Policy Framework also safeguards the best and most versatile land, which is land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the agricultural land classification system. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer-quality land should be preferred to those of a higher quality.
Furthermore, on the point made by my noble friend Lady Young, the Government consulted on land use in England from January to April this year. The responses are informing the preparation of the land use framework, which will be published later this year. It will set out the evidence, data and tools needed to help safeguard our most productive agricultural land.
The Government do not believe that new water resources infrastructure, such as new strategic reservoirs or local catchment solutions, will threaten food security. Of course, a successful agricultural sector depends on access to secure water supplies, and the National Farmers’ Union and farmers are working with the Environment Agency and water companies to help us develop water resources.
The Government also do not believe that the accelerated rollout of solar generation poses a threat to food security. As of the end of September 2024, ground-mount solar PV panels covered only around 0.1% of the total land area of the UK. The Solar Roadmap also sets out how much land we estimate could be taken up by solar farms as part of our clean power 2030 commitment. Even in the most ambitious—
Lord Deben (Con)
The Minister has said “the Government do not believe” three times now. Would it not be a good idea to check whether or not their belief was true? She also said something really frightening. She said, “Because this Act is in addition to other things, it is impossible to see what its effect would be”. What kind of legislation can it be to put before the House when the Government cannot tell what its effect is, nor are prepared to measure what its effect is when it takes place? I find this very difficult to understand.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I set out for the noble Lord all the measurements already taken, in respect of the take of agricultural land. That is an important part of the system. As regards solar generation, the Solar Roadmap sets out how much land we estimate could be taken by solar farms as part of our clean power 2030 commitment. Even in ambitious scenarios, we expect only up to 0.4% of total UK land to be occupied. Solar farms can operate alongside farming activities but, to answer noble Lords’ points about the provision of solar on non-domestic buildings, we will be setting that out shortly, as we have done already for domestic buildings. For these reasons, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly my noble friend Lord Bellingham about the importance of audit, my noble friend Lord Fuller—I am sure that this amendment could be improved with a bit expertise and a sharp pencil—and my noble friend Lord Deben. Building on his question about water, Southern Water is making plans to introduce 40 billion litres in summer months from next year, because we do not have enough water. My noble friend’s points about water are absolutely on the button and, of course, he was right to say that the Minister’s speech—and I absolutely know that she means well—was aspirational; it was what we hope to do.
I say only that until we are able to get our arms around the whole of this issue, join the dots, look at it, think about it and explain it to the British people, we are going to have a very difficult time. It is not a party-political issue. It is an issue for our society. Earlier this summer, I published a booklet called Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow. I got the help of the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, and his Common Good Foundation, a centre-left think tank, and I got nine experts without any political background. What they concluded, absolutely, was that the way we are handling this, in silos, is completely hopeless. Each silo may be reporting brilliantly about what is happening in its silo, but no one is joining the dots together, and this is beginning to seep into society.
Up until now, this has been a fringe effort on the extreme left and the extreme right, seeking to make trouble. If noble Lords have a moment, they should look at today’s Times and Trevor Phillips’ article. He says this about yesterday’s march:
“The usual suspects, left and right, who always show up at events like this, took the opportunity to throw bottles at police … But for the most part, the 150,000 people who showed up to march the mile or so from Waterloo, across Lambeth Bridge and past the Palace of Westminster to Whitehall, were unaware of any commotion. Only the hard core stayed to hear Robinson’s peroration. This was not an angry, activist crowd. And therein lies the danger to our democracy. When ordinary people are ready to brave the first cold weekend of the autumn at the behest of a serial convict and self-confessed fraudster, something is very rotten in the state of Britain. These are the people you meet at the country pub with their dogs, or in a queue for drinks at half-time”.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
The Companion says that, whether or not a noble Lord wishes to push their amendment to a vote, they have to be brief. We are going here into areas that are not affected by the amendments, and the noble Lord has been speaking for three minutes.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
I have been commenting on the comments made by various noble Lords. I just wanted to be clear about how this is part of a wider issue of which this Committee and the country need to be aware. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment now but give notice that I may wish to bring it back on Report.
Lord Cromwell
“Compulsory purchase for planning and development: code of practice(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a code of practice to be followed by all bodies or individuals exercising powers of compulsory purchase for the purposes of planning and development.(2) On publication of the code of practice, the Secretary of State must by regulations establish—(a) an enforcement mechanism for the code of practice, including establishing a responsible body or individual for monitoring compliance,(b) penalties for non-compliance with the code of practice, and(c) a system for appealing against findings of non-compliance with the code of practice.(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is to ensure that all acquiring authorities, and their agents, are bound by the normal code of conveyancing practice exercised by a willing seller to a willing buyer.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, have added their names to my amendment; they both apologise for being unable to be present in the Committee today.
This amendment would introduce a code of practice for compulsory purchase. It is widely accepted that, provided it is carried out appropriately, the state should have the right to acquire people’s homes and businesses in the interests of the nation. Noble Lords will be relieved to know that this amendment will not reopen the whole debate around that issue—I hope that buys me a few extra minutes.
Compulsory purchase was established on three assumptions: that it would be a quicker way to acquire land in the public interest; that it would make it possible to do that at a cost below market rates; and, importantly, that it would be a last resort if a voluntary sale could not be agreed—or so the theory went. However, anyone who is familiar with the process and practical realities of compulsory purchase will know that it is not at all quick or cost effective, with timelines running into years and with the costs of public inquiries, surveyors, lawyers and other actors on both sides.
It is widely acknowledged by professional agents—regardless of which side they work for—that, contrary to the original theory of compulsory purchase, the costs are always considerably higher if the party is being forced to sell rather than doing so on a voluntary basis. A consensus is often achievable, but only if the acquirer’s agent works with the seller rather than acting, frankly, as a bully boy for the Government.
The related issue of hope value was addressed in an earlier group. I will not cover it again beyond saying that the ability to compel property to be given up—I will not use the word “sold”—at well below its market value is, of course, attractive to those with the compulsory power but brutally costly and disruptive to those on the receiving end.
So how does this work in practice? The actual exercise of compulsory purchase powers has been devolved by the Government to a growing number of agents. These powers enable the agents to force people to leave their homes, to give up their businesses and their land, and to do so below market prices. Agents receiving these aggressive powers are commercial entities governed by financial and time-related performance targets.
Perhaps inevitably, these incentives and the imbalance of power between government-backed agents and ordinary citizens have created a real, growing problem around the behaviour of agents acting for the acquiring government authorities. Agents’ ability to compel a sale means all too often that they ignore normal conveyancing practices and refuse to recognise the justifiable concerns and interests of those whom they are forcing to sell, who are all but powerless and cannot realistically afford to challenge them. Noble Lords should be under no illusion: the lack of proper constraints means that a culture has widely grown up of the strong-arming and intimidation of those who are forced to sell by government-appointed agents.
There is also the profiteering practice that agents and authorities are sometimes shy of talking about, some of which has been referred to by others, of the acquiring authority then selling on the land for commercial purposes as a whole or in parts at full market value and pocketing the profits—with the agents, of course, paid to arrange the disposals.
To make the situation more real to anyone struggling to believe what I am saying or who is not involved in compulsory purchase, here are three quick live cases that I am aware of and, for clarity, in which I have no interests to declare. In the first case, both sides of a transaction had already agreed voluntarily to sell one field and give a right of access over an adjacent one. But at exchange the agent for the acquirer presented out of the blue a plan that included further land that was not part of the agreement. When this was pointed out, the acquirer’s agent immediately cut off communication and went to use compulsory purchase on all the land.
In the second case, a farmer was approached by an infrastructure provider for initial surveys. As the land was designated ecologically sensitive, he instructed an agent to prepare a bespoke licence agreement to give access to the provider. The infrastructure provider abruptly cut communications partway through the drafting process with no reason given and served a compulsory notice for access. The notice, and the developer’s subsequent trespass, then went on the wrong property and was not subject to discussion. Legal proceedings followed, which were inevitably costly for both sides and created substantial delays.
Case 3 is a simple quote from one forced seller:
“The bypass went straight through the middle of our farm taking 36 acres and all the buildings. Eight years after the bulldozers went in, we are still owed £136,000. When that is eventually paid, we will have to pay capital gains tax (at the new increased rate) on that compensation. How can it be fair that the government can destroy our farm and pay us in return a fraction of what it’s worth? … capital projects need to be built for the benefit of the nation, but surely in a decent, fair country, those concerned should be compensated with 100% of the value of the asset taken and paid before the land is occupied”.
I remind noble Lords that they were still waiting eight years later. I underline that there are many similar stories across this country.
Finally, I cannot resist mentioning HS2. Even on the northern section, which was cancelled two years ago, farmers still have barren strips of land through the middle of their farms, commandeered by HS2 but still not yet handed back. Matters are made worse with HS2 by the splitting of responsibilities between the Treasury and Department for Transport, with neither taking responsibility for the poor behaviour of agents. There are cases where farmers are not being paid for years and householders, having been given three months’ notice to get out, then not being paid for up to nine months. As one affected party put it—this is a different case—
“7 years after they unilaterally took our land we are still waiting for payment at just 70% of the value of the land and the matter is now being dragged through the courts”.
So what rules are there? The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has published baseline standards that it considers should apply to people acting for the acquiring authorities and the claimants. While I urge the Minister to look at and publicly endorse these standards, RICS has jurisdiction over its members only—not, for instance, over a non-member profession or a project management team.
Furthermore, crucially, these and other existing guidance rules do not cover two things that loom large in practical compulsory purchase experience: defining and preventing bullying tactics, and failure by agents or the acquiring bodies themselves to make prompt payment when due. We cannot go on in denial of this problem. That is why this amendment proposes the introduction of a proper code of practice for compulsory purchase: to negotiate and agree values et cetera in good faith, with the possibility of compulsion genuinely as the last resort rather than the starting point, and to pay full value in advance of taking possession, as is systematically the case in the commercial world.
I pose two questions to the Minister. First, does she share my belief that no one should be expected to give up their house, land or business only to find themself with no money to buy another house due to non-payment by the acquirer, or to have part or all of their business forcibly removed from them before payment? Secondly, does she agree with me that the Government’s announcement that they will issue financial penalties to persistently late-paying businesses should include penalties on late-paying agents and other authorities when exercising the powers of compulsory purchase on behalf of the Government?
This amendment, by making the conduct of compulsory sequestration of land subject to an agreed code of practice, would provide a check on the current abuses and the practical problems that I have outlined. As noble Lords will know, I am always concerned not just about our making laws that make us feel happy but with enforcement, and it will therefore come as no surprise that part two of the amendment addresses this squarely.
I look forward to the Minister’s reply to my two questions, and I ask the Government to accept this simple but urgently needed and positive amendment, particularly before handing out additional compulsory purchase powers to Natural England. Finally, I should mention that this is very likely to come back on Report. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, before I introduce my amendment in this group, I say that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has raised some very challenging aspects of compulsory purchase, particularly that of late payment. I will wait for the Minister to respond to that. There is no purpose in having this balancing act, which the noble Lord explained, between individuals and the state if the state does not play fairly by the rules.
Amendment 219 in my name and cosigned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is on the face of it quite radical. In fact, however, all it would do is put pressure on housebuilders to fulfil the planning permissions they have obtained. Planning consents already have a standard three-year period in which to begin construction. Where development is seen to be more challenging, a longer period of five years is sometimes available. Those time periods are not unreasonable. If a housebuilder is seeking to develop a plot of land, they have three years in which to implement or at least to start construction.
Members on all sides know that there is a desperate need for more housing. All political parties have made the case for more housing, in different numbers per annum, but this is not about the numbers game; it is the building of them that is important. The ONS has estimated that there are already 1.2 million outstanding permissions for housing units, as yet unbuilt. I will not use the term “land banking” because there are plenty of arguments out there, and investigations have been made by public lobby groups to point out that land banking is too broad a term for what is going on. Obviously, the reasons are quite varied. Some depend on national and local economic outlooks; nevertheless, 1.2 million units have not been built when we need new homes.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb signed Amendment 219. It would introduce a new clause so that where there is permission for a development of 100 homes or more and it is not used, it is use it or lose it, and within the applicable period there is a justifiable case for compulsory purchase of the land. I do not think anyone in your Lordships’ House is going to disagree that we have a housing crisis and a broken housing system. I point noble Lords to a recent “Big Read” in the Financial Times titled “Making British homes affordable again”, which focused on a number of issues, including the role of financial deregulation in the massive escalation of home prices.
Here, we are talking about the plan where the land is identified and everyone agrees this is the way forward, and then we run into the private housebuilders, where the legal obligation of the managers is to make money. They have no legal obligation to build homes: the law says to make as much money as you possibly can.
I would be very tempted to use the term land banking to describe managers who just sit on land and wait until they can make more money. That means that homes are not built, and they are needed in places where people want to live. The amendment does not force anything but allows the possibility of a CPO, to take this forward to get those homes built. Surely, that is what some communities are desperately aching for.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to this important group of amendments about planning consents and compulsory purchase. I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 217, so convincingly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. It seeks to ensure that acquiring authorities and those acting on their behalf adhere to the normal code of conveyancing practice—the same principles that would apply in a transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller. This is a sensible and pragmatic proposal. Compulsory purchase is, by its nature, an intrusive power and must always be exercised with care, transparency and fairness. Ensuring that conveyancing practice aligns with what would be expected in an open market transaction will help to build trust and minimise disputes between landowners and acquiring authorities. It is essential that landowners do not continue to be disadvantaged and mistreated through the CPO process, as the noble Lord described.
Amendment 219 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, proposes a new clause that would make land subject to automatic consideration for compulsory purchase under the Housing Act 1985 where permission for a development of 100 homes or more has not been acted on within the relevant period. She touches on an interesting and widely debated issue: the problem of land banking—if I may use that term—and delays in delivering housing once planning permission has been granted. Her amendment raises the question of how we might create stronger incentives to build out permissions in a timely manner, particularly where housing need is acute.
Before considering supporting this amendment, we would need to understand how widespread this practice, as the noble Baroness describes, really is. The figure of 1.2 million homes consented but unbuilt is bandied around. However, how many of these developments are unviable due to the Section 106 costs, community infrastructure levies and biodiversity net gain costs that are put on them? How many of these homes are stalled in negotiations around the details of implementing those consents? How many are stalled due to other issues outside developer or landowner control? I am not convinced that land banking is necessarily such a widespread issue as she contends, but I am very willing to listen to evidence. I would be grateful to the Minister for any information she can share with us.
It is worth bearing in mind that housebuilders are businesses: they have obligations to their staff and their shareholders, and they need to have a build programme that ensures they know they can employ their staff over a multi-year period and develop profits which allow returns to shareholders. The shareholders are often pension funds and other such institutional investors in this country. The principle of housebuilders making profits is important. Where a developer does have more short-term supply ready to build on its balance sheet, in most cases it will be because it is building out sites in markets that can absorb only a certain number of units each year without undermining prices to the detriment of the local community. Housebuilders also generally have a 15% return on capital employment commitment to their shareholders. That means that if they are holding land off the market, they need to be very confident that they are making more than 15% per annum doing that, otherwise they are letting their shareholders down. The financial incentives for land banking are not clear.
I would be most interested to hear if the Minister can identify what land banking is really happening in this country, where developers or landowners are holding on to consented land that could be built on right now without impacting on local housing prices. I very much look forward to her reply.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, for putting his name to the amendment and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for ably moving it. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for their participation in this interesting debate, which has raised some key issues.
Amendment 217 would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to publish, within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, a new statutory code of practice for all acquiring authorities when exercising compulsory purchase powers for planning and development purposes. The statutory code of practice would be enforceable by a mechanism set out in regulations required to be published by the Government, and there would be penalties for non-compliance.
I reassure noble Lords that the Government understand the concerns behind the amendment. We recognise that compulsory purchase proposals can lead to periods of uncertainty and anxiety for those involved, whether that is prior to, during or after the making of a CPO. However, the Government consider the proposed code of practice to be unnecessary. First, government guidance, last updated in January this year, states that acquiring authorities should undertake early engagement with landowners and identify what measures can be taken to mitigate the impacts of their schemes. Where this is not done, CPOs are at risk of failing.
Secondly, when making and confirming CPOs, both acquiring and confirming authorities should be sure that the purposes for which the CPO is made justify interfering with the human rights of those with an interest in the land affected. As we have already discussed, particular consideration should be given to the provisions of Article 1 of the first protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and, in the case of a dwelling, Article 8 of the convention.
In addition, acquiring authorities should consider the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010 when making a CPO and have regard to the needs of meeting the aims of that Act. The Health and Safety Executive has also publicly stated that employers have a duty to protect the health not only of their staff but of other people—for example, stakeholders and those who they do business with or otherwise impact, such as landowners. This principle would apply to acquiring authorities undertaking CPOs.
Furthermore, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, referred to, has published the professional standards expected of its members involved in the valuation of compulsory purchase compensation. These standards lay out the ethical conduct and competence expected of RICS members.
I will comment on a couple of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. He raised some issues and some terrible examples of things that can go wrong. On recourse, if it is a local authority that is the acquiring agency, the appellant can appeal to the monitoring officer. Landowners can challenge a CPO in court and can make referrals to the Upper Tribunal.
The noble Lord asked that they be paid promptly, and I agree with him on that point. As regards ensuring the prompt payment of compensation, a person who is entitled to compulsory purchase compensation may request an advance payment of that compensation. If an advance payment is requested, the acquiring authority is obliged to make the payment once it has begun implementing the CPO: either 90% of the agreed total compensation sum or 90% of the acquiring authority’s estimate of the total compensation payable. I hope that is some reassurance for him. This amendment would add duplication and complexity to the CPO process, which is contrary to the Government’s objectives of making the process more efficient to deliver benefits in the public interest more quickly.
Amendment 219 seeks to ensure that there is an automatic compelling public interest case for the compulsory purchase of land where permission has not begun within an applicable period for developments of 100 houses or more. I reassure the House, as I stated when debating the topic of land banking last week, that I fully agree with the objective of improving the build-out rate of residential development. The Government are committed to making sure that planning permissions are translated into homes, and developers must do all they can to deliver.
However, I believe that the amendment would be disproportionate and might have a chilling effect on development, as developers and landowners might be unwilling to make planning applications if they risk losing their land if the planning permission is not implemented, for any reason. Instead, as I set out earlier this week, we published in May an important working paper on speeding up build-out, which sets out a more proportionate, effective and comprehensive approach. This includes better transparency of build-out rates; new powers for local authorities to decline to determine applications from developers who have built out slowly; a stronger emphasis on mixed-use tenures; and the exploration of a potential delayed-homes penalty. Of course, that would be a last resort, but it would be useful to have it in the toolbox.
I want to highlight in particular that the working paper also emphasised that we want to make it easier for local authorities to acquire land through a power to conditionally confirm CPOs, which will help unlock stalled sites and make land assembly easier when this in the public interest. We are now analysing the responses to the working paper and we will set out our next steps in due course. However, I again emphasise that the measures set out in the working paper will make a real difference to the build-out of the housing development we all want to see. I therefore kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for their comments on and support for my amendment.
I am also very grateful to the Minister for her thoughts. However, given that the amendment’s intention is to assist the Bill’s effectiveness, I had hoped for a rather more supportive approach. The Minister’s reference to a “period of uncertainty” for those affected was an understatement. The reality of the behaviours of agents acting for authorities with the power of compulsory purchase behind them is a good deal more combative than that. Existing standards are simply not adequate and not sufficiently enforced. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I anticipate returning with it on Report.
“Party Wall etc. Act 1996: review(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must undertake a review of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 as it relates to planning and development.(2) The review must include—(a) a consideration of whether the Act is consistent with current planning and development practices,(b) a summary of all correspondence to date related to the implementation of the Act as it relates to planning and development which is held by the relevant government department and its predecessor departments,(c) consultation with industry bodies related to the construction and maintenance of, and negotiation and litigation in respect of, party walls, in relation to planning and development,(d) consultation with members of the public who have made use of provisions of the Act within the last five years in relation to planning and development, and (e) recommendations on how the Act could be amended to ensure that its provisions, as far as they relate to planning and development —(i) are consistent with human rights legislation,(ii) are consistent with current planning and development practices, and(iii) uphold the principle that no criminal damage, trespass or interference should occur in relation to a person’s property.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, clarifying whether the Act is consistent with current planning and development practices and whether that Act could be amended in order to update its position in planning and development processes.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 221 and 223, which are in my name. Before I do so, I should perhaps remind the Committee of the interest I declared at Second Reading: I have been the recipient of three party wall notices in the past three years. That has brought to my attention the whole issue of the practicality of the party wall Act.
Both amendments deal with the issue of party walls, which is particularly pertinent in London and other cities where residential buildings either adjoin or are close to other housing. Amendment 221 calls for a review of the party wall Act. However, I will deal with Amendment 223 first. This amendment is applicable mainly to residential buildings and stops any developer interfering with the structural integrity of somebody else’s house without their permission. That simply means that no one should have their foundations affected by the work next door.
The oft-used quote, “An Englishman’s home is his castle”, comes to mind. We all presume that we have property rights and, if we own a home, that we should be able to live in it without interference. I am not a human rights expert, and I know that there are many noble and learned Lords in the House of Lords who are, so I tiptoe into this issue with nervousness. However, it is my understanding that human rights law protects against interference with property. That is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights; Article 1 protects the right to
“the peaceful enjoyment of … possessions”
and Article 8
“protects your right to respect for your … home”.
Someone else interfering with the foundations of a house causes stress and anxiety to the owner, because it has the ability to undermine and/or badly damage the property. In fact, there have been cases of houses becoming unstable and, in some rare cases, actually collapsing. I understand that at least one fatality has been caused.
This is not the first time this issue has been raised in the House of Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, put forward a Private Member’s Bill—the Planning (Subterranean Development) Bill—in 2015 to address this very issue. Most of the interference with other people’s foundations comes about because of basements being dug or floors lowered. Having personally been on the receiving end of this, I can attest to the huge distress, noise and interference that this causes, to which I and many others have been subjected. It is therefore time to stop others in the future being affected in this way. The development should not interfere physically with anyone else’s property without their permission.
This brings me to Amendment 221, which calls for a review of the Party Wall etc. Act. This Act was bought in as a Private Member’s Bill in 1996 by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and I understand that it was meant to address circumstances where damage had occurred and to deal with this meant that the neighbouring house would also be affected. I understand that this was bought in with good intentions. However, it was in the days before the fashion for digging basements. The provisions in the Act are very one-sided and basically take away the rights from the adjoining owner so that damage—sometimes criminal damage—trespass and nuisance may occur.
Moreover, the party wall Act appears to take this work out of planning, so there is no mechanism to allow an adjoining owner to object. It robs the adjoining owner of any rights to stop the work, even where it may adversely affect their property. This unfairness is exacerbated by the way that surveyors have interpreted this Act. Although the adjoining owner is allowed to appoint a surveyor, unlike most professionals representing a client the surveyors choose to act neutrally, often refusing the adjoining owner any input or say about what happens to their property—while the surveyor to those doing the development is briefed by their client on what to do.
It is almost 30 years since the Act was passed. There has not been any post-legislative scrutiny and there has been no review. I tabled a number of Questions on this issue in October last year, asking whether the Government would conduct a review. In July 2021, Newcastle University’s School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape produced Bunkering Down, a report which cited that 7,328 basements had been improved in 32 London boroughs between 2008 and 2019, saying that these have now become
“as normal as loft conversions”.
The department has, by its own admission, received correspondence from parliamentarians and members of the public alike concerning the efficacy and application of the Act over the years. Any review or consultation must include this correspondence in its evidence.
I thank the Minister, who found time to see me about this. One of the advantages of living in a democracy is that we have property rights. People need to be reassured that their home is safe and that all things are in line with the ECHR. I hope that, if the Minister does not feel that she can accept this amendment, she will commit to a consultation and a review forthwith. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger for tabling Amendments 221 and 223 regarding the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, which is an important piece of legislation providing a legal framework to resolve disputes between property owners concerning shared walls.
Amendment 221 would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the party wall Act and clarify whether it is consistent with current planning and development practices and whether it needs amending to update its position in planning and development processes. We should all recognise the importance in amending previous legislation so that it is consistent with current law and practice. I therefore hope that the Government take this amendment seriously.
Amendment 223 seeks to ensure that the structural integrity of homes is protected by requiring the permission of neighbouring property owners who may be affected by the development rights conferred by this Act. This amendment clearly aims to uphold people’s existing property rights and their structural integrity. This is an important principle which I look forward to the Government addressing, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, for her amendments relating to party walls and for meeting with me to help me understand the issues that she has faced relating to this.
Amendment 221 seeks to create a legal duty to review the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 within 12 months of the Bill becoming law. The party wall Act provides a framework for preventing or resolving disputes between neighbours relating to party walls, party structures, boundary walls and excavations near buildings. While I have no objection in principle to reviewing legislation, it has been the view of successive Governments since the late 1990s that the party wall Act does, indeed, deliver what it was intended to do. It creates a framework for communication and agreement between adjoining property owners when work needs to be carried out to a shared structure, while the Building Regulations establish the minimum legal standards and functional requirements in new building work.
The party wall Act already requires that the owner of a building carrying out work under the Act must serve any adjoining property owner a party structure notice stating: the name and address of the building owner proposing the work; the nature and particulars of the proposed work, including, in cases where the building owner proposes to construct special foundations, plans, sections and details of construction of the special foundations together with reasonable particulars of the loads to be carried thereby; and the date on which the proposed work will begin.
Amendment 223 seeks to create a legal duty for building owners to gain permission from the adjoining property to carry out any works under the party wall Act. As I mentioned, the party wall Act provides a framework for preventing and resolving disputes when they arise in relation to party walls, to protect neighbouring buildings from the impact of building works and hold those completing works accountable for any negative impact. Ensuring structural compliance when undertaking work is already regulated under Structure: Approved Document A of the Building Regulations. Any development work must comply with the functional requirements of the Building Regulations. Amending the party wall Act will therefore have no regulatory effect on the structural safety of buildings beyond what is already regulated for. The party wall Act should therefore continue to provide a robust framework for preventing and resolving disputes when they arise in relation to party walls, party structures and excavations near neighbouring buildings.
I accept that there are occasions when things go wrong and I am very happy to continue the dialogue with the noble Baroness, but for all the reasons I have set out, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I am slightly mystified by the phrase that the Act provides a robust framework for resolving disputes. As somebody who has had party wall notices served on me, I do not see any mechanism for resolving disputes except that the developer can actually just do the work—there is no mechanism for the adjoining owner to object and stop the work, so I do not think it actually does resolve disputes. I hear what she says about structural compliance. Often, people carrying out the development get a building inspector from outside the council, and there is no requirement for them to speak to the adjoining owner, even when they ask whether the work has been carried out correctly, because they say that they are not their client; it is the developer who is the client. So, I query some of those statements and I very much hope that there can be a review of this Act. I would be delighted to continue the conversation with the Minister, and on those grounds, I withdraw the amendment.
“Land purchasing: duty to declare other approaches to purchase or lease land(1) Any developer or company approaching a landowner to buy or lease land for the purpose of development must declare whether they are also approaching other owners of land in the vicinity to buy or lease land for the purpose of development.(2) The declaration required under subsection (1) must include whether the combined amount of land intended to be purchased or leased will be submitted for application as a nationally significant infrastructure project as set out in Part 3 of the Planning Act 2008.(3) In subsection (1), “in the vicinity” means any land immediately adjoining or within ten miles of the land intended to be leased or purchased.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that any landowner being approached is aware of whether it is just their land that is the subject of purchase/leasing or whether there are others being approached so that the total sum of the land obtained may result in application for designation as a nationally significant infrastructure project.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 227C in my name would insert a new clause after Clause 106 creating a duty to declare other approaches to purchase or lease land round about. As the explanatory statement highlights, this is
“to ensure that any landowner being approached is aware of whether it is just their land that is the subject of purchase/leasing”,
or whether those making the approach are also reaching out to other owners of land in the vicinity for the purpose of the development. Subsection (2) states that the above statement
“must include whether the combined amount of land … will be submitted for application as a nationally significant infrastructure project”.
Meanwhile, subsection (3) provides a definition of what is meant by “in the vicinity” in this context, namely anything
“adjoining or within ten miles of the land intended to be leased or purchased”.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 227E, tabled in my name, among others, would address the wide-reaching consequences of a recent Supreme Court decision in a case called Day for persons who acquire former open-space land from local authorities. The context for this is that open spaces held by a local authority under the Public Health Act 1875 or the Open Spaces Act 1906 are subject to a statutory trust in favour of the public being given the right to go on to the land for the purpose of recreation. When a local authority wants to sell open-space land, typically because it is either surplus to requirements or part of a land swap to facilitate new, higher-quality open space elsewhere, its decision-making process is subject to various procedural and substantive safeguards, under both statute and common law.
One of the procedural requirements is Section 123(2A) of the Local Government Act 1972. This provides that the local authority may not dispose of any land consisting or forming part of an open space unless before doing so they advertise their intention to do so in a local newspaper for two weeks and consider any objections to the proposed disposal received in response to that advertisement. Under Section 123(2B) of the same Act, the sale of the land post-advertisement then proceeds free of the statutory trust. If a local resident or community group considers that any of the procedural substantive requirements regulating the disposal of land have been breached, they have a remedy: they can bring a claim for judicial review of the local authority’s decision.
In public law, the normal position is that if a public body’s decision is not challenged within the three-month time limit for bringing a judicial review claim, that decision is treated as having all the effects in law of a valid decision. However, in Day, the Supreme Court held that even when the decision to dispose of open-space land has not been challenged at the time of disposal, and may be many years and even decades in the past, a historic failure to comply with the advertisement requirement means the statutory trust persists, thus frustrating the repurposing or redevelopment of the land in question. That is the case, the court reasoned, even if the land was sold to a bona fide purchaser who was completely unaware of any procedural irregularity, and even if there remains no dispute that the land was surplus to requirements.
The effect of this is deeply unsatisfactory. It means that the land which has been sold on the basis of an unchallenged decision that it is in the public interest to dispose of it, which may have planning permission for beneficial redevelopment, is now bound by the statutory trust and cannot be put to its intended beneficial reuse. It sits uncomfortable with the public law principle that unchallenged public decisions should be treated as valid, and with the property law principle that a bona fide purchaser, without notice of equitable interests, takes land unencumbered by those interests. This is causing huge uncertainty in relation to land purchased many years ago—sometimes decades, as I mentioned. The evidence about whether land in question had been advertised prior to sale may no longer be readily available. This is holding up many developments across the country which already have planning permission.
A high-profile example of that is the current proposal to expand the All England Lawn Tennis Club’s internationally renowned facilities at Wimbledon to an adjacent former golf club site, the planning permission for which was recently upheld by the High Court. Claims that it is subject to a statutory trust in the light of the Day judgment are holding up the development and with it the substantial benefits to UK PLC that it would deliver.
Amendment 227E would deal with this issue by providing that bona fide purchasers of former open-space land and their successors in title are free from the burden of a statutory trust. This would not remove the local authority’s duty to advertise before disposing of open-space land, nor would it remove any of the other legal safeguards on the decision-making process relating to such disposal. It would not interfere with the public’s right to challenge a decision to dispose of such land within the usual three-month window for bringing a JR claim.
What it would do, however, is ensure that, where there has been no such challenge and the transaction was made in good faith, the purchase is not subject to the deleterious uncertainty and burdens that I have outlined. This would be consistent with the Government’s stated desire to streamline the planning system and deliver the growth this country needs. I respectfully urge the Minister to give it serious thought.
Lord Grabiner (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and have added my name to his amendment.
Every so often, we get a court decision which produces an unsatisfactory outcome. If, as is the position in relation to this amendment, it is a decision of the Supreme Court, there is no further appeal process. In that event, it is possible to have recourse to Parliament for the resulting problem to be put right. This is such a case.
Quite often, because of the demands made on parliamentary time, it is not practical to get a speedy solution. Fortunately, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill is in progress and is, I believe, tailor-made for the resolution of this problem. The mischief addressed by the amendment was, as you would expect, identified by Lady Rose, delivering the unanimous judgment of the five-judge Supreme Court in the case of R (Day) v Shropshire Council that we are concerned with. In paragraph 116, at the end of her judgment, Lady Rose said:
“I recognise that this leaves a rather messy situation”.
This is one of those situations where Parliament can and should step in to perform some corrective surgery.
I will not weary your Lordships with a detailed analysis of some arcane trust law or a lengthy exegesis of Section 164 of the Public Health Act 1875, Sections 123 and 128 of the Local Government Act 1972, and the provisions of the Open Spaces Act 1906—the noble Lord, Lord Banner, has already done that. I do not mean he has bored your Lordships; I mean he has accurately, if I may respectfully say so, summarised the import of that mixture of ancient legislation.
Where a local authority is proposing to dispose of land, it is technically obliged to advertise that fact for two successive weeks in the relevant local press—that is by virtue of Section 123 of the 1972 Act. This enables residents to register their objections in advance of the disposition. It is a consultation process. I describe the advertising requirement as technical because the 1972 Act specifically provides that any failure to advertise—for example, by mistake or oversight—will not impede or undermine the transaction. The buyer is fully protected and gets title to the land purchased—that is Section 128, as the noble Lord, Lord Banner, made reference to.
That provision says that the sale is not invalid for want of advertising and that the purchaser
“shall not be concerned to see or enquire”
whether the advertising requirement has been satisfied. Careful and complex historical investigation conducted by a potential purchaser may reveal that the land is subject to a public or statutory trust under the 1875 Act, entitling the public to go on to the land for recreational purposes. The effect of the Day case is far-reaching. It is accepted that the purchaser gets a good title, but the failure to advertise means that the public right to use the land remains in place. Moreover, that will continue to be the case for ever, because only the local authority has the power or duty to advertise under the 1972 Act, so it has a most profound and permanent effect.
Your Lordships will immediately appreciate the devastating impact of the Day decision. The land is blighted. The potential purchaser—for example, a developer—will walk away either because he does not know if the parcel of land, for historical reasons, is caught by the 1875 Act, or because he discovers it is caught, he can do nothing about it and his development plans would be frustrated. At a time when it is in the public interest to encourage housebuilding, it is important that unjustifiable impediments should not be allowed to undermine the furtherance of that crucial objective.
One can see that an objection to the amendment might be made along the lines that the public right to enjoy the land would be taken away. That is true, but there are two important countervailing arguments: first, there is an important public interest in doing whatever we can about the chronic housing shortage; secondly, it is obvious that, in the 1972 Act, Parliament was giving local authorities the power to sell the land and thereby to ensure that the public recreation rights would fall away for ever. The decision in Day makes it plain that if the advertising requirement had been satisfied, the public right would indeed have disappeared. When we take account of the fact that the purchaser gets a good title in any event, the intention of Parliament in 1972 is clear. That Act was designed to facilitate or ease the transfer of land.
The Day decision has produced an uncontemplated hurdle that can, and I respectfully suggest should, be set aside. I hope your Lordships, and indeed the Government in particular, agree with this analysis and will agree to the amendment.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I too have added my name to the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, has just mentioned, the Supreme Court concluded its judgment by recognising that it would leave a “rather messy situation”. This amendment gives Parliament the opportunity to clear up that mess. The mischief that the noble Lord, Lord Banner, explained is impeding many developments up and down the country, not least the plans of the All England Lawn Tennis Club to expand its facilities at Wimbledon—a much-needed development that will enable the club to better perform its functions of national and, indeed, international importance. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lords, Lord Banner and Lord Grabiner, in relation to this development; they are a formidable doubles team. I will just add a few points.
The first point I want to emphasise is that the law already provides that, if the local authority complies with the statutory requirements and properly advertises the sale, the purchaser takes the land free from the trust. See Section 123 of the Local Government Act and paragraph 102 of the Supreme Court judgment. There is no question of the trust being sacrosanct in law.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I address Amendments 227C and 227E in the names of my noble friends Lady Hodgson of Abinger and Lord Banner respectively. I thank both my noble friends for bringing these thoughtful and important proposals to the attention of the Committee.
Amendment 227C from my noble friend Lady Hodgson seeks to ensure greater transparency for landowners when they are approached for the sale or lease of the land. Specifically, it would require that the landowner is informed whether their land is being approached in isolation or as part of a wider acquisition, one that may ultimately support an application for designation as a nationally significant infrastructure project—NSIP.
This strikes me as a considered and sensible safeguard. Landowners should be able to make fully informed decisions, particularly where the accumulation of multiple parcels of land could lead to significant legal and planning implications under the NSIP regime. Transparency in the early stages of land negotiation can foster greater trust between parties and avoid unnecessary disputes or confusion further down the line.
Amendment 227E tabled by my noble friend Lord Banner responds to the recent Supreme Court judgment in Day v Shropshire, as we have heard from other noble Lords. The amendment seeks to clarify and reinforce the protections available to purchasers acquiring land from local authorities under the Local Government Act 1972. I can be reasonably brief, since it has been well set out by the three noble Lords.
Given the uncertainty created by that judgment, it is entirely appropriate that we consider how best to provide reassurance to bona fide purchasers acting in good faith. Legal certainty in these transactions is vital, not just for the public sector but for developers and communities which rely on these deals to proceed smoothly.
My noble friend Lord Banner made a strong case that Amendment 227E would deal with the issue by providing that bona fide purchasers of former open-space land and their successors in title are free from the burden of a statutory trust. He also had the strong support of the noble Lords, Lord Grabiner and Lord Pannick. The noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, made the very good point that this is the only vehicle in due sight in order to change it. I hope the Minister will address that point. Are the Government willing to use a small amendment to the Bill to address a problem, which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said was a mess?
I have been in this House for a few years, and I think if any Conservative criticised the godlike qualities of the Supreme Court, we would end up in severe trouble. It was interesting to hear that some noble KCs have discovered that the Supreme Court sometimes may get things slightly wrong.
These are very thoughtful amendments. Again, I thank my noble friends for tabling them. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reflections on these points in due course, and particularly on the points raised by my noble friend Lord Banner and what the Government plan to do to sort out the mess, as the noble Lord has described it.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Before the Minister replies, I just intervene, not having spoken previously, to say there are always two sides to any argument. There were clearly two sides to the argument before the Supreme Court, the other side being Dr Day’s argument that those people who had the benefit of access to open space should have been consulted about the loss of that.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Banner that, clearly, the intention of the 1972 legislation was that local authorities could dispose of that land and that they would be able to do so notwithstanding the previous Open Spaces Act 1906. The point that was asserted on Dr Day’s behalf before the Supreme Court was that those people who benefit from access to open spaces should have been consulted. The opportunity should be taken just to establish that not only do we need to change the law, we need to examine how and under what circumstances local authorities that wish to dispose of land to which the public have access should consult those people who would be affected.
Lord Pannick (CB)
In answer to the excellent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, it was not my noble friend Lord Grabiner and I who described the situation as a mess. Those were the words of Lady Rose herself in the Supreme Court. I would not presume to suggest that the Supreme Court judgment was a mess.
While I am on my feet, I am grateful for the opportunity to mention that my noble friend Lord O’Donnell is here but was not here at the beginning of the debate. He tells me that he very much supports this amendment and would wish to be included in any meeting, if the Minister will grant one. He is a main committee member at the Wimbledon club. He strongly supports the amendment but cannot speak because he was not here at the beginning of the debate.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for their amendments related to land purchasing, and the noble Lords, Lord Grabiner and Lord Pannick, who have contributed to the debate.
Amendment 227C seeks to ensure that, when approaching landowners to buy or lease their land in connection with a proposed development, developers declare their interest in purchasing adjacent land and confirm whether purchasing that land is being done in connection with a nationally significant infrastructure project for development consent via the Planning Act 2008. While I appreciate the intent behind this amendment—to increase transparency and discourage speculative land banking, which none of us wants to see—I respectfully argue that it is neither appropriate nor necessary within the framework of the Bill.
Purchasing land in relation to developments, particularly those that relate to nationally significant infrastructure projects, can often be sensitive in nature and thus require confidential discussions between parties to ensure that the most appropriate and proportionate outcome is achieved for all. Requiring developers to disclose whether they are in talks with other landowners could inadvertently breach confidentiality agreements, potentially jeopardising progress on the development of projects.
Furthermore, within the Planning Act 2008 guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land, there is government guidance on where purchasing land is required in connection with nationally significant infrastructure projects. This encourages developers to enter into early discissions with people who could be affected by land acquisition as a result of an NSIP. The Government stand by this guidance and seek to build on those principles without complicating negotiations with additional burdens on developers.
Lastly, where land is being purchased in connection with an NSIP, applicants are required to produce and keep up to date a book of reference, which is submitted with the application for development consent. This is a crucial document that is available for the public to view once an application has been submitted and accepted by the Secretary of State and outlines all land and interests in the land associated with the application. This includes land and interests in land that may be affected by the development, including through compulsory acquisition, temporary possession or interests being suspended or extinguished. This document, therefore, provides a clear and transparent account of all land and interests in land proposed to be affected by an NSIP.
With that, I thank the noble Baroness for her helpful proposal. However, in the light of the sensitivities noted, the guidance published, and the existing requirements of the Planning Act 2008, we do not consider that this amendment is necessary.
I turn to Amendment 227E. I hesitate to take on the combined ranks of the eminent noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, but I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for raising this important matter related to the disposal of land by local authorities and extinguishing the trust under which the land is held for public enjoyment, whereby it is preserved for recreational use and cannot be repurposed without following statutory procedures. The Government agree with the intent behind this amendment.
Open and green spaces and public parks are an essential part of local social infrastructure. They are one of the main reasons why people feel proud of their local area. They provide places for social connection, support health and well-being, increase community engagement and volunteering and help people to connect with nature, and can be a strong foundation for social capital.
We acknowledge that not all open spaces continue to serve their original recreational purpose. In fact, when they become neglected, they can cease to be an asset and become a burden for local authorities and communities. That is why there is a long-established procedure under Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 to allow for the disposal of open land held in trust.
If the procedure is followed, the land can be disposed of free from the trust provisions. Local authorities must advertise the intention to dispose of the land for two weeks in a local newspaper and consider any objections to the proposed disposal. Purchasers of land from local authorities can already protect themselves from acquiring land that they cannot develop because of a statutory trust by considering with their legal advisers whether the correct procedures have been followed, or raising appropriate pre-contract inquiries with the local authority prior to acquisition.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
The Minister is suggesting that the Government are going to change the law on this. Can she give us any indication of the timescale when we might see legislation—an amendment to some primary Act of Parliament?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I would be very loath to do that because, whenever you start looking into legal matters, in particular, it is always more complex than you anticipated. With the will to help make this make sense, I hope that we will be able to bring our combined forces together and get some resolution to the issue. But, for the reasons I set out, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her considered response. I am disappointed in her response to my amendment, because I think that, although I understand her point about confidentiality, there may be ways of communicating when landowners are approached, whether it is just an isolated approach or whether it is part of a larger project. I hope that there may be more thought about this.
I am sure that other noble Lords will have been heartened by the Minister’s response to Amendment 227E when she said that there will be further conversations to find a way to resolve this. I very much hope that further consideration will be given to the whole transparency issue, which might be brought back on Report. With that, I withdraw the amendment.
Lord Roborough
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move my Amendment 227H and address the proposition that Clauses 53 to 92 of Part 3 should not stand part of the Bill, as well as a number of other amendments, notably Amendments 334, 346DD and 346DE in my name, which are intended to provide an effective, simple and cost-effective way of addressing the issues that Part 3 professes to simplify.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—I wish her a speedy recovery—the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for their support to the clause stand part propositions. This is a broad church, and our reasons and solutions are likely to differ, and I look forward to their contributions. I am also grateful to the Minister for stepping in to help her colleagues with her deep Defra expertise, and for making time the other day to meet before this Committee sitting.
I have asked for the amendments to be grouped in this way to allow a debate on the limitations of Part 3 and on better ways of addressing the challenges it is seeking to tackle. I will endeavour not to repeat arguments that I have made previously, but a common thread of argument runs through all the amendments in this group, and it seems only reasonable that we should debate them together in this way.
At Second Reading I expressed deep scepticism about the approach to be taken to simplify environmental objections to planning processes in Part 3 of the Bill. I quoted environmental NGOs, rural lobbying groups and even development bodies that were united in their opposition to or concern about Part 3. I am most grateful to the Government for their amendments to strengthen environmental protections in this part. However, I am concerned that they are missing the point. The purpose of my amendments at this stage is to probe the necessity of such dramatic changes to environmental protection in the planning process. I would very much like to have a comprehensive answer from the Minister to the question of what exactly is wrong with the current environmental protections that cannot be addressed by tweaks to our current regime?
I do not wish to open up a complete Second Reading speech about everything that is wrong with Part 3 and why. I simply highlight that the effect of Part 3 is to create another process for dealing with environmental issues alongside existing processes. That will lead to confusion and muddle. The body tasked to implement this part is widely believed not to have the resources to do so effectively in a timely manner, and in fact often seems to be part of the problem. Existing protections for the environment through the planning process, such as the mitigation hierarchy and the use of private markets for biodiversity net gain, are functioning well and improving every day. The implementation of EDPs—environmental delivery plans—is likely to ride roughshod over the interests of farmers and land managers, be more costly than the current system, deliver uncertain outcomes and remove localism.
We know that up to 160,000 houses are being blocked by Natural England advice on nutrient neutrality. This House chose to defeat our amendments to what became the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act that would have removed this blockage. These regulations are not designed for or well suited to our country, and the sooner we make them fit for purpose, the better. Amendments 346DD and 346DE are a reformulation of the amendment we proposed to that Act. This means that those 160,000 houses could be unblocked by the Secretary of State from the commencement of this Bill, faster than any EDP can deliver. It would be simple and free.
Amendment 334 would require the JNCC to review the habitats regulations and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and to publish a report on consolidating them. This would be with a view to the Government bringing forward legislation to replace them with domestic legislation that is fit for purpose in this country. This need not be a lengthy process and is a medium-term solution to the issues we have been left with in our planning system from adopting one-size-fits-all EU regulations. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether the dynamic alignment with Europe that her Government appear to have adopted would pose problems for our legislating to protect our own environment.
We know that what appear to be poor decisions have been taken on a number of occasions: the £100 million bat tunnel for HS2 and the protection of the Ebbsfleet site as an SSSI. As we dig into these issues, we find that all too often it is questionable work that leads to these poor decisions, not the system itself. My noble friend Lord Howard of Rising tabled Amendment 346DB, debated in an earlier group, which would remove protections for bat species that do not need them in our country. Had that been in effect, it would have meant no bat tunnel under HS2, as well as reducing the cost and increasing the speed of many if not all refurbishment and construction projects across our country. I know that my noble friend has taken on board the criticisms of some noble Lords and is working on a more nuanced amendment for Report.
I am not suggesting that these amendments are the only solutions to the planning issues being experienced in protecting the environment, and I know that they will not necessarily win everyone’s approval. I have also put my name to Amendments 242A, 185F and 185G in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, which provide a constructive alternative approach that could also offer a better solution than Part 3 of the Bill. I know that those will be debated later in Committee.
Amendments 302 and 303 may not fit particularly well in this group, but they are tidying amendments which would make it clear that, under the auspices of EDPs, only the direct actions of those EDPs to address those features allow those features to be disregarded. I am very grateful again to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for her support on these amendments.
We on these Benches are trying to provide a constructive alternative to Part 3. These are, by their nature, probing amendments. We are not intending to destroy Part 3 but simply questioning whether it is the right answer and whether more direct and simple action within the existing system is not better. I hope I have made the case that judicious use of the scalpel, through these and other amendments, can revise current environmental protection without weakening it and immediately get Britain building, rather than relying on yet another team of government employees with an open-ended chequebook. I very much look forward to other contributions to this debate and the Minister’s response. We are trying to unblock the planning system and reduce cost and complexity. I will need to be convinced that Part 3 is necessary not to bring similar amendments back on Report. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, said, my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb signed all the clause stand part elements in this group, which essentially aim to delete Part 3. Unlike the noble Lord, we in the Green group think that Part 3 is not as bad as it was, but we would still be better off without it. That is the view of many NGOs, campaign groups and experts who have been in contact with me. Indeed, although there is a bit of competition at the moment, the mailbag I have had on this issue is one of the bigger mailbags that I have encountered.
My noble friend majored on this in her Second Reading speech and asked why the Government had it in for bats, newts and frogs. It appeared that perhaps some members of the Government were scared by some of them as small children and were bearing the scars. It is encouraging to see that we have seen some back-pedalling in their apparent attitude to harmless small mammals and amphibians, but none the less there are still grave concerns about Part 3. We have already debated this in a number of groups, and it is a pity that we are getting to this so late and in such an incoherent manner, given the importance in this hugely nature-depleted country of the issues covered by Part 3.
I will not run through all the amendments, but I want to highlight the response of the Office for Environmental Protection, which published an analysis of the Government’s amendments. It states that,
“even after the material amendments the government proposes, the Bill would, in some respects, lower environmental protections on the face of the law.”
I will raise four big issues and I hope that we might hear some reassurance from the Minister. We have had some reassurances in statements from the Government, but that is not the same as on the Floor of the House. The first issue is the safeguarding of the mitigation hierarchy, ensuring that the developer has taken reasonable steps to appropriately apply it, including by seeking to avoid harm whenever possible to our most important biodiversity assets. We are still nowhere near where we need to be on that.
Secondly, there is the overall improvement test so that conservation measures must significantly and measurably outweigh the negative impacts. We are talking about biodiversity net gain, but we are also talking about the conservation status of identified features, given the absence of European protected species legal tests. Thirdly, this is all about environmental delivery plans, and there needs to be an implementation schedule to provide the guarantees that the conservation measures will deliver the benefits, prior to the damage being done. Once valuable biodiversity is lost, it is gone, and promises to fix something up later, I am afraid, just do not crack it.
Finally, something I feel very passionate about is the irreplaceable habitats. I have stood at the foot of oak trees that were many hundreds of years old and thought about all the species and biodiversity that are dependent on them. There is no way of replacing that once it is lost and we have lost so much that we cannot afford to lose more. I am afraid that the Green position remains that we are nowhere near where we should be, and we are still heading in the wrong direction. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate; I can see many noble Lords have stayed late with the intention of delivering a forceful message, I am confident. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to the proposition that Part 3 not stand part of the Bill, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and I have signed. It was unusual, but I feel that it was the right thing to do to bring this forward to indicate the strength of political feeling on these matters of nature protection. I am pleased to have added my name to them. Equally, I think it is right that they are not pursued at this stage.
I pay my respects to and thank the Government, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and others, who have worked on and looked again at the concerns raised about the possible impacts of this Bill as it was initially drafted. Those have been voiced very strongly by the general public, by the NGO community and by Members of both Houses of this Parliament. It is not often that such a package of government amendments is tabled without a vote, but I must say it is a very welcome move. After Second Reading, I was not looking forward to the rest of the stages because I could see a showdown on basic nature protections coming down the line, so I am immensely grateful that this Bill has been substantially amended and improved. These amendments are not perfect, as others have said, but they do offer some substantial improvements.
I believe in the friendly hand of scrutiny, and I am convinced that Governments who listen and compromise make better laws than those who do not. Fundamentally, however, I feel that this Bill is still flawed. It carries a fundamental flaw through its heart in Part 3, because it identifies the wrong problems and then sets out to fix them in a not particularly great way. All the while, there are multiple other blockages to the planning system that do not really get the solutions that they need. They need to be unlocked so that we can get growth for housing, transition to clean power and do everything else that we really need to do.
I know the Government have made concessions and want this Bill passed. My hope is that, with shorter speeches from all, this Government will continue to listen, and we can continue the constructive dialogue in the time remaining to discuss the remaining important issues. In the interests of that time, I will not run through the changes but on these Benches we still have concerns about the environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration levy as representing a really significant shift in approach—an approach that generally has worked fairly well.
This change of approach carries with it significant bureaucratic burdens and inherent risk for the businesses which will be undertaking this stuff and will face reputational damage. It creates an almost communist scale of new bureaucracy about moving nature as if it was Lego bricks from one place to another, but I am deeply concerned about the irreplaceable habitats. We will have opportunities to discuss this on the remaining clauses of this Bill.
We are also concerned about the mitigation hierarchy. Fundamentally, I still do not understand; I have looked at all the updated energy policies, such as EN-1 and those on nuclear power, the grid and renewables, and the mitigation hierarchy remains at the heart of those policies. I do not understand why, when that will continue to be the case after the Bill has passed, the mitigation hierarchy needs to be removed for housing. The Government might want to make arguments about the mitigation hierarchy in relation to nationally significant infrastructure projects but, when we can deliver energy projects with the mitigation hierarchy, I do not see why that needs to be removed for housing.
I shall close on the comments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer this morning, as quoted in the Times. While I deeply respect the Minister and everything that has been done here, I worry that another Bill will come down the line; that some aspects of this Government still perceive nature as a blockage to planning and development, even though the Government’s own impact assessment shows that this is not the case; and that commitments made here might be changed later on. Still, I thank the Minister; there is more to discuss, but I am grateful.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
There are three reactions coming to the fore about Part 3. A bunch of folk want to kill it because it is awful and unnecessary; a bunch of folk are predisposed to accept it, because although with the government amendments it is still not very good it is good enough, and we can probably get more amendments in the process of its passing through this House; and the third position is finding an alternative way of focusing on and resolving the issues that are stopping development happening. The last one is the way that I espouse.
Originally I had my name down to the mighty list of clause stand parts drawn up by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, which would have completely kneecapped Part 3. I thank him for giving us the opportunity to discuss the problems with Part 3 that arouse such strong antipathy across the piece, regardless of which of the three reactions you espouse. However, I took my name down from the clause stand parts when I tabled my Amendments 185F, 185G and 242A. I presented those amendments with a heavy heart to the small but dedicated band who were still here, since it was the final group of Thursday night’s session. I had never experienced a death slot quite like that one before; it felt like a wet Tuesday night at the Aberdeen Empire.
I believe that EDPs are a risky and not very good way forward, for a number of reasons. One is that they are probably unnecessary because they are too sweeping, regarding EDPs as needing to cover a plethora of issues that have already been resolved or, in the eyes of developers, are not really the problems that are getting in the way. Another is that the habitats regulations have stood us in good stead over many years. We invented them as a bunch of Brits, and they represent the highest level of protection for that tiny, most important set of sites and species. Developers have got used to applying them over 30 years; they have developed an understanding and expertise within their operations. Many developers admit that the habs regs and nature are a long way down their list of blockages. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, are not in their places tonight, because they have developed a wonderful road map that shows how EDPs simply add another route to getting permissions rather than simplifying the existing routes.
My amendments would take the, I hope, constructive avenue of trying to find a middle way by restricting them to those issues for which they can be effective, which are strategic and landscape-level issues of nutrient neutrality, water quality, water quantity and air quality, and by adding amendments that I combined with them to give the heavy lifting on habitats regulation assessment to regional spatial strategies and local plans. By the time a developer came to put forward a planning application, not only would the majority of surveys and assessments have taken place but developers would be clearer where they should avoid sites with tricky protected species and instead aim for those sites rather less likely to have wrangles at stake. These already debated amendments have had a second opportunity to find their way to the light at a slightly more auspicious point in the timetable, and I hope that Ministers will consider them. They would be less dramatic than the clause stand part massacre of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough.
I do not wholly support the solutions proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, to the nutrient neutrality issue, mainly because I do not actually understand what his amendments intend to achieve. I will swot up on that before Report.
However, I will briefly speak in support of Amendments 302 and 303, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and I have added our names. They confirm that only impacts addressed by an EDP should be disregarded for the habs regs. We must make sure that any disregarding of the habitats regulations is absolutely forensic and rapier-like, not broad, woolly and unformed. They are important building blocks for nature conservation and recovery in this country. They do not get in the way of development if they are properly administered. They are about process rather than substance, and we can streamline them in a whole load of ways without wrecking them.
This is the nub of the Bill. If the truth were known, Part 3 is one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation that I have seen, and my first conversation with Ministers in the Commons did not reassure me. When I said that I was worried about the environmental impacts of the Bill, they said, “Don’t you worry about it. This isn’t an environment Bill; it’s a planning Bill”.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I support a number of amendments in this group, but I will limit my remarks to the debate on whether Clause 83 should stand part of the Bill. I was beaten at the post by my noble friend Lord Roborough in signing the clause stand part notice, so I added my name and support it wholeheartedly. I am concerned about this for a number of reasons.
It was remiss of me not to welcome the Minister back to her seat after the reshuffle last week; it is good to see her in her place.
I understand that Natural England is looking to lose some members of staff in various parts of the country, which raises an additional question mark over the resources and staffing that it has at its disposal to do this sizeable task. My noble friend Lord Roborough, in introducing this group of amendments, asked why these powers are necessary. There is great concern among the farming community that these powers are before us in the Bill. The cost of buying land and then paying to deliver the mitigation is not the best use of the nature restoration levy. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, about the role of EDPs in achieving what the Government seek to achieve. The case is yet to be made as to why we need EDPs. Therefore, I would like to explore other solutions—perhaps private market solutions—to environmental mitigation in this regard. I support my noble friend Lord Roborough’s argument about the number of houses delayed from being built because of the policy that the Government are pursuing in this regard.
What the Government have achieved is probably something that they did not set out to achieve: both sides of the argument—the green lobby, or what have been called the environmental NGOs, and landowners and farming communities—are equally unhappy with how Part 3 has been drafted. I accept that the Government have tried to recover some of the ground through their own amendments, but I am particularly unhappy about the drafting of Clause 83. It begs the questions of what resources are available and why this role has been given to Natural England. This is happening against the background that Natural England, it appears, will be losing staff and resources at a time when the Government envisage such a major role as set out in Clause 83. I therefore lend my support to the amendments and stand part notices in this group, particularly that Clause 83 should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I want to speak strongly for Amendments 334, 346DD and 346DE in the name of my noble friend Lord Roborough. Two years after your Lordships’ House last considered nutrient neutrality, my noble friend’s amendments seek to break the nutrient neutrality deadlock, de-layer this cat’s cradle of conflicting regulations and allow us to focus on those things for best effort.
Three and a half years ago, in 2022, nutrient neutrality rules were created, and then, at a stroke, they hunky-bunkered over 200,000 planning applications in over 75 planning authorities—planning authorities which for the most part have the greatest housing potential, because they are the ones clustered around the conurbations and thus have the greatest capacity to deliver housing growth.
I was the council leader in one of these areas. At a stroke, together with our two neighbouring authorities, over 45,000 houses in a plan were made mute. We will never get roofs over people’s heads, including through affordable and social housing, while homes are not being built.
My noble friend’s amendment gets to the heart of this; it allows us to ask the fundamental question as to whether stopping housebuilding will clean up our rivers. At the outset, let us be clear: the statutory responsibility for ensuring a clean environment falls variously upon Defra, the Environment Agency, Natural England—the statutory water undertakings for the effective running of sewage treatment works.
These bodies have the funding, the powers and the responsibility for cleaning up our rivers, but the nutrient neutrality rulings transfer those responsibilities to a completely different class of organisation with no obvious statutory or financial resources to do so: local councillors, the planning departments of local planning authorities, and the housebuilding industry more generally. It is a buck-passing from those who should be designing and implementing solutions, in favour of the LPAs and builders who do not have any control over the matter at all. Taking all the homes in the UK, the Home Builders Federation estimates that, of all the current planning applications that would be built, it would add just 0.92% to the overall housing stock of 25 million dwellings.
We have to consider materiality here. At this point, I feel I should declare that, when I was not leading a council in a previous life, my business was in the fertiliser industry. I have a degree in agriculture, I studied soil science, and I have built a career around advising on effective plant nutrition and the role of nutrients in soils. If I was on Mastermind, this would be my specialist subject.
As I reflect on my own experience, it is now widely understood that the nutrient effect of the impact of new homes, over and above the existing homes in rural places such as Norfolk or Herefordshire, might contribute just 0.2% of the total phosphate load in a catchment. Put another way, out of 500 potential mitigating strategies, 499 are more likely to reduce phosphate emissions in a catchment than prevent new homes being built. In essence, not building a handful of homes in Holverston connected to a Klargester will not clean-up Rockland Broad, to give a very local example.
It is important to restate why the restrictions have been imposed. The test in the habitats regulations and in law is to avoid “significant damage” to a special area of conservation—significant damage, not purely harm. I will never understand why we have stopped our second-largest economic sector, construction, and put tens of thousands of people out of work while serially sacrificing our housebuilding targets on the altar of nutrient neutrality—a marginal future gain of just 0.2%, when the problem exists here and now.
We are aiming at the wrong target by stopping housebuilding. Just ask the people of the Hereford catchment of the River Wye whether building a few less homes will clean up their river, or whether the wholesale processing and removing of animal waste from the catchment might be a better approach. There, it is generally accepted that 80% of the nutrient load in places like Herefordshire comes from poultry manures—not from industry, or even existing homes; still less from homes that have not yet been built.
Elsewhere in your Lordships’ House, the Environment and Climate Change Committee recently heard that over 20 million tonnes of sludges, slurries and digestates are applied to land from anaerobic digesters, and some of it on valley sides. I would venture to say that the Government would be better advised to focus on this issue, rather than stopping builders building. In essence, there is a dilemma. Do we focus on the 80%, or the 0.2%?
That is why I like the noble Lord’s amendment. It enables us to focus our minds on where the substantive problem is. It directs us at the big numbers, not the trivial numbers. It stops us worrying about the 0.2% that might come from the building of new homes and from the flushing of their loos, damaging a significant contributor to the local economies and supply chains. Instead, the amendment seeks to allow a regulatory focus on where the real problem lies, which is principally with organic manures and digestates applied to land on bare stubbles, with nutrients which become mobilised much later in the summer, after harvest, when the ground has warmed up. The summer rains produce the ideal conditions to break them down into mobile phosphates, but not when the growing crops are there to absorb them, so they run off.
If we focus on some of the bigger issues rather than the marginal ones, it might allow the Government to have a joined-up approach. We might even start to provide the grounds again for slurry schemes and storage, which were cancelled in the previous year; that is the key to handling the problem. The best chance of breaking this deadlock and getting new homes built quickly, as the noble Lord has said, is to take the rapier to Part 3 of the Bill and to work out how can we solve the problem, rather than misdirecting ourselves towards small harms. We need to address the big consequences that are harming our economy and our ability to grow, and to get roofs over the heads of the people who need those homes. These are not rich people. We need affordable housing, housing in villages, and housing on brownfield land. All this is hunky-bunker, and we must sweep it away and focus on the big target, not the little one.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, Part 3 of the Bill gives new wide-ranging powers to Natural England, which has been heavily involved in all aspects of Part 3, much of which has been made up on the hoof as the Bill progressed. Part 3 also contains a good dollop of empire building by Natural England. We should be very circumspect about agreeing this when the Office for Environmental Protection criticises it as environmental aggression and a leaked report suggests that the EU has similar concerns.
Like many of your Lordships, I have been concerned about NE for some time. There have been regular press comments about the mistakes that it makes. It is often criticised for being slow, bureaucratic and inefficient in decision-making. It seems too focused on prescriptive top-down solutions, ignoring the experience of the practitioner, and slow to embrace new technologies in environmental management. Farmers and land managers have lost trust in it, which is a disaster for nature. NE is not fit for purpose. I want to examine why.
Some key factors interlink and have a compounding effect. A major problem for NE is its structure. Where scientific expertise and sound judgment is a prerequisite, there is a lack of good in-house scientists and the consultants that it uses sometimes do not have the expertise needed. Over the last 20 years, due to budgetary constraints, the best scientific experts—and therefore the most expensive to employ—have left the organisation. It used to employ highly regarded scientists but now, with some notable exceptions, it is an organisation operated by low-grade civil servants with insufficient supervision or control by scientific specialists. Yet it is an organisation on whose judgments Ministers must rely, and legal regimes rest. Making those scientific judgments is even more challenging due to Section 63(5) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, which sets out a requirement to prove a negative. This is a reversal of the usual burden of proof under the law, raising a fundamental problem which only good scientists can tackle competently.
The job is made much harder because the precautionary principle, which is not mentioned in the habitat regulations, has been established by case law and must be applied to habitat assessment. Here we have a problem. What is the precautionary principle? It has no constant legal definition. Regardless of that, it is cited by NE as justification for giving weight to hypothetical risks for which there is no credible evidence and without being questioned.
So the requirement to prove a negative must be very tightly regulated, as without proper oversight the system is open to abuse. Because of NE’s structure, that abuse is increasingly evident. It is much easier for the civil servant to say no, even though that decision is based on myth or prejudice rather than sound science. This then sets a precedent for future decisions and the downward spiral continues.
That “safe decision” attitude, which pervades NE, is now the ingrained cultural attitude and the reason why it makes so many perverse decisions. Such decisions lead to more costly and/or delayed development, with little or no benefit to the environment. As an example, NE’s assessments of general licence applications 43 and 45 have revealed inconsistencies, a lack of understanding that game management activities are intrinsic to releasing activity, an overprecautionary approach based on bird flu risks and a presumption of negative impact. GL43 and GL45 were brought in to address environmental and legal issues, not bird flu.
NE has become an increasingly powerful organisation that can do what it wants without challenge. Frighteningly, the Bill seeks to give it yet more power. It cannot be challenged from within. However good the executives or members of the board of trustees are, they are not ecologists and they are not equipped to challenge the scientific approach, even if based on myth adopted by the case officer.
It is hard to challenge from without. Developers know how powerful NE is and do not want to campaign publicly for fear of damaging their relationships and having greater difficulty with their schemes in the future. This leads to a conspiracy of silence. Those who wish to challenge NE from outside are faced with every obstruction. I will go into the case of Biocore Agri Ltd in more detail on later amendments. In summary, Biocore was given approval by NE for its scheme in the nutrient market, only for NE to say it would refuse a detailed application due to a change of mind. Not surprisingly, this inconsistency has upset Biocore and it has challenged NE. I am told that, in retaliation, NE has now threatened not to answer future correspondence from Biocore. Given that NE has obstructed the private sector on nutrients, what confidence can we have that NE will not behave in exactly the same way when it comes to EDPs?
I have had the temerity to question NE’s science and scientists. Luckily, I have no land and NE has no hold on me. On 22 April, I wrote in some detail to the CEO setting out my concerns about the science that NE uses regarding wildfires and asked for a meeting. After long delays and a refusal to be allowed to speak to her or her office, I received a reply from a member of her staff, which included the words: “We do not feel such a meeting to discuss our approach to evidence would be productive”. However, I have now heard from the CEO, who has offered a meeting. It will be in October, six months after I asked for it, but it would not be taking place had I not asked the Minister, to whom I am grateful, to look into the matter.
I ask your Lordships to contrast the arrogant, complacent and discourteous attitude of NE with that of the director of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, which I emailed on 28 June with concerns about the problems fiprinol and imidacloprid are causing to the environment. I received a detailed response before the end of July. That reply gave rise to further questions and, on return from holiday, I asked for a meeting on 20 August. The response was immediate and the meeting took place before the end of the month.
Inadvertently, with NE an organisation more fearsome than the environmental arm of Rostekhnadzor in Russia has been created. This part of the Bill does nothing to rectify the deep-seated problems NE has. A wise Government would drop Part 3 and sort out NE for the benefit of the environment, development and the growth that this country so badly needs before giving it more powers which, unless reformed, it will only abuse.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, it is right that we are having such a comprehensive debate on whether Part 3 stand part of the Bill. The Whip will remind us that we are not here to do Second Reading speeches, and I agree with that, but he will remember that the advisory time limit at Second Reading was a mere five minutes to cover every single clause of the Bill. That is why we are having a debate, and trying to understand from the Minister what the effect of these clauses is supposed to be, especially as we know that, since the Bill came into this House, the Government have been forced to table amendments.
A test of this Bill—certainly of Part 3—would be whether the new Secretary of State at the ministry would stand by the assertion that Angela Rayner made when she said that there be no detriment on the basis of existing environment law compared to were this to go through. I appreciate that that is still sub judice but it would be helpful if the Minister might be able to articulate whether Steve Reed would stand by that assertion. It may be that that is part of what has led to the amendments, though, as we have already heard, perhaps the amendments do not go far enough. Certainly, the OEP was critical of the Bill—I do not need to go over its criticisms again—and some changes have been made.
My noble friend Lord Caithness talks in detail about Natural England. I intend to speak a bit more about that in the next group of amendments, but I want to give a bit of assurance to my noble friend. One of the reasons for having the environmental principles policy statement was specifically for the Government to set out how they intended these different things, such as the precautionary principle, to apply. I am conscious of what my noble friend says, but, specifically when it came to the precautionary principle—I know this because I wrote it—there is the issue of risk.
Traditionally, there has been a lot of back and forth about risk and hazard and what the right approach should be to the precautionary principle. By and large, Conservative or Labour Governments have taken a risk-based approach. I will give your Lordships a further example. If bleach was introduced today, almost certainly it would not be allowed, because the hazard would be too great. We do not do that; we do it on a risk-based approach. I am pleased to say that, in the government policy, which is still valid today, it says that
“in all cases, for the precautionary principle to apply, there must be sufficient evidence that the risk of serious or irreversible damage is plausible and real”.
I hope that reassures my noble friend.
There are various elements of Part 3 for which I want to understand and probe further what the Government intend to do. Clause 58 starts off by saying:
“When Natural England decides to prepare an EDP”.
But who is going to give that direction? Why is it up to Natural England to decide whether it is going to prepare an EDP? It would be helpful for the Minister to explain why the Government have come up with that phraseology. We will debate EDPs in a lot more detail, so I do not need to go into every intricacy of them now, but it would be helpful to get a sense of what the primary legislation is trying to get at. It feels a little like the designation of the expiration of SSSIs, where it is left entirely to Natural England to decide whether to look at an SSSI, whether to extend it and so on. That is not satisfactory either. It would be useful to understand the Government’s intentions in that clause.
It would be helpful to get some clarity on Clause 68(4) before I move on to Clause 86. Having accepted that a developer is going to pay the levy, Natural England can then
“rescind its acceptance … such that the developer ceases to be committed to pay the nature restoration levy”.
On the one hand, we are saying that the levy is mandatory; on the other, we are saying that it is not. In what circumstances has it been deemed that regulations might be needed to withdraw that? Perhaps the whole development comes to a grinding halt, but I think there will be several of us who are concerned that this is just another way to stop people paying towards the levy. I made this point in our debates last week that the chief executive of Natural England had come up with a series of assertions that it was not mandatory for developers to pay the levy and later that councils could assess the validity of the EDP being developed and the progress of it and make decisions on whether or not it was valid to grant planning consent. There are also other issues with Clause 59.
In Clause 86, Natural England is mentioned basically everywhere, and the Secretary of State is mentioned every now and again. The clause is saying that the Secretary of State can decide anyone has the power to exercise the functions. If that is the case, why have we gone into that level of detail about Natural England being granted all these compulsory purchase powers when really, at the stroke of a pen, they could be given to just one single person? That feels extraordinary.
So I am really concerned about Clause 86 in general. I am conscious that the Minister may want to elucidate on this clause in more detail, and I hope that she can explain what it is seeking to achieve. It may be that the Secretary of State wants Suffolk Wildlife Trust to develop the plan or some other body—it could be somewhere special in Cumbria. By the way, I congratulate the Minister on staying in her post given that she is the only person who has any connection to the countryside; I am sure even the Prime Minister realises that Defra needs somebody who actually lives and breathes the countryside.
However, the designated person will be defined in regulations, so it could be anyone. It is pretty stark to give such huge powers to just anybody. We have seen this in the Employment Rights Bill, where—as we finally discovered through debate in this House—a designated person or body, like the trade unions, could be given unlimited amounts of taxpayers’ money. We are seeing that here in this Bill too. It would be very helpful if the Minister could explain what, in seeking that the clause stand part, the Government are seeking to achieve.
I know people want to catch trains shortly after midnight so we should not extend this much further, but I want to mention aspects of the mitigation hierarchy and to get some clarity from the Minister. I recognise this has already been brought up a few times today. In the Commons, Matthew Pennycook was very clear that he did not believe the mitigation hierarchy was in any way fixed. Can the Minister clarify whether the principle of “do no harm” is being ripped up?
I will speak separately to my noble friends about parts of the reality of the River Wye. Some of it is just that the river is too hot because somebody has managed to cut down tons of trees, so there is no shade anymore, which has led to greater chemical reactions happening than perhaps Natural England would otherwise predict.
Finally, I will speak to some of the other amendments. My noble friends on the Front Bench have tabled Amendments 346DD and 346DE; they are familiar because they are very similar to amendments tabled by the last Government, of which I was a member. I would say gently to some of my noble friends that, when I was looking at some of these significant changes, I looked at a map and some of these parts of the country are tiny. Are there not some other parts of the country where we could consider building instead of going on such a controversial route as we took at the time? This Government have gone far further with Part 3 as it stands, but I look forward to some of the explanations on that.
I completely agree with Amendments 302 and 303, which my noble friends have been tabled.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I support the general thrust of the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Roborough.
The focus of Natural England is bureaucratic and precautionary, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Caithness. We need to find a way around the freezing of housing developments by Natural England under its nutrient neutrality rules. This is a real growth killer in those areas. My noble friend Lord Roborough has tried to find an immediate remedy in some of his amendments; I encourage the Minister to look at them and perhaps come forward with some further amendments to this important Bill. I remind the Committee that page 6 of the Explanatory Notes says that the Bill
“intends to speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure”.
My worry is that Part 3 gives Natural England the power to bring about the opposite.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have had a number of conversations with developers over the course of the past month or two. Their universal conclusion is that Part 3 makes it much harder to build houses. It adds huge levels of risk and uncertainty. It tears up the arrangements that they were half way through making—in order to get things done and deal with the environmental impact of housebuilding—and substitutes them with a regime where they just will not know what is happening. It will be really difficult to make commitments because so much could change if an EDP is imposed and because of the timescale of imposing an EDP. What will the consequence of an EDP be? It will make the whole business anti-business.
I really hope that the Government will take the chance of a change in the Secretary of State to look at this aspect of the Bill and say, “Even if it’s a good idea, we need to take it slowly and carefully, and we need to make sure that people can rely on it”, because, if you are setting out to build houses on any scale, you are taking a long-term decision. You need to know how the landscape will be for years in advance.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has kindly organised meetings with Natural England. I have been to two of them, in fact; I was late to one but, for the first one, I was there almost the entire time. One rather excited official from Natural England described what is going to happen as the most exciting thing that had happened in his career. I am not surprised—I mean, all its Christmases are coming at once. It is getting to have a role at the heart of planning and development; to design schemes across the country; and to run the authoritative model to determine where, how and when EDPs will be implemented. I have noticed several references tonight to the Soviet Union, an area with which I have worked extensively. I had exactly the same thought when I read this Bill. This is real Gosplan in action. The idea of some apparatchik sitting at his computer in Westminster and saying, “Bang—we will do that over there”, is absolutely what went wrong with the Soviet Union.
A lot of rude words have been said about Natural England tonight, many of which it deserves. My only real encounter with it was when I tried to put a catchment scheme together up the river—noble Lords may remember the days when we had environmental programmes that were still open. I was looking at doing one of those. The Natural England person said to me, “You know, it sounds like a lot of work, and it’s awfully complex. Are you sure you really want to do it?” These are the people who will be designing EDPs across the country and inflicting them on us. In our debate on the next group of amendments, there will be this question: why is it written as though Natural England is the only solution for all time? Why can it not be more general? I will leave that for others to talk about in the next section.
Two things came out of my latter meeting with them. One was that—noble Lords may or may not be aware of this—if you are a developer, you have to do biodiversity net gain, BNG. That is additional to the levy that you are going to be paying. I just think that everybody should be aware of that.
Lord Fuller (Con)
Before the noble Lord sits down, he mentioned, over and above nutrient neutrality, the biodiversity net gain levy, but has he also considered the other levies, which will apply in addition in an astonishing layering effect? There is the GIRAMS, the green infrastructure recreation avoidance and mitigation strategy, and the SANGs, which is special areas of something—there are so many of these different levies, each of which layers over and above. The cumulative effect of all these is so great that what has to give is the affordable housing, the community infrastructure levy and all those other wider improvements. Has he made some sort of consideration of that in his research?
Lord Cromwell (CB)
The noble Lord asked me to say something before I sat down. I will now sit down, but he has thoroughly ruined my evening. Thank you.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, please bear with me. I only have 20 minutes. It has been a very long debate and, because of the clause stand parts, I need to go through everything. I will do my best to cover everything off, but anything I do not, I will get back to the noble Lords in writing.
Our vision is for a planning system that delivers for both nature and people. The reforms in the Bill are critical to meeting our ambitious housebuilding targets and fast-tracking the planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. But we have been consistently clear that meeting those objectives need not and will not come at the cost of the environment. It is this ethos that sits at the centre of how we have designed the nature restoration fund.
The new system is not simply about streamlining how environmental obligations are discharged but about using funds more effectively to secure better outcomes for the environment. We know that the status quo has not been working, neither for development nor for nature. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned concerns that have been raised. We recognise the concerns about establishing an alternative approach. We have worked closely with stakeholders and have taken their views on board, which has culminated in the package of government amendments laid in Committee that noble Lords have mentioned. I would like to particularly thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for recognising the improvements that they have brought to the Bill.
I want to set out how this new approach is going to work. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, produced a very helpful diagram at the recent drop-in session on the Bill. We are working on that to make it fully accurate and we will share further information in a letter that will help noble Lords to better understand our new approach and provide reassurance on what we are trying to achieve. I hope that that will clarify a number of questions that have been asked today, including around the mitigation hierarchy and other concerns that were raised regarding developers by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I apologise that they have not been ready for today’s session, but hopefully we will have them ahead of Wednesday.
It is important to highlight that the NRF establishes an alternative mechanism to discharge existing environmental obligations. It does not create any new obligations or repeal any existing environmental obligations. Where an EDP is put in place, it will remain open to developers either to use the EDP or to discharge the relevant environmental obligation under the existing system. This is baked into the design of EDPs, which will set out the capacity of development they can support but can scale the delivery of conservation measures according to the amount of development that comes forward.
This highlights another important feature of this new model in that Natural England and, ultimately, the Secretary of State would not prepare an EDP where it was not necessary to support development and the environment. These are targeted tools that will be used only where there is both a clear need from development and an ecological case that the EDP could materially outweigh the negative impact of development.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, raised concerns about the role of Natural England. I am pleased that the noble Earl now has a meeting arranged but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, said, the next debate will be an opportunity to get into more depth around Natural England’s role.
I want to clarify that, before the EDP comes to the Secretary of State, it will be subject to proper scrutiny through public consultation. Only then would the Secretary of State consider whether the EDP could be made in line with the overall improvement test. This consultation is vital, because it is the stage when people can test the approach being proposed, in terms of the design and efficacy of the conservation measures. This is also where Natural England will set out whether it is proposing to include planning conditions to drive action on the part of developers, as part of the EDP. In the limited circumstances where conservation measures benefit a site different from the one impacted by development, the EDP will set out the ecological justification for these measures and how they are more beneficial to the environmental feature in question than on-site measures.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Would the Minister clarify? I will be very brief. The EDP is designed on the basis of offsetting some environmental damage, but at what point do the developers choose whether or not to pay the levy into it?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
This is what we are trying to do with the diagram and the note; they will clarify all that.
If, after the consultation and consideration of the overall improvement test, an EDP is made, developers would be able to make a payment into the EDP which would, subject to any conditions, discharge the relevant environmental obligation. The responsibility for delivering conservation measures and the overall improvement would then move to Natural England, which would use the money received through the nature restoration levy to secure the necessary conservation measures. These would then be supported by a thorough regime of monitoring and reporting to ensure that the outcomes are delivered, with the government amendments clarifying the actions that must be taken were conservation measures not to perform as expected. Once in place, the EDPs will deliver a streamlined approach for developers while improving the conservation status of the environmental feature.
This is part of Clause 53, so I will address the first amendment in this group, because it is relevant to this clause. Amendment 227H, from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would change the name “environmental development plan” to “environmental harm mitigation plan”. I think that we have different ambitions for the nature restoration fund. We are clear, both in our aims and through the legislation, that EDPs will go beyond simply mitigating harm and will more materially outweigh the negative impact of a development. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord is able to withdraw that amendment.
Clause 54 sets out the requirements for what an EDP must include in relation to area, type of development, volumes of development and duration of the EDP, providing clarity on the scope and setting clear expectations for Natural England on what needs to be included when preparing an EDP.
Clause 55 introduces the concept of conservation measures, which are the measures to be funded by an EDP. It also introduces the concept of the environmental feature, which is a protected feature of a protected site or species that is likely to be impacted by a development that the conservation measures seek to address. It establishes the framework of the rules.
While we are on Clause 55, Amendments 302 and 303, tabled by the noble Lord, Roborough, seek to limit the disapplication of the habitats regulations to the specific nature and specific impacts identified in the EDP. This is important and I am pleased to be able to provide clarity and assurance on this point. As drafted, Clause 55(1) defines an environmental impact as
“one or more ways in which that negative effect is likely to be caused by the development”,
as identified by the EDP. This means that the disapplication in Schedule 4 already applies only to the specific impacts of the development identified in the EDP. Of course, there could be circumstances where it may have multiple environmental impacts and, if only one of those was addressed by the EDP, the remaining environmental impacts would still need to be assessed through the existing system.
Clause 56 requires Natural England to produce charging schedules, which is critical as that will establish the rates that developers need to pay to rely on the EDP. The clause makes it clear that different rates can apply for different kinds of development covered by the EDP. Clause 57 sets up further detail around the information that Natural England has to include in an EDP; for example, an underlying environmental condition. That is why an EDP must describe the current conservation status of each environmental feature, so that we can set a baseline for improvements and how they are measured.
Looking at the procedures, Clause 58 sets out the requirements that Natural England must meet. The Government have tabled an amendment to replace Clause 58 with Clause 87A, which extends and broadens the duties it contains to other functions of Natural England and the Secretary of State in relation to this part. I will speak to this amendment in due course but, in the light of that, the Government are not seeking to support the inclusion of the current Clause 58.
In introducing the restoration fund, we have been clear that this new approach will be expert-led and ecologically sound. Clause 59 is therefore central. It secures the effective scrutiny and has a consultation process to lead to better EDPs informed by relevant experts and local communities, but also provides the Secretary of State with the assurance that he needs to approve an EDP. The nature restoration fund is, as I said, not just about streamlining but about using funds more effectively, which is why Clause 60 requires that the Secretary of State may approve an EDP only once satisfied that it passes the overall improvement test. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned the importance of the overall improvement test. The Secretary of State has to be satisfied that it will be delivered by the end date of the EDP. EDPs are therefore focused on the timely delivery of environmental outcomes.
I move on to the reporting, amendment, revocation and challenge requirements. Once an EDP is made, it is crucial that Natural England can effectively monitor the performance of the conservation measures and progress made. It is vital that key information, such as performance of conservation measures and the remaining development capacity, are made available. It is important to have transparency so that proactive steps can be taken if an EDP is underperforming. It also allows the Secretary of State to amend an EDP if required.
Clause 62 has the reporting requirements and also looks at how the levy is being set and the transparency around that, so that developers, the local community and environmental groups can continue to engage during the EDP’s lifespan. Clause 63 gives the Secretary of State the power to amend EDPs in specific circumstances where it is necessary to do so; for example, to reflect new environmental information or to accommodate additional development. Crucially, the Secretary of State is bound by the same overall improvement test as when making an EDP.
I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, who talked about the process for revoking; the circumstances on how that would be used are established in Clause 64. Of course, this is the option of last resort, and the Bill includes various safeguards to ensure that we do not reach this point, including the ability to amend and to deploy back-up conservation measures if monitoring indicates underperformance. Development that has relied on the EDP prior to revocation is not affected by the decision to revoke. The Secretary of State must then consider appropriate actions to ensure that the negative effect of development on environmental features where a developer has already committed to pay the levy before revocation are suitably addressed. Obligations discharged through an EDP will not be subject to separate consideration at the point of development consent, so we recognise that it is important to provide a route to challenge EDPs. The route of challenge is in Clause 65 and enables a claim for judicial review to be brought within a period of six weeks from the date that the EDP is published.
I turn to how the nature restoration levy operates. Clause 66 sets out the framework. If a request is accepted by Natural England, the developer is then committed to making the relevant payment, which will be set out in the charging schedule, which will be published. Once the developer has committed to paying the levy, the environmental obligations are altered in line with the EDP. Ensuring that Natural England can secure the funds to deliver the conservation measures through the nature restoration levy is central to this approach and provides certainty. The positive outcomes for nature that the EDP will deliver will be realised only if the developer chooses to make them. Therefore, the Secretary of State must aim to ensure that the cost of the levy does not make development unviable. The regulations will be able to deal with a range of technical matters relating to the ability to pay, such as cancellation or withdrawal of such liability, and the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I am most grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this debate and am very impressed by the depth and timing of the Minister’s response. It was clearly a lonely place to be defending Part 3 today. The concerns were well aired around the Committee about its impact, as well as questions about exactly what the problem is. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, put it very well: where is the problem? The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and I talked about surgical solutions to some of the issues that we consider to be the problems that are blocking planning.
Despite the impressive response from the Minister, I still have not heard a justification for why Part 3 is in the Bill. Clearly, I will not press these amendments now, but I would like the Committee to bear that in mind as we go through Part 3 and debate the amendments. I hear a commitment from the Minister to work with the Committee to improve Part 3, but I still question why it is there. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Coffey
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have multiple amendments in this group. In essence, the whole thrust is that the Secretary of State should be in charge of this rather than it be passed to Natural England through primary legislation. I say that because of a number of factors. I am not going to do a big attack on Natural England, but I think it is worth exposing some of the challenges. I am slightly conscious that, according to the clock, I have already spoken for 15 minutes—time goes quickly when you are having fun.
One of the things the Prime Minister has set out is that decisions should not be palmed off to all these other bodies; Ministers should be accountable. That matters. A frustration that the wider public have is that too often it feels like Ministers have either lost control or given up control. For a variety of reasons, it has often been deemed that a third party would be better off doing this than the elected Government of the day. I do not think that is the right approach. Recognising the other piece of legislation we have had along the way in getting here, it is right that Ministers should be accountable. Natural England is an arm’s-length body, with a sponsoring department at Defra, but it has its own independent board. There are certain rules that it is not particularly accountable to because it is a regulator, and others that are delegated through a variety of ways. Importantly, Natural England is formally the statutory adviser to the Secretary of State for Defra.
As a consequence, with these amendments I am trying to say that, frankly, if the Secretary of State wants to delegate a lot of the creation of EDPs to Natural England or others, that should be in their capability to do so, but we do not need legislation to make that happen; it already exists. That is one of the fundamental reasons why I believe that, despite all the other minor protections that are in place, it is the Secretary of State who should be named, and we can get rid of quite a few clauses along the way.
I do not wish to steal the thunder of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering but, in answer to the question about Clause 86, it sounded like the Minister was ready to accept Amendment 333. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, will be thrilled at that as well, though perhaps my noble friend Lord Lucas might not be so keen.
On delivery, I worry about how much in this legislation has been concentrated. I may sound contradictory when I say thank God for that part of the Bill that allows for other people to do things that Natural England has been empowered to do. A lot of this might need changing, as I am concerned about the delivery capability of Natural England. The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, referred to this being like its dream come true. It felt like that under the Environment Act when, quite rightly, ambitious targets were set. I am pleased that the Minister wrote in her recent response to my QWA—I paraphrase, slightly—that this will definitely improve Natural England, but the question is about time. How can we get on with the pace? The Environment Act 2021, primary legislation, is specific about the species abundance target that must be achieved by 31 December 2030. I am afraid Natural England is not good at pace. I have met so many people who have been trying to plant trees, a whole series of them, yet it has taken over two years to get agreement—and not of the Forestry Commission, which is slow enough as it is, although definitely well-intentioned. Natural England is well intentioned too, but it is ridiculous that it is taking so long and we have heard complaints about housebuilding that was supposed to be updated.
Take what is perhaps not the simplest of tasks—although it feels like it should be. We started on the journey for the coastal path for England to be completed by 2020. There was a legal ruling, involving People Over Wind, which meant that Natural England had to do a bit of reassessment of its coastal path. Even then, the Senior Deputy Speaker said at the Dispatch Box that it would be done by the end of 2021. I put in the environmental improvement plan that it would be done by the end of 2024. The latest is that Ministers are saying 2025-26. The latest update is that, by August of this year, of the 2,700 miles, two-thirds had been done. There are still 900 miles to go. That is just one example of whether Natural England will actually do what it is being asked to do. That is my big fear.
A lot of developers will be trying to get away from these environmental obligations and all these different things. That is why I am concerned about outsourcing this in primary legislation to a completely different, although admittedly arm’s-length, party. I would not only prefer that we do not have this thing more broadly, but that we can hold the Secretary of State to account, day in, day out, on what progress they are making, and not only on the environmental targets. Ultimately, that is what this is all about: to hit targets and to save this planet. That is why we negotiated so hard in Montréal. It has all been done to make sure that we have a planet in the future. That is why I have tabled these amendments. I beg to move Amendment 228.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Coffey for moving her amendment and for giving the preface to my Amendment 333, to which I would like to speak. I will leave it to my noble friend Lord Lucas to explain why he has amended my Amendment 333. This is a probing amendment. I hope that the remarks of my noble friend Lady Coffey will bear fruit—that the Government really want to apply the contents of Amendment 333. I have done the Government a great favour in this regard.
The reason I have tabled Amendment 333 is that Clause 86, as currently drafted, permits the Secretary of State, by regulation, to designate another person to exercise the function of Natural England. Clause 86(2) says:
“for a designated person to replace Natural England, or … for Natural England or a designated person to exercise functions under this Part only in relation to an area or a kind of development specified in the regulations”.
My noble friend Lady Coffey has prepared the ground very well in this regard because, as she pointed out, Natural England acts as an adviser to the Secretary of State. My Amendment 333 would insist that a “designated person” must be a public body. That public body should act independently of the Secretary of State and the Government. That is why I believe it should not be Natural England; it should be a public body that can operate in that regard. I would like to understand the reasoning behind the Government drafting it in this way—so that the functions and the powers of compulsory purchase of Natural England could be passed to a third party.
I put on record that my concern is about the threat to the future use of farmland, as we currently know it, for purposes other than farming, and perhaps the ease with which a designated person could ensure that these powers to compulsorily purchase land were used in a way detrimental to farming.
I would just like to confirm that I have understood what the Minister said in summing up on the previous group. I think she said that the powers in Clause 83 would be used only where negotiations had failed. Is my understanding correct? I would like to place on record my fervent hope that the efforts under Clause 86 would come into effect only if the parties—that is, the Government and the landowner or farmer—failed to reach a voluntary agreement. That is what I understood the Minister to say, so I ask her to confirm that.
For the benefit of clarity, I would like to know that, where a body other than Natural England is designated in Clause 86, it will be a public body that can act independently of Government and, in that capacity, is more likely to gain the trust and understanding of those to whom the compulsory purchase order will apply. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for cosigning Amendment 333.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
The noble Baroness might not thank me when she hears what I am about to say. I signed up in support of this amendment without realising that we were talking in exactly opposite directions about what the desired effect should be. I believe this is a probing amendment. I was very pleased when the Minister, in her response to the previous group, said that she believed that it should be another public body. For the avoidance of doubt, we should have that in the Bill.
I do not see this as something we would want to do frequently. It would be useful to know the Minister’s thinking about why this provision is in the Bill. If Part 3 is about taking a strategic approach to landscape-scale conservation and nature restoration, it is important that there is some controlling mind organising all this. I do not think it can be the Minister; it has to be Natural England. If there is any delegation from Natural England to another public body, it should be at the behest of Natural England, not the Minister. It would be extremely useful to know why this is in the Bill in the first place and to get at least a requirement that another public body is designated. Perhaps the Minister will outline the circumstances envisaged in this amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, my amendments in this group are also of a probing nature, but I say first how much I support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey. I had the privilege of being the Whip in this House for the Minister of Agriculture in the last years of John Major’s Government, at a time when BSE was rampant and the Countess of Mar was active on the Back Benches. I know which I was more frightened of.
MAFF in those days was a shell of a department because almost all the powers and money ran through Europe. One of the problems of BSE was that MAFF could do nothing because it did not have the direct control to do anything. As my noble friend said, this would all work better if there was first-line democratic control of what was happening here, not by statute to Natural England but by a decision of the Secretary of State to Natural England, so that the ultimate decisions and accountability stayed with the department. That would make for a much healthier, more effective department.
On this business of delegation, Amendment 328A asks whether, if we are to designate organisations, it could be a national park. That is my question here: is it the Government’s intention and is there scope within law to make a national park a designated person under this clause? If I understand the way this clause is intended to work, that would be a sensible arrangement, and I would like to know whether it is possible.
I turn to Amendment 333A. I entirely understand what my noble friend is saying in her Amendment 333, and it is merely a convenient place to put my question. Should not the EDP delivery include a role for land managers as trusted partners? Look at the difficulties that Natural England has in making sure that its SSSIs are in good order. As a resident of Eastbourne, I live in the middle of a collection of SSSIs that are in very bad order; they are supposed to be chalk grassland but are actually knee-high brambles. There is real difficulty for an organisation such as Natural England to make so much happen on the ground. If it could have long-term relationships with trusted partners who are embedded in a particular bit of the countryside, it would be in a much better position to get things done.
Farmers are generally, although I know not universally, keen to deliver on local environmental priorities and to allocate 10% or so of their land for nature recovery, as long as legislation and policy allow this to be delivered profitably. Private sector organisations such as the Environmental Farmers Group—I declare an interest that my brother is one of its directors—have already developed catchment-scale environmental transition plans that dovetail with the proposed EDPs. Such existing delivery structures, alongside farm clusters and catchment partnerships, should not be ignored. We already have this sort of partnership structure with national nature reserves—Elmley and Holkham are the ones I think of, being a southerner, but there are doubtless others—that are really well run by private estates.
Clause 76(3) will provide Natural England with the power to pay others to deliver EDPs, but it is sparse on detail. It would be helpful to know the criteria to qualify for acting on behalf of Natural England and what opportunity organisations could have in the process of preparing and delivering an EDP. Clause 59 will require a consultation on a draft EDP, but that is very late in the process. Consequently, Amendment 274, which is in the next group, would require Natural England, during the preparation of an EDP, to ask for expressions of interest from persons or organisations who can demonstrate their suitability for delivering the EDP. That would assist Natural England in meeting its obligation, under Clause 57(2), to explain why its measures are appropriate and what alternatives have been considered.
In addition, proposed new paragraph (d) in Amendment 311 to Clause 71, which is rather later in our groupings, aims to encourage consideration of delivery by landowners and managers in the local area, given that this would lead to better outcomes for nature and the local area. Clause 86, which allows the Secretary of State to designate a person to replace Natural England in using the Bill’s powers, seems very wide-ranging, without limitations or clarity as to the nature of the designated person. Given that Natural England is committed to working with trusted partners in its strategy, it seems relevant to extend this relationship into legislation and to define the criteria for the appointment of trusted partners, which is currently lacking. The Corry review recommended that:
“Criteria would need to be developed to ensure that a consistent approach is taken for how autonomy is earned and then recognised and retained”.
Amendment 333A seeks to embed the role of trusted partners in EDP formation and delivery and to define the criteria for appointment. I fully understand that there may be other ways of doing it, but it is important that such trusted partners should be a core part of the strategy.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I have put my name to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey, who made an excellent speech trying to persuade the Government to take out Natural England and put in the Secretary of State. As I said on the last group of amendments, Natural England has become unaccountable and unquestionable. It is also acting as judge and jury in its own right.
If you google Natural England, you come to the GOV.UK website. Under “What we do”, it says:
“We’re the government’s adviser for the natural environment in England”.
If it is the adviser, then it is the Secretary of State who should be totally accountable, as well as the Minister in this House, whom we can question. At the moment, we cannot question Natural England in the way that we can question Ministers. I think that is entirely wrong, and I hope the Government will agree.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
Is this something the noble Earl would want extended to other government agencies? Is he envisaging that, with the Environment Agency, for example, all the powers should be held by Ministers and only delegated on sufferance? The Forestry Commission is in a slightly different position because it is a non-ministerial government department. I am just trying to understand whether this is something he thinks is a good point of principle for a Government’s relationship with all their agencies, or whether this is a witch hunt against Natural England.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
No, it is not a witch hunt against Natural England by itself, because I think a lot of the agencies suffer from exactly the same problem. However, this Bill is giving Natural England huge executive powers which it has not got at the moment. Those executive powers should be used by the Secretary of State so that they can be questioned in Parliament.
My noble friend Lady Coffey also spoke about Natural England’s capabilities. It is worth looking at some of its capabilities. It manages a national nature reserve at Moor House; it is the only one it manages directly. It was supposed to be a beacon of best practice and demonstration. After 70 years of quango management, of the 25 sites of special scientific interest, only five are in favourable condition—as assessed by Natural England itself—and the rest, 80%, are either unfavourable, declining or in one case destroyed. In Dartmoor, the trust between farmers, landowners and Natural England broke down so seriously two years ago that the Conservative Government had to commission a review chaired by David Fursdon. That reflects very badly on Natural England.
More recently, Natural England launched a new interactive peat map and invited the public to use it to inform responses to a live Defra consultation on heather burning. One would think that was fairly simple and straightforward; what could go wrong? Well, within minutes of the map becoming live, owners, farmers and tenants highlighted major inaccuracies in this new mapping tool, making any work based on it of spurious value. These were not minor glitches, but a basic failure of environmental cartography. Natural England’s track record is not very good. In fact, it is pretty useless. I therefore strongly urge the Government to change the wording of the Bill as proposed in the amendments from my noble friend Lady Coffey and myself.
I commend and support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Lucas. If we are going to go down this route with Natural England, it is hugely important that trusted partners take on the work of running the EDPs. If you look at some of the farming clusters already set up and ready to do this, it is much better that people who live on and work the land are the ones who take over and run the EDPs, rather than a quango based elsewhere, which is not there on a daily basis. I will be talking more about the trusted partner in later amendments, but the principle of what my noble friend Lord Lucas wants to do is absolutely right.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly to this group of amendments on the role of Natural England. It is a big group, so I will not respond to everyone at this late hour. It is clear that there are remaining concerns about the Bill in terms of not weakening nature protections and the complexity of the new systems that are being put in place. There are two problems here. There is the complexity of what needs to be done and there is the issue of whether Natural England is able to deliver on what it is required to do under the terms set out in this legislation, should it be passed.
Natural England is absolutely central to delivering the environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration fund. I want to return very briefly to the comments in the paper today, because I think this is important. The Government cannot both create more complicated systems that as a result of their actions require more people to do more things, to see that the duties made by their legislation get done, and at the same time say that the actual organisations that need to deliver those need to be slashed and cut. Actually, that tension between what are almost two different sides of government worries me. It worries me a lot in terms of what is being done overall. I will just park that there.
Turning to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, of course I fully understand the intention that it is about looking at responsibility, bringing in the Secretary of State and trying to hold the Secretary of State accountable for what is being done. There is an argument to say that Natural England may not be as accountable, and I understand that. My problem is that the Bill actually sets out a process where we have EDPs and the nature restoration fund and I do not think that just changing the wording of the Bill changes any of the complexities of the reality on the ground. There are other ways that we can do that, in terms of holding the Secretary to State to account in any case, and holding Natural England to account, so I do not particularly feel that that is a solution to the complexities that are created by the legislation.
I want to speak to Amendment 328A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 333 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I was not certain whether Amendment 328A was a probing amendment, but the noble Lord has clarified that it is. As such, I welcome it and I look forward to the Minister’s response. My view is that the national park authority should be included, and I hope that is the case, but I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that.
Amendment 333 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Young, seeks to clarify
“that the powers given to Natural England under Part 3 can only be delegated to a public body”.
I welcome this amendment. I think it is a good amendment. I also note what the Minister said on the previous group, that the intention of the Government was that it would only be a public body. We definitely welcome that statement. I think there is still perhaps a need to have this amendment to the Bill and, with that, I will sit down.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, back in 2022, when the nutrient neutrality rules came in, it started a three and a half year hiatus that has prevented the building of new affordable homes, caused the bankruptcy of local architects, the closure of local builders’ merchants, the liquidation of many smaller builders and the folding of so many white van journeyman contractors—the plasterers, plumbers, groundworkers, roofers and tilers.
What was the basis of this catastrophe? As a council leader, I sought to find out. It did not take long to identify Natural England as the culprit. So I asked it for its reasoning. It advanced a theory that there was complete equivalence between the application of a single kilogram of phosphate anywhere in a catchment, regardless of the distance from a special area of conservation that needed protection under the regulations. It fundamentally refused to countenance the sort of risk-based approach that would be applied in any other walk of life or by any other regulator. Its approach was that the flushing of a lavatory directly into the protected Surlingham Broad was absolutely equivalent to going to the loo in Shipdham, over 30 miles away along a convoluted network of ditches, streams, tributaries and rivers before those rivers passed by the Surlingham Broad.
It is nonsense. I do not deny that there might be some infinitesimally small, theoretical riparian link between the lavatory in Surlingham and the toilet in Shipdham, but anyone who has studied for O-level or GCSE maths knows that the area around a point increases with the square of the distance, so the effect of the loo in Shipdham would be 30 times 30—900 times—less impactful; that is, if the water from that loo did not percolate into the aquifer, become assimilated into littoral plants, adsorbed on to soil particles or carried away in a farmer’s crops, in which case the impact would be significantly less, and it is.
When I asked, the designated person said that as there are no major processes for permanent phosphate losses within the aquatic environment, the nutrient neutrality approach is to assume that all the phosphorus will at some point reach the site, albeit this may take varying lengths of time and therefore there is the possibility of it contributing to the eutrophication impacts now or in the future. You do not have to be a scientist to realise that this “bathtub principle” is poppycock.
I asked Natural England to provide me with the scientific evidence. It sent me a slim paper repeating its assertions, with a long list of academic references. So I read them. The academic references that Natural England said supported its position argued the reverse. They made it clear that there were major processes for the permanent phosphate losses from the aquatic environment.
As I said in the previous group, this is my specialist subject. Before I joined your Lordships’ House, I gave written evidence to the Built Environment Committee on this point. I will not list all the ways in which I said that the scientific papers contradicted the Natural England stance but, in summary, it disregarded a whole range of natural mitigation factors, including: confusing adsorption with absorption; denying percolation to the underlying aquifer; ignoring the precipitation of phosphates in the calcareous soils that are found in the Yare catchment and along the River Wensum; the related effects of high soil pH in locking up phosphates; the effect of dilution by rainwater and the flows out to sea; and the incorporation and deposition of organic manures in the crops and along the brooks and streams.
The ban on housebuilding has been advanced on a completely unscientific, false premise, and one cooked up by Natural England. In short, Natural England’s interpretation of the scientific literature was misleading and mendacious. Its justification used selective quotation to misrepresent the balance of evidence.
Under the regulations, the test is one of significant harm. Natural England has misdirected itself and advised Ministers to substitute “significant” with “any”. How can it be trusted if it acts in this way? Its misrepresentation of the risk of the flushing of toilets in new homes has allowed it to prosecute a war on the housebuilding industry without justification. It is the enemy of growth. I can hardly believe I am going to say it, but this is probably the once and only time I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because she has fingered Natural England in the article in the Times referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as the enemy of growth.
Further, I then scrutinised Natural England’s nutrient calculator, which I found to be loaded with flaws and poor assumptions.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Which amendment is the noble Lord referring to?
Lord Fuller (Con)
I am talking to all of them—particularly those in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey but also Amendment 333.
There is more. I scrutinised Natural England’s nutrient calculator. It used the wrong digital elevation model. It used the wrong areas of influence on sewage treatment works. No allowance was made for excess capacity in the sewage treatment works. I am going to come to a very important point in a moment. The incorrect number of residents per property was assumed, which is significant where there are holiday homes. It assumed much greater water consumption for each house than we knew to be the case. The numbers for manures coming from outdoor pig units were underestimated by somewhere between 1,000 and 10,000 times, by reference to Defra booklet RB209. Suffice it to say that the calculator is orders of magnitude adrift.
There was then a completely arbitrary 20% buffer applied over and above the calculated number for no justifiable reasons. It was all very shoddy. The dodgy statistics have resulted in an extra £5,000 to £15,000 extra tariff per home for every house built in what is essentially the entirety of the district in which I live and its two neighbours.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments concerning Part 3 has a particular focus on the role and powers of Natural England. Due to the constraints on time this evening, I will not address each amendment in detail. Many of them are rightly probing in nature. They seek clarification, reassurance and, in some cases, correction. Others go further by proposing the removal of references to Natural England entirely, placing the powers instead with the Secretary of State, who is ultimately accountable to this Parliament. The Secretary of State should in this instance be that of Defra rather than MCHLG, as is suggested in other amendments. I seek clarification from the Minister on this point when she replies. I understand that, as far as EDPs are concerned, Natural England might report to MCHLG rather than Defra. If that were the case I would be appalled because, while Natural England has a lot of scientists who are experts on flora and fauna and Defra has some who understand this, the good thing about Defra civil servants is that they know what they do not know and they go back to Natural England for answers. I would be very worried if EDPs were being driven by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, much of which cannot tell the difference between a bat and a butterfly. We must have a firm answer to that, because it would be very worrying.
I should say at the outset that, later in my speech, I will come on to some of the criticisms of Natural England in terms of this Bill and where its powers should be restricted. However, I will not join in the attacks on Natural England as an institution. I admire greatly my noble friend Lord Caithness’s expertise on biodiversity—he participates in every Bill and adds considerable knowledge to it—but I do not recognise some of the most trenchant criticisms of Natural England in his speeches, both on the previous group and on this one. I have come across its scientific expertise and technical contributions, and I believe that it is widely respected.
My noble friend made a point about staff losses in Natural England. The difficulty is that Natural England is required to recruit highly professional biodiversity students—people with expertise in flora and fauna, and there ain’t many of those about. When they are employed, it is on reasonably low pay; then, as soon as they have got their feet under the table and are highly qualified, they get snapped up by other organisations and Natural England cannot afford to pay at the level required to keep them. Nevertheless, I am confident that it still has sufficient expertise to do its job.
My noble friend Lord Caithness also said that Natural England manages only one national nature reserve. It manages two-thirds of 224 national nature reserves. Criticism was also made of how it runs SSSIs. I was on the board down at Dartmoor when the decision was made. The problem is that Natural England is not allowed to consider any socioeconomic matters, such as the effect on farming. The 2006 Act states simply that, if the scientific evidence is there—that the bugs, beasties, flora and fauna are special and need to be protected—we have no option but to make that decision on scientific grounds. I reject any suggestion that Natural England’s board or others were making perverse decisions on SSSIs and not taking the economy into account.
I say to my noble friend Lady Coffey that it was my understanding that nearly the whole of the coastal path had been signed off and submitted to Ministers for approval. I think that it has nearly all been approved; there may be 20 or 30 miles that have not been. Of course it is not all open yet, because there are construction problems. How do you put a footpath across a mud estuary? There are obstructions from some landowners. I hope that, if not tonight then at some other point, the Minister can answer the question by explaining just how much of the coastal path has been completed by Natural England and the Government.
Those things were slightly not in my brief, but I thought that I would try to deal with some of the points because I was personally involved.
Part 3 hands unprecedented CPO powers to Natural England. These powers will allow Natural England to take land away from owners, not because of public interest infrastructure but to fulfil EDPs. Landowners will be forced to apply for subsidy-style payments from Natural England, yet we are given no detail on how these payments will be set, distributed or enforced; nor are landowners granted the right to refuse. Such a model will fundamentally alter the relationship between the landowner and the state—and do so without adequate consultation, accountability or clear regulatory safeguards.
Under the proposed EDP system, developers will contribute to a centralised fund rather than meeting site-specific environmental obligations. That fund will then be spent by Natural England on generalised environmental improvements elsewhere. This raises serious concerns. We will be not only replacing local mitigation with a remote offsetting scheme but creating a system in which Natural England becomes the operational body, the financial manager and the regulator all in one; in that regard, I agree with my noble friend Lord Fuller. This is a recipe for conflict of interest, lack of oversight and delivery risk. Natural England will be responsible for monitoring and governing the very schemes that it has designed and funded. Worryingly, there is no separation of powers, no mechanism for appeal and no guarantee of delivery.
The consequences of that will be profound. Planning authorities, which bear the ultimate responsibility for approving development, will rightly be cautious about relying on untested, underfunded and centrally managed EDPs. The result may well be an increase in planning refusals, not fewer. We must look seriously at Natural England’s capacity to carry out this enormous new responsibility. So I ask the Minister: how many EDPs will Natural England be expected to prepare, over what timescale, and with what funding and staffing?
Despite huge increases in funding by the last Government, we know that Natural England is still underresourced and understaffed to do all the new work that it will have to do. As it stands, it does not have the capacity to deliver what Part 3 is asking of it. Beyond funding, it will have the problem of finding the skilled ecologists required to make this work—hundreds of them on top of the thousands of new planners, builders and tradespeople needed for our broader planning ambitions. As I said earlier, as Natural England is competing to get those experts, you can bet that outside bodies and developers will also be grabbing them so that they can have answers and challenge the EDP decisions. The issues of funding certainty and operational capacity are not theoretical; they are central. The funding pipeline through the nature restoration fund is inherently unpredictable. How can Natural England plan and deliver on this basis?
Lastly, I turn to the proportionality of the powers that we are considering. Under Part 3, Natural England will be granted forcible entry powers, compulsory purchase order powers and the ability to set its own fees, all without direct parliamentary accountability. These powers could extend even to gardens and allotments—a proposition that should give all noble Lords some pause.
I know the Minister will listen carefully to the concerns raised in this group and that we can engage constructively with her on this issue moving forward. I end as I began by saying, yes, these are the criticisms I have of the proposed powers in the Bill, but I do not accept some of the more trenchant criticisms of the success of Natural England to date. Yes, mistakes have been made and there are difficulties, but nevertheless there are a lot of good people trying to do a good job for biodiversity in this country, and I was one of them.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, there are a number of amendments in this group by the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeking to amend Clauses 53 to 55, 57 to 59, 86 and 88 of the Bill. I will consider the amendments together as they relate to the role of Natural England and who can undertake the role of developing and implementing an EDP.
I turn to the amendments that seek to remove Natural England as the body that can undertake the role of developing and implementing an EDP named in the Bill, as well as adding Natural England to the list of consultees for an EDP. We believe that Natural England is the most suitable delivery body, given its expertise in relation to protected sites and species, existing statutory functions and powers and ability to work right across England. Removing Natural England as the body that can undertake the role of developing and implementing an EDP would also remove the intentional checks and balances between the role of Natural England and the Secretary of State. I confirm that, as it stands in the Bill, the Secretary of State referred to is that for MHCLG, but clearly Defra and MHCLG work very closely together during this process.
Natural England is responsible for developing an EDP for submission to the Secretary of State and the implementation of that EDP after it has been made. In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the Secretary of State is accountable for determining that a draft EDP meets the overall improvement test, making the EDP and taking remedial action if delivery falls short.
Were the amendments to pass and all legal responsibilities passed to the Secretary of State, Natural England, as the Government’s adviser on the natural environment, would still need to support the Secretary of State in preparing and delivering conservation measures. However, without being named in the Bill, it would not have the necessary powers and functions to enable efficient delivery or to provide assurance of the rigour of an EDP independently of the Secretary of State.
The Bill contains many safeguards to ensure that the body, which is charged with developing and implementing an EDP, performs its role to enable development and deliver improved environmental outcomes. With these safeguards, and recognising the relevant expertise held in Natural England, we feel it is right to reflect in the Bill the central role that Natural England will play.
More broadly, I highlight that the Government are taking concerns about the efficacy of the regulatory landscape incredibly seriously and are already taking action off the back of the Corry review—I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for recognising that—to ensure that the regulatory landscape and all the relevant actors in the system are performing as effectively as possible, because we need to give greater confidence. We are already expediting several of the recommendations made by Dan Corry, and I will mention a few of those.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed today. I should have mentioned my noble friend Lord Caithness, who co-signed a lot—pretty much every single amendment—in that group. I am grateful to him. The Minister may have attracted a few more questions than she answered in certain areas, but I am sure that we will return to aspects of this on Report.
I assure noble Lords that I am not trying to carry out a big attack on Natural England. We want it to succeed at improving nature, but there are too many examples of it already having stuff to get on with, such as SSSIs. I will debate separately with my noble friend Lord Blencathra what I said about the coastal path being an example, because I am relying on data that was published just last month. There are other stories I could tell, but they could perhaps wait for another group or another debate. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.
Lord Roborough
“(4) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to Natural England or a person designated under section 86 of this Act, about the making of an EDP and they must comply with any such guidance.(5) Guidance issued under subsection (4) above may include—(a) where and how draft EPDs should be published for public consultation,(b) guidance on minimum development thresholds for an EDP,(c) the types of measures that may be included as conservation measures, and(d) the use of its compulsory purchase powers, with a particular view to ensuring that—(i) the powers are not used in a manner which would threaten the viability of an existing agricultural business,(ii) the use of the powers takes account of the need to protect domestic food security, and (iii) to ensure that the impacts of the use of such powers on important social and cultural traditions, such as those that exist around common land, are protected.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment confirms that the Secretary of State has a power to issue guidance to Natural England or a designated person about the preparation of an EDP.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, this amendment would clarify that the Secretary of State may issue statutory guidance to Natural England or any person preparing an EDP, with they must which comply. We have heard concerns during debates on Part 3 of the Bill about Natural England’s ability to manage EDPs. We also know that 160,000 houses are being held back by Natural England’s guidance on nutrient neutrality. This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State has greater control over the process by which EDPs are made. This would give Ministers the tools they need to ensure that Part 3 is effective in delivering on their intentions.
Does the Minister agree that this discretionary power granted to Ministers would be helpful in a hypothetical circumstance where Natural England’s implementation of EDPs does not follow the Government’s intentions? I will be arguing in later groups, in support of my noble friend Lady Coffey, that Natural England should continue to report solely to the Secretary of State for Defra rather than to MHCLG as is planned in this Bill. I am deeply concerned that reporting to two separate departments is likely to lead to significant complications in management, direction and allocation of resources.
The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra are sensible. Amendment 270A would require Natural England to have regard to any local nature recovery strategies in preparing an EDP. The interaction between EDPs, the mitigation hierarchy and biodiversity net gain is complex for developers already, but the interaction between EDPs and other strategies for local nature recovery is also complex, especially where the conservation measures specified within an EDP interact with them. My noble friend is right that these should be taken into account by Natural England, and we are interested to hear whether the Government will accept this amendment.
Amendment 277A limits the number of EDPs that Natural England may make each year. This speaks to questions about Natural England’s suitability as the body for making EDPs. I know that several noble Lords have expressed their frustration with specific cases where Natural England has not got things right. I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House what assurances she has had from Natural England in respect of its plans to ensure that it has the appropriate staffing and skills in place to deliver its functions under Part 3 of the Bill efficiently and effectively. This part of the Bill is designed to unlock development, so any delays or mistakes that have to be resolved at Natural England will hinder the achievement of that overall objective.
The amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Caithness are all sensible amendments that probe some of the crucial questions on EDPs. The reality is that we have still not got real clarity about how well EDPs will fit into the existing environmental protections regime. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has done some very good work on trying to understand, as the Minister described earlier, exactly how this new process for developers fits into the wider picture. I hope that the Minister can help clarify these issues further from the Dispatch Box today. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 231, moved by my noble friend Lord Roborough, and will also speak to the other amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. Currently, the Bill requires the EDP to set out the measures to be taken to address the identified impact on environmental features and to achieve overall improvement. However, no justification or explanation is required, and I believe that that is wrong.
Amendment 249 is needed to ensure that an EDP states that the scientific basis for the conservation measures is considered appropriate, as this will provide greater confidence in the ability of the EDP to contribute to an overall improvement and therefore improved outcomes for nature. Monitoring will also be key to achieving success, as required by Clause 57(7), so it is important that this and associated costs are set out in the EDP under Clause 55(6). In addition, this amendment seeks to link the EDP with local nature recovery strategies and other relevant policies, so that it is clear how it contributes to local nature, and to identify the time frame required, given that this would vary in accordance with the impact being addressed.
Amendment 274 requires Natural England to define at an early stage the proposed conservation measures and then seek expressions of interest from persons or organisations as to their suitability to deliver these. This is key, as it opens up the opportunity for private sector involvement and would also help NE to meet its obligation under Section 57(2). I pose the same question as I did earlier to the Minister: given how Natural England has treated BioCore, as I mentioned earlier, what confidence can she give the Committee that Natural England will treat the private sector in a proper and fair manner when it comes to EDPs? If it does not, it will only be doing EDPs itself, and it will become state-owned and a disaster.
I turn now to Amendment 270 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and myself. This amendment refers to the land use framework, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, when we were discussing Amendment 214. I am sorry that she is not in her place. This amendment is to ensure that the choice of land and the choice of land management practice to be used for an EDP are not directly contrary to the principles laid out in the coming land use framework. In the same way that some of us might balk at the idea of using first-class food-producing land for, say, solar panels, we might equally balk at such high-production land being set aside solely for biodiversity. I emphasise the word “solely”, because you can produce food and biodiversity from the best land if it is managed properly. I believe it would be sensible if this Bill pre-empted the production of the land use framework and made allowance for its appearance on the scene.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 231 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. I attended the drop-in session last week with representatives of Natural England and listened carefully to what the Minister said in winding up the previous group. We are starting to get a feel for how the process by which we might even get to the start line under Clause 53 will work. There will be a process by which Natural England proposes some research, identification, some assessment of some proposals—whether it be for bats, bluebells or barnacles, it does not really matter. It will make recommendations to Ministers, and there will be some proposals and presumably some draft procurement, because with the proposal must come some sort of idea of how the EDP is to be done. There will be some consultation, selection, regulations, pricing, final procurement and legal work. I think the figure that came to mind when we had the drop-in was that it will take about three and a half years. There are less than four years of this Government remaining—three and three-quarters.
So, if the process contemplated by Clause 53 proceeds, it will not result in a single new home being delivered and occupied within this Parliament. What sort of timescale does the Minister have for the implementation and the first benefits? When will the first person be able to move into a home that has been unlocked by these EDP processes?
There is another point. Before we even get to that stage, there has to be an approach to what Natural England, if it acts as the operator, will be providing. Will it be offering to developers a permit or a licence? A permit tends to be a tradable asset, but the last thing that anybody in Defra who has a long memory will want is to go back to the days of milk quotas, whereas a licence can be surrendered at the point at which it is not needed. We need clarity on this before we even get to the consultation side on the EDP. Then there is the multiple layering: we have biodiversity net gain for 30 years and nutrient neutrality for 80 years, while the EDP is made to last for only 10 years. We need some clarity.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 253 in this group. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give me some comfort as to the Government’s intention towards the private schemes—after all, the Minister and I were both involved in the Environment Bill when it was going through. We set up a system where people were making 30-year commitments to look after a piece of land properly, and now the whole system appears to have been turned on its head. No one knows what its future is, nor whether they should be going ahead with the schemes that they have put together to provide the biodiversity net gain where it cannot be provided on the site.
One farm owned by my local council is entirely suitable for restoration of the best quality chalk grassland, but the scheme is dead in the water. Nobody knows what the Government’s intentions are. Will this be viable? When we get EDPs, will everything be undermined by Natural England doing it itself? Will there be a role for the private sector in this area? Nothing is certain any more.
When you set out to get people involved for 30 years, there really ought to be an understanding on both sides of the House that the 30 years should be respected and that we should try to keep things stable for that length of time. Can the Government give me, and the people I find myself talking to, a real understanding of what their intentions are with respect to all that the private sector has done to date and might do in the future? What direction are we setting out in and what comfort can the Government give that it is worthwhile for the sector continuing to do what it has started to do? I should be very grateful to hear.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his amendment. We cannot think about EDPs in splendid isolation. It is important that we as a Committee look at the wider context, including biodiversity net gain, that the EDPs will slot into. In that regard, it is incredibly important that, before we get to Report, the Government make clear their response to the consultation that they launched on biodiversity net gain, which closed before recess. If the Government were to decide to significantly change biodiversity net gain for the smaller sites that are up for grabs, it would have hugely detrimental impacts for the environment. It is important for us to know that before Report, so that we can then think about other amendments we might wish to bring forward.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 261 is to be considered in this group. Specifically, it would require that an EDP must pay not just regard but due regard to the local nature recovery strategy that has been published by the appropriate public authorities for that area.
This matters. We have been on this journey, right across the country. I genuinely believe that, rather than the EDPs we are debating, the local nature recovery strategies will be the building blocks of how we rescue nature in this country. The reason for that is that local people know what is going on, and have a sense of the relationship between place and their community, and there are powers in local government to consider not only planning decisions but other aspects of infrastructure that come together towards it. By and large, across our country, the local nature recovery strategies are being made at county level, though that is not true in every geographic county. There are some unitary councils—such as Northamptonshire, though I cannot remember the reason now—where they are split in two, which is somewhat sad.
Nature knows no boundaries of administrative convenience of how councils are determined. Building on the Lawton principles, which will be absolutely vital in trying to ensure that we have nature recovery, it is important that public authorities at the higher level—key to this is that it is the upper tier, not the lower tier, that tends to do the planning—have due regard to the discussions about what has been put in place. That will have already gone through extensive consultation, as is happening right now, right around the country.
Earl Russell (LD)
I will speak briefly to this group of degrouped amendments, which all look at various aspects of the relationship between Natural England and the scope and framework of timetables for an EDP. I will speak to Amendments 231, 249, 253C and 274. Taken together, they are about strengthening the framework for environmental delivery plans and helping to provide further clarity, safeguards and accountability. I am reading all those amendments as having a probing nature, asking questions and seeking further clarification from the Minister.
Amendment 231, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, seeks clarification that the Secretary of State should be able to issue guidance to Natural England or any designated authority on how an environmental delivery plan is prepared. I assume this is about ensuring consistency across the country, setting clear frameworks for public consultation and providing further protections.
Amendment 249, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is about adding detail and transparency. This amendment would require environmental delivery plans to be monitored and to show their scientific basis, alignment with local policies and the timeframes for addressing environmental impacts. Again, this is about making sure that plans stand up to scrutiny and deliver measurable results.
My noble friend has already spoken to Amendment 253C, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, so I will note the comments that have been made already.
Amendment 274, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord, Caithness, would require Natural England at the outset to define the measures it believes necessary and to invite expressions of interest for their delivery from persons or organisations.
Finally, Amendment 277A, from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would limit the number of EDPs Natural England is expected to prepare in the first two years to four in the first year and 12 in the second, and, if capacity permits, that that could be extended. I assume that this is a probing amendment. It would definitely be better if it was. I am interested in the Minister’s response to how many EDPs the Government think there is capacity for.
Taken together, as I said, these are probing amendments seeking further clarification from the Government.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments considers the preparation of EDPs and what they are required to contain. Many of the amendments seek to add various matters to which Natural England should have regard when preparing an EDP. These matters include the scientific evidence base for conservation measures, how the EDP relates to local policies, the local nature recovery strategy, the land use framework and the timeframe required to address environmental impacts. The Bill, as currently drafted, alongside the government amendments that we have already tabled, requires these matters to be taken into account. I can therefore assure noble Lords that these amendments are not necessary, as these matters will already be adequately considered when developing an EDP.
Amendment 274, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, would add three requirements to the preparation of an EDP: first, requiring the conservation measures to be used to address the environmental impact of development to be defined; secondly, creating a pre-consultation period for EDPs, during which expressions of interest to deliver the conservation measures must be sought from appropriate persons or bodies; and, thirdly, publishing the expressions of interest should the EDP proceed to be made. The first of these is already addressed in the existing provisions in Clause 55. The existing provisions also allow Natural England to delegate functions to other bodies, including those in the private sector. Specifying a particular procurement method and creating an additional pre-consultation period would be unnecessarily restrictive, given that EDPs will need to be tailored to the specific local and environmental circumstances. The land use framework and other strategies that we are developing in Defra, such as the food strategy, will obviously be part of any consideration. We all work together very closely. We talk to each other, which may surprise some noble Lords, because we want these to be delivered effectively.
Amendment 231 seeks to provide the Secretary of State with a power to issue guidance relating to the making of an EDP, specifying various topics that this guidance may cover. It would then require Natural England or any other body carrying out functions under this part to comply with this guidance. As noble Lords will be aware, the Secretary of State already has the power to issue guidance on key matters that Natural England must have regard to when carrying out functions under this part. Guidance should be used to guide Natural England, not to compel it. This would be more appropriate for a regulation-making power, which is subject to greater parliamentary scrutiny. The Secretary of State will still be able to make guidance on any relevant matter and will be able to assess the extent to which it has been applied when making the EDP.
We believe that Amendment 277A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would be unnecessary, as Natural England will operate only within its capacity when it is producing EDPs.
Turning to the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in his Amendment 253C, regarding the interrelation of the NRF model and existing biodiversity net gain arrangements, I assure noble Lords that the NRF and biodiversity net gain are distinct but complementary policies. The NRF will focus on enabling development that encounters specific environmental obligations relating to impacts on protected sites and species, whereas BNG applies to all new developments, bar the limited exceptions.
I come to the important point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, regarding the consultation on BNG, when we would get its outcome and whether that would be before Report. It is a pertinent question, and I will take it back and look into it for noble Lords.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and to give him reassurance, the NRF will not affect the existing requirement to deliver BNG. That is a free-standing obligation outside the NRF. I hope that, with this clarification, noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Fuller (Con)
May I just ask whether the Minister would give some consideration to the question I posed: at what stage, following the pattern set out in Clause 53 and all the rounds of consultation, procurement and devising of schemes, does she think the first dwelling house will be completed and somebody occupies it? Will it be in this Parliament, or the next?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, I cannot give a precise date to the noble Lord, but we know that Natural England has indicated that the areas on which it has substantial evidence and information at the moment—for example, nutrient neutrality and on newts—are the ones that it will move ahead for. These are the areas that it already has the information on to produce an early EDP.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for what the Minister said. She confirmed that the EDP will state the scientific basis for the conservation measures proposed. What happens if one thinks that the scientific basis is wrong? Given Natural England’s track record so far, how does one get to challenge that when one thinks it is wrong? That is going to be very important.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I cannot remember whether it was in the previous debate or the one before that, but I clarified that a vehicle for challenge is available. It is there. I cannot remember if it was mentioned in the previous debate or the one before that.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s reply to this group. If Ministers choose to press ahead with Part 3 of the Bill, developers, local authorities and other interested parties need clarity on how EDPs will work in practice.
We are going to return to the question of private sector involvement in EDPs and the duration and timing of EDPs in later groups. I would just say that, on the guidance point, it is far from reassuring if that guidance is coming from the MHCLG on the environmental impact of these EDPs. It just seems completely wrong, and we will return to that later. In the meantime, I am most grateful to the Minister, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Blencathra
“(6A) When specifying the maximum amount of development in reference to the metrics in subsection (6), Natural England must consult qualified surveyors from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors.”
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 233, I shall also speak to Amendment 283A in my name. I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Roborough, who has Amendments 281A to 282 in his name, all of which sit within this important group concerning consultation on environmental delivery plans.
As ever, the detail matters, and in this case the missing detail is the voice of those most directly affected—the landowners and farmers who will be expected not only to comply with, but often to deliver the outcomes envisaged in EDPs.
As my noble friend Lord Roborough mentioned at Second Reading, the Secretary of State in the other place remarked that,
“we expect farmers and land managers to benefit, with the nature restoration fund providing opportunities to diversify their business income”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/5/25; col. 427.]
That is a generous sentiment. Nowhere in the Bill, however, do we see any requirement for Natural England to consult land managers and farmers or, indeed, to work with them at all in delivering environmental improvement within EDPs.
At a time when the Government impose the family death tax on farms, slash delinked payments and slam shut the door on SFI applications with minimal notice, I am surprised that Ministers have not seized this opportunity to allow farmers and landowners to be part of the solution, commercially and practically, by providing environmental services to developers or to Natural England itself.
That brings me to the amendments in my name. Amendment 233 ensures that when Natural England is specifying the maximum amount of development permissible under an EDP, it must consult qualified surveyors from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. This is not a bureaucratic embellishment. Instead, it is about ensuring that land value, local economic conditions and development viability are properly understood by professionals who work in this space every day. Without their input, we risk setting thresholds that are arbitrary, potentially unworkable and, in some cases, detrimental to both development and conservation goals. Let me take a moment to explain why this is not merely desirable but essential.
Clause 54(5) and (6) require Natural England to determine and
“specify the maximum amount of development”
that an EDP may apply to, and this may be defined, according to the Bill, by area, on floor space, the number of buildings or units, the values or expected values, or the scale, in the case of nationally significant infrastructure projects. These are not ecological metrics, they are economic, planning and valuation judgments, yet quite simply, Natural England does not have, in my opinion, a single person who knows how to do these metrics.
Some of my noble friends may profoundly disagree with me on this, but when Natural England considers scientific criteria for SSSIs, it produces experts of the highest calibre, world-renowned specialists in species and habitat conservation. That is the strength of Natural England, but valuing property is not. We do not need to speculate on this. I am not revealing any board confidences here, because Natural England’s own 2023-24 annual accounts make this crystal clear. On heritage assets, it states:
“There is valuation uncertainty affecting Natural England’s heritage assets because there is limited market evidence of comparable assets being bought and sold”.
That line stems from a change in international accounting standards that required Natural England to revalue its national nature reserves from an historical rating to a current one. For three years, not one auditor, not one surveyor, not a single person in Natural England could arrive at an agreed valuation. Why? Because Natural England does not do this work; it was never designed to. So I ask: if Natural England cannot put a value on a nature reserve, which, depending on your view, is either absolutely priceless or worthless because you cannot build on it, how on earth can it make informed decisions on the scale or value of commercial development? How can biodiversity experts determine whether, say, five acres of housing is better or worse than five acres of an Amazon distribution shed or an AI data centre drawing on vast quantities of water?
These are not theoretical questions, they are real-world decisions with significant implications, and Natural England is asked to pronounce on them in Clause 54. How can Natural England assess the number of units within buildings or predict how those units might be used, particularly in commercial or mixed-use developments, when such usage can change frequently depending on the occupancy of the tenants? Lastly, how can Natural England pronounce on values or expected values, which lie firmly in the realm of chartered surveyors, when even they would preface their valuation with caveats or “depending on local markets”, planning conditions, service access, environmental strengths, and so on.
This clause as it stands is unworkable. At best, it asks Natural England to make judgments it is unqualified to make. At worst, it risks undermining both development viability and environmental outcomes through guesswork or error. Amendment 233, therefore, is not only a safeguard, it is an enabler. It would ensure that decisions are made with the right expertise at the table. Without it, we are, in effect, asking marine biologists to assess logistic parts and entomologists to forecast land values.
Amendment 283A is a practical one. It would change the consultation period on draft EDPs from 28 to 40 working days. For many, 28 days is simply not long enough to engage meaningfully with what can be highly technical and significant documents. Forty working days is not excessive. It aligns with best practice elsewhere in the planning system and gives consultees a fair chance to respond constructively.
On behalf of my noble friend Lord Roborough, I also commend his Amendments 281A and 281B, which would require Natural England to consult with both farmers and landowners after an EDP has been prepared. It is crucial that consultation is not limited to the early stages but continues throughout the process, particularly once the practical implications for those on the ground become clear. Successful environmental management depends on partnership.
These amendments are not hostile to the principle of EDPs. On the contrary, they would help to make them work. They would build trust. They would increase buy-in. They would make the outcomes more deliverable. If we treat farmers and landowners as partners, not passive recipients of policy handed down from above, we are far more likely to achieve the landscape restoration that we all want. Indeed, when I joined the Natural England board in 2018, it had just launched a policy called “working in partnership”, or something like that. I cannot remember the exact name, but it was moving the whole strategy from one of merely trying to enforce things into working in partnership with landowners.
To that end, we also support the sentiment of Amendment 280 in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey, which rightly seeks to ensure that neighbouring authorities with a local nature reserve strategy must be consulted.
The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is not in his place at the moment, but when we were talking about EDPs, he said that a senior Natural England official said it was the most exciting thing in his lifetime. Maybe that is the same senior official who told us three years ago when looking at the Environment Act 2021 of the noble Lord, Lord Gove, that local nature recovery strategies were the greatest step forward in nature recovery in British history and he was really excited about them. I presume he has now switched his loyalty to EDPs instead. Local nature recovery strategies are absolutely vital to delivering nature recovery in every inch of England. Amendment 285 makes it clear that all the bodies listed under Clause 59 should be consulted by Natural England. That is good governance.
We are asking for something very modest here: that those who will be most affected by EDPs have a seat at the table and the time to consider what has been asked of them. These are constructive, proportionate and necessary amendments, and I hope the Government will consider them carefully. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 280 is in my name, and I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for explaining it so succinctly. It is exactly that; in this part of the Bill, there is a whole list of local authorities mentioned as being required to be consulted. I agree with that official from three years ago that local nature recovery strategies are going to be the thing that makes a lot of this happen. My amendment is self-explanatory, and I hope that Ministers will include it on Report.
Earl Russell (LD)
I rise very briefly to speak to this group of amendments, which are all on consultations on EDPs. Considering the time, I am going to be even more brief than I have been before. While I welcome and look forward to the Minister’s response to all the amendments in this group, I particularly support Amendment 280 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Roborough, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for their amendments, which all address the consultation requirements for EDPs. Those noble Lords who have heard me speak in the House on many occasions will know that I love consultation. It is really important, but it is important that it is also done properly.
As I set out in my opening statement on the NRF model as a whole, we recognise the importance of allowing relevant authorities, businesses and individuals to have their say on the development of EDPs. It is for this reason we have included a requirement that all EDPs are subject to public consultation. We have also proposed government amendments to clarify the consultation requirements when amending an EDP.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked a number of questions about Natural England’s planning and evaluation expertise in bringing forward an EDP. Many of his questions related directly to the planning process and such decisions would be taken by the local planning authority or, of course, the Secretary of State if it was a nationally significant infrastructure project. Looking at what Natural England’s role is, discussion with the relevant experts would of course be an important part of any development of an EDP. Natural England would use surveys and consider the best available scientific evidence to assess how developments of any given type will impact on the relevant environmental feature. This process will then allow Natural England to set a maximum amount of development which can be covered by that EDP. The Bill also gives the opportunity for this to be included in guidance.
Local nature recovery strategies are an important tool protecting nature, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for highlighting the important role that these can play in informing EDPs. There is already a requirement in the Bill for Natural England to consider local nature recovery strategies in preparing an EDP and a further duty to consult local planning authorities for the relevant area, which should be expected to include consideration of their LNRS. We also understand that, depending on the content of an EDP, certain sectors may have particular interests in specific EDPs, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for raising their interests at this stage.
Through the existing public consultation requirements, any group, business or individual—this would of course include farmers and land managers—who is affected by an EDP will have the opportunity to respond to the proposed EDP and raise any concerns. For the purposes of each EDP, it would not be practical for Natural England to go to each business in a whole sector, such as the fishing sector, due to the large number that it would need to consult. Nor would the Government wish to impose any duty or obligation to respond to a consultation on private businesses.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I need to stress the importance of involving farmers and landowners as partners working with the Government on this if we are to be successful in restoring our environment and getting proper nature recovery.
The Minister has just said that 28 days is a minimum. The normal planning rule is 40, so why not put in the Bill that it should be 40 days, rather than the minimum, which the Secretary of State might extend? I would be sceptical that the Secretary of State would extend those dates—I suspect they will want the minimum possible for any consultation.
The points we have raised today reinforce that, without proper engagement, we risk implementing policies that may be impractical or detrimental both economically and environmentally. The Minister said that of course Natural England would consult various experts on the size of units and the cost evaluations. That is an awful lot of different people to consult. I am not convinced that the answer she gave will be practical. The idea of involving the chartered surveyors is probably the only way to go, but I will read again very carefully what she said.
The amendments before us are modest and crucial. They seek to embed meaningful consultation throughout the life cycle of environmental delivery plans, ensuring that those who must deliver these outcomes have a real voice at the table. This is not about opposition but collaboration. It is building trust and getting buy-in. If you have them sitting around the table and being consulted, they are more likely to buy in, deliver better and have more sustainable outcomes for the environment and rural communities alike. Having said that, and having listened to the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Earl of Caithness
Member's explanatory statement
This seeks to ensure that there is no time drift from the granting of planning permission to the start of the delivery of the EDP.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 234, I will also speak to Amendments 235 and 236, in reverse order. Clause 54(7) relates to the start and end dates of an EDP. To ensure meaningful outcomes, the EDP timeframe should not be specified in legislation as it will clearly depend on the nature of the environmental impact and the conservation measures required.
I am sure we all agree that restoring and recreating some habitats can take considerable time to achieve full functionality. Given climate change and other environmental impacts, EDP measures will require adaptive management, hence the need for review and ongoing monitoring. What happens at the end of 10 years? How do we retain the overall improvement? How do we know that a developer will not change the new site? How do we know that a farmer will not return the site to food production in the wrong way? These are hugely important questions in order to fulfil an EDP and I do not believe it should be limited to 10 years.
Given that it is going to take a long time, I need now to look at the start date, because it is vital that, the moment planning permission is granted and thus the loss of a protected site or species is imminent, Natural England should get on with it. According to Clause 58, there is a lot of process and consultation to be carried out, and so not a moment is to be lost. We must bear in mind that the Government are legally committed to halting the decline in our biodiversity by 2030. The concern of the start date moved my noble friend Lord Cameron to poetry. He sends his apologies to Andrew Marvell, as he penned these words:
“Had we but world enough and time,
Delay my Lords would be no crime.
But at my back I always hear
Time’s winged chariot hurrying near.
And yonder all before us lie
Deserts of vast eternity
Where nature bids us all good-bye”.
We need to fire a starting gun to ensure that Natural England gets on with it, hence the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments addresses concerns that EDPs, as drafted in this Bill and despite the welcome improvements offered by the Government, create considerable unease over their effectiveness and the timeliness with which they will be developed to address the harm being done elsewhere.
Amendment 235A in my name recognises that 10 years is a blink of an eye in environmental terms. It might take only days to destroy a natural environment, but it takes decades to restore it and centuries to return to a more natural state. In our environment, the fastest-maturing native trees take over 30 years to mature and the slowest take over a century. Likewise, it can take decades to restore a blanket bog or peatland.
My Amendment 235B suggests 30 years as the appropriate timeframe for an EDP. The advantage of 30 years, as opposed to 10, is simply that this is a proxy for our own generational timing; that in itself is appealing, but this is also consistent with biodiversity net gain units. I fail to understand why 10 years has been regarded as appropriate for EDPs, and I look forward to the Minister explaining why this should be so. In that regard, I prefer this to Amendment 236 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. However, his Amendment 234 is a sensible measure that would ensure there is a coincidence in the timing of the EDP and the commencement of the development.
One of the concerns expressed by developers is the reputational risk they carry if they are undertaking a development which has included the NRL as its environmental contribution, but there is no evidence of the EDP associated with that development occurring. I am sure the Minister can understand this concern and will be keen to ensure that developers do not carry that reputational risk to the actions or lack of action by Natural England.
I hope the Minister can reassure us in her reply to this short debate that these concerns are being addressed. However, there is a strong case that these issues should be dealt with in the Bill, rather than relying on guidance that can change over time. The obligations around timeliness and effectiveness of EDPs are simply too loose in the Bill.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, I will speak to his Amendment 265, which has a notable similarity to Amendment 237 in the name of my noble friend Lord Russell. If the noble Lord were here, I am sure he would wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for co-signing the amendment, as I did.
Amendment 265 deals with one of the fundamental concerns that we have with EDPs: the issue of timing. As it currently stands, if you have to engage with the habitats regulations or biodiversity net gain, remedial measures have to take effect before the developments are undertaken. In contrast, that is not the case for the EDPs. There is the fundamental question: what happens if the desired mitigation measures, as outlined in EDPs, do not happen? They might not happen for a number of reasons; for example, because some of the money may not come in from the developers—they have the right to appeal, as we have heard in earlier debates—or because not enough developers sign up for an EDP and therefore not all the measures can be delivered. In that case, you do not get enough of a quantitative biodiversity gain to deliver the mitigation measures for what may have already taken place in a site that has already been damaged.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, does two things. First, it calls for an implementation schedule for an EDP, and I believe that the Minister, in summing up, will say whether government Amendment 245A partly addresses that by promising an implementation schedule. However, I have not seen anything from the government amendments that deals with the more fundamental issue that the remedial measures for an EDP do not come until after the damage has been done. Secondly, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, says that, if Natural England believes that there will be irreversible damage, those measures have to be undertaken before the damage is caused. That is the issue on which we are seeking some reassurances from the Minister this morning, and if we do not get them, I am sure that we will return to it on Report.
Earl Russell (LD)
I will very briefly speak to my Amendment 237. I apologise to the Committee; I had not realised just how similar my amendment was to the one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and to which my noble friend has just spoken. My noble friend made all the arguments that I was going to make. I absolutely agree there is a risk here, and I think the Committee wants further reassurance. It is a real worry to lots of people that this damage can be done before mitigation measures are put in place. Having said that, I have come to the conclusion that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is probably better worded than my own, so I will likely not press my amendment between now and Report. These are important issues, and we seek further reassurance on these matters. Without that, I am sure that an amendment doing this will come up on Report.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments relate to conservation measures and their implementation. They seek to add provisions on a range of matters related to the design and implementation of conservation measures. The Bill as currently drafted, alongside the government amendments we have tabled in Committee, already require or enable these matters to be addressed in an EDP. I therefore trust that, in discussing these amendments, I can assure the Committee that the existing provisions, bolstered by the proposed government amendments, already require or enable consideration of the points raised.
Amendment 234, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, seeks to require that an EDP start date must be within six months of the date of any planning permission granted in reliance of that EDP. Development cannot rely on an EDP until the EDP is in place, and so planning permission could not be granted in reliance on an EDP without that EDP having been made by the Secretary of State. As the EDP will always be in place before planning consent can be granted in reliance on the EDP, I trust the noble Earl can be assured on this point.
As part of the package of government amendments, we will also now require EDPs to set out the anticipated sequencing of the implementation of conservation measures, with specific reference to the timing of development coming forward. This will provide additional assurance that EDPs will not lead to open-ended or irreversible impacts from development. This would include detail as to whether and which conservation measures must be in place in advance of development coming forward, ensuring that no irreversible harm could occur to an environmental feature. This would form part of the Secretary of State’s assessment of whether an EDP would pass the overall improvement test. With this explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Amendment 235, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, proposes a requirement that the end date of an EDP must be appropriate to the conservation measures proposed, and that the EDP must include a review date. The end date of an EDP cannot be more than 10 years from the date it comes into force. This is to ensure that there is clarity that the overall improvement will be achieved no later than 10 years after the EDP is put in place. However, there is nothing to prevent an earlier end date being specified for an EDP where that would be appropriate either for the type of development or the environmental feature.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply; I will have to study it with some care, given the time of night, but a lot of it did not make much sense to me.
The Minister talked about clarity and how the overall improvement needs to be demonstrated by a certain date. She also said that we need to demonstrate an environmental benefit as soon as possible. Nature does not work like that. What if there is a flood? What happens if there is drought for two years? All sorts of things in nature can put down the best schemes. You can certainly demonstrate all this on paper from Marsham Street, York or Peterborough but, out in the real world—if only Natural England would get out there—it is a very different story. My noble friend Lord Roborough mentioned planting deciduous trees. By the time they are 10 years old, they are not very high; they still need a heck of a lot of work. Blanket bog takes years. Goodness, I have lived on blanket bog in Caithness; I know that you cannot re-wet it overnight.
This is environmental theory, not practice, but I will read what the Minister said. We will come back to this on Report but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lansley
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and another in the name of Lord Lansley to Clause 55, line 35 would secure that each of the environmental features which are likely to be negatively affected by a development are identified in the EDP and the ways in which that effect is caused is also identified.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, was talking about the various views that were being taken on Part 3. The beauty of Committee is that we can ride all those horses. The particular horse with which I am concerned is trying to find for the Bill precise drafting language that achieves precisely what is intended and is as clear as possible about what we intend.
As we get into Clause 55, we are in one of the central provisions where the environmental features and the impact of development on such features must be identified, all in the environmental delivery plan, as must the conservation measures needed to secure the overall impact. We will come on to debate the overall improvement test. I note that Amendment 266 is in this group but I am not quite sure why; I think properly it should be in the group relating to the overall improvement test, which we will get to on Wednesday.
The most important amendment in this group is not mine but the Government’s Amendment 247A, the effect of which is to add specific language about the conservation measures that will have to be taken offsite and what is required in those to secure the overall improvement test: that they will
“make a greater contribution to the improvement of the conservation status of the feature than measures that address the environmental impact of development on the feature at the protected site itself”.
That is a helpful amendment as part of the package of amendments that have enabled the structure of the Bill and the objectives to be slightly better than they started out.
Amendment 238 comes at the beginning of Clause 55 and relates to the identification of the environmental features likely to be negatively affected by a development. We know what the protected features of a protected site or a protected species are because those are set out in Clause 92, on the interpretation of this part. I am interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has to say about her amendment and I will wait to hear that.
Amendment 238 would amend Clause 55(1), where the Bill says that an environmental delivery plan must identify
“one or more environmental features which are likely to be … affected”.
I want to check precisely what the Government are trying to achieve by the words “one or more”. If they are worried that an environmental delivery plan may be challenged because not all the environmental features are identified, I do not think this drafting is helpful. If an environmental development plan does not identify an environmental feature that is likely to be affected by development, it is potentially able to be challenged in any case, and I do not think the language “one or more” would escape from that risk. The environmental features are the starting point of an environmental delivery plan. If one does not correctly identify the environmental features likely to be affected, that plan seems to me by its nature to be flawed. So why the words “one or more”? There will not be none or there would not be an environmental delivery plan. If there is more than one, it would be wrong for the environmental delivery plan not to take account and identify those, and leaving them out would make it flawed.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, since the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to my amendments, I will talk to them briefly. First, I welcome the Government’s amendments in this group, which improve Part 3 processes in response to the pressures in the other place on the Bill and the OEP verdict of significant environmental regression.
My Amendment 240A is a bit nerdy at this time of night but noble Lords should pay attention because there will be an examination at the end. It replaces “may” with “must”, in that
“environmental features identified in an EDP must”—
not may—
“be either a protected feature of a protected site, or a protected species”.
I think the clause as drafted could result in unintended consequences. For example, Natural England might identify an assemblage of species rather than a single species as the environmental feature covered by the EDP, such as the entire bat assemblage of a particular area—I use the word “bat” advisedly.
If this were done, the overall improvement in that feature could be said to occur if, say, half the species in that assemblage were expected to benefit, even if one or two of the rarest and most important species in the assemblage were to be driven to local extinction. It would risk this trade-off within a sort of bulk buy of species, and would definitely risk that species that are more difficult to make alternative provision for would be sacrificed in exchange for benefits being delivered to the easier species. My amendment would require EDPs to address species and features individually, not as part of an EDP bulk purchase.
Amendment 251A in my name is a separate amendment, which raises an issue that I do not think has been raised elsewhere. It seeks to establish what happens with the ongoing protection of habitats that are created by way of compensation under an EDP. It cannot be right that compensation habitats are created under an EDP to replace species and habitat features that currently have the highest level of protection when the habitat that is there to compensate for them has no level of protection whatever. That cannot be the right outcome but, from the way I read the Bill, after the EDP’s end date, there is no clarity about their conservation status.
In the past, there have been pretty notorious examples of compensation habitat subsequently being trashed, often by successive development, neglect or land-use change. When the extension of the M4 across the Gwent Levels was being proposed, we had the distressing consequence that the habitat that was created to compensate for the road extension was promptly put back up for grabs when the next road extension took place. That was fought off, mercifully, but the further road extension was going to go through the very compensated habitat that was put in place for the first road extension.
I was involved in the creation of the new village of Cambourne, just outside Cambridge, which had compensatory habitat designed into the development. The developers worked very successfully with Natural England and the local wildlife trust. I declare an interest as a former president of that wildlife trust. The habitat that was created was very valuable for wildlife and it offset the development impacts. It is now much loved by residents but, lo and behold, 20 years later, East West Rail is going right through one of the major wildlife sites that was created. That cannot be right: we cannot be providing compensation for it then to be up for grabs for any use.
So my Amendment 251A seeks protection in perpetuity. I cannot think of any other length of time with any logic to it, because the reality is that the sites being destroyed or damaged have protection in perpetuity, so the sites that are created in compensation for them should have protection in perpetuity.
I thank the Minister for taking an interest in this at her drop-in session last week, when I think I heard her give an undertaking to look seriously into what needed to happen on this as yet unaddressed issue.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 250 is an important clarifying measure that would ensure that, when Natural England seeks to impose planning conditions as part of an EDP, they must be directly related to developments that fall within the scope of that EDP. This addresses an important point of legal and procedural clarity. Without such a safeguard, there is a risk that conditions could be sought or imposed on developments beyond the defined remit of the EDP, which could lead to regulatory uncertainty and potential challenge.
By linking conditions strictly to developments within the EDP’s scope, this amendment would protect against regulatory overreach and maintain the principle of proportionality, ensuring that developers are subject only to conditions that are relevant, necessary and reasonable. This is not about restricting environmental protections but about ensuring that they are applied fairly and transparently, thereby supporting the credibility of the planning system and maintaining public trust.
Briefly, my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendments 238 to 240 would sharpen the focus of EDPs by requiring that all relevant environmental features are identified and that the nature of any direct impact is properly addressed. This is not simply a drafting improvement; it is about ensuring the robustness and accountability of the system that we are creating.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for her Amendments 240A and 251A. These would be important improvements in the Bill.
This short debate has highlighted that further tightening and improvement is still needed in this clause, despite the Government’s welcome amendments. I hope that the Minister will respond encouragingly.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, I will introduce Amendment 266, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, is somewhat surprisingly in this grouping. It seeks to ensure that the EDP delivers a significant improvement in the ecology of a habitat, a species or an ecosystem.
I think that the Minister will say, with some justification, that government Amendment 247A in this group addresses this by making it clear that Natural England can do this EDP only if it can contribute to a significant environmental improvement. We welcome that, but I want to press the Minister a bit further on how Natural England will make the judgment that it will deliver a significant environmental improvement. How will it ensure that the information it uses is robust? The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, has been concerned in debates that I have heard her speak in about whether the modelling that it uses will be sufficient. As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, mentioned earlier, nature does not always behave as modelling might suggest. How will Natural England make that judgment?
If the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, was here, I am sure he would thank the noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Whitty, for supporting this amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate. I begin by speaking to the government amendments in this group, Amendments 246A, 247A and 258B.
In providing flexibility through this new model, the Government have been careful to ensure that these flexibilities are used only where this supports the delivery of better environmental outcomes. That is at the heart of the new approach. Government amendments 246A, 247A and 258B relate to the use of network measures, making it explicit that Natural England can deliver network measures only where it considers that it would make a greater contribution to the improvement of the environmental feature in question than measures that address the impact of development locally. Crucially, network measures could never be used where to do so would result in the loss of an irreplaceable habitat. This would inherently not pass the overall improvement test, because the very essence of irreplaceable habitat is that it cannot be replaced elsewhere.
I turn to the non-government amendments, and first to those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Amendments 238, 239 and 240 seek to require an EDP to highlight all the environmental features which may be affected by development and state what the environmental impacts on the environmental feature would be. The Government have been clear that we wish to use EDPs to take a targeted approach to address the impacts of development on specific environmental features. Under this approach, an EDP could be brought forward that addresses the impact on one or more environmental feature, with conservation measures brought forward to address the impact on the identified feature. In response to the question of the noble Lord regarding the wording, this means that any features that are not identified which are covered by the EDP would then need to be considered and addressed under the existing system.
I understand the points that he is making, but the proposed amendment would then require EDPs to be comprehensive in identifying and addressing all the impacts of development on all environmental features. This was never the Government’s intention, as it would add considerable burden to the creation and delivery of EDPs. By taking a targeted approach, we can put EDPs in place to address the specific issues that benefit from the strategic approach. This will unlock development and secure better environmental outcomes. Expanding EDPs in the way proposed by these amendments would result in slowing down delivery and prevent EDPs being used in the targeted way that the Government have envisaged.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that very helpful response to this short debate. I enjoyed many of the contributions, not least that of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. Cambourne was of course in my former constituency. I would say to her that we have not given up on trying to get East West Rail together on the A428 corridor. Perhaps we will talk about that off-site, as we might say in the context of this Bill.
We learn as we go, do we not? I have learned—it was not clear—that the intention regarding the environmental delivery plans is that, once they have identified a development, even though it might impact on an environmental feature, that feature may not necessarily form part of the environmental delivery plan; it may be dealt with under the existing habitat and other regulations.
That is very interesting. However, that being the case—I will not dwell on it, but we may have to come back to it—Amendments 239 and 240, on the ways in which that negative effect is likely to impact on that environmental feature, should all still be included, and if they directly relate to the development they should definitely be included. Those two amendments still have merit in respect of the drafting. We could maybe talk about that at some point. With the hope that we might revisit those points, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 238.