Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
This Government appreciate the role of farmers and everyone involved in our agricultural sector, and I have been delighted to meet representatives of the National Farmers Union of Scotland and other stakeholders on numerous occasions. On each, I have reiterated that the Government want to strike a fair balance between supporting farmers and fixing our public finances and the public services on which our rural communities rely. As both hon. Members will be aware, the vast majority of farmers will not be affected at all. They will be able to pass the family farm down to their children, just as previous generations have always done. Only the richest estates will be asked to pay, not small family farms, and that is a policy that we on this side of the House are proud to support.
Charlie Dewhirst
I welcome the new ministerial team to the Dispatch Box, and particularly the Secretary of State, who is back as Secretary of State for Scotland after nearly 20 years. Farmers watching that response will be thinking, “What a load of tosh!” What representations have the Secretary of State and the Minister made to the Chancellor on behalf of farmers in Scotland ahead of the Budget?
Kirsty McNeill
As I mentioned, we are in regular dialogue with farming stakeholders and we regularly consider the evidence that is presented to us. I would stress that, while we will always give evidence due consideration—indeed, the Prime Minister said that from this very Dispatch Box last week at Prime Minister’s questions—we will not deviate from our policy objective, which is both to raise revenue and to introduce greater fairness to our tax system. That is exactly what this change does.
Blake Stephenson
It is clear that Scottish Labour and this Government do not care and do not understand our rural communities. If we have no farmers, there is no food. Will the Minister listen to the voices of rural Scots, NFU Scotland and communities up and down this country, and ask the Chancellor to rethink this ruinous inheritance tax reform?
Kirsty McNeill
I myself am a representative of rural Scots, as indeed is the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is meeting farmer representatives in his constituency this very week. We are in ongoing dialogue with our constituents and with farming stakeholders. I reiterate that what we say in the course of those dialogues is that we must introduce greater fairness to the system and that three quarters of farmers will not be impacted at all.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
There are many factors that make family farms viable, including the ability to work the land and carry out what is a very physically demanding job. Does the Minister agree that tackling the fundamental problems in our NHS and the growing waiting lists in Scotland must be a priority when balancing competing pressures, given that poor access to healthcare disproportionately affects those working in Scotland’s farming and rural constituencies?
Kirsty McNeill
I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. Since the election, the UK Government’s plan for change has delivered an extra £5.2 billion to the Scottish Government—funding that can be used to improve the performance of devolved public services such as the NHS. In June, an additional £9.1 billion of funding for the Scottish Government was announced in the spending review, so rural communities like my own are right to ask when they will see improvements in their access to healthcare. I would also like to take the opportunity to commend charities such as the Farm Safety Foundation and its brilliant Yellow Wellies initiative for the work that they do to support the mental and physical health of farmers and all in our rural communities.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
The proposed changes to agricultural property relief in Scotland will ensure that, by still providing full relief for the first £1 million of assets, farmers continue to benefit from Government support far beyond that which is available to other assets. Given that 7% of claimants—117 claimants—receive two fifths of all agricultural property relief at a cost of some £219 million, does the Minister agree that this Government’s reforms are essential not only for fairness but to help fund vital public services in rural Scotland?
Kirsty McNeill
Our reforms mean that the majority—almost three quarters—of those claiming the relief will not be affected. Only the richest estates will be asked to pay more. This is a fair approach that balances fixing our public finances with maintaining support for small family farms and businesses.
Mr Speaker
Order. It says Scotland in the title for these questions. They are not linked to Northern Ireland. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The agricultural sector is woven into the fabric of communities across Scotland. It employs thousands and contributes millions annually to the economy, but farmers across Scotland have been left in fear for their families’ future and their way of life because this Government want to tax them out of existence. Despite the clear messages from the farming community, supported by the NFUS, this Government are ploughing on regardless and completely ignoring the damage they are doing. The truth is that they do not understand—and worse: because those people do not vote Labour, they do not care, do they?
Kirsty McNeill
I will reiterate it in case the shadow Secretary of State did not hear me: both myself and the Secretary of State represent semi-rural and farming constituencies. We are in ongoing dialogue with constituents. We absolutely understand the pressures they face, which is why we have said that we will support family farms and that only the very richest will be affected. Our constituents rely on public services and they require investment in those public services, and that is exactly what this tax change was designed to do: introduce fairness but also raise revenue that will benefit all our communities, including rural Scots.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Archibald Young, a foundry in my constituency, manufactures components that are vital to our national security, yet it now faces a devastating blow from Labour’s tax changes. We are hearing that food production—another cornerstone of national security—will also be decimated by these measures. This issue goes to the heart of the protection of our country. Does the Minister agree that Scottish businesses that are essential to national security must be safeguarded, and will she commit to meeting me and others with similar concerns to discuss that?
Kirsty McNeill
I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady, and I welcome her to her new position. Food security is indeed national security, and national security is the No. 1 priority of this Government. We are trying to safeguard it in a number of ways, including through our commitment to food security and, indeed, energy security. I would be delighted to discuss it with her further.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
Oil and gas from the North sea will remain part of our energy system for decades to come. As a Government, we are strengthening our energy security, and as part of that effort, we are investing in home-grown clean power and energy through Great British Energy. We are committed to a fair and orderly transition. Next week, I will be in Aberdeen to meet energy companies from across the north-east.
Dr Spencer
We all know that the Government’s energy policy is unsustainable. It has even been reported that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is looking at authorising tiebacks to access new oil and gas wells using existing infrastructure in the North sea. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that if we want to increase energy security and reduce energy prices for households and businesses, we must expand the use of the energy resources available to us, including North sea oil and gas?
Mr Alexander
As I sought to reflect in the first answer, oil and gas will be a central part of our energy mix in the United Kingdom for decades to come, but it is also right to recognise that there is a transition that needs to be managed and there was an abject failure by the previous Government to manage it. That is why we saw tens of thousands of jobs going in the North sea without the level of investment that we are now seeing from GB energy to manage that transition effectively.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the Conservatives have got a cheek? Some 77,000 jobs drifted out of the North sea under their Government, and they did not lift a finger. This Government, along with the Scottish Government, invested £18 million in a transition fund to help oil and gas workers move into energy jobs. That will be an uneven transition, but it is an inevitable one. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is what comes from having a Government with an industrial strategy that puts workers first?
Mr Alexander
I find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend from the Western Isles. The North sea has provided decades of good jobs, not just for people from the Western Isles and across Scotland but from the whole of the United Kingdom. The last Conservative Government did not believe in industrial strategy—it is as basic as that. It is not just a difference of policy; it is a difference of philosophy. We believe in open markets and an active state. That is why we set up GB Energy, that is why there is a transition fund and that is why people can rely on Labour.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman back to the Dispatch Box as Secretary of State for Scotland after his sabbatical over the last 20 or so years. The messianic zeal of his colleague the Energy Secretary to see the destruction of our oil and gas industry is having real-life consequences. Scottish workers are being made unemployed in their thousands, while this Government ban the drilling and exploration of oil and gas in British waters, and import more gas from Norway, which gets it from the very same sea that we are prevented from exploiting. Come on, Secretary of State; it is all a little unhinged, isn’t it?
Mr Alexander
Where to begin? We have a Government that have invested in GB Energy and that have a transition fund up against an Opposition that abjectly failed in their responsibilities towards the North sea. We just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) that 77,000 jobs were lost. That is the record that they own, and we will continue to point it out.
Andrew Bowie
The Secretary of State for Energy is not the messiah. Week after week, I come to this Chamber to ask Energy Ministers and Scotland Office Ministers why they are content to sacrifice one of this country’s greatest national assets and allow highly skilled workers to go on the scrap heap or go overseas. As Scotland’s man at the Cabinet table, the Secretary of State knows that his job is to speak up for those people who are losing their jobs today, not to defend the Secretary of State for Energy. Will he explain that to the people of Aberdeen when he visits next week?
Mr Alexander
I gently remind the shadow Secretary of State that there is a difference between abuse and argument, and in relation to his substantive arguments, of course I am happy to be Scotland’s voice at the Cabinet table. That is why only next week I will be meeting a range of energy companies based in Aberdeen and listening directly to them. That dialogue has already started. I think we can do better than his question.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Pamela Nash (Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
The Scotland Office is backing Scotland’s communities with our £292 million pride in place investment. The plan will support grassroots movements that restore local people’s power, boost national pride and help people get on in life. It will revitalise our high streets, create jobs and improve safety and security. More than that, it will give expression to this Government’s core belief that communities are powerful and that in every corner of our country, we find millions of so-called ordinary people doing their best and doing their bit to transform the places they love for the people they love.
Douglas McAllister
The UK Government are investing more than £41 million of funding in my constituency, including the recently announced pride in place award. That will unlock the potential of my West Dunbartonshire constituency, matching the level of ambition I have to regenerate our town centres and communities and make them fit for the future. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is in stark contrast to the SNP, which has given up on our communities right across Scotland and in West Dunbartonshire?
Kirsty McNeill
I commend my hon. Friend on his ambition for his seat and his sterling advocacy for it. He is right that this funding will help revitalise our high streets, create jobs and improve safety and security in Scotland. He is also right that the SNP is desperately out of touch with its squabbling over independence while services across Scotland are at breaking point.
Pamela Nash
Since the election last year when Labour came to power, our constituents in Scotland have seen their friends in England and Wales see real improvements in their communities and public services, while they look on and wonder what the SNP Government are squandering Scotland’s share on. Does the Minister agree that key to the success of the pride in place funding and projects, including the £41.5 million coming to Lanarkshire, is that we are putting power directly in the hands of people to make decisions about investments in their own communities?
Kirsty McNeill
My hon. Friend is right that both her constituents and mine look with some envy to the other side of the border where millions of extra NHS appointments have been secured while waiting lists in Scotland go up and up. Local communities are at the heart of Scottish life, which is why we are giving them control over hundreds of millions of pounds of investment to revitalise their high streets, take ownership of important local assets and build thriving and prosperous places to work, live and visit.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Government’s pride in place initiative—their equivalent of levelling up—should be great and should be felt across Scotland, but unfortunately we are feeling the opposite in north-east Scotland because of the Government’s energy policies. Our high streets need regeneration after a decade of disastrous decline in the sector, whether that is from SNP or Labour policies. How will the Government act to ensure that our high streets in north-east Scotland will not be further decimated?
Kirsty McNeill
I remind the hon. Lady that, of course, her constituents benefit from a city region and growth deal—there is investment going into her area. If she has complaints about the decline of her constituency, I suggest that she looks at her colleagues and holds them accountable for 14 years of catastrophic economic mismanagement by the Conservatives.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
As long as I get any opportunity, I will continue to ask why Perth, and Perth and Kinross, is not getting one penny from the current allocation. Why has Perth and Kinross never had one single penny from any Government allocation? Why did this Labour Government take away the £5 million that we finally got from the Conservatives? Finally, when is Perth, and Perth and Kinross, going to get its fair share?
Kirsty McNeill
The allocations under the pride in place programme have been evidence led, based on data and on a formula that is progressive and puts money into the pockets of those who need it most. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about where money in Perth and Kinross has gone, I suggest he asks the First Minister of Scotland, who is from his own party and has received more than £5 billion. His constituents, like mine, will be asking, “Where’s the money gone, John?”
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
This Government are taking action to support vulnerable families this winter, including by expanding the warm home discount scheme, which means that more than 500,000 households now benefit from that £150 payment—one in five Scottish households.
Mr MacDonald
Will the Minister acknowledge the unfairness that my constituents in Skye, and indeed people all across rural Scotland and rural Great Britain, are paying four times as much to heat their houses using locally generated renewable electricity—often while looking at wind turbines outside their windows—than those in cities who heat their houses using imported high-carbon gas, which is largely due to the fact that the environmental tariffs fall wrongly on the renewables and not on the carbon fuel gas?
Mr Alexander
Communities can feel tangible benefits, but those community benefits are largely voluntary at the moment. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, however; that is why this Government are considering mandating the provision of community benefit funds for low-carbon energy infrastructure across the United Kingdom. We will have more to say in our plans when they are set out later this year.
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
It is estimated that more than 70,000 households in Glasgow live in fuel poverty. The UK Government’s extension to the warm home discount will mean that many of those families receive money off their energy bills. Can the Secretary of State outline how people can access that support?
Mr Alexander
The good news is that those in receipt of pension credit that tops them up to a minimum weekly income will continue to receive the discount automatically. The scheme is opening again this month; anyone who thinks they may be eligible, in Glasgow or elsewhere across Scotland, should contact their energy supplier.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
I was elected on a very clear manifesto, which made clear that this UK Labour Government do not support independence or another referendum. If, after 18 years, the SNP is not prepared to run on its record, that begs the question: what kind of record have they left, after 18 years in power? Behind the smokescreen it has tried to create by talking about independence, we know the reality: one in six of us on waiting lists, rising violence and falling standards in our schools. Frankly, Scotland deserves better.
Jack Rankin
I thank the Secretary of State for his unequivocal rejection of separatism. He will always find on the Conservative side fellow colleagues who treasure this United Kingdom and want to shout about the most successful alliance in political history. What specific steps can he take to prevent more taxpayers’ cash being squandered as the SNP pursues its doomed dream?
Mr Alexander
As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland made clear, we have committed £5.2 billion to the Scottish Government this year—the largest settlement in the 25 years of devolution. There is a very basic question that we Scots are asking: “Where’s the money gone, John?” The reality is that our services are getting worse, not better, and we see industrial-level waste from the SNP. That is why it is time for a new direction.
Brendan O’Hara
I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to his place, although it seems that his appointment has not been universally welcomed. Indeed, I hear that the Daily Record, having asked his Labour colleagues for their opinion, feared an asterisk shortage. One particularly caustic comrade said:
“If I had a pound for everyone who liked Douglas, I would have 50p.”
But rest assured, Mr Speaker, his appointment was welcomed with open arms on the SNP Benches, and I have to admit to having a grudging admiration for him as someone who cares not about the opinion of other people. But with Labour tanking in the polls, and independence the majority view in—
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr O’Hara, this is meant to be a question, not a statement.
Mr Alexander
Well, Mr Speaker, the quality of the SNP’s contributions does not seem to have improved since 2007, and neither has its arguments. In the face of failing schools and hospitals, and the inability to build ferries in the hon. Gentleman’s own constituency, what do we see? Once again, dreary documents about independence. The reality is that the SNP has let Scotland down, and Scotland deserves better. That is why we are up for the fight in May.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
The SNP’s renewed chatter on independence is understandable, because it wants to distract from its abysmal record of running down our public services. Given that its plans for defence in an independent Scotland include giving up the nuclear deterrent and replacing it with little more than a Scottish navy comprising the Waverley and the Vital Spark, does the Secretary of State agree that Vladimir Putin will be rubbing his hands with glee at the SNP’s latest outbursts?
Mr Alexander
I am a great fan of Para Handy, the Vital Spark and the Waverley, but I would not want to offer them in the face of Vladimir Putin as an approach to Euro-Atlantic security. The reality is that we have student gesture politics from the Scottish National party. I met with the major defence companies in Greenock last Friday, and they were very clear that we are forgoing industrial opportunities now. There is a real cost to the incompetence and student naiveté of the Scottish National party.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
Businesses in my constituency and across Scotland need stability, certainty and opportunity. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is what they are getting from a Labour Government, which stands in stark contrast to the instability and uncertainty of the SNP and its obsession with independence?
Mr Alexander
Returning to the Dispatch Box as the Secretary of State for Scotland, I think it is striking that the SNP’s answers are no better than they were in 2017, 2014 or 2021. I simply ask: what is its policy on a Scottish currency? What is its policy on foreign reserves? What is its position on a Scottish pension? It is no better at answering those questions now than it was 20 years ago.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
May I join other Opposition Members in welcoming the Secretary of State to his place? I wish him well in that job.
My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) is not the only one with a quote that might be of interest to the Secretary of State; I have another one here. Can he tell us who said this? “If there is a majority”—an SNP majority—“it has got to be looked at in Westminster.” Who said that?
Mr Alexander
I sense that it might be myself. We would take seriously any SNP majority, but if the SNP is returned to office, I hope it will do better than it has done over the past 18 years. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we on the Government Benches are not anticipating defeat; we are working for victory.
Stephen Gethins
Well, this might get just a little bit awkward. The quote was not from the Secretary of State, although I welcome his contribution; it was actually from his boss, the leader of the Labour party and the current Prime Minister, who is about to turn up. That is very awkward indeed—[Interruption.] There he is. Will he stick to that commitment, or will we see Labour break yet another promise?
Mr Alexander
Not least because he has just turned up, let me say that I always agree with my boss. The reality is that we are clear and unequivocal that we do not want the break-up of the United Kingdom. As Scots, we made our choice in 2014, and that was for a better future within the United Kingdom.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
This Government are working tirelessly to reduce the cost of living in Scotland. We have introduced a national living wage, delivered a generational upgrade to workers’ rights and helped the Bank of England to cut interest rates five times, putting money into people’s pockets across Scotland. Furthermore, thanks to our stewardship, the International Monetary Fund forecasts the UK to be the second-fastest growing G7 economy this year.
Ben Lake
Scotland is the only part of the United Kingdom where child poverty is falling, and it is also the only part of Great Britain with a non-Labour Government. I am sure the Minister agrees that the rest of the UK deserves better, so will she be calling on the Chancellor to scrap the two-child cap in the upcoming Budget?
Kirsty McNeill
A child poverty strategy is on the way and will be released in due course. I can underscore our commitment to fighting child poverty with every breath we have. That is what Labour Governments have always done, and it is what this Labour Government will do, too.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Ind)
This weekend, thousands of people will march in Edinburgh to say that Scotland demands better. We are right to do so, because the Poverty Alliance says that one in six adults in Scotland—around 1.2 million people—are living in food insecurity. What are the Scotland Office and the wider Labour Government doing to end food insecurity for Scots?
Kirsty McNeill
Our commitment to ending poverty is clear. We have had a clear focus on living standards; work is increasingly now paying; and we are focusing on ensuring that none of Scotland’s children is subject to the poverty that the hon. Member so vividly describes.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I am sure that the whole House will know that this weekend the Rugby League Ashes returns for the first time since 2003. I place on the record my very best wishes to the England team, who will make the major rumble in London this weekend—the first of three matches against Australia.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
On Sunday we unveiled Labour’s plan to recruit hundreds of thousands of workers into clean energy, creating quality, well-paid jobs in every quarter of the United Kingdom. On Monday we announced the new V-level qualification, to make sure that every young person has the skills to realise their potential. On Tuesday our first ever regional investment summit in Birmingham secured £10 billion of investment. And today we are announcing tough new penalties to end the scandal of pollution in our rivers and seas. That is national renewal with a Labour Government.
Yesterday I met Claire Throssell, who is with us in the Gallery today. Her two young sons, Paul and Jack, were murdered 11 years ago this week by her abusive ex-husband after a family court ordered that he should have unsupervised contact with them. Claire’s bravery and her campaign are humbling, and today I am pleased that we can announce that we will repeal the presumption of parental involvement, putting children’s safety first.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Dr Savage
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s sympathies extended towards Claire, and I commend her for her bravery.
I regret to inform the House that yesterday there was a very serious breach of national security, when my Prime Minister’s question was photographed heading into No. 10 in a transparent folder. The nation can rest easy, as on this occasion no state secrets were revealed. However, it does make me wonder whether this Government can be trusted with a digital ID scheme that is mandatory in all but name. [Laughter.] I like to keep the Prime Minister on his toes. Will he reverse this misguided scheme, or will he persist with a plan that makes all of our personal data vulnerable to hacks and attacks?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for her question. The whole point of digital ID, of course, is that you cannot see it, so that should at least deal with her first concern. It is important that we make access to public services as easy as possible for people. We all know the difficulties that so many people have with accessing services, and digital ID has been shown in other countries to help. I do think this is an important step forward. I also think it is very important as part of our plan to tackle those who are entering our country illegally.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
I know that the Housing Minister will be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to help unlock new homes for her constituents. We are working closely with local authorities through our small sites aggregator to build new affordable homes on brownfield sites. My goal is to restore the dream of home ownership, which was stolen by the Opposition when they were in government.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
May I first pay tribute to the former Conservative MP Oliver Colvile, who has very sadly passed away after a long illness? Colleagues will remember him for his love of cricket and, of course, hedgehogs. He will be very much missed.
Four victims on the rape gangs survivors panel have resigned, and they have resigned because they have lost all confidence in the Government’s inquiry, so I am giving my first question to one of them—to Fiona. She said:
“Being dismissed and contradicted by a minister when you’re telling the truth takes you right back to that feeling of not being believed all over again.”
Fiona’s question is simple:
“what’s the point in speaking up if we’re just going to be called liars?”
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Lady for raising that on behalf of Fiona. Let me give Fiona and the House my answer. The grooming scandal was one of the worst scandals of our time. Women and girls were abused and exploited by predatory gangs of men, and survivors have been ignored for many years, including by the state, which of course is supposed to protect them. My vow to Fiona and to them is that this national inquiry will change that.
I do acknowledge that in recent days some members, including Fiona, have decided to step away from the panel. Should they wish to return, the door will always be open, but even if they do not, we owe it to them, to Fiona and to the country to answer the concerns that they have raised. The inquiry is not and will never be watered down, its scope will not change, it will examine the ethnicity and religion of the offenders, and we will find the right person to chair it.
I can tell the House today that Dame Louise Casey will now support the work of the inquiry, and it will get to the truth. Injustice will have no place to hide.
Mrs Badenoch
I doubt that Fiona will be satisfied with that answer. The Prime Minister says that they could return to the panel if they wish to. Why would they do that? The Government have been engaged in a briefing war against survivors. Elizabeth—[Hon. Members: “Shame!”] They say “Shame.” Why do they not listen to what Elizabeth had to say? Elizabeth, who was abused in Rotherham from the age of 14, had this to say about the Government:
“It has created a toxic environment for survivors”.
They were looking for answers from the Prime Minister, and what they have heard is Labour MPs saying “Shame” at their words.
Yesterday, the Safeguarding Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), said that Elizabeth was wrong. Who should we believe: the Prime Minister’s Safeguarding Minister or Elizabeth?
The Prime Minister
Let me put on record my respect for all the survivors, who have been through the most awful ordeal, and I want to thank those who have been involved so far for their work in the process. What we are trying to do is to get this right, and to have an inquiry with survivors at its heart. As the Safeguarding Minister told the House yesterday, that is obviously not easy. They have all come with difficult experiences. There are a wide range of views, understandably, and every survivor does bring their own painful experience to this. The survivors met the prospective chairs this week, and we want them to have the chance to engage. I want survivors to be at the heart of this. I want an inquiry that can get to the truth. These are the hard yards—I accept that—but I want to press on and get this right.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister says that he wants survivors to be at the heart of this, but in his first PMQs this year he said that we did not need a national inquiry. When he did, all of these Labour Members cheered. They were nodding their heads, including the Safeguarding Minister. They voted against the national inquiry three times. [Interruption.] Yes, they did. They voted against the national inquiry three times, so the victims do not believe them. They can say no as much as they like, but it is on the record. They do not like it, but it is true. Now, one of the victims has quit. Contrary to what the Prime Minister has just said and what the Home Secretary wrote this morning, the victims believe that the inquiry will downplay the racial and religious motivations behind their abuse. Are the victims not right when they call it a cover-up?
The Prime Minister
Let me reassure the victims and the House that the scope of the inquiry will not be diluted, and we will not shy away from cultural or religious issues. It was I who commissioned Baroness Casey in the first place. She gave me her recommendation in relation to a national inquiry, and we have, in the four months since then, finalised the panel and are trying to get the leadership of this inquiry right, with survivors at the heart. In that period, we have also reopened 1,200 historical closed cases. I have long argued that the criminal route, where it can be pursued, is the right route for perpetrators.
We have introduced mandatory reporting of child sex abuse, which I happen to think is a vital safeguard— I have been campaigning for that for over a decade. I asked the last Government to introduce it, and that fell on deaf ears. That mandatory reporting of child sex abuse is something that each and every Conservative Member voted against earlier this year. We have given victims and survivors the power to seek an independent review of their cases. But in relation to this inquiry, I want to go as fast as we can to get the justice that is deserved, and I want to ensure that survivors are involved in that. We are balancing the two to get this right, and I will continue to do so.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister is talking about mandatory reporting. I will remind him what Fiona asked: what is the point, if the victims are not going to be believed? What would be the point of mandatory reporting? All of this is happening now—all that he is saying—is because four of those victims resigned from the survivors panel. If they had not done that, the Government would have continued with the watering down, which we all know they were carrying out. So yes, the victims are right to be worried.
The Prime Minister also talked about looking for a chair. It has been 10 months since we first called for a national inquiry—10 months. It is shocking that the Government still do not have a chair. One of the final two candidates has pulled out, leaving a former police officer who the victims do not want. What they do want is a judge. They deserve a judge. We are talking about the industrial-scale rape of women and girls. Unlike most of the inquiries going on, why is it that this inquiry does not deserve a judge?
The Prime Minister
Can I answer that? It is a serious point, because whether the inquiry should be judge-led was looked at by Louise Casey. She decided against that for a reason, and her reasons were twofold—I will spell them out. The first was the speed with which we could do this, and it would have been—[Interruption.] They asked the question. The first reason was the speed with which we could do this. The second is really important: I was absolutely determined that criminal investigations would go on at the same time as the inquiry. One of the problems that judge-led inquiries run into—I have seen and experienced this myself—is that they are often held back until the end of the criminal investigations, and I was determined that we would be able to run the two together. It is because of that that we have been able to reopen 1,200 historical cases at the same time.
The Leader of Opposition asks what is the point of the mandatory reporting that she voted against. I do not think she understands how it works. This is—[Interruption.] This is mandatory reporting of those who have had allegations made to them and there is clear enough evidence that they have not then passed that on. That is a fundamental problem in the system. That is why we have changed the law. The Conservatives should hang their heads in shame for having voted against that vital protection.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister should hang his head in shame for calling this a “far-right bandwagon” when we first raised this issue. The deputy leader or the future deputy leader—we all know who is going to win—called this a dog whistle.
What we need to think about right now is the victims and the survivors. I spoke to one of them yesterday. Let us remember that these are victims who waived their anonymity—an incredibly difficult thing to do—and they believe that the Safeguarding Minister has lied to them and about them. One of the survivors has said:
“Jess Phillips needs to be removed because I don’t think her conduct during this…has been acceptable for the position that she holds”.
[Interruption.] Those are not my words; those are the words of a survivor. It is a shame that Labour MPs are drowning that out. The hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley has clearly lost the confidence of the victims. Does she still have the confidence of the Prime Minister?
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I just say that, even if we are quoting somebody else, we should not quote a direct allegation against a Member of this House? I am sure that that is not what was intended.
The Prime Minister
I respect the views of all the survivors, and there are different views—I accept that—but I think the Safeguarding Minister has probably more experience than any other person in this House in dealing with violence against women and girls, and alongside her will be Louise Casey. These two individuals have spent decades—decades—standing up for those who have been abused and sexually exploited, and I absolutely think they are the right people to take this forward.
Mrs Badenoch
The Safeguarding Minister does not have more experience than the survivors. The fact is that, just a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister was standing there telling us he had full confidence in the best friend of a convicted paedophile, so it is no surprise the people have no confidence in what he is saying. The victims have said that she should be sacked. We on this side of the House believe that she should be sacked, because this is about Labour failure. Labour never wanted this inquiry; we demanded it. It has been Labour-run councils—Trafford, Bradford, Blackpool—that have tried to suppress the truth. It is Labour Ministers attacking the victims; we are standing up for them. How is it that, whether it is rape or Chinese espionage, when the Prime Minister is in a position to do something about it, it is always someone else’s fault?
The Prime Minister
My priorities are listening to and standing up for the survivors. That is why we are doing the work on the inquiry, why we have reopened the criminal cases and why we brought in mandatory reporting. I would gently remind the Conservatives that they had 14 years in office and they barely mentioned this issue, and where there were inquiries, they failed to act on them. We have done more in the time we have been in office than they did in 14 long years.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Of course, I join in thanking the staff at Maghull health park. We are investing £15.6 billion to bring down mental health waiting lists—vital in continuing to drive down inactivity and helping people to get the care that they need. In the upcoming multi-year capital budgets, we will enable NHS trusts to accelerate decisions on local priorities, and that could include developments like the mental health digital research centre that my hon. Friend champions.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I agree with the Prime Minister’s words about Claire Throssell. I agree with him that it is right that we change the law, and I hope that it is named after her sons, Jack and Paul.
Given the revelations about Royal Lodge, does the Prime Minister agree that this House needs to scrutinise the Crown Estate properly to ensure taxpayers’ interests are protected? The Chancellor herself has said that the current arrangements are wrong, so will the Prime Minister support a Select Committee inquiry so that all those involved can be called to give evidence, including the current occupant?
The Prime Minister
It is important, in relation to all Crown properties, that there is proper scrutiny. I certainly support that.
Ed Davey
I hope the House can look at that properly and that all people can be summoned to the relevant committee.
Turning to the economy, I know Labour Members are relieved—they are finally allowed to say that the Conservatives’ Brexit deal is a disaster. But that cannot just be a political ruse to attack the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), however much he deserves it. Even worse, given that we still have the highest inflation in the G7, it must not be a smokescreen to raise taxes on ordinary people. It must be a call to action. Will the Prime Minister act now to repair the Brexit damage by negotiating a new UK-EU customs union to boost Britain’s trade and grow our economy?
The Prime Minister
No, I do not think that is the way forward. What we have done is to have a much closer relationship with the EU, recognising the damage done by the flawed Brexit deal that the Conservative party negotiated. We have also struck deals with India and the US, secured record investment into this country and have the fastest growing economy in the G7 in the first half of this year.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
So, this is a local Conservative council telling my hon. Friend not to point out potholes in case it has to fill them! That is outrageous—just like the record of the last 14 years. We know how problematic, dangerous and costly potholes are to drivers. That is why we have delivered record investment to maintain our roads and fix potholes. That is £1.6 billion. That money has been given to councils, but it comes with strings. My message to the council to reinforce that is clear: “Use the money, fix the roads and show how you are carrying out repairs, or lose the money.” It is councils that should get on with the job of fixing our roads. I will make sure the Roads Minister follows up with my hon. Friend.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Given that the TUC has calculated that the wealthiest 10% of households in the UK hold more wealth than everyone else in the country put together, does the Prime Minister agree with me that it is inequality, not immigration, that is a threat to our country?
The Prime Minister
We need to deal both with levels of immigration and with inequality, and that is what the Government are doing. As we get on with trying to boost our economy, may I gently point out that if we want more equality and if we want our economy to be stronger, the hon. Lady’s party needs to start voting for some of the measures that will make it necessary?
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I extend my gratitude to my hon. Friend and to all those who spoke in the baby loss debate last Monday for their powerful and moving stories. I was at the Pride of Britain awards on Monday night and very many people came forward to me, having heard some of the speeches from this House, particularly the personal testimonies, so I assure her that those stories really did have power in making the argument. We do need to fix what needs fixing, so we will fix maternity services, improve safety and make sure every mother is heard and gets high-quality care.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Let me give the right hon. Lady a simple example. We had an example of green-belt land that was, in fact, a car park where building did not take place, and non-green-belt land that was an open playing field where building did take place. That does not make sense to me. That is why we have our policy.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I welcome Millie to the Gallery—I appreciate that Members on the Opposition Benches cannot see her, but she is looking down at us and smiling with the courage and positivity that I know is everything to her. We absolutely salute that; we are humbled by it. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I really do find it hard to understand how a school trust could make a decision like that in relation to the ramp. Rather than berate those in the trust from the Chamber, I would just implore them on behalf of everybody here and Millie in particular to look again, and hopefully, with the endorsement of the whole House, to reconsider that decision, put in that ramp and match the positivity and the courage that Millie has shown all of us. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that campaign.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman knows that we inherited a situation where local councils were underfunded and millions were wasted on duplication. By reforming the system, which is what we are doing, we will save money and reinvest that in improved public services. In response to the hon. Gentleman’s question, we expect the elections in Surrey to be for the new unitary councils, and we will be setting out the planned timetable very shortly.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out what voters in Durham can see: what people get if they vote Reform is total chaos and broken promises. Councils have a vital role in our communities. It is not just Durham where Reform is doing this; I think four councillors in Kent have just been suspended for bringing the party into disrepute, which is quite something for a party whose Welsh leader accepts Russian bribes to spread Putin’s propaganda.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Prime Minister
We are putting in the support that we can for hospices, and the money we put aside at the Budget for the NHS is absolutely crucial in relation to that. The NHS was underfunded for 14 long years. We have now put in the funding that the NHS needs to do its work.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right that the Tories left our flood defences in their worst state on record. We are building them up again, investing over £10 billion to protect homes and businesses. We have delivered over 150 flood schemes in our first year, and I want to see even more rapid progress. My hon. Friend is a superb champion on this issue, and we have provided £300,000 to complete the feasibility study for stronger defences in her constituency.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising this serious issue, as he has done on a number of occasions. It affects both his constituents and others across the country. It is simply unacceptable that customers and staff have been so badly let down. I know he will be meeting the relevant Minister, but let me update him now in a couple of respects. Officials are currently reviewing whether the integrated care boards and General Pharmaceutical Council need additional powers to address pharmacy businesses that do not play by the rules—I think that is exactly the point he raises. That could include powers for the council to go after business owners in addition to the pharmacy professionals. More detail will be provided when the hon. Member meets with the Minister, but I thought it helpful to give those two indications.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question; he is a credit to his community. I know at first hand that he has done so much hard work to help to heal, to rebuild and to look to a brighter future for Southport. I welcome the Phab charity to Parliament; it does fantastic work to help break down barriers. I am proud that Labour is backing our youth clubs with £30 million of grant funding, doubling the number of youth hubs and providing a youth guarantee with earning or learning guaranteed for our young people. Our national youth strategy will be set out in the autumn.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Our small business plan was drawn up with small businesses. I sent the hon. Member a copy online; I hope that she shared that with the 3,000 small businesses in her constituency. That shows what we are doing. [Hon. Members: “Rubbish!”] Well, Conservative Members shout “rubbish”, but this is what small businesses asked us to do. There is £1 billion of additional lending to small businesses and £3 billion extra for small businesses to scale up, and we are dealing with late payments in the biggest reform for 25 years.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
As Britain faced peril in world war two, Winston Churchill took a radical step: he changed the clocks to shift extra daylight into the evenings. As the clocks go back this weekend, will the Prime Minister take a look at the evidence on trialling Churchill time again to cut carbon, reduce bills, improve road safety, boost the hospitality industry and be the Prime Minister who will brighten up all our lives?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We will look at the relevant material.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising that. Added to the list of shocking things the last Government left us is the shocking state of NHS dentistry—broken, like everything else under the last Government. We are rolling out extra urgent care appointments. In Somerset, the integrated care board is expected to deliver over 13,000 extra dental appointments this year; I will give her more details in due course. We are also reforming the dental contract, which will shift focus on to retaining NHS dentists.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
Ahmad Al Ibrahim was only 16 years old when he was fatally stabbed in Huddersfield. His life was cruelly taken away in what the police described as an “unprovoked” and “motiveless” attack. Following a visit to Netherhall learning campus in my constituency last week, I know how important this issue is for young people. Will the Prime Minister commit to redoubling efforts to tackle serious violence and knife crime through more visible policing, stronger prevention and investment in youth services?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that devastating case. My thoughts, and I am sure those of the whole House, are with the family and friends. Through our Crime and Policing Bill, we are increasing penalties for the illegal sale of knives and giving police new powers to seize knives likely to be used for violence or cause harm. We have also launched a coalition to tackle knife crime, to bring together campaigners and community leaders to tackle the root causes of knife crime and help protect the next generation.
Heathrow: National Airports Review
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
With permission, I will update the House on the steps this Government are taking to realise the benefits of expansion at Heathrow airport, having invited proposals for a third runway earlier this year.
Today I am launching a review of the airports national policy statement. Britain wants to fly, and this Government will act to meet public aspirations. Our review of the ANPS will ensure that while we unlock long-term capacity for more flights at the nation’s only hub airport, we will also meet our obligations to passengers, communities and the environment. Today is a step forward for UK aviation and infrastructure, supporting growth in the economy and enabling a modern, efficient transport system that harnesses international investment, boosts connectivity and strengthens UK competitiveness.
We are committed to making a decision on a third runway at Heathrow within this Parliament, and we are clear in our ambition to see flights taking off on a new runway in 2035. We said we would get on with this, and we have. When the previous Government set up the Davies commission, it took them five years to publish the original draft ANPS. We will get to the same point in 18 months, with the process completed by the end of 2026, showing our commitment to delivering progress swiftly but robustly. When we say we back the builders, not the blockers, we mean it.
But this is not a blank cheque. Expansion at Heathrow must minimise cost for passengers and customers. The taxpayer must not be expected to foot the bill. That is why the scheme will be privately financed—both the core project and the related infrastructure improvements. Extra staff and passengers must be able to get to and from the airport without turning the M4 and M25 into Europe’s largest car park. Crucially, the expansion must align with our legal, environmental and climate commitments. Starting the review of the ANPS is critical to delivering expansion and will provide the basis for decisions on any future planning applications.
The world has changed since the last ANPS review in 2018, which is when it was designated. New environmental and climate obligations have been introduced, and patterns of travel have changed. However, pretty much every UK airport saw its busiest summer on record. We could put our head in the sand and pretend this is not the case, but we would be doing a disservice to our economy and to the next generation. That is why, in carrying out this review, we will consider how any proposed scheme must meet four clear tests: that it contributes to economic growth across the country; that it meets our air quality obligations; that it is consistent with our noise commitments; and, crucially, that it aligns with our legal obligations on climate change, including net zero.
We will seek the independent opinion of the Climate Change Committee, which I will write to shortly to request this advice. While a third runway at Heathrow has been factored into carbon budget 6, it is right that we update our modelling and seek the views of the CCC. Given Heathrow’s national importance, we will also consider naming the airport as critical national priority infrastructure, in line with our approach to low-carbon energy projects. We are further considering whether to name a statutory undertaker as an appropriate person to carry out the project under the Planning Act 2008, providing additional clarity to stakeholders and the local community. It is clear that this is a large and complex programme that requires a thorough and evidence-led approach. Over the coming months, my Department will develop analysis on economic and environmental impacts of expansion. We will also undertake an appraisal of sustainability, as required by statute, alongside a habitats regulations assessment and other necessary technical work. If amendments are needed to the ANPS as a result of the review, we expect to consult on an amended policy statement by next summer. Communities will be able to have their say and we will shortly publish an updated stakeholder engagement approach to ensure transparency and fairness throughout the process.
Earlier this year, we invited potential promoters to submit proposals for delivering a third runway at Heathrow. Seven proposals were received and were considered by officials from the Department for Transport, the Treasury and expert financial and technical advisers. Following that assessment, two potential schemes remain under active consideration: a proposal from Heathrow Airport Limited and a proposal from the Arora Group. We know that we must provide as much clarity and certainty for communities, investors and users of Heathrow as soon as possible, so we are seeking further information on the two proposed schemes with a view to reaching a final decision on a single scheme to inform the remainder of the ANPS review by the end of November.
When making that decision, we will consider: the interoperability of the proposed scheme with existing infrastructure; the plans for transport to and from the airport and associated road schemes; the land take and impact on surrounding homes and communities; the evidence that the scheme can be privately financed; and the economic benefits of the scheme. This Government are committed to moving quickly but we will also do this properly.
To deliver the scheme on time, the Government are also pressing ahead with a series of enabling reforms. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill will streamline the delivery of major infrastructure, including Heathrow. That includes faster consenting routes and more proportionate consultations. On judicial reviews, we have announced that we will work with the judiciary to cut the amount of time it takes for a review to move through the court system for national policy statements and nationally significant infrastructure projects. We are establishing the UK Airspace Design Service to deliver modernised airspace. That will initially prioritise airspace design for the London region, supporting both Heathrow and the wider network, and will also make flight paths more efficient so that planes spend less time over London. We will initiate slot reform to ensure future allocation maximises benefits of an expanded Heathrow, as well as approved growth at Gatwick and Luton for passengers, local communities and businesses.
Expanding Heathrow will be one of the largest infrastructure projects in the UK. Rigorous and effective cost control will be essential to its success, both in minimising any impact on airline charges and costs to passengers and in maintaining credibility with financial markets. The Government will therefore work with the Civil Aviation Authority to review the framework for economic regulation for capacity expansion at Heathrow, ensuring the model provides strong incentives for cost-effective delivery. We expect the CAA to publish a working paper in November, with a view to that work completing next summer.
This is a landmark opportunity for Heathrow, for the aviation sector and for the UK economy. The Government remain fully committed to ensuring the expansion is delivered in a way that is timely, cost-efficient and environmentally responsible. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her statement and for advance sight of it.
The statement should have been brought to the House months ago. The Secretary of State surely recognises that today marks a delay and an acknowledgment of that, rather than a decisive move forward. The truth is that this whole process has come about the wrong way round. Recent announcements on Gatwick and Heathrow, rather than being any clear plan for the future of British aviation, are not driven by planned and prepared work but by a clear attempt to divert attention from the Government’s growing list of crises, scandals and cover-ups. However, we on these Benches welcome the fact that this statement has finally been brought forward to the House, because both the aviation sector and passengers deserve clarity, as do the local people who will be affected, and we hope that they will see sensible mitigations to these proposals.
Can the Secretary of State confirm what assessment the Government have undertaken so far of the total cost of Heathrow expansion, given that one of the central estimates now stands at almost £50 billion, excluding an extra £10 billion for further surface access works? Those figures would quadruple Heathrow’s current asset base, which is already responsible for some of the highest passenger charges in the world. If Britain is to remain competitive on the global stage, those costs must be kept down, not driven up.
Crucially, how will the Government ensure that the costs are minimised, not maximised? I am sure that, like me, the Secretary of State does not want those costs directly passed on to airlines and then to their passengers in higher fares, because affordability must be at the heart of any credible aviation strategy. Maintaining affordable flights is crucial for passengers, so can she assure the House that the Heathrow expansion will not result in significant pass-through costs, especially with the Government’s rises in air passenger duty, the jobs tax and now real concerns over how business rates will affect the aviation sector?
I understand that the Chancellor has claimed a third runway will be operational by 2035—something the Secretary of State has reflected today—and that she wants to see spades in the ground during this Parliament. Of course, we welcome the reforms that will enable this to happen. Those reforms will not have any teeth, however, unless the Government commit to backing our plan to scrap the Climate Change Act 2008. Otherwise, Heathrow expansion will face judicial review after judicial review, bogging down the process, driving up costs and delivering further delay. Even Labour’s Mayor of London has said that he “wouldn’t hesitate” to launch legal challenges against a third runway. Can the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that her own Labour colleagues—including those she worked for previously—and allies will not be the ones who prevent this important project from ever seeing the light of day? Can the Secretary of State also commit to ensuring that the associated road and rail links not just into London but to the south are included, so that the expansion delivers genuine economic growth and connectivity for the whole of the United Kingdom?
The Conservatives would end the constant threat of judicial review and eco-lawfare to ensure that infrastructure across the country could finally be delivered on time, on budget and in Britain’s national interests. It was great to hear the Secretary of State’s words on this from the Dispatch Box, but will those reforms relating to the judiciary come into force before the decisions on Heathrow and the development consent order are made, or will they be subject to the current situation we are facing?
We on these Benches recognise that greater competition is the most effective way to deliver value for money and reduce costs to consumers, and I am grateful that the Secretary of State acknowledged in her statement that Heathrow expansion must minimise costs, but the only way to achieve that is through real and genuine competition. Heathrow’s current structure has the potential to create perverse incentives that reward higher spending rather than efficiency, pushing up charges for passengers and airlines. I note the commitment that the CAA’s review into economic regulation will begin in November, but that review must look seriously and fundamentally at how to embed competition and reverse perverse incentives. How do the Secretary of State and the CAA intend to bring competition to the heart of delivering this project? She said that the review would be delivered in the summer of next year. Will it be before the summer recess so that the House will have time to scrutinise it?
While this Government continue to splurge cash, hike up taxes and debt and tie Britain up in eco-lawfare with their Green allies, only the Conservatives would restore confidence, break that cycle and deliver a stronger economy with world-class aviation at its heart. Sadly, under this Government, taxes have risen to historic highs. They have imposed a punishing jobs tax, and borrowing has soared to the highest levels since 2010 outside the pandemic, with £100 billion in annual debt interest payments. A third runway alone will not shield the country from the consequences of Labour’s economic mismanagement, but it is a project that must be delivered correctly and responsibly and put passengers at its heart.
Heidi Alexander
I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about our pace of delivery, and I roundly reject his criticisms on this. We are the party that is accelerating Heathrow expansion, today setting out this swift and robust review of the ANPS to help us determine applications swiftly. Previous work to get a final airports national policy statement by the last Government took more than five years. This Government will do it three years faster. We are getting on with the job and taking the important and sometimes difficult decisions to get Britain building. I gently remind him that when his great ally and mentor, Boris Johnson, was Prime Minister, he went to such lengths to duck decisions on this issue that he ended up in Afghanistan.
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to care about consumers and cost control, and that is precisely why we are reviewing the ANPS and why we are starting the work, via the Civil Aviation Authority, on the model of economic regulation. If we fail to plan for future capacity, prices will rise and choice will shrink. This review will be integral to keeping the UK competitive and connected by ensuring sufficient capacity, sustainable growth and fair competition between global hub airports. I agree with him that consumers deserve affordable fares and greener aviation, and that is what we are working to deliver.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about climate change, service access and our reforms to judicial reviews. On service access, I can be clear with him that we expect this project and associated infrastructure improvements to be privately financed. Through the ANPS review, we will be looking holistically at public transport requirements, be that southern rail access, western rail access or how people get to and from central London. He will recall that, in the spending review, we set out the biggest investment in London’s transport for over 10 years, with £2.2 billion enabling Transport for London to buy new rolling stock on the Piccadilly line and 10 extra Elizabeth line trains. We will work closely with our colleague, the Mayor of London, and TfL to ensure that appropriate infrastructure is in place.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the changes that we are making to judicial review, and I would simply say to him that we are acting where his Government had their head in the sand. I am confident that the CAA will look carefully at competition issues in the work that it is doing. I am also confident that, ultimately, we could create 100,000 jobs through expansion at Heathrow. We could boost economic growth as well as opening up new opportunities for trade, tourism and travel. We will do this properly, and that is what we are doing by launching the ANPS review today. I look forward to answering further questions from other hon. Members.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I look forward to the work she does on this ANPS coming to our Committee in due course. A third runway at Heathrow, combined with all the other agreed—or likely to be agreed—expansions of capacity in London and south-east airports would involve an increase of 177 million passengers, which would be 70% more than the number of passengers in London and the south-east from 2024. I look forward to the Climate Change Committee’s response to the proposal, because it has said that a 35% increase in capacity would be the maximum that would keep the UK compliant with our international legal commitments.
To return to the specifics of the statement, the Secretary of State said that she seeks to minimise costs for passengers and customers, but given that the cost of a third runway will be between £25 billion and £49 billion, how exactly will that cost not be passed on to the airlines and therefore the passengers if the Treasury is not going to fund those costs, which we know it is not? On surface access, ever since the building of the fifth terminal, the local authorities all around Heathrow have been pushing for southern rail access to Heathrow. Heathrow Airport has long said—and has clarified recently—that it will not pay the cost of southern rail access, so how does she expect that to be funded? If the M25 and M4 are not to grind to a halt, and if passengers and workers from the west and south of the airport are to be able to get in and out of the airport, how is that to be achieved?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend is entirely right to raise these issues. We will give very careful and thorough consideration to them in the airports national policy statement review, which will take place in the coming months. She referred to the Climate Change Committee’s opinion on capacity expansion. We are making rapid progress in cleaning up the fuel that is used in planes, and we are making huge efforts to reform our airspace, so that we can have cleaner and more direct flights. The carbon intensity of flying has to come down if we are to have more planes in the air. She was also right to highlight the importance of the regulatory model. That is why we have asked the Civil Aviation Authority to do this piece of work over the coming months; it is aligned with the review in the airports national policy statement. We will say more on that in due course.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, which made the Government’s intent of supporting the proposed third runway at Heathrow very clear. It was good to hear her recognise the complexity of all that will be needed to deliver it, including major diversionary works on two of the country’s busiest motorways. We Liberal Democrats continue to support the right infrastructure in the right place, which is why we have always supported schemes such as East West Rail and Northern Powerhouse Rail. However, we need the right infrastructure to tackle the right problems, and there are many unanswered questions about the Heathrow third runway.
The New Economics Foundation has been very clear in its analysis that the environmental impact of airport expansion will erode a lot of our carbon emission reduction plans, and many studies have questioned the economic case for Heathrow expansion. I would be interested to hear from the Secretary of State about the dangers of relying solely on the private sector to fund large schemes, as happened in the case of the channel tunnel, which remains an enormously underused asset, partly because of the costs that resulted from the decision to fund it only through the private sector.
It is welcome that the Secretary of State has made her support for Heathrow expansion subject to four tests, but I detect perhaps a slight hint of cognitive dissonance, and a contradiction in the Government setting out timelines for delivering something that they say is subject to four tests. The Secretary of State said that she would hear the independent advice of the Climate Change Committee. If the CCC decides that the preferred option for the Heathrow third runway is incompatible with our carbon emissions and our net zero targets, will she drop her support for the third runway?
Heidi Alexander
I start by congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his appointment. He referred to New Economics Foundation research. I should be clear with him that the Government are absolutely committed to reaching net zero for the whole economy by 2050, and that we will meet our climate change obligations as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008. We have also been clear repeatedly that any airport expansion proposals will need to demonstrate that they will contribute to economic growth and can be delivered in line with the UK’s legally binding climate change commitment. We will engage with the CCC in the ANPS review.
Heathrow is only one part of the process; the expansion of Heathrow, Luton, Gatwick and Bristol airports was factored into carbon budget 7, and the hon. Gentleman will know that the Government will publish our updated delivery plan for carbon budgets 4 to 6 in the coming weeks. We should not see economic growth and our climate change commitments as being inconsistent with each another. I believe we can go further, faster, on cleaner fuels and technological developments, but people want to fly, and I do not think that this Government should get on the wrong side of public aspiration.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I first of all express my sympathy for the Secretary of State: she knows from past experience that this is like watching a car crash in action, and it has been thrust upon her by the Chancellor. She knows that Heathrow has made the clear commitment that it will not pay for the infrastructure; that landing charges will go up, and passengers will pay for it; and that there is no way that we can meet our climate change targets if the expansion goes ahead. That is why I express my sympathy; she has been given an impossible task.
I have a constituency interest, as the Secretary of State will know, because Heathrow is in my constituency. She mentioned that the stakeholder engagement process will be published shortly. Could she be a bit more precise on the timescale, and on what measures will be included in that? The House needs to know that in my constituency, 4,500 homes will be demolished or rendered unliveable; 15,000 people will lose their homes; we will lose three schools; and whole communities will go. My constituents want to ask: where are they going to live? Where will their children be educated, and what will their happen to their community? We just need some certainty now—and from my point of view, it is certain that this is a white elephant. It is almost like watching High Speed 2 all over again.
Heidi Alexander
I am sure it will not come as a surprise to my right hon. Friend to hear that I reject his characterisation of the work I am doing. I see the expansion as an opportunity to improve our connectivity as a nation, to improve UK competitiveness and to ensure that we deliver for businesses and passengers all across the UK. I understand why he raised the interests of his constituents who live closest to the proposed expansion. He asked me for more detail about the consultation timeline. If we make changes to the ANPS through the review, a consultation will take place on that next year, and we are working on a timeline that would see a new ANPS designated by the end of next year. I give him a commitment to meaningful engagement and consultation. In the document that I referred to in my statement, we will set out a new stakeholder engagement approach, so that people will be treated with fairness. We will act transparently throughout the process.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I ask colleagues to keep their questions short, so I can get everybody in.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I sympathise with the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell); my Spelthorne constituency is on the southern side of Heathrow airport, and the residents of Stanwell Moor, a village of some 520 homes, are half a mile away from the southern perimeter. They have put up with a lot, including appalling behaviour by Uber drivers, holiday parking and noise pollution. In the consultation, will the people of Stanwell Moor be engaged with directly? I also ask that we measure air and sound pollution, and use current levels as a baseline, so that we can determine the impact of the Heathrow expansion.
Heidi Alexander
In the ANPS, there will be a very thorough review of the noise requirements, and mitigations are set out in that document. I can give the hon. Gentleman a commitment that there will be meaningful engagement with his constituents.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State confirm that this is not a done deal? As part of the ANPS review process, will there be a full and independent analysis of the economic costs and benefits, the environmental effects, and demand in London and the south-east, given airport expansion elsewhere? As she says, the world has changed since 2018. Can my constituents, who will be seriously detrimentally affected by any further expansion of Heathrow, be assured that the Government have their best interests at heart?
Heidi Alexander
We will do this properly. As Secretary of State for Transport, and as the person who may ultimately be the decision maker on any future planning application, I assure my hon. Friend that I will approach this issue with an open mind and will apply the highest standards of professionalism and probity to the process that I am overseeing.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Egham in my constituency is five miles from Heathrow, and it is not the fact that it is overflowing that I want to ask about today. The shadow Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), visited the patch on Monday, and we waited 12 minutes while level crossing barriers were down in Pooley Green. The Secretary of State did not mention whether trains would be part of the consultation. Will they be within scope? If the expansion goes ahead, we will desperately need to deal with our level crossings, and we will need better rail access from Egham to Heathrow to make this work.
Heidi Alexander
I agree that we need to deal with the issue of level crossings on the rail network. We will look holistically at rail requirements in the ANPS review.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and am pleased to hear that this will be a thorough and meaningful consultation, because even though my constituency is not near the airport, my constituents in Camberwell, Stockwell and Brixton write to me regularly to say that they are suffering from air and noise pollution. The Secretary of State talked about infrastructure; a key point will be ensuring that more people use public transport to get to Heathrow. The reality is that some upgrades to the airport have not had the funding over many years, as the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), highlighted. I want to tease out more from the Secretary of State on private funding, because in a number of cases, developers commit to something, but then the viability issue comes up, and the money never seems to appear. Will she ensure that there is funding to secure the transport infrastructure that will be vital if there is any new airport runway?
Heidi Alexander
How people get to and from an airport is as important as the number of planes landing and taking off, so I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that we will look at these issues closely. I point out that Transport for London is buying a new fleet of Piccadilly line trains that have higher capacity. It is part of a larger fleet replacement programme, and 10 new Elizabeth line trains are also being built. We will look at the whole issue of how people get to and from the airport, because I agree that it is absolutely vital.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Chancellor has staked her economic credibility and growth strategy on a third runway at Heathrow. The Secretary of State said that she is committed to seeing flights take off from it in 2035, yet at the same time, she talks about taking an evidence-led approach, putting this project to her four tests, taking the advice of the Climate Change Committee and doing a thorough economic and environmental impact assessment. Could she clarify a point for the House, because I fear my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) did not get a straight answer? If the evidence shows that the environmental costs are too great and the economic benefits are too little, will she and, crucially, her Chancellor be prepared to do a U-turn and can this whole project?
Heidi Alexander
We see the huge opportunities and benefits associated with expanding capacity at Heathrow and having a third runway there. There will be a thorough process, which we are starting today by reviewing the policy framework in which any planning application will be judged. The Planning Inspectorate will look at that and consider all the issues to do with economic need, air quality, noise and carbon, and then a decision will be taken. We have an ambition to see planes taking off from the runway in 2035, but that does not mean that we will not have a thorough process. We are committed to that, and that is what I am setting out today.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
It is abundantly clear that air travel is here to stay; in fact, the amount of it has risen over recent years. We of course need to take mitigation measures to tackle the noise and environmental impacts, but while we have for decades been debating ad nauseam building a third runway, dozens of runways and, indeed, airports have been built by nations across the globe. I ask my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary to safeguard the thousands of Slough households who are dependent on Heathrow to pay their bills; to boost business and trade; and to maintain our world-leading position in the aviation sector. Will she work at speed to tackle the blockages and finally help to deliver this third runway?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have had decades of dither and delay on this issue, and it is right that we crack on and start the process of reviewing the airports national policy statement. He is also right to highlight the huge economic benefit of Heathrow—it is the largest single-site employer anywhere in the UK—and its effect on the livelihoods of and opportunities for his constituents. We will move at speed, but we will also do this properly.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
As the Secretary of State knows from her time at City Hall, Heathrow has been a planning disaster since it was accidentally sited to the west of London, forcing planes to land over millions of heads. While it might be amusing to watch her take the chainsaw to all those trees planted at Sipson by a series of Labour politicians, why she would compound that planning disaster I have no idea. More than that, if this goes ahead, she will also be compounding the Heathrow monopoly on long-haul flights. To her four rules, I suggest that she adds a fifth, which is the impact on direct connectivity to and from regional airports. There is the strong view that the expansion of Heathrow would kill connectivity from Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol and elsewhere.
Heidi Alexander
I actually think the opposite could be true: an expanded Heathrow could provide greater regional connectivity. The right hon. Member is right to highlight that Heathrow is our only hub airport, and it accounts for over 70% of long-haul flights, as well as over 70% of air freight by gross value, so it is an important economic asset. I repeat what I have said to others: we will move at speed and look at economic growth impacts across the entire country. But where he sees a challenge, I see opportunity.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I welcome the mention of the four tests that will be part of the review, but it must be said that scepticism is running high in Hillingdon, where the effects are greatest, and the four tests need to be more transparent. I encourage her to publish clearly what those four tests are and the metrics against which they will be assessed. I ask her for a commitment that the data and information that will be assessed will be fully and transparently shared with communities as early as possible so that it can be interrogated. I echo colleagues’ comments about the need for meaningful engagement with the communities most affected. Can she confirm that the engagement will not just be the formal consultation on the draft statement, but that there will be meaningful early engagement for the communities affected?
Heidi Alexander
We are moving at pace on this, but I do believe it is possible to have meaningful consultation opportunities as well. If through the review that we are conducting in the next couple of months it becomes apparent that we need to change the ANPS, we will consult on a new draft by the summer of next year. I will ensure that I remain in close contact with my hon. Friend, who is a fearsome advocate for his constituents, because I know that it is important that we not just address concerns about noise, air quality and carbon, but demonstrate the important economic effect that expanding Heathrow could have.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
My constituents, particularly those along the river in Molesey and Ditton, are concerned about an increase in the noise pollution that already affects us from a third runway at Heathrow. How can they be reassured that their views will be taken into account, unlike in the top-down centralised planning policies that this Government have implemented? Will the four tests be transparent, meaningful and readily available to constituents? Can I please ask again: should it be shown that the climate commitments of the UK will not be met by this expansion, will the Minister U-turn?
Heidi Alexander
This is the start, not the end, of the process. We will be transparent and clear about those four tests. We will consult on an amended ANPS if that is required following the review. A planning application would then come forward, and there would be consultation around that. There would be a public inquiry led by the planning inspector. There will be ample opportunity for people to make their views known. I refer the hon. Member to the remarks I made earlier about treating this whole process with professionalism and integrity to ensure that we make the right decision for the future of the country.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Heathrow aircraft noise has a significant detrimental impact on my Putney constituents. Similar hubs in other European countries affect far fewer people: for Schiphol it is 44,000 and for Charles de Gaulle 133,000, while for Heathrow it is more than 680,000 people who are directly impacted by the noise. Currently there are no legal noise limits. I welcome the mentions of noise in the Secretary of State’s statement; will she commit to a binding noise limit within the new strategy, as well as strong environmental limits and full community consultation in the process?
Heidi Alexander
I can tell my hon. Friend that the current ANPS sets out very clear requirements on noise that any scheme would have to meet. We will review those requirements alongside any necessary mitigation requirements, and we will consult on any changes. I should also say that the rules around the operation of a night flight ban, including the exact timings of such a ban, would be defined in consultation with local communities and relevant stakeholders.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The DFT’s own updated appraisal report shows that the economic benefits of a third runway are either exaggerated or misguided. The Labour Government are yet to produce their economic analysis. Meanwhile, Heathrow Airport Ltd is in more than £15 billion-worth of debt and its own proposal has increased in cost by 50% since 2016. What makes the Secretary of State so confident that private financing will be found not just for the proposals on the table, but for all the surface transport upgrades that will be required?
Heidi Alexander
The two promoters that remain in the scheme will be responsible for securing private investment, and they have expressed to me confidence that the scheme can go forward. I also gently point out to the hon. Lady that there is huge support for this expansion among the business community: the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce all support Heathrow expansion, as do regional business groups across the UK.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Environmental Audit Committee has just completed its very detailed work on aviation expansion, which we will announce soon. One thing that came across was that the Climate Change Committee was advising demand management as one of the ways that it should be delivered, consistent with our environmental commitments. I am glad that the Secretary of State has reaffirmed that the expansion will have to be consistent with those commitments, but can she tell us whether demand management will be part of that? What assessment has she made of the aspects that will require Government policy rather than being within Heathrow’s gift, such as the expansion of sustainable aviation fuel? Finally, I am glad to hear that she recognises that this is a 21st-century plan with 20th-century road links and 19th-century rail links, so can she tell us more about how she will reduce the overall carbon emissions contribution that Heathrow makes?
Heidi Alexander
There were probably three questions in one there. I say to my hon. Friend that I am not prepared to stand in the way of the public’s aspiration to fly. We are not looking at demand management at the moment; our approach to aviation decarbonisation is based on the analysis suggesting that the sector can make a significant contribution to our economy-wide net zero target by 2050 by focusing on new fuels and new technologies.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I have mentioned that the naming of Heathrow as critical national priority infrastructure is vital to ending the disruption to power and systems we have seen over the summer, so I encourage the Government to go forward with that. On the plans for transport to and from the airport and associated road schemes, can the Secretary of State confirm that the costs of the southern and western rail access, the new southern access tunnel that will ease congestion on existing roads and lower emissions, and the rail access to provide reliable public transport links for passengers and staff are included in the estimates we have already seen? I implore her, as others have done, to ensure that those plans are covered as part of the project, and that it is not left to the taxpayer to pick up the bill?
Heidi Alexander
I am clear that the project will need to be privately financed. That includes both the core project and the associated infrastructure improvements. It will be for the promoter submitting a planning application to set out in that application how it is consistent with the reviewed ANPS. However, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the remarks I made earlier; I am clear that we must ensure that the M4 and the M25 do not turn into a car park, because that will not result in the successful operation of the airport.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend knows my constituency well, and she will know that my constituents are very concerned about air quality in London and worried that the expansion of Heathrow will affect air quality in the constituency, especially for future generations. Will she reassure not just me, but local organisations such as Green School Runs and the London Clean Air Initiative, which are campaigning hard to ensure that air quality is not impacted and is at the heart of the review, not ignored by the Government?
Heidi Alexander
Air quality will be one of the factors looked at through the ANPS review. Obviously, there may have been some changes in baseline conditions compared with when the ANPS was last designated back in 2018, given that the ultra low emission zone is in force now, but we do take the issue seriously and that is why it is one of the four tests.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
About an hour ago, the Prime Minister did not answer my request for a cast-iron guarantee, so I wonder whether the Secretary of State can do a bit better. My constituency is 16 minutes from Heathrow, yet it has no rail link to our country’s busiest airport. Can she give me a cast-iron guarantee that, if this airport is expanded, Woking will finally get the rail link it needs?
Heidi Alexander
Far be it from me to give a different answer from the one the Prime Minister gave. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will be looking at rail in detail through the ANPS review and the public transport requirements, in order to have an expanded Heathrow with a third runway that operates successfully.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Providing jobs for 800 people and supporting a further 7,000, East Midlands airport is a fantastic example of how aviation powers regional growth. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whether it is through Heathrow expansion or at East Midlands airport, delivering sustainable expansion in aviation is not just about flights, but about delivering jobs, apprenticeships and growth, and about securing Britain’s role as a green aerospace and aviation leader?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend is right; I know that East Midlands airport plays a particularly important role in air freight, second only to Heathrow. That is something we do not talk about enough, given its importance to the economy, so I welcome the comments he has made.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I am and always will be a proud Yorkshireman, but I lived in west London for a number of years, so I am aware of the diverse range of views on Heathrow expansion. I certainly do not subscribe to the luddite nimbyism of the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), but may I ask the Secretary of State what consideration she has given to potential Chinese investment into this critical national infrastructure?
Heidi Alexander
It will be for the promoters of any future scheme to secure financing for the development. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that national security always comes first and foremost for this Government, but we are keen to secure international investment so that we can boost UK competitiveness and improve global connectivity. That is central to everything we are trying to do.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
Regarding the new airports national policy statement, can the Secretary of State clarify whether “airports” is in the plural? If so, will she be looking to change the planning process so that it can take into account the cumulative environmental impact of different airport expansions around the country?
Heidi Alexander
The review of the airports national policy statement is site-specific for Heathrow. The other applications I have dealt with for Luton and Gatwick in the past couple of months were dealt with using the “making best use of runways” policy. The ANPS is specific to Heathrow.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
Britain wants to thrive, but all I can hear is this Government once again prioritising the needs of the wealthiest, most frequent flyers above those of us on the ground. Can the Secretary of State tell me what crumbs of our carbon budget will remain for the rest of us and our lives after the review is complete? After the fudge on Gatwick, if the tests say no, will she say no as well?
Heidi Alexander
I refer the hon. Lady to the remarks I have made previously about carbon budgets, but I dispute the statement that it is only the wealthiest in this country who want to fly. This may be sad, but one of the highlights of life for me is the bacon butty on an easyJet flight to a Greek island in the summer. That is an aspiration shared by many of the British public.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I reassure my right hon. Friend that many of us on the Government Benches want us to get on and build, baby, build. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you. While much of the national conversation is understandably London-centric, can she assure the House that regional airports, particularly those in the west midlands, and the communities and businesses that they support, are being considered by the Government?
Heidi Alexander
I assure my hon. Friend that this Government are ambitious for all airports across the UK, including regional airports. I was with the chief executive of Birmingham airport only yesterday, and I am really excited about the £300 million investment in that airport that they announced at the regional investment summit yesterday. Just as with the expansion of Heathrow, there is huge potential for driving economic growth through our regional airports.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
While most of the comments today have been critical, regions across the United Kingdom need a strong hub airport, and Heathrow provides that. I seek assurances from the Secretary of State that slots at any expanded airport will be ensured for flights from regional airports. But I also warn her: given the way climate change targets have been used to stop major infrastructure projects in Northern Ireland, such as major roads, is she confident that, by sticking by the Climate Change Act 2008, we are not giving a weapon to those who are opposed to this project and will use the courts to ensure that it is stopped?
Heidi Alexander
The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the opportunity for other regional airports and the regional connections that an expanded Heathrow could provide. It has been operating at about 95% capacity for much of the past two decades, so we are taking slot reform forward. We will look closely at a range of issues to ensure that we are maximising the contribution of that process to our economy.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
I thank the Transport Secretary for her statement and recognise the national importance of this project. As she said, we must ensure that the whole of the United Kingdom benefits from the project, should it go ahead, and I am particularly keen that firms across Staffordshire and the midlands are involved. If she approves the scheme, how will British firms play their part in this nationally significant project?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the very significant supply chain that will exist, and not just in relation to the construction of a third runway, but in terms of the expanded airport and the opportunity that presents to the aviation sector. We will review the economic impacts through the ANPS review, so more detail will be available on all that in due course.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Can the Secretary of State update the House with a bit more detail on the progress of airspace modernisation in relation to noise? Residents in my constituency who are on the flightpath for Bournemouth airport have no night-time restrictions and are seeing massive increases. In places such as Dorset, people are being disturbed in their homes and in their sleep. If regional airports will not be included, can the Secretary of State explain when we can get something further on them?
Heidi Alexander
This Government have moved with speed to set up the UK airspace design service, and we plan to have that mobilised by the end of the year. The first region we will look at is London—that is partly to do with the connection to expansion schemes in London as well. If the hon. Lady writes to me with the details of what her constituents are experiencing, I will look into the matter further.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend recognise the severe concerns that my constituents in Fulham will have about aspects of this proposal, particularly the noise? They will hence take an interest in ensuring that the four tests are properly adhered to. Can she reassure me that she has no intention of watering down the ANPS to lessen its noise commitments?
Heidi Alexander
As I said in response to a similar question from my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), we will review the noise requirements set out in the current NPS and the mitigations associated with that. As I stand here today, I have no intention of diminishing in any way those requirements, but we will look at the new technology associated with new aircraft and new places, and we will do a thorough piece of work. If any changes are made, we will consult on those before next summer.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
As far back as 2019 there was talk of manufacturing and logistics hubs for the Heathrow hub being sited in Northern Ireland. Can the Secretary of State still give a reassurance that the whole of the UK will be considered in support of the manufacture of the third runway, should it go ahead? Will sites be considered in my constituency, for example, which is critical to Belfast international airport?
Heidi Alexander
One of the four tests relates to economic growth across the whole of the UK, and when I talk about the whole of the UK, I mean the whole of the UK. I hope that provides the hon. Gentleman with sufficient reassurance.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend knows how ambitious I am for improving connectivity from Bracknell to Heathrow airport. Heathrow’s proposals say that it is exploring the option of promoting a new rail scheme that combines the objectives of a western rail link to Heathrow and southern rail access to Heathrow, and there are similar commitments in the Aurora Group’s plans. Will she ensure that the review of the ANPS helps us to hold it to account for those promises so that we can deliver the better surface access that my constituents so badly need?
Heidi Alexander
The ANPS will provide the policy framework against which any future planning application is assessed. As I have said to other hon. Members, when a planning application comes forward, a thorough consideration process will be associated with that before any decision is taken. Clear conditions will be set out on any planning decision relating to surface access.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s statement—her positive words are encouraging. This is an economic advantage for everyone, and I thank her for that. The fact that Heathrow’s numbers look set to surpass last year’s numbers, with 8 million passengers in August 2025 alone, demonstrates abundantly clearly the need for expansion. A fit-for-purpose airport can only increase revenue through tourism and connectivity for business. How can she ensure that the extension will secure regional airport connectivity and enhancement and a streamlined domestic service, as well as international increases? How can she ensure that Northern Ireland contractors can be part of the building of the new third runway?
Heidi Alexander
We are at the start of this process, and I am as ambitious for the whole UK as the hon. Gentleman is. We will look at the economic impact through the ANPS review. If a scheme comes forward and gets planning consent during this Parliament, all Government Departments and I are absolutely clear that we must make the most of this incredible economic opportunity.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, her leadership, her focus on growth and her commitment to fit this project within the Paris agreement. I welcome the four tests that it will be judged against, but I have a suggestion for a fifth test—people might not be surprised to hear that it focuses very much on my constituency. In recent years, Edinburgh South West has benefited from fantastic rail connections between Edinburgh and London, and from fantastic direct international flights from Edinburgh airport to overseas. Does she agree that if this project goes ahead, it cannot be to the detriment of places such as Edinburgh?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend is a fine champion for his constituency and the fantastic city of Edinburgh. An expanded Heathrow could open up more regional connectivity to cities such as Edinburgh. Improving the rail network between our two capital cities is absolutely essential as well, and we are committed to doing that.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
We urgently need to modernise and expand British airspace—it is at capacity, and our growth depends on it. I was at Bournemouth airport last week. We are close to a bus service and a public transport interchange, but Bournemouth airport cannot easily connect with European airspace, as most traffic joins it at a single space. That is particularly problematic, given that I hope the Cherries, who are contesting for European football, get to play European teams next season. Will the Government review and modernise our airspace and back regional airports such as Bournemouth’s?
Heidi Alexander
As I said in answer to a previous question, the work that the UK airspace design service will do to modernise our airspace will start with the London area. It will not be limited to the London area, but we need to make that a priority. I appreciate the case that my hon. Friend makes with respect to Bournemouth.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I draw attention to my chairship of the GMB parliamentary group. As someone who worked on this issue the last time around, I was astonished to hear the Opposition’s flight of fantasy when they accused others of delay. On their watch, the airports commission was artificially delayed until after a general election, with three more years spent producing the current NPS and a further two years tied up in the courts. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that the lessons have been learned from those eight wasted years?
Heidi Alexander
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Let us be honest—it was not just eight wasted years, it was 14. I repeat what I said earlier: it comes to something that the previous Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, went to such lengths to duck these decisions that he ended up in Kabul.
Personal Statement
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a personal statement.
When I made my maiden speech over a decade ago, I said that it was the honour of my life to represent Ashton-under-Lyne in this House. Alongside serving in this historic Labour Government, it is still the honour of my life. I promised then to bring determination, commitment and my socialist values to this House while representing my constituents, and I intend to continue doing so. My title may have changed, but the strength and character of the people of my constituency have not.
First, let me address the circumstances under which I left office. The last few weeks have been incredibly tough on my family, with my personal life so much in the public eye. All of us in public life know all too well the toll that the intense scrutiny we face takes on our loved ones, but I have always believed in the highest standards of transparency and accountability—that is what the public expect, and it is the price we pay for the privilege of service. That is why I referred myself to the independent adviser and gave him access to all the information he needed.
As I set out then, parents of a disabled child with a trust who divorce and seek different properties face a complex tax position. If there is one good thing that can come out of this, I hope that other families in that situation may now be aware of that and avoid getting into the position I am now in. I am of course corresponding with HM Revenue and Customs, and it has my full co-operation. There is no excuse not to pay taxes owed, and I will do so. This was an honestly made mistake, but when you make a mistake, you take responsibility.
To serve at the highest level of Government was a privilege—not for the title or the office, but for the chance to change the lives of the people I grew up with and live alongside. Every day, I worked to serve those same working-class communities; in every decision that I made, I thought of them. I know the power of politics to change lives, because it changed my own. The last Labour Government gave me the foundation to build a better life for me and my young son: a council house to support me, Sure Start to help me raise my kids, and the security of a minimum wage. A good job and a decent, secure home is not too much to ask, but for too many it is out of reach. That is what I was determined to change, for the people who all of us on these Benches are fighting for and must keep fighting for.
That is why, despite the fierce criticism and the relentless lobbying from vested interests, I am so proud that, within weeks, our landmark Employment Rights Bill will become law. It is a game changer for millions stuck in insecure and low-paid work. It will give them the dignity and security that they deserve. There are those who say we cannot afford to deliver new rights for working people; I say we cannot afford not to deliver them. Labour is at its best when we are bold, and I have been so proud to work alongside some of the trade unionists who nurtured and supported me to deliver the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. This is a personal statement, but the trade union movement taught me that it is not about yourself; it is about us. It is about who we are here for, and everything that I have done has been an endeavour for us—for our people, who elected us and who we serve.
As Secretary of State for Housing, it was my solemn duty to serve the Grenfell Tower inquiry. It is difficult to think of a more humbling experience—a stark reminder of what happens when we forget who we are in this place to serve. It has been a privilege to work on behalf of those families, and it is why this Government will pass a duty of candour. Make no mistake: the Hillsborough law is for the 97 and their families, but it is also for the sub-postmasters who endured the Horizon scandal, the victims of infected blood, and those who died or whose lives were changed forever in the Grenfell Tower fire. It is a line in the sand that says that the public will always come first.
I am also incredibly proud that this Labour Government provided the biggest investment in social and affordable housing in a generation. It was the foundation of a decent home that gave me the security to build my life on; now we must provide a safe and decent home to millions of people across this country. When our Renters’ Rights Bill returns to the House this afternoon, we will give a generation of renters the protections, security and rights that they deserve.
From votes at 16 to historic investment in homelessness prevention, from neighbourhood renewal to fair funding for the whole country and putting power back where it belongs, in the hands of working people everywhere, I was proud to lead, but we achieved together, with my hon. Friends on these Benches and the support of our entire movement—the lifeblood of this Labour Government.
When I think back on how far I have come, I remember when at age 16, I was pregnant with my child, needing a job and a home. People wrote me off, assumed that I would be on benefits for the whole of my life, but I wanted to prove them wrong. I have carried that with me, whether on the Back Benches, at the Dispatch Box, or representing this country abroad. The support and advice of so many friends and colleagues has kept me going.
I want to give a special mention to my excellent ministerial and parliamentary team, my hon. Friends the Members for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), for Wellingborough and Rushden (Gen Kitchen), for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) and for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson); my noble Friends Lord Khan and Baroness Taylor; my superb parliamentary and political staff; and the many excellent civil servants. I want to say a special thank you to many of my constituents and the public who have made contact with me. I offer my successor and his new colleagues my congratulations and, of course, my support. I am fortunate to count so many Members as not just honourable Friends but actual friends.
I will finish by saying that in each generation it has fallen to a Labour Government to strengthen the hand of working people. In 1945, it was maternity pay, the NHS and homes for heroes out of the ruins of war; in the 1970s, it was Barbara Castle and the fight for equal pay; and in the 1990s, it was the national minimum wage. Despite the opposition, because of the work of this Labour Government, we have the opportunity to write a new chapter of justice and fairness for working people.
As tough as politics can be, it is nothing—nothing—compared to what thousands of my constituents and many more across this country face every single day. Whether we sit on the Back Benches or on the Front Bench, elected office is not about us. It is about our chance to change the lives of others. From wherever I sit on these Benches, I will fight with everything I have to do exactly that. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Points of Order
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week I was notified by the Table Office that my Cabinet Office oral question about the £97 billion increase in failing major project spending that this Government have overseen had been selected to be answered by the Government. However, it does not appear on the list of questions to be answered during Cabinet Office oral questions tomorrow. The Cabinet Office has declined to answer, and has removed it from the list of questions, which means that it will not be asked or answered in the Chamber.
I have long suspected that the Government have been manipulating the oral question process in their favour. How can the general public have any confidence in the parliamentary process, or the holding of the Government to account, when the Government can avoid scrutiny by picking and choosing only the questions that they wish to answer? I am sure that the Government would not wish me to submit any more written questions, so what guidance can you give, Mr Speaker, on how I can best ensure that my constituents in Huntingdon get the answers that they deserve?
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. The transfer of questions between Departments is a matter for the Government rather than the Chair. However, the hon. Gentleman’s concerns are now on the record, and I hope that those on the Treasury Bench have noted what he has said. Let me add that there is always the expectation that Departments will inform Members of such transfers. If there is a continuation, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not leave it there—but please, will he come and let me know?
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Monday the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport told the House, in relation to the Maccabi Tel Aviv match, that the risk assessment was based
“in no small part on the risk posed to fans attending to support Maccabi Tel Aviv because they are Israeli and because they are Jewish.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 646.]
However, reports last night revealed that the decision to ban away fans was due to intelligence suggesting that the main threat came from extremist Maccabi Tel Aviv fans themselves, and that they were the likely perpetrators of trouble in Amsterdam last year.
The Ministerial Code requires Ministers to give accurate and truthful information to Parliament. If the Secretary of State had that information before her statement, she must correct the record. Can you ask her to clarify the position, Mr Speaker, and to return to the House immediately if she has breached the code that governs all parliamentarians?
Mr Speaker
Unfortunately I do not have such powers, although perhaps at times I would welcome them. I will say this, however. I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. Ministers are responsible for their words in the House, and the Ministerial Code is not a matter for the Chair, but the hon. Member has certainly put his views on the record, and I am sure that—once again—we will find that those on the Treasury Bench have been listening.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At the beginning of Prime Minister’s questions, I rushed in while a question was being asked, and I want to apologise. I was rushing in from celebrating Diwali and the new year from my local temple in Willesden. On Monday I was celebrating Diwali and the new year at my local temple in Neasden, the largest mandir in the United Kingdom, and the day before that I was celebrating in Kingsbury. I wish everyone who is celebrating today a happy new year and a happy Diwali.
Mr Speaker
Let me first say that that is probably the worst point of order I have heard in the form of an apology, but let me also say happy Diwali to all the temples that the hon. Lady has visited. She has certainly put that on the record, but I hope that next time she will wait at the Bar of the House until after the question.
Bill presented
Removal of Titles Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Rachael Maskell, supported by Nadia Whittome, Ian Byrne, Kate Osborne, Richard Burgon, Apsana Begum, Brian Leishman, Imran Hussain, Jon Trickett, Cat Eccles, Mary Kelly Foy and Bell Ribeiro-Addy presented a Bill to give the Monarch powers to remove titles; to provide that such removals can be done by the Monarch on their own initiative, following a recommendation of a joint committee of Parliament, or at the request of the person who holds the title; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 31 October, and to be printed (Bill 317).
Perinatal Mental Health Assessments
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the provision of mental health assessments in NHS antenatal care for the purpose of identifying those at risk of perinatal mental health problems and making referrals to appropriate support; and for connected purposes.
We often assume that pregnancy, birth and the year after birth are a time of life to be happy, celebrating the arrival of a new baby and embarking on a new chapter in family life, and for some people that is how it pans out, but for many the reality is much tougher. I have spoken previously in the House about my brilliant friend Sophie, who took her own life after the birth of her third child, who was just 10 weeks old at the time. That was four years ago, and her death remains a huge sadness in my life and for her family, some of whom are in the Gallery today; but the shock of it still sits with me too.
I did not know—and many of us do not—that suicide is the leading cause of death for a woman in that period from six weeks to a year after giving birth, a statistic recently reconfirmed by the latest report from Mothers and Babies: Reducing Risk through Audits and Confidential Enquiries across the UK, known as MBRRACE-UK.
Although Sophie’s death is a particularly serious example, I also did not know of the scale and normality of mental illness at that time in a woman’s life. One in four women experience some sort of mental health difficulties during pregnancy or after giving birth. It can be anything from depression to anxiety to obsessive-compulsive disorder or post-traumatic stress disorder, and it can be completely debilitating for mums and their families. The consequences ripple out more widely, too: the London School of Economics and the Centre for Mental Health estimate that untreated perinatal mental illness costs the country more than £8 billion a year, largely through the long-term impact on the child’s health, education and future productivity.
In theory, women are asked about their mental health early in pregnancy. The guidance from NICE—the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence—specifies that questions about depression and anxiety should form part of a woman’s first contact with health professionals during pregnancy, including at the booking appointment, but in practice women’s experiences vary enormously. Some are asked a few hurried questions between blood pressure checks, while others are not asked at all. Women with a previous history of mental illness may be given more attention, but we know that pregnancy and early motherhood can often be the first times women experience mental illness, so that is not enough. Some GPs and midwives have the training and time to offer support; others are stretched far beyond capacity. Some have established mental health services to which to refer women; some are almost afraid to ask the right questions, because they do not trust that a referral will kick in.
The result is a postcode lottery, whereby a pregnant woman’s access to mental health support can depend on the NHS trust that she happens to fall under, but it is also a lottery that a woman is more likely to lose if she is black, Asian, young, or experiencing domestic violence, poverty or other forms of deprivation. As in so many areas of healthcare, pre-existing inequalities correlate with poorer outcomes. That is why this Bill matters: every woman, regardless of age, ethnicity, background or postcode, deserves the same standard of care and the same chance to be mentally well at that time in her life.
We are not starting from scratch. In the 10-year health plan, the Government have set out their determination and their plan to reorient our health system—away from treatment towards prevention, and away from hospitals towards the community. Ensuring that pregnant and new mums are mentally well is one of the ultimate acts of prevention, setting them and their children up for a healthy, productive future.
On mental health specifically, including better support for suicidal people, the Government have also made their commitment very clear, and have matched it with action. In the last year an additional 6,700 mental health professionals have been recruited, and £120 million is being invested in dedicated mental health emergency departments, ensuring that those in crisis can get help quickly. We are rolling out best start family hubs, a transformative initiative that will give families a single route into support services, including mental health services. My Bill builds on those commitments, but it focuses the mental health support at the very start of motherhood, when women need it most.
We are not starting from scratch in our understanding of good practice either. At a roundtable that I convened here in Parliament in September—bringing together NHS England, the Maternal Mental Health Alliance, the royal colleges, parents with lived experience and other experts—the message was united and clear: professionals want to help, but they need structure, time, and training to do it properly. The Royal College of Midwives has just published a road map for perinatal mental healthcare, which sets out what this could look like and is well worth a read.
Let me now turn to the detailed proposals in the Bill. It sets out a clear, practical framework for mental health assessments, and it has four core pillars. The first is to ensure that every pregnant woman has a structured, evidence-based and compassionate mental health assessment. While mental health check-ins must continue after the birth of a baby too, the evidence shows that outcomes are better when interventions happen sooner. That is why my Bill will focus on improving support in the antenatal period first. The assessment would form part of routine antenatal care; it would not be an extra. It would use validated tools such as the Whooley questions or the Edinburgh post-natal depression scale, adapted for pregnancy, and it would be rooted in NICE guidance, although that might need updating to ensure that better practice was embedded. Crucially, it would be delivered through trauma-informed conversations, not tick-box exercises. Staff would be trained to create a safe space for disclosure, recognising that women may have histories of trauma that affect their mental health during pregnancy, or may have no history of trauma or mental illness at all.
Secondly, the Bill would improve training and supervision for all professionals involved in maternity care. GPs, midwives, obstetricians, health visitors and community mental health practitioners all need the knowledge and confidence to ask the right questions, to do so compassionately and to recognise when something is not right. This Bill calls for a national training standard that will be endorsed by NICE and the royal colleges, and delivered across NHS trusts and integrated care boards. It should include regular clinical supervision, so that staff are supported to ask questions and make decisions safely. Importantly, the training must equip professionals to recognise and respond to the specific needs of women from diverse backgrounds—understanding cultural differences in how mental health is expressed and experienced, and addressing the stigma and barriers that prevent some women from seeking help.
Thirdly, this Bill sets out the need for clear referral pathways. Although midwives, GPs and others involved in routine maternity care should be equipped and able to identify mental health risks, they should not also be delivering specialist care when it is needed, so clear referral pathways into specialist mental health services are vital. The Maternal Mental Health Alliance recommends that a specialist perinatal mental health midwife be embedded in every maternity service to ensure that risks are identified and referrals made effectively. The appropriate support will be different for every woman, but one important option is the NHS Talking Therapies programme, to which I know the Government are committed. I have seen in my own constituency of Aylesbury how helpful that can be for women, and I urge NHS Talking Therapies services to consider women in the perinatal period a priority group for support. There are also fantastic voluntary services in communities across the country, such as PANDAS and many of those under the umbrella of the Hearts and Minds Partnership, yet many women are not made aware of them through their routine antenatal care, and they should be.
Fourthly, and finally, this Bill calls for clear accountability to ensure effective delivery of perinatal mental health assessments. NHS England and integrated care boards would be responsible for ensuring that local maternity systems introduce the single standardised assessment process, but then also, crucially, capture data through the maternity services dataset, allowing outcomes to be tracked. There must also be improved oversight of these services from the Care Quality Commission as part of its maternity inspections.
I hope my Bill’s aims are clear, and I hope that the Government and colleagues in this House will look upon them favourably. I know resources are tight across the NHS, and I know there are particularly acute challenges in many of our mental health and maternity services, including the national shortage of midwives, but I also know how transformative the relatively modest measures in this Bill could be for the women at the heart of the Bill and for our society. I believe that it could have made a difference for Sophie, and it could still make a difference for the many women who are struggling with their mental health now or who will do in future.
Ultimately, this Bill is about more than mental health care for women; it is about the kind of country that we want to be. When parents are mentally well, they thrive, their children thrive and our communities become places not of fear and insecurity, but of hope and opportunity. That is the kind of country that we want to be, and improved perinatal mental health care is such an important part of it. I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Laura Kyrke-Smith, Paulette Hamilton, Sojan Joseph, Dr Danny Chambers, Liz Twist, Sarah Hall, Maya Ellis, Jen Craft, Michelle Welsh, Anna Sabine, Lee Pitcher, Dr Simon Opher present the Bill.
Laura Kyrke-Smith accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 31 October, and to be printed (Bill 316).
Renters’ Rights Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendments 19B, 19C and 19D.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to consider the Government motion to agree with the Lords in their amendments 39B and 39C.
Matthew Pennycook
Today is a momentous day, because, subject to agreement from this House, the Renters’ Rights Bill will have completed all its stages and will therefore shortly become law. This House last legislated to fundamentally alter the relationship between landlords and tenants in 1988—I was just six years old. In the decades since, England’s private rented sector has changed beyond all recognition. It now houses not just the young and the mobile, but many older people and families with children, for whom greater security and certainty is essential to a flourishing life.
The need to overhaul the regulation of the private rented sector and, in so doing, level decisively the playing field for landlords and tenants is pressing. That is why we introduced the Bill within months of taking office. We promised that we would succeed where the previous Conservative Government had failed by legislating to transform the experience of private renting. I am delighted that we are now within touching distance of seeing the Bill become law. Before I turn to the final amendments agreed to in the other place, I want to put on the record once again my profound thanks to Baroness Taylor for so ably guiding through its House of Lords stages.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I, too, welcome the Bill becoming law. Personally, I wish that it also regulated rent levels, but my question is: how quickly will it become law to protect people? While this Bill has been winding its way through Parliament over the last year, many have faced the appalling situation of no-fault eviction. Many have lost their properties as a result, whereas they would have been protected had the Bill become law more quickly. Can the Minister give me some idea—so that I can give some comfort to my constituents who are facing no-fault eviction—of how quickly they will get protection, and will there be any retrospective element to it?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. We want to provide both renters and landlords with certainty about how the new system will be implemented. I will say a bit more on that in the course of my remarks.
Matthew Pennycook
I am going to make a bit more progress.
As I made clear when we considered Lords amendments to the Bill on 8 September, although the Government were not prepared to accept amendments that would undermine the core principles of the Bill, we were more than willing to make sensible changes in response to the legitimate concerns that have been raised. The changes we are proposing today are firmly within the spirt of that commitment. I am delighted that we were able to reach agreement with those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and Lord Young of Cookham, and I thank all the noble Lords involved for their willingness to work collaboratively to strengthen the Bill.
Let me briefly set out the purpose and effect of the amendments in question, beginning with those that relate to shared owners. Lords amendments 19B, 19C and 19D exempt shared owners from the 12-month “no re-let” period in respect of new mandatory possession ground 1A, which allows a landlord to evict a tenant because they intend to sell their property. The exemption is subject to meeting set criteria, to ensure that shared owners have made a genuine attempt to sell their property. The amendments in question also include a delegated power to remove the exemption in the future—for example, once the building safety programme has been completed.
Jim Shannon
I welcome what the Minister has proposed. More and more of these issues have come to my attention in my constituency. Tenants then have to find alternative and affordable accommodation that is close to their work and close to their children’s education. I know this legislation applies to England and Wales only—I understand that. But the Minister is a good Minister, and he always shares information on the legislation that is put forward with the regional assemblies—in my case, the Northern Ireland Assembly. Will he do me and this House the favour of sharing the legislation with the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that the good things in the Bill can become good things for us in Northern Ireland as well?
Matthew Pennycook
The Northern Ireland Assembly can access this legislation online, but I will certainly continue to have conversations with Ministers in all the devolved Administrations about what lessons can be learned from what we have done with this Bill, and about what they can take from it.
I once again commend Lord Young of Cookham for championing the interests of shared owners affected by the building safety crisis, and I thank him for tabling his three amendments in lieu. As I made clear when we considered Lords amendments last month, the Government recognise the plight of shared owners living in buildings that require remediation. Many are facing unaffordable costs, often with no viable exit route other than a distress sale. We also appreciate that it is often harder to secure a purchaser for a shared ownership property, and that the sales of shared ownership flats are more likely to fall through due to the additional constraints involved. As such, we have always accepted that the 12 month no re-let period would have placed many shared owners in an extremely challenging position.
The reason why the Government did not feel able to accept Lord Young’s original Lords amendment 19 was that it could undermine protections for the small subset of tenants who happened to rent a sub-let home from a shared owner. I am therefore pleased to report to the House that the amendments in lieu deliver the core aims of that original amendment, while also ensuring that three key safeguards are in place to protect tenants.
First, there is a requirement for the shared owner to have informed the assured subtenant in writing at the outset of the tenancy about the exemption and its possible use. This will ensure tenants are aware of the particular circumstances of the tenancy they are entering into and can make an informed choice about whether they wish to enter into a tenancy agreement with the shared owner in question.
Secondly, shared owners must have informed their provider of their intention to sell before obtaining possession of the property from the tenant. This is an essential first step that all shared owners must take to begin the process of selling their property. I am satisfied that it is a proportionate requirement to evidence that a shared owner is genuinely intending to sell their home.
Thirdly, a valuation must be undertaken on the property by a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, or the shared owner must have advertised the property for sale. This can be done at any point before a property is re-let, recognising the need for flexibility in how shared owners will approach a sale.
Taken together with the protections that are already in place as a result of registered providers having to authorise sub-letting requests and having oversight of what rent levels can be charged, I am satisfied that these safeguards will reduce, if not eliminate entirely, the risk that an exemption from the 12-month no re-let period might otherwise have posed.
Lords amendments 39B and 39C will introduce a statutory requirement for annual reporting on the extent to which service family accommodation meets the decent homes standard.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Minister for listening to Liberal Democrat colleagues who have made these points, as I have along with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), on previous occasions. It is very good that those living in military service accommodation will now have the opportunity to access the decent homes standard. Could the Minister assure me that he will work with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to ensure that all service families are aware of the decent homes standard—the standard to which they can hold their accommodation providers—so they can live in better homes in my constituency of Bicester and Woodstock and across the country?
Matthew Pennycook
We have ongoing dialogue with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence about this issue, and if the hon. Member will allow me, I will elaborate on how we think these amendments will work in practice and how they interact with what the Ministry of Defence is itself doing. First, however, I once again thank Baroness Grender, Baroness Thornhill and the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for their continued support and advocacy for service personnel and their families.
The Government have been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that our armed services personnel and their families must live in safe and decent homes. We remain determined to improve the standard of service family accommodation across the entire defence estate. Alongside the commitment to drive up standards through a record investment of £1.5 billion in service family accommodation over the next five years, the Government will soon publish a defence housing strategy setting out clear renewal standards and further steps to improve the lives of those who serve our country. That standard will be published, so service families will be able to see, judge their accommodation against and interact with this new statutory duty.
As I outlined in the previous debate on Lords amendments, the Government acknowledge the need for greater transparency and accountability to ensure that the commitments we have made are honoured. The amendments in lieu will place the commitments I made to this House last month on a statutory basis. The Government believe that this, alongside the wider steps I have already set out, will help ensure service personnel and their families have the quality of homes that they deserve. The amendments also include a delegated power allowing the housing quality standards that SFA is assessed against to be updated when the current version of the decent homes standard is no longer considered appropriate—for example, when it has been replaced by a new modernised standard. The Liberal Democrats have indicated their support for these amendments, and I hope hon. Members will join me in supporting them.
To conclude, I urge the House to support the amendments put forward by the other place, and I look forward to the remainder of the debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
We are considering the Lords amendments in lieu to the Renters’ Rights Bill, and I begin by recognising the work that has taken place in both Houses to improve this legislation, and by thanking their lordships for the constructive way in which they have approached this endeavour.
On the amendments themselves, the issue of shared ownership leaseholders was rightly championed in the Lords by my noble Friend Lord Young of Cookham, and I pay tribute to him for his persistence. He made a fair and compelling case for shared owners who, through no fault of their own, may be unable to sell their share and should not be penalised for re-letting in those circumstances. The Government’s acceptance of that principle, although through a modified amendment, is a sensible and pragmatic improvement, which we will therefore support.
On the decent homes standard and the service family accommodation estate, the Government have placed a duty on the Secretary of State to report on the conditions of service family accommodation and provide independent oversight. Our armed forces and their families deserve and need decent, well-maintained homes, and we believe that greater transparency will strengthen service families’ confidence in the system. We support this improvement, and we hope that the Government will look at our policy to create an armed forces housing association that would oversee these changes and address the declining recruitment and retention rates that, sadly, we have seen under this Government.
While we support these improvements, I fear the Bill in its current form will in some areas be counterproductive, and drive landlords from the market as well as putting up rents for tenants. Labour’s own impact assessment for this Bill supports that concern, stating that
“landlords can pass through some, but not all, of their cost increases to their tenants in the form of higher rent”
due to new costs. Under the Bill, all tenancies will continue until either the tenant gives notice or the landlord obtains a court order for possession on specific grounds. The Government have committed to ending section 21 evictions, but they must also ensure matching court reform so that the system works for both tenants and responsible landlords. We need clarity about when and how these changes will be implemented, because uncertainty helps no one. Local councils must have the means to enforce the new rules effectively, and the Government should set out a clear and workable plan to that end.
The Lords amendments represent a sensible set of adjustments that I would say make this Bill slightly more workable, but sufficient challenges remain in how it will operate in practice. We recognise the value of the scrutiny that has taken place in both Houses, and the constructive way that many of the concerns have been addressed, but the uncertainty in this sector is seeing landlords leave the market at an alarming rate.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
The shadow Secretary of State knows that I have a great deal of time for him as a person, but he must reflect on how all of his speech is about the rights of the landlord with absolutely nothing about the rights of tenants. In my own constituency, 600 children are in temporary accommodation, having largely been driven out of their private rented accommodation because of no-fault evictions. Does he have anything to say about the rights of tenants?
Sir James Cleverly
I can only assume that the hon. Member has been asleep through the last couple of paragraphs I have read out, in which I specifically spoke about the rights of tenants in the military estate, for example, so I reject his characterisation of our position. The simple fact is that tenants’ rights are all well and good, but if accommodation for those tenants does not exist, they are no better off.
We have seen an estimated 18% of new homes for sale that were previously in the private rental market estate, and in London that figure is 29%. A reduction in the private rented sector market harms, not helps, people seeking to rent in the private sector. Labour Members will say, “Well, we are going to deliver 1.5 million new houses,” but no one—I doubt even their own Front Benchers—actually believes they have any chance of delivering that figure. The Office for Budget Responsibility certainly does not believe that they have any credible chance of doing it, so the housing and rental situation is likely to get worse.
I confirm that the official Opposition will support the Lords amendments, for the reasons that I have set out. We urge the Government to implement them professionally and swiftly, and to focus on delivering a fair and effective system for tenants, for the landlords that provide accommodation for those tenants, and for the wider housing market. However, there are still a number of flaws in the Bill—it does not do enough to protect renters or ensure a stable rental market, as it will reduce supply and, perversely, push up rents—which is why, having committed to not opposing the amendments, we will hold the Government to account on the Bill’s consequences.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I fully support my hon. Friend the Minister’s motion to agree with Lords amendments 19 and 39, and I thank him for all his work. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) for piloting this momentous legislation through the House. If I may, I add my own thanks to the noble Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, who has been a doughty champion in the other place and, of course, in my constituency of Stevenage.
Some 7,000 households rent privately in Stevenage. They fear their tenancies coming to an end for no good reason. I was knocking on doors in the ward of Roebuck last weekend. A young mother opened her door, and I noticed that the window next to the front door was broken and patched up with a wooden board. I asked whether it was a council property, and she said, “No, I rent privately. He’s a good landlord.” I said, “Okay, so will he fix that window?” She replied, “Oh, no. He has given me this bit of wood. I am a bit worried that if I ask, he will throw me out.” That is what a “good” landlord is assumed to be. It must come to an end.
Renters like that young mother have been waiting 40 years for change. Today, should the House agree, the Bill will go for Royal Assent, and that fear will come to an end, so I support the motion. I thank the Minister.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I look forward to Parliament finally passing legislation that will bring long-overdue protections to tenants. We do not believe, like the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), that tenants’ rights are “all well and good”. They are not all well and good. No-fault evictions are not all well and good, and the previous Government’s failure to outlaw them is unacceptable. It is a good thing that this legislation will finally change that.
The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for—and stood on a manifesto that included—ending no-fault evictions of tenants, longer and more stable tenancies, a register of landlords, and decent homes for our forces families. Thanks to the Government agreeing to our proposals, all those things are to become law through the Bill and in MOD service accommodation. For too long, renters across the board have had a bad deal. It is time to redress the balance after years of Conservative government failing to deliver both on no fault evictions and on decent homes for our military families.
I warmly welcome Government amendment 39, which will make service family accommodation subject to the decent homes standard. I am glad that Ministers have listened to the calls from the Liberal Democrats and service families. I thank the Minister for doing the hard yards pragmatically in his negotiations on the Bill, and I pay tribute to my noble Friends Baroness Grender and Baroness Thornhill for their work to secure those important changes. The state of housing that service families have had to endure is a disgrace. The Defence Committee heard of dire conditions, with pest infestations, black mould, damp, flooding and unreliable heating and hot water in winter. I have heard similar stories and seen the photographs from constituent service families who were forced to live in damp and mouldy accommodation declared unfit for human habitation. Our soldiers, sailors, air force personnel and Royal Marines—such as those who serve in 40 Commando at Norton Manor Camp in my constituency, the Conservative closure of which I began campaigning against in 2017—sacrifice so much for our country. The very least that they deserve is a decent home for them and their family.
This is not an isolated issue. Research we obtained earlier this year found that, on Victory in Europe Day alone, more than 400 service families were forced to apply for emergency repairs. While the country celebrated our veterans, too many forces families were struggling with housing that falls far short of the standards that we rightly expect elsewhere. Their new decent home standard—which comes a year after my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) tried and failed to get the Conservative Government to deliver it, and 18 years after Sir Menzies Campbell began the Liberal Democrat campaign for decent homes for our military—is a matter of fairness, as I hope the House will agree. This is a great first step, and I am proud that the Liberal Democrats have had a hand in securing it.
Decent homes for service families should be not just reported on but acted on. Defence Ministers have assured the House that housing standards are on an upward trajectory. We will hold the Government to account on that commitment. Can the Minister give any assurances that resources will be put in place to ensure that that happens? Nobody wants to see an annual report that leads to no progress. I also ask him to ensure that service family accommodation meets the commitments made in the Defence Infrastructure Organisation’s consumer charter—most notably the requirement to complete urgent repairs within a timeline consistent with Awaab’s law. That would ensure that Lords amendment 39 strengthens a Bill that already delivers vital reforms for renters and rightly includes protections for service families. It delivers broader transformation in renters’ rights by ending no-fault evictions, creating more secure tenancies and raising standards across the private rented sector. Amendment 19 would also allow shared owners to re-let if a sale falls through. As such, we support it.
Of course, we must not lose sight of the bigger picture: the need to build a new generation of council and social rent homes—150,000 per year. This week shows that determination, persistence and principle can deliver real change. Our forces families will now have statutory protections for their homes, tenants across the country will gain greater rights, and every step like this brings us closer to the fairer housing system that we all want. I congratulate all those who have campaigned for this change, particularly the forces families who have contacted me. More secure homes are what private renters need, and decent homes are the least our military deserve.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
Let us be clear: the Bill is the biggest uplift to renters’ rights in a generation. It will make a huge difference for so many people in my constituency. Before I come to the amendments, I place on the record my thanks to the Minister stewarding the Bill through Parliament, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) for her remarks as a champion of renters and social housing in this country.
I also place on the record my anger that the Bill has taken so long to pass through Parliament. It is an absolute disgrace that it has been slowed down—bogged down in amendments—by the other place, which has delayed these vital rights reaching my constituents. Opposition parties tabled 450 amendments, so our colleagues in the other place had to sit for a very long time to get the Bill through. In that time, my constituents have been stuck in damp and mouldy housing and subject to section 21 evictions, and many children have been growing up in temporary accommodation, because of the delays to the legislation in the other place. Opposition parties whose Lords placed so many amendments should be ashamed for slowing down the legislation.
Jeremy Corbyn
I will be brief, because this is a time-limited debate. I welcome the Bill, although it has deficiencies, because it does not regulate the amount of rent that is charged. In my constituency, a two-bedroom flat in the private rented sector goes for about £2,000 a month, which is way above what most people can afford. There is a desperate need, in inner-city areas in particular, for rent regulation.
I am pleased that we are ending no-fault eviction, but I absolutely agree with the points made by the hon. Members for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) and for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) about the extraordinary way in which the Bill has been delayed. Thousands of tenants all over the country have lost a home that the Bill, had it become law, would have prevented them from losing. It is outrageous, the number of people who have become homeless or been forced to move to an even more expensive place. I would be grateful if the Minister could assure us that the no-fault eviction protection will come in immediately when the Bill receives Royal Assent, and that there will be no delay. Some of us are concerned that there has been too long a delay.
There are two quick points that I want to put to the Minister. The Bill requires local authorities to play a much greater role in the private rented sector, but they lack the resources to do that. Is there a guarantee that they will get the resources to ensure proper monitoring of the Bill, and proper support for tenants? In the same vein, the provision of housing advice has disappeared in many parts of the country, so the demand grows on local authorities and organisations such as Citizens Advice for advice for tenants. Many tenants are simply unaware of their rights. If they are unaware of their rights, they can be exploited by unscrupulous landlords—and sadly often are.
Matthew Pennycook
With the leave of the House, I will close this brief but thoughtful debate. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken for their contributions. In the time available, I will respond to as many of the issues raised as I can.
Let me start by saying that I welcome the broad support for the Lords amendments expressed by both shadow Front Benchers. In our view, the amendments are reasonable and proportionate, and respond to legitimate concerns that were raised. They have the safeguards in place that we felt were needed, and we are happy that they are being incorporated into the Bill.
The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), raised the issue of supply. We acknowledge that it will take time for the sector, including build-to-rent providers but also landlords of any type, to adjust to this significant change in regulation, but we do not believe that the legislation will have a destabilising effect on the rental market, or a harmful impact on future rental supply, which, it should be noted, we are taking steps to boost, not least by providing more opportunities for investment in a growing build-to-rent sector.
According to the English housing survey, the size of the private rented sector has remained broadly stable since 2013-14. Landlords have been aware of successive Governments’ plans to reform the sector since 2019. It is worth noting that a study from the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence looked at whether regulation of the PRS over the past 25 years, in the UK and internationally, had affected PRS supply. It concluded that there was no evidence to support the assertion that non-price regulation impacts supply. We will, of course, continue to work with landlords and their representative associations throughout implementation. We are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the private rented sector reform programme, and we will, of course, continue to monitor trends across the PRS, including the supply of properties, to understand how the market is responding to our reforms.
The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) raised the issue of rent controls. He knows that the Government are opposed to introducing rent controls. As I have made clear on many previous occasions, we do not support them, including rent stabilisation measures, because we believe that they could make life more difficult for private renters, both by incentivising landlords to increase rents routinely to a cap, where they might not otherwise have done so, and by pushing many landlords out of the market, thereby making it even harder for renters to find a home that they can afford.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about implementation. Following Royal Assent, we will allow time for a smooth transition to the new system. We will support tenants, landlords and agents to understand and adjust to the new rules, and ensure the sector has enough time to prepare. As he is aware, the Bill will ensure that the new tenancy system for the private rented sector is introduced in one stage. At that point, the new tenancy system will apply to all private tenancies. Existing tenancies will convert to the new system, and any new tenancy signed off on or after that date will be governed by the new rules.
As I said, I am glad that there is broad support for the Lords amendments relating to shared owners. It is worth saying that the Government will make provision during implementation to ensure that shared owner landlords with an existing tenancy will have an opportunity to provide the information in question to the tenant after the Bill comes into force. We want to take the time to get this right, and find a solution that works for shared owners. We intend to do that using the delegated powers to make transitional provision provided by clause 147.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), asked about various issues relating to the amendments about service family accommodation. In particular, he asked about investment. As I outlined in my opening speech, the Ministry of Defence has announced an additional £1.5 billion investment in SFA as part of a £7 billion commitment over the next five years to improving and modernising defence housing. That investment will unlock rapid work to tackle the poor state of forces housing, helping to support recruitment, retention and morale. As I mentioned, the defence housing strategy, to be published later this year, will also set out wider plans to improve service family homes.
It is also worth saying that redress is already available to service personnel, who already have a robust system in place for raising a complaint about the standard of their accommodation and receiving remedy or reimbursement. If not resolved, complaints can be escalated to a service complaint, for which there are further powers of reimbursement, charge reduction and policy redress, and ultimately to the employment tribunal in cases of potential discrimination.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) about the delays to the Bill. I served on the Bill Committee more than a year ago now, and since then, so many tenants have experienced no-fault evictions. I encourage the Minister to move as quickly as possible to implement the Bill, so that I can tell my constituents how soon their assured shorthold tenancies will become rolling tenancies, and so they can benefit from that as quickly as possible.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that point well made, which I will respond to directly as I wind up. We know that many tenants out there want the great security, rights and protections afforded by the Bill in place as soon as possible.
We promised in our manifesto to overhaul the regulation of our country’s insecure and unjust private rented sector, and this Bill delivers on that commitment. It will empower renters by providing them with greater security, rights and protections, so that they can stay in their homes for longer, build lives in their communities and avoid the risk of homelessness. It will ensure that we can drive up the quality of private rented housing, giving renters access to good-quality and safe homes as a matter of course, and it will allow us to crack down on the minority of unscrupulous landlords who exploit, mistreat or discriminate against renters. The Bill will also provide tangible benefits for responsible landlords who provide high-quality homes and a good service to their tenants, not only improving the reputation of the sector as a whole, but ensuring that good landlords enjoy simpler regulation and clear and expanded possession grounds, so that they can regain their properties quickly when necessary.
As I have argued many times throughout the passage of the Bill, the current system for private renting is broken. In abolishing section 21 no-fault evictions and modernising the regulation of the sector, the Bill will improve the lives of England’s 11 million private renters. It is a transformational piece of legislation and, if you will allow me a brief personal word, Madam Deputy Speaker, I take great pride in having developed and shepherded it through Parliament.
It would be remiss of me to conclude my remarks without thanking a number of people. I would like to express my gratitude to all hon. and right hon. Members and peers in the other place who have engaged with the Bill throughout its passage; the expertise and insight that have been brought to bear in both Houses have strengthened the Bill in a number of important respects. I particularly want to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), who was and remains one of the Bill’s biggest supporters. She was instrumental in ensuring that it was introduced so quickly after the formation of the Government.
I also thank all the stakeholders who have worked closely with the Government to ensure that the Bill will work for landlord and tenant alike. I cannot possibly credit them all in the time I have available, but I will put on the record my thanks to Generation Rent, Shelter, Crisis, Citizens Advice and the other members of the Renters’ Reform Coalition, as well as the National Residential Landlords Association, the shared ownership network and Propertymark. I will say a final thanks to all the officials in my Department who have devoted so much time and energy to developing and progressing the Bill, particularly the Bill team, Aidan Hilton, James Kennedy, our lawyers and many more, and my private office, specifically Will Gaby and Grace Doody, who provided me with invaluable support throughout the Bill’s passage.
Completing the Bill’s final stage today is obviously only the beginning; once the Bill becomes law, we need to implement its provisions. In doing so, we will balance the need to act quickly, so that tenants can soon benefit from the new rights and protections introduced by the Bill, with ensuring that the sector has sufficient time to adjust and prepare for a significant change in regulation. The Government understand the need for certainty, and we will set out our implementation plans as soon as possible. I very much look forward to working with hon. and right hon. Members, as well as all stakeholders, as we take forward that progress.
Lords amendments 19B, 19C and 19D agreed to.
Lords amendments 39B and 39C agreed to.
Life Sciences Innovative Manufacturing Fund
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
If everyone is in their places, in particular Mr Anderson, who seems to have sat on every Bench in the Chamber this afternoon—
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Not the Opposition Benches.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Well, quite. In that case, I call the Minister to move the motion. Is this your first time at the Dispatch Box, Minister?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
I beg to move,
That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake payments, by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, in excess of £30 million to any successful applicant to the Life Sciences Innovative Manufacturing Fund, launched on 30 October 2024, up to a cumulative total of £520 million.
Thank you for calling me on this none the less memorable occasion, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is the first occasion on which I seek the Chamber’s authority.
The life sciences sector is a jewel in the crown of our economy—a national asset that plays a unique role in both the health and the wealth of the United Kingdom. The sector drives jobs, investment and innovation right across the country, from cutting-edge research laboratories in Cheshire to—close to my heart—advanced manufacturing sites in south Wales. Life sciences manufacturing is the critical link between our world-class research and real-world patient benefit. It ensures that scientific breakthroughs translate into tangible improvements in care, while underpinning economic growth and strengthening the resilience of our NHS.
Yet despite the UK’s global leadership in many areas of life sciences manufacturing, we must acknowledge that, in recent years, growth in manufacturing sites and jobs has not kept pace with the expansion of the life sciences sector as a whole. That is why this summer the Government published the life sciences sector plan—a comprehensive strategy to ensure growth in all parts of the sector. The plan sets out the UK’s ambition to secure more life sciences foreign direct investment than any other European economy by 2030, behind only the US and China globally by 2035.
Central to that ambition is boosting manufacturing through delivery of the life sciences innovative manufacturing fund, one of six headline commitments in the sector plan. Launched last October, the fund demonstrates this Government’s commitment to the continued growth of our life sciences sector, with up to £520 million of funding available to support private sector capital investments until 2030.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Northern Ireland has a vibrant life sciences manufacturing sector. I am looking to the Minister for an assurance relating to article 10 of the Windsor framework, which subjects Northern Ireland to EU state aid rules. Can the Minister assure us that there is no impediment arising therein that would impede successful applications to the fund from Northern Ireland manufacturers? That could also have a knock-on effect on GB, because if the goods produced are transported to Northern Ireland, they, too, come under the state aid rules. Has the Department examined that? What assurance can the Government give us on the protection against EU state aid rules for the fund?
Kanishka Narayan
The talent and ability of people in Northern Ireland are very much at the forefront of our minds, and we want to ensure that everything we are doing to support the life sciences sector is taking a whole-UK approach. I am very happy to write to the hon. and learned Member on his questions about Northern Irish eligibility.
Kanishka Narayan
I will make some progress for now.
The life sciences innovative manufacturing fund directly supports two of the Government’s key missions: to kick-start economic growth and to build an NHS fit for the future. The scheme is projected to attract nearly £4 billion in private investment, creating more than 7,000 jobs and safeguarding more than 5,000 existing ones.
However, the scheme’s impact is not just economic. The pandemic proved that we cannot take our critical supply chains for granted, and supporting the onshoring of life sciences manufacturing through the fund is therefore critical to strengthening our national resilience and preparedness for future health emergencies.
Kanishka Narayan
I will make some progress.
This week we announced the first two grant awards through the scheme, marking a major milestone in the fund’s roll-out. This will unlock substantial private investment, showcasing the UK’s appeal to valuable, globally mobile life sciences manufacturers. As delivery of the scheme progresses, we expect to announce more grant winners in the coming months. Each project supported through the grant will further strengthen health resilience and drive economic growth across all nations and regions in the UK.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Since the Minister has been talking about taxpayers’ money, I would be grateful if he could let us know what the minimum leverage is. For every pound of taxpayers’ money put in, what is the minimum that has to be put in by the private sector?
Kanishka Narayan
My understanding is that these are grant capital investments that the Government will be making, and I am sure we will be looking at the leverage at a whole-fund level. If there are particular requirements at an individual investment level, I am happy to write to the hon. Member on that particular point.
Kanishka Narayan
I feel that, out of parity, I must give way to the hon. Member too.
Robin Swann
Third time lucky. I welcome the Minister’s announcement of the fund for life sciences with regard to the companies we have in North Antrim and South Antrim. Could the Minister also ensure that any research and development tax credits that companies can apply for are fully supported, utilised and brought forward at speed so that companies are able to utilise not just the fund but the tax credits that come through R&D as well?
Kanishka Narayan
I thank the hon. Member for his important point. I am happy to take a full look at the R&D tax credit system and how it will support our ambitions to back our private sector partners in both R&D and subsequent commercialisation.
The Government are clear that the life sciences innovative manufacturing fund is a strategic investment in our future. It is a vital step in delivering the Government’s commitment to supporting the UK’s life sciences sector and ensuring that our country remains at the forefront of the sector.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement—or perhaps I should call him October’s cover star for The House magazine.
The Conservatives back today’s motion on the life sciences innovative manufacturing fund. It is a no-brainer, because the fund was established by us in government when my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) made £520 million available for life sciences manufacturing over five years—from 2025 to 2030. Funnily enough, it is the exact same amount that is being reheated today.
That fund built on a series of smaller, highly successful interventions that managed to attract £850 million of private investment for the £64 million of taxpayers’ money that we deployed. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry called the fund a step change in ambition and something that would strengthen our manufacturing base, addressing the weaknesses we saw during the pandemic in our supply chains. It was good for jobs, for health security, for our life sciences and for Britain. So yes, we support this fund because we designed it.
Let us be clear about what is happening here. The Minister is simply uprating for inflation the threshold at which payments must be approved by Parliament. That is fine and all very sensible, but what it is not is anything new. It is not new money. It is not Labour innovation or a sign that this Government are suddenly getting really serious about growth, and it is not the route to dealing with the crisis facing life sciences right now. It is what we were doing but in different wrapping paper. They have plonked a bow on it and called it a new strategy.
Let me tell you what I reckon has happened here, Madam Deputy Speaker. An edict has gone bouncing around Whitehall from the Treasury and No. 10 as the November Budget disaster looms, saying: “We need some growth announcements. Departments, please feed the comms grid. We need to give the markets and the OBR some confidence that we are serious about growth.” It is worth reminding the House what happened yesterday. UK Government borrowing figures in September hit the highest level for the month in five years. This is truly terrifying stuff.
I think the Secretary of State has gone and asked her officials, “What have we got in the cupboard to announce?”, and they have said, “Minister, we have a statutory instrument to table at some point. Do you want us to shove a bit of lipstick on it?” We have the spectacle of Ministers coming to the Chamber to tell us that a humble statutory instrument to uprate for inflation something already in the pipeline is a grand plan. In no way at all does it shift the dial on life sciences, because it is already baked in.
This is not a Government who are serious about growth. Let us look at what happened to the life sciences manufacturing fund when Labour took office. In early 2024 we used it to negotiate a £450 million vaccine manufacturing investment by AstraZeneca in Speke, Liverpool. That meant real jobs, real regional investment and greater resilience for our country. After that, AstraZeneca announced another £200 million investment in Cambridge, which meant 1,000 jobs. To drive that investment and growth, we also delivered one of the most competitive business tax regimes through policies such as full expensing.
Then the general election happened and our new Chancellor, in her infinite wisdom, put a pause on that investment—supposedly to get better value for money and fill the fantasy £22 billion black hole in the public finances. We all know what happened next. AstraZeneca pulled the £450 million investment, despite issuing private warnings to the Government that it needed certainty for business planning. But do not just take my word for it. When announcing Speke’s culling, AstraZeneca said that
“the timing and reduction of the final offer compared to the previous Government’s proposal”
was critical to losing that £450 million investment.
What else has happened since Labour took office? AstraZeneca paused the £200 million Cambridge investment. We lost Merck’s £1 billion King’s Cross R&D hub, which was cancelled after eight years in development. That is £1 billion, and the Secretary of State had nothing to say about it—diddly squat. Eli Lilly has put its £279 million research incubator in London on hold. Sanofi has said that it will not consider “any substantial investment” in UK R&D under current conditions. In fact, industry has warned that the UK is becoming uninvestable for the life sciences.
Does the Minister know how many meetings the Secretary of State has had with life sciences companies in the past month? As I understand it, the answer is very few. What has she been doing to rally colleagues across Government and make clear to the Chancellor, the Health Secretary and Prime Minister the scale of the peril? I have been looking at her statements, and it is not at all clear to me that she has been doing anything.
The fund, which we support, is a capital manufacturing fund. It helps de-risk certain projects and reduces borrowing for companies, but it does not fix the fundamental problem of the commercial environment for medicines in the UK. We all know that Labour has made the commercial environment worse in many ways, such as through national insurance rises and other tax increases, and that has also made successful people not want to base themselves here.
There are also long-standing issues that need fixing here, including drug pricing and the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth—VPAG—rebate, which risks becoming a tax on innovation. But the Labour Government have screwed the public finances so badly that they have nowhere to go on these issues, not least because the NHS has had to spend a large chunk of the money that the Government have taken from our constituents. They took a lot of money from our constituents and told us that it would make this big difference to the NHS, but the money went on wage deals in the NHS and national insurance rises. [Interruption.] Labour likes to talk about the tough choices it has made to the NHS, but I would ask Government Members to ask their constituents whether they are really seeing a tangible difference in the NHS. The Government have taken a hell of a lot of money from everybody and it is not working.
Normally I would be glad for the ability of the NHS to use its collective bargaining power to keep drug prices low, but there is now a real risk that life sciences companies will not be bringing new medicines to market in our country. That means my constituents and your constituents not getting cutting-edge treatments. It means pain, heartache and ill health, and it means that the life sciences industry that has served us so well is ebbing away and taking the high-quality, high-value jobs with them. This is a crisis. I must ask the Minister: can this fund succeed when the wider tax environment stands as is?
The issue of medicine pricing is fast coming to a head as President Trump plays hardball on drug costs. The US Administration have alighted on the UK’s low drug prices and are using them as a bargaining tool against the threat of tariffs. This Government have boasted of their special relationship with the US, and we have had endless excruciating shots of the Prime Minister prostrating himself before the President. Can the Minister tell us how that relationship is benefiting the life sciences, because I cannot see it for myself?
Can the Minister tell us whether the Secretary of State is aware that it looks as though His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has decided that companies providing medicines for clinical trials or compassionate use under the early access to medicines scheme should now be billed for VAT? That is a tax on medicines that are being provided for free. Apparently, one company has already received a bill and more are on their way for others. This could affect trials and people’s access to medicine. Will the Minister please commit to looking into that urgently as Labour scrabbles around for more revenue? Will he also ask HMRC to publish guidance confirming that in fact the early access to medicines scheme falls outside the VAT deemed supply rules?
Will the Minister tell us how much of the £520 million has been spent to date? What is the current investment pipeline? How does it compare to the one he inherited? Will he update the House on the current state of negotiations between industry and Government on the VPAG scheme and medicine pricing, and with the US on tariffs? What conversations—if the Minister knows—has the Secretary of State had personally with the Health Secretary and the Chancellor on these issues? This is an extremely perilous situation for our life sciences firms and for patients’ access to new drugs.
Britain’s life sciences sector is worth over £100 billion to our economy and supports about 300,000 jobs. It is massive. It is one of our defining national strengths: a source of innovation, prosperity and national pride. Of course, it is also the key to better health for our constituents and people across the world. The life sciences innovative manufacturing fund remains a Conservative achievement, but unless the Government act swiftly to restore competitiveness and rebuild investor confidence, we risk losing our place at the forefront of global life sciences. I am afraid that no amount of rebadging, repackaging or recycled announcements will change that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. A tip for Members: if the word “you” or “your” is in your speech, just cross it out. You are speaking through the Chair. I cannot repeat myself day in, day out.
I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a great pleasure to speak to you on this occasion to welcome the ambition behind the life sciences innovation manufacturing fund and, indeed, the Government’s positive support for life sciences, with their belief that Government can act to support industry in general; it is not simply a matter of getting out of the way. That is in sharp contrast to the last Conservative Government’s approach to industry, allowing a gentle decline and deindustrialisation in our nation. To be fair, the series of Conservative Governments chopped and changed their approach to industrial strategy so often it was difficult to know exactly where they stood. Unlike them, Labour is committed to the life sciences sector.
Labour published its plan for life sciences in opposition, which included 10-year funding commitments for key research bodies aimed at putting an end to the short-termism that undermines economic growth and scientific success. Now in government, I welcome Labour’s commitment to the life sciences sector plan—developed in close co-ordination with the Government’s 10-year health plan—which aims to support cutting-edge research and turn that into real-world results, with new treatments, faster diagnoses and more lives saved. It is about making sure that breakthroughs happen here in this country, creating jobs, improving lives in every part of the country and driving growth.
As the Minister said, the life sciences are a strength of our country—they are often described as a jewel in the crown of the British economy—and we all know that success in life sciences leads to positive, wide-reaching benefits across the country for the economy and our health.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
You mentioned the sector’s relevance and benefit to the whole of the United Kingdom. Would you agree that Northern Ireland has a rich manufacturing and life sciences heritage and that we have a huge role to play?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Ms Eastwood, it was only at the start of the week that I had to reprimand you twice for using the word “you”, and it has come up twice again.
Dame Chi Onwurah
Let me thank the hon. Member for that intervention, which pre-empts something I will say in a few minutes. She is absolutely right: Northern Ireland already plays an important role in the life sciences sector and life sciences manufacturing, and it will have an important role to play in the future.
It is an incredibly exciting time to be involved in life sciences. I often think that if I were a young engineer now—I studied electrical engineering—I would be fascinated by the life sciences and, in particular, synthetic biology, which offers so many potential opportunities for growth and wellbeing. It is an enabling technology across so many different sectors.
In Newcastle, including in my constituency of Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West, the life sciences contribute £1.7 billion and employ over 8,000 people across more than 200 companies. We are home to the National Innovation Centre for Ageing, Newcastle Helix and The Biosphere. Our city is one star in a constellation of excellent life sciences clusters across the north of England.
I really welcome the ambition of the innovation manufacturing fund. I ask the Minister in his response for more clarity in three particular areas. First, in regard to the size of the fund, in the face of increased competition, and as the shadow Secretary of State described—this will be in less sensationalist terms—we are seeing some reduction in investment in the UK. Is £520 million enough to ensure that the UK is an attractive prospect for internationally mobile businesses? By contrast, a manufacturing plant such as Moderna’s recently opened vaccine centre in Oxfordshire might cost in the region of £150 million to £200 million. Is the fund the right size?
Secondly, the Select Committee recently held a one-off session on life sciences investment, which was of such interest that we have decided to hold another one-off session next week on the same subject. We heard evidence from the pharma sector, including significant support for the life sciences sector plan and for the Government’s approach, but I think it is fair to say that we were told that, although NHS pricing is not the only factor in investment decisions, it is a significant one. We heard evidence that the UK spends less proportionately on medicines than other comparable countries and that that reduces the pull-through for innovative medicines. It would clearly be a difficult decision to spend more on medicines, as that would mean spending less elsewhere in our NHS.
Does the Minister see the manufacturing fund as support in some way for investment decisions in the absence of progress on the NHS pricing discussions? Could he tell us whether the Secretary of State is involved in discussions between the Health Secretary and the pharma sector with regard to NHS pricing? I understand that discussions are ongoing, and I see the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), conferring with him. Perhaps he can confirm that those discussions are ongoing.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
When the Committee held its one-off session on investment in life sciences, did it unearth the reasons why Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Merck have recently chosen to disinvest in life sciences in the UK?
Dame Chi Onwurah
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. The Committee’s work is fascinating, so I certainly recommend he read the transcript. To summarise, we were looking specifically at the reasons for investment being pulled and, as I said, we asked the question in a number of different ways. The message that came back was significant support for the life sciences sector plan and the Government approach, but lack of certainty and clarity over NHS pricing and dismay about some aspects of NHS pricing and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decisions. The hon. Gentleman is therefore right to point out that there was concern over the current and likely future pricing of innovative medicines, but that was not the only factor in those investment decisions. I ask the Minister to give us an update on those negotiations to the extent that he is able to do so, and to say whether this manufacturing fund is seen as potential compensation for investment in medicines and pricing as part of the NHS future plan.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making some interesting points about investment decisions. Has her Committee also investigated why some decisions have been made to bring investment into the UK, such as the recent decision about investment in Oxfordshire? As part of that, is there a parallel need to explore where more could be done to attract further investment through perhaps greater supply of trained workers, better transport, better access to land for development, and so on?
Dame Chi Onwurah
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. My Committee has looked at some of the reasons for investments, such as those he sets out, and it is worth emphasising the strengths of the UK, some of which I have mentioned. We have a really strong life sciences sector, and specifically skills at every stage in the UK life sciences ecosystem, together with R&D tax credits, which is another point of incentivisation, and the fact that our NHS offers a fantastic opportunity to test and trial new medicines with a population that is heterogeneous and with population data records that are second to none. So there are many reasons why pharma and life sciences companies are continuing to invest in our country, and we have a fantastic ecosystem of life sciences start-ups and scale-ups.
That brings me to the final question I want to put to the Minister, which is on the regional impact of the fund. The Minister mentioned on a number of occasions that the fund will drive investment and growth across our country. As part of the Committee’s inquiry into innovation and regional growth, we heard of significant disparities in investment, particularly in access to capital and research funding from UK Research and Innovation and in funding and investment between the regions of our country and the greater south-east, otherwise known as the golden triangle. Manufacturing is well distributed across the United Kingdom; we heard earlier about the opportunities in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister tell me whether there will be a regional dimension to how the funds are disbursed? I hope that the extent to which the funds are regionally distributed will be monitored, but does he expect that this funding will be distributed across the country to drive growth in every corner of the country as he said, and that it will not perpetuate existing regional inequalities?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is my huge privilege to be the MP for South Cambridgeshire, which is home to Europe’s largest biomedical campus and the UK’s world-leading tech and life sciences sectors, and one of the largest contributors to the UK economy.
The Liberal Democrats have long recognised that strategic investment in life sciences manufacturing is essential to our economic future and our national health security. Central to the delivery of the life sciences sector plan as part of the wider new industrial strategy, the life sciences innovative manufacturing fund is welcome and exactly the kind of targeted intervention the research and development sector has needed for a long time. While boosting economic opportunity, the fund also aims to increase the UK’s health resilience and ability to withstand and recover from health emergencies such as pandemics, long-term healthcare challenges and system shocks such as supply shock disruption.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
Scientists at the Norwich research park and Quadram Institute are doing incredible work in the field of agri-science, which could transform the future of food for the better; in fact, the Quadram Institute will be visiting Parliament and briefing MPs during evidence week next month about this work. This research is perfectly located to create jobs in my constituency, both directly and in the supply chain. Does my hon. Friend agree that investment in exciting life sciences projects such as those in North Norfolk is particularly crucial to unlocking growth in the rural economy?
Pippa Heylings
Absolutely. Investment in the life science sector in the rural economy is critical, and that is why we are concerned that this motion comes at a time when our life science sector is in crisis—and, frankly, I am not hearing yet from the Minister that the Government are grasping the scale of the crisis. I have heard consistent concerns from the life science sector about this, with Novartis saying that the UK is becoming “largely uninvestable”. We have seen signs of this, and heard of it today, with the loss of planned investment by Merck MSD in life science and vaccination manufacturing facilities to the tune of £1 billion and also £450 million-worth of investment by AstraZeneca. That comes on top of AstraZeneca pausing the planned £200 million expansion of its research centre in my constituency. This is obviously ringing alarm bells across the Chamber.
Additionally, in a report by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, “Delivering a voluntary scheme for health and growth”, life science leaders are warning that the Government growth plan will not succeed unless Ministers commit to fixing a scheme known as VPAG—the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth—which unexpectedly now requires companies to pay record clawback rates of up to a quarter or even a third of their revenue from sales of branded medicines to the NHS.
The Liberal Democrats would commit to raising R&D spending to 3.5% of GDP by 2034, a decade-long commitment that gives businesses the certainty they are asking for. We would introduce proof of concept funding to help researchers develop their early-stage ideas and empower local authorities to develop regional spin-out ecosystems so innovation can drive growth and high paying jobs right across the country, as well as where I am in my constituency in the golden triangle. I therefore ask the Minister to set out, in addition to this much-awaited manufacturing fund, the status of the last-minute negotiations with companies and their investments, such as AstraZeneca and Merck MSD, and also what the Government are doing particularly on VPAG to restore confidence to pharmaceutical companies that the UK is a competitive place, attractive to investment, that values research, development and manufacturing.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I will try to get my words correct this time, Madam Deputy Speaker—the second time.
I simply want to say, Minister, that I really do believe that we in Northern Ireland have a huge role to play—not just in Northern Ireland, but across the UK—for many, many reasons. Other Members have mentioned a number of things including R&D tax credits and the skills ecosystem, which is really relevant to all this. I am perfectly well aware that we in Northern Ireland are obviously part of a devolved settlement, but there is an opportunity to re-engage how we drive forward opportunities for skilling people for these sectors through the likes of apprenticeships and how we interface with businesses.
This might sound a bit left-field, but I genuinely believe that this sector is hugely significant in terms of national resilience, national security and national propriety of our own intellectual property within the UK. This is a huge sector and it has the potential to make sure that we are self-sustaining and that we also work with companies over a long and sustained period of time to ensure that, in an era of antimicrobial resistance for example, we have the tools at our disposal should—God forbid—anything ever come down the tracks again in terms of pandemics or challenges to our supply chain.
I know that that was probably a lot to take in. I just reiterate our potential in Northern Ireland. We have a huge heritage that goes back decades and we stand ready. Others have mentioned the headwinds coming down the line, not just in the UK but as we try and navigate our way through this global turmoil of tariffs and trade and what that means. We now have a golden opportunity to get this right.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Wonderfully done. I call Minister Narayan.
Kanishka Narayan
I want to be in your good books, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will proceed at pace in answering some of the questions raised.
I first thank the Members on the shadow Front Benches and in particular the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez). I was sad that her generous welcome to me was not extended to this particular announcement. In particular, I was sad that she did not welcome the fact that out of their Tory fiscal wreckage we have managed to get £520 million for the British life sciences sector, that out of the economic damage they did to this country we have still managed to secure over £1 billion in investment from Moderna in the British life sciences sector, and that out of what we inherited from the Tory context we have managed to secure over £1 billion from BioNTech. Right across the board, there is a picture of stability, good jobs in the life sciences and broader technology sectors, optimism and, above all, an energy shared across Government, the private sector and academia.
Kanishka Narayan
I must proceed because, as I said, I need to be in Madam Deputy Speaker’s good books.
A particular concern has been raised about VPAG, another part of a longer-standing legacy from a Tory Chancellor’s austerity rampage for the life sciences sector in this country. The Government’s position is very clear: we will always put patients and taxpayers first. This Government are open to working collaboratively with the pharmaceutical industry, which is exactly why we have put forward a generous and unprecedented offer worth approximately £1 billion over three years as part of a review of VPAG, which ultimately industry did not take a vote on.
We remain confident in the life sciences as a driver of both economic growth and better health outcomes and our door remains open to future engagement. I know that regular conversations go on and while I will not update Members on the shadow Front Benches on every single meeting the Secretary of State takes, I can assure them that she is involved in both the particular conversations around VPAG and more general engagement with the life sciences sector.
I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), whose depth of experience in engineering prior to this House and extensive experience in this House, in particular through leadership of the Science and Technology Committee, is one that I take considerable inspiration from.
Kanishka Narayan
I will make some progress for now. My hon. Friend raised a particular point around synthetic biology, which is very close to my heart because I think that Britain has a particular opportunity in the convergence of engineering, AI and life sciences, and we are keen on seizing that to its fullest extent.
On the three particular questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West, foremost of which was about the size of the funding available, I will say a couple of things: first, that this is the largest fund of this nature announced in the history of the UK Government, to my understanding, with capital grants worth £520 million altogether; and secondly, that it is but one part of the overall funding package across Government if one considers the investments across Innovate UK, UKRI, the British Business Bank and beyond. I hope that some of the assurances around VPAG have answered the particular question posed there, and on regional impact, I point out that the first two grants from the scheme were made out to firms in Birmingham and Keele. I hope that is a starting indicator of my long-term hope; we will certainly monitor it.
Kanishka Narayan
I am afraid I will not; I believe I have been relatively generous in welcoming contributions from across the House. On the point of regional impact, in addition to the midlands, may I join the shadow Front Benchers in welcoming—they do so with laughter and amusement—the collective efforts of our entire Northern Irish contingent? I will take away the strong point about Northern Ireland’s strengths in the life sciences sector; it will be embedded on my mind.
I thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for South Cambridgeshire for talking about investments. The only thing I will say on some of the announcements is that they have to be taken in the context of the wider global context for those firms, MSD in particular.
Kanishka Narayan
If the Member listens, he may feel that his point is addressed in my claims. In at least one of those cases, a pause, rather than a cancellation, was announced and in the other, there have been a series of announcements globally regarding thousands of jobs, not only in the UK but beyond. As I said, I hope that the two announcements I mentioned, by Moderna and BioNTech, will give us some assurance that the life sciences sector in the British context is firing on all cylinders with Government support.
Finally, I note with thanks the important point on national security and IP made by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood). It is top of mind for me in ensuring that we are not just powering economic growth and not just jobs and good health for people across this country, but doing the first job of Government to protect our national security.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake payments, by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, in excess of £30 million to any successful applicant to the Life Sciences Innovative Manufacturing Fund, launched on 30 October 2024, up to a cumulative total of £520 million.
Procurement, Slavery and Human Trafficking Regulations: NHS
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
I beg to move,
That the draft National Health Service (Procurement, Slavery and Human Trafficking) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 9 September, be approved.
I am here on behalf of the Minister for Secondary Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth). It is an honour to represent the Government as we bring forward this important secondary legislation, and it is right that it should be given the full scrutiny of the House today.
Slavery is one of the greatest evils in human history. This Government cannot and will not accept that we could be supporting forced labour or human trafficking through our supply chains, however inadvertently. Before I continue, I acknowledge the cross-party support on this issue, both in this House and in the other place. I pay tribute to all hon. and right hon. Members and peers of the realm, such as Lord Alton, who have worked tirelessly to put modern slavery at the forefront of our national conversation.
I begin by setting out why we need the regulations. Many people are taken aback when they are told that there are more enslaved people now, in absolute terms, than at any point in human history. It is estimated that around 50 million people worldwide are living in some form of modern slavery. Globalisation has provided near-limitless opportunities for trade in goods and services, but also, unfortunately, in human beings. Though we on these isles would like to think that we are insulated from the highways of human trafficking, we are not.
In late 2023, the previous Government published a review into NHS supply chains that covered 60% of medical consumables. It accounted for £7 billion of spend across 1,300 suppliers, representing 600,000 products, and a fifth of those suppliers were deemed to be high risk. Imagine my horror when I read that some of the tools of my trade—surgical instruments, facemasks—could be contaminated by modern slavery. As someone who still practises as a surgeon, I know that I share that revulsion with my colleagues across the national health service. I ask my colleagues in this place to keep all our NHS staff in mind over the course of our proceedings.
The review also recognised the wider benefits to the NHS of a better understanding of how our supply chains work, noting how we could improve the quality of products supplied and the resilience of supply. It gave us clear recommendations for us to act on and today I am proud to come to the House with landmark modern slavery legislation to put those policies into practice. This is a first on these isles and I sincerely hope that our colleagues across the devolved Governments can follow suit soon.
I now turn to what the regulations will do. The NHS is one of the largest public sector procurers in the world, with an annual spend of £35 billion, doing business with over 80,000 suppliers. We have a duty to ensure that no products we procure could be tainted by forced labour, and an opportunity to use our immense purchasing power for global good.
The regulations we bring forward today will require all public bodies to assess modern slavery risks in their supply chains when procuring goods and services for the health service in England. They give effect to a duty established by the Health and Care Act 2022, which requires the Secretary of State to eradicate modern slavery wherever it is found in NHS procurement processes. We are asking public bodies to take reasonable steps to address and eliminate modern slavery risks, especially when designing procurement procedures, awarding and managing contracts and setting up frameworks or dynamic markets.
Reasonable steps may include enforcing robust conditions of participation in our supply chains, with assessment criteria built into every stage of that process. They may include monitoring suppliers’ compliance and reassessing risk throughout the lifetime of a contract. They can also include writing terms that require immediate mitigation where instances of modern slavery are discovered. The regulations will also require public bodies to have regard to any relevant guidance issued by the Department of Health and Social Care or NHS England for consistency and accountability across the system. The updated version of the guidance has now been published by NHS England and is publicly available.
Colleagues might be worried about legislative overlap. They might ask themselves why we need new regulations when modern slavery is already illegal, but these regulations have been carefully drafted to fit with existing statute, and I can assure the House that contradictory duties have been avoided. We are building on existing measures, such as the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Procurement Act 2023, not replacing them. We are bringing all NHS England’s procurement into scope and creating a stronger legislative footing for enforcement. The point is to introduce a single, enforceable risk management approach to modern slavery across the NHS, and we will continue to review our arrangements to ensure that they remain effective for years to come.
I do not pretend that this will be easy. If there was a button somewhere in Whitehall or inside the national health service that could eliminate modern slavery at a stroke, I do not doubt that all of us would push it, but our supply chains are vast, making it difficult to fully assess the scale. Although the 2023 review was just a snapshot in time, it is likely that more than a fifth of our supply chains are still at high risk of modern slavery. Items include cotton-based products, surgical instruments and PPE gloves—all products that are vital for the day-to-day functioning of hospitals and clinics up and down the country. That is why we will back NHS organisations with clear guidance and support to root out the scourge of modern slavery wherever we find it.
There is an argument that we could procure these items on the cheap if we could just turn a blind eye, but that way of thinking is abhorrent and fundamentally un-British. We cannot simply weigh such things on the scale of a tradesman behind a counter, and we must remember our historical responsibility in eliminating slavery wherever we find it. But even if we could do that, ethical supply chains have been proven to be cost effective in the long term. There is a strong case that they help to avoid litigation and, more important, supplier collapse. Even if that were not the case, I know the will of the British people, and I have not a shred of doubt that decent people across our country will not think modern slavery a price tag worth paying. This place, the mother of Parliaments, is here to answer a call today and to send a message to all enslaved people across the world: what is happening to you is unjust, but we have not forgotten, and we will do our utmost to ensure that our money does not go to those that exploit you and keep you in chains.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on the draft National Health Service (Procurement, Slavery and Human Trafficking) Regulations 2025. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), for bringing forward the regulations and welcome him to his place at the Dispatch Box.
This important issue goes to the very heart of the values that underpin our national health service. It is a vast organisation—one of the largest in the world—with supply chains that reach across many sectors and many countries. With that scale comes a responsibility to ensure that the products and services we rely on to care for patients are sourced ethically, and that the health service does not, even inadvertently, contribute to exploitation or modern slavery.
As an NHS consultant, I know that the idea that any item used in the care of patients, from surgical gloves to hospital linen, could have been produced through exploitation or forced labour is abhorrent to all of us. These regulations seek to strengthen the NHS’s ability to identify, prevent and address such risks—an ambition that I am sure commands support right across the House. Indeed, this work began under the last Conservative Government. The Health and Care Act 2022 passed new regulations to address the risk of modern slavery in NHS supply chains, and in December 2023 we delivered a review into those risks, supported by NHS England, which examined where the greatest risks lay and how they could be mitigated. Although we welcome the direction of travel, there are, however, some important questions about how the regulations will work in practice and how we will ensure that the regulations deliver what is intended in a fair way.
First, what demands do we expect that the regulations will place on the NHS? They apply to all public bodies procuring goods and services for the NHS in England, including NHS England, hospital trusts and integrated care boards. Will each organisation have to make its own separate risk assessment? Has an estimation been made of the time that that is expected to take? How many people are expected to be required for organisations to fulfil the requirement, and what will be the associated cost? Will any mechanisms be put in place to prevent duplication, for example, where suppliers are already reporting under the Modern Slavery Act 2015?
Secondly, I turn to implementation and support. Regulations are not enough on their own; they must be embedded in practice. What steps will NHS England take to support procurement teams in applying these rules consistently and effectively and in maintaining the same standards across all the public sector bodies that are covered by these regulations? The regulations require NHS England to issue guidance, which is welcome, but how comprehensive will that guidance be? With NHS England being abolished, who will produce it? Will there be accompanying training and practical support for procurement teams to ensure consistency across the system? What will happen to a supplier if they are found to be non-compliant? Will the consequences be decided by NHS England centrally, or by individual trusts or ICBs? Will there be independent oversight to assess progress? With all the churn in NHS England and ICBs and the cuts to their budgets, how will they have the time and space to do that?
Next, I turn to the impact on business. The NHS relies on a wide range of suppliers, many of which are small and medium-sized businesses that bring innovation, flexibility and local expertise. Can the Minister confirm that the new requirements will not place undue burdens on suppliers or deter small businesses from bidding for NHS contracts? We must uphold the highest ethical standards, but we must also avoid creating unnecessary bureaucracy that excludes capable businesses from contributing to patient care.
Finally, I turn to the issue of co-ordination across Government. Many NHS goods are sourced internationally from complex and often opaque global supply chains. It is crucial, therefore, that our framework aligns with the broader cross-Government effort to tackle modern slavery, including at the Home Office and the Foreign Office. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined how those links are maintained in practice.
The question of co-ordination is not new. During the passage of the Great British Energy Act 2025, an amendment was introduced in the Lords to stop GB Energy from sourcing panels linked to forced labour. The Government’s initial position was that existing laws already addressed that risk, but later down the road, the Government heeded those calls by introducing their own amendment to block GB Energy from using slavery-linked solar. That episode shows how important it is to have clear and joined-up action across Government when addressing the risks of modern slavery.
The NHS should be a beacon of integrity as well as excellence. Patients and the public rightly expect that the care provided in our hospitals is not, however indirectly, tainted by the exploitation of others. The regulations are a step forward in ensuring that our health service lives up to that ideal. We welcome the intent and the ambition behind the regulations, but we will continue to push to ensure that they work in practice and without unintended consequences.
Dr Ahmed
I am grateful for the comments of the Opposition health spokesperson. Proportionality is the theme of the day when it comes to anything that we implement in the NHS at a global scale. The appropriate training will be provided. As the hon. Lady well knows from her time in government, conversations across Departments, particularly on these issues, are always ongoing. We are always willing and able to flex as we learn and as we feel our way through these regulations. The hon. Lady will recognise their importance and primacy when engaging in supplier contract negotiations, and therefore businesses both small and large can feel confident that, if they follow ethical procurement practices, their business is most welcome in the national health service.
I want to end by reminding colleagues that these regulations are not just about what we can do on these isles but what we can do to eliminate modern slavery across the globe. NHS England is one of the biggest buying organisations in the UK. We have a golden opportunity at the moment to leverage its purchasing power to influence supply chains not only in the UK and Europe but right across the world. Today, Parliament can send a clear signal to the world that we will not tolerate human rights abuses and that, if a company wants to do business with the NHS, they must get their house in order. Under this Government, there will be no compromise with the evil of slavery. I ask colleagues from all sides to help us to keep that promise, to back our NHS and its staff and to help us to keep this country’s conscience clean. I commend the regulations to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft National Health Service (Procurement, Slavery and Human Trafficking) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 9 September, be approved.
Devolution in Scotland
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered devolution in Scotland.
I am jolly glad I came to the Chamber when I did. [Laughter.]
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for making time available for this debate and for recognising that it is a debate that holds great significance for the whole House. I thank those Members who supported my application to the Committee for the debate. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), who chairs the Scottish Affairs Committee and who has been a personal friend of mine since our time together in the Scottish Parliament.
I begin by making no secret of the fact that I lead this debate as someone who believes in the strength of our family of nations and that we can make people’s lives better through co-operation and partnership by pooling and sharing resources. I believe that my credentials as one of the first of my party’s Members of the Scottish Parliament and now as a Scottish Member of the UK Parliament make it clear that I am a devolutionist to my core, one who will always believe in the value of the Scottish Parliament and its potential to work best for the people of Scotland when it works constructively alongside Westminster. I will not have it said here today, or anywhere or ever, that I am against devolution—I am not. I truly believe in it and also know that the Scottish Parliament is comparatively young, hence why I am here today, initiating what I hope will be a civil and valuable discussion into the successes and failures so far of our system of what one might term “multi-level governance”.
I am proud to have been a founding member of the Scottish Constitutional Convention responsible for the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999. I am proud to say in my own way that my name is on the historic claim of right for Scotland—I do not think that any other Member of this place can say that. Of course, I was then elected to the Scottish Parliament in the first elections in 1999, and I witnessed the way that it developed over the next 12 years. Crucially, during those first years, I became a member of the Holyrood progress group, which oversaw the building of the Parliament. People like me and others saw the Scottish Parliament as, to quote the late, great John Smith, the
“settled will of the Scottish people”.
I say that to reassure the House that my thoughts come from a place, I believe, of true experience.
Let us remember that the scheme for the devolved Parliament, as enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998, was about the concept of there being no need for a second Chamber in Edinburgh because the Committees of the Scottish Parliament were intended to fill the role of holding the Executive to account. That could have entailed, where necessary, amending or initiating legislation in a fashion similar to the House of Lords today. As an example, I highlight the role of the education Committee in the first Parliament, of which I was a member, in tweaking and amending the then Scottish Government’s first education Act. Was that a reflection of the consensual attitude that many MSPs displayed during the first term of the Scottish Parliament? Very possibly—perhaps the hon. Member could comment on that.
A few initial thoughts come to mind. Although the Committees did largely fulfil some of that function during the first 12 years of the Parliament, I am bound to add that the advent of the SNP Government in 2011, which controlled not only the Chamber but all the Committees, changed that dynamic. I would argue that, after that year, the failure of some Committees to show any real teeth meant that some bad legislation came to be. I need only quote one example, and that is the ill-fated deposit return scheme—I rest my case.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The hon. Member is making a very good speech. As a fellow Member of the Scottish Parliament for 10 years, I concur completely with his comments regarding the Committee structure. There are many faults about the other place, but it is significantly better at scrutinising Government, holding Government to account and improving legislation than the Committees in the Scottish Parliament, so I agree with him.
Jamie Stone
I thank the hon. Member, who, like me, was an MSP all those years ago. Why, to take up his point, is the Scottish Parliament not working the way it is intended to? I think part of the answer lies in the fact that making someone the Chair of a Committee in the Scottish Parliament is in the gift of the party leaders. That can lead to Committee Chairs, particularly those in the Government party, feeling somewhat beholden to their party’s leadership and being, I would suggest, sometimes rather less than willing to say boo to a goose when it comes to challenging or amending legislation.
In Westminster, Committee Chairs are chosen via a secret ballot of the whole House. I would say that the independent-mindedness of Committees and those who lead them is very much a strength. In that respect, we have in Westminster a certain safeguard against the risk of passing completely unworkable legislation. My purpose in making this assessment is not in any way to enlarge on the proposals for a second Chamber in Scotland; the Scotland Act 1998 was very clear that the Scottish Parliament would be unicameral.
Similarly, we can see that there are grounds for Westminster to learn lessons from Edinburgh. I have had the honour, as I said, of being a Member of both the Scottish and UK Parliaments. When people ask me, as they often do, how the two compare, I often say that we MPs are deeply envious of the access to Ministers that MSPs enjoy. The direct and frequent communication between the Scottish Government and their opposition strikes me as a very positive facet of Scottish democracy.
Furthermore, the fact that there are only 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament means that the Members all know each other—or at least know each other an awful lot better than would be normal here. There is recognition of the strengths and weaknesses of those 129 individuals. How should I put this, Madam Deputy Speaker? That is not necessarily something that we can perceive in Westminster, where we have a great number of Members. In fact, I am afraid we can all think—no names, no pack-drill—of Members who somehow slip under the radar; let us just put it that way. I do not intend to be one of them.
The Scottish Parliament has become much more powerful than it was when I was there—just look at the tax and social security powers—but as an MP from the far north of Scotland, I am constantly reminded of just how centralised Scotland has become. Decisions are too often not taken close to the communities that they affect. There has been devolution from Westminster to Holyrood, but practically nothing from Holyrood down to councils or communities. In fact, when it comes to police and fire services, power has simply been grabbed by Edinburgh.
One of the most interesting academics to comment on the matter, and one of the first to scrutinise devolution, James G. Kellas, emphasised that merely establishing new institutions such as the Scottish Parliament cannot fundamentally alter the efficiency of decision-making norms. Instead, he said, we must respect the interplay between respective institutions and their political behaviours. That is what he prescribed to modernisers like me, who hoped that devolution would bring longer-term stability to British politics and give it a new lease of life. In recent years, however, we have seen just the opposite: a breakdown of constructive intergovernmental relations and a move towards polarisation that has pitted the Scottish Government against the UK Government as rivals, rather than partners. That has been clear on multiple occasions over the past decade. Scotland needs Governments in Edinburgh and London that are capable of working together, and of ironing out differences of opinion, where they exist, maturely, within proper frameworks, and without always resorting to legal action and court battles.
That leads me to the elephant in the Chamber, if I can get away with that expression. Most significantly, and perhaps least surprisingly, the chasm in our system of governance was most strongly pronounced during the Scottish independence referendum in 2014. The subsequent repeated calls for a second referendum have coloured the relationship between our two Parliaments ever since. I am a proud Scot—I always have been and I always will be—so for me these have, alas, been dark times, with too much grievance, too much aggression and too much resentment. On top of that, I humbly suggest that the people of Scotland are tired and frustrated—and they have a case. They see their household bills soaring. They have long waits to see their GP, they have the ferry fiasco, and they have a Scottish education that we all know simply is not what it used to be. Scotland deserves better, and the Scottish Parliament needs to show people that it can respond to the challenge at hand and change people’s lives for the better.
I think back to what my party, when it was in coalition, delivered in its first terms in government, including free personal care, eye tests, dental checks, bus passes, the smoking ban and fair votes for local government. Indeed, it was the signature of my then party leader Jim Wallace that broke the ground on freedom of information. We collectively cared about getting the basics right, and were determined to show that devolution could deliver the change that people wanted to see. I do not suggest that that was just the attitude of the governing parties in the coalition; there was co-operation with the Scottish National party and the Conservatives, from time to time.
I touched earlier on the works of James G. Kellas, and I return to his predictions in 2001. He warned that observers of devolution might develop an “expectations gap”, as Scots could develop resentment, feeling that the potential of the Scottish Parliament was unfulfilled, or limited by a system of multi-level governance. There could be truth in that, but we still have a chance to rectify it. With last year’s change of government in Westminster and the Holyrood elections next year, this is surely the perfect time to revise our approach to our system of multi-level governance in the UK in order to engage with those feelings of discontent and negotiate a better way forward—together, not apart.
No legislation is forever, including our beloved Scotland Act. All legislation is from time to time re-examined and amended; that is how we do things in the UK. That is surely one of the foundation stones of British democracy. To put it simply, we can come together to better understand how to make our Union more workable and acknowledge what needs to change. Governmental co-operation and multi-level governance can improve, and I strongly believe that the vision of the founding members of our devolved Governments can and does endure. There is still hope that our Parliaments can build a stronger relationship for the future, in the face of increasing uncertainty and threats from beyond the seas.
I conclude with one simple request. The UK Supreme Court ruled in 2022 that the Scottish Parliament cannot legislate for an independence referendum without Westminster consent. I touch on that issue in the hope that this debate will not be wasted, and co-opted into a debate revising and exhausting the legality of that decision. Instead, I invite all Members from every corner of the House to engage in a constructive debate about how we can improve what we do. That is essential, particularly in the face of increasing uncertainty and—let us be honest—threats from across the seas to the way in which we do things in our precious democracy.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Beautifully timed, Mr Stone. I call Patricia Ferguson.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I nearly lapsed into old habits and called you Deputy Presiding Officer, but that is a title for another place some 500 miles up the road. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for procuring this debate, and for arriving when he did; some of us were becoming rather anxious. I do not think I have ever been more pleased to see him enter any room.
On a more serious note, 25 years ago this month, Donald Dewar—MP, MSP and the first First Minister of Scotland—died prematurely. Donald had worked hard, both in our party and beyond, to promote the idea of a Scottish Parliament. It was a huge loss when he passed away only 17 months into the life of that new Parliament, but his legacy—the Parliament he played such an important part in establishing—lives on.
Despite the disappointment of the 1979 referendum, devolution remained firmly on the agenda of the Labour party through the long years of Conservative rule. The idea was kept alive by Donald, his great friend John Smith, Labour party and trade union members across the country, and colleagues in the Liberal Democrats and some other parties. “A Claim of Right for Scotland” in 1988 and the Scottish constitutional convention were significant markers on the long road to the successful 1997 referendum. I am pleased to recount that when Labour was returned to power in 1997, one of its first acts was to pass the Scotland Act, which paved the way for the Scottish Parliament just two years later. It is quite remarkable that a party was returned to power in May 1997, held a referendum just two or three months later on the Scottish Parliament and whether we should have devolution, and delivered that Parliament within two years.
I was proud to campaign, along with many others, for a Scottish Parliament over many years. I believe that such subsidiarity is sensible and is a democratic imperative, and as one of the first MSPs elected in 1999—alongside my colleague, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross—I was privileged to see at first hand the challenges and successes of the Labour-Liberal Executive, which steered our country through the first years of devolution. We did not call ourselves a Government then; “Executive” was good enough for us. As my colleague said, it is my conviction that co-operation between the coalition partners, and sometimes across all parties, was key to the progress of devolution, as was joint working between the Scottish and UK Governments.
Many positive initiatives were implemented during that early period, some of which the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross mentioned. I apologise to the House if I repeat one or two, but I would like to list some of the ones that come most easily to mind. They included free personal care for the elderly; free university tuition; the banning of smoking in enclosed public places, which has led to verifiable health benefits—Scotland led the way for the rest of the UK on this issue, and we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the ban this year—the repeal of the discriminatory clause 2A; bringing the Golden Jubilee hospital into the NHS; the Fresh Talent initiative; the creation of an international development fund; the creation of the National Theatre of Scotland; and submitting a successful bid for the 2014 Commonwealth games, to name but a very few.
The Scottish Parliament’s approach was modern, with family-friendly hours and a willingness to use technology to the advantage of Members and the public. Our electronic voting system and the public petitions process were seen—I think rightly—as efficient, businesslike and inclusive. I sincerely hope that the Modernisation Committee will consider those examples during its investigation—especially electronic voting, please.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
I sometimes find myself watching Holyrood TV, and most of what happens after the electronic voting is endless people checking whether they have voted—wanting to clarify whether the machine has worked. Given that there are 120-odd Members in Holyrood and 650-odd Members in this place, I am not entirely sure that that is the best plan for Westminster voting.
Patricia Ferguson
My recollection of the system is that it worked very well indeed. I do not know whether standards have slipped since the days when I and other hon. Members present were Members of the Scottish Parliament. What the hon. Lady describes did happen—I admit that—but very rarely. I was for some time in the Chair, announcing those decisions, and I genuinely do not remember that happening very often at all.
John Lamont
I think the recollection that the hon. Lady and I will have of our time in the Scottish Parliament was of voting physically, albeit electronically, together in the Scottish Parliament Chamber. The difference now, of course, is that some Members of the Scottish Parliament are voting in the Chamber, while others are voting at home, sitting at their kitchen table, by pressing a button. That is where the connectivity issues mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) arise, and that is why it is important that we maintain physical voting in this place.
Patricia Ferguson
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I am not in favour of voting remotely either, except perhaps in very rare and exceptional circumstances. However, please believe me that electronic voting is the way forward. Members would not have to spend some 20 minutes walking through the Lobby. Votes would be cast, and a result declared, within roughly one minute. That is definitely a better use of Members’ time, and a much more efficient way to do things.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I think the hon. Lady has made a good point. She may be up against it if she is trying to talk to those on the Opposition Benches about modernisation in any fashion, but when, during the pandemic, Members were forced to go through the Lobby when they were unwell, that affected Members throughout the House. I think—and I shall say more about this later—that there are always places where legislatures can learn from each other.
Patricia Ferguson
It is undoubtedly true that we have to learn from one another, and from international examples too. If I can give one example that I would like colleagues to learn from, it is that electronic voting has a place, and a place from which I think this House could benefit greatly.
Patricia Ferguson
Before I give way, may I just say that I really did not imagine that that one line would create such a response?
David Davis
I cannot really comment on electronic voting, but I was going to make a comment in the other direction—about learning in both directions. I believe that Donald Dewar, in his heroic struggle to bring about devolution, wanted a strong Scottish Parliament, in terms of privilege, in terms of the right to summon Ministers—
David Davis
Powers, yes, in terms of order and the balance of power between Parliament and Government, which he wanted to be much stronger as well. Does the hon. Lady think that that would be a good thing?
Patricia Ferguson
I think we have to realise that the Parliament in Scotland is very much smaller than this Parliament, which makes a great difference to many of the ways in which it operates. As we heard from the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, it is much easier to speak to a Minister there than it is here. It is a regular occurrence. There is a saying in the Scottish Parliament: you only have to sit in the Garden Lobby for half an hour, and every other parliamentarian will have passed you by at one point or another. That is a huge advantage, and it is one of the aspects of the Scottish Parliament that I personally preferred: we did have that access, not just to Ministers but to other colleagues across parties, and we could develop relationships that enabled us to work in a cross-party way very easily with them. That, I think, was a great thing. I also think that the Scottish Parliament has, perhaps, a better balance of power between Members and the Government, but we have to accept that the scale is an influencing factor at the very least.
I would not suggest for a moment that the years from 2007 onwards—when the SNP first formed a Government through a deal with the Tories, when they then formed a majority Government, and even when they were in coalition with the Greens—have been a complete failure, but there has been a great deal of wasted time and opportunity.
Stephen Gethins
Is the hon. Member aware that in that 2007 Parliament, the Labour party voted with the SNP more often than the Conservatives did?
Patricia Ferguson
The Labour party did not vote with the SNP on the Budget. The SNP needed the Tories to get Budgets through, and that was the basis on which they did a deal. Sadly, those Budgets very much reflected Tory values, and that is why Labour could not vote for them; nor could friends in other parties that are represented in this Chamber.
I have to say, though, that time has been wasted by people obsessing about the constitution and creating grievances with Westminster. We could have been in a very different place if the Scottish Government had continued to focus on the issues that mattered to people in their everyday lives, and also if they had been more constructive in their engagement with Members of the Scottish Parliament itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross cited the ill-fated deposit return scheme as an example of when there was not that cross-party working to make legislation appropriate and fit for purpose; I would cite as another example the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act, which was passed in 2012 only to be repealed in 2018. Again, I would not suggest for a minute that Scotland does not sometimes have a problem with football matches, and with some of the sectarian and offensive behaviour that goes on in connection with them, but that Act was badly thought out. People tried to say so at the time, but they were not listened to. I think it is always important for us to listen to one another and hear what others have to say.
Sadly, it has to be said that recent Scottish Governments have been found wanting when it comes to the measurements of success that they have set for themselves on NHS waiting time guarantees, climate targets or educational attainment, and the premise of the Parliament —allowing for the delivery of Scottish solutions to Scottish problems—has fallen some way short. For a Parliament that is devolved, it has had the most centralising agenda in recent years, which has not been to Scotland’s advantage. Scotland is made up of peoples, cities, towns and villages, and what works in my constituency of Glasgow West will not necessarily work in Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. It is important that those differences are reflected, and that the agencies and public organisations that support and serve our populations reflect local bias, local need and local interest. Sadly, that is no longer the case in some places.
As the Scottish Parliament progresses into its second quarter-century, we have an opportunity to look back, to mark both the successes and the shortcomings, and to recall the words of Donald Dewar at the Parliament’s opening on 1 July 1999, which are as relevant today as they were then. He said that we will
“never lose sight of what brought us here—the striving to do right by the people of Scotland, to respect their priorities, to better their lot and to contribute to the common weal.”
In recalling those words, we should look forward to the future, to how the Scottish Parliament can do right by the people of Scotland, and to how we Members of this Parliament can play a constructive part in making that so.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I currently have no plans to put a time limit on contributions, but Members might like to reflect on how many colleagues are here and adjust their remarks accordingly.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Devolution is not working. Instead of two Governments working in harness, Scotland has one in Westminster with its back turned to the one in Holyrood, which daily plots to break up Britain. Labour took power convinced that they were the grown-ups who would reset relations with the SNP at Holyrood. The harsh reality is that the SNP Government have no interest in joint working, for if devolution is a success, they lose the argument that independence is a necessity. They are aided in their mission by Labour’s “devolve and forget”.
This Government trolly billions of pounds north to Edinburgh via the block grant, but what happens after it disappears into the SNP black hole, where we can see what goes in but not what comes out? Well, no one on the Government Benches seems to care overmuch. The sleekit SNP is running rings around them. The Chancellor appeared in a smart video saying that she was delivering investment in Scotland. The backdrop was Lossiemouth, a key RAF base for protecting the High North, yet the SNP actively undermines British defence. There has been ludicrous talk of deploying “Scottish forces” as peacekeepers in Ukraine. There are many Scots men and women in Britain’s forces, but there are no Scottish forces. Ironically, the SNP denies defence firms vital investment because of childish opposition to ordnance—the shells, bombs, bullets and missiles that keep us all safe in a dangerous world. That is pulling apart, not pulling together.
Under the previous Administration, the Scotland Office was the guardian of devolution. The then Secretary of State for Scotland, Alister Jack, adroitly deployed section 35 of the Scotland Act to prevent the unlamented Nicola Sturgeon’s gender recognition reform from trampling on the rights of women and girls across the entire UK. That was not some assault on Holyrood’s powers, but a judicious application of the law as it stood to prevent devolution from being abused, to prevent Scotland from becoming a different country bit by bit, and to stop devolution being used as a battering ram to smash the Union. Would that happen now?
Today’s Scotland Office is, we are told, “Scotland’s window on the world”. Rather than nurturing the Scotland Act, it looks increasingly like Dover House has been annexed by the Department for Business and Trade as a pop-up shop for salmon and whisky. Perhaps a bit less looking out the window and a bit more attention to what is going on at John Swinney’s Bute House is in order, for Scottish Ministers seem to have more foreign breaks than Galloway Travel Service in Stranraer, in my constituency of Dumfries and Galloway. They have gone to Malawi, Zambia, Canada and Washington DC. Despite having no role in international affairs, Scottish Ministers have racked up more air miles than Biggles, at taxpayers’ expense. What are they discussing, given that trade policy is reserved? Let us take China, for example: Scottish Business Minister Richard Lochhead sloped off on a low-key visit to Beijing, and I asked what occurred, but the Foreign Office did not have eyes on it, in another display of “devolve and forget”.
There are many siren voices calling for Holyrood’s abolition as Supreme Court judgments on gender are ignored; its Committee system, as we have heard, is neutered so that genuine scrutiny is near impossible; and the First Minister spends more time pronouncing on Gaza and boycotting Israel—foreign affairs are outwith his bailiwick—while Scots’ taxes rise with no improvement in public services.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is drawing attention to many issues that he says are the fault of the Scottish Government’s creating difference between Scotland and England. What would he say about the Brexit vote in 2016 creating such difference?
John Cooper
I just gently point out that I think more Scots voted for Brexit than for anything else in the history of Scotland.
John Cooper
Sorry, but I will not give way, because I want to make some progress.
John Swinney—not so much yesterday’s man as the day before yesterday’s man—is a pound-shop Parnell trying to suborn British institutions to undermine Britain. Devolution is not working, but it is not broken beyond repair. My noble Friend Lord Offord of Garvel, who sits in the other place, has challenged Holyrood to do better in a series of essays entitled “Wealthy Nation, Healthy Nation”. That is predicated on Holyrood parking its constitutional obsession to deliver what it was intended to do—to better the lives of those living in Scotland. Amen, but it will require the Scottish Government to respect democracy, not least the clearcut decision in the 2014 independence referendum to remain part of the UK, and it will take this House finding the courage to confront what the SNP Government are up to. It is not about putting them in their place or keeping them in their lane. No, it is merely about both Governments respecting the Scotland Act.
If Holyrood is to have another 25 years, John Swinney needs to comport himself as First Minister, not “First Agitator”. The present Secretary for State for Scotland once told Harvard University of the need
“to more closely align accountability with decision-making authority.”
Hear, hear. The chink of ice in the whisky cocktails in far-flung embassies is seductive, but while the Scottish Secretary is distracted, the SNP plots, and it is our constituents who will pay the bar bill and face the hangover.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
When the Scottish Parliament was reconvened in 1999, there was an expectation that devolution would not stop at Holyrood, but would build stronger systems of local government. Donald Dewar put it best in his first speech:
“A Scottish Parliament. Not an end: a means to greater ends.”
We should celebrate Holyrood’s achievements over the past 25 years, but we must also face a truth: devolution has stalled or even gone backwards when it comes to local government. The first phase moved power from London to Edinburgh, but the second phase—transferring power from Holyrood to our local communities—never came. Instead, powers have been stripped away. Business rates, water, further education, police, fire and local enterprise were all once local responsibilities that have now been centralised. The principle of devolution is simple: the best decisions are made closest to the people affected by those decisions, yet in Edinburgh we have a Government run by the Scottish National party, and no one could accuse it of being the Scottish local party.
Before I came here, I was the leader of Stirling council. About 80% of our budget came from a Scottish Government grant, with the rest from council tax, which is the only fiscal lever left to councils. It should be set locally, but for most of the last 18 years the SNP Government have frozen or capped it. Arguments for and against tax rises should be made in town halls, not dictated from Holyrood. For devolution to work there must be respect between different levels of government. I welcome efforts by the UK Government to reset that relationship. I only wish the Scottish Government would show the same respect to local authorities.
Meanwhile, England has raced ahead. Metro mayors and combined authorities are transforming the landscape. We have seen the next step in English devolution in recent weeks and months, with exciting reforms pushing power outwards. By contrast, a tired SNP Government are pulling power inwards through quangos and direction from the centre.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I was struck by what the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), said about the roots of the Scottish Parliament and the constitutional convention. Those of us who were part of that movement believed that there was a better way for Scotland to be governed, but things have moved on, and now the Parliament is seen as an exercise merely in asserting national identity. Does he agree that if we got back to the Scottish Parliament being about a better delivery of Scottish services for Scottish people, the difficulties that he is identifying would very quickly be solved?
Chris Kane
I completely agree—that goes back to what I was saying. Donald Dewar said:
“A Scottish Parliament. Not an end: a means to greater ends.”
If we all remembered to think about the evolution of devolution, and strived to make it as good as it can be, we would all be doing the people of Scotland a service.
The risk of divergence between Scottish devolution and English devolution is stark. Glasgow is the UK’s fourth largest city, yet without a metro mayor or combined authority, it has no mechanism to secure trailblazer deals, as Greater Manchester and the West Midlands have. If Glasgow performed at the level of its peers, Scotland’s GDP could rise by an amount equivalent to our entire oil and gas sector—that is the real prize of real devolution. Scotland’s eight cities, including Stirling, should be able to debate what greater devolution would mean for our economies and communities.
Partnership requires honesty, however. The Verity House agreement promised “no surprises” but within months, Ministers imposed another national council tax freeze without consultation. That is not partnership; it is central direction. If we are serious about devolution, we must be serious about accountability. Audit Scotland and the National Audit Office should deepen collaboration. Joint funding streams must be scrutinised coherently. Public trust depends on transparency.
Devolution was never meant to be a one-off event. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has long warned that Scotland is now one of the most centralised countries in Europe. While England powers ahead, our councils are squeezed, our communities feel remote from decision making, and our cities risk falling behind. What Scotland needs is a new phase of devolution: more fiscal autonomy for councils, genuine partnership with national Government, more powers for communities through development trusts, community councils and other bodies, and the option of combined authorities or mayors where local people want them.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Back in the early ’90s, I was just out of school and getting involved in politics. It was an exciting time, with a constitutional convention, excitement about a new Parliament, and decision making coming closer to home. People in Scotland had the right to decide on whether to have devolution with a Scottish Parliament or keep power at Westminster—and they chose well!
The Scottish Parliament’s early years featured some of the most well-known names in Scottish politics: Donald Dewar, Winnie Ewing, Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon, Jack McConnell, Annabel Goldie, Jim Wallace and, of course, our current First Minister and SNP leader John Swinney, whose public service and commitment to Scotland remains second to none. I add to those names George Reid, who sadly passed away recently. He was respected right across this House and the Scottish Parliament.
The formation of the Scottish Parliament marked my first employment in politics, for former MP and MSP Alasdair Morgan, who retired in 2011 after a distinguished period as Deputy Presiding Officer in the Scottish Parliament. My introduction to politics—working for an MP and MSP, as many in the Scottish Parliament were in its first couple of years—fired up my own desire to go further in politics and become an elected councillor, then a council leader and now a parliamentarian in this place. I did that because of my desire to improve the lives of the people I represent and the people right across Scotland, which is the same reason that colleagues right across the House got into politics.
The Scottish Parliament has led the way in many areas of policy. On tackling child poverty, it is the only part of the UK in which child poverty has fallen. The Scottish child payment of £27.15 a week, introduced by the SNP, has been praised by numerous highly respected charities and organisations in tackling child poverty. On social security, the formation of social security—
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but the Scottish child payment is not just praised by charities; it was their idea. The Child Poverty Action Group campaigned for it for a long time and the Scottish Government opposed it. It was parties in Opposition and charities who made it happen, so they do not just praise it. We should congratulate them on their long campaign that made it happen, and I hope he will join me in that.
Graham Leadbitter
The point made is entirely reasonable and I commend the work done by charities and third sector organisations over many years in highlighting that and a wide range of issues. I am grateful that the hon. Member acknowledges that the Scottish Government responded to those concerns and took action, demonstrating exactly the power the Scottish Parliament can have and the difference it can make.
On social security, we introduced the carer’s allowance supplement. We mitigated the bedroom tax and increased the employment rate for disabled people, without resorting to cutting vital welfare support.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
I am very much enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s speech reflecting on the many experiences of devolution that have inspired us, but on the point around employment and disabled people, will join me in saying that it is regrettable that the Scottish Government decided to cut employability funding for disability schemes in 2024-25?
Graham Leadbitter
I take the hon. Member’s point, but the fact remains that the personal independence payment is currently under threat from the UK Government. That will have a devastating impact on disabled people, and many Labour Members on the Government Benches would agree with that.
On the economy and taxation, we have a more progressive income tax system. More than 50% of people working in Scotland pay less tax than they do elsewhere in the UK. I fully support that as a higher rate taxpayer.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Does he accept the fact that PIP is devolved in Scotland?
Graham Leadbitter
It is the adult disability payment in Scotland, rather than PIP. Fundamentally—I am sure the hon. Lady knows this—if the UK Government decide to cut a vast amount out of the social security system, that will have a really significant impact on the Scottish budget. Week after week, Labour Members call for more money to be spent on certain things in Scotland, but at the same time they seem to be suggesting a substantial cut to the Scottish budget with the change to the social security budget.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Graham Leadbitter
Can I respond to the first intervention first?
If a substantial budget cut comes through on the back of that, that will have a serious impact on what the Scottish Government can do, whatever colour that Scottish Government may be following the next elections.
Johanna Baxter
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. He talks about a budget cut to the Scottish Government, but does he not recognise that this Westminster Government have actually given the Scottish Government the largest funding settlement in the history of devolution? What has happened to the money?
Graham Leadbitter
I gently remind Labour Members that every single year should be the largest devolution budget, because inflation goes up every year. There has not been a negative inflationary year in my lifetime, so it should be going up every year. There should be a record settlement every single year. That is just inflation. That is basic economics. I know those on the Government Benches struggle with that sometimes.
On council tax and water charges, we have the lowest in the UK. We are, for over a decade, the top destination outside London for foreign investment. Since the SNP came to power in 2007, GDP per capita has grown in Scotland by 10.3% and by 6.1% for the rest of the UK.
There are things that have been done, both by the Labour and Liberal Executive in the first few years of the Parliament and by the SNP Government since 2007, that have delivered substantial benefits for the people of Scotland. On health, briefly, we have had more GPs per head than any other part of the UK for the past five years; they are also the best paid, recognising the challenge and importance of that role. Scotland’s core A&Es have been the best performing in the UK for nine years, with lower average waiting times. We have abolished prescription charges and, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) referred to, we have free eye examinations as well. In addition, more than 1,000 school building projects have been completed since 2007, and 96% of our school leavers go into further training, further education or workplaces.
In his submission to the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross described this place as the parent of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, but I would describe the Scottish people as the parent of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government through the Scottish Constitutional Convention. I very much commend the hon. Member for his work in that role. Fundamentally, I would say that the parent of the Scottish Parliament is the Scottish people who voted for it and who continue to back it and elect it and the Government.
That brings me to my final point. The Scottish Parliament is on a journey. It was formed in 1999 and has continued on a journey.
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Gentleman will have heard other people make the point about that journey and the need for it to go from the Scottish Parliament down to communities. One of the most clamant cases for that journey to continue relates to the administration of the Crown Estate. We now see Crown Estate Scotland behaving in exactly the same way that the Crown Estate did when it was answerable to the Treasury here in London. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his colleagues in the Scottish Government should be devolving control of the Crown Estate—especially the marine estate—to communities like mine in Shetland?
Graham Leadbitter
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think the point he is making is reasonable up to a point. We need to be very careful when talking about energy being a matter of national security—
Graham Leadbitter
Well, the seabed is very important for our energy infrastructure, so we need to be really careful about how we deal with that and how we handle that. I would not be averse to having a fuller debate and discussion about the devolution of Crown Estate assets to local communities, but we do need to be careful around the energy links to that and how that could play out to ensure that we maintain the national security of our energy and grid infrastructure.
Mr Carmichael
What the hon. Gentleman seems to be saying is that Shetland could not control our own seabed. Does he maybe think we are too wee and too poor for that?
Graham Leadbitter
I think the right hon. Gentleman is twisting what I am saying a bit. We are in the realms of getting into a debate about an entirely different subject. I agree with him to an extent—having been a council leader, I have always argued very strongly for more devolution to local government. I made that point very strongly when I attended the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities leaders meeting, and I will continue to do so. I am sure there are many other internal debates within other parties over where powers should rest on particular issues, too. I will continue to make those arguments with colleagues.
I started off by saying that the people of Scotland made the decision—what I believe to be the right decision —to form the Scottish Parliament, and we are now on a journey. My colleagues in the SNP and I believe that that journey will reach independence, and that will then be a new journey with where we go from there. Fundamentally, it is for the people of Scotland to decide. Ministers and others across the House have recognised that the people of Scotland are sovereign and that it is their right to choose and decide; what they have not set out is how they can choose and decide. That is the responsibility of the current UK Government.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
I commend the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this important debate.
Before devolution, Scotland-specific Bills in this place were few and far between—often single digits per year—even though our health, education and legal systems have been completely different for centuries. Decisions that shaped people’s lives in Scotland were made elsewhere, without the understanding or accountability that they deserved. That is why so many of us, myself included, campaigned passionately for devolution. Like others in the Chamber, my belief in devolution was forged in the 90s in the run up to the ’97 referendum. My memories of the campaign, polling day and result will be with me for the rest of my life. The feeling of hope that we had will also stay with me for the rest of my life.
We wanted decisions about Scotland’s schools, hospitals and communities to be made by a Parliament rooted in Scotland but still part of the wider United Kingdom. It was about giving Scots a stronger voice within our Union, bringing democracy closer to the people, improving accountability and delivering better government. It was also about pooling and sharing and being grown-ups. For a time, that promise felt real. It felt good. But the promise has been squandered. Even with extra powers over the years and a record £52 billion settlement this year from the Labour Government at Westminster, the SNP Scottish Government have failed to make devolution work for the people it was created to serve.
I look at my own constituency and the evidence is stark. Many of my constituents are still languishing on NHS waiting lists. It is shocking that in NHS Lanarkshire alone, more people have waited over two years for treatment than in the entirety of England.
Seamus Logan
What I find distressing is how Labour Members are always talking down the health service in Scotland, but you avoid mentioning—
Seamus Logan
I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Member and other Labour colleagues often refer to problems in the health service in Scotland, but they never point to the fact that Scotland’s waiting times for cancer from diagnosis to treatment are better than in any other part of the UK. They do not point to the fact that waiting lists in Scotland are falling while waiting lists in England are rising and have been for three months now. There are many, many other problems—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman could have chosen to contribute by making a speech.
Katrina Murray
I refer the hon. Gentleman to my life experience before coming to this place as a member of staff within the health service. I worked through the pandemic when we used the red, amber and green statuses to indicate how waiting lists were. We did not just have red, amber and green stages. We created a purple status for when there were serious capacity issues that warranted more than a red status. We then moved to black status if it got too serious for status purple. One of the reasons I am in this place is the 14 months that I worked with colleagues through that. Nobody who is trying to provide healthcare should have to do so when working in situations that go way beyond an emergency.
The situation within the health service was highlighted several weeks in a women’s lowland league football match in my constituency, when a Linlithgow Rose player who was injured during a match with Cumbernauld United Ladies lay with a broken leg for five hours on a Sunday while waiting for an ambulance to be dispatched.
Melanie Ward
With reference to the previous intervention, I wonder what my hon. Friend, who knows so much about the NHS in Scotland, makes of the fact that the Scottish Government’s target for cancer treatment —that 95% of patients are treated within 62 days of an urgent referral—has not been met since 2012.
Katrina Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Certainly, the experience was that the Scottish Government were good at setting targets but never good at making sure those targets were met. I see the toll of that every week, with people living in pain, losing mobility and struggling with their mental health. They look at the improving picture south of the border and ask, “How much longer do we have to wait?” What they are hearing is, “Actually, this crisis is business as usual.”
NHS staff are being failed by the very system that devolution was meant to strengthen. [Interruption.] I heard a heckle from a sedentary position. NHS staff in Scotland pay higher rates of income tax and significantly higher rates of pension contributions, so the take-home pay of an NHS band 6 nurse in Scotland is not necessarily different from a band 6 nurse in England.
The problems do not end with health. Across Scotland, the fire and rescue service is consulting on cuts that firefighters, their unions and the public fear will cost lives. The service faces a capital backlog of £800 million. That is not just a Government asleep at the wheel but one who are failing to protect one of our most vital public services. My constituents know too well the threat that fire poses from the serious fire at Blairlinn industrial estate that injured six people and the destruction by fire of the iconic St Mungo’s church: a listed building and landmark seen from across the constituency that is now gone. That is a failing of scrutiny and a failure of priorities.
The SNP Government are distracted. They are more interested in constitutional division than in fixing the problems that our communities face. The Labour Government have delivered record investment for Scotland’s public services, but ask anyone on the ground—no one can see what the SNP has done with the money.
I remember the hope of 1999 when the Scottish Parliament was first elected. It was full of passion, full of debate and full of co-operation. Members disagreed— often strongly—but they shared a common purpose to make Scotland fairer, healthier and more prosperous. They passed legislation; as we have heard, some of it was groundbreaking. That is the spirit that Scotland needs again.
The need for change is clear. Scotland is full of ambition, potential and opportunity. We have world-leading businesses, unique natural resources and global brands that command respect across the world. We are world leaders in renewable technology and home to cutting-edge scientific and tech institutions and renowned research-intensive universities. We need a Scottish Government who share the same hopes and aspirations for the future as we do on the Labour Benches to make devolution work and to take full advantage of everything Scotland has going for it. We face a clear choice: do we keep circling the constitutional cul-de-sac that the SNP have led us down or do we choose to move forward with the strongest devolution settlement and a new direction for Scotland?
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Devolution sounds like, and should be, a fantastic opportunity. It should bring decisions closer to home with policies that fit the uniqueness of local areas and communities such as mine, where accountability and impact are more closely linked. That is the theory but in practice, certainly in Scotland’s case, the reality is very different. Devolution has become a fight for power—for the power, but not for the responsibility—and it has become about pushing party and personal ideology rather than what is actually best for the public and the businesses which we are meant to serve.
Since 1999, we have seen so much power, indeed more power than any other devolved nation in the world, devolved to Scotland, or more specifically, as others have mentioned, to Holyrood, because that is where in Scotland devolution ends. What we see in Scotland is a level of bureaucracy, red tape and top-down decision making that stifles any opportunity for devolution to properly trickle down to benefit all regions and communities across Scotland.
We can look at the evidence. In Scotland, 53% of planning decisions appealed to the Scottish Government are overturned by Ministers; in England, by contrast, local decisions are upheld 70% of the time. On policing, the SNP merged eight regional police forces into one nationalised central body. In doing so, it scrapped local police boards run by local councils and replaced them with a single national authority appointed by, and accountable to, Scottish Ministers. The result is that since its creation over 140 stations have closed, creating what the Scottish Police Federation has itself called policing deserts and an “almost invisible policing presence” across great parts of the country.
There are also of course endless examples of devolution putting our businesses at a disadvantage compared with others across the UK, including on business rates. Business rates are devolved and when the last Conservative Government introduced 75% rate relief for hospitality south of the border, that was not replicated in Scotland. Businesses in Scotland had to wait years for a similar relief, which, when it was finally introduced, was less generous than elsewhere.
In education we have seen years of decline in Scottish standards. In 2006, Scotland proudly had students who were the best in the UK at maths. But now, after years of the SNP curriculum for apparent excellence, our PISA score has plummeted by 35 points and we are trailing well behind England. That is a generation of young Scots being failed by the SNP. Why in Scotland, after almost 20 years in office, has the SNP seemingly been so content to let education standards slip and slip while over the past decade, when Conservatives were in government at Westminster, we saw standards and international rankings rise south of the border? Why, other than for the need to just do things differently, would we not look at the rising standards elsewhere in the UK and think for just one minute that maybe for the sake of the next generation of Scots we could learn from what is happening elsewhere in the UK?
There is also a huge amount of incoherence between different policies in devolved areas. Pensioners in Scotland with an income of £35,000 are considered to have a low enough income to be eligible for the winter fuel payment, which of course is welcome after Labour decided to balance their books on the back of our poorest pensioners, but how does this square with the SNP Government considering workers on a salary as modest as £30,000 to be wealthy enough to be taxed more than those in the rest of the UK? Was devolution really set up as a vehicle to see teachers and doctors and police officers based and working in Scotland taxed more and taking home less pay than those doing the same job in the rest of the UK?
For devolution to be considered a success, we should be able to see it and feel it, but even objectively these benefits are very hard to find. I know there have always been those saying and pointing out that we get things for free, like free prescriptions or certain bus travel or university education, but these are not free; they are taxpayer-funded—funded at the expense of something else and funded at the cost of higher taxes for people and businesses across Scotland.
The Scottish Government are receiving from the UK Government over £2,500 more per person to spend than is the case in England. Why then are our outcomes not streaks ahead of those south of the border? Why is our education system failing children? Why are universities almost at the point of collapse? Why is life expectancy lower in Scotland and our drug deaths the highest in Europe? Why are NHS capital projects being paused, including the Ellon health centre in my constituency? There is chronic underfunding and under-investment in our roads, including the A96 and the A90 in Gordon and Buchan. Scotland’s employment rates are lower than those in the rest of the UK. Why are local authorities on their knees due to a lack of funding? If devolution had been made to work for Scotland, it would surely be at least equal to the rest of the UK in all those regards. If successive Scottish Governments had focused on their job and on actual devolved competences, maybe—just maybe—Scotland would have outperformed the rest of the UK, but it has not. Why? Because since devolution, successive Scottish Governments have not wanted to take the responsibility as well as the power. They have preferred to point fingers to cover their own incompetence, rather than hold themselves accountable. If what I describe had happened, or even begun to happen, over the last 25 years, maybe devolution could be seen as a success for Scotland. Until that does happen, I struggle to accept that it has been.
Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this debate. As a Labour politician, I am immensely proud of my party’s commitment to devolution and our delivery of the Scottish Parliament, and I will always be grateful to those who have gone before us, such as my constituency predecessor John Smith, who fought tirelessly to bring the decision-making process closer to home.
In the formative years of the Scottish Parliament, it was the Labour-Liberal coalition that delivered the smoking ban—an innovative policy that considerably improved the public health of the Scottish population and reduced the number of primary-aged children inhaling second-hand smoke by 39% within a year. The same coalition oversaw an education system that was recognised as being one of Europe’s best. Indeed, in those formative years, £3 million of initial funding was set aside for international development, particularly in Malawi. That developed an already strong relationship between the people of Scotland and that country, and committed the Labour-Liberal coalition to tackling global health and wealth inequality, reducing infant mortality rates in Malawi and improving educational standards. The delivery of free personal care for the elderly was a transformative domestic policy that set Scotland on a path to being a more compassionate society, and it secured dignity for our elderly population. It was us putting the principles of devolution into action.
That was always the change that devolution was intended to make, and it is pretty telling that even though significant time has since passed, the policies I mention remain to this day some of the most significant achievements of the Scottish Parliament. The reality is that the SNP, Conservatives and now Reform UK thrive when Scotland is divided. Their record of poor delivery, incompetent governance, money wasted and vanity projects is clear to see, yet they are all as comfortable as one other in hiding behind the constitutional question.
Richard Baker
My hon. Friend has mentioned Reform UK, which is apparently a recent convert to devolution. Does it tell us all we need to know about how much it values devolution, Scotland and its future that there is not one Member from that party in the Chamber this afternoon?
Kenneth Stevenson
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Devolution opened the door for the delivery of good legislation. It was an opportunity for devolved Assemblies and Parliaments, whose politicians were closer to home, to deliver positive change for the people they represented. However, for almost two decades, Scotland has been held back. Eye-watering amounts of public money have been wasted, our once-great education system has seen standards plummet, and the poverty-related attainment gap remains stubbornly wide, with the gap between pupils achieving an A to C grade at higher level sitting at 17.1 percentage points this year.
Like my Labour colleagues, I want devolution to succeed. I want the Scottish Parliament to deliver for Scottish people. I want the people of Scotland to look at their Parliament and recognise it as a place where good things get done in the interests of working people. However, under nationalist leadership, it has increasingly become a talking shop, where blame gets passed and responsibility and accountability are avoided.
It saddens me to say it, but through no fault of our public sector workforce—it is a consequence of SNP incompetence—those who live in Scotland have a one in six chance of being on an NHS waiting list. GP appointments in towns such as Shotts in my constituency are hard to come by. Rail fares are exorbitant. Those who are educators, as I was, are working with diminishing resources, and pupils from poorer backgrounds still face greater barriers to educational and vocational success. Indeed, with the opportunities now afforded to young people as a result of this Government embracing the potential of artificial intelligence, the SNP’s political choice to neglect our further education and vocational sector becomes increasingly inexcusable.
This is not the Scotland we envisaged when we held the devolution referendum and the first set of Scottish parliamentary elections. This is a Scotland that has been stopped in its tracks, due to the lack of ambition shown by its SNP Government, and their unwillingness to do anything about growing the economy, increasing investment or showcasing Scotland as a proud part of the United Kingdom.
Melanie Ward
My hon. Friend rightly mentions the crucial role that further education plays, both in our communities and in our economy. Does he recognise that the reality is that, in my area, Fife colleges are receiving real-terms cuts from the SNP Scottish Government, whereas colleges in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen are receiving increases? Those areas are having their funding increased, whereas Fife is having its funding cut.
Kenneth Stevenson
The whole further education system across Scotland needs to be looked at rather rapidly. Things are moving quickly, and we are now becoming a skills economy, with skills not just in AI, but in other things. A lot of companies want to move into Scotland, and they want a good, well-funded further education college close to the place they locate to.
I am immensely proud of the investment that this Labour Government have put into Scotland. The largest financial settlement in the history of devolution is being delivered to improve the lives of working Scots in Airdrie and Shotts and beyond. This reaffirms Labour’s commitment to devolution, and its pride and passion for Scotland’s potential. This debate has reflected on the past and the progress of devolution, but this historic settlement could define its future. The people of Scotland will have the opportunity to elect a Scottish Labour Government next year, to invest in our NHS and to grow our economy, so that it works once again for working men and women.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for bringing forward this debate, and for the way in which he did so. This is always a useful exercise: let me start off by being consensual. [Interruption.] I know that will astonish my Conservatives colleagues. There is always a place for legislators learning from one another. In my time working in the European institutions, that is what we used to do, and the same goes for these islands. To be fair, the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), also touched on that point, and it was good to hear about her experiences of Holyrood, as well as those of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross; it enriched the debate.
Stephen Gethins
I have barely started. Let me make a bit of progress, and maybe I can take the hon. Gentleman’s point shortly.
There is so much that we can learn, and there is always a way to learn. I know from my experiences here that there may be something that this place could learn from Holyrood. I remember taking part in seizing control of the Order Paper, simply so that Members could have a say. That is something we never have to do in Holyrood. I can remember a minority Government—only just a minority—in 2017 nearly keeling over because they were just short of a majority and yet refused to speak to the other parties, the Democratic Unionist party notwithstanding. They spoke to the DUP, but that was pretty much it. We have seen the catastrophe caused by the culture in this place, and the damage that did. Labour and the Liberal Democrats have acknowledged that.
Harriet Cross
I want to pick up on the point about working with other parties to get a majority. The first thing that comes to mind is the SNP’s venture with the Scottish Greens after the last election in Scotland. Would the hon. Member reflect on how damaging that was, particularly for north-east Scotland, whether we are talking about upgrades to our roads, or the impact on our oil and gas sector?
Stephen Gethins
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention.
What I find more surprising is that we have had only one majority Government during the period of devolution, yet every Government, regardless of their colour, and every party that has been a part of government—except the Conservatives, who struggle electorally in Scotland, which speaks to the wisdom of the Scottish electorate—have served their full term. In my time as an MP, we have one minority Government, led by the Conservatives. It collapsed in a heap and cost the taxpayer £40 billion a year—there was more waste emanating from this place than the Scottish Government’s entire budget, and the Conservatives bear huge responsibility for that.
On accountability, we sit in a Parliament where we have to pass an Act of Parliament just to get rid of a Member of the House of Lords. I have heard Members complain about those who sit in the House of Lords, be it Peter Mandelson or Michelle Mone. Are they accountable? Are they accountable to the electorate in the way that every single Member of the Scottish Parliament is? [Interruption.] I will happily give way on the point about Peter Mandelson if the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) wants to come in. No? Okay.
Every single Member of the Scottish Parliament is elected, and we could learn from that enormously in this place. It is a disgrace that it needs an Act of Parliament to remove a Member of the legislature, who has got a job for life, and I would love it if Labour would at long last deliver its 115-year-old manifesto commitment, but I fear we will be waiting at least another 115 years.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross on his speech, but I beg to differ with him on one area, and today I have to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter): I do not think we should present the idea that the parent of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government should be minding its disappointing children. I am sure that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross would agree, on reflection, that the parent of the Scottish Parliament was in fact the Scottish people in the referendum; that has been acknowledged by all sides. I am sure that he will reflect on that.
To be fair, Westminster has not been much of a parent these past few years. We saw austerity during the Labour and Conservative years; we saw Brexit; and we see that our neighbours have much more powerful legislatures at sub-state level. The Faroe Islands, the Åland Islands and Greenland are sub-state, non-independent actors that can determine their relationship with the European Union, and can even determine whether they want an independence referendum.
The Scottish Parliament is a relatively weak legislature compared with others in Europe, but despite that, child poverty is reducing, and social security is dealt with respectfully. When the Labour Government made the woeful mistake in their opening days in government of getting rid of the winter fuel payment, the Scottish Government, with their limited resources, stepped up. The Labour Government have criticised the fact that Scottish Water is in public hands; that astonishes me, but it remains in public hands because of devolution, and the move towards 100% renewables came about because of devolution.
There are some areas where we can learn from Westminster. I have served on Committees in this place, and they work well. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross will be aware that, because of the structure that was put in place, Committees are part of the legislative process. There are always things to learn, and we need to acknowledge that.
Chris Kane
The hon. Gentleman has talked about the need for different legislatures to learn from each other. Ater 10 years of COSLA saying to the Scottish Government that funding for local government has been stripped to the bone, libraries are closing, swimming pools are closing, schools are underfunded, our teachers are at their wits’ end in the classroom, and the ones who want to be in the classroom cannot get a job because there is not enough money. What has his party learned from COSLA, after 10 years of its pleas for local government to be funded better?
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Member sounds very helpless, but there is quite a lot he could do about things, since the overwhelming majority of the Scottish Government’s finances still come from Westminster and the Chancellor. He will find that Scottish local government is in a better situation than its counterpart down in England, which has seen tremendous cuts from the Conservatives, and then from the Labour party as well.
Let me conclude on this. We should learn from each other. I look at all parts of these isles to see what we can learn. I have talked about Westminster, so let me touch on Wales. Members such as the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) were right to talk about Reform. Tomorrow there is a by-election in Caerphilly, which will reflect how people feel about what happens when Labour is in control of the devolved Administration in Wales. Looking at those polls, it is not for me to tell the people of Caerphilly how they should vote, but the hon. Member is right that Reform is a threat to devolution. I hope that Plaid Cymru wins in that election tomorrow given the threat from Reform and given that the other parties—Labour included—are so uncompetitive on that.
In this family of nations, Members are right to talk about a new relationship. Taking us out of the EU against our will was a profound change in that relationship. I was grateful to hear the concessions from the Secretary of State for Scotland today around an independence referendum.
Finally, I will reflect on the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross saying that nothing is forever. Nothing is forever. This place could not be forever in its control over Scotland, so let me finally bring this up: Labour and Liberal Democrat Members mentioned the claim of right for Scotland. The claim of right—I took this from a House of Commons Library paper—acknowledges the
“sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs”.
That is something we would call for each and every day.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Hon. Members may be aware that in May the people of Scotland sent 37 Scottish Labour MPs to this place—and a diverse bunch we are. It probably ages me to note that when my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) speaks shortly, he may talk about the referendum, and he will mean the one in 2014, when he was just too young to vote, whereas when I talk about the referendum, I mean the one in 1997, for which I was just too young to vote.
Of course, that 1997 referendum asked whether there should be a Scottish Parliament and if it should have tax-varying powers. At the time, I remember feeling that if I had been old enough to do so I would have voted yes to both. It was a long-held Labour manifesto commitment to bring decision making on hugely important issues—our health, education, community safety and economy—into the hands of the Scottish people. I still remember being in the car with my mum the day after the vote, listening to the news coverage and feeling excited that the result had been “yes, yes”. It felt like such a huge opportunity for all of us.
In his speech at the opening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, Scotland’s then First Minister, the late great Donald Dewar, said that the Scottish Parliament was
“first a hope, then a belief, then a promise. Now”
it is
“a reality.”
The question today is whether the SNP Scottish Government are using the reality of those significant powers they hold, together with record levels of funding —an extra £5.2 billion this year alone—to make the greatest possible difference to the lives of our people. I believe the answer is clearly no, whether through incompetence or by design.
The Labour-led Scottish executives, as they were when the Scottish Parliament was first formed, took bold decisions: banning smoking in public places, the fresh talent initiative and action on sectarianism—something that too often is overlooked in Scotland. They took action and, crucially, delivered results, and we need far more of that in our politics in Scotland.
Today’s reality for many in my constituency, and across Fife and Scotland as a whole, has been bitterly disappointing after almost two decades of SNP division, diversion and failure. One in six Scots languish in pain on NHS waiting lists—over 40,000 of them in Fife. Indeed, more people are waiting over two years for NHS treatment in Glasgow alone than they are in the whole of England. A third of ambulances wait at hospitals for more than an hour while the patients in them wait for a bed. Last winter, medics at my local hospital, the Victoria hospital in Kirkcaldy, had to set up a makeshift ward outside the hospital, because the queues of ambulances were so great. SNP Members may not think that that matters—they may think it is a record to be proud of—but that is not what my constituents feel at all.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Victoria hospital is not in my constituency, but it serves my constituents. Does the hon. Member share my concern that the proposed downgrading of the neonatal intensive care units in both Dundee and Fife will means that our constituents will have to travel much further for critical need, and that their premature babies will be far away from home?
Melanie Ward
I thank the hon. Member; I have seen the work she has been doing on this issue. It is essential that the special intensive care treatment available for premature and sick babies at the Victoria hospital does not change in any way. I wish the Scottish Government would get on and act to put at rest the concerns that our constituents no doubt share about that.
Jamie Stone
May I offer a warning from history? During the time of the coalition Government in Edinburgh, I pled the case for maintaining consultant-led maternity services based in Wick. No sooner did the SNP Government get in than the service was downgraded. Now mums have to travel huge distances to give birth, and the grisly fact is that one mother of twins gave birth to one child in Golspie and the other in Inverness. That is intolerable in this day and age.
Melanie Ward
I can feel the horror that the hon. Member feels for what his constituents have been put through because of that downgrade.
Johanna Baxter
My hon. Friend talks eloquently about the pressures on the health services in Scotland under the SNP Government. Does she share my concern about the dental deserts that now exist in Scotland? Just yesterday, a constituent contacted me to say that they had been told that their daughter would have to wait three years for an orthodontist appointment—or they could pay more than £2,000 and receive a private appointment in two weeks.
Melanie Ward
My hon. Friend makes an important point about something we see too frequently across Scotland: our people being forced to opt in to private healthcare because they cannot get treatment under the SNP’s NHS. That is completely unacceptable. I know that similar waits exist for assessments for autism and for mental health support. There is a crisis across Fife and the Scottish Government are refusing to give NHS Fife the support needed to try to make a difference.
The problems do not just exist in our health system; sadly, they also exist in our education system. Our educational outcomes in Scotland worsened this year, with the gap in attainment between the richest and poorest students growing, including in Fife; that happened after Nicola Sturgeon said that eradicating that attainment gap was the priority on which she wanted her record as First Minister to be judged. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) said earlier, Scottish Government failure on the targets they set for themselves is a hallmark of their time in office. The same Nicola Sturgeon proclaims her love of literature at book festivals, yet she was part of successive Governments who have presided over the closure of almost 100 libraries in Scotland.
On skills, we saw the UK Government having to step in recently to save a welding skills centre because the SNP Government refused to do so. The SNP Government’s indifference and often opposition to the highly skilled, highly paid jobs that the defence industry provides across Scotland and in constituencies such as mine has meant young workers missing out on the opportunity of a secure, highly paid job. It is also deeply irresponsible at such a dangerous time in the world, with Russian aggression in Europe right on our doorstep.
All those cuts stack up, while the bill to the taxpayer for SNP waste becomes ever more eye-watering: nearly £1 billion spent on Barlinnie prison, almost double the original cost; more than £400 million or four times the original estimate spent on two ferries, with one ferry still not in service eight years later; and let us not forget the costly shambles that was the deposit return scheme, flunked by the SNP and the Greens and described by the SNP’s leader in Westminster, the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), as a “self-inflicted wound”.
The purpose of devolution is supposed to be to take action in Scotland on Scotland’s problems, and to help to make our nation the best it can be. Yet too often that is not the reality under this Scottish Government, as a couple of examples from my own constituency show. At the peak of summer this year, when many businesses in Kinghorn and Burntisland were looking forward to making the most of tourism season, because we are blessed by beautiful beaches, the beaches were closed because sewage spills made the water unsafe to swim. Some of my constituents became physically sick because they had swum among sewage, yet the chief executive of publicly owned Scottish Water said over the summer that the concerns of my constituents “should not be overblown”. This issue has a real social and economic impact on people in my constituency, not to mention a health impact. It is the direct result of the SNP’s failure to invest in our sewerage network and in regular water-quality monitoring.
I wrote to the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy in August and received a response that began with a comparison between Scottish and English bathing waters. We are familiar with that: if we raise a problem in Scotland, we hear, “Well, it is worse in England.” Even if that were true, that is exactly why this Labour Government are taking tough measures to crack down on polluting water companies. Yet water quality is another devolved issue, creating significant problems that the SNP Scottish Government seem completely disinterested in solving.
Dr Arthur
My hon. Friend represents my home town, so it is always great to hear what is happening there. The UK Government inherited an awful situation from the Conservatives on water quality in rivers—that is beyond doubt—but in the UK we know how much sewage goes from sewerage systems into rivers. In my constituency, I have had dog owners concerned about what their dogs are eating on river banks, if I can put it politely. When I contacted Scottish Water, it could not even tell me the volume of sewage going into the rivers. Does she agree that this whole situation is unacceptable and that we have to discuss it more?
Melanie Ward
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The experience of dog owners in his seat has also been raised with me locally. In Kinghorn, some of my residents were promised action from Scottish Water five years ago, and nothing has happened. There is no justifiable explanation for that.
Another serious example is that of antisocial behaviour. Across Fife, this seems to be a growing problem. Just last week, some of my constituents were left terrified by appalling disorder involving up to 50 young people in Cowdenbeath. A police officer was assaulted, and residents in Cowdenbeath have said that they are scared to go out at night. I know my local police are doing their best to get on top of the issue and have a plan to try to deal with disorder that might take place over the Hallowe’en period, which residents are worried about. I have raised the issue with the local police inspector and discussed it with him, but the disorder was not an isolated incident. Surely it cannot be just a coincidence that this comes as police numbers across Scotland last year fell to their lowest since 2008. It is increasingly clear that more devolved action is needed in Scotland to tackle the problem of antisocial behaviour, because it makes lives miserable. We have to ask why it is not being taken seriously and why more is not being done about it by the Scottish Government.
I must say something about the number of tragic drug deaths in Scotland, which last year was the highest in Europe for the seventh year in a row. The National Records of Scotland has said that the total number of people dying from drug misuse in Scotland was more than 10,000 over the past decade. Drug deaths in Fife last year were almost double what they were in 2010, each one of them a tragic waste of life.
I has a meeting recently with some of the residents of Linktown in Kirkcaldy, who have a particular problem with that issue. Residents are deeply worried; they told me about families in which mothers had had four children, but only one child now remained alive because of the scale of drug deaths and the problem that we have. That is one example of why it is so frustrating to hear the SNP continuing to chunter on about independence and trying to distract from the very real problems across our communities, rather than getting on and solving them.
We were told that the referendum on Scottish independence was a once-in-a-generation referendum, and the Scottish people gave their verdict very clearly. There are so many issues that the SNP’s mismanagement, neglect and under-investment have caused over the last almost two decades, yet the SNP continues to show almost no interest in fixing them and tackling the problems that it already has the powers to solve. It is long past time that the SNP took devolution seriously and used it to improve the lives of our people.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I start by thanking the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for introducing the debate—it took us two goes to get here, but I thank him. I was inspired by his bravery in admitting that he was on the committee that oversaw the building of the Scottish Parliament, because I think it was 10 times over budget, but perhaps those are skills we can deploy to build ferries in Scotland. Perhaps they are already; I do not know.
It has now been 26 years since the Scottish Parliament was established with the promise of empowering our nation. For that to work, it has always been the case that the Government in Scotland need to have a can-do attitude. In the early years under Scottish Labour, the Government made significant progress, as we have already heard. We abolished tuition fees. We introduced a smoking ban, free personal care, and free bus passes for older people—that is one of my favourite ones—and we reintroduced the rail link to the Borders. One of the most amazing things that I read today was that during the 1999 to 2007 Parliaments, life expectancy in Scotland increased by 2.3 years. These are the wonders of a Labour Government. Of course, we also oversaw a vital expansion of social housing in Scotland, something that is needed today.
The pace of change during that era was incredible, as Scotland was finding its feet with its new Parliament, which felt like a bit of an experiment at the time but is now here to stay. In the two decades since then, however, the SNP Government have overseen a period of stagnation and decline across all of the same areas.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on including some positivity in his speech. Does he agree that we do not want my Gaelic brothers and cousins, the SNP Members who are sitting in front of me, to leave the Union? I want them to stay in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland forever, because we are better together. It is the money that comes centrally from Westminster that keeps the Scottish Parliament and its people going.
Something that perhaps has not been mentioned yet is that one of the advantages of devolution has been the tourism connections between Northern Ireland and Scotland—our cousins across the straits. Does the hon. Member agree that that is one of the things that is positive and good in the relationship between people from Ulster and people from Scotland? I am descended from the Stewarts of the lowlands of Scotland, so I am probably Scottish, maybe from before some people were—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Mr Shannon, I am sure we are all fascinated by from whom you are descended, but could I respectfully point out that Members who have not been in the Chamber for the bulk of this debate should not be making lengthy interventions?
Dr Arthur
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Earlier, we heard about how the Scottish child payment has cut child poverty in Scotland. That is something that we all welcome, but it has only happened because of the Barnett consequentials that come to Scotland—because of those, public spending in Scotland is higher. If they were to go overnight, which some people want, Scotland as a whole would be poorer. I am convinced that Scotland will never vote to be poorer.
Getting back to the speech and my positivity, over the past year in this place, we have seen a real enthusiasm and energy about devolving powers to local democracy in England. That is something I see every single week on the Transport Committee—a lot of the powers being rolled out relate to transport—and we can see the difference that Andy Burnham is making in Manchester. It is a real shame that in Scotland, we do not see the same transfer of powers from the centre, Holyrood, into local authorities. Without a doubt, that is what is holding Scotland back.
The situation of housing in Scotland is particularly disheartening. After the Scottish Government declared a national housing emergency—one that they created through their cuts, but they did declare a housing emergency none the less—I expected to see a major and concerted effort to reverse the awful trend in the housing situation. Instead, the number of completed affordable homes fell this year by 22%, and new housing starts are also falling. There is a human cost to this. It is not just about statistics. In Scotland 10,000 children are living in temporary accommodation, and more people are living in temporary accommodation in Glasgow than in the whole of Wales. Those are incredible statistics, but we have to be careful: this is not a failure of devolution, but a failure of government.
Tourism, which was mentioned a few seconds ago, is a vital part of the Scottish economy, and a vital part of Edinburgh’s economy—it must employ at least one person in every street. However, the lack of decisive action has been clear. The Scottish Government are too focused on accumulating powers rather than using them. I love Edinburgh, and I am proud that people come from all over the world to see it, but I am sometimes ashamed of what they see. The amount of tourism coming into the city does have an impact, and the city itself gains very little direct cash benefit from the tourism industry. The solution was, of course, a tourist tax—about which I know my Conservative friends have their concerns.
I was on Edinburgh council between 2017 and 2024, and throughout that time we campaigned for a tourist tax power. Indeed, I think the council campaigned for it for nearly 10 years in the run-up to that. However, for reasons unclear to me, the SNP Government opposed it. Since then, they have started to support it, and more recently they have tried to take the credit for giving Edinburgh a power for which it had fought for years. They should be apologising instead, because their dithering has cost Edinburgh millions of pounds that could have been invested in our city to make it better for its residents and for the tourists who choose to come here. The prolonged guddle around the tourist tax raises serious questions about the SNP Government’s use of devolved powers.
Another fantastic example is the Scottish Government’s powers relating to the use of fireworks. I accept that the powers on fireworks are divided between this place and Holyrood, but I have met police officers in Edinburgh who have lasting injuries caused by fireworks, and indeed I have met police officers and fire brigade personnel who have had fireworks fired at them. I have met someone who runs a care home that was besieged by young adults with fireworks. Nevertheless, the Scottish Government say that there is insufficient evidence for them to take action on the use of fireworks in Edinburgh. It is absolutely mind-boggling: they could act, but they choose not to do so.
However, the most concerning issue relating to the use of powers in Scotland is healthcare, which others have already mentioned. As we heard earlier, this is not about NHS staff—such as my wife—but about how the NHS has been resourced and supported. Cancer waiting times were mentioned a few minutes ago; in Scotland they have never been worse. The situation is quite incredible for people who are waiting and waiting for a diagnosis, and it should shame us all. As of June 2025, 7,800 patients in Scotland have been waiting for in-patient or day-case treatment for more than two years, and in Edinburgh the number is 979. That figure stands in sharp contrast to the NHS England figure, which I think has also been mentioned: only 161 people, in a nation of about 50 million people, have been waiting for more than two years. Is that not incredible?
Devolution was never simply about giving Scotland more powers. It was always about wielding those powers with accountability—that important word—and competence, which is another important word, to improve the lives of people in Scotland. Rather than just being held on to, the powers should be used, and should be deployed to local authorities. Talking of local authorities, another issue is council tax. One of the reasons the SNP won the election in 2007 was its pledge to scrap council tax, but we are still waiting for that to happen. “Scrap the hated council tax” is the slogan that we have seen on billboards.
The current SNP Government have demonstrated a complete inability to meet their fundamental responsibility. Another example is shipbuilding. That Government own a shipyard in Scotland, which is fantastic, but they choose to send their own shipbuilding contracts to Poland and Turkey. Meanwhile, it is left to the UK Government—and let us give credit to the great work done by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) in this regard—to go to Norway to bring contracts to those Scottish yards. Where is the Scottish Government’s priority when it comes to shipbuilding? It is non-existent.
Patricia Ferguson
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is ironic that it is only because BAE Systems won the contract with Norway that it is able to give work to Ferguson Marine, which is owned by the Scottish Government, to keep it going? At the time, the Scottish Government were saying, “We will not have anything to do with defence procurement.” The irony of that is appalling, given that people’s jobs are at stake.
Dr Arthur
Yes, I do. It is fantastic that the contracts came from Norway to the UK, and they will keep households in jobs for many years to come. It is a fantastic vote of confidence in that workforce and the whole supply chain, but the very, very quiet thank you from the Scottish Government was utterly shameful.
It is time for a new Government who will not just set ambitious targets, but deliver them and improve the lives of people in Scotland. People will not be surprised to hear that I think that new Government should be led by Anas Sarwar.
I want to make one last point. We have spoken about parent and child Parliaments, and about levels of government. There is nothing that we can do here today to improve the relationship between the Scottish Government and councils in Scotland, but when we talk about the issues in Scotland, we have to remember that there is not a hierarchy of councillors, MSPs and MPs. We are all elected by the same people, we are all equal and we are all here to serve those people. If we use that kind of language more in our constituencies, residents will come with us on the argument about empowering our councils to make a real difference in our communities. That is the devolution that Scotland needs.
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
I welcome this debate and thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing it. I am acutely aware that this debate is not just an opportunity for reflection on the past, but a chance to look forward.
Over the past two decades, the Scottish Parliament has grown, matured and become a symbol of Scottish life. Its importance and impact on the people of Scotland is just as relevant as the day-to-day activities in this place, and perhaps even more so. When it comes to policy on education, housing and the NHS—what people might consider bread-and-butter issues—decisions are now made in Edinburgh.
When the Labour Government passed the Scotland Act 1998, it was an opportunity for us to tailor policy and solutions to Scotland, recognising its distinct identity and character, and bringing power closer to the people as part of our Union of nations. Devolution is one of my party’s greatest achievements, and I am pleased that this Government are working to renew the settlement.
The success of devolution can be judged on two tests. The first is a technical test of its structure and principles. Devolution renews the UK constitution, rejecting an old, centralised model of politics that was and is unfit for a modern United Kingdom. On that first test, devolution has been an overwhelming success, but power for power’s sake is not enough.
The second test is very simple: what has devolution delivered? The past 25 years must be judged on whether people in constituencies like mine feel that a positive and material difference has been made to their lives. There are many success stories from the last 25 years—stories that are an argument in favour of power being shared and spread out across the UK. We were the first UK nation to ban indoor smoking and the first country in the world to legislate for the right to access free period products, as already mentioned. But although there are successes, those holding devolved power have not always used it for good.
I was a councillor in Glasgow before I took up my place in this House, and I witnessed how, year on year, the Scottish Government would centralise power and cut funding for local authorities. In this respect, resources were pulled up, not pushed down. To be clear, the outcome of the second test of delivery is not a failure of devolution, but a failure of the SNP in power.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Just to explain why Labour is not in power and we are, I will list a few things we have done for the Scottish people and see what the hon. Member thinks: free tuition, free personal care, 1,100—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. An intervention is not a list of items. What is the question? Is there a question?
Pete Wishart
Does the hon. Member recognise the over 100 SNP achievements? I could list them if she wants, but I am not going to be allowed to do so. Does she recognise the real gains and progress that we have made in Scotland? [Interruption.] I know Labour Members like to shout down SNP Members—they are sitting here doing their usual gurn fest—but our substantial achievements surely should be recognised by the Labour party.
Maureen Burke
I do recognise the achievements of the Labour Government. [Interruption.] Can I carry on, please?
When the SNP Government took power in 2007, they promised to eradicate child poverty, but child poverty rates are just as bad today as they were then. The inequality gap has widened in other areas, too. The gap in positive outcomes for school leavers from the most and the least deprived areas has grown. This is driven by a failure in our schools, where the attainment gap between the richest and the poorest pupils has also widened. A record 10,000 children, too many of whom are from my city of Glasgow, are trapped without a permanent home and are growing up in temporary accommodation as Scotland’s housing crisis deepens. One in six Scots are waiting on an NHS waiting list, with at least 100,000 waiting for over a year for treatment—disgusting! Compare that with how this Labour Government are bringing down waiting times in England.
Against a backdrop of failure, next year’s Scottish Parliament elections are crucial to Scotland’s future. The year 2026 represents a chance to ensure that the next chapter of devolution is defined by delivery.
Maureen Burke
I will carry on, if the hon. Member does not mind, as I have nearly finished.
As I said at the start, the success of devolution can be judged on two tests. The first is about its structure and principles. I am pleased to say that devolution is now woven into the fabric of our nation, an achievement of which my party is very proud. However, on the second test—how devolved power has been exercised—I have concerns. That is why I am convinced that the only way to protect and enhance devolved power is for that power to be exercised by a Scottish Labour Government of vision and drive. The promise of devolution is the promise of a better Scotland, and I hope the people will vote for that next May.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing this important debate on the 25th anniversary of devolution.
My constituency of Edinburgh East and Musselburgh is home to many of Scotland’s jewels. It is a privilege to represent Edinburgh castle, Holyrood palace and the Edinburgh festivals and fringe, although I think the performers are safe given some of the jokes we have heard from Opposition Members. However, the most important building in my seat—indeed, in the whole of Scotland—is at the foot of the Royal Mile. Not only is it architecturally a huge addition to Edinburgh’s scenery, but it is where the Scottish political heart beats. Calling the Scottish Parliament the centre of Scottish political life may sound like a bland truism, but it is not. It is a huge achievement, and not to think so would be to underestimate the achievement of devolution. Before 1999, critics of devolution said that it would amount to an overgrown town council, cause a brain drain, or be of interest only to the political class, not ordinary Scots.
I am of the devolution generation: for as long as I can remember, devolution has simply existed. That devolution generation is now reluctantly facing middle age, but for us it has become a fact of life that the Scottish Parliament is the primary Parliament in which decisions that affect our lives are taken. The community groups and local businesses that I speak to orient themselves towards Holyrood. When they say “the Parliament,” they mean that place, not this one. That is testament to the Scottish Parliament’s success in establishing itself as the fulcrum of Scottish political life.
However, we should consider a counterfactual. Imagine if devolution had been thwarted. Our health service, education and justice systems and housing policy would all receive only scraps of parliamentary time, with little scrutiny and even less reform. That would be a democratic affront even now, when the Government have 37 Scottish MPs, but it would have been an outrage over the 14 years under the last Conservative Administration, with little Scottish representation. The Scottish Parliament has its flaws, but it has undeniably remedied that democratic deficit, and in so doing, has removed one of the greatest threats to constitutional stability in Scotland.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for organising this debate—he is as much an institution as the Scottish Parliament itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) speaks about the Scottish Parliament being the heartbeat of Scottish politics. Is it not time, in the next 25 years, to devolve power from Edinburgh to regions like mine and the highlands, to super-charge the Highlands and Islands Enterprise into a highland development agency, cutting out—shut your ears—those dynamos of economic activity, Inverness and the Moray firth, and to focus devolved power on transport, housing, depopulation and economic and cultural growth in rural areas of Scotland? Powers have been pulled back from them into a centralised Edinburgh.
Chris Murray
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The concentration of power in the Scottish Parliament does not work for cities, rural areas, the central belt or the highlands and islands, because it treats Scotland as one monolithic whole and does not address the differences in its communities.
That brings me to my next point. Although devolution has been successful in establishing the Scottish Parliament, we have to be honest about where it has fallen short. Many hon. Members have laid out a litany of failures: poorer health outcomes, falling schools standards that were once the envy of Europe, a housing emergency and stubbornly high poverty, and the drugs crisis, which shames us all. We once led the world in setting climate targets, but we now lead the world in ditching them. We must understand why that happened.
If we think of devolution only as the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, we get it wrong. In 1999, another institution was created—the Scottish Government, then the Scottish Executive.
Dr Arthur
I envy the jewels in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The Scottish Government—and the Greens, who were complicit—really got climate targets wrong. The targets were set in law and endorsed via an election, but they dumped them overnight. Is that not one of the most shameful things to have happened in Holyrood?
Chris Murray
My hon. Friend gets exactly to the nub of the issue. We have seen good debate, gestures and discussion in Scotland, but we have not seen the concomitant focus on policy, delivery and outcomes. The Scottish Parliament has been a success; the Scottish Government have not. It is important to draw that distinction.
A highly centralised structure has concentrated decision-making in St Andrew’s House, to the detriment of local communities. As we have heard, councils have had their funding and influence hollowed out. There has been a proliferation of quangos and agencies; there are now more quangos in Scotland than there are Members of the Scottish Parliament. That breeds a clientelism and elitism that shut ordinary people out of decision-making processes.
Wendy Chamberlain
The hon. Member is making a very strong and powerful point. Does he agree that, as a result of those quangos and the things he is describing, we have actually seen a loss of power to the Scottish Parliament, where MSPs are not getting the opportunity to put things forward? Often, that is because the Scottish Government are bringing forward framework Bills that do not have proper policy decisions, which is why the implementation of so many pieces of legislation ultimately fails.
Chris Murray
I think the hon. Lady may be psychic, because she makes exactly the point I am about to make. I could not agree with her more. What this breeds is a culture of gesture and tokenism. That means we side-step tough choices in Scotland. We duck the trade-offs that are required to implement policy change. We now have roundtables and co-production as substitutes for reform, and consultations and strategies as substitutes for action.
I would take that argument one step further. When Labour came to power in 1999, it set about tackling Scotland’s pressing problems, as the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), referred to: free bus passes; banning smoking in public places; repealing section 28, for which I will personally be forever grateful; and pursuing radical homelessness and housing reforms. But fundamentally, that policy agenda had been developed in the 1990s and the Government set about implementing it when they got in.
When the SNP took office in 2007 with its fundamental policy goal of independence, all policy development was shaped around that objective. I have to say that the fact that independence has not been realised has become the alibi for every policy failure on its watch. What that means is that the Scottish Parliament never became the policy development hub in Scottish political life. It was denuded of its ability to form ideas and for those to be turned into action, and to do the full spectrum of policy development in Scotland, such as identifying social problems, working through how reforms would work, weighing up the trade-offs, brokering the consent among the people and then turning those ideas into tangible reality in people’s lives.
I am a devolutionist not just because I believe in Scottish representation, but because I believe in the power of the state to change Scottish lives. The Scottish Parliament gave us the locus to debate that, but the Scottish Government have failed to give us the mechanism to operationalise and turn it into reality. It is my assertion that the Scottish Parliament now stands, along with Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and the Good Friday agreement, as a firmament of the British constitutional set-up. Donald Dewar said it should be not just an end, but a means to a greater end. We have the means now, but it is lamentable that we have not used them to achieve those ends.
The last 18 years have been heavy on argument, short on policy delivery. A different direction is needed to fulfil the promise of devolution, which is the devolved Government using the power of the state not to further their own ambitions, but to materially improve the lives of Scotland’s people.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
I congratulate my good friend the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing this debate, which he led with the same erudition and success with which he led the victorious Scottish Parliament “University Challenge” team against our dear colleagues in the Welsh Parliament. Madam Deputy Speaker, this was an early win for Scottish devolution. I know that this debate is particularly close to his heart, as it is to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) and to mine, as former Members of the Scottish Parliament, where we had the privilege to serve.
Today, more than 25 years after the Parliament opened in 1999, it is an appropriate point to look back over what has been accomplished through devolution. I remain proud that it was the 1997 Labour Government, through the Scotland Act, who paved the way to our Parliament. Since that principle has been established in Scotland, so many regions and cities across the UK have also embraced the principle of devolution with great success. As we look to the future of our constitutional settlement and reforms of this Parliament—independence for Scotland or further devolution is not the only constitutional debate we have—I hope we will see a greater role still for our nations and regions here, along the lines envisioned by Gordon Brown in the excellent report by his Commission on the UK’s Future.
That we have seen devolution of power across the UK since the foundation of the Scottish Parliament is, I believe, a positive reflection on devolution in Scotland being the settled and tested will of the Scottish people. Since 1999, significant additional powers have been devolved to Holyrood, not least around income tax. It is so disappointing, therefore, that while the Scottish National party has been quick to demand greater devolution of powers to Scotland, it has been unable and unwilling to devolve power to local communities in Scotland. This debate is titled “Devolution in Scotland”, but the sad fact is that there has been precious little devolution in Scotland under the SNP. Ministers in Edinburgh have centralised power at every turn and eviscerated the budgets of our local authorities.
What have the Scottish Government achieved with the powers they have so ruthlessly retained for themselves, instead of devolving them to local communities, and with the £5.2 billion additional funding given to the Scottish Government in the Budget this year? The SNP has presided over a rate of economic growth in Scotland that has lagged behind that in the rest of the United Kingdom, and it has failed to support our teachers and pupils. The reputation of our education system in Scotland —once the great pride of our country—has been battered because of the incompetence of SNP Ministers.
While NHS waiting lists in England are shrinking thanks to the investment secured by the Chancellor, and the successful stewardship of health services by the Secretary of State, Ministers in Scotland are squandering billions of pounds extra on our health services. In Fife, we face some of the longest waiting times for surgery anywhere in Scotland. The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) mentioned the sorry statistics on drug deaths in Scotland. The issue is taking a tragic toll on many communities and families in my constituency. On the wider provision of health services, particularly with regard to primary care, it was frankly beyond belief to hear some of the promises made by John Swinney on walk-in appointments at GP surgeries. Lochgelly in my constituency is still waiting for any indication that work will begin on a new health centre that is badly needed by the local community. SNP Ministers first promised it more than 15 years ago.
We have also discussed the centralisation of police and fire services in Scotland. What has been its result? Certainly in my constituency, police numbers are being cut in the face of rising concerns about antisocial behaviour. On fire and rescue services, Lochgelly faces the removal of a fire engine and a reduced number of firefighters, and another appliance is to be removed in either Glenrothes or Methil. It is no wonder that in a debate on devolution, SNP Members want only to talk about independence, given their woeful record in government under devolution.
What a contrast with what Labour Ministers in Westminster are delivering for Scotland, and what Scottish Labour offers next year—not a tired Government out of ideas, but a Government who will fix our NHS, restore our schools, close the opportunity gap, grow our economy and bring back community policing for safer communities. Labour will ensure that the record funding in public services in Scotland is not wasted, but actually results in the improvements that people expect, need and deserve. It is Labour Ministers who are actually devolving power on decision making, ensuring that communities have a real say in what will make a difference for them. Two pride in place schemes in Fife are bringing £40 million of investment into the communities where it is most needed.
In his famous address at the opening of the Scottish Parliament, Donald Dewar spoke of the
“shout of the welder in the din of the great Clyde shipyards”.
This Government have secured the future of 2,000 jobs at the Clyde shipyard with a £10 billion deal with Norway for new frigates. In my constituency, the Methil yard was saved from bankruptcy by the actions of this Government, as Ministers succeeded in ensuring that it was purchased by Navantia UK, along with Arnish in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), saving the jobs of 200 skilled workers and apprentices in Methil, and allowing the yard to look to a bright future.
Richard Baker
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those kind words. I am renowned for my modesty, as he knows. Equally modest are my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) and Labour Ministers, who did much work on these key issues for our local community.
In May, Scotland will have the chance of a bright future if it elects a new Government, who actually want devolution to work, with Anas Sarwar as First Minister. Scotland should replace a tired Scottish Government who have run out of ideas with new leadership that has already shown that it is ambitious for Scotland and ready to deliver on the promise of devolution.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
“Modesty” and “politicians” are not two words that you often hear in the same sentence. I call Brian Leishman—and I hope your cough is better.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Ind)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I appreciate it. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this debate.
The intense animosity that the Thatcher and Major Governments created made the prospect of more political power being based in Scotland highly attractive, but devolution has—so far, at least—been a let-down. The goal of taking meaningful decisions locally has not been realised, and that is pure political failure. Since devolution, local authorities’ ability to be vehicles for driving meaningful improvements to communities has been reduced because of underfunding. Power has been concentrated in big government in Edinburgh, and ironically the SNP has ended up repeating what happened under Thatcher and Major by diluting the influence of local councillors. Quite simply, communities need councils to be properly funded by the Scottish Government.
De-industrialisation, insecure employment, low wages and child poverty were all features of life in Scotland back in 1999, and they still are, because this year Scotland lost its oil refining capacity, meaning that hundreds of jobs are gone—and Grangemouth has pockets of the worst poverty in the country, according to statistics from the Scottish index of multiple deprivation. Elsewhere, 25% of children in Clackmannanshire will go to bed tonight living in poverty. Imagine being born into poverty, and existing—not living—in poverty, unable to escape it. That is the reality of life for millions of Scots today.
Another thing that negatively impacts life chances and the possibility of social mobility in working-class communities like mine is the collapse of the Scottish further education sector under this SNP Government, which other Members have mentioned. We have seen flat cash settlements, and funding for colleges reduced by 20% over the last five years. The principal of Forth Valley college says that if funding does not change, the Alloa campus will close in 2026, with Stirling set to close in 2027, and Falkirk more than likely to close in 2028.
Living standards and life chances are plummeting in Scotland. The SNP Government have been in charge for nearly two decades. This is on them. If any nationalist dares say, “What about Wales?” or “The statistics are worse in England”, then they are showing themselves up. By using someone else’s poverty and hardship as some sort of perverse justification for the abject failure of governance in Holyrood, they show that they are not the bastions of socialism that they say they are. Socialists know that poverty is a political failure when it impacts any and every community.
The report card for the Scottish Parliament says that it must do better, but let us be honest: the fact that councils are underfunded and colleges are in crisis is ultimately not because of a failure of devolution. The failures are down to the people in charge: this SNP Government. For the sake of devolution and for the sake of Scotland, we need a change next May.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
I welcome the debate, brought forward by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). As my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) pointed out, I am a member of the devolution generation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) said, some of us in that generation are still in our 20s. To the best of my knowledge, I am the first of Scotland’s national elected representatives to be born after the founding of the Scottish Parliament. Reflections on the successes and failures of devolution over the last 25 years are critical to the devolution generation.
The constitutional settlement may still be under debate in some corners, but I hope that one thing that unites us across the House is support for a Scottish Parliament, democratically elected by the people of Scotland. The eternal words of the Scotland Act 1998—
“There shall be a Scottish Parliament”—
echo proudly; they are not just the long-won prize of campaigning by politicians from this place and across Scotland, but a definitive decision by the Scottish people that there will be an institution governing many of our priorities that is directly representative of the Scottish people.
The Scottish Parliament’s existence has a far greater mandate than any individual politician or Government ever has or will have. In 1997, 80% of voters in Falkirk backed devolution. The first Scottish Parliament returned Cathy Peattie and Dennis Canavan as the two constituency MSPs for the Falkirk area—both people who have made an immense contribution to our public life. Devolution brought with it an electoral system that permitted a far preferable, if not perfect, representative voting system.
However, I say as a proud devolutionist that we cannot get caught in the trap of nostalgia, or defence of the status quo. Scotland’s Parliaments and two Governments must always do better in the interests of the Scottish people. That is not only their core purpose, but an essential antidote to the enemies of democracy, especially now.
The perception of my generation, who have only ever known devolution, and have not known a world before the Scottish Parliament, is at a critical juncture. One of the most remarkable conversations I had recently was with a group of young carers in my constituency. They were buzzing with remarkable suggestions and clear, pragmatic ideas about how their community could be improved. Those included ideas for, yes, support for carers, but also for more accessible high streets, for safety for women and girls, and for public transport—all core competencies of their local council or the Scottish Parliament.
We should strongly welcome the fact that there is a burgeoning generation of young representatives and leaders in Falkirk and across Scotland, and many of them have direct life experience of the systems that the devolved legislature has governed for the last 25 years. The question for us and our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament is: how, in this next phase of devolution, will we empower that generation to lead, and to make better decisions than those who came before them?
What sticks out to me when I have these refreshing conversations with bright, young Falkirk bairns is how much young people tend to agree on the priorities; on how politicians should collaborate to deliver them; and on how Governments should do things. I see how reasonable young people are when holding politicians to account, and how much of what they want to do and see is relevant to their area. One of the greatest assets that we have in the devolution generation is a generation who are engaged in their area, and who have the political language and skills to fight their community’s corner. That is progress. Votes at 16, secured in 2016 for Scottish parliamentary elections, are now to be delivered here, under this Labour Government.
However, an element of trust in our politics is being eroded, uniquely in Scotland. The issue is structural and long-term. I have no qualms about stating that Tory austerity was a predominant factor in the decline that we have seen on various fronts in Scotland and across the UK, but my constituents see that the devolved settlement has not manoeuvred strategically or effectively to maintain an achievable rate of progress under those circumstances. The challenge faced under devolution is common to this place, too: it is a lack of delivery that my constituents can see and feel.
Over 10 years ago, the former First Minister said that she wanted to prioritise, and be judged on, closing the attainment gap, but she barely made a dent in it. That gap between rhetoric and delivery undermines the public’s faith in Parliament as an institution, as does the lack of accountability afterwards, or the willingness to be held directly accountable for that failure.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
After a quarter of a century of Labour rule, child poverty in Wales is the worse than in all other nations of the UK. Is that the reason for the collapse in support for Labour in Caerphilly, and why, tomorrow, people will turn to Plaid Cymru?
Euan Stainbank
I imagine the people of Wales choose to vote in the same ways as the Scottish people do for the Scots. My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) put it very well: simply picking a different nation in the UK to tackle our policy issues is getting exhausting, especially on the nationalist Benches.
Not all but part of the problem with the failure to close the attainment gap, as many Members have mentioned, and a broader loss of trust in our politics, were due to disproportionate budget cuts that have landed at the door of local authorities. Having been a councillor for two and a half years, I know that they are at the coalface delivering the services in which our constituents have most acutely seen the evidence of decline. Even though council tax had been frozen for 11 out of the last 17 years of budget settlements, I was completely surprised at the stunt at the 2023 SNP conference which left councils with both arms tied behind their backs. The challenges we see in social care and infrastructure are tied in with local authorities. This is where politics is most tangibly felt by our constituents and it is currently failing them. Even with a £5.2 billion increase secured by us on these Benches for Scotland, Falkirk Council was allocated only an additional £5 million in revenue funding this year from the Scottish Government. Where has the rest of the money gone, John?
Colleges in Scotland, as again my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth touched upon, are at crisis point. With years of systematic underfunding from the Scottish Government seeing a 20% real-terms cut in funding over the past five years, many colleges have now shrunk their staff numbers and offered fewer courses for working-class students at a time when the skills they provide are at their most valuable. Forth Valley college has been put in the position of being an essential provider of training and skills, while Grangemouth undergoes an industrial crisis and requires major investment for transition. It is a hugely valuable local provider of jobs, opportunities and training, yet it is now consulting on the closure of its Alloa campus. Things are going in the wrong direction. Scotland’s civic infrastructure should have been enhanced and resilient and protected by devolution, but in too many places it has not been protected.
On the situation at Alexander Dennis, when it announced its consultation on 400 jobs and closing its only site in Scotland, there was, to their credit, engagement eventually from the Scottish Government, but that was 10 months after the company initially suggested it was going to depart Scotland if something was not done about the scandalous ScotZEB 2 scheme— Scottish zero emission bus challenge fund—sending less than 20% of orders to Scotland’s sole manufacturer. However, there have been improvements in how we in this place, under this Labour Government, work with the Administration in Edinburgh. As the Deputy First Minister accurately pointed out recently, the swift engagement from my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) in his time as Scottish Secretary was invaluable in ensuring that the conversation progressed quickly.
The truth is that when that sort of crisis arrives in one of our industrial assets—something we should all intrinsically value: a bus manufacturer that has existed long before the inception of the Scottish Parliament and long before any of us were around—action should have been taken much earlier, at strategic level, designing procurement through the powers the Scottish Parliament have to retain a pipeline of orders funded by taxpayer money for buses built in Scotland, not built in China.
Chris Murray
My hon. Friend is eloquently setting out a whole host of policy challenges that we face in Scotland, whether they are in industrial strategy, opportunities for the young or the provision of further education. Does he agree that when the Government of Scotland say that the answer to every single one of those challenges is independence, that shuts down any thinking on what we actually need to do to tackle the challenges and denudes Scotland of the ability to think through how we deal with the real issues that we face in our communities?
Euan Stainbank
I agree. It also undermines the message in section 1 of the Scotland Act 1998 that there shall be a Scottish Parliament with the powers to fix policy challenges. It is the reason we are proud devolutionists in this place: we want a Scottish Parliament that can address the issues under its competency. I agree that that reaction does shut down debate; it shuts down the idea that there is something better that we can achieve in all of our constituents’ interests.
As I said on Alexander Dennis, we should never have been in a position where a company warned about the loss of a critical and necessary industry in Scotland, especially as we seek to achieve our net zero goals, and it took over a year for decisive action to be taken to prevent it, albeit I welcome that. A devolved Government with a serious interest in standing up for Scotland beyond its being a slogan would not and should not have let it get to that point. Across this place, in the Scottish Government and in our councils that have been hard-pressed for far too many years under a Government who I hope get replaced next year, we must do better. Scotland demands better and Falkirk demands better.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this important debate.
The last Labour Government had many remarkable achievements, including Sure Start, the national minimum wage and the Human Rights Act 1998, but right up there among our proudest was delivering devolution to Scotland. That was our vision, rooted in the belief that communities are best placed to make local decisions that shape their lives. I know this might age me somewhat, but I was proud to be active in the campaign for the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and campaign for a Parliament that had tax-varying powers. Indeed, I still have my “Yes-Yes” t-shirt to prove it.
We have seen the success of devolution in London, Manchester and Liverpool, with better transport, more house building and more investment in grassroots sports. When power is put in the hands of those who know their communities best, devolution delivers. Yet I fear that the obsession of the SNP Government in Holyrood with seeking to rerun referendum after referendum has paralysed Government north of the border. Their endless fixation on independence has come at the expense of delivery. They promised more homes but built a housing crisis; they pledged to strengthen our NHS but put party politics over patients; and instead of serving Scotland they have sunk to sleaze and scandal.
Councils across our country are on their knees after funding cuts year after year. Local government funding in Scotland over the last 18 years has fallen by 42%, which is less than it would have been had it kept up with inflation. In a summer interview promoting her catalogue of career failures, Nicola Sturgeon admitted that she might leave Scotland “for a wee while”—the great champion for independence now fleeing the wreck her party has created. While London, Manchester and Liverpool reap the rewards of devolution done properly, for the last 18 years Scotland has been left with a Government more interested in constitutional games than the real business of governing. Although that might be a game to some of those on the Opposition Benches, the consequences for my constituents are very real, and I will speak to one example.
While the Scottish Government have been handed the largest funding settlement in the history of devolution by this Labour Government, in my constituency of Paisley and Renfrewshire South, the SNP-run health and social care partnership is swinging the axe on vital frontline services to plug a £19 million black hole in its budget that it created. Right now, it is holding voluntary severance talks across the partnership, cutting jobs and gutting and hollowing out services that have already been stripped to the bone.
Users of the Disability Resource Centre, which is a lifeline for people living with physical disabilities, many of whom reside in my constituency, now face a review of their fees and transport costs backdated to April. That potentially means bills of more than £1,000 hitting the doorsteps of some of the most vulnerable people in our community, driving them out the back door and slamming it shut on the vital services that they rely on across Renfrewshire.
Last year, the SNP locally was humiliated into a U-turn on a proposed merger of the Mirin and Milldale day centres after brave campaigners stood up to say no to cuts to the vital services their families rely on. Yet last month, the SNP dragged back the same cruel proposal, putting the same families through the same anguish all over again. It is cynical, it is calculated and it is downright cruel. Hon. Members need not just take my word for it. These are the words of Linda Murray, a member of the Renfrewshire Learning Disability Carers Group, who said last month:
“We knew it wasn’t a done deal last year. We basically got a stay of execution…We’re tired, we’re exhausted, it took a lot out of all of us and we expected to at least get a couple of years’ grace”.
We have seen it all before. Just like its endless independence obsession, the SNP ignores the will of the people and grinds our communities down until exhaustion delivers it the outcome it demands. That is not democracy; it is harassment of vulnerable families. The result is that the most vulnerable people in my community are robbed of the care that they rely on. That is not just a failure of leadership; it is a disgrace. The SNP lead for the local integrated joint board said:
“The IJB’s financial challenges have been well documented”.
I rarely say this of the SNP, but I happen to agree with her. Those financial challenges have been well documented, so why have the local SNP representatives not challenged their own Government in Holyrood to get them the money that they rely on, especially when the Government have been given such a generous financial settlement from this Labour Government?
In truth, it has been 18 wasted years—years of scandal, years of sleaze and years of division—while schools in my communities have been subject to decline, our hospitals struggle and our services face collapse. This is not about money, because the Scottish Government have the money. This is not about powers, because they have the powers. This is about excuses, and for the SNP Government in Holyrood, they have no excuses left. Scotland deserves better, our NHS deserves better, our local people deserve better, and next year, the people of Scotland can choose a new and fresh direction with a Scottish Labour Government led by Anas Sarwar.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing the debate and for his thoughtful and reflective opening speech. Although the Scottish Parliament may be a place of hotly debated politics, the importance of Scottish devolution is unquestionable. It is right to refer to devolution and the Scottish Parliament as the “settled will” of the Scottish people. As predicted, it has become a cornerstone for Scottish democracy in the UK, but closing the political and social gap between the decision makers and the people those decisions impact upon cannot and should not stop at devolution from London to Edinburgh—from this place to Holyrood.
In recent years we have seen the benefits of further devolving power and funding to city regions across the UK, with the ability at local level to create and tailor policies to better serve communities. In Scotland, however, devolution appears to have stalled at Holyrood. In recent years, the SNP has followed the principle of “devolution for me and not for thee”. There seems to have been little appetite from the Scottish Government to pass power and more funding to the Glasgow city region and other communities across Scotland.
Devolution has effectively stalled. This is even though further devolution is the logical continuation of the principles of power sharing, representation and accountability that were pivotal in the creation of the Scottish Parliament in the first place. Such a continuation of devolution is important for the Glasgow metropolitan region—a city region with a well developed and established collaboration system. This includes the city deal—one of the largest in the UK—the UK Government’s shared prosperity fund and the city region innovation accelerator, to name just a few. These investments have already delivered jobs and major regeneration for areas across Glasgow city region. This is proof that the Glasgow region can handle more responsibility while also creating a case for more necessary accountability and governance.
The Glasgow city region is now at a point where the Scottish Government and the city region need to look at a range of policy areas and levers, including powers over transport, housing, skills, economic development and public service reform, and to devolve those appropriate powers to allow the Glasgow city region to tailor its policies to the needs of our communities. For our communities, this could mean better buses that turn up on time, people no longer on housing waiting lists for years and years, and more opportunities for neglected communities.
The devolution of powers and responsibilities must be based on strategic aims, providing the processes to deliver the policies to achieve those aims, and those processes must be accountable and transparent with robust governance, but all of this must be rooted in the outcomes that we want to achieve: to reduce inequality and poverty; to improve access to healthcare and improve health outcomes; and to create new jobs and opportunities.
A recent report by the Centre for Cities makes this case for further devolution, too. It estimates that if Glasgow performed in line with cities of comparable size, Scotland’s economy could be 4.6% larger. When I campaigned with so many others during the referendum in 1997 for the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, it was to devolve powers from this place as appropriate to the Scottish Parliament. It was not for those powers and responsibilities then to be hoarded by Holyrood; it was part of a wider process to devolve power down through local government and to communities and citizens.
During next year’s Scottish election, the Scottish people again have an opportunity to revitalise devolution. By electing a Scottish Labour Government with Anas Sarwar as First Minister, they can have a Government who are committed to the principle of devolution and who will deliver on the priorities of the Scottish people, instead of continuing with constitutional posturing. We can build on the successes of the Scottish Parliament and develop a stronger Scottish Parliament. It will be made stronger not by grasping on to powers but by devolving powers further. We can renew the commitment to devolution, renew the commitment to empower communities and renew our direction—all of that in the service of the Scottish people.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for bringing attention to the matter. As my colleagues have made clear, the Liberal Democrats believe in devolution. Our votes pushed it over the line in 1999, delivering a Scottish Parliament and taking decision making closer to the people.
We remain proud of that achievement, and we want that devolution to extend to councils and to communities, yet the sad reality is that the opportunities presented to Scotland by devolution have been squandered. Years of financial mismanagement, failed education reforms and endless NHS recovery plans have let Scots down. After nearly two decades in office, the SNP have proved every bit as adept at failing the people of Scotland as they have accused the Conservatives of being. We have watched the SNP divert half a billion pounds from green energy initiatives simply to plug budget gaps; through mismanagement, we have seen the squandering of another half a billion on ferries that were originally promised for less than £100 million; and worryingly, we have seen the party’s own finances called into question. Conservative curtains and cupboards are clearly a no-go, but the SNP motorhomes are all right.
Despite those failures and the clear rejection of independence, the SNP continues to demand referenda. In 2014, the “time was right” and the people of Scotland said no. In 2016, the “time was right” again and the courts rejected it. In 2025, it repeats the same mantra. A vote once described as once in a generation has become once in a Parliament. Instead of working for the Scottish people, it flogs the same tired cause.
The Liberal Democrats offer a different vision: a fair deal for Scotland within a strong federal United Kingdom. We want decisions taken as close to local communities as possible, empowering them to shape their future, but co-operation at the federal level is vital to tackle the challenges we face as a nation. This is why the Liberal Democrats want a joint council of the nations to drive innovation and co-ordinated action to tackle the climate emergency. We want to secure agreement through the common frameworks and a fair dispute resolution process so that differences between Administrations are resolved maturely, not through endless political games. We want stronger joint ministerial work on issues such as the industrial strategy to ensure that every nation’s voice is heard in shaping our economy.
That kind of co-operation delivers results. We should draw on the strengths of all four nations, not tear them apart and play politics with people’s futures. Scotland deserves better than the uncertainty it has experienced. It deserves co-operation, certainty and a Government who listen. I look forward to the Scottish elections next year, with more Liberal Democrat MSPs entering the Scottish Parliament to work hard in the interests of Scottish people of all ages.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing this debate—at the second attempt. I know how important devolution in Scotland is to him, a signatory of the claim of right and a founder Member of the Scottish Parliament, and that he wants to see it work better for the people of Scotland. I remember the day the Scottish Parliament was reconvened, in the words of Winnie Ewing. I was not quite as young as some of today’s contributors, but I was still at primary school. It was a seminal moment. I am from one of those generations of Scots who cannot really remember a time before there being a Scottish Parliament. As somebody who has worked in the Scottish Parliament, it is a place for which I have great fondness.
The machinery of devolution, set in motion over a quarter of a century ago, was intended to bring decision making closer to the people, to empower communities and to enhance accountability. It was never meant to be a stepping stone to separation, nor a shield for poor governance. When we assess devolution, we must consider whether it has brought power closer to communities, whether it fosters accountability and whether it delivers essential services for Scots and across Scotland to a high standard.
Under the Scottish nationalists, the system is not delivering for Scotland. The creeping transfer of powers from communities to Holyrood undermines the core ambition of delivering power into local hands. While the civil service in Edinburgh is fed to the point of bloating, power is usurped from local authorities and delivered to centralised decision makers. In 1995, the Labour shadow Secretary of State for Scotland predicted that devolution would kill separatism “stone dead”, that delivering power to the Scottish Executive, then creating a Scottish Parliament, would satiate the separatist appetite. Sadly, that has turned out not to be the case.
In 2015, in the wake of the failed bid for independence, the Smith review was commissioned to set out provisions for greater devolution. From that experiment, we now know that it matters not how much is given; it will never be enough for the nationalists. The nationalists in Scotland bray out for more, more, more while delivering less and less and less. Today I implore the Minister, the Secretary of State and this Government to be brave and stand firm in support of our United Kingdom and move away from the “devolve and forget” mentality.
Stephen Gethins
The Labour party did some analysis that showed that Liz Truss’s mini-Budget cost homeowners in the UK £336 billion—about five or six times the budget of the Scottish Parliament. What impact does the hon. Member think that had on devolution and trust in this institution?
Andrew Bowie
When the Scottish Parliament was established, and when the Scottish Executive, now Government, were created, I think the Scottish people expected it to do a bit better than continually comparing its record and role to the role of the UK Government. People are frankly fed up of, “England is doing worse,” and would like some accountability and responsibility to be held by those who have been elected to Holyrood and, indeed, hold power over vast swathes of life in Scotland.
We all agree that some mistakes were made under the last Conservative Administration—some—but that does not in any way excuse the hon. Member for never once standing in this place and resiling from or showing any contrition about the litany of mistakes and the sheer disaster that has befallen some of the public services that our constituents, represented by most of the MPs in this room, have to suffer day in, day out. That includes falling standards in education and Scotland’s NHS, fewer local services, libraries closing and transport infrastructure failing to meet even the level at which it was at in 1997 when the referendum was held. We acknowledge our mistakes and acknowledge that we did not get everything right over the last 14 years. It would be quite nice if one day a Scottish National party Member of Parliament was able to do the same about their Administration in Edinburgh.
Scots face the highest tax burden anywhere in the UK, with little to show for it. Under the Scottish nationalists, the standard of services—education, healthcare, policing—has taken a severe blow. Waiting lists grow longer, Police Scotland faces cuts, violence in schools is rising, and outcomes in education and health lag behind those in England. Despite more funding per child, Scottish pupils are falling behind. Despite higher per capita spending on healthcare, life expectancy is lower and more patients wait over two years for treatment. The NHS in Scotland has recovered less well from the pandemic. The challenges of rurality and deprivation are real, but they are not excuses. Under the Scottish nationalists, Scots pay more and get less.
Let us be absolutely clear: devolution is not the problem. The problem is the party in power in Edinburgh—a party that clamours for more powers, more control and more devolution, yet fails to deliver on the powers it already holds; a party that centralises, duplicates and bloats the civil service in Edinburgh while outcomes deteriorate. Just last week we heard the broken record of the SNP regurgitating plans to tear apart our United Kingdom, including reports of £10,000 of taxpayers’ money spent on a pro-independence propaganda campaign. I would like to ask the Government whether they plan to get a grip on that and prevent the Scottish Government from spending UK taxpayer money on research and advertising on their obsession with independence. It is time for the SNP to focus on the priorities that matter to Scots.
Devolution of greater powers over welfare were implemented through the Scotland Act 2016, yet here we are, nearly a decade later, still seeing statutory instruments coming through Westminster to tidy up the unfinished business of devolved welfare responsibilities. The duplication, the inefficiency and the inefficacy are staggering, and that is only the beginning.
The failures of the Scottish Government under the nationalists are not a foreign concern. One of the problems that has resulted from devolution is that Scottish, Welsh and the majority of Northern Irish issues fail to be debated on the Floor of this House. School performance crashing down the international tables; rising antisocial behaviour; falling police numbers—these are not just Scottish issues, but issues for all of us in this United Kingdom.
The Conservatives will no longer accept a “devolve and forget” mentality. It has allowed the Scottish Government to evade scrutiny and accountability for far too long. My MSP colleagues, led fantastically by Russell Findlay in the Scottish Conservatives, work tirelessly in Holyrood to hold the SNP to account, but it is also our job here, in the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom, to do that.
Were it not for bold and correct decision of the Conservative Secretary of State, Alister Jack and the now Leader of the Opposition to stand up to the absurd Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, we would have biological men in women’s spaces—prisons, refuges, bathrooms and changing spaces. By the way, although the Bill was implemented and brought forward by the Scottish National party, it was supported by Scottish Labour. It also appears to be supported by the Reform party, according to their justice adviser. The Labour party has since conceded it was wrong to support the Bill, which prompts the question of whether they read it at the time.
We in the Conservative party will not stand by in this place while drugs deaths ravage communities in Glasgow, while children from deprived backgrounds suffer the most from poor educational opportunities in a schooling system that was once the envy of the world, or while the concerns and safety of women and girls in prisons and protected spaces is ignored and trivialised. We will not stand idly by and allow the Scottish nationalists to fail Scots so tremendously. We refuse to devolve and forget.
Twenty-five years on from the creation of the Scottish Parliament, it is time to take stock and reflect on the successes, but also on the failures, of that institution and its Government. It is time to evaluate not just the structure of devolution, but the performance of those entrusted with its powers. We remain committed to devolution, but the Conservatives will not shy away from asking whether the current settlement is delivering for Scots.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
I welcome today’s debate on devolution. At its heart, it is really a discussion of how we deliver better outcomes for the people of Scotland. That objective has long animated the public service of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). I am grateful to them for securing this debate, and particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West for the very moving tribute she paid to our departed friends Donald Dewar and John Smith.
I am incredibly proud that Labour is the party of devolution and that it was a Labour Government that delivered the Scottish Parliament in 1999. I do not wish to pay tribute or give thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) or for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) for their trolling about the fact that they did not, like so many of us, come of age during that devolution debate. I am proud to say that a vote in favour of a Scottish Parliament was the first ballot I ever cast, and since that time I have never wavered in my belief that Scotland’s interests are well served by being part of our Union of nations, while at the same time having a Parliament in Scotland that can reflect the distinctive interests and needs of Scotland.
Those of you who can cast your minds back to the beginning of this debate some hours ago may remember that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West made some important points about what we might be able to learn from the operations and procedures of each Parliament. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross mentioned that he would like Ministers to be more accessible, so I give the undertaking on the Floor of the House that I hope in myself and the Secretary of State you will always find Scotland Office Ministers accessible to you—
Kirsty McNeill
Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope Members across this House will always find us accessible to them and willing to make their constituents’ case across Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West said she felt that we should spend less time in the Lobby. I underscore that I am delighted to be spending so much time with you all in the Lobby—
Kirsty McNeill
Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker—my mistake.
The hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) said that he would like to focus some of this debate on the state of the health service in Scotland, and we would be delighted to address that. As we have heard repeatedly on the Floor of the House today, if people live south of the border, they experience more and more appointments being available and waiting lists going down; if they live up the road, one in six of them is on a waiting list. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray), who I thank for her service in the NHS, relayed that so movingly. My hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) did likewise and spoke movingly about the experience of patients in her area.
The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) talked about paused capital health spending in her constituency, and I am very sorry to hear that. I advise her to ask the SNP Government about the record settlement they had in the devolution area and where the money, which could have been put to good use for patients in her area, has gone.
The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), asked this Government to be unequivocal in our support for the United Kingdom. I am pleased to confirm that we are, but we recognise that support for this family of nations is partly dependent on the delivery of this Government in Westminster. We are resolutely focused on delivering for Scots and cleaning up the mess that his party left.
The shadow Secretary of State’s party colleague, the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), accused us of focusing too much on trade promotion— guilty as charged. We could almost taste the envy about the three trade deals secured under this Government. I am pleased to confirm that we will continue to promote Scotland’s world-class products and services to the world, and we will do so proudly and without apology.
John Cooper
The Minister will agree that the work on those trade deals was begun under the previous Administration.
Kirsty McNeill
Credit for those trade deals sits with those who got them over the line. This is a Labour Government who have delivered comprehensively for Scotland’s world-class producers and services, and we are delighted to have done so.
The hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) said that we should really be having a debate about accountability, and I agree with him. We have more quango chiefs than MSPs in Scotland, because it is actually very difficult to hold to account those who deliver public services and spend public money in Scotland. That is why Anas Sarwar is so intent on bringing back accountability to elected Members.
Stephen Gethins
On the point about accountability, in the Scottish Parliament all parliamentarians are elected. Following that, does the Minister think that all parliamentarians should be elected in this place as well?
Kirsty McNeill
We are focused on the priorities of the people of Scotland. We constantly have constitutional questions and questions about second-order concerns from the Opposition Benches, but we will resolutely focus on jobs and pay in Scotland, as we were elected to do.
My hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), for Falkirk and for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) laid at the SNP’s door the charge, which I agree with, that the SNP is much more interested in devolution to Scotland than devolution inside Scotland. I argue that devolution is a habit of mind—one that the SNP is yet to acquire, so interested is it in centralising power in its own hands in Edinburgh.
Devolution in Scotland has always been about ensuring that our distinctive voice is heard in the United Kingdom, and this Government have continued in that vein since taking office. We have reset the relationship with the Scottish Government to be one based on delivery and partnership, but the question now is about how Scotland’s two Governments, together with our local communities, can best seize the opportunities granted by artificial intelligence, clean energy, advanced manufacturing, life sciences, defence and the digital industries. Despite the insistence of Opposition Members, we cannot do that through division or constant constitutional wrangling.
We heard from Opposition Members that they would like to return to the days—the 14 years—when the SNP and the Tories had a symbiotic relationship in which each served the other’s political ends because they were locked in a dance of grievance, rather than having a focus on delivery.
Our approach as a Labour Government is different. We say that we may not agree on everything between different levels of Government, but we can and must agree on more, enough to make a difference to the people we serve. We have already seen results from having a Labour Government with Scots at its beating heart: the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation, with a pay rise for 200,000 of the lowest-paid Scots; a new industrial strategy to ensure Scotland takes advantage of the jobs of the future; GB Energy, with investment to drive the clean energy revolution; up to 60,000 clean energy jobs in Scotland by 2030, an increase of 40,000 from 2023; £200 million secured for the industrial future of Grangemouth; a historic deal worth £10 billion to supply Norway with Type 26 frigates; a trade deal with India that is set to grow the Scottish economy by £190 million a year; the highest settlement for the Scottish Government in the devolution era; and a £292 million Pride in Place investment to regenerate Scottish communities. That is what delivery looks like.
Let us contrast that with the record of the SNP, which was so poignantly pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) and the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray). There is much about Scotland’s economy to be proud of, but we on the Labour Benches are under no illusions: it has underperformed, and has particularly underperformed in the service of working people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Kenneth Stevenson) and the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) pointed out so eloquently. If Scotland’s growth in the past decade had even matched the sluggish growth of the UK as a whole, our economy would be nearly £10 billion larger today. That is a decade of lost opportunity, lost jobs and lost potential.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) was right that we should differentiate failures of devolution from failures that sit squarely at the SNP’s door. We need a new approach, one that involves Scotland’s cities and regions and local government, but the SNP’s desire for highly centralised power instead of responsive and active local government in Scotland has led to the accountability crisis we have already discussed. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) have done a fantastic job of explaining the role and desires of local government.
Patricia Ferguson
It is very interesting to hear my hon. Friend outline so succinctly how Scotland could be better served if the UK Labour Government’s policies were copied elsewhere. I believe that symbols can sometimes be very important, so does she agree that the fact that there are more Labour Scottish Ministers sitting on the Front Bench than there are SNP Members attending this debate says a lot about people’s priorities, and about the priorities of this Government compared with those of the SNP?
Kirsty McNeill
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. At the last election, we promised to maximise Scotland’s influence, and this is what that looks like.
The calls we have heard from leaders across Scotland are clear. Local government leaders are not just asking for money, but for powers—powers over skills, transport and growth—to unlock the full potential of their regions. They are really asking for genuine accountability to the people they serve. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross have both highlighted, there are problems with accountability and scrutiny in how the Committee system in Holyrood has evolved away from the desires of those who founded the Scottish Parliament. They have warned that Committees that were intended to be the backbone of scrutiny in the Scottish Parliament are too often dominated by the governing party, and lack the independence needed to really hold the Executive to account. Their view—which, as founding Members of the Scottish Parliament, carries much weight—is that without stronger and more robust Committees, devolution cannot deliver as the architects of the Scotland Act intended.
As has been said many times this afternoon, devolution was never meant to be an end in itself. It was always supposed to be a means to improve lives, not with division, but through co-operation. If we can focus on our common purpose across this House and between all levels of Government—if we focus on stronger growth and fairer opportunities—Scotland can truly be at the heart of UK prosperity.
Jamie Stone
Looking back to a much younger version of myself going to my first meeting of the Scottish constitutional convention in 1989, I never would have dreamt then that I would lead a debate of this nature in this place, but here we are. I thank from the bottom of my heart all Members who have made contributions, and I hope that from time to time, the present Scottish Government—or any Scottish Government—will look in the mirror and think, “Are we doing things right?” I hope that Hansard is looked at, read and thought about, because there is room for improvement.
I leave you with one last thought, Madam Deputy Speaker, which may take colleagues by surprise. There have been repeated references to someone during this debate. I remember getting into the lift in Holyrood on my first day there after my election in 1999. A tall, gangling figure was in the lift. He looked me up and down and said, “And who exactly—um—are you?” That was Donald Dewar. When I said who I was, he said, “Ah! We had had hopes of that seat, but I am sure we shall work together in a very satisfactory manner.” And we did.
I have had conversations with Labour Members about this, but I am not aware of any image of Donald Dewar in this place. Given that this was a man who made such an extraordinary contribution to the constitution of these islands, that may be something that the Art Committee might want to think about.
Patricia Ferguson
I am sure you will take this in the spirit in which it is intended, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have to tell the hon. Member that unfortunately that request has been rejected by the Art Committee. I am not sure that I will necessarily take that lying down, as he would imagine, but it has been rejected as things stand, and I thought it important for him to know that.
Jamie Stone
Well, well, well, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know the hon. Lady well and I doubt very much that she will take it lying down, and I am sure that she will have the support of others. Whether we see devolution as a means to an end called independence or see it, as I do, as a way of improving services in Scotland, I think we should all honour that particular man.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I am not sure that it is entirely in order to correct the record, but there are, in fact, images of Donald Dewar in the parliamentary collection.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered devolution in Scotland.
Mental Health and Hoarding
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this debate on a subject that, to the best of my knowledge, has never been discussed on the Floor of the House before.
I often speak of my 25 years as an NHS nurse because that experience has fundamentally shaped my understanding of the hidden struggles within our communities, and it is from that perspective that I raise the urgent and often misunderstood issue of hoarding disorder. Many years ago, as a district nurse serving the Kingstanding community—the same community that I am now proud to represent in Parliament—I entered homes where extreme clutter was not an anomaly but a visible sign of a deep, unaddressed need. Today, we have a name for it. In 2018, hoarding disorder was formally recognised in Britain as a distinct mental health condition. It is defined by persistent difficulty in discarding or parting with possessions, regardless of value, leading to cluttered living spaces and significant distress or impairment in daily life.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend speaks very effectively about hoarding disorder. As she has explained, it is a mental health condition in its own right, although it is often confused with obsessive-compulsive disorder. One of my constituents spoke to me about her husband, who has completely filled the living room with items that he just cannot discard. Does my hon. Friend agree that whether it is related to OCD or to another condition, hoarding not only disrupts the lives of the individual who goes through the anxiety and trauma of the condition, but affects others around that individual?
During Prime Minister’s questions this morning, we heard that one in four of us will suffer from a mental health condition. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to increase mental health support to make it easily accessible and enable it to provide effective treatment, and that such earlier intervention can avoid the deterioration of the condition?
Paulette Hamilton
My hon. Friend raises a valuable point. I will come on to that later in my speech, but I absolutely agree that hoarding disrupts people’s lives.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady for bringing forward this issue. She is a dear friend of mine, and I always look forward to her contributions to this Chamber and Westminster Hall. I often think of a TV programme on this subject. Perhaps I did not always understand the obsessive behaviour of hoarding, but that TV programme opened our eyes to it, and helped us understand it. The makers of the programme not only showed the problem, but how to bring about a solution. That is what I always loved about the programme: it started off with a problem, but ended up with a solution.
Paulette Hamilton
The hon. Member is right, but this is not just about a solution. A number of people in our society are living with a mental health condition, and it needs to be treated. At the moment, there are no strategies in place, but I will answer his question as I go on. I thank him for his contribution.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for securing tonight’s debate. I have met York’s Community Bees, who have developed strategies for supporting people in the community. They dearly need money, because they are not only addressing mental health needs but de-risking a situation. Hoarding risks infection, infestations, fire and structural damage to homes, so they play a really crucial role.
Paulette Hamilton
Again, my hon. Friend raises a valuable point. The issue of financing is vital, but I will discuss that more as I go on.
Hoarding disorder is a widespread condition affecting between 2% and 5% of the population, which equates to approximately 1.2 million to 3 million people in Britain. Let me be absolutely clear: hoarding is not a lifestyle choice, or a matter of laziness. It is a complex mental health condition, deeply rooted in emotional distress and underlying trauma, often stemming from adverse childhood experiences. For hoarders, it can result in unsafe living conditions, social isolation and a diminished ability to manage day-to-day responsibilities. If left untreated, it has a huge cost for families, the NHS, housing providers and emergency services.
On top of that, hoarding is a long-term condition with few effective treatment options, meaning that behaviours are often left unresolved. My professional experience showed me the heartbreaking reality of individuals drowning in clutter, their mental health deteriorating and their relationships broken. Dealing with hoarding can be very time-consuming and expensive. Providing support falls disproportionately to ill-equipped local authorities and overstretched third-sector organisations, such as Birmingham’s Clouds End CIC, led by the inspirational Heather Matuozzo.
The challenges can be broken down into four key areas. The first area is public health and safety. Hoarding does not just hurt individuals, but has knock-on effects on the entire community. The hazardous living conditions that it creates, from severe fire risks and blocked escape routes to unsanitary and unsafe housing, pose a direct danger not only to the individual, but to their neighbours and the brave professionals, firefighters, social workers and others who are called in to intervene.
The second challenge has to do with public awareness and education. We cannot combat what we do not understand. We urgently need to educate our communities, and our frontline professionals working in social care, housing, health and the emergency services, to recognise hoarding as a mental health issue, so that we can reduce stigma and promote more compassionate and effective intervention.
The third challenge has to do with mental health and support gaps. Mental health services and treatments that address hoarding specifically remain scarce and underfunded. Many people affected feel reluctant to seek help because of stigma, lack of awareness, or fear of eviction or other legal consequences. Closing this support gap is not optional; it is essential.
The final challenge concerns the legal and housing implications. Housing providers can be faced with challenging legal situations in which tenants’ hoarding behaviours lead to breaches of tenancy agreements or safety policies. Unfortunately, these cases are too often handled through eviction or legal action, rather than support being provided, so that the root causes of the problem can be addressed. We need policies that balance legal responsibilities with compassionate mental health support. As a society, we have a responsibility to support those living with hoarding disorder. In Birmingham, the number of people needing support has risen exponentially since the covid pandemic, and the story is the same across the country, as Members have highlighted. The seriousness and scale of this issue demands a co-ordinated national response, led by Government. We need a national strategy to bring consistency, reduce risk and improve lives.
The current legal framework is simply not fit for purpose. The Care Act 2014 recognises that people who hoard may be considered vulnerable or entitled to advocacy. However, there are no national guidelines for the agencies that encounter hoarding in their work. Without guidance, responses to hoarding will remain inconsistent and ineffective. In the absence of national guidelines, agencies are forced to rely on outdated legislation, such as the Public Health Act 1936, which refers to “filthy or verminous premises”. Under these powers, a person can be forced to clear their property, even if they own it. If they cannot afford clearance, it is undertaken on their behalf and charged to the property. This approach is deeply flawed. It treats hoarding purely as a practical or environmental issue, rather than recognising that these are vulnerable human beings in need of help. Failing to recognise hoarding as a mental health condition risks traumatising individuals, worsening hoarding behaviours and, in the most extreme cases, contributing to suicidal thoughts. The human impact should not be understated. Lack of proper support and compassion leads to further trauma, distress and a greater risk of re-accumulation.
National guidelines would provide clarity on what constitutes appropriate and effective practice, a consistent framework for agencies across the UK, a balance between addressing practical risks and meeting underlying mental health needs, and clear routes for advice, support and specialist referral.
That brings me to my central ask of Ministers. We need a co-ordinated national strategy for hoarding disorder. Although the Care Act 2014 provides a foundation by recognising vulnerability, the absence of specific national guidelines leads to a postcode lottery of care, and to inconsistent and often ineffective intervention. A national framework would provide clarity, consistency and compassion by balancing risk management with mental health support and establishing clear pathways for specialist help.
I was proud that the Labour manifesto committed to recruiting 8,500 extra mental health staff, and to delivering a transformative 10-year plan for mental health. It is essential that those welcome initiatives explicitly include and address hoarding disorder.
Rachael Maskell
My hon. Friend is being incredibly generous with her time. Community Bees in York has helped 600 people over the past seven years. It has a lot of expertise, not just in how to sensitively support people in decluttering, but in upcycling; it makes a positive contribution by selling things on. It has sold 7,000 books, and collected 5,323 items from landfill and passed them on. That not only helps people who have hoarded, but contributes to the future. Does she agree that that should be part of the holistic model?
Paulette Hamilton
My hon. Friend makes an absolutely brilliant point. Yes, that should be part of the holistic model, but there is no model in place at the moment. It is like the wild, wild west—everybody is just doing as they see fit. That is why I secured this debate.
I urge the Government to prioritise the development of national guidelines, in order to equip all frontline workers with the tools to identify and address hoarding compassionately and effectively; to ensure a truly integrated, multi-agency approach that brings together mental health services, social care, housing and emergency responders; and to invest in research and data collection, so we can properly understand the scale, causes and economic impact of hoarding in the UK, and ensure that our policies are evidence-based and our resources are allocated wisely. In my nursing career, we were taught that prevention is always better than cure. That holds true for hoarding. Early intervention is more humane and more cost-effective than crisis response.
This issue has remained in the shadows for too long. We have a duty to bring it into the light, to replace judgment with understanding, and to offer a hand up to the millions of our citizens who live with this devastating condition. I look forward to hearing in the Minister’s response how the Government intend to lead this vital change.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
I sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), who is vice-chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, for securing this debate. I pay tribute to her for her work on that Committee, on which she has consistently championed the voices of the unheard, and for her 30 years’ service in the NHS as a district nurse. As she was speaking, I recalled that, as a medical student at the University of Glasgow, I had the pleasure of spending a lot of time shadowing district nurses. I always found them to have the perfect mixture of clinical acumen and a sixth sense of something being not quite right. She displays those attributes in abundance.
My hon. Friend has been true to form in raising the issue of hoarding. This disorder is, by definition, kept from public view. Although it is often overlooked, it has a profound impact on the lives of the affected, their families and their carers, and, of course, on local services. Too many suffer in silence. I thank Hoarding UK, Clouds End and Clutterers Anonymous, to name just a few of the charities that do so much to support people up and down the country.
For too long, hoarding has been seen as something quirky, or perhaps even comical, but the disorder is neither a joke nor a rarity; it is a complex and often misunderstood condition that can have devastating consequences for people’s mental and physical health. Often, it is a portent to investigating further mental wellbeing and illness.
Estimates vary, but research suggests that between 2% and 3% of the UK population, as my hon. Friend adumbrated, may be affected by hoarding behaviours. These are often associated with traumatic life experiences such as bereavement, divorce or eviction. People who hoard can experience deep emotional distress, guilt and anxiety. The clutter in their homes often represents emotional pain, memories or attempts to regain control.
Dr Ahmed
The impact of hoarding can be severe. The clutter can compromise hygiene, strain relationships and pose safety risks, so let me be clear: these people deserve compassion and support from this Government and from every corner of society.
My hon. Friend asks whether the Government will introduce a national hoarding strategy. There are no plans for a specific strategy, but we absolutely recognise that people who hoard must have access to the right support. At the moment, that requires more co-ordination than is currently in place. As she knows better than anyone as a district nurse and an independent lay manager, mental health services have been decimated over the last 14 years. This Government are doing the hard yards of rebuilding those services while transforming our mental health system, so people can access the right support at the right time and indeed the right place. Through our 10-year health plan, we have set long-term reforms to make mental health a core priority of the NHS and to move from crisis care to prevention and early intervention.
This transformation will include: investing up to £120 million to expand the number of mental health emergency departments to 85 across England; a modern service framework for severe mental illness to support consistent high-quality and high-value care; and, as my hon. Friend mentioned, recruiting 8,500 new mental health workers across the NHS to increase capacity and make sure help is available where and when needed.
We are already piloting six 24/7 neighbourhood mental health centres, which will bring together a range of professionals and imbibe that holistic concept—professionals such as psychologists, peer support workers, housing specialists and employment advisers. The pilots are testing out mechanisms that will enable that whole-team approach to capture people who otherwise remain hidden, including collaborative planning of care and treatment, communication and engagement, single patient records and shared outcome measures. This joined-up approach presents an opportunity for people, including those with hoarding disorder, to be identified and to get holistic support and treatment, and then to better join up between social services and mental health support.
We know, too, that there are people in contact with social care right now who have a suspected hoarding disorder. Digital social care records, which have been implemented by 80% of Care Quality Commission providers, are already improving that quality and safety, and that personalisation of care. We are also investing in the development of a national infrastructure for social care, which will lay the foundations for ensuring greater interoperability and integration between care and health services, so that, again, fewer people slip through the net, as is often the case with hoarding disorders.
People who hoard may be isolated, may not recognise their behaviour as a problem and may be reluctant to engage with services. That is why safeguarding plays such an important role. The Care Act 2014 and its statutory guidance make clear that self-neglect, which explicitly includes hoarding, is a safeguarding concern. Where a local authority has cause to suspect that an adult appears to be at risk of self-neglect and is unable to protect themselves as a result, that authority must carry out a safeguarding inquiry. The purpose of that inquiry is to establish what action is required and by whom, and to keep that person safe and ultimately get them the support they need. The guidance also advises that each case of self-neglect should be assessed on an individualised case-by-case basis. Professionals, whether social workers, carers, housing officers, emergency services or clinicians, have a responsibility to spot the signs, raise concerns, and support people and direct them towards help.
One of the most effective treatments of hoarding disorder is cognitive behavioural therapy, otherwise known as CBT. CBT is a form of talking therapy that helps individuals to understand the thoughts and feelings that influence their behaviour and supports them gradually to make practical changes to their living environment. Through NHS talking therapies, people with a hoarding disorder can access evidence-based psychological interventions such as CBT.
This Government are expanding access to talking therapies this year and have committed to continuing this expansion over the coming years. We aim to increase the number of people completing a course of talking therapy by 384,000 by the end of this Parliament and to increase the number of sessions someone can access, meaning that more people will be able to access timely and high-quality mental health support in their local area, and that these services can be accessed not only through their GP, but through self-referral.
We know, however, that accessing these services can be difficult for those who feel isolated or who feel shame about their condition. As advised by national charities, therefore, during National Hoarding Awareness Week, we encourage friends and family members of people suspected of having a hoarding disorder to gently encourage them to speak to their GP, who can help to assess their needs and refer them to the appropriate mental health and community support. No one should face this condition alone.
Of course, hoarding can also be associated with serious mental illnesses, including severe depression and obsessive compulsive disorder, which can require more specialist or intensive forms of support. That is why the Government are transforming services for people living with severe mental illnesses by investing in new models of integrated community care, expanding priceless support and increasing access to physical health checks and tailored interventions.
At its heart, this debate is about dignity and compassion. We are talking about members of our own communities who deserve the same compassion, care and support as anyone else with any other illness. The Vice-Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington, deserves real credit for her work on this issue. We will continue to work with her, mental health professionals, voluntary organisations and people with lived experience to smash the stigma while improving access to care.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. From listening to, meeting and engaging with those from York Community Bees, I know that their big cry is for funding. These people are specialists in the work that they do to support my residents, but they need funding. Will the Minister send a message to commissioners to ensure that they commission these support services?
Dr Ahmed
My hon. Friend brings a great deal of experience in these matters to this House. I can certainly give her an assurance that as part of this Government’s 10-year health agenda, we encourage all commissioners to commission strategically on the basis of what will prevent ill health in the long term. I believe this issue is an exemplar of where we could think about commissioning mental health services differently to try to pick up the signs earlier.
For too long, people with mental health conditions, including those who hoard, have not received the understanding or support that they deserve. I want to end, however, on a note of optimism. With love from families, patience from friends and the ongoing support of charities and third sector organisations, countless people with hoarding disorder have managed to live safe, healthy and fulfilling lives. We will continue to work closely with these partners, local authorities and charities to ensure that this Government are also playing our full part.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Financial Services (Overseas Recognition Regime Designations) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services (Overseas Recognition Regime Designations) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. The draft regulations before the Committee support the Government in their operation of overseas recognition regimes. Specifically, they provide His Majesty’s Treasury with the powers needed to ensure that designations of individual jurisdictions are assessed and implemented in a manner that is compatible with our existing regulatory regime.
As hon. Members know, the UK’s historical strength in global financial markets is built on our international openness and reach. Our ability to provide unilateral recognition where the regulatory framework in an overseas jurisdiction provides similar outcomes to the UK’s is an important tool to support cross-border financial services. Recognition can provide a range of regulatory benefits, which include: enabling overseas firms to provide services directly into the UK; aligning requirements on UK-authorised firms, whether they are engaging with UK or overseas markets or counterparties; and providing regulatory relief by removing duplicative requirements on cross-border business.
This recognition framework is common to other jurisdictions. For example, the EU maintains equivalence regimes, the United States makes comparability determinations in respect of other jurisdictions, and Australia operates a system that allows it to judge whether foreign regulatory regimes are sufficiently equivalent. The regulations promote consistency in regulatory standards, provide the foundation for long-term regulatory co-operation between jurisdictions, and support financial stability.
The regulations were first published in draft form to coincide with the Chancellor’s Mansion House speech in July, alongside a guidance document that outlines the principles and processes governing ORRs and a memorandum of understanding agreed between HM Treasury and the financial services regulators. As the documents make clear, ORRs are the Government’s new harmonised approach through which the UK will recognise overseas jurisdictions’ financial services regulation and supervision.
The regulations support the Government in their operation of recognition regimes, specifically in relation to the designation of individual jurisdictions. As I said, the regulations will ensure that designations are assessed and implemented in a way that is compatible with our existing regulatory regime, and they will therefore support financial stability, market integrity, consumer protection and competition.
The regulations have three main functions: first, in relation to information and advice, the decision to designate an overseas jurisdiction is taken by HM Treasury Ministers on the basis of an assessment undertaken by officials, with technical advice from our expert regulators and made by statutory instrument laid before Parliament. The powers in the regulations update HM Treasury’s existing powers to request information and advice from the Bank of England, the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority, as part of the process of assessing and then designating an overseas jurisdiction. As I said, an MOU is established between HM Treasury and our financial services regulators in accordance with the regulations.
Secondly, the regulations give the Treasury the power to impose conditions on the application of an ORR designation. The conditions are specific changes to the effect of a designation—for example, limiting the effect to a given size of firm—and ensuring that we can support cross-border financial services while assessing any areas of risk. This change will help to maintain consistency with the regulatory and supervisory standards that we expect in our markets.
Thirdly, the regulations make amendments to two existing ORRs. The Government previously established two ORRs covering insurance and short selling respectively, as part of the process of repealing assimilated EU law under the powers afforded by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. No new designations have been made under either of those two ORRs, meaning that there has been no need yet to use the powers in the regulations. The amendments to the regimes simply make the definition of an overseas jurisdiction consistent across all ORRs, including those already established, ensuring that there is a single approach across financial services regulation that can be easily understood, including by our international partners.
The regulations are clearly defined and limited in scope. Their sole purpose is to provide the Treasury with the powers needed to ensure that the designations of individual jurisdictions are assessed and implemented in a manner compatible with our existing regulatory regime. They will ensure we can operate ORRs effectively and thereby support the global competitiveness of the UK’s financial sector, facilitate cross-border financial services, and provide a consistent approach across financial services legislation.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
We welcome the general thrust of the regulations, which are all about the internationalisation of our financial services market, continuing our moving on from a post-Brexit Britain. I was not a fan of Brexit, but we are where we are. It is incredibly important that our financial services centre remains internationally competitive, and the regulations support that. I will not detain the Committee any longer—I can see smiles on Government Members’ faces. [Laughter.] Let us hope the Liberal Democrats continue in that spirit.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Control of Mercury (Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Control of Mercury (Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. This affirmative statutory instrument introduces mechanisms to enforce the EU mercury regulation in Northern Ireland under the Windsor framework that maintains Northern Ireland’s dual market access to the EU single market and the UK internal market. The mercury regulation applies in a modified form in Northern Ireland, and before I set out the instrument’s purpose and scope in further detail I will provide some background to the arrangements that apply in Northern Ireland.
Dental amalgam is a dental filling material that is made up of a mixture of mercury and metal alloys, including silver, tin and copper. It is a stable and safe filling material that is widely used across the UK to fill cavities caused by tooth decay. Compared with alternative fillings, such as composite resin, dental amalgam fillings are typically cheaper and take less time to apply.
Last year, the EU introduced amendments to the UK mercury regulations that apply under the Windsor framework. Those amendments introduced a ban on the use and export of dental amalgam from 1 January 2025 and a ban on the manufacture and import of dental amalgam from 1 July 2026. An immediate ban on dental amalgam would have led to longer dental treatment times in Northern Ireland, meaning fewer patients being treated. That could ultimately have worsened oral health outcomes in Northern Ireland, so the UK Government made representations to the EU on that issue.
Following scrutiny by Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the European Commission recognised Northern Ireland’s specific circumstances last year and set out bespoke arrangements for Northern Ireland. That means that Northern Ireland will have a much longer transition period until December 2034, or until an earlier phase-out date is agreed with the Minamata convention on mercury, an international treaty to which the UK and the EU are parties.
During that time, businesses and dentists in Northern Ireland may continue to import and use dental amalgam. Such treatment may be given only to UK residents and imports must be proportionate with use. The gradual phase-out of dental amalgam will allow more time to transition to alternative fillings. That will give dentists time to improve practice efficiency, gain experience with more complex fillings, adapt to emerging alternatives and support the training of dental professionals.
Let me say briefly that I know the Windsor framework and its operation are of immense interest to hon. Members, and I know that questions of democratic legitimacy and the effectiveness of the framework’s democratic scrutiny mechanisms are frequently considered and discussed. That discourse is often about whether and when mechanisms such as the Stormont brake should be used, but these bespoke arrangements illustrate the entire purpose and benefit of the Windsor framework.
In this case, we saw an issue that would pose particular difficulties for Northern Ireland. Members of the Legislative Assembly scrutinised the issue and voiced their concerns. The Government acted on those concerns and the EU Commission recognised them. The arrangements were then adapted accordingly. That pragmatic ability to work collegiately on a foundation of trust, partnership and credibility to identify and address problems lies at the heart of the Windsor framework.
The dental amalgam exemptions on use and import have applied in Northern Ireland since 1 January 2025, and the Northern Ireland authorities have taken the required steps to implement them, including by issuing further guidance and engaging with dentists. The purpose of the instrument is to further strengthen the enforcement measures that the Northern Ireland authorities can take on the ground to support the arrangements in Northern Ireland, including powers to enforce the prohibitions to export or manufacture dental amalgam; additional reporting requirements for dental amalgam importers; and restrictions on dental amalgam use for patients, as set out in the European Commission notice. The statutory instrument also implements the allowed exemptions to the import and use of dental amalgam while Northern Ireland gradually phases out its use.
More broadly, I recognise the concerns about mercury’s environmental impact. It is a highly toxic substance that can cause harm to human health and the environment if improperly managed. When dental amalgam is exposed to high temperatures, such as during cremation, the mercury it contains can enter the environment as a toxic gas if there are no mercury emission controls in place. I am happy to confirm that the crematoriums in Northern Ireland are fitted with control technologies to reduce mercury emissions. Under the environmental improvement plan, we are taking steps and further developing plans to reduce mercury emissions, including from crematoriums. As part of that, the Government will soon publish an updated process guidance note for crematoriums and the accompanying consultation response, which will include further guidance on emission abatement technologies in crematoriums.
In conclusion, the draft regulations are clear in their purpose of ensuring that Northern Ireland authorities have the power to enforce EU export and manufacturing prohibitions, reporting arrangements and exemptions on dental amalgam use and import, as set out in the European Commission notice. They will also mean that Northern Ireland continues to benefit from the exemptions on dental amalgam use and import, allowing for a longer transition period and equity of dental provision with the rest of the United Kingdom. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell.
The official Opposition recognise the need to keep our environment free from pollutants. We recognise that the use of mercury, and its impact on the environment, has increased in the industrialised age. It is right that we take steps to reduce mercury use where possible, and that we work with international partners to do so. However, it is crucial that we do so as a Parliament representing the whole of the United Kingdom.
Last year, the EU took further steps to continue the phase-out of mercury by significantly restricting the export, import and use of mercury for dental purposes. At the time, that created great concern in Northern Ireland, where dentistry practices said that they simply were not ready for mercury-free dentistry and the extra costs that the phase-out would create for the sector. The Government secured a derogation on dental amalgam for Northern Ireland that would end on 31 December 2034, or before that if dental amalgam was similarly phased out across Great Britain.
Do the Government believe that that decade-long window gives the Northern Ireland dentistry sector sufficient time to adapt to the regulations that will be baked in by this legislation? At a time when dentists in Northern Ireland are warning that they are already making a loss on routine procedures, what do the Government estimate the transition will cost? Do they have an understanding of the timeframe for the phase-out of mercury in dentistry practices UK-wide, and do they anticipate that the deadline will be before the EU derogation ends in Northern Ireland?
Although the derogation is welcome, do the Government recognise that there is an issue with the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, given the remaining influence of EU rules and regulations? What reassurances can the Minister give, in an age of dynamic alignment, that Northern Ireland will remain firmly under the authority of Stormont and Westminster, and not Brussels?
I note that an impact assessment has not been produced for the draft regulations, because, in the Government’s words, they consider that they will have no or very little impact on the business sector. However, given the concerns of the dentistry sector that I have raised, will the Minister outline why no impact assessment has been produced?
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell.
I am the former Northern Ireland Health Minister, and when the issue of moving away from dental amalgam kicked off, it was quite serious. It was raised by all political parties, the British Dental Association and its representatives in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and all sectors. We have heard about the use of amalgam in dentistry, but it is mostly used in our national health dentistry. While we were struggling, and are still struggling in the rest of the UK, to get NHS dentists, the inability to use amalgam for basic fillings would add an extraordinary cost to businesses. The shadow Minister asked and, if I recall it right, the charge at that point was in the region of £26 million.
With regard to the specifics, the draft statutory instrument includes only “mercury” in its title, but it focuses solely on amalgam. I ask the Minister, are there any other implications for the utilisation or import of other mercury products, or for other utilisations of mercury in other machineries, that might be affected by the SI?
Also, in the setting out of this, there were conversations about what the UK Government were able to achieve. EU Commission notice C/2024/4675 stated that the Commission permitted this regulation and the change that enabled Northern Ireland dentistry to continue to use dental amalgam, as stated, until 31 December 2034 or until the date agreed under the global Minamata convention, to which the UK is a signatory. I therefore seek input from the Minister on that. Should the convention move earlier than the agreed deadline of 31 December 2034, what steps have the Government put in place—working with the Departments of Health and of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland—to ensure that preparatory work is being done now?
Originally, the Northern Ireland Executive established a mercury working group, which was under the leadership of the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. I note that in the explanatory memorandum, under “Consultation”, the Government had consulted not only the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, but the Department of Health in Northern Ireland—they
“were consulted on the approach taken during the drafting of this instrument and were given the opportunity to propose amendments to the text.”
May I seek clarity from the Minister? Did they reply, and if so, what did they say? No reference to that is included.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. We are all supposed to be part of the United Kingdom, and with that comes the supposed assurance of equal citizenship. The greatest manifestation of equal citizenship for parliamentarians is that we make the laws that govern our citizens, and yet that is the first glaring thing about this proposition. We are being asked to approve a situation that is under the control of not this Parliament, not the devolved Assembly, but a foreign Parliament, namely the European Parliament, because it is its 2017 regulation, updated in 2024, that bans mercury in dental amalgam.
As a result of the Windsor framework, which the Opposition party delivered to us, we have this situation where Northern Ireland, without consent, without being asked, is subject to the making of laws in 300 areas of which this is one—not to the laws of this Parliament or of Stormont, but to the laws of a foreign jurisdiction, that of the European Parliament. That is why we are subject to the mercury laws of the European Parliament.
The genesis of this proposition is important to understanding the resentment that it causes for me and my constituents. Yes, it is correct that if the original ban date of 2026 had been adhered to, according to the British Dental Association, NHS dentistry in Northern Ireland would have collapsed, because dental amalgam with mercury is the cheapest and quickest form of filling. For a dental practice that is literally already struggling to survive, the consequence of removing the cheapest form of filling, and imposing the most expensive and the one that takes longer to do, is that we will push it under. That was why the BDA said that that would cause the end of NHS dentistry.
We are then expected, on foot of that, to be appreciative that our foreign colonial masters have deigned to give us another few years of affordable dentistry, by awarding us with the concession to 2034. The regulation before us today is on foot of the grace and favour of the EU. It is not because of this House—this House has surrendered the power to make this regulation of its own volition. It is because of the grace and favour of the EU in allowing us this concession, that we then have dressed up a statutory instrument to give authority to what they have allowed us to do.
Think for a moment as a parliamentarian how insulting it is—to my role, to the Minister’s role and to our citizens—that we are only allowed to make a regulation courtesy of the grace and favour of the EU. And yet that is the basis of the regulation. It comes about because the EU issued what it calls a Commission notice. A Commission notice has no legal standing. That is clear when one reads the Commission notice: it starts with a disclaimer that says there is no legal authority, because the legal authority lies with the European Court of Justice. The ECJ could step in and say, “You can’t do this.” Subject to that, it has issued a Commission notice to allow this extension.
The Commission notice contains some other interesting and compelling things. For example, it says that Northern Ireland can continue to produce dental amalgam, but only until the end of next June, and then it is banned from being produced. That Commission notice also says that from then on we have to import it from GB, but through the EU’s full international customs border established in the Irish sea. It says expressly that it is category 1, and it cannot come through the green lane—or the now misnamed internal market lane; it has to come through the red lane.
Under this concessionary Commission notice that we are meant to be so grateful for, the EU is saying that the dental amalgam that we need we cannot produce ourselves; we can only import it from GB, and if we do, we can only import it through the full-throated international customs border that is the Irish sea border. As a citizen, and as a representative of those who I should be making the laws for, I am meant to be grateful for that concession. They could not make it more difficult in terms of bringing it in from GB if they tried.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that given the experience in Northern Ireland of goods that have to go through the process that he has just described, many suppliers simply decide that Northern Ireland is not worth supplying to? So, even though the concession might be there that we can still import it—but we have got to import it through these restrictions—it might well be that suppliers are reluctant to come to Northern Ireland, either making it more difficult or more expensive to get the product.
Jim Allister
Absolutely. We have seen that dozens upon dozens of times, with suppliers in all sorts of sectors simply saying that it is beyond their reach in terms of finance—it is too bureaucratic, they cannot afford it and they cannot afford the extra staff to do the paperwork. It could well be that suppliers, particularly since it has to come through the red lane—the full-throated Irish sea border—decide not to send it. If they do, then we are back to where we started: NHS dentistry would face collapse, because we cannot possibly afford the alternatives, according to the dentists.
The regulation is riddled with absurd inconsistencies. My own dentist has confirmed to me that this regulation says that, whereas he can put a dental amalgam filling in my mouth because I am a resident of the United Kingdom, if he treats somebody from the EU—that does happen along the border, where someone might live in the Republic of Ireland, but come to a Northern Ireland dentist—he cannot give them a dental amalgam filling. The thing is so absurd that it is unbelievable.
As parliamentarians, in the dignity that we should attach to our position, we should be very sceptical and very resistant to doing only what a foreign jurisdiction allows us to. We should be working towards the proper restoration of full and equal citizenship, so that this House makes the laws for all the people of the United Kingdom.
Sammy Wilson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. First, I welcome the derogation, as do dentists right across Northern Ireland. My own dentist raised the issue with me, greatly concerned, pointing out the impact that it would have on his business and the cost of doing fillings. In my constituency, it is impossible to get a national health service dentist, because the margins simply do not make it worthwhile. The additional cost that this regulation would have imposed in such a short time would have driven even private dentists out of business. When newspapers first reported on the regulation, dentists were in a state of shock about the impact it would have on them.
The big issue is that, as was pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, the derogation does not deal with the problem. What has happened with dentistry today will happen with some other industry tomorrow. It depends on how focused a particular Minister happens to be, how effective a lobby is or how excited people get about the issue whether, first, it is even raised with the EU, and secondly, the EU decides to respond. The big worry for people in Northern Ireland is that, the more cases like this occur, the more tired the EU is going to get. They could say, “Well, we’re not listening to you. Although it will have an impact on the small sector you are talking about, it will not have much of an impact on the whole of the Northern Ireland economy, so it is therefore not worth dealing with.” It really depends on how successful Ministers from the United Kingdom are in presenting the case, and how receptive the EU is in dealing with the individual case. That is why this sticking-plaster solution is not the answer to the issues presented by the protocol and the Windsor framework.
This is only a stay of execution, as it gives 10 years. I noticed that the Minister said that it gives dentists time to adapt. That is quite right, but to adapt to what? It gives them time to adapt to a higher-cost solution for giving people fillings—an adaptation that, probably for very good reasons in limiting cost to the national health service, we are not asking dentists to make in other parts of the United Kingdom. Only Northern Ireland dentists will be required to adapt to this higher-cost solution. The dental profession, and indeed our own Government, have decided that fillings that contain mercury are safe. They have been tried and tested, and the method has been given approval. The fact that there is 10 years to adapt does not really deal with the issue—that is, that it will become more costly as a health service provision in Northern Ireland.
Lastly, I want to deal with what we actually have in this statutory instrument. I raised in my intervention the fact that the amalgams cannot be produced in Northern Ireland any longer. That is a real problem. People can dismiss this, but as Northern Ireland representatives we get representations from traders and businesses on a weekly basis, about suppliers that they have had for years who refuse to supply to Northern Ireland now because of the costs, the bureaucracy and the uncertainty of supplying to Northern Ireland. If it is a small part of their market, they simply take the view that if they spend a bit more on GB market advertising, they do not need to worry about Northern Ireland.
I do not know how enforceable it is that dentists now have to find out where you live before filling your mouth with mercury fillings. Given the Government’s opposition to any kind of hard border on the island of Ireland, I do not know how you will enforce things. Are the guards going to stand by the road when you are coming across and ask to look in your mouth to see what your fillings are like?
The Chair
Order. Mr Wilson, I think you know that when you say “you” and “your”, you are referring to me.
Sammy Wilson
I was referring to “you” as members of the public rather than members of this Committee.
Some of these provisions are unenforceable, but the important thing is this: is the current arrangement acceptable? Let us leave aside whether it is unenforceable. Is it acceptable that in this House we should say to dentists, “We have got you a special concession for 10 years. It is partial in so far as you still cannot get the amalgam made in Northern Ireland, and you have to be careful who you give them to when you do give people fillings.” Leave all that aside. Is it acceptable that we will now have two different forms of treatment, eventually, in the United Kingdom—one that is acceptable for the population in Great Britain that is cheaper and quicker, and one that will be more expensive and take longer to apply, in Northern Ireland—all because two different sets of laws apply in different parts of the United Kingdom?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I particularly pay tribute to our colleagues from Northern Ireland for coming and sharing their perspective on this and how it relates to the communities they represent. I will do my best to respond to the questions.
Affordable and accessible dental care is important to many of us, so it is no surprise that we have had such an interesting discussion covering many points. Not all will be directly related to the statutory instrument, but that does not mean it is not important that we cover them. I will try my best to run through many of the questions raised today.
On the proposed updates to regulations and what action we are taking, the United Kingdom will lay legislation this year to prohibit the import, export and manufacture in Great Britain of a number of products, including those containing additionally added mercury. We are already, as the United Kingdom Government, looking to reduce mercury use across the whole of the United Kingdom. These products will be phased out in Northern Ireland by the EU mercury regulations. The legislation will prohibit several mercury-containing products, including fluorescent lamps, photographic film and paper, and propellant for satellites and spacecraft. This contributes to our goal of protecting human health and the environment from the harmful effects of mercury. That offers some reassurance that the Government are looking at mercury across the whole of the United Kingdom.
We are currently working to assess the future use of dental amalgam across the UK ahead of the Minamata convention. We have engaged with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, ready for discussions at the Minamata convention’s conference of the parties next month to look at what we are doing as a country. On the assessment of how this will impact Northern Ireland over time, Northern Ireland’s Department of Health will consistently monitor and evaluate the provision of both amalgam and non-amalgam fillings, along with regular consultation with professional dental organisations to obtain feedback on any issues that might come up. In addition, the national plan for phasing out dental amalgam, which will be developed to support a smooth transition, will provide important information as we proceed.
On Northern Ireland’s involvement in preparing for Minamata, Northern Ireland is having conversations, along with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. In response to the question from the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, stakeholders like the British Dental Association referred to being able to phase out dental amalgam in evidence given to the Northern Ireland Assembly, which was considered when working with the Northern Ireland Departments. The specific arrangements for Northern Ireland allow for its continued use and import until 2034. This date will be brought forward if parties to the Minamata convention agree to an earlier phase-out date. The UK, along with the EU, is a signatory to the convention and we would be bound by that decision.
There was an investigation by the Democratic Scrutiny Committee at the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the Windsor framework set out to address the democratic deficit challenges in Northern Ireland by establishing democratic safeguards, including the Stormont brake. Following the work of the Northern Ireland Assembly, we made representations to the EU, which made the changes to the mercury rules for dental amalgam. As far as I am aware—I have asked officials to check—there is no manufacturer of amalgam in Northern Ireland, so that should not have an impact. On the Windsor framework more broadly, we work constructively with all stakeholders—the EU, the Northern Ireland Executive, political parties, businesses and civil society in Northern Ireland—to achieve these aims.
As we consider the instrument before us, it is clear that our approach must balance regulatory compliance, environmental responsibility and the practical realities across the United Kingdom. Our actions are guided not only by domestic priorities but by our international commitments under the Minamata convention and the evolving expectations of our global partners. As further discussions occur at international level, the UK will continue to play a constructive role grounded in evidence and a shared commitment to progress. I thank all Members for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Control of Mercury (Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Clarion Housing management services
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
Financial Inclusion
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
As this is a 30-minute wonder, there will be no time for a concluding speech from Martin Rhodes. I remind other Members present that they cannot make a speech; they can only intervene, with permission from the Member who has the floor.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered financial inclusion.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. We need a financial system that removes barriers to accessing affordable financial products and services. Those on lower incomes, older people, those with health issues and people with disabilities all have unique needs that an inclusive financial system should be engineered to support. The Building Societies Association reports that 14 million people have less than £100 in savings. According to Fair4All Finance, there are certainly more than 20 million people in financially vulnerable circumstances in the UK.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. In my constituency of Southend West and Leigh, nearly 30% of people who are financially vulnerable are in the “squeezed and sliding” group—people with mortgages and rent commitments but on a low income and, most importantly, with limited savings. Does he agree that more needs to be done to encourage saving for a rainy day, perhaps including an opt-out payroll savings scheme?
Martin Rhodes
I agree that we need to do more to encourage savings, but we also need to encourage the incomes that are required for people to make those savings.
The driving reason for this level of financial exclusion has been attributed to an increase in low or unstable incomes, lack of savings and life events such as loss of work or bereavement.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. I am a firm advocate of local credit unions that provide access to affordable loans and help with learning how to save. Does he agree that financial inclusion must be available in small villages and towns through sound help and advice? Does he also agree that banks need to come back to the villages and stop the centralisation of services, which isolates people from the guidance they need?
Martin Rhodes
I agree that we need to look right across the board at the different ways in which people are excluded from financial services, including people living in smaller villages and towns. I also agree about the importance of credit unions to financial inclusion.
It has been reported that 41,500 people in Glasgow North are in financially vulnerable circumstances. That is 44% of the adult population, which is far higher than the national average of 38%. With financial exclusion increasing, the Government must take steps to mainstream inclusive policies and practices in our financial system, which is why I support the Government’s appointment of the Financial Inclusion Committee and the soon-to-be-published financial inclusion strategy.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that the publication of the Government’s financial inclusion strategy is welcome, given the urgency of the circumstances that many people face? For example, 37,000 people are affected in my constituency of Watford, and we are higher than the national average in three major metrics of need for this vulnerability.
Martin Rhodes
I agree that the financial inclusion strategy is a very welcome step in developing, co-ordinating and implementing interventions to support financial inclusion in the UK.
Subsequent policy decisions stemming from the strategy will have to work for a broad range of groups in society. Many face financial exclusion for different reasons, including older people, disabled people and young people.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important subject. In Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, 30,000 adults—40% of the population—are financially vulnerable. That is higher than the national average, and it is hitting older residents and carers especially hard. There are too many forgotten families struggling to access credit, savings and insurance. The upcoming financial inclusion strategy is a vital chance to make a change. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to work with the Government to ensure that those communities have the financial safety nets they need to thrive?
Martin Rhodes
I agree that we need to make sure that all communities have access to financial services, wherever they are and whoever they are. Everybody needs access to those services. I will welcome hearing from the Minister later about the financial inclusion strategy.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I hope that the hon. Member agrees that the Financial Conduct Authority’s work on access to cash is a useful step in the right direction. Does he also agree that provision should be widened to include face-to-face services, whereby people can see someone across the counter and receive advice?
Martin Rhodes
I certainly agree. Later in my speech, I will come on to the issues of access to cash and face-to-face financial services.
All the groups that I have mentioned face barriers, but an area of particular concern that I wish to focus on this morning is financial inclusion for disabled people. Much of my thinking on the issue has been informed by the hard work of the Advisory Group, or TAG, a Scottish charitable incorporated organisation run by and for people with disabilities and abilities. Glasgow TAG’s banking campaign steering committee came together in response to growing frustration among TAG members about how banking is excluding them, both in terms of access and in terms of treatment. They have highlighted to me the very real financial exclusion that they face in everyday life.
A key issue that the group has raised with me is access to cash. Many members rely on cash for daily budgeting. The shift to card-only businesses and the closure of free-to-use ATMs are leaving people unable to spend their own money. Quarriers, one of Scotland’s largest social care charities, reports that 76% of people with learning disabilities rely on support with their finances, and the same proportion use bank cards to withdraw cash. In my constituency, we have seen a 22% decrease in free-to-use ATMs between 2019 and 2025. This has created cash deserts, where communities are left without access to cash machines, and those that remain often charge for withdrawals or are inside premises with closing times. I hope that the Minister will engage with the issue and acknowledge the importance of continued free access to cash for financial inclusion.
The second issue that TAG has raised is discrimination in branches. TAG members have shared experiences of being ignored in favour of support workers, denied access to their own accounts or treated with suspicion. There is a strong feeling among TAG members who have spoken to me that financial institutions are not doing enough to meet their obligations under the Equality Act 2010. Will the Government consider supporting mandatory disability awareness and equality training in banking institutions, to help prevent such incidents?
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing to the House this important topic, which is very close to my heart. I have had a lot of representations from disabled constituents in Hampstead and Highgate who are very worried about similar issues to those that he describes. They are also worried about the poverty premium in the insurance market, which I am sure my hon. Friend will touch on. Does he agree that any future inclusion strategy needs to address the poverty premium that exists in the insurance market, especially for our disabled constituents who have urged us to make a difference to their life?
Martin Rhodes
Yes, I agree that we need to look right across the whole range of financial services, including insurance, as well as those that we have touched on. Exclusion from one service can often lead to exclusion from another and then another. Failing to get access to one service means that people are less likely to get access to another, and the problem becomes greater.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is totally unfair that many people, including many constituents of mine, find themselves excluded from some of the best utility deals because they do not have a bank account, so they are unable to pay by direct debit? Effectively, that cuts them off from some of the best deals that are available across a range of products and services.
Martin Rhodes
I agree. Financial exclusion has a cumulative effect: if someone is excluded from one financial service because they do not have access to a bank account, they may well find themselves excluded from others. As my hon. Friend says, they may be unable to pay for utilities or other services by direct debit, which would allow them to get the best deals. That cumulative impact is a very big issue.
The last issue that has been raised with me by TAG members is digital exclusion and branch closures. The transition to online banking is simply not accessible for many TAG members, and the closure of local branches has made it harder to get support in person. With the closure of high street banking, we are seeing the loss of the important face-to-face contact that can support people with learning disabilities with access to financial activities.
I support the Government’s work with industry to roll out at least 350 banking hubs that will provide communities with critical cash and banking services. I would welcome any reflections from the Minister on what the Government are doing to ensure that digitalisation does not leave people behind and to support the role of banking hubs. I acknowledge that for many people digital access increases the ability to get services, but for others it does not. That shows the need for a range of ways to access financial services, so everybody can access them.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate and for highlighting the importance of addressing branch closures. In the market town of Halesworth in my constituency, the post office closed its doors for the final time last Saturday—I have been pressing the Post Office for a replacement facility as soon as possible—while Barclays, which is the only bank provider in the town, will cease its weekly facility at the library in the coming weeks. This reinforces his point about the importance of banking hubs as a potential solution for in-person support. Will he reiterate the importance of the Government speeding up the roll-out of banking hubs, particularly for rural communities?
Martin Rhodes
I agree that there is a need for face-to-face services. Many people rely on that face-to-face support, so access to banking services through banking hubs is important. I welcome the Government’s roll-out of the hubs, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say about how the scheme will be developed.
Beyond the issues that TAG raised with me, there are many other disabled groups with particular needs, such as blind and partially sighted people. The Royal National Institute of Blind People has reported that only two in five blind and partially sighted people manage their finances independently, and over half of those who do not do so say that it is because of their sight loss. The common reasons that they cite are a lack of confidence and facilities no longer being available. Other experiences of financial exclusion that they report include information not being in an accessible format, a lack of trained bank branch staff and a lack of digital literacy for the transition to digital banking. That is just one example that shows how a truly inclusive financial system will have to be tailored and adaptable to the needs of a diverse range of people.
These are reasons why the financial inclusion strategy must be informed and shaped by the experience of people with disabilities and abilities. The Government must facilitate a proper dialogue between banks and disability groups. Disability-sensitive staff training is needed. Access to cash needs to be protected, including with more free ATMs and inclusive banking hubs. More broadly, the Government must tackle barriers to individuals’ and households’ ability to access affordable and appropriate financial products and services.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
My partner, who is a financial adviser, often tells me that people come to her far too late in life, when they are in trouble. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to be more inclusive with education on finances, to gear up the next generation to support themselves, set up pensions and so on?
Martin Rhodes
I certainly acknowledge the need for financial education from an early age, so that people understand the system. One of the areas of exclusion is the fact that people just do not understand what financial services and products are. We need to ensure that people understand their options and can explore them.
Even if we addressed all the issues with financial inclusion that we have raised in this debate, there would remain fundamental issues of poverty and inequality in our economic system. The pervasiveness of loan sharks, the lack of access to affordable credit and the heightened cost of living crisis, which have eaten into many people’s savings, all contribute to an exclusionary financial system. I look forward to the publication of the financial inclusion strategy, but also to the publication of the child poverty strategy, alongside action to reduce poverty, promote equitable growth and increase opportunities for all. If we get all of that right, we can build an inclusive financial system for all. I know that the Minister takes these issues seriously; I look forward to her response.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for securing this important debate and for giving me the opportunity to discuss a topic that is integral to the ability of his constituents, my constituents and all our constituents to participate not just in our economy, but in society as a whole. I also thank other hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. From the number of interventions that have been made, it is clear that this is a very important issue to all of us throughout the House.
I think we can agree on the importance of ensuring that everyone across the UK has access to appropriate and affordable financial products and services. I really do appreciate the strength of feeling on the issue. I know that some Members present will have had the opportunity at recent party conferences, as I did, to engage with the likes of Fair4All Finance, the Centre for Social Justice, Rooted Finance and other organisations.
I pay tribute to TAG, the charitable organisation in my hon. Friend’s constituency that he mentioned, for the incredible work that it is doing to promote social inclusion for disabled people. I recognise the importance of that work and the need to go further to ensure that our financial system works for everyone; I will return to that point.
As my hon. Friend has set out, some of the statistics on financial inclusion in the UK are sobering: 900,000 people still do not have access to a bank account, 10% of adults have no savings, and another 21% of adults have less than £1,000 to draw on in the event of an emergency. When it comes to digital inclusion, which he raised, 3.3 million people—7% of current account holders—do not bank online or use a mobile banking app. However, I believe that this Government are on the cusp of making a real difference in that regard via the publication of our national financial inclusion strategy. Through that strategy, we can open up access to the right financial services, build households’ financial resilience and transform our constituents’ financial wellbeing.
However, I must stress that although the Treasury will publish the financial inclusion strategy, Government alone cannot solve some of the issues that we have been discussing today. We need a joint effort across industry, regulators and the third sector. That is exactly why I, along with my immediate predecessor—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds)—and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), have developed our financial inclusion strategy, with the support of a committee made up of consumer and industry representatives.
The committee has been considering a range of barriers faced by those who are financially excluded, as well as three important, cross-cutting themes—economic abuse, mental health and accessibility. The latter theme is particularly relevant to the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North has raised. He will appreciate that I am slightly limited in what I can say before the publication of the strategy, but I can confirm that the fact that accessibility is a cross-cutting theme has been important to the development of the strategy. It has prompted the committee to look closely at the role that inclusive design can play in improving accessibility for underserved groups. I also want to make it very clear that we will publish the strategy before the end of the year.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
A key part of financial inclusion is supporting young people to be included and ensuring that they have essential skills, including financial literacy. Has the Minister spoken with any colleagues in the Department for Education about how we can make sure that young people have the right essential skills, including financial literacy, as part of the strategy?
Lucy Rigby
I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that we have had those discussions. I hope he will see the evidence of those discussions when the strategy is published, and I hope he will see them in a positive light.
I will now address the Government’s position on banking hub services and branch closures, in response to some of the points that have been raised today. I will then come on to some of the other points that have been raised, particularly discrimination in branches, which we must deal with, and digital exclusion.
As one would expect, the Financial Inclusion Committee and its sub-committees’ discussions reflect the fact that banking services have changed remarkably in recent years. Many people, including our vulnerable constituents, have benefited from digital innovations that have enabled them to bank more conveniently and securely at any time and from anywhere. Last year, the vast majority of current account holders—93%—used online or mobile banking services. That includes 75% of over-75s. At the same time, reliance on physical branches has declined significantly. However, the Government are clear about the importance of face-to-face banking to individuals and communities, and are committed to championing access for all. That is why we are working closely with the banks to roll out 350 banking hubs by the end of this Parliament. More than 180 have already opened across the country, offering vital access to cash and everyday banking services.
We have also worked closely with the industry to improve the services that are available at those banking hubs. That includes ensuring that customers do not have to bring their own phone or tablet to access banking support, as well as a commitment to trial the use of printers, enhancing accessibility. We are committed to continuing to work with industry to ensure that banking services in hubs deliver the support that customers require.
I receive regular correspondence about the location of hubs. Hon. Members will know that the location of hubs is set by the Financial Conduct Authority’s rules, which protect access to cash. Although the Government do not have a role in that decision-making process, my predecessor and I have met with Link very regularly. Indeed, I have a meeting with John Howells coming up, and I regularly feed in hon. Members’ views.
Turning to discrimination in branches, I will specifically address the experience of the customers shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North. It was, frankly, hard to hear some of those negative and no doubt damaging experiences. I want everyone to feel valued and respected in their interactions with financial services. I know we would all wish that.
As my hon. Friend knows, all service providers, including banks and building societies, are bound by the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments where necessary. In addition, under the FCA’s consumer duty, firms must identify where customers or groups are not getting good outcomes, and they must understand why. Although I set out that framework, we would always encourage people to contact their bank to explore reasonable adjustments to the services they might require. It is important that people know that if that is not happening, they have a right to contact the Financial Ombudsman Service.
Earlier this year, the FCA published a report setting out areas for improvement in how financial services firms support customers in vulnerable circumstances, including those with learning disabilities in particular. The FCA highlighted in the report that most firms could not evidence how they had embedded the needs of customers in vulnerable circumstances into their product design, which is something we are determined to see change. As I have mentioned, in developing our strategy we have been looking at the role of inclusive design in developing financial inclusion. There has been really positive work to improve the way that financial services work for disabled people, so it is critical that we build on that.
I want to highlight briefly the work of Project Nemo, which was founded in 2024 to address digital accessibility and the under-representation of disabled people in financial services. Project Nemo’s research demonstrates that inclusive features can support those with learning disabilities to manage their money with greater independence and develop products that are more accessible for all. We are determined to build on the good work that has gone on previously to deal with the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North raises.
I want to address digital inclusion and the points that my hon. Friend raised in that regard. We recognise that digital exclusion can be a significant barrier in how consumers are able to access and use financial services products. That is why digital inclusion is an area of focus in the financial inclusion strategy. It has been specifically considered by its own sub-committee, alongside issues around access to banking services. The strategy, which hon. Members will be able to see in due course, will examine what more industry and Government can do to help address the problems and ensure that everyone can engage with financial services and manage their money in what we all know is an increasingly digital society.
The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is the lead Department for digital inclusion. Earlier this year, it published a digital inclusion action plan that focuses on digital barriers beyond financial services, including digital skills and confidence—issues raised today—and widening access to devices and connectivity, providing support through local communities.
I have addressed the matter of financial education, but I also want to touch briefly on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate about the insurance market. I can confirm to her that insurance is in the scope of the financial inclusion strategy. As she knows, there is other work going on, including via the motor insurance taskforce, which is looking at the issues she raised—specifically, the cost of motor insurance to all our constituents.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
PwC analysis has shown that one in three adults in the UK struggle to access mainstream credit, largely due to poor or just thin credit files. That is causing a huge financial inclusion problem, especially for young people trying to get a mortgage. Will the Minister meet me to discuss ways we can improve that situation in collaboration with industry, for example through the reporting of rent payments to credit reference agencies?
Lucy Rigby
I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those issues. I said at the outset that the financial inclusion strategy is considering cross-cutting themes. The issue of credit rating agencies has come across my desk outside the scope of the strategy, in relation to economic abuse. As he knows, there are serious issues with people—women in particular—having their credit rating affected as one impact of economic abuse. That is something that I am extremely interested in and that we are looking at. Indeed, the committee is looking at it as part of the financial inclusion strategy.
I will close by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North for his continued championing of financial inclusion. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for raising their points today. Some raise financial inclusion with me very regularly via correspondence or via conversations in the voting Lobby and elsewhere. I very much appreciate their doing that, and I encourage them to continue to do so as we seek to address these serious issues, which affect not just our constituents’ ability to engage with financial services, but their ability to participate in societal life as a whole. I want to thank again—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Korean War: 75th Commemoration
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the 75th commemoration of the Korean War.
May I say what a pleasure it is to have you invigilating our proceedings, Mr Twigg? This debate is about North Korea, but it is also specifically about the 75th commemoration of the Korean war, in which we took part. I have just discovered that this morning North Korea fired multiple short-range ballistic missiles into the East sea, just a week before President Trump’s visit to South Korea for the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit. I think North Korea may well also have done so because it had heard about this debate. [Laughter.] I pride myself on that, rather than APEC, being almost certainly one of the greater reasons why it did so.
It is a great privilege to open this debate on the 75th anniversary of the Korean war. The world today is yet again at a crossroads between democracy and the axis of totalitarianism and authoritarianism, as we have not been since the fall of the Berlin wall. Over 81,000 British servicemen fought in the Korean war, providing the second largest military contribution to the United Nations Command after the United States, which is something that people rarely talk about. Over 1,100 of them never came home, which is more than the total British losses in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Falklands combined.
Among their most heroic stands was the battle of the Imjin river in 1951. There, 652 men of the 1st Battalion the Gloucestershire Regiment faced three Chinese divisions, numbering at least 42,000 men, in one of the most courageous defences in British military history. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) will no doubt share in detail, those brave Gloucestershire men held the UN line for three days against the overwhelming Chinese spring offensive. When the battle ended, of the 652 men who fought there for those three days, 67 walked away. The rest were killed or captured, and the name Gloster Hill was etched forever into history, although too often schools do not remind everybody of the sacrifice that they made for those who now live free.
Today, only a few veterans of the Korean war remain with us here in the United Kingdom. One of them, Mr Scott, shared a story later recounted by his son in Stockport:
“Of all the campaigns I fought in, Korea was the one that affected me the most. One night, I was called out on a reconnaissance mission I didn’t want to do. But when I returned to my platoon, they had all been wiped out.”
His son, Mr Steven Scott, reflected:
“My father was deeply affected by the Korean War. He had served in the Army during the Second World War and was called up from the reserves for the Korean War.”
Their sacrifice, courage and service secured freedom for one half of the Korean peninsula, a freedom that the democratic world still cherishes today. The other half remains in darkness, suffering under the most brutal regime on earth; it is hard to imagine the brutality of that leadership. We must ensure that their sacrifice is honoured and remembered by generations to come.
Many young people around the world today enjoy K-pop, K-dramas and the vibrant culture of modern South Korea, yet without the sacrifice of those who secured its freedom, none of that would be possible. In stark contrast, totalitarian Pyongyang denies its people access to the internet, mobile phones, YouTube or social media, and those who are caught watching anything from the south or from the outside world face imprisonment or even execution.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate. It is worse than he says in North Korea. If someone is caught committing any of these minor crimes, such as listening to a memory stick from the west, it is not only they who are imprisoned; it is their entire family. That is almost invariably a slow death sentence, because they will then be worked terrifically hard without adequate food.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a shocking concept. A state like that is run for the purposes of the leader, their military chiefs and nobody else. I will come back to some of those figures.
It is worth reminding ourselves that poor Lord Alton, the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on North Korea, is languishing in hospital with a broken back as a result of an accident. I am sure that otherwise he would be watching this debate. We send him our best wishes.
Since the uneasy armistice in 1953, the Korean peninsula has stood as one of the world’s most volatile and divided regions. It is a grey zone between two vastly different states. In June 2019, the world watched as President Trump shook hands with Kim Jong Un and took 20 steps into North Korea, becoming the first sitting US President to set foot in the hermit kingdom. Just a single line of concrete blocks in a heavily militarised zone separates two nations and millions of lives—a division between freedom and tyranny. That must serve as a warning, especially in light of the war in Ukraine, that we must all do what we can to ensure that history does not see another divided Korea.
In the south, a democratic and prosperous nation has arisen, which is now the world’s 13th largest economy it is one of our most important allies and friends, with which we fought shoulder to shoulder during the Korean war. Our partnership was further underlined in November 2023 when His Majesty King Charles III welcomed President Yoon and the First Lady of the Republic of Korea for a state visit to the United Kingdom, celebrating 140 years of diplomatic relations. During that visit, both nations reaffirmed their collaboration in diplomacy, trade, vehicles, military co-operation and artificial intelligence. We must continue to strengthen those economic and strategic partnerships with South Korea, Japan, India, the United States and other democratic allies to ensure that our prosperity and freedoms, which we too often take for granted, are not undermined by the rising threat from the authoritarian states that I have listed: China, Russia, North Korea and Iran, to name but the key ones.
What of the north? While half of the Korean peninsula enjoys freedom, the other half remains under totalitarian rule. It continues brutally to repress its own people. In his recent book “The Dictators”, Iain Dale observes that the Kim family’s dictatorship ranks among the 10 most brutal and evil in history, alongside those of Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot. That reality is consistently reflected in global human rights and religious persecution indexes. Organisations such as Open Doors UK, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Aid to the Church in Need and others continue their vital advocacy, reminding the world each year that North Korea remains the most dangerous place in the world to be a Christian. It is a nation in which human rights are trampled daily and persecution remains unmatched, topping the world watch-list year after year.
Just 12 days ago, North Korea marked the 80th anniversary of its ruling Workers’ party, inviting delegations from China, Russia, Vietnam and other authoritarian states to join the celebrations. For decades, the North Korean people have endured unimaginable suffering from ongoing nuclear development and security threats, starvation, brutal repression and systematic abuses, including enslavement, torture, imprisonment, forced abortions, enforced disappearances and persecution on political and religious grounds. North Korea’s human rights record stands among the worst in the world.
To make matters even more harrowing, for three decades China has forcibly repatriated North Korean escapees. Many—especially pregnant women, who are highly vulnerable and are often trafficked after crossing the border—are sent back into North Korea, where they face imprisonment, torture, forced abortions if their child is of Chinese descent, or even execution. One escapee, Ms Kim Kyu-ri, now lives safely in London and testified at the all-party parliamentary group on North Korea. I was present, as the co-chair with Lord Alton, who I know is watching this debate. Tragically, Ms Kim’s sister was among the 600 repatriated in 2023, and her fate remains unknown. Such acts surely represent only a fraction of the brutality and loss that exist because of the existence of North Korea.
All these issues were thoroughly investigated by the 2014 UN commission of inquiry into all the awful acts North Korea has done. The commission was led by the Australian judge Michael Kirby, who said:
“The gravity, scale, duration and nature of the unspeakable atrocities committed in the country reveal a totalitarian state that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world.”
Its recommendations included the imposition of further sanctions on the regime’s illicit activities, on its nuclear programmes and on the forced production of goods by North Korean political prisoners, including textiles, wigs and fake eyelashes, which are often deceptively labelled as having been made in China. A report produced by the Citizens’ Alliance for North Korean Human Rights, “Made in China: How Global Supply Chain Fuels Slavery in North Korean Prison Camps”, gives evidence of these shocking practices.
I want to return to the anniversary point. British soldiers, sailors and airmen were sent to Korea to fight for a people far distant. At the end of it, their bravery and determination secured, at least, freedom for half of that peninsula. Without their sacrifice, we would not be using the word “North” in front of the word “Korea”. We would be talking about the abuses of a deeply fractured communist regime that is destroying life for those who would love to have the freedoms that we have. Their sacrifice, and their deaths, must always be remembered. There is a tendency to forget that in the aftermath of the second world war we were involved in yet another major conflict. We have the right to be proud of our soldiers, sailors and airmen. Their sacrifice secured freedom for a second time, following the second world war.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent, poignant speech. In 2013, as the then Veterans Minister, I had the great honour of going to South Korea with His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester to represent the Government at the 60th anniversary of the armistice. As my right hon. Friend knows, the South Koreans refer to this day to the countries, like ours, that sent them aid as the sending states. I was very struck by the tremendous lengths to which the South Koreans went to look after our veterans who attended the commemorations. They were treated with immense reverence. Will my right hon. Friend allow me to place on the record today my great thanks to the South Koreans for everything that they do to remember the sending states and those troops who came to defend democracy in their land?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Yes, and my right hon. Friend’s comments will be recorded and available for all to see.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I completely concur with the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) about the need to pay tribute to the South Koreans and their Government for their acknowledgment of the ultimate sacrifice paid by so many of our fellow countrymen in the defence of liberty and democracy in the Republic of Korea. They paid for and helped to establish a war memorial to the British fallen; that memorial now stands outside the Ministry of Defence. That point backs up what both right hon. Members have said. Will the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) reflect on what measures our country and our allies need to put in place to support South Korea in its security and to work towards a peace on the Korean peninsula?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. He is right to ask that question. We should apply ourselves to everything that is needed to ensure the freedom of South Korea, its Government and its people. We did it once; we should be prepared to do it again. It is worth noting that Korea now sits next to one of the growing threats, on a scale of power and potency that we have not seen since the cold war; that is, of course, China. Its ambitions in the area are to dominate all these spheres from Taiwan to Korea.
I have been campaigning on the subject, as have many other Members in this Chamber. Some of us are sanctioned; others not yet. We have been sanctioned because we believe that unless the west stands up now to the growth of the totalitarian states—Russia, North Korea, Iran and China—we will face the loss of the freedoms that we profoundly believe necessary for democracy to flourish and for people’s rights and liberties to be upheld.
This is not just a debate about Korea, north or south; it is a debate about our ability, capability and determination to recognise threats and never give in to them, wherever they lie. If there is one thing that the British Government and the British people should be proud of, it is our unrivalled sense of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, which we have always stood up to uphold. My worry today is that we might look at China and Korea and say, “These are far and distant countries now, and therefore we have to look after only ourselves.” That would be a sad and shabby day for this country. I appreciate the comments by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), but our commitment to freedom is a global commitment.
At this year’s UN General Assembly, the DPRK regime spoke of “human dignity and prosperity” and claimed that it was committed to international peace and security, yet the same regime continues to conduct intercontinental ballistic missile tests—it has launched eight short and medium-range ballistic missiles this year alone—while carrying out large-scale cyber-attacks, including the recent theft of $1.5 billion in cryptocurrency. It engages in transnational repression of human rights activists and illicit arms smuggling, and it continues to pour vast resources into weapons of mass destruction.
Only a few weeks ago, we saw the leaders of the axis of authoritarian states gathered in Beijing, arm in arm with President Xi, claiming that they would be the new world order. If people did not freeze at that sight, understanding that it is a genuine challenge, then on the 75th anniversary of the Korean war we should remind ourselves of the sacrifice of the brave British, American and other United Nations troops who stood up in the face of tyranny and managed to secure freedom—if not all of it, at least enough to give hope to those who live outside it. We are not only commemorating the 75th anniversary; we will have to relive it and remind ourselves that there is nothing more expensive than freedom. It is not free.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing the debate and for recognising the contribution of our Glorious Glosters.
On 1 October 1950, 890 men from the Gloucestershire Regiment left England for Korea. On 25 April 1951, only a few dozen of those men made it back to UN lines, having evaded death and capture at the battle of the Imjin river. Those men became known as our Glorious Glosters. I am honoured to speak today about their heroic contribution.
Across three days in April 1951, 620 Glosters held off thousands of advancing Chinese troops as they crossed the Imjin river. They sustained heavy artillery fire, repeated assaults and frequent combat. They were heavily outnumbered and faced overwhelming odds, but they remained resolute and their courage did not falter. Fifty-nine soldiers of the Gloucestershire Regiment paid the ultimate sacrifice and were killed in action, and over 500 were taken prisoner and endured years of brutal captivity.
The impact of those three days cannot be overstated. By courageously holding off advancing enemy forces, the Glosters prevented the capture of Seoul. Their sacrifice slowed the Chinese advance and gave US and UN troops time to regroup. The battle of the Imjin river is often referred to as the battle that saved Seoul. Without the Glosters’ heroism, there might not be democracy, liberty and freedom in South Korea today.
That is why I believe that it is our duty, and my responsibility as the MP for the great city of Gloucester, always to honour the sacrifice and the bravery of the Glorious Glosters. There are already some great memorials to them, at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire and at Hill 235 in Paju, South Korea, where the Glosters made their famous stand, which is now known as Gloster Hill. The Soldiers of Gloucestershire Museum in my constituency also has a fantastic exhibit dedicated to the Glosters, and I understand that Forest of Dean district council is working hard with partners to create another memorial. As we approach the 75th anniversary of the battle of Imjin river next year, I ask the Government to work with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) to ensure that it is properly commemorated.
We must never forget the bravery of those selfless heroes. Their courage protected liberty and democracy in South Korea. Generations have grown up in Paju, Seoul and across South Korea in freedom, thanks in part to the unwavering courage of the Glorious Glosters. The Glosters did not seek to be heroes, but that is how their bravery defines them today. For this, they must always be honoured.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and to follow the hon. Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre) and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I think this will be a consensual debate, in which we come together to show our solidarity with South Korea and, above all, our respect and gratitude to British servicemen who gave their lives to defend freedom and democracy all those years ago.
We should remember what was happening in our country at that time. We were recovering from the devastation of the second world war. Families had made huge sacrifices, but we were prepared to make further sacrifices. In that context, it was an even greater achievement, as the hon. Member for Gloucester just outlined. It is important to remember that, and I urge colleagues to go and spend a moment looking at the war memorial outside the Ministry of Defence.
I have the pleasure to represent many Koreans. Half of the 40,000 Koreans in the UK live in south-west London, mainly in my constituency and Wimbledon. Indeed, New Malden in my constituency is known as Little Seoul; it has some fine Korean restaurants, should hon. Members wish to partake. I am also proud to be the chair of the APPG on the Republic of Korea. We are particularly grateful to the embassy staff for their support in engaging with our Korean friends.
South Korea is a fantastic country. The democracy that was won through that sacrifice has given back multiple times over to its own people, to south-east Asia and to the world, including our country. We should all be proud to say that our country is a friend of South Korea. We are able to enjoy their wonderful culture, with the K-wave—Korean wave—going across the world. I, for one, have BTS and Blackpink on my phone.
Ed Davey
I could show and play them, Mr Twigg, but that might be out of order. I also have a DVD at home of the film “Parasite”, which won many awards, showing that Korean culture goes way beyond music. I am a particular fan of kimchi, and proud that the royal borough of Kingston is the first place in our country to celebrate International Kimchi Day, when we eat lots of that wonderful food.
More seriously, the relationship between our country and Korea is strategic, and it is critical: critical for our economy, for our defence and for the geopolitical response that our country has to make. I will deal first with the economy, not least because the APPG wants to take evidence on the trade agreement that is being bashed out by trade negotiators. I was proud to be a trade Minister when we pushed for the EU-Korea free trade agreement, which was extremely effective. We published all the opportunities available to British companies in Korea as a result of that free trade agreement. I hope the agreement currently under discussion can build on that, so that we and Korean firms can benefit mutually, in the way that free trade allows.
I flag up in particular the relationship we can have on technology, with AI and beyond. In my constituency, we are developing relationships with Korean schools and universities, so that their knowledge of AI can be shared with our schools and university. It is important that we work with trusted allies such as our Korean friends to push out the boat on those new technologies. Beyond the economy, the energy relationship is important in all spheres, whether renewables or nuclear. The Republic of Korea is very much signed up to efforts to reduce its carbon emissions, and it is a trusted partner in the battle for climate action.
On our defence and security relationship with South Korea, under the Government of the previous Conservative Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), a very important deal was done, and signed at No. 10, to strengthen defence co-operation in a way that we have not seen before. For all the reasons mentioned by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, strengthening that relationship could not be more important. Yes, there is the threat from North Korea, but above all there is the geopolitical threat that China represents not just to South Korea, but more broadly. President Lee Jae Myung, who took power after the recent elections, needs huge support. It is a difficult time in the politics of Korea, but he is showing real leadership, and we need to get behind his Government and their attempts to keep the peace on the peninsula through strength and diplomacy.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
As we mark the 75th anniversary of the Korean war and the colossal loss of life—2.5 million lives were sadly lost—we must appreciate the huge strides that South Korea has made as a democracy and a close and trusted ally, which the right hon. Gentleman has remarked on. Does he agree that while we commemorate the contribution of our brave British service personnel who served during that time, we must ensure as a nation that we are a beacon of security and stability internationally and strengthen our alliance with our South Korean partners?
Ed Davey
I could not agree more. I think that is a cross-party view, and all the stronger for it. It is important on the occasions that we agree on foreign policy to send out that message, because it is heard in other parts of the world. They know that together, as a country, we support our friends in South Korea.
Returning to the commemoration, I will concentrate my final remarks on the threat from North Korea, because it is a real one. We have seen how North Korean troops are supporting Russia in its illegal war against Ukraine. No doubt it is sending its technology. I am not on top of all the details of the things it is sending, but I know that it will be sending ammunition and missiles. That shows us that we need to be on our marks against North Korea today; it is a threat to the world order today.
Although I am no great fan of President Trump, I hope that he can succeed in any talks that he has with the North Koreans. It is essential that they are brought to their senses. That is a very difficult task, as he found the last time he attempted it, which did not go terribly well. [Interruption.] As the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green says from a sedentary position, President Trump christened the President of North Korea “Rocket man”.
Ed Davey
“Little rocket man”—as always, a double-edged sword.
Let us hope that President Trump is more successful this time. There are many ways he and our Government can take that forward. I have spoken with US politicians, and in particular Congressman Brad Sherman, who has put forward the idea of trying to move on from the armistice—let us remember that the war has not actually finished—to a formal peace treaty. I think that is an interesting concept. Arguing for a formal peace treaty, difficult though it may be with the current Government in North Korea, who are shocking and appalling in all the ways that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green mentioned, could show that we want to engage. It would be a difficult and tricky route, but trying to establish a peace treaty is one way that we could commemorate the 75th anniversary of the start of the war and, more importantly, commemorate and strengthen the peace that there has been so that people on the whole peninsula can live in peace.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
It is a privilege to speak in this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this important debate to mark the 75th anniversary of the Korean war, and on his excellent opening speech.
It is a great privilege to represent my consistency of North Cotswolds. It is an area that I have had the honour of representing, in some guise, since 1992, and it includes the largest geographical chunk of Gloucestershire, where undoubtedly members of the Gloucestershire Regiment’s families still live. As we commemorate this important anniversary, let me start as others have by paying tribute to the courage and sacrifice of the Gloucestershire Regiment during the battle of the Imjin river in April 1951. Like my right hon. Friend, I acknowledge that, of course, not only the Gloucestershire Regiment but all our other airmen, naval men and soldiers were part of that operation.
In the face of a powerful force of 42,000 Chinese soldiers, the 1st battalion—the Glorious Glosters—held their position alone for three days. In the end there were 662 casualties. Fifty-six were killed, and 522 were taken prisoner—and many of them had already endured German and Japanese prisoner of war camps in world war two, as has been said.
It was because of my connection with the Glosters that I chaired the APPG on North Korea for many years. I was very pleased that it was taken over from me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. On behalf of all the families, and the relatives who live elsewhere, I would like to pay tribute to the Glosters.
According to General James Van Fleet, commander of the United Nations forces in Korea, the Glosters’ stand at Imjin was
“the most outstanding example of unit bravery in modern warfare.”
Their heroic defence plugged a large gap in the allied line and, ultimately, as my right hon. Friend said, it prevented the North Korean forces from capturing Seoul—where I have visited on several occasions—and helped to pave the way for the establishment of a free, prosperous South Korea. The courage and sacrifice of the Glosters secured freedom for one half of the Korean peninsula—even as the other half continues to suffer badly today under the repressive yoke of one of the most brutal regimes with the worst human rights record in the world.
For their actions during the battle, the Glosters were awarded the US Presidential Unit Citation, a rare honour for non-American armed forces. Two of the men from the regiment were also posthumously rewarded the Victoria Cross, the British empire’s highest military decoration for valour. They included Lieutenant Philip Curtis for leading a counter-attack on the Chinese position at Castle Hill, buying time for his comrades. There were also two awards of the Distinguished Service Order, six Military Crosses, two Distinguished Conduct Medals and 10 Military Medals. The actions of the Glosters at Imjin remains one of the British Army’s finest hours.
Mr Francois
My hon. Friend highlights the fact that the Glorious Glosters were awarded a US Presidential Unit Citation, which is extremely rare for a non-American unit. Another link is that the Korean war memorial in Washington has a very brief inscription that reads simply, “Freedom is not free.” Does my hon. Friend agree that the defence of Gloster Hill by the Glorious Glosters, and the casualties they suffered, are a living embodiment of that great motto?
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My right hon. Friend is entirely right: freedom is not free, and nor is it enduring. We cannot assume that we will always be free; we have to continuously fight for and believe in it. That is why we want to support Ukraine and other countries that are being unjustly penalised in an illegal war, to make sure that they can remain free, just as we in this country have freedoms that we often take for granted. We must never take those freedoms for granted.
I come now to a slightly sad bit in my speech. The bodies of many of the Glorious Glosters who were killed in North Korea still remain there. As many of my colleagues will be aware, I have previously been involved in efforts to try to return their remains to Britain. While noting the current geopolitical climate, I would like to ask whether the Minister will work with me to ensure that the remaining Glosters are brought home, so that their families can finally give them a dignified burial. There is precedent for this: the last time there was a little bit of rapprochement, around the time of President Trump’s meetings with the President of North Korea, some of the American bodies were brought home. If there is an opportunity in the next rapprochement, and if the Minister supports me in pushing for this, I could arrange for the bodies to be categorised and returned to the families in a dignified way, so that they can lay them to rest.
As we mark the 75th anniversary of the Korean war, let us turn our attention to the situation in the peninsula today. Anyone who looks at a satellite photo will see that half, the south, is lit up with bright lights—the lights of a free, prosperous, democratic society. The other half, the north, remains in darkness—a darkness of cruelty, repression and poverty. As has been mentioned, those who are brave enough to try to escape from North Korea very often end up in China. China uses facial and other recognition technology to make sure those people are returned, certainly to torture and most likely to their death.
We are very honoured—I have his permission to mention this—to have Timothy Cho in the Gallery today. He is one of those who tried to escape from North Korea. He failed on the first occasion, and he has huge scars all over his body from the torture that he went through when he was recaptured. But he was even braver, and wanted to escape for a second time, when mercifully he succeeded. We are very proud to have him here in Britain.
In 2013, the United Nations established a commission of inquiry, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said, to investigate the human rights situation in North Korea. A distinguished Australian judge, Justice Michael Kirby, was appointed to chair it. Together with the experienced Serbian human rights campaigner Sonja Biserko and the UN special rapporteur for human rights in North Korea at the time, the former Indonesian Attorney General Marzuki Darusman, he conducted a comprehensive set of hearings, gathering witness testimony and first-hand evidence. As has been quoted today, their conclusion was:
“The gravity, scale and nature of these violations”
—this is the important bit—
“reveal a State that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world.”
Having been chairman of the North Korea group, I can tell the House that some of the stories that I have heard are just unbelievable. It is a harrowing catalogue of crimes against humanity, including extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape and forced abortions, among the other atrocities that people there have to endure, as well as severe religious persecution, enforced disappearance and starvation. The inquiry recommended that this should lead to a referral to the International Criminal Court. More than a decade later, I ask the Minister: what is the status of the UN commission of inquiry? What plans do the Government have to revisit the human rights and humanitarian crisis in North Korea at the UN Human Rights Council and the UN Security Council?
Seventy-five years on from the war on the Korean peninsula, North Korea, together with China, is a major facilitator of President Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine, providing Russia with weapons, munitions and men. While we remember that 75 years ago our brave soldiers were on the Korean peninsula defending freedom, North Korean troops today are on the continent of Europe, on our doorstep, reminding us that independence and liberty cannot be taken for granted. What steps are the Government taking to hold North Korea to account for this act of aggression?
We live in an increasingly turbulent and uncertain world. That should remind us how imperative it is for democracies to stand together to defend freedom against tyranny and totalitarianism. Nowhere is there a clearer example that shows why that is needed than on the Korean peninsula. Imagine what Korea would be like today if the Glosters had not taken such a heroic stance. All of us in this House should pay tribute to their courage and selfless actions.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I commend the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this debate. I always come along to support him because his heart is always in the subject matter. Today he illustrated that incredibly well.
Seventy-five years ago, British and Commonwealth servicemen and women joined a United Nations coalition to defend the Korean peninsula from aggression. It was one of the bloodiest conflicts of the 20th century; it is estimated to have claimed about 3 million lives, most of them civilians. The scars of that division remain visible to this day. More than 1,000 British servicemen were killed, and several thousand more were wounded or taken prisoner. They fought with extraordinary bravery in the harshest of conditions, from the battle of the Imjin river to the defence of Seoul. Their courage stands as a lasting testament to our nation’s commitment to freedom and peace in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I am ever mindful of my constituent Colonel Robin Charley. He was born in 1924 and died in 2019 aged 95. He was a magnificent soldier who showed incredible courage and bravery. I remember his medal, because it always intrigued me—the Queen’s Korea medal—and he wore it with pride. I was not quite sure what it was; I asked him one day and he told me some of the stories of Korea and what had happened. He has passed away now, but his daughter, Catherine Champion, is a vice lord lieutenant of County Down. He passed on to his children that commitment to duty and doing one’s best; he did that wonderfully well.
I am also reminded of another gentleman who has passed away: Mr Milligan from Loughries outside Newtownards, who also lived to a ripe old age. He fought in that war and carried the scars of Korea each and every day.
The war ended not with peace, but with an armistice—a fragile ceasefire that still divides one people into two nations. The south rebuilt and flourished as a democracy; the north closed itself off inwardly under totalitarian rule. What did the Korean war leave us with for Christians and people of faith? Seventy-five years on, we honour the legacy best by standing for those who are still denied the freedoms for which our soldiers fought all those years ago.
I am grateful to the all-party parliamentary group on North Korea—we have representatives here today—for its continued commitment
“to promote and support human rights, including religious freedom, humanitarian needs, democracy and…international security”.
This debate is very much about the international security that people fought for 75 years ago and fight for today. As the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said, that fight has not finished.
I am also grateful to the North Korean exile community for the immense courage that it takes to share their stories. Ten years ago, the United Nations Commission of Inquiry described the “gravity, scale and nature” of the Kim regime’s crimes as having no
“parallel in the contemporary world.”
A decade later, little has changed. There is no parallel in the contemporary world. North Korea is top of the tree when it comes to persecution, denying human rights and murdering its own people.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I care deeply about promoting freedom in North Korea and around the globe. Religious freedom is effectively non-existent in North Korea. According to non-governmental organisation and United Nations estimates, between 50,000 and 70,000 Christians are believed to be detained in political camps solely because of their faith—some for owning a Bible, others for praying in secret. Some of us pray every day and carry our Bible. In North Korea, people cannot do that, because the punishment is death.
Broader estimates suggest there might be 400,000 underground Christians across the country, worshipping quietly and at constant risk of discovery. These are not just statistics; these are people. Defectors have testified that people have been beaten, starved and executed simply for believing in God. One mother was reportedly forced to watch her sons shot for possessing Christian literature. Such cruelty is part of a deliberate campaign to eradicate faith and enforce absolute devotion to the ruling family.
Those who try to flee face grave danger. There are credible reports of a shoot-to-kill policy at the border. Those who reach China are often forcibly repatriated, as others have said, in violation of international law and the principle of non-refoulement. Human Rights Watch and other organisations report that hundreds of North Koreans have been returned from China in recent years to face imprisonment and torture, especially if they are suspected of contact with Christians or missionaries. How wrong it seems to be, to North Korea’s regime, to be a Christian, to have a faith, and to have independent thought.
One voice that brings that horror into focus is that of Jinhye Jo, a North Korean defector who has spoken with remarkable courage. Fleeing to China with her mother and sister, she found God in a small countryside church—a glimmer of grace amid fear. For that faith, she was forcibly repatriated four times, and was each time beaten and interrogated by the Bowibu, the secret police, who demanded to know whether she had attended church or had social engagements with Christians. That courageous lady said this:
“All these methods of severe and cruel punishment were to try to find out…whether we had attended church or come into contact with Christians”.
She went on to say:
“God saved me so that I would be able to tell the world the plight of the North Korean people’s unfair suffering and the worst modern-day evil that is going on right now.”
Jinhye Jo’s testimony is not only a cry of pain, but a call to conscience. Today, we stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters facing persecution in North Korea. As Jeremiah 22:3 reminds us, we must do what is just and right always, and rescue the oppressed from the power of the oppressor. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland must continue to press for justice and accountability for crimes against humanity, urge China to end forced repatriations and support those documenting evidence for future prosecutions. A day of reckoning will come, and we want to ensure that that day is in this world, although of course they will get their day of reckoning in the next.
Seventy-five years after our forebears fought for the freedom of Korea, let their courage inspire us to defend freedom again, until the day comes when every person in North Korea can live in peace, dignity and hope.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I am reminded that it was only last month that we heard him pay tribute to the courage of his father in the battle of Britain. It is in the same spirit that we reflect on the Korean war, 75 years ago.
Seventy-five years on from the outbreak of the Korean war, we commemorate a conflict that is sometimes called the forgotten war. It is probably called that because it is in the shadow of world war two, which of course was so far-reaching that it affects everybody’s memory—it is very much in our memory today and will be next month, as we go into the period of remembrance. However, the Korean war is never forgotten by families who lost loves ones or by communities like those I represent, who sent their family members to serve.
Today’s debate marks the anniversary of the service of British forces who fought under the UN flag from 1950 to 1953. We remember it in particular because it was one of the first occasions when the newly constituted United Nations deployed a force under chapter 7 of the UN charter, which states that the UN can respond to
“any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression”.
It was the absence of the Soviet Union at the UN Security Council that made it possible to deploy a force under the UN flag, consistent with the intention of the authors of the UN charter. What a pity it is that we now have a representative of Russia on the UN Security Council vetoing the rational motions that the UK seeks to pass.
For east Devon, the history of this conflict is personal. In Sidmouth, there is a plaque at St Giles and St Nicholas church that remembers Private David Hamson, who fell in Korea aged just 20. His name anchors that distant war in Sidmouth’s own story, given that the plaque stands alongside those of fallen soldiers from the first and second world wars. David Hamson was born in Sidmouth in 1932. He was called up for national service and joined the Devonshire Regiment, which was first deployed in Malaya to combat the communist insurgency that was taking place there in the 1950s.
Soon afterwards, volunteers were sought to reinforce the British operation in Korea, and David stepped forward. He was transferred to the Gloucestershire Regiment. In April 1951, his battalion took up positions in the hills outside Seoul, in the battle that has been reflected on several times this afternoon. He was facing China’s 63rd army, about 27,000 strong, as it sought to capture the South Korean capital. The Glosters, numbering just 652 men, held their ground for four days and nights, buying crucial time for the defence of Seoul. One can only imagine what that experience must have been like.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the extraordinary bravery of British and international forces in the Korean war, as other right hon. and hon. Members have. Will he join me in also paying tribute to the extraordinary journalists who bravely sought to bring news of Korea to international and, indeed, Korean audiences? They include René Cutforth, for the BBC overseas services, who was one of the last journalists to leave Seoul in 1950, and Marguerite Higgins, an American journalist who won a Pulitzer prize—the first woman ever to do so—for the courage of her journalism in the Korean war. Will he also join me in paying tribute to the continuing work of the BBC World Service, which continues to broadcast in Korean to North Korean audiences today?
Richard Foord
We absolutely must pay tribute to journalists who continue to report in some of the most dangerous circumstances. Even this year, hundreds of journalists have lost their lives in conflict.
Private Hamson was among those who did not return from the famous battle of Imjin river. His courage and sacrifice embody the spirit of the Devonshire Regiment and the Glorious Glosters, to which he was transferred. His name is inscribed at the UN memorial cemetery at Busan, in South Korea.
In July 2023, a short service was held at St Giles and St Nicholas church to remember the Korean war. The Royal British Legion president, Ralph Hickman, and the Sidmouth Royal Naval Old Comrades association chair, Peter O’Brien, made speeches about the sacrifices made in a war that today has slipped from collective memory for some, perhaps, but not for us, and not for Sidmouth.
Ray Collins from Woolbrook, near Sidmouth, was present at that service two summers ago. A year after the 1953 armistice, he found himself in Korea with the Dorset Regiment. For nearly a year, his battalion was based along the 38th parallel—the tense frontier established at the truce. He says that there were occasional shoot-outs and a constant round of provocations from the north, but he said that it was the freezing conditions that proved the real enemy. When his national service ended, Ray became a leader of the Sidmouth army cadets, and served as its respected warrant officer for more than 30 years. His dedication and leadership earned him the British empire medal—a lifetime of service rooted in what he learned serving in Korea.
In total, 1,108 British servicemen lost their lives in Korea. Commemoration should sharpen our sense of the world that we face today. The Korean war was the first hot war of the cold war—a brutal struggle that asked whether free nations would stand firm against oppression and aggression, driven by a Soviet system prepared to gamble with lives while seeking to challenge democracy and liberty. Today, the Russian Federation is waging the largest land war in Europe since 1945. Its full-scale invasion of Ukraine has shattered peace on our continent. We cannot ignore the rhyme of history, with an authoritarian power once again testing the resolve of free nations. In remembering the Korean war, we honour those who fell, but we also reaffirm a simple truth: democratic nations must stand together against tyranny.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this important debate on the 75th anniversary of the Korean war. The Liberal Democrats pay tribute to the tens of thousands of British veterans who served in the Korean war, and who ensured the survival of a free and democratic South Korea.
Many veterans of Korea are now in their 90s, and so, just as the second world war is passing from living memory, we should remember that the Korean war is about to do the same. With just under 1,100 British casualties, many war memorials across the country include a small number of names from Korea, which adds to the idea of what is often unfairly called the forgotten war. In my constituency, the war memorial in the small coastal village of Mortehoe bears only a single name from Korea—that of Mr W. J. Yeo—added to one side of the stone, almost like an afterthought. Forgetting Mr Yeo, however, and many like him, would be a disservice to the remarkable achievement of all those veterans who served, many of whom were doing national service at the time.
Earlier this year, the South Korean ambassador to the UK again praised the bravery of British troops, who not only risked their lives but defended a distant land and the freedom of a people they had never met. Today, South Korea is not only a democratic society, but a resolute British ally in the far east, and a global economic success story. In July 1950, that future hung in the balance. Communist forces controlled nearly all the Korean peninsula, and only a determined counter-offensive by the US, Britain and our allies secured a future for South Korea as an independent nation.
The lesson is so clear, because north of the demilitarised zone, we can now see an alternative version of history that might have played out. North Korea remains a deeply repressive dictatorship and an economically backward rogue state. Amnesty International describes its militaristic regime as
“violating every conceivable human right.”
It allows torture and starvation. It does not allow
“any organised political opposition, independent media, free trade unions, civil society organisations, or religious freedom.”
The north continues to align with Russia and Iran, violating international sanctions and heightening nuclear tensions. It threatens democratic neighbours such as South Korea and Japan, and even provides military aid to Russia’s war against Ukraine. As we reach this anniversary, that stark contrast between north and south should strengthen the UK’s resolve.
Many Members will have seen those astonishing satellite photographs of the Korean peninsula, which show the bright lights of South Korea and near-total darkness across the north. It is in no small part thanks to courageous British efforts that the lights did not go out entirely, and 75 years on, we must never forget.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I welcome the Minister to his new position. This is the first time we have—I will not say sparred, because it is not the sort of debate for that—worked together since we served as Whips a number of years ago.
Let me begin by congratulating my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this important marking the 75th anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean war. He brings, as ever, such knowledge and sincerity to the House, and at times—in the right way and at the right time—a little humour, as he did at the very start of the debate. Not only that, but he enables us to demonstrate that the role of this place often goes way beyond debating legislation. It can rightly provide an opportunity for us to come together as a House and a space to commemorate and reflect.
Sitting here, I was reminded of the day when, as a Foreign Minister, I had the honour of being invited to lay a wreath at the Korean war memorial on Victoria Embankment in 2020 to mark the 67th anniversary of the Korean war armistice agreement. I thank my right hon. Friend for providing the space for us today, because it provides a moment for reflection and gratitude. The Korean war, as we have heard, is often called the forgotten war, but it must never be forgotten. It was a defining struggle of the early cold war—one that tested the unity of the free world and reaffirmed the principles of collective security that remain vital today.
On 25 June 1950, North Korean forces crossed the 38th parallel, triggering three years of brutal conflict. More than 2.5 million people lost their lives, but Britain answered the call of the United Nations, sending more than 81,000 service personnel—the second largest contribution after that of the United States. As we have heard, 1,129 British servicemen made the ultimate sacrifice. Over 1,000 were taken prisoner, and around 300 remain missing. We remember them and their families, who bore the quiet burden of that service.
Among those who fought were young men from my own region—the west midlands, including the Black Country—many of whom served with proud regiments such as the Duke of Wellington’s Regiment and the Black Watch, both of which saw fierce action in Korea. Across the Commonwealth, too, the bonds of sacrifice run deep. More than 26,000 Canadians, 18,000 Australians, 4,700 New Zealanders and thousands more from India, South Africa and elsewhere stood beside us. Their shared service is part of the living fabric of the Commonwealth family and the global defence of democracy.
Commemoration is not just about looking back. It is also about understanding why the legacy of the Korean war still matters today. The Republic of Korea—South Korea—has emerged from the devastation of war as a vibrant democracy, a major economy and a valued strategic partner of the UK. Our modern partnership rests on the same values our forebears fought for: freedom, prosperity and the rule of law. That partnership was reaffirmed under the last Government, in November 2023, through the Downing Street accord, a global strategic partnership between our two nations. Under that accord, we are working together on defence, cyber-security, clean energy, semiconductors and resilient supply chains. We established a new ministerial dialogue to align foreign and defence policy, and expanded co-operation on naval training, defence exports and regional stability. This partnership matters to both nations: it strengthens our ability to deter aggression, uphold freedom of navigation, and shape the future of technology and trade on fair and open terms.
We cannot commemorate this anniversary without acknowledging the continuing threats in the region. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea—North Korea—remains a source of instability and danger, not only to its neighbours but to global security. Its relentless pursuit of nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities, its disregard for UN Security Council resolutions, and its growing ties to other authoritarian regimes, including Russia and China, all demand our vigilance and resolve. The regime’s leader continues to endanger his own people and the peace of the region. Therefore, we must remain firm in condemning these provocations, united in enforcing sanctions and clear that such behaviour will not be rewarded with legitimacy.
The Korean war taught us that alliances matter and that when free nations stand together, they can resist aggression and preserve peace. Those lessons are as vital today as they were in 1950, but this anniversary is also an opportunity to celebrate the enduring success of our friendship with the Republic of Korea and to reaffirm the United Kingdom’s commitment to upholding peace and security in the Indo-Pacific and around the world.
In that spirit, may I ask the Minister three brief questions? First, what further steps are the Government taking to support the work of the Joint Casualty and Compassionate Centre in investigating historical cases of missing British personnel from the Korean war? Secondly, how is the UK implementing the Downing Street accord, particularly in strengthening our defence, security and cyber partnerships with the Republic of Korea? Thirdly, what assessment have the Government made of the evolving security threat posed by North Korea, and how is the UK working with allies to respond effectively, including through a review of the effectiveness of existing UN sanctions, to ensure that they are having the maximum possible impact on Kim Jong Un’s regime?
In Busan, the British memorial bears this inscription:
“Our nation honors her sons and daughters who answered the call to defend a country they never knew and a people they never met”.
Those words speak of duty, courage and the enduring belief that freedom anywhere is worth defending everywhere. Seventy-five years on, we remember them with gratitude and renewed purpose.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
Mr Twigg, it is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, although I have never done so as a Minister, so it is nice to be in this slightly different role.
I pay sincere tribute to the right hon. and gallant Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I know from having been in the House for almost a decade that when he speaks, many Members across the House listen. He always does so with great dignity. If I may say so, with genuine affection, he gives us a huge history lesson on the conflicts around the globe, which come with real authority. I mean that most sincerely, and I know that many Members across the House respect the work that he has done over the decades he has served in it. I also pay tribute to his work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on North Korea, and to the work of Lord Alton. I am sorry to hear that Lord Alton is currently in hospital; I do hope that there are ways in which our wonderful NHS can provide support to him as he recovers from his broken back.
The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), who is responsible for the Indo-Pacific, would have been delighted to take the debate today, but she is travelling on ministerial duties, so it is my pleasure to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Government.
I thank the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton). I am not sure we have ever sparred on any subject, including in our years of me shadowing her when I was in the Whips Office in opposition. I hope we can continue that friendly relationship as we start this new relationship as Minister and shadow Minister.
I am grateful for the many poignant contributions by Members from across the House, and I will try my best to respond to all the points raised. I make a commitment at this point that if I miss something, I will be more than happy to ensure that right hon. and hon. Members receive written responses, because I appreciate that this debate has cross-party consensus in the House, and it is our job as Members of Parliament to show that it is at its best when we are trying to find resolutions to some of the most difficult events, including those that took place 75 years ago.
Seventy-five years ago, the United Kingdom stood shoulder to shoulder with the Republic of Korea and the United Nations, defending freedom and democracy in what became the Korean war. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), had the privilege of visiting the national memorial to this conflict in Washington, where the words “Freedom is not free” are etched in granite. As has been said, it is a powerful reminder of the price that so many paid.
From this war-scarred island 75 years ago, more than 80,000 British troops crossed the seas to fight in the Korean war, standing with a community of nations committed to freedom for the Korean people. More than 1,000 never returned. Their lives were given in the cause of liberty. Many more were wounded or taken prisoner.
A short distance from here, a beautiful bronze statue, crafted by Philip Jackson, stands—on a base of Welsh slate, I should tell Members—in Victoria Embankment Gardens. That memorial, a gift from the Republic of Korea, is a lasting tribute to those who served. When it was unveiled, veterans spoke of their sacrifice finally being recognised. Today, this House stands united in honouring that sacrifice, which must never be forgotten.
I also pay tribute to those who continue to serve and support the UN Command in supporting peace on the Korean peninsula. Twenty-two nations joined together in the Korean war, and it was our collective effort that secured an armistice, enabling South Korea to flourish. Today, the Republic of Korea is an important and valued partner, and our relationship spans defence, security, trade, climate action and far more. Sadly, the same cannot be said for North Korea.
Today, global risks are evolving and tensions are rising, but our commitment remains firm to peace and prosperity across the Korean peninsula, stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and supporting a peaceful, secure and prosperous future for the people of the Indo-Pacific.
I pay particular tribute to the hon. Members for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre) for their deeply moving contributions on the Gloucestershire Regiment. We could never do the brave men who served our country justice, but we stand united in thanking them and indeed, as the shadow Minister referenced, their families, who still talk, I am sure, about the sacrifice of their relatives.
The hon. Member for North Cotswolds asked about the repatriation of bodies, and I appreciate that this is a huge piece of work for him. The Ministry of Defence, along with partners, continues to identify the remains of those who fell during the war. If the opportunity arises, it will look to support efforts to repatriate the remains of those soldiers, so I encourage him to keep doing that work and to work with MOD Ministers to ensure that we do all we can to bring those remaining men home.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am grateful for the Minister’s words, but what I was really trying to ask in my speech was whether the British Government would work with the Americans. It is only through the Americans that we will get the political buy-in from the North Koreans to allow these things to take place.
Chris Elmore
As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, we do huge amounts of work bilaterally with the Americans. I will ensure that Ministry of Defence colleagues come back to him in a substantive way and that he gets an answer.
The UK Government’s long-standing position remains the same: we believe that diplomacy and negotiation are the best way to secure peace and stability on the Korean peninsula. That is not straightforward and progress is slow, but to honour the values our armed forces fought for, we will continue to work with our friends and allies in the region and across the globe towards peace and a better life for the people of North Korea.
However, the UK is clear about the threat the regime continues to pose to international security. We continue to condemn the DPRK’s illegal nuclear and ballistic missile programmes in the strongest terms, alongside our allies. Over the past year, North Korea has continued testing, launching one intermediate-range and six short-range ballistic missiles. As the right hon. and gallant Member for Chingford and Woodford Green referenced —as has been said, in good humour, although I am not sure that this was timed to coincide with the debate—the short-range missiles launched this morning are a brazen violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions.
The launches show that the DPRK continues to advance its illegal ballistic weapons programmes, posing a clear threat to regional stability. It continues to destabilise the peace and security of the peninsula. We call again on the DPRK to refrain from illegal launches and return to dialogue with the international community. As the G7 made clear in our joint statement at Charlevoix in March, these launches are a clear breach of UN Security Council resolutions. Today’s launches are no different. We will continue to call them out and work with partners across the region and beyond to uphold international law and protect global security.
The Russia-Ukraine conflict has already been mentioned and we condemn in the strongest possible terms the DPRK’s active support for Russia’s illegal war. The partnership between the DPRK and Russia poses grave risks to global security. Over the past year, Pyongyang has grown bolder, deploying 11,000 troops to Kursk. Our assessment is that there have been 4,000 North Korean casualties, including 1,000 fatalities. That is why in February the UK imposed sanctions on the DPRK, including sanctions against DPRK officials directly involved in supporting Russian military action against Ukraine. Alongside our partners, we will continue to impose costs on Russia and DPRK for this dangerous expansion of the war.
This year, we have stepped up our focus on cyber-space, working closely with partners. Today, I can inform the House that the UK, alongside key allies in the multilateral sanctions monitoring team, is publishing a report that exposes the DPRK’s malicious cyber-activity and use of overseas IT workers. Its cyber-activity includes theft of cyber-currency, fraudulent IT contracts and cyber-espionage. North Korea is using these tactics to bypass UN sanctions and fund its illegal weapons programmes. The report is available today on gov.uk; I commend it to right hon. and hon. Members.
While we continue to address the threat that North Korea poses to international peace and security, we have not lost sight of the fact that ordinary North Koreans are suffering. The DPRK’s regime prioritises weapons and illicit activity over the wellbeing of its people, whom we seek to support. We want a stable and prosperous DPRK. That is why we continue to highlight ongoing, widespread and systematic human rights abuses, and call them out. Last year marked 10 years since the UN’s Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and in June our permanent representatives at the UN Security Council said that the perpetrators of human rights abuses remain unaccountable and the people continue to suffer. Last month, the UN high commissioner’s report confirmed that, if anything, the situation has worsened since 2014.
We continue to call on the DPRK to address its appalling record. In April, the UK co-sponsored a Human Rights Council resolution renewing the special rapporteur’s mandate and calling for stronger accountability. The isolation of the DPRK regime is a major barrier to progress; we urge the DPRK to engage with the international community and to take steps to improve its human rights record. We also continue to press for the reopening of our embassy in Pyongyang and for the return of humanitarian agencies.
In response to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is a passionate advocate for freedom of religion or belief, I cannot stress enough that we consider it unacceptable that the people of DPRK face surveillance, imprisonment or even death because of their religion or belief. The House should be utterly united in the belief that people should have the ability to practise their religion, whether that is reading the Bible or anything else. We raise the issue of the lack of freedom of religion within the DPRK directly with the authorities there, and at the UN, including at the Human Rights Council. Freedom of religion remains an absolute priority for the British Government.
To continue this theme, we are also deeply concerned by reports from Human Rights Watch that, as many Members have already mentioned, China has forcibly returned over 400 North Koreans since last year, despite UN warnings of torture, imprisonment, sexual violence, forced labour and, tragically, execution. In May, the UK raised the issue at the UN General Assembly, calling on all states to respect the principle of non-refoulement and to ensure that refugees from North Korea are not sent back there.
We must also remember that the Korean war has never officially ended. The 1953 armistice still holds, yet the DPRK continues to claim that the US, South Korea and their partners are hostile. We are not aligned with the DPRK, but we do not seek its destabilisation or to harm its people. Our aim is clear: to limit the DPRK’s weapons programmes, to prevent proliferation and to urge the regime to prioritise its people over its nuclear ambitions. Our approach is one of critical engagement—we hold the DPRK to account, but we also seek dialogue. We want to reduce strategic risk and encourage a return to international co-operation. We hope that our embassy in North Korea can reopen, so that we can once again understand the lives of the North Korean people from the ground up.
I have almost reached my conclusion, Mr Twigg. In response to a question from the hon. Member for North Cotswolds, I should say that I touched on the work that we were still doing from the 2014 report until last year. I reassure him that we are continuing that work; we will continue to try always to have constructive dialogue with North Korea, while also making sure that it is held to account for human rights abuses.
Finally, I come to the shadow Minister’s questions and those from Members across the House. Building on the Downing Street accord, we are developing an enhanced shared agenda through the UK-Korea joint growth mission, aligning UK priorities on economic growth, clean energy leadership and security with President Lee’s priorities, including growth, defence industry exports, AI and climate action.
Later this year, we plan to convene the first UK-Korea high-level forum, bringing together industry leaders, politicians, academics and civil society to deepen collaboration in defence, AI and soft power. As was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), we are looking forward to concluding negotiations on our enhanced UK-Republic of Korea free trade agreement by the end of this year, as agreed by the Prime Minister and the President over the summer. Both sides will hold a series of talks in October and November to finalise the remaining areas of the negotiation.
Let me end by reiterating that the Government remain firmly committed to peace and stability on the Korean peninsula. We continue to believe that diplomacy and dialogue are the best path forward. We urge the DPRK to show restraint, engage meaningfully and choose peace. Over 75 years, we have seen what collective action and shared purpose can achieve. We have also seen the cost of isolation. It is our hope that the DPRK will reconsider its duty to its people and reconnect with the world, and that all Korean people will one day know freedom.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
This has been a remarkable debate, Mr Twigg. We have demonstrated the best of politics in Westminster, as we can when we choose to. We have come together to commemorate and celebrate the actions of our forebears and the results in the present. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part, because they all brought something unique and special. Some spoke for those honoured in their constituencies who never came home. Others, such as myself, honour the memory of the sacrifice that our forebears made, its purposes and reasons.
We recognise and commemorate today the fact that 75 years ago British troops fought for Korean freedom, in a country and for a people far, far away, about which many if not all those troops knew next to nothing. Ordinary men—some who had fought in world war two, others who were young and inexperienced—fought for a concept of freedom, esoteric in some senses perhaps. As Gladstone once said, during the dispute over Moldavia and Wallachia in the late 19th century, there is no greater bulwark against tyranny than the breasts of free men and women. He was right, for that concept has made South Korea prosperous and democratic, giving its people the right to live in freedom—a right that their families and colleagues in the north do not have. It is surely for us to recognise and pick up that torch of freedom, and stand today with those around the world who yearn for freedom, not least those in North Korea.
I finish with this thought. While we watch the despotism of North Korea carry on unabated, what do we say to those British troops and others of the United Nations force—the Glosters and the other brave men who died? What do we say to those who did not come home? Was it all in vain? The answer is no. For them and their spirit, all I will say is “Southward, look, the land is free.”
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the 75th commemoration of the Korean War.
Trade Union Workplace Access
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered trade union access to workplaces.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to support from trade unions.
It is important to open with some stark context. The 14 years of austerity between 2010 and 2024 forced down real wages in the UK, a setback from which many working families are still recovering. That came atop a 40-year structural decline in the share of national wealth going to labour, coinciding with the erosion of trade union rights and with declining membership and falling union density. Against that backdrop, the most urgent task of the Labour Government is clear: raising living standards. Trade unions are central to that mission. They are the vehicle through which better pay, safer working conditions and fairer workplaces can be achieved. Equipping them effectively is fundamental to restoring balance.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. I want to tell a short story very quickly, for the record. When as a 20-year-old I went to work for Henry Denny in Belfast, the guy says to me, “You have to be a member of the union.” I said, “I’m not so sure whether I want to be or not.” He said, “It’s compulsory.” What I learned then was that trade unions protect the workers. They ensure workers get their wages, and if workers have any problems with management, they are always there. Being a member of a trade union? I would recommend it.
Andy McDonald
The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. It may have been compulsory, but it is certainly one of the better decisions that he has ever made.
The problem of trade union access to workplaces is long-standing. Employers have often restricted union representatives from entering their sites, particularly in high-profile industrial settings. The GMB’s attempt to access Amazon’s Coventry warehouse during its 2024 recognition ballot was met with resistance, highlighting the barriers that unions face even when legally seeking to organise.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I hugely thank my hon. Friend for the work, effort and determination that he put into seeing the Employment Rights Bill through the Commons—absolutely outstanding work. On access to the workplace, does he agree that any individual who wants to speak to a trade union or union representative in the workplace, or perhaps even digitally, should have the opportunity to do so, and that it is only bad employers who have something to fear?
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I thank him for his kind comments. I will return to the issue of digital access shortly.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I draw attention to my chairship of the GMB parliamentary group. I am glad that he mentioned GMB’s frustrations with Amazon. Another sector in which that union and other unions have been frustrated is social care, which has been fragmented for three decades now. Does he agree that having a strong general statutory right of access must be complemented with an enhanced right of access under the forthcoming fair pay agreement in social care?
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The fair pay agreement architecture gives us a real opportunity to enhance the provisions.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate to the House. I commend the University and College Union, which was incredibly supportive to me and my colleagues in my former life as an academic. It was only because our employer was decent that it was able to have access to our campus site. I join the hon. Gentleman in condemning those organisations who refuse access for the vital work of unions.
Andy McDonald
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s timely intervention. We know that in schools, the National Education Union and the NASUWT union face obstacles from multi-academy trusts such as the Harris Federation, where access is often limited to outside working hours, when staff are rushing home to pick up children, curtailing union engagement.
Under the responsibility of the Cabinet Office, the MyCSP civil service pension provider refuses to recognise the Public and Commercial Services union or allow it into workplaces to meet members. That dispute is now in its 15th week. The lack of recognition is a situation that must end under a new wave of insourcing and public interest-led procurement. On Teesworks, union access has been blocked by local employers, with tragic health and safety incidents underscoring the consequences of absent oversight.
Until now, UK law has offered no guaranteed legal right of access, relying instead on voluntary agreements or ad hoc arrangements. Even if a Central Arbitration Committee decision is issued, compliance by employers is not guaranteed. Historical parallels include the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004, which quickly became ineffective because of weak penalties and no means of compelling employer compliance. The lack of a legally binding enforcement mechanism creates a scenario in which unions may abandon attempts to secure access, undermining workers’ rights and collective representation.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Does he agree that in sectors such as social care, which are facing recruitment and retention crises, better trade union access would improve working conditions and staff retention, which ultimately is only for the better for good employers?
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend makes an apposite point. We hear constantly about the crises of recruitment and retention in our core public services, among others. Only by strengthening workers’ access to trade union representation will we ever conquer the rolling crisis across our economy. It is an important point.
I very much welcome the Employment Rights Bill for establishing statutory procedures for union access. It was an important part of our discussions when we formulated the new deal for working people, ably aided and abetted by the Minister, for which I am eternally grateful. Clause 63 will allow unions and employers to negotiate access agreements, permitting union representatives to enter workplaces for recruitment, organisation, the support of members and potentially collective bargaining. The Bill will require employers to respond within a defined negotiation period, with the CAC empowered to determine access terms where agreement cannot be reached.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this really important debate; I refer Members to my entry in the register of interests. Does he agree that trade union access will increase collective bargaining, which drives up pay and conditions for our constituents?
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The decline in trade union penetration of the economy is consistent with the stagnation in wages. If we are to turn the issue around, these recognitions and collective bargaining processes have to be given their full voice.
The Bill also acknowledges the need for facility time for union representatives, providing paid time for duties. The Business and Trade Committee welcomed the statutory right of access, but urged that it explicitly include digital channels. It also endorsed the GMB’s call for template agreements to speed up negotiations.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend not only for his incredible work to advance employment rights, but for securing today’s debate; I refer to my entry in the register of interests, having spent many an hour on street corners trying to get information to workers about trade unions. Does my hon. Friend agree that digital access needs to be directly with the worker—not via the employer, who could oversee it—and that any reciprocal communication with the union needs to be free from the scrutiny of employers?
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure that she has in mind the Amazon debacle in Coventry, where that issue was at play. I thank her and all my hon. Friends for their consistent application to this agenda over many years. It is now bearing fruit.
Concerns remain about the enforceability of access, as some employers may refuse to comply with CAC decisions, creating incentives to disrupt legitimate access. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has called for the CAC to be adequately resourced. Labour pledged to act to ensure that union members and workers are able to access a union at work. In a written ministerial statement in March 2025, the Government said that they would implement
“a fast-track route for achieving an ‘off-the-shelf’ access agreement where certain conditions are met, alongside a mechanism to ensure there are robust penalties in place for non-compliance.”
Access rights will mostly be detailed in secondary legislation.
Future regulations must genuinely deliver the Government’s promise of a meaningful right of access. That includes ensuring that the right is enforceable, as union-busting employers and their lawyers will exploit any gaps. Unions want to ensure that provisions are as strong as possible. Face-to-face communication remains the most effective way for unions to recruit and organise. Robust penalties are needed so that employers cannot price refusal in. Far too often, we have seen employers pricing in the breach of provisions as simply the cost of doing business. We cannot permit that.
Debates in Committee and wider parliamentary discussions have reiterated those points. Witnesses stressed the importance of digital access, reasonable notice, clarity over dwellings and enforceable CAC determinations. Amendments clarified that only independent trade unions certified by the certification officer could exercise statutory access rights, preventing employers from using non-independent sweetheart unions. The CAC is empowered to adjudicate disputes, but unions still bear the cost of pursuing penalties through the employment appeal tribunals, and fines are payable to the Government, rather than the union. That creates a risk that enforcement will remain weak.
Trade union experiences illustrate the stakes. The GMB’s efforts to engage with Amazon, Harris Federation schools and Teesworks highlight the fact that lack of access can hinder collective bargaining, prevent timely health and safety oversight, and reduce wages and protections. Access to care homes will be critical as fair pay agreements are rolled out to ensure that low-paid workers gain union representation and negotiate fair terms.
I tabled a new clause to amend the Bill on Report to address enforcement and clarify gaps. It would have established a clear statutory right of access for independent trade unions. It would have broadened the Bill’s purpose to include recruitment, representation and bargaining. It would also have set reasonable notice requirements, with provision for urgent cases, and defined access conditions guided by Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service codes.
The new clause would have clarified access to dwellings by allowing suitable alternative arrangements. It would have introduced a genuine enforcement mechanism by allowing CAC orders to be enforceable as High Court injunctions, and it would have established transparent penalty-setting criteria based on the gravity and duration of non-compliance. Finally, it would have integrated the new rights with existing law and ACAS guidance. Had it been adopted, it would have significantly strengthened the Bill and created a practically enforceable framework. I urge the Government to adopt similar measures to ensure that statutory access rights are truly effective across sectors.
It is very welcome that Matthew Taylor has been appointed to chair the Fair Work Agency. His knowledge of workplace relations informed the new deal for working people. We must ensure that the agency is adequately resourced and empowered to monitor, oversee and enforce union access effectively. Without sufficient funding and staffing, statutory provisions risk becoming symbolic rather than operational.
Historical international context underlines the stakes. In 2006 and 2008, the International Labour Organisation’s committee of experts noted that the UK did not consistently uphold convention 87, the global standard that protects workers’ freedom to form and join trade unions of their choosing, and that ensures unions can run their affairs freely. A constant theme of this debate is just how far removed the United Kingdom has been from its ILO obligations. I trust that this Government will not overlook them in the way that previous Governments have.
Union officials cannot always access workplaces to support members in disciplinary or grievance hearings, and recognition ballots offer only limited access. The Employment Rights Bill attempts to remedy that by granting broader statutory rights but, as the Bill is drafted, an employer can still veto entry, leaving unions and workers without recourse. ILO recommendation 143 makes it clear that union representatives who do not work for a particular company should still be allowed to enter the workplace to meet and represent union members. Those messages have to be communicated to employers who seem to want to resist that on occasion.
The only effective way to honour the commitment in the new deal for working people would be a free-standing right of entry, underpinned by injunctive relief to secure entry in cases of unreasonable refusal. Where that is not possible, CAC orders should at least be enforceable as High Court injunctions, and penalties should accrue to the union—I cannot stress enough the importance of that happening. Such measures would align the UK with international labour standards and strengthen the practical impact of statutory access.
The Employment Rights Bill is an important milestone, but it must be part of a wider strategy to raise living standards and restore labour’s share of wealth. Trade unions are central to that mission, providing the infrastructure through which workers can secure better pay, safer workplaces and a stronger voice. The Bill’s success depends on ensuring that access rights are clear, enforceable and adaptable to modern workplaces. By empowering unions with enforceable rights, reasonable conditions and clear penalties, the Government can equip the trade union movement to deliver real improvements. This is not simply procedural; it is a question of economic justice and social equity.
As we look forward, the Labour Government’s task is to reverse decades of declining real wages, expand union influence and ensure workers share in the benefits of productivity and growth. Statutory access is not an end in itself; it is a tool for delivering broader goals. With proper enforcement, digital provisions and resourcing, unions can represent members effectively, negotiate fair pay and improve conditions across all sectors. By doing so, we will ensure the recovery from austerity and the reversal of the erosion of labour’s share of wealth in a way that is meaningful and sustained.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for securing today’s important debate—I know we say it a lot that debates are important, but this one truly is. It is close to my heart, as I know it is to my hon. Friend’s.
I thank my hon. Friend for his contributions to debates during the passage of the Employment Rights Bill, including on this specific issue. It was always a pleasure to work with him on this topic in my previous life working for a trade union for many years—in fact, I declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud trade union member. The amendments that my hon. Friend tabled on Report, which he alluded to in his speech, demonstrate his interest in this area, and I welcome his continued commitment to a productive discussion on the topic today. I thank all other members here for their contributions and interest in this topic—not just hon. Members, but proud trade unionists and friends.
As my hon. Friend will know, the Government’s plan to make work pay and our Employment Rights Bill represent the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. Taken together, they support our plan for change by ensuring that employment rights are fit for a modern economy, empowering working people and contributing to economic growth.
The Employment Rights Bill creates a modern, fairer labour market where workers are better protected, more empowered and supported through every stage of working life. It is pro-worker and pro-business, and it supports the Government’s objective of boosting growth and improving living standards across the country. As part of that, the Government are strengthening collective bargaining rights and trade union recognition—I want to take a moment to say how proud I am to be saying that from the Front Bench. After many years of the previous Government, who sought to weaken workers’ voices and trade union rights, we are rebuilding a culture of respect and co-operation with trade unions.
I know that my hon. Friend will agree that trade unions are essential to tackling issues of insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay across the economy. The Employment Rights Bill will modernise trade union legislation, giving trade unions greater freedom to organise, represent and negotiate on behalf of their members. Strong trade unions are key partners in building a stronger, fairer economy.
A key part of our reforms in this area is the introduction of a new trade union right of access. Under existing legislation, trade unions do not have a general right of access to workplaces and can exercise their functions only through individual trade union members in the workplace or through access that has been agreed on a voluntary basis with the employer. In situations in which membership is limited and no voluntary agreement is in place, there is limited scope for trade unions to exercise their core functions within the workplace. Although the Government want employers and unions to continue to agree and use those voluntary access arrangements where possible, the Bill introduces a new right for trade unions to access the workplace in a responsible and regulated manner. That will provide certainty and clarity to all parties involved.
It is worth explaining briefly how the new right of access will work in practice, which will hopefully answer lots of my hon. Friend’s questions. Under the new right of access, an independent union can provide an employer with a request for access. That could be a request for physical access to a building or virtual access to a group of workers—such as via a Teams call—or both. My hon. Friend spoke eloquently about the importance of digital access as part of our consideration of the legislation.
If both parties agree on the terms of access between themselves, they will notify the Central Arbitration Committee to record the terms of the access agreement and proceed with the access as agreed. If no agreement can be reached within a set timeframe, the union or employer can refer the case to the CAC for a determination on whether access should be granted under the terms requested.
The CAC will make its determination on whether access should be granted in line with factors set out in secondary legislation. If the access application meets certain conditions, it will qualify for a potentially expedited route through the CAC process. The CAC will also enforce access agreements once they are in place, hearing complaints about breaches of those agreements by any party, with the power to issue fines for non-compliance.
This debate is timely, because the Government will shortly be launching a public consultation on the details of the new trade union right of access policy, including the matters that the CAC must have regard to when deciding whether access should take place and the level of fines for non-compliance with access agreements. We want to see a fair and workable access framework, so the Government strongly encourage unions and employers of all types and sizes to share their views. As I say, the Government are committed to strengthening collective bargaining rights and trade union recognition, and we see the new right of access as a key part of that.
In that light, when the CAC takes decisions on access, it will be guided by the access principles provided for in the Employment Rights Bill. Those principles set out that trade unions should be provided access to workplaces
“in any manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the employer’s business”
and that the employer
“should take reasonable steps to facilitate”
that access. They also set out that
“access should be refused entirely only where it is reasonable in all the circumstances to do so.”
The principles provide a default in favour of access, but the Government are aware that some employers may find it more difficult than others to facilitate access arrangements, and that there may be circumstances where it would not be appropriate for access to take place. That is why we will consult on the factors that the CAC should take into account when deciding on access, and consult on what the value of fines should be for non-compliance.
Ian Lavery
Does the Minister agree that it is absolutely essential that lawbreakers and bad employers are not allowed to price in any breaking of the law to the detriment of people in the workplace?
Kate Dearden
I agree with my hon. Friend, and enforcement will be really key to that. I encourage him to get involved in the consultation and to share his views on exactly that point.
The Government will review responses to those two consultation questions with interest, as we will the responses to the consultation as a whole. The consultation matters, because it is important that the implementation of the right of access works in practice, not just on paper. That is why the Government have committed to support businesses throughout the implementation of the Bill, and why we will produce a new code of practice for the policy. That will contain practical guidance on how access should take place in practice to help support employers and businesses to manage the process smoothly and effectively. The Government will consult on that code next year before the new right comes into force in October 2026.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East also mentioned enforcement, and I welcome his support for the Fair Work Agency and its newly appointed chair, Matthew Taylor. Strengthening our labour market, compliance and enforcement is absolutely key to this issue, and to our wider Employment Rights Bill.
Andy McDonald
Does the Minister agree that there are many good employers across our economy who actively engage and encourage trade union access and recognition? They could be of great service in the process that she describes for supporting other businesses as the regulations are implemented.
Kate Dearden
I could not agree more. There is brilliant practice across the country and across workplaces, with good employers and unions working together in the better interests of the workforce. That is why the Employment Rights Bill, which the Government are proud to be implementing, is such a positive step forward for workers, employers and our wider economy.
The new right of access will deliver for everybody, recognising the needs of unions and employers. Building on the good work that already exists across this country, it will deliver on our make work pay commitment to ensure access is responsible and regulated. It will also provide the opportunity for many workers to understand their rights and access trade unions, which are such a vital part of our economy.
I look forward to working closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East and with all other hon. Members present, on both sides of the House, to deliver this positive change for the British economy. I thank my hon. Friend again for securing the debate, and I thank all other hon. Members who have contributed to it. I look forward to working with them as part of this agenda.
Question put and agreed to.
Coal Tip Safety and New Extraction Licences
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered coal tip safety and the prohibition of new coal extraction licences.
Diolch yn fawr, Gadeirydd. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
Just as coal ran in rich veins beneath the Welsh valleys and mountains, it also runs deep through the history of the people of Wales. Around this industry, thriving and vibrant communities developed all across the south Wales valleys. Miners’ institutes, public libraries, trade unions and public healthcare all bloomed in the Welsh coalfields. Those institutions were founded and funded by miners, laying the foundation for the modern welfare state. Despite this dynamism, we should not forget that those communities were exploited, with vast amounts of wealth from coal profiting Westminster, not Wales. Mining was also dangerous work and took a terrible toll on the health of far too many men and young boys.
When Margaret Thatcher began closing the mines in the 1980s without replacing those jobs, she destroyed livelihoods and left communities that once powered the world bearing economic and social scars that would pass on through generations. Thatcher’s decision to kick-start deindustrialisation in Wales—and the acceptance of this decline by both Labour and Conservative Governments—means that west Wales and the valleys are now among the poorest parts of Europe.
The economic legacy is compounded by a physical one, too. The valleys are now littered with coal tips—black monuments from the past that cast long shadows over the present. Also known as spoil tips or slag heaps, these are the waste materials removed from the mines and left abandoned above ground. Today, over 50% of all coal tips in the UK are in Wales, despite our nation making up just 8.5% of the UK’s total land mass.
Of the 2,590 coal tips, many are considered dangerous to the public. There is a risk that a significant number may collapse due to increasingly extreme weather, and that is not hypothetical, as history has shown us. Today’s debate is taking place just a day after the 59th anniversary of the Aberfan disaster, which involved the collapse of a colliery spoil tip in 1966, killing 28 adults and 116 children.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Yesterday was the anniversary of the Aberfan disaster; it is the same day as the anniversary of the flooding of Capel Celyn. Both were terrible reminders to communities in Wales of how little say they had over the fate of their communities, and of how little effect Westminster had, naturally, on amelioration and making people’s lives better. Those terrible incidents—the terrible deaths in Aberfan, as well as the flooding of Capel Celyn—reminded people where they stood, sadly.
Ann Davies
That is true. It is ironic that the two incidents happened on exactly the same date—a few years apart, but on 21 October. We must never forget either.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am old enough to remember the Aberfan disaster, unfortunately—all the things that happened and the lives that were lost. Northern Ireland has some coal tips, primarily from historical operations at Ballycastle and Coalisland. They have not been active for some years, but does the hon. Lady agree that, although the mining legacy in Northern Ireland is not as prevalent as it is in Wales, there must still be regulatory oversight where sources are less advanced, to ensure that our people have the same protection as those in Wales?
Ann Davies
Absolutely. This is an issue for the whole of the United Kingdom.
The disaster brought about the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act 1969, which came into force to improve coal tips’ stability and safety. However, it did not go far enough. Aberfan should have been a moment to address the dangerous legacy of all coal tips once and for all, but the job remains unfinished. Now, because of increasingly violent storms caused by climate change, we have experienced further coal tip slips. There was a major landslide above Tylorstown in Rhondda Fach in 2020, and then in November 2024, in Cwmtillery, a slip was caused by heavy rainfall from Storm Bert. That led to a slurry and debris slide that forced the evacuation of homes.
Plaid Cymru has long warned that the safety of our coal tips is not a matter for tomorrow; it must be addressed urgently. No family should go to bed fearing a landslide on the hillside above them. No community should be left to foot the bill for the negligence of past Governments. The Senedd recently passed the Disused Mine and Quarry Tips (Wales) Act 2025, which will establish the Disused Tips Authority for Wales, the powers of which will include requiring landowners to ensure that coal tips located on their land are stable. We must, however, not forget that the issue of coal tips predates the dawn of devolution. It is an historic injustice that the cost of making these tips safe has not been fully funded by Westminster, and that the people of Wales are now expected to foot a large part of this bill.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I welcome this debate, but I would like the hon. Member to acknowledge the fact that the UK Government have given £140 million towards making these coal tips safe, which is absolutely vital. I know that bigger figures have been bandied about, but would she agree that there is a limit to how much we can do in any one or two years, and that that was the amount asked for by the Welsh Government? It does not preclude opportunities in the future to ask for more, when more plans are ready.
Ann Davies
Absolutely, but we need £600 million to make these tips safe. The Government responded to my written question in June that the Labour Welsh Government had not asked for the full amount of the estimated £600 million needed to make all tips in Wales safe. Plaid Cymru believes it is a grave injustice to the people of the valleys that the full cost is not covered by Westminster. I reiterate our call on the Government to fully fund remediation work to make coal tips safe in Wales.
Without full funding from Westminster, it leaves the door open to a new generation of mining companies waiting to mine these coal tips under the guise of remediation. That is because the new Welsh Disused Tips Authority will require landowners to make the coal tips safe, and they will likely seek to avoid that extra cost. There is a real risk that mining companies will offer to carry out remediation work on behalf of landowners for free, in return for the commercial rights of any coal that they extract. These companies have proven to us that they cannot be trusted with the stewardship of our environment.
The local authority area of Carmarthenshire has 170 coal tips. My constituency borders some of the largest tips in Wales, one of which is the waste from the East Pit open-cast coalmine, a prime example of where a company has betrayed the trust of the community. In that instance, the company, Celtic Energy, continued to mine coal from the site beyond the expiry of its planning permission. It then failed to restore the coalmine and remediate the local coal tip, abandoning the site and the community with the task incomplete. We cannot allow this to become a pattern by letting the coalmining industry of Wales’s past return to carve open our countryside once again. Making coal tips safe for our communities should be the priority, whether that is through flattening, removing or reprofiling them.
The UK Government have pledged to ban new coalmining licences, but they have confirmed their belief that re-mining coal from the tips does not require a licence, meaning that such activity falls outside the scope of the proposed ban. Although the Welsh Government believe that their own planning policies will prevent re-mining, a loophole allowing coal extraction in “wholly exceptional circumstances” has raised concern among campaigners such as the Coal Action Network. I thank Anthony, who is here today, for his help in preparing for this debate. I also congratulate him on his wedding anniversary—when he should be home, he has come to support us here.
The loophole can be resolved by amending the Coal Industry Act 1994 to require licensing for the re-mining of coal tips, and ensuring that that is included in a UK-wide ban. We must prevent a new industry of commercial coal tip mining from taking root and perpetuating fossil fuel pollution. I urge the Government to extend their coal licence ban to cover the re-mining of coal tips.
Tomorrow is the Senedd by-election in Caerphilly—a local authority area with 207 coal tips, 56 of which are deemed a clear threat to public safety. As we know, voters will get to choose between two different visions for the future of Caerphilly. The vision of Reform and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is one of reopening the coalmines in Wales. He wants to send our people back down underground to slave away in the dark for hours, developing pneumoconiosis from inhaling toxic dust—all to exploit the people of Wales yet again.
Liz Saville Roberts
My hon. Friend is being kind with her time in giving way. She draws attention to the policies of another party. It is striking that Reform Members are conspicuous by their absence. They once again took part in Prime Minister’s questions only from the Gallery, and when they could be talking about coal and the future of communities blighted by the remains of the coal industry, they are not here to stand up for the communities of Wales. I am sure that a number of hon. Members will join us in our dismay at their lack of presence.
Ann Davies
We all know that the hon. Member for Clacton supports coalmining companies that have left our communities vulnerable, in the same way that he supports privatising our precious national health service.
We will continue to campaign to make all coal tips safe and ensure that Westminster rights the wrongs of the past by paying in full to do so. The failure to replace coalmining with an economic alternative has left communities in decline. Many people are now without hope and are angry at Governments in both London and Cardiff for not listening or caring. Other parties want to blame these problems on others in society, rather than on the politicians and private companies that have caused them.
This debate is about justice and dignity. It is about ensuring that the people of Wales are not left to carry the cost, financial or emotional, of decisions made generations ago. Let us act now, not when the next storm hits or when the next landslide slips. Let us act because it is right and just, and because our communities deserve nothing less. This Government must revisit their approach to coal tip safety in Wales to fully support the communities who, after decades since the last coal was hewn from our valleys, still bear the burden of its legacy. Diolch, Gadeirydd.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) on securing the debate.
As the hon. Lady outlined, the debate comes the day after the 59th anniversary of the Aberfan disaster in my constituency—an event that illustrates, more than any other, the need to ensure the safety of coal tips. As I joined community members and civic leaders in Aberfan yesterday, it was heartbreaking and humbling to see at first hand, yet again, the true price of coal in our communities.
For many years, coal extraction built wealth right across the UK. It powered the Welsh and UK economies for decades. However, the previous UK Government failed to support any costs associated with the remediation of coal tips, owing to the fact that it is a devolved area. This Labour Government recognise that the legacy of coal and coal tip safety is very much a shared responsibility, and I welcome the £25 million that the Government provided in the first Labour Budget in 14 years last October. They then built upon that with a further £118 million in the spending review to support the vital work to keep our coal tips safe.
The hon. Member for Caerfyrddin mentioned calls for further investment, at a full cost of £600 million. Perhaps, in her reflections, she could be clear on how much less money would be available for public services in Wales if her party ever pushed its Welsh independence fantasy, which could cost every adult in Wales something like £11,000 per year.
Liz Saville Roberts
It has now been shown that the £11,000 is based on the present state of the economy, and not the potential if Wales were to be independent. It is very important that we use statistics and figures with some care and show their sources.
Gerald Jones
Perhaps the right hon. Lady and her party could be clear on what the true cost would be. We know that those costs are significant. It is something that Plaid Cymru has never really wanted to talk about, so perhaps going forward they could be clear on what the costs of their pipe dream would mean for communities and individuals right across Wales.
But back to the point: the safety of our communities is our first responsibility. The funding represents all that Welsh Government requested to fund the safety works for the rest of this Parliament. With a significant number of category D tips across Merthyr Tydfil and Rhondda Cynon Taf, this investment is hugely important for my constituents.
This is a Government determined to act where Tory inaction left communities unsafe. The funding announcement, along with significant investment from the Welsh Government, shows the impact of two Labour Governments working together for Wales after years of Tory failure.
I welcome the fact that the Welsh Government’s Disused Mine and Quarry Tips (Wales) Act 2025 received Royal Assent last month, which paves the way for the establishment of the disused tips authority for Wales, a dedicated public body responsible for assessing, registering, monitoring and managing disused tips. That authority would be the first of its kind in the UK and would be world-leading in developing a robust system for the safety of disused tip.
The new authority is due to be operational from April 2027, and will take over the work that is currently done by the Mining Remediation Authority. As we have heard, there are more than 2,500 disused coal tips in Wales, predominantly in the south Wales valleys. We have almost 100 category C and 44 category D across Merthyr Tydfil and Rhondda Cynon Taf. The changing climate, our industrial past and the landscape mean that we must act to keep our communities safe.
The House will also be aware that my constituency is home to Ffos-y-Fran, the last major open-cast mine in the UK, which shut down in November 2023. The scheme has certainly had its difficulties and caused much concern over the years. When it first opened, the company running the mine, Merthyr (South Wales) Ltd, pledged to fully restore the site after it finished operations. I call on it to honour that pledge.
Local residents have put up with a lot in terms of nuisance and inconvenience since the open-cast began. I sincerely hope that this is recognised and that the developer ensures that local residents are at the forefront when completing the restoration. Current restoration costs are estimated at between £50 million and £120 million, and there has been much uncertainty in the community.
Merthyr Tydfil residents are understandably concerned, given how long this has gone on and the need for remediation work to provide a lasting solution to ensure that the area is, above all, safe and returned to natural countryside. It is essential that progress be made soon and that remedial work be completed, so that local residents can once more enjoy their local surroundings.
Dame Nia Griffith
Would my hon. Friend strongly advise constituents in areas like mine to look very carefully at any applications? Luckily, we have no category C or D tips, although we do have A and B tips, and we had an application for Pentremawr, near Pont Henri—luckily, we managed to send it packing. Would he therefore advise our constituents to be ultra-vigilant and not to let things slip through without the full detail?
Gerald Jones
I agree that communities need to be vigilant, and also fully involved in these projects going forward—hopefully, we have seen the last of them.
I am aware that Merthyr Tydfil county borough council is working hard on finding a resolution to the restoration, and I am pleased that the Welsh Government are working with the local authority and other regulators as part of a technical working group, to ensure that the best possible outcome is achieved for local people.
The people in my constituency and across Wales have paid an historic price for coal, which has helped to fuel our country and our economy. It is now time they were allowed to enjoy their green and pleasant valleys once again.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) for securing this important debate. Our constituencies meet around a former coalmine, so it is fitting that we are working on this issue together.
The legacy of the coal industry is still all around us in Wales. Coal built our modern nation, but it also left deep marks on our land and our communities. Yesterday marked 59 years since the Aberfan disaster, when 144 lives were lost, including those of 116 children. Aberfan reminds us of what happens when safety is overlooked. We owe it to Aberfan and to every mining community to ensure that such a tragedy is never repeated.
Yet almost 60 years on, the dangerous legacy of coal still hangs over Wales. There are more than 2,000 disused coal tips across Wales, and several of the highest-risk sites are in my constituency. They stand as a stark reminder that the danger has not disappeared; it has simply been neglected. What that means for local residents is that each spell of heavy rain brings renewed fear. Recent landslips in Cwmtillery show that this risk is real, and it is growing as wetter weather destabilises former pits.
No community should have to live in fear every time it rains. That is why the UK Government must commit the £600 million needed to make our former coal tips safe. This is a problem that predates devolution, and the cost should not fall on the Welsh Government alone. These communities in Wales powered Britain’s wealth, and the responsibility for their safety must be shared by Britain as a whole.
The legacy of coal is written across the open scars on our hills. Across south Wales, open-cast sites have been left in limbo after operators walked away, leaving vast holes in the landscape and leaving the taxpayer to foot the bill. In my constituency, the East Pit mine between Tairgwaith and Cwmllynfell is a clear example. It was never restored because no proper restoration bond was put in place, and it is now a deep chasm filled with millions of tonnes of water—a monument to failure and neglect. That must change. We need stronger legislation so that open-cast mines are properly regulated and fully restored, with enforceable bonds to ensure that no company can ever again abandon a community.
Despite such injustices, what matters now is investment and delivery. We must look forward. Communities across south Wales deserve real progress and not more broken promises. The proposals from Reform UK to issue new coal licences are not a credible plan for our future in south Wales; they are a retreat into the past. To suggest that the answer for the valleys lies in reopening mines is not only wrong; it is deeply patronising. I come from a Welsh mining family and I am very proud of my roots in Maesteg, but I certainly do not want to undertake the same work that my great-grandfathers had to do, because I remember how they ended up.
Our young people do not want to be sent back down the pits. They want secure, well-paid jobs in clean energy and modern industries. The communities of the valleys are resilient, proud and determined, but that resilience should not be taken for granted. Promises of investment, which too often have been made and too often broken, must finally be delivered for south Wales. The people of the south Wales valleys have given more than enough, and we are still waiting for our new south Wales to emerge. We deserve safety, fairness and a future built on renewal, not nostalgia. Let us honour our past by investing in the future.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg.
I thank the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) for securing this important debate to ensure that the Government’s proposed ban on new coal licences stays true to its legislative aim, while putting the safety of our constituents over profit-making opportunities for private sector companies.
At present, the Government’s planned coal licence ban does not definitively include coal tips, which means that there is a real possibility that private companies could apply to mine for commercial gain even after the ban is in place. Wales is home to more than half all the coal tips in the United Kingdom—2,590 out of 5,000. Therefore, any legal ambiguity would raise concerns for my constituents, especially those living near the Bersham colliery in Rhostyllen, in my constituency—the final coalmine to close in north Wales, in 1986—and no doubt among those of many colleagues here today.
Contained in these tips are tens of millions of tonnes of coal. They are increasingly a real and present public safety risk. Landslides, leaching and pollution are all growing threats, made worse by extreme weather and heavy rainfall, which climate change is making more frequent. Extracting that coal would only make the situation worse, hence the need for coal tip safety measures that exclude coal extraction for commercial purposes.
In Wales, we know all too well the danger that coal tips can pose. We carry the memory of Aberfan—the tragic disaster of 1966, in which 116 children, mostly between the ages of seven and 10, along with 28 adults, lost their lives when a coal tip collapsed on their school. It happened on the last day before half-term. Yesterday was 59 years since it happened. The devastation of the grief still hangs heavy in our national memory. We must honour that memory by ensuring that such a tragedy can never happen again.
In 2020 in Tylorstown, following Storm Dennis, we saw 60,000 tonnes of spoil collapse from a former tip; and just last year in Cwmtillery, 40 homes had to be evacuated after a similar event. Those are stark warnings.
Mining companies offering to remove coal tips in return for commercial access to coal is an easy answer to a difficult question, which we cannot allow, so I ask the Minister this. If the Government truly believe that the Welsh Government’s coal policy and England’s and Scotland’s planning policies are robust enough to prevent coal extraction, why do investors think otherwise? ERI Reclamation is actively seeking to extract 468,000 tonnes of coal from tips in Bedwas, Caerphilly. It clearly believes that the law allows that, and it is putting serious capital behind the belief. If this is approved—it is an “if”—it could set a dangerous precedent, whereby private profits determine which coal tips are removed and others, with less content, are left. It would be a precedent categorising coal tips by their value rather than their potential impact on public safety. Could we see landowners, burdened by maintenance costs, encouraged to sell access to these sites?
We cannot and must not rely on the private sector to make coal tips safe. That duty falls on us. The Government’s coal licensing ban must be strengthened to include coal tip mining. The short-term and long-term safety and welfare of our communities must come first. Diolch yn fawr, Mr Twigg.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) on securing this important debate, which brings together two deeply interconnected issues: the safety of coal tips and the prohibition of new coal extraction licences. Both go to the heart of how we reckon with our industrial past, protect our communities in the present and deliver on our climate responsibilities for the future.
In September last year, we hailed the historic moment that the UK closed its last coal-fired power station and we became the first country in the G7 to phase out coal power generation, fulfilling the pledge that we made alongside other countries at COP26. That was a key milestone in our climate targets and our efforts to reduce polluting emissions. At the same time, we paid tribute to the men and women who had worked in terrible conditions in our coalmines and coal-fired power stations for many years while they kept our lights on and powered our industries and economy.
That now leaves, across the United Kingdom, about 5,000 disused coal tips, more than half of which are in Wales. Many of them sit close to the communities that once powered our country: the valleys, towns and villages built around the coal industry. As we have heard, as climate change accelerates, and rainfall and extreme weather events become more frequent, the danger the tips pose is growing. This is not a risk for some point in the future; it is happening now.
This week we remember the tragedy in Aberfan in 1966, when 144 people, including 116 children, died. Just last year, 40 homes in Cwmtillery were evacuated when a tip collapse sent tonnes of slurry and debris through the village. These incidents are a reminder that this is not simply a historical concern, but a very real and present danger for communities today. Such tragedies should not be allowed to happen again.
The Government’s commitment of £118 million over three years for coal tip safety, together with the Welsh Government’s £100 million investment, is of course welcome, but the Welsh Affairs Committee heard clearly that the funding only scratches the surface. The cost of long-term remediation and monitoring is so much higher, and the risks are increasing as the climate changes. Though the funding is welcome, it is reactive and not strategic.
What we need is a strategic long-term plan—a proper partnership between the UK and Welsh Governments—with sustainable funding for the disused tips authority, which is due to be established in 2027. That body will succeed only if it has the skills, resources and the authority it needs from day one. As the Liberal Democrats have consistently said, we have to view this not just as a safety issue but as a climate resilience issue. Climate change is causing ground instability, which means that, as we have heard, living at the foot of a coal tip is becoming even more dangerous, year by year and day by day. The response must be integrated with the UK’s broader climate adaptation strategy.
At the same time, we need to ensure we have truly confronted the unfinished business of coal itself. Liberal Democrats welcomed the Government’s announcement last November that they would prohibit new coal extraction licences, but that has to be a watertight ban. As it stands, there is a loophole that allows coal to be commercially extracted from disused tips, as we have just heard so powerfully.
In practice, extracting coal from a tip is no different from open-cast mining. The method is the same, the disruption is the same, the risks are the same and the emissions are the same. The contradiction can be easily resolved. Leading environmental lawyers, working with the Coal Action Network, have proposed an amendment to the Coal Industry Act 1994 to clarify that the mining of coal from coal tips also requires a licence. That small change would ensure that the Government’s coal ban is comprehensive and future-proof.
Future-proofing is vital, as changes in our political landscape could put all this at risk. There are political parties that would seek a very different route. Rather than invest in the new green jobs of the future, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), the leader of Reform UK, has demanded—I repeat, demanded—the reopening of coalmines in Wales. He argued that Welsh people would happily return to work down the pits—and, I assume, also have slurry tipped over the beautiful Welsh countryside. There is no vision for jobs of the future, only a return to the jobs of the past, and no concern for the planet that our children and future generations will inherit.
Reform UK opposes green renewable energy. Instead, it wants to reopen coalmines and frack stupid frack, ripping apart our beautiful countryside by digging deep, with the threat of earth tremors, polluted water and devastation to our precious nature and wildlife.
Dame Nia Griffith
Does the hon. Lady acknowledge the leadership of the Welsh Government, who have used their planning powers to become the first part of the UK to completely ban fracking?
Pippa Heylings
I definitely welcome that, and I hope that the Minister will ensure that we have the same powers in planning and all other legislation to follow that here in England.
Reform UK, in true Trump style, would destroy our green and pleasant land—and for whom? It would make oil and gas giants richer while keeping our households and businesses stuck on volatile, skyrocketing energy bills and sending our young people back down the pits. The Liberal Democrats have been clear that there must be no new onshore fossil fuel extraction anywhere in the UK. This is the decisive moment to leave coal behind once and for all.
We must have a just transition, with new investment, new skills and new opportunities rooted in the very same communities. That is why we are calling for an independent just transition commission to hold Government and industry to account, ensure that jobs in clean energy and green manufacturing reach the regions that need them most, and give workers the certainty that they deserve as industries evolve. I ask the Minister to agree with us that we should close the loophole and there should be no more new onshore fossil fuel extraction in the country.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) on securing the debate.
The themes of the debate are at the centre of Britain’s industrial sanity. The Government’s approach to our own resources, making us more dependent on dirtier foreign imports of materials rather than producing them at home, is not climate policy; it is economic vandalism dressed up as the same old virtue-signalling that we have come to expect from the incumbent Secretary of State.
It is fair to say that this country’s methods of energy production have changed dramatically since the industry peaked in the 20th century, particularly after the second world war. But what we are witnessing from this shambolic Labour Government is an accelerating obsession with shutting down productive, strategic British industries in the name of ideology. The Government seem determined to pursue a hollow version of net zero, not as a plan for environmental stewardship, but for the purpose of political point scoring and making this country economically neutered and directionless.
As the Leader of the Opposition has rightly stated, the Conservatives remain committed to maximising the responsible extraction of our own natural resources, particularly at a time when ordinary working people are grappling with astronomical energy bills, which are now among the highest in the developed world, and our steel industry is on its knees. Yet rather than backing British industry and jobs, the Government continue their relentless campaign to strangle domestic industry in the name of tackling climate change, when they could be looking towards places such as the North sea to bring in tens of billions of pounds in tax revenue, skilled, well-paid jobs, and inward investment.
When the Secretary of State decided not to challenge the court’s blocking of the proposed Cumbrian coking coalmine, he sabotaged an opportunity for investment and skilled employment. British Steel executives made it clear that UK-mined coal could power their blast furnaces efficiently and cleanly, cutting import costs and emissions alike. We all know where that ended. It makes no sense to make ourselves more reliant on other countries for things that we could produce ourselves here in the United Kingdom just because they do not count towards our climate targets.
Pippa Heylings
It was the leader of the Conservative party who made the pledge at COP26 to phase out coal extraction. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Conservatives would do a complete U-turn and restart coal extraction?
Greg Smith
The ending of coal-fired power stations was incredibly welcome, but the reality of the transition is that just turning things off overnight does not work. In the example of the steel industry, had we opened the coalmine in Cumbria and delivered cheaper, less carbon-emitting coal from our own shores into the blast furnaces operated by British Steel, the Government may not have had to nationalise it. We now see an industry that will only have electric blast furnaces that cannot produce virgin steel, leaving us incredibly vulnerable, particularly on domestic security and defence infrastructure.
Liz Saville Roberts
Surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is time for the UK to follow in the footsteps of nations such as Norway that are looking at alternative technologies, such as hydrogen, for the blast production of steel, and that we should be directing our energy there rather than resorting to fossil fuel, which is only temporary.
Greg Smith
I do not think that the right hon. Lady and I are a million miles apart on this. I am suggesting that those great technological innovations that are coming on board but are not ready right here, right now in 2025 need time to develop and become commercially viable, and that in the transition we will still need coal for certain functions. Simply turning it all off overnight is not the responsible thing to do.
Coal tip safety is an incredibly serious issue and deserves resource, engineering expertise and local accountability. Communities across Wales and England in particular live with the physical remnants of our industrial past. Those sites must be monitored and maintained responsibly. When tips are abandoned and left unmanaged, they become dangerous, as we have seen in past tragedies.
Cutting off the licensing regime entirely risks creating more orphan sites with no responsible operators to maintain them. We should be modernising the licensing system, not abolishing it. A well-regulated extraction framework would provide both the revenue and the oversight needed to ensure tip safety for generations to come. By banning new coal extraction licences, the Government have not reduced demand for coal; they have simply exported that demand abroad. That is exactly what we have seen with the approach to the North sea and to British industry more generally.
The Times recently reported comments from the industrialist Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who warned that the UK faces a “chemical breakdown” if Ministers continue ignoring the realities of domestic energy and feedstock production. His message was blunt: if we keep shutting down energy-intensive industries here, we will just import the same materials from countries with far higher emissions, fewer safeguards and lower labour standards.
The Government are just lost. To give an example, even the GMB’s general secretary, Gary Smith—no relation—rightly called this strategy “catastrophic” for not just jobs, but the environment. He warned that importing coal, gas and manufactured products from overseas is far more carbon intensive than producing them domestically. He went further, saying that the Government’s net zero drive is “bonkers”—his word—because it undermines the workers who will be essential to any genuine green transition. When even the trade unions are pleading for common sense, it is a clear sign that Labour has lost touch with not just the science, but the people they apparently represent.
Dame Nia Griffith
Does the shadow Minister accept that his party’s ban on onshore wind in England, plus no experimental hydrogen stations, has contributed to the slowness of the transition? The way he is talking now is a bit rich.
Greg Smith
I understand that the point that the hon. Lady is trying to make, but I will never apologise for trying to protect the British countryside.
The Labour Government are closing industries at home, patting themselves on the back for imaginary environmental victories and then importing the same resources from halfway across the world, racking up shipping emissions, losing domestic expertise and devastating industrial communities. That is not a green policy; it is economic negligence. It is bad for the economy, disastrous for security and utterly self-defeating for the climate. Let us be honest: Britain cannot reach meaningful environmental goals by eroding its industrial base. Real sustainability comes from innovation, not prohibition.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this matter, because it allows me to acknowledge what responsible governance should be about: balancing progress with protection. The Government’s policies will harm our communities, hollow out industry and do nothing measurable for the global climate. Let us have the courage to revisit them and stand up for common sense, working people and British industry. If we continue down the path of ideological self-harm, we will soon find that the only thing we have truly exported is our prosperity, and the only thing we have imported is decline.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Will the Minister please leave a minute or two for the hon. Member who secured the debate to wind up?
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
I thank most hon. Members for the tone of the debate. I will return to the shadow Minister’s remarks later.
I thank the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) for securing the debate, and for recognising the context that it sits in. Several hon. Members have done the same. I wish to reflect first, as she did, on the fact that 59 years ago, 116 children and 28 adults lost their lives in Aberfan. I, too, am an MP for a constituency with a legacy of coalmining. In Lanarkshire in Scotland, we know that the hon. Member’s point about coal running through the legacy of people and communities is important. Even generations on from the coalmines in my constituency, I still see the impacts and the outcomes for people right across my community. I entirely understand the point, which is well made.
I thank hon. Members for grounding their remarks in that legacy and for recognising, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) did, how far we have come as a country in phasing out coal, and the importance of the consensus that got us to that point, while paying tribute to those workers, as I pay tribute to the workers in the oil and gas industry who powered the country for 60 years. Recognising the incredibly important role that they played in powering our country is important, but it is equally important to recognise that we have made progress since those days. We should recognise with pride the role that they played, and recognise with pride how good it is that we have moved away from having to put people down coalmines to power our country. I thank hon. Members for that recognition.
The debate had two key themes that I will try to focus on: first, disused coal tips and the funding for them, on which I will reflect, and secondly, the future extraction of coal. The disused coal tips right across Wales are the enduring legacy that people see and experience. Coal tip disasters have left deep scars on many Welsh communities. As many hon. Members have said in this debate, the risks—particularly of climate change and worsening weather conditions leading to incidents in future—are significant. That is partly why we should redouble our efforts to tackle climate change, and there is broad consensus on that, although not from everywhere. It is also why we should do everything that we possibly can to maintain the safety of those coal tips.
We take the situation very seriously. That is why just a few months ago, the Chancellor and the First Minister of Wales visited a coal tip site on the banks of the River Afan near Port Talbot in the historic industrial heart of Wales to see the work that is being done to stabilise a former coal tip. The UK Government and the Welsh Government are working together in partnership to secure coal tip sites, including by providing the funding to which hon. Members have referred.
In the spending review, we announced £118 million of funding to protect Welsh communities, in addition to the £25 million from last year’s autumn Budget. Combined with funding from the Welsh Government, that figure of £143 million increases to £220 million. Some points were made about whether more funding is necessary. We will obviously keep those questions under review, but the suggestion does not always follow that a figure is the way to deliver the necessary work. Yes, we want to be ambitious about we can achieve with this programme. The funding that we have put in place—the £220 million—is what can actually deliver work on the ground at the moment. If there is future ambition in that programme, of course we will look at that. But giving a bigger figure that the Welsh Government, who are on the ground dealing with this, have not asked for, because they do not have capacity to move any quicker on some of these projects, is not an answer to the question. The £220 million has been given to deal with the issue at hand and to move forward with a programme in the fastest way possible, in partnership with others. We will, of course, continue to look at these questions in future.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
Given the challenges of having that specific figure in mind, if a future Welsh Government were to ask for the entire cost to be financed by the UK Government, given their historical and moral duty to do so, would the UK Government accept that request?
Michael Shanks
First, I should say that I am not the Chancellor. Such questions are rightly for the Chancellor at Budgets and spending reviews. However, I will say, as the Minister responsible for the Coal Authority, that we will look at this. The £600 million figure that was given was a provisional estimate, not a programmed budget. It was based on the very limited information that was available in 2020. A considerable amount of work, particularly on the mapping of these sites, has been done subsequently, and £180 million was given as the realistic amount of funding that could be used to protect communities now.
This needs to be based on evidence. Bandying around bigger figures does not necessarily improve the quality of the programme. The figure at the moment gives a signal of how seriously we take it, but also of the practical funding on the ground, to deliver what we think, based on more detailed information, the actual programme that is necessary. But of course we will always look at requests.
I want to reflect on some other things that have been established. The Disused Tips Authority for Wales will prevent unstable disused tips from threatening welfare. That is an important step forward, and will bring together some key people to deal with the matter. The Mining Remediation Authority, formerly known as the Coal Authority, is one of my Department’s partner bodies and is also playing an active role—in working partnership with the Welsh Government, in an advisory role—to ensure that a risk-based inspection and monitoring programme is in place, which has not been the case in the past.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
The Minister mentions the Mining Remediation Authority. I commend it for the work that it has commenced to address another hazard of our mining legacy: that of metal mines and lead pollution in particular. Does the Minister think that the work we are doing on coal might serve as a template for dealing with the historic legacy and problem of lead mines? Sadly, many of them are located in my constituency.
Michael Shanks
That is a very interesting point. I am sure that the Mining Remediation Authority, which I think I am meeting next week, will be delighted to hear the hon. Member’s praise, although perhaps it is also listening to this debate and wondering slightly how it is going to deliver another piece of work. The hon. Member’s point is useful, and I will take it back to colleagues. To date, the MRA has carried out 3,500 inspections, with the higher-rated category D and C tips continuing to be inspected on a six-monthly or annual basis.
Let me turn to the question of licensing. The Mining Remediation Authority currently serves as the licensor for most coal extraction in Great Britain. It is the owner of the UK’s unworked coal reserves. Our manifesto was very clear that we would not grant new coal licences, so we will amend the MRA’s licensing duties. The MRA takes the view that removing coal from tips that are made up of coalmining waste does not fall under the licensable activities defined in its legislation.
Extracting coal from tips does, however, require planning consent, which has to address all the environmental impacts individually. Most coal tips are owned by local authorities or private individuals, who under current legislation are responsible for maintaining their safety and stability. Local authorities have the primary responsibility for tip washing and reclamation schemes, through their planning and enforcement powers. We acknowledge the suggestion to make this type of coal extraction a licensable activity under the MRA, which would allow for a licensing prohibition, but our view is that the current planning policies around the regulations set by devolved Governments already provide robust frameworks.
We are a Government who believe in devolution. We created devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland because we believe in devolving power to those authorities, so they are closer to people and to individual circumstances. It is right that we take their lead on these questions. Their firm view is that they can bring into effect the aim of the Welsh Government and the UK Government to make sure that extraction of coal is a thing of the past. Their view is that their existing powers do that.
Michael Shanks
I will not question that process today, but I suspect that the hon. Lady will.
Ann Davies
Not at all; I would just like some clarification. The Government announced their intention in November 2024—nearly a year ago now—to introduce a Bill to ban new coalmining licences. Can the Minister tell us exactly when the Government will bring that legislation forward in Parliament?
Michael Shanks
I cannot give an exact date, I am afraid, partly because bringing forward legislation is not in the gift of any one Minister, but I can say that it is entirely still our aim to bring forward that ban. To pick up a point made by a couple of other hon. Members, it is also our aim to bring forward a ban on fracking across the country; we will do so as soon as we are able to introduce legislation. We had a Bill in the King’s Speech, and we still intend to bring forward that legislation as soon as possible, but that is dependent on parliamentary time.
I will conclude by addressing the wider context. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire made the point about phasing out coal; the shadow Minister reflected on the same point. To me, one of the great sadnesses of the past year is that we have moved away from a consensus that was so incredibly important for this country. We were a leader on tackling climate change under different Governments, and that was reflected across the world in some of the strongest possible ways, by driving other countries towards ambitious targets of their own.
In September last year, I was at the closure of Ratcliffe-on-Soar, the last coal-fired power station in Britain. I had the privilege of being in the control room with the workforce who had been there for decades, as they were switching off coal for the last time. It was a huge achievement, under Labour Governments, Conservative Governments and, briefly, the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Government. That consensus allowed us to move forward as a country, recognising that the future of our planet is important. It saddens me greatly that that consensus does not now exist. We now have a script that is, frankly, one of climate denialism. It also misses the point about the economic opportunity that our country faces.
A few weeks ago, for the first time ever, we powered this country without any fossil fuels at all. That is a huge milestone for us. It is an example of how we can be climate leaders, but also build legacies and communities right across Wales and the UK with good, sustainable jobs—the jobs of the future, not a harking back to a bygone era. It is about securing jobs; as the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) said, it is about renewal, not nostalgia. That is an incredibly important point about building the economic system of the future.
Michael Shanks
I must come to an end, so that the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin has some time to wind up.
We will deliver on our manifesto commitment not to grant new coal licences. We will continue to build the energy system of the future. We will create good, well-paid jobs across the country. We will be forward-looking—not just delivering for people now and dealing with the legacy of what we built in past decades, but ensuring that we can pass our country and our world to future generations. We need to be safe for the future, with an economic and energy system that is built for the future as well.
All those things come together in our clean power mission and in what we are trying to do. Those who oppose that should recognise that they are against the economic opportunity of the century and against the climate action that is necessary now, not in the future. Together, we can rebuild this consensus. I look forward to working with hon. Members across the House on how we deal with this specific issue, but also on how we rebuild the wider consensus on the future of our planet.
Ann Davies
I thank everybody for contributing today. I am delighted to see my fellow Welsh MPs here, across the parties. I am delighted that, for the vast majority of the debate, we have had consensus that we do not want to send our men, women and young people back down to the pits and the life they had 50 or 60 years ago. The way is forward.
I am terribly disappointed with the shadow Minister—[Interruption.] No, I really am, because this is not the way forward. Sending people back down to extract coal is not the way forward for us in Wales. The subject of this debate was coal tips and extraction licences, and I am sorry to say that we heard very little from the hon. Gentleman on that matter. But I thank the Minister for his response, and I look forward to moving forward together. Diolch.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered coal tip safety and the prohibition of new coal extraction licences.
Work and Pensions
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Diana Johnson
… I am pleased that my first debate in Parliament as the new Minister for employment is about menopause. Women make up 51% of the workplace, and every woman will go through menopause.
[Official Report, 16 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 219WH.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson):
Dame Diana Johnson
… I am pleased that my first debate in Parliament as the new Minister for employment is about menopause. Women make up 48% of the workplace, and every woman will go through menopause.
Other Corrections
Jeremy Corbyn
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
The following extract is from the Committee of the whole House on the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill on 20 October 2025.
Jeremy Corbyn
…We should listen to the Chagos Refugees Group, based in Mauritius and led brilliantly by Olivier Bancoult, who has been through every court case. Indeed, he started the whole process of demanding the right of return, which has eventually been successfully achieved. The statement that the Chagos Refugees Group made last week said:
“The Agreement therefore meets the aim of our community to be reunited with our Islands. It has been concluded after nearly 3 years of negotiation between Mauritius and the UK and extensive consultation. Unless, therefore, the Agreement is approved and implemented, our exile will continue with no hope of restoring our fundamental human right to return. It was the creation of BIOT on 8 June 1965, 60 years ago, which led to our exile.”
[Official Report, 20 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 723.]
Written correction submitted by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn):
Jeremy Corbyn
…We should listen to the Chagos Refugees Group, based in Mauritius and led brilliantly by Olivier Bancoult, who has been through every court case. Indeed, he started the whole process of demanding the right of return, which has eventually been successfully achieved. The statement that the Chagos Refugees Group made last week said:
“The Agreement therefore meets the aim of our community to be reunited with our Islands. It has been concluded after nearly 3 years of negotiation between Mauritius and the UK and extensive consultation. Unless, therefore, the Agreement is approved and implemented, our exile will continue with no hope of restoring our fundamental human right to return. It was the creation of BIOT on 8 November 1965, 60 years ago, which led to our exile.”
Jim McMahon
Co-operative Sector: Government Support
The following extract is from the Westminster Hall debate on Co-operative Sector: Government Support on 21 October 2025.
Jim McMahon
…The roots of our movement run deep, back to 1844 and the Rochdale pioneers: 27 working people who, through solidarity, challenged exploitation and built something that was lasting.
[Official Report, 21 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 330WH.]
Written correction submitted by the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon):
Jim McMahon
…The roots of our movement run deep, back to 1844 and the Rochdale pioneers: 28 working people who, through solidarity, challenged exploitation and built something that was lasting.
Water Sector Penalties Consultation
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
The Government are pleased to announce that today we have launched a consultation on strengthening the Environment Agency’s tools for enforcing against offences committed by water companies.
Currently, the Environment Agency has to be satisfied “beyond reasonable doubt”—the criminal standard of proof—that an offence has been committed to issue monetary penalties. We are proposing changes that would allow the Environment Agency to impose penalties to the civil standard of proof “on the balance of probabilities”. This will enable minor to moderate offences to be enforced more quickly, cost effectively and proportionately.
We are also consulting on the introduction of automatic penalties. These fixed penalties would be triggered in specific circumstances including late reporting of significant pollution incidents, failure to report monitoring data for storm and emergency overflows monthly, and where there is not accurate and reliable monitoring in place to measure water abstraction. Automatic penalties are designed to streamline the penalty process for offences that can be identified and evidenced quickly.
These changes will deliver a clear, transparent and robust enforcement regime that drives real change. The penalties will act as a proportionate deterrent, incentivising water companies to improve their performance and restoring public trust.
The new penalties will sit alongside and complement the existing enforcement options, including prosecution and unlimited penalties to the criminal standard of proof, that will continue to be used to enforce more serious offences.
We encourage everyone with an interest in the performance of the water sector to share their views and help shape the future of enforcement.
[HCWS976]
Pandemic Agreement: Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing Negotiations
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
The Minister for Public Health and Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), last updated the House in May on the adoption of the World Health Organisation pandemic agreement. I would now like to update the House regarding the follow-up negotiations to the agreement, to develop and agree a new pathogen access and benefit sharing system, including its operational details, in the form of an annex to the agreement. The PABS system will be a new, voluntary system for life sciences companies to sign up to in order to gain faster access, with less red tape, to the pathogens they need to create new vaccines, treatments and tests in the event of a pandemic. A member state-led intergovernmental working group has been established to facilitate these negotiations.
The IGWG has met three times since the group was established in May. Member states have elected a bureau to oversee negotiations, including agreeing that the bureau will be co-chaired by representatives from the UK and Brazil. Discussions so far have primarily focused on the technical details of the PABS system. These discussions will continue in the next round of formal negotiations taking place in November. We were pleased that technical experts were invited to participate in some of the informal discussions in October, and we will continue to advocate for their input into the process.
Member states have agreed to report on the outcome of negotiations by the next World Health Assembly in May 2026. Only once the negotiations on the PABS annex have concluded, and the annex has been adopted by the WHA, will the pandemic agreement, including the PABS annex, be open for signature and ratification by member states. This Government would only agree to a pandemic agreement and PABS annex that is in the national interest.
The IGWG will convene regularly until May 2026, and I will update the House at important and relevant junctures over the course of negotiations.
[HCWS980]
Deproscription of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
After careful consideration and following extensive consultation across Government and with operational partners, the Government have decided to remove Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham from the list of organisations proscribed under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This decision reflects our unwavering support for British interests and commitment to the security of the United Kingdom.
HTS was first proscribed in 2017, having emerged as the principal Islamist militant group in north-west Syria, and was identified as an alias of the proscribed organisation al-Qaeda. Since then, significant developments have taken place in Syria.
In December 2024, forces led by Ahmed Al Sharaa—the former leader of HTS and now President of Syria—toppled former President Assad’s regime, which had been responsible for countless crimes against his own people.
The change in Syria’s Government has clear implications for UK foreign policy and national security objectives.
Despite the defeat of Daesh’s so-called caliphate in 2019 and its continued suppression through the actions of the global coalition against Daesh, the group maintains a significant presence in Syria and continues to pose one of the most serious terrorist threats to the UK, our people and our interests abroad.
The decision to de-proscribe HTS will support our continued efforts to counter Daesh in Syria and reduce the risk to the UK. We welcome the swift and robust response of the Syrian Government, since taking power, to terrorist attacks, including the attack on the Mar Elias church in Damascus in June, and their clear condemnation of such acts.
Strengthening our relationship with the Syrian Government will also help secure our borders by enabling a dialogue to reduce irregular migration from Syria.
A concerning legacy of the Assad regime is the existence of an operational chemical weapons programme in Syria. The de-proscription of HTS will allow the UK to work more closely with the Syrian Government to ensure the declaration and destruction of these weapons. The Syrian Government have committed to protecting chemical weapons sites and ensuring that such weapons are never used again.
While we will ultimately judge them on their actions and not their words, the new Syrian Government have conveyed their strong commitment to working with the UK on shared priorities. President Al Sharaa has made it clear that his focus is on rebuilding a stable, safe and prosperous Syria for all Syrians.
Decisions on de-proscription are not taken lightly. This Government will always put the safety and security of the British people first. This decision is consistent with the Government plan for change and mirrors the decision taken by the United States earlier this year to de-list HTS as a foreign terrorist organisation.
The decision to de-proscribe HTS was supported by a thorough assessment of the cross-Government proscription review group. The group concluded that HTS’s designation as an alias of al-Qaeda is no longer accurate and that de-proscription serves the national interest. Following its de-proscription, the offences relating to proscribed organisations under the Terrorism Act, including those concerning membership and support, will no longer apply to HTS. After this decision is implemented, 83 organisations remain proscribed in the UK.
The Home Secretary reserves the right to review proscription decisions in response to evolving threats. The Government will always act swiftly and decisively in the interests of national security.
This Government’s commitment to the security of the United Kingdom and the safety of its citizens is steadfast.
[HCWS977]
Proceeds of Crime Act Consultation: Extension of Accredited Financial Investigation Powers
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
Today the Government are launching a consultation document relating to the granting of accredited financial investigator powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to an additional three agencies, increasing our capacity to pursue asset recovery and further combat serious and organised crime.
The following public bodies have sought access to accredited financial investigator powers:
The Forestry Commission.
The Intellectual Property Office.
The Immigration Advice Authority.
The Government have assessed the value of extending the powers to each agency and concluded that we should seek to grant the powers to all three. However, to enhance transparency and foster effective decision making, the Government intend to seek the views of the wider public on this before laying the order in Parliament.
Additionally, the Intellectual Property Office will have its previous part 8 POCA powers restored—powers that it held while formally under the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy but were lost during departmental restructuring.
As such, this consultation will be launched for 12 weeks to seek to establish the views from the public on whether these organisations should be granted the financial investigator powers.
A copy of the consultation document will be placed in the libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk.
[HCWS978]
Family Justice: Better Protections for Children
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
My noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Baroness Levitt KC), has today made the following statement:
“I am pleased to announce today that the Government will repeal the presumption of parental involvement when Parliamentary time allows.
Section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989 states that the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration when determining questions relating to the upbringing of a child. The presumption of parental involvement was brought into legislation by the Children and Families Act 2014, which amended section 1 of the Children Act 1989. It states that, in certain private law proceedings relating to a child, the court should presume that involvement of a parent will further a child’s welfare, unless there is evidence to the contrary. It does not apply in cases in which there is evidence that the involvement of a parent places the child at risk of suffering harm.
Although the legislation explicitly states that the presumption is rebuttable and that it does not apply in cases where a parent presents a risk of harm to the child, I recognise that it has faced criticism for appearing to reinforce a “pro-contact” culture that prioritises the involvement of both parents in a child’s life over the child’s individual welfare. The 2020 Ministry of Justice report assessing risk of harm to children and parents in private law cases—known as the harm panel report—includes substantial evidence demonstrating the existence of a “pro-contact” culture in the family court.
The harm panel also recommended that the Ministry of Justice undertake a review of the presumption of parental involvement. This review has now been completed and has been published today in full with its findings alongside this written ministerial statement. One of the key findings of the review is that unsupervised and face-to-face involvement is the most likely outcome for child arrangements applications, including in cases which involve allegations or findings of domestic abuse or harm. Such decisions can be detrimental to child welfare. The presumption of parental involvement, while not the main driving force, was identified as one of a number of factors contributing to the pro-contact culture that drove these decisions.
The repeal of the presumption will form part of a package of family court reforms designed to better protect children in private law cases in the family courts. We know that abuse during childhood can have a serious impact on the rest of a child’s life, and that children who experience abuse during childhood are more likely to drop out of education, enter the criminal justice system and suffer unemployment and poor health outcomes. We hope that this wider package of reforms— of which the repeal of the presumption will play a key part—will contribute to improved children’s education and employment outcomes as well as reducing costs to the health and justice systems.
When coupled with other ongoing work to reform the family courts, we believe that repealing the presumption of parental involvement reflects our commitment to ensuring that the welfare of children remains paramount.
I will ensure that a copy of the review and accompanying research reports are deposited in the House Library.”
[HCWS979]
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
12:29 - Division on Amendment 55 - Ayes: 228 / Noes: 113 - Amendment 55 agreed.
12:42 - Division on Amendment 56 - Ayes: 173 / Noes: 120 - Amendment 56 agreed.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, I shall just make a quick statement before we continue. Before the first group is debated, I remind the House of some important guidance on Report stage, which will, I hope, help proceedings run smoothly. First, I highlight paragraph 4.23 of the Companion, which states:
“Debate must be relevant to the Question before the House”.
Debates on the Bill have been important and no doubt interesting, but a number of contributions on the first day strayed into wider topics not directly relevant to the amendments in the group being debated. I urge all colleagues to follow this guidance so that we can maintain effective scrutiny while allowing us to make good progress in good time. Secondly, I remind noble Lords of paragraph 8.82 of the Companion guidance that Members
“pressing or withdrawing an amendment should normally be brief and need not respond to all the points made during the debate, nor revisit points made when moving the amendment”.
Speeches appear to be getting longer. If noble Lords follow this guidance closely, we will be able to get to votes in a more timely manner.
Clause 33: Compulsory acquisition powers to include taking of temporary possession
Amendment 47
Lord Moylan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to remove the Secretary of State’s right to compulsorily acquire possession of highway land.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 47 relates to Clause 33. We debated this in Committee at some length, but the result of that debate was not in any sense satisfactory from my point of view. I wish to take this opportunity to express my thanks for the letter written to me by the Minister after the Committee debate, which covered a number of points, including this, but added only to the veil of obscurity surrounding this issue rather than clarifying it.
Perhaps I could just explain the political background to this, which gives rise to concern. As a conservative party, we are the party of property rights, and when we see clauses coming forward that appear to extend the rights of compulsory purchase on behalf of the state, we wish to explore and understand them and see whether they are absolutely necessary—especially when they appear, effectively, as a one-line clause at the bottom of a left-hand page in a Bill that appears to be largely about other matters. As I said in Committee, this issue could well deserve a Bill in itself; it certainly deserves proper scrutiny and clarity about what the clause is doing.
I will give the Government something for free: the National Farmers’ Union strongly supports this clause. I will briefly read out its reasoning for doing so and its account of the clause. It says:
“This is a positive step for landowners as, presently, National Highways can only apply for powers of compulsory acquisition to enable to it to use the land needed for a scheme. Under the Bill”—
that is, as a result of this clause—
“developers using the Highways Act for a project will be able to temporarily use and possess land rather than acquire it”.
That is a much clearer and better account of what the clause is doing than any I have heard from the Minister or the Government so far. But the first question one has to ask is whether the National Farmers’ Union’s understanding of the clause is correct. Can the Government say what it is doing? For example, in the letter that the Minister sent to me, he said that the clause “put beyond doubt” the department’s “existing power”, but the National Farmers’ Union believes that this is a new power, not a matter of putting something beyond doubt. Legal advice that I have formally taken outside the Chamber suggests that it is indeed a new power and not simply putting something beyond doubt. Can the Government state clearly and crisply what the clause is doing and what is new about it? That is the first question.
The second question relates to the issue of whether the clause can be used for the temporary acquisition of the ownership of land—that would be something akin to requisitioning in the Second World War, and it would be totally new—or whether it relates to the possibility of occupying land, traditionally done by means of a licence, a way leave or something of that sort, so that you have rights over somebody else’s land for a period but the land remains their property throughout. It is unclear which of those two it allows—or is it both?—because the clause refers specifically to “possession or occupation”, suggesting that there is a difference in the minds of the drafters between possession and occupation.
That question is tested by the wording of my amendment, which would leave out the words “possession or”. That would test whether this is tautologous or there is a genuine distinction. If there is a genuine distinction, could the Government explain what it is and whether it includes the temporary acquisition of the title to land in some fashion or other? That would be completely new and definitely worth closer scrutiny. If they are tautologous and there is no distinction, could the Government accede to the proposal in my amendment that one of them be left out, so that we have one that is operative and works?
The third thing is that there is no promise of any guidance to accompany this. In creating this new power—I assert, on advice, that the power is new and does not put something that exists beyond doubt—questions of a practical character arise that should be covered by guidance before it becomes operative. For example, how long can somebody temporarily acquire land for? How long beyond completion of the works are they allowed to keep occupation of the land? It might be as simple as: how long can construction huts be left on the land beyond the point when they are actually needed? What is the state in which the land is to be returned if it is temporarily acquired? That would all be useful to know in strong guidance from the Government that would accompany this new power. Again, that is all completely absent.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, that is a good start to today’s debate. It is a rather arcane topic with which to start the day. I wondered, when I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, whether he had actually read the original section in the Highways Act 1980, which the Government intend to—
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Excellent. I am pleased that he has, though I wonder whether he has, therefore, understood it. It is surprising that he has chosen to create legal uncertainty, which is what would happen with his amendment. Its consequence appears to be that developers needing a temporary use of land have in the past had to use compulsory acquisition powers if the landowner was not prepared to provide a temporary use. The Bill provides more assurance for both landowners and those improving or constructing new roads. For us on these Benches, the amendment makes no sense except as a tool to frustrate road improvements, and we will not support it.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for the amendment, which seeks to remove the Secretary of State’s ability to grant powers to an acquiring authority to compulsorily possess land necessary to facilitate delivery of highway schemes. The purpose of the measure is to allow acquiring authorities to temporarily possess land when needed for highway works to the exclusion of others without resorting to permanent acquisition.
Permanent acquisition of land or acquiring the freehold or long leasehold title of the land would mean that the acquiring authority would own the land outright and permanently. This is unnecessary and disproportionate when the land is needed only temporarily. In the event that agreement cannot be reached, this clause would enable an acquiring authority to compulsorily acquire the right to temporarily possess and occupy the land needed to facilitate the delivery of a highway scheme.
The rights of an applicant to temporarily possess or occupy land are routinely granted in development consent orders and Transport and Works Act orders. Furthermore, the power would use the same land compensation provisions as apply to compulsory purchase, adapting them as necessary to effect the temporary nature of the interest being acquired.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, quoted the National Farmers’ Union. It is not a new power; it is an implied right to take land temporarily that already exists and is already used, but the Government’s Bill makes it explicit.
Temporary possession is a well-established legal concept. It provides certainty and practical powers essential for the safe, efficient delivery of infrastructure works. Temporary possession would offer an acquiring authority—being a local highway authority or National Highways—a safe and proportionate route to exclude others from the land temporarily. This is critical when the land is needed for highways works. It could involve storing equipment and construction materials or manoeuvring large construction vehicles, as well as creating temporary routes to keep works traffic off the highway.
Temporary occupation, on the other hand, as the sole remaining power under the amended clause, would not confer the right to exclude others. This would pose serious safety risks and could undermine project delivery. Without clear powers, authorities would be unlikely to use the amended provision. It would risk introducing legal uncertainty, prolonging negotiations, leading to an increase in objections and public inquiries, all of which would increase costs and could delay delivery.
The Highways Act 1980 already contains powers covering the compulsory acquisition of land and rights in and over land. Clause 33, as I have said, would make it explicit that those powers can also authorise temporary possession. Clause 33, as currently drafted, provides the legal certainty, operational clarity and safeguards necessary for the safe and timely delivery of infrastructure projects. It does not create a new power; it is about ensuring that highways infrastructure can be delivered safely and proportionately.
Having, I hope, clearly defined the difference between possession and occupation, I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that this is not an attempt to own the land. In fact, it is clearly designed not to own the land, so that the title to the land would not change; it would be a right to occupy the land.
Finally, the noble Lord raised the question of how long it would be after works finish that the land can be possessed and whether there would be a need for guidance. That clearly is a subsidiary matter; I will take that subject away and write to him on it afterwards. I therefore kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. However, I thought I asked some fairly precise questions, and I do not feel that he has answered the questions with the precision that I was hoping for. Therefore, at the appropriate moment, I will seek to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Pinnock
“(1A) Any disapplication of heritage protections under this section must be exercised in a manner that—(a) recognises the value of the United Kingdom’s archaeological and architectural heritage to the nation and to local communities;(b) respects the principle that structures and sites are designated for protection only where they are of special or particular historic or cultural significance; and(c) ensures that development under this Act gives due regard to the importance of conserving the historic environment alongside the need for future infra- structure.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment imposes considerations for any disapplication of heritage protections.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this is one area in the Bill where the Government have listened and made significant concessions in the light of the debate in Committee. In Committee, the amendment in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, challenged the Government to think again about the removal of heritage protections currently provided in the Transport and Works Act. I have retabled the amendment debated in Committee to press the Minister to reconsider.
In Committee also, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, proposed that Clause 41 stand part as the only route to provide important protection for our nation’s heritage. Government Amendment 49 is the answer to those strong arguments: the original Clause 41 is deleted along with the schedule, and a replacement Clause 41 tabled by the Minister.
At the core of the new Clause 41 is the notion of deemed consent; the deemed consent route does not ensure that key heritage duties, such as the duty to have special regard to listed buildings and conservation areas, are included. The Secretary of State therefore makes decisions on whether work to a listed building, scheduled monument or in a conservation area can be given permission, with the provisos of having due regard to. That route enables decisions on those issues to be made more quickly, but it fails the public engagement test that we on these Benches believe is important. However, given the changes proposed by the Minister, we are satisfied that there are protections for heritage sites and trust that all Secretaries of State will use their power with a special and high regard for our heritage. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I speak in place of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. She is unable to be here today as she is hosting something that was set up months ago. As a former archaeologist, I am so annoyed by the Government’s attempt to do this. In fact, I have to warn noble Lords that I am going to be annoyed all day, because some of this Bill is absolutely appalling. I therefore very much support Amendment 48. I do not know whether we will vote on it, but I will certainly be there in the Content Lobby if we do.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I tabled my Amendment 50 before the Government tabled their own Amendment 49 in this group. Both seek, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, to leave out Clause 41. It is fair to say that that was the part of the Bill that caused the most concern among heritage groups. We heard in Committee about the concerns raised by bodies including the National Trust, the Heritage Alliance and the Government’s own heritage adviser, Historic England. I am pleased to say that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, who responded to the debate in Committee and is a man who cares about both our heritage and innovation, very sensibly listened to that chorus of disapproval and undertook to look at this matter again in discussion with other Ministers.
I was therefore very pleased when I saw the government amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, has tabled in this group, which responds to the concerns raised in Committee, both in this House and in another place, and in the representations made by heritage bodies. I also welcome the fact that she and the Heritage Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, have met heritage groups directly to discuss this and other aspects of the Bill. That is very welcome, and I understand that it is the first of a number of round tables that they will hold on this issue.
Heritage and the construction of new infrastructure are sometimes held up to be in competition, which of course they are not. As the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, knows, for instance, from his time as chairman of the Heritage Railway Association, a proper celebration of our past can help to inspire and drive the innovation of the future. As we heard in Committee, if development is done in a way that respects the past and the vernacular of local communities, it then has greater support from those communities and is a much speedier and more welcome thing.
Having seen the government amendment, I will not press my Amendment 50 here on Report. I am glad that the Government have listened to the concerns raised in these debates.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am in the rather frightening position of agreeing with Amendment 48 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle—no doubt they are as concerned about my support for them as I am. However, they have raised some very good points here.
I am in complete agreement with my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and his desire to delete Clause 41 in its entirety—now with the Government's amendment—but the noble Baronesses who have tabled Amendment 48 deserve some praise. We can all look at buildings, monuments or parts of the countryside and think that they are wonderful and should not be built on or destroyed, but we do not have our valuable heritage determined by such random means. As the amendment makes clear in proposed new sub-paragraph (b),
“structures and sites are designated for protection only where they are of special or particular historic or cultural significance”.
That is the key point. These protected sites are not based on the subjective opinions of us or local people, but on an objective determination using nationally approved criteria on what qualifies a building for listed building protection, or to be a scheduled monument or conservation area. Proposed new sub-paragraph (c) merely asks that due regard be given to conserving the historic environment alongside the need for future infrastructure. The question is, how long will that new infrastructure last?
I did a Google search, and this is what I got on typical building lifespan expectations. Standard residential buildings often have a design life of 50 years, with a possible maximum of 100 years. Commercial buildings can vary widely: some modern commercial properties may be constructed with a short design life of just 20 or 30 years, while others, such as high-quality concrete and steel structures, are built to last 100 years or more. Historical and monumental structures can, with constant care, last hundreds or even thousands of years, as seen with some Roman structures.
We destroy our history at our peril. It was Sir Winston Churchill who said:
“We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us”. —[Official Report, Commons, 28/10/1943; col. 403.]
On the one hand, we have the magnificent House of Commons next door and this marvellous Palace here. On the other, we have some of those appalling—but, no doubt, award-winning at the time—1970s tower blocks, which we are now flattening as quickly as possible because of their destructive effect on the people forced to reside in them. No Government would dare to demolish Stonehenge or Hadrian’s Wall, nor to drive a road through them, but there are thousands of ancient buildings that, although not as famous or sexy as Stonehenge or Hadrian’s Wall, are a vital part of our history and deserve protection—or, at the very least, special consideration—before they are demolished for some new construction.
In England, there are 9,320 grade 1 listed buildings and 21,782 grade 2 listed buildings. It is estimated that more than 1,000 of these buildings are over 1,000 years old. I cannot imagine any new development that would justify the destruction or damage of one of these buildings —except, possibly, a runway extension at Heathrow. Very few projects would justify it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has amendments in later groups on protecting heritage trees. In Committee and in HS2 Bills, we have debated saving ancient woodlands. Once they are gone, they can never be replaced. The same applies to conservation areas. Amendment 48 does not call for a complete ban; it calls merely for regard to be had to the need to conserve our historic environment alongside the need for future infrastructure. I commend the noble Baronesses for tabling that amendment and bringing it to the attention of the House.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I cannot resist a brief anecdote. When the inner ring road was being built around Birmingham’s city centre in the 1960s, the highways department at Birmingham City Council approached the Catholic Archbishop of Birmingham and said that, unfortunately, both the Pugin-designed Catholic cathedral and the Pugin-designed archbishop’s House next door to it would have to go to make way for the road. When the archbishop entered a modest word of protest against this loss, querying whether it was entirely necessary, the result was that the courteous gentlemen of the highways department went away and rethought the plans somewhat and the archbishop was given a choice: he could lose either the Pugin-designed cathedral or the Pugin-designed house. That explains why, to this day, the cathedral still stands but the house has long since gone. Happily, that approach to heritage is not something that we would see today.
At this point, I wish merely to congratulate those Members of your Lordships’ House who have spoken so clearly and valiantly against the original proposal in the Bill. I also thank the Government for listening, because what was originally proposed really was unsustainable; what we have now is a great deal more acceptable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, in speaking to Amendments 48 and 50, I shall later move government Amendments 49, 51, 66, 258 and 260. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett, as well as the other noble Lords who have raised this issue during the Bill’s passage. I also thank Peers for their time during the recess, when we discussed this matter at length.
As I have noted previously, the Government have no interest in loosening heritage protections; indeed, we see this country’s heritage assets as a vital part of our built environment. We are clear that these assets should be conserved and enhanced for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations.
Amendments we have laid to the Bill on heritage and the Transport and Works Act order process will ensure that there is no loss of heritage protection while achieving the Government’s goal of streamlining the process to get on with delivering the infrastructure that this country needs.
Through these amendments, we have introduced a new power for the Secretary of State in England to direct that listed building consent is deemed to be granted in relation to Transport and Works Act order projects. This new power follows the same model as the existing long-established power for them to direct that planning permission is deemed to be granted for these projects. This means that, in practice, applicants for a Transport and Works Act order can apply for deemed listed building consent at the same time, rather than having to apply separately to the local planning authority. This will streamline the process.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the long discussion that we had on this issue during recess and her commitment then to introduce a new clause. In my view, she has responded appropriately and fully to the concerns expressed. With those safeguards for our heritage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Deemed grant of listed building consent etc(1) In the Transport and Works Act 1992, for section 17 (listed buildings and conservation areas) substitute—“17 Listed buildings: England(1) On making an order under section 1 or 3 that authorises controlled listed building works in England, the Secretary of State may direct that listed building consent for the works is deemed to be granted, subject to such conditions (if any) as may be specified in the direction.(2) Section 16(2) of the Listed Buildings Act (duty of special regard to listed buildings) applies to the making of a direction under this section as it would apply to the grant of listed building consent in relation to the building concerned.(3) Section 72(1) of the Listed Buildings Act (duty of special attention to conservation areas) applies to the making of a direction under this section in relation to a building in a conservation area as it would apply to the grant of listed building consent in relation to that building.(4) The provisions of the Listed Buildings Act apply in relation to any listed building consent deemed to be granted by virtue of a direction of the Secretary of State under this section as if the consent had been granted by the Secretary of State on an application referred under section 12 of that Act.(5) But that does not bring the decision to make the direction within section 62(2)(a) of that Act (decisions of Secretary of State that may only be challenged by way of statutory review).(6) In this section—“conservation area” has the same meaning as in the Listed Buildings Act (see section 91(1) of that Act);“controlled listed building works in England” means works to which section 7(1) of the Listed Buildings Act (demolition or alteration in character of a listed building in England) applies;“listed building consent” means consent under section 8 of the Listed Buildings Act (listed building consent in England);“the Listed Buildings Act” means the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.17A Listed buildings and conservation areas: Wales(1) On making an order under section 1 or 3 that authorises controlled listed building works in Wales, the Welsh Ministers may direct that listed building consent for the works is deemed to be granted, subject to such conditions (if any) as may be specified in the direction.(2) On making an order under section 1 or 3 that authorises controlled conservation area works in Wales, the Welsh Ministers may direct that conservation area consent for the works is deemed to be granted, subject to such conditions (if any) as may be specified in the direction.(3) Section 96(2) of HEWA 2023 (duty of special regard to listed buildings) applies to the making of a direction under subsection (1) as it would apply to the grant of listed building consent in relation to the building concerned.(4) Section 160(1) of HEWA 2023 (duty of special regard to conservation areas) applies—(a) to the making of a direction under subsection (1) in relation to a building in a conservation area, as it would apply to the grant of listed building consent in relation to that building, and(b) to the making of a direction under subsection (2), as it would apply to the grant of conservation area consent in relation to the building concerned.(5) The provisions of HEWA 2023 apply in relation to any consent deemed to be granted by virtue of a direction of the Welsh Ministers under this section as if the consent had been granted by the Welsh Ministers on an application referred under section 94 of that Act.(6) But that does not bring the decision to make the direction within section 182(2)(b) of that Act (decisions of Welsh Ministers that may only be challenged by way of statutory review).(7) In this section—“conservation area” has the same meaning as in HEWA 2023 (see section 210 of that Act);“conservation area consent” means consent under section 162 of HEWA 2023 (conservation area consent in Wales); “controlled conservation area works in Wales” means works to which section 161 of HEWA 2023 (demolition of building in conservation area in Wales) applies;“controlled listed building works in Wales” means works to which section 88 of HEWA 2023 (demolition or alteration in character of a listed building in Wales) applies;“HEWA 2023” means the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2023;“listed building consent” means consent under section 89 of HEWA 2023 (listed building consent in Wales).”(2) In section 22 of that Act (validity of orders)—(a) in the heading, for “under section 1 or 3” substitute “and directions”;(b) after subsection (3) insert—“(4) This section applies to a direction under—(a) section 90(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (deemed planning permission),(b) section 17 or 17A of this Act (deemed listed building or conservation area consent), or(c) section 12(2A) of the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 (deemed hazardous substances consent),as it applies to an order under section 1 or 3.”(3) In section 12 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (reference of applications for listed building consent to Secretary of State), omit subsection (3A).(4) In section 94(4) of the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2023 (reference to Welsh Ministers of application for listed building consent associated with Transport and Works Act application), after “application” in the second place it occurs insert “to the Secretary of State”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would replace the proposed power to remove the need for various heritage-related consents for a Transport and Works Act project with a power to put in place deemed listed building consent or (in Wales) conservation area consent for such a project.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
I inform your Lordships that, if Amendment 49 is agreed, I am unable to call Amendment 50 for reasons of pre-emption.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment replacing Clause 41.
Baroness Pidgeon
“(5A) After subsection (5), insert—“(6) References in this Part to public charge points are to be taken as including cross-pavement charging solutions.””
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Amendments 52 and 57 aim to make it easier for people who do not have driveways to switch to an electric vehicle and install the necessary infrastructure so that they can charge from their home, thus benefiting from VAT-free electricity charging. Amendment 52 allows for cross-pavement solutions to be considered as public charge points to make it easier, quicker and cheaper for people to move to electric vehicles at home. Amendment 57 then extends permitted developments related to electric vehicle charge points where there is an agreed cross-pavement charging solution and the charger does not overhang the footway by more than 15 centimetres.
Up to 40% of UK households do not have access to off-street parking. They therefore rely on public charge points, which can cost up to 10 times more than charging at home. A recent survey by the Electric Vehicle Association England highlights that, generally speaking, drivers without off-street parking are more likely to rent, earn less and live in concentrated urban areas; they are less likely to switch to an electric vehicle and those who have are generally less confident in electric vehicle ownership and more concerned about the costs. This amendment would help to democratise access to electric vehicles and reduce inequalities.
As I highlighted in Committee, cross-pavement solutions have real potential to help to tackle this challenge, but the current costs of installation can be around £3,000 and it can take 12 to 15 months for a decision from a local authority. Only this month in Northern Ireland, residents can now apply for cross-pavement electric vehicle charging channels. Through just a simple online form, residents can apply for the channels that would allow residents with electric vehicles to reduce charging costs there from £25 at a typical charge point to just £3. We need to make it as simple and easy to access in the rest of the country too. These amendments seek to make the transition to electric fair and easy. I have been encouraged by discussions with the Minister about this issue since Committee and look forward to hearing whether any progress can be made to help people without driveways to transition to electric vehicles more easily and affordably.
While I am on my feet, on the other amendments in this group, Amendment 55 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, has come late in the day. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister on this important area of accessibility and charge points. I shall not waste the time of the House on the new amendments that would add more bureaucracy in the transition to green vehicles. I beg to move.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 53 and 54 in this group, which the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, disdains to address—so that leaves it to me to explain what they would do. Amendment 53 would require local authorities to conduct and publish a parking impact assessment before permitting EV charge point works that may displace general use parking to ensure that the wider motoring public is not disproportionately affected by the transition to electric infrastructure. Amendment 54 seeks to ensure that residents and businesses can request a review where proposed EV installations reduce access to conventional parking.
My concern is that the Government do not appear to appreciate the practical and societal risks of their current approach. Across the country, residents, particularly in towns and suburbs, are finding that parking spaces they have relied on for years are being removed or repurposed for electric vehicle charging bays without consideration of local needs. Of course, the argument is that this is all in the service of the transition to electric vehicles, although that transition appears to be stalling, if we take note of the number of electric vehicles being sold and what the take-up is. But for many people—and there is a class element to this—especially those who cannot afford an electric vehicle, dependency on a petrol or diesel-driven vehicle for getting to work, fulfilling the requirements of daily life and making a living is absolutely essential, and provision has to continue for those. We are in danger of pushing out from parking access poor people, on low incomes, who desperately need a car to make space for the better-off family’s second Tesla for the nanny to use. That cannot be equitable, can it?
What is proposed here is an impact assessment—no prohibition—and the opportunity for people to ask for a review. As I say, the benefits flow directly in one direction. The Minister said in Committee that we must ensure that the regulatory framework is enabling rather than encumbering. I agree, but I ask for whom it is enabling, and at what cost. The transition that we are aiming at has to be fair, balanced and practical, and these amendments would simply introduce a modest, reasonable safeguard to ensure that the wider motoring public is not unduly disadvantaged as infrastructure for electrical vehicles is rolled out.
Amendments 52 and 57—I am willing to address the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, even though she cannot be bothered to address mine—raise the same issue that I have highlighted. By allowing private charging points to extend into the public sphere, these measures would in effect reserve and privatise particular road space for the benefit of particular residents and exclude the general public from parking in those bays even when they were free. Perhaps some means could be found whereby the general public could park in them when they were free, but nobody has proposed what this mechanism is.
It is incumbent on the noble Baroness to address this question. In a world where there was limitless parking space, these issues would not arise, but her amendments aim specifically at those places where there is relatively high density. Places where properties do not have their own driveway or on-site parking space tend to be those with higher levels of density—those are the ones she wants to address—and often they are more mixed economically. As I say, that question of equity is important too.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, first, I declare my interests as a taxi proprietor and driver of a wheelchair-accessible taxi. The reason why it is wheelchair-accessible is that I introduced that feature into the manufacture of taxis when I ran that business. I also introduced bus ramps to make low-floor buses accessible, and for some years ran the powered-wheelchair finance business Motability. I was also an electric vehicle entrepreneur, making an electric delivery vehicle— a business I started in 2004. I also declare that my wife and I have an eldest son who is disabled with learning difficulties.
The reason for my Amendment 55 follows the statistic that, in this country, fewer than 3% of public electric vehicle charging points are considered safe and reliable for drivers with accessibility needs. Without the protective measures I am putting forward, drivers with disabilities will likely see no end to the struggle of charging their car safely and reliably. This is an essential activity; it should not be yet another barrier for disabled individuals to carry out their day-to-day lives.
This amendment is modest in scope but vital in purpose. It would surely give the Government the power, if needed in the future, to make compliance with existing accessibility standards obligatory. It is an enabling measure, not an immediate imposition. Many EV drivers rely on the public network to charge their car. We know that around 40% of UK households do not have a driveway, for instance, and therefore have no easy access to home charging. We also know that disability and poverty are strongly correlated, meaning that drivers with disabilities are even less likely to own a private driveway and a home charger. It is therefore deeply troubling that most of the public network is unable to meet even basic accessibility needs.
According to EVA England, nearly half of all drivers, with or without disabilities, have experienced problems using public charge points. They cite heavy cables, high kerbs, obstructed bays and payment terminals that are too high or awkwardly placed. For many disabled drivers, these are not small irritations but complete barriers to participation. In July, electric vehicles made up around 25% of new sales, but in the Motability scheme, which supports drivers with disabilities, they represented 12%—less than half. Why are disabled people not choosing electric vehicles? It is because they cannot recharge them. Indeed, a full quarter of Motability drivers say that they entirely avoid public chargers because of accessibility issues. That is not a future issue but a crisis of access now.
The Department for Transport took an important step in 2022 by publishing an accessibility standard, PAS 1899, designed to address these issues. However, as of today, hardly any public charge points meet that standard, largely because the parts and design requirements have yet to be fully adopted by industry. A revised version is being developed, with input from consumer groups and manufacturers. It is expected to offer a workable compromise between what industry can deliver and what disabled drivers need but, when it comes, it will again be entirely voluntary.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Borwick. I am absolutely delighted that he has tabled it. As a disabled person, I have to say that the guidance on accessible charging is not worth very much, as it has not made an impact on my ability to move to an electric car. I totally agree about the barriers that the noble Lord mentioned of raised kerbs, gravel or, indeed, poorly lit charging stations, or even lack of accessible bays.
To use a charging station, I need to be able to open the door of my car to the widest possible point. My chair comes apart—the wheels come off, and the frame and the wheels sit on my front seat—and I do not want to damage any other cars while I am getting in and out. It does not take me much longer than a non-disabled person to do so, but when I tried, very hard, several times to move to an electric vehicle it proved impossible.
The first time I tried, I was close to signing the paperwork but had a look around my local area. There was no accessible charging station within at least 30 miles of my house, which was not particularly useful. The advice from the garage was that perhaps I should just take someone with me wherever I went, and they could get in and out of the car to charge it for me.
The problems go deeper than that. As we are seeing charging stations develop, they are taking over accessible bays. One time I was sat in a queue at a service station—admittedly, it was at a busy time—and looked at how much longer it would take me to charge my car, because I need a wider bay. It was a significant amount of time, compared to my place in the queue. What I am worried about is the impact this is going to have if we do not do something now for disabled people.
I recognise that there are probably changes coming to the Motability scheme. I do not have a Motability car, but I do receive personal independence payments. There are an increasing number of electric vehicles on Motability’s books, and Motability is removing cars that a lot of disabled people can drive. This is cutting down people’s choices and options. There is also a lack of wheelchair-accessible vehicles that are electric and allow a tailgate lift, so if someone has an electric wheelchair, that policy is shutting down their options and making things really difficult.
I recently visited Newport, and I offer some praise to Newport Council. It has done an amazing job of providing not just accessible charging stations but lots of different options in its car parks. This is a real model that we should take forward. The council has looked at the guidance, recognised that it is not going to help disabled people, and gone above and beyond. But that is one council; sadly, there are gaps all over the rest of the country. Ultimately, I do not want disabled people to be blamed for not caring about the environment, as they were when plastic straws were banned. Disabled people experienced a massive backlash: they were told they were going to be murdering turtles and dolphins, but plastic straws were the only means by which many people could drink. We can already see that disabled people have been accused of not caring about the environment and not making the switch. Rather, they want to but are unable to do so.
With that in mind, I strongly support the amendment. We have to do something to make it possible for disabled people to switch to electric vehicles.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 53, 54 and 55 but express some concern about Amendment 52. My noble friend Lord Moylan is absolutely right to call for an impact assessment before local authorities go overboard with removing non-electric car spaces in an obsessive drive for electric vehicle charging points. There are 2.6 million plug-in cars in the UK, including hybrids and fully electric— 5% of the total. But there are 33 million petrol and diesel cars in the UK. AutoTrader issued a report in July this year, stating that the current sales trajectory of new electric cars would see just 45% market share by 2030, well below the 80% projected and mandated target set by the Government. Personally, I prefer to trust AutoTrader’s expert analysis rather than government wish-list projections.
What are the Government’s projections? They believe there could be between 8 million and 12 million hybrid vehicles and electric cars by 2030 if uptake aligns with their targets. By 2040, the number could reach 25 million according to the Local Government Association. Some projections, aligned with the UK’s net-zero goals, estimate up to 37.4 million electric vehicles by 2050 if we go flat out on net zero. So we might have 11 million hybrid cars if—I repeat, if—the uptake aligns with government targets. But we see that those targets are 100% out already, just as the Government’s heat pump projections are about 500% out. In the nicest possible way, it is all wishful thinking.
But the big danger here—and this is where my noble friends’ amendments are spot on—is the Local Government Association’s projection of 25 million electric cars by 2040. Where on earth does the LGA get this information from? What does it know about forecasting electric car uptake? The only ones who can do that are car manufacturers, dealers, others in the trade who have their finger on the pulse of buyer motivation, and those who understand battery replacement costs, Chinese cheap car penetration, trade-in values and so on. If local authorities take up the Local Government Association’s projection and take it seriously—as they are likely to do—we will see twice as many non-electric car parking spaces ripped out, and we will have electric car places instead, so that projection will be wrong.
I simply ask noble Lords to cast their minds back to 2020, when everyone thought that electric vehicles were the bee’s knees and would rapidly replace petrol and diesel cars. In 2019, the Department for Transport forecast that there would be 1.5 million electric cars by the end of 2020. In fact, at the end of 2020 there were approximately 431,000 ultra-low emission vehicles, and that includes battery-electric and fully electric. That is one-third of the Government’s projection. What would have happened if local authorities had had the money and resources to implement that flawed projection? Thank goodness they did not have the money to do it; otherwise, they would have removed thousands of conventional car parking spaces and installed three times more electric charging points than there were cars. That is why it is essential that local authorities follow the measure in my noble friend’s amendments.
We must have a parking impact assessment before permitting EV charging points that would replace general use parking, and businesses and residents must have the power to request a review when EV installations reduce conventional parking. We have seen local authorities ride roughshod over local residents, closing roads and imposing ridiculously low speed restrictions, but I have no doubt that many will ignore the needs of petrol car drivers in the fanatical pursuit of electric cars.
I also strongly support my noble friend Lord Borwick’s Amendment 55. I congratulate him on all the work he has done with London cabs over the years to make them accessible. I and thousands of other people in London would not be able to move anywhere around this city were it not for the ramps that he insisted be built into London cabs; the new, longer ramps are just superb. Most charging points that I have seen seem to be about one metre above the payment. Theoretically, they should be accessible for disabled motorists, but many charging points are not usable for motorists with wheelchair-adapted vehicles. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson on her excellent speech setting out many of the deficiencies she has faced.
In 2018, it was calculated that about 400,000 vehicles had been adapted or converted for wheelchair users, but that includes drivers and passengers. It is a relatively small number in comparison to the 30 million other vehicles on the road. However, if you are a wheelchair user, there first needs to be a dropped kerb. Imagine that you are a wheelchair user, a driver, in a car: there are only two ways to use it. You either get a ramp at the back to get out and in, or a little hoist to get out of the driver’s seat. The first decision you have to make if you see an electric charging point is whether to drive up in such a way that you are exiting on to the street and taking a risk there, or whether to turn the vehicle round so that the driver’s seat is next to the kerb. In the latter case, there needs to be a dropped kerb nearby so that you can get out of the vehicle and on to the pavement. I am not suggesting that every charging point must have a dropped kerb, but there needs to be one nearby. Then, the charging plug must not face the street or car, since the wheelchair user cannot get round to that side to use it. It is not rocket science. It is not expensive to make sure that all plug-in points either face the pavement or are at right-angles to it, or at least do not face the street.
While I have no solution for the scenario where the plug for the car is in the middle of the bonnet or the boot and the wheelchair user can plug in okay, but then cannot get on to the pavement to plug in at the other end, the latest statistics show that most plugs on cars are at the rear. Some 37% of electric vehicles in the UK are configured with the plug at the right rear; the left rear is the second most common location, found on 31% of vehicles. The left front is less common still, accounting for 18% of vehicles. The wheelchair user therefore has to get to the left rear, the right rear or the front to plug in, and then has to get on to the pavement to plug into the socket there. I therefore believe that my noble friend Lord Borwick is absolutely right. If the Government do not make this simple concession, I hope that he will push his amendment to the vote.
Finally, I flag my concern at the mention of cross-pavement charging points. Suffice it to say that, in my short journeys to the House of Lords in my trusty chariot, I battle daily with e-bikes and scooters dumped or parked anywhere on the pavement. Then one contends with temporary construction work, which necessitates cables and pipes crossing the pavement. To be fair, in nearly every case, the construction companies cover them up with temporary cable ramps or protectors but, in about 50% of the cases, they are so high, lumpy and protruding that I cannot get a wheelchair over and sometimes get grounded trying to cross them. However, these construction companies know the law and they try to safeguard pedestrians.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for tabling Amendments 52 and 57, which are important. The rollout of public and domestic charge point infrastructure is vital to ensuring a smooth transition to zero-emission vehicles, particularly for those without access to off-street parking.
Amendment 57 seeks to simplify the installation of cross-pavement charging solutions by granting permitted development rights. The Government have listened to the concerns raised by noble Lords on this matter and further support the aim that the noble Baroness intends with this amendment. As such, we will launch a consultation on introducing permitted development in the coming months. It is important that a consultation is undertaken to consider the impacts of such a permitted development right and to develop appropriate mitigations should the proposal be taken forward. Subject to the outcome of the consultations, we will make changes quickly under secondary legislation through the Town and Country Planning Act to simplify cross-pavement charging solutions by granting permitted development rights.
The second amendment proposes to treat cross-pavement charging solutions as public charge points under Clause 47, allowing installation without a Section 50 street works licence. Section 50 licences provide local authorities with the statutory means to supervise and regulate third-party works on public highways, ensuring that standards of safety, quality and responsibility are upheld. This oversight is especially important in developing areas such as cross-pavement charging to avoid some of the difficulties that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, just outlined.
While the public charge point market is now relatively mature, with over 86,000 installations in the UK, the cross- pavement solution space remains nascent with just a few hundred installations to date. Given this disparity, it is appropriate that Section 50 licences continue to be used for cross-pavement installations. As my department intends to consult on expanded permitted development rights, it would also not be appropriate to remove the need for Section 50 licences at this time, as that would remove those key checks and balances for local authorities.
However, a delivery model that is already available to local authorities is to use their own highways teams. In doing so, they can already access street works permits to directly install cross-pavement solutions and avoid the need for a Section 50 licence. This approach gives local authorities power to make delivery decisions at a local level, while maintaining oversight and the choice of delivery model. Having listened to the noble Baroness’s concerns, my department will write to local authorities in England to highlight that this is an important option that should be considered.
As well as this, the Government are working to improve consistency and accelerate rollout through dedicated funding, clear guidance and sharing best practice. This includes £25 million in grant funding for cross-pavement channels in England, new and additional guidance and the aforementioned consultation on expanding permitted development rights. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments.
I turn to Amendments 53 and 54 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. The purpose of Clause 47 is to support the rollout of essential EV charging infrastructure across England. This clause is an essential measure for simplifying the application and approval measures for public EV charging points in response to increasing demand for charging infrastructure. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord undermines this and adds additional burdens on local authorities, ultimately slowing down rollout.
Only in certain cases does a local authority choose to dedicate a parking bay for EV charging. In such situations, the current framework—such as the use of traffic regulation orders—already enables highway authorities to manage parking on public roads efficiently. Where an EV charging bay is needed, a traffic regulation order can be implemented to allocate the space. The procedure for putting a traffic regulation order in place includes public consultation and the formal announcement of the authority’s intentions. In cases where installation work temporarily disrupts existing parking arrangements, a temporary traffic regulation order may be used. Here, too, authorities must publish their intention to suspend a parking bay in advance. My department also provides statutory guidance: the Code of Practice for the Co-ordination of Street and Road Works, which promotes early engagement and consultation among all relevant parties before works.
It is vital that our regulatory framework supports progress rather than creating unnecessary obstacles. Imposing an additional requirement for impact assessments at this point would place an excessive strain on highway authorities—a challenge that will only intensify as applications for charge point installations continue to increase. Expecting authorities to undertake detailed assessments for every permit application to install a public charge point would not only introduce additional costs and administrative pressure but hinder their ability to meet the timings prescribed in the existing statutory guidance, which sets out the parameters for response times for permit applications.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for tabling Amendment 54 on enabling residents or businesses to request a formal review where electric vehicle installations reduce access to conventional parking. This proposed amendment would require highway authorities to conduct formal reviews of electric vehicle charge point installations at the request of any resident or business, regardless of the scale of concern, within 30 days. This would, again, place unnecessary burdens and costs on authorities, diverting resources away from essential delivery work and risking delays in our drive towards net zero. At a time when we must accelerate electric vehicle deployment, we cannot afford added obstacles. Furthermore, allowing retrospective reviews at the request of individuals risks reopening settled decisions.
The statutory guidance for highway authorities operating permit schemes provides clear powers to assess the impact of street works and to impose conditions aimed at mitigating disruption, including the loss of parking. Authorities are expected to exercise these powers, ensuring that permit conditions are proportionate and aligned with the broader objectives of network management. This amendment would add complexity without delivering meaningful benefit. It would risk slowing the pace of electric vehicle infrastructure deployment and undermining the confidence of delivery partners.
I note the views of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, on the future of electric vehicles. The noble Lord is welcome to his views, but the Government do not agree with him. In any event, we need to make provision for electric vehicles that are already on the roads today. The Government’s Bill seeks to do that. Returning to Amendments 53 and 54, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, not to press them.
Amendment 55 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, relates to accessible charging. I assure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson—indeed, all in your Lordships’ House—that this Government are very mindful of the difficulties faced by drivers with disabilities. The noble Baroness graphically described why we need to take action. Given that there will be an estimated 2.7 million disabled drivers or passengers on the roads by 2035, making public charge points accessible is not just about being fair and inclusive; it is vital.
As a result, the Government are supporting the adoption of accessible electric vehicles—including wheelchair-accessible models—and the infrastructure that supports them by encouraging their production and uptake through regulatory and policy incentives. My department and the Motability Foundation previously co-sponsored the British Standards Institution’s creation of the first global set of standards for accessible charge points—Public Accessibility Standard 1899:2022 —to provide a specification for designing and installing accessible public EV charge points.
However, we acknowledge that the adoption of these standards has not met expectations to date. Given the importance of ensuring an accessible charging network, my department and the Motability Foundation commissioned the British Standards Institution to review the adoption of the standards and any changes needed to accelerate their uptake and to improve accessibility. As the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, said, this review has involved a range of stakeholders, including disability advocacy organisations, consumer bodies, industry, the devolved Governments and others. It has identified challenges with the current standards and will be published shortly.
The review of this standard demonstrated a clear commitment from across the sector to ensure that charging is accessible for all drivers and has recommended changes and revisions to address these challenges. In addition, there are, of course, certain requirements that businesses, including those providing public charging, must follow under the Equality Act. Although the Act sets out these general duties, specific standards, such as PAS 1899:2022, help to ensure charge points are accessible in practice. I was pleased to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, that Newport City Council has done well in this respect; of course, we want all other local authorities and private providers to do the same.
The priority at this stage must therefore be to work with stakeholders across the sector to address the findings of the recent review. We believe that there is clear support for this plan from interested parties and the groups that contributed. Following this, we will monitor the adoption by industry and the impact on accessibility carefully to evaluate whether even further measures may be needed. In the Government’s view, it would therefore be premature to seek legislative measures to mandate the requirements at this stage.
I recognise that these provisions are fundamentally enabling powers, and I am grateful to have been able to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, yesterday afternoon, since he tabled his amendment. Although I cannot currently accept his amendment, and therefore ask him not to press it, the Government will continue to consider this issue. I can assure him that all the groups that I have mentioned will continue to play a vital role in accessibility and taking forward the findings of the review. I will continue to work with him and the noble Baroness on this matter to see what we can do to speed up the process.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I thank the Minister and his team for meeting me a number of times, including during recess, to discuss the amendments that I have tabled. Finding ways to make it easier for people who do not have driveways to move to electric vehicles is so important for our green transition. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to a consultation on permitted developments, followed by secondary legislation as soon as possible, and to write to all local authorities to effectively help speed up works to help those seeking cross-pavement solutions. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Borwick
“(10) The Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 is amended as set out in subsections (11) and (12).(11) In section 10 (public charging or refuelling points: access, standards and connection)—(a) in subsection (1), after paragraph (b) insert—“(ba) the accessibility of public charging or refuelling points;”;(b) after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) Regulations under subsection (1)(ba) may, for example, require the operator of a public charging or refuelling point to ensure that the point complies with minimum specifications for placement of a charge point display, bay size, and the height and weight of the charging cable for the purpose of ensuring accessibility for disabled people.”.(12) In section 14 (transmission of data relating to charge points), in subsection (2) after “energy consumption” insert “, accessibility”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to provide extra powers to the Department to enable them to bring forth regulations to enable disabled people to more easily use public charging points. Such regulations may encourage public charging points to be designed with disabled drivers in mind who may be more willing purchase an electric vehicle if they are able to access and use the charging points.
“Deregulation of low hazard reservoirsWithin six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the current regulatory regime for low hazard reservoirs, and set out proposals for the deregulation of such reservoirs to facilitate their construction.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is an amendment to encourage the consideration of measures to facilitate the construction of small reservoirs that pose little potential threat to local communities.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, given that the debate was two days ago, I will briefly remind the House why I am pressing this to a vote. The Minister explained clearly that there will be a review of the Reservoirs Act 1975, which currently prohibits or sets very strict criteria on the construction of small reservoirs. Given the last two summers we have had, and the difficulty farmers have in accessing water at short notice during the summer months, it is extremely important that this review is brought forward and takes place as soon as possible to make sure that farmers have a regular supply of water to ensure that their stock is fed and their crops are watered. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson
National Lane Rental Scheme: establishment(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish a National Lane Rental Scheme (“the Scheme”).(2) The Scheme must ensure that—(a) local authorities are able to grant lane rental permission to utility companies as standard,(b) the Secretary of State is only involved in the granting of lane rental when utility companies appeal to the Secretary of State about the local authority’s actions under paragraph (a), and(c) any public highway may be subject to lane rental provisions, irrespective of size or level of sensitivity.(3) The Secretary of State must—(a) consolidate existing regulations which provide for local authorities to grant permission for lane rental to utility companies for works, and(b) ensure that any orders made under section 74A of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 which may contradict the provisions of the Scheme are repealed.(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument vary provisions in the Scheme.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.(6) Any revenues raised through the National Lane Rental Scheme must be ring-fenced by local authorities and used exclusively for—(a) repair and maintenance of highways, including the remediation of potholes, and(b) measures to minimise future disruption from utility works.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to bring forward a national scheme for Lane Rental during road works with the intention of developing a simpler, less bureaucratic, and more consistent system.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response when I raised this in Committee and his subsequent communication. I am sure he recognises the problem that this amendment seeks to address, but I am afraid that limited tinkering does not solve the problem; we need to do something more meaningful.
As I said in Committee, we are plagued with constant disruption to our roads from roadworks. In the majority of cases, these relate to utilities works. It is a huge frustration to all drivers, often causing significant traffic delays, economic damage and environmental impact. It also affects householders, pedestrians and cyclists caught up in or impacted by the noise and fumes of idling cars. Local businesses suffer, as they lose business when people can no longer come to their pub, shop or whatever because of the excessive journey times. When these delays are on major roads, small country roads are often impacted by excessive traffic as people seek alternative routes.
Drivers are doubly frustrated when we see no work being done by these roadworks. Sometimes that is for a good reason but, often, it is for the convenience of the contractor. Last time, I gave the example of traffic lights being put out on a Friday for work starting on the subsequent Monday. The work is completed on the Thursday, yet the traffic lights are not removed until the subsequent Monday, so we have traffic lights and a closure for 10 days when there is only three or four days’ work. There is also the example of work being done during the day but nothing being done overnight, with the opportunity to move these traffic lights to one side. We recognise that utility work is essential, but it really should be done in a way that minimises disruption and keeps road closures and traffic lights to the absolute minimum.
Councils and the Government have sought to address this issue through measures such as permitting regimes. Many councils do this in a proactive manner, enforcing roadworks being kept to the permitted time, but that does not stop utility companies seeking a two-week gap when they might be able to get away with a five-day or six-day closure. As we discussed last time, there is a lane rental scheme under the 2012 lane rental regulations. As my noble friend Lord Moylan can attest from his time in London, the scheme works well for Transport for London. However, TfL is an exception, as the majority of its significant roads can be covered by the criterion of “highly sensitive roads” and it has the resources to deal with the bureaucracy involved, which includes applying to the Secretary of State for a statutory instrument. Outside London, the scheme can include a maximum of only 10% or 20% of the road network. As such, only four county councils have applied. It does not work in rural areas in particular.
There is a better way. There should be a national scheme, with appropriate protections and so on, that enables a wider range of highways to be included so that councils can simply opt in without the need to apply for a statutory instrument. This amendment seeks to reduce not only the time during which our roads are held up by roadworks but the bureaucracy involved in getting a lane rental scheme. Can the Minister not tinker with the existing scheme but, as the Chancellor has promised, sweep away unnecessary red tape to enable growth by enabling local highways authorities to keep our roads open and our traffic flowing, for the benefit of motorists, residents, the economy and local businesses? I beg to move.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important issue: the huge frustrations around roadworks, in particular utility works. As mentioned, lane rental schemes exist in places such as London, and other highway authorities are also setting them up in England. For our Benches, though, this is an issue of localism. Although the Government can always share best practice, we think that it is for local and regional areas to develop schemes that suit their locality and their needs. We do not see the need for this amendment at this point, but we await the Minister’s response with interest.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall be brief. As I said when we discussed this matter in Committee, it seems perfectly obvious that the powers of Transport for London in relation to lane rental should be available to highways authorities in the rest of the country. There is no objection to their operation in London. They work reasonably well; nothing works perfectly, of course, and there will always be roads that are blocked. Speaking from my own experience, I think there have been continuous highways works on Knightsbridge, including the tunnel, for the whole of the past 12 months, including at the moment. None the less, I am sure they would be even worse if we did not have a lane rental scheme in London. It should be available to the rest of the country. My noble friend Lord Jamieson is speaking common sense; I hope the Minister will agree with him and accept the amendment.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for moving this amendment on a new national lane rental scheme. As the noble Lord says, he and I have exchanged correspondence on this issue, for which I also thank him. This Government are committed to reducing disruption from street works and improving the efficiency of our road networks.
Lane rental is a valuable tool that enables highway authorities to charge utilities up to £2,500 per day for works on the busiest roads at the busiest times. These charges incentivise quicker completion, off-peak scheduling and alternative locations to minimise disruption. Existing schemes, not only that in London with Transport for London—a scheme I happened to have the privilege of introducing in my time as the commissioner at Transport for London—but those in Kent, Surrey, East and West Sussex and other applications that are in train, show that lane rental encourages more thoughtful planning and has proven effective in reducing disruption where congestion is most acute.
However, lane rental is not suitable for every area or every road. Many local authorities do not experience the levels of congestion needed to justify the administrative and financial burden of operating such a scheme. We remain committed to empowering local authorities but we must be mindful that there is a risk that extending lane rental powers universally could lead to an inconsistent and fragmented approach across the country. The Government recognise the value of local leadership. That is why, in our devolution White Paper, we committed—subject to consultation—to devolving approval of local lane rental schemes to mayoral strategic authorities. We have consulted on this proposal and will publish the results and next steps as soon as we can.
In relation to proposed revenue ring-fencing, from January 2026, highway authorities operating lane rental schemes will be required to spend 50% of surplus lane rental charges on highway maintenance, including the remediation of potholes, and the remaining 50% on measures intended to reduce the disruption or other adverse effects arising because of street works. These requirements will be set out in legislation and updated guidance, ensuring a balanced and targeted use of funds. For the reasons outlined, I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I am somewhat disappointed by the Minister’s response, because I think we should have a national scheme that can be opted into—and so would still be very much a local scheme—but I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“Water infrastructure project licencesOmit sub-paragraph (a) of regulation 4(3) of the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/1582).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would amend the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 to remove the “size and complexity” test for the awarding of a licence for a water infrastructure project, meaning that projects would be considered on value for money alone.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, this amendment was debated in Committee, led by my noble friend Lord Gascoigne, who did a marvellous job of it, because I was away representing Parliament in the US. However, I have decided to retable it as I am conscious of the timing of the contributions last time. Only a couple of days beforehand, the Government, or rather Sir John Cunliffe, had published the review. In the response, the Minister referred to the March 2025 report by the Government regarding regulators and felt that it was too soon to be considering this issue. I am also conscious that, if I were to press this amendment, I would have gone further and amended the Water Industry Act 1991, the parent act of these regulations.
Why does this matter? We have just seen a Division on smaller reservoirs, but I am conscious that, particularly with the current financial environment regarding the water industry—which, by the way, will be putting a record amount of capital into fixing things such as sewers over the next five to 10 years, as well as the other work being done—there are still significant needs for reservoirs. We should recognise, as will be said, that a reservoir has not been built in the last 30 years. I remind your Lordships that, in 2015, the expansion of the Abberton Reservoir in Essex was completed, which increased its capacity by about 58%. The water industry has got far more efficient in its use of water and, while there are still leaks, they have also significantly reduced. Nevertheless, the pressure on water resources in this country is acute.
The reason that I seek to encourage the Government to look at this is, frankly, in recognition of how successful the Thames Tideway Tunnel project was—indeed, is. Bearing in mind the amendment passed by the Government on Monday, this amendment would open up opportunities to reduce the cost of consumers’ bills in relation to these significant reservoir projects, and indeed other projects.
That is why I continue to encourage the Government to look back at the 1991 Act and these regulations. A lot of what is happening in this Bill is reportedly being done to try and say to the OBR this is a way of increasing investment. Meanwhile, Part 3 is being used as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. That is why looking at some more straightforward aspects of deregulation could go a long way to resolving some of the infrastructure issues that this country faces.
I should be interested to hear from the Minister where the Government’s thinking has moved on this, if at all, but it is not my intention to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to respond to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. It was moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. It aims to remove the size and complexity tests currently required for awarding a water infrastructure project licence. While this is a technical amendment, it would have significant implications.
Under existing regulations, a water infrastructure project licence is awarded only if the project is considered large or complex enough to potentially threaten the incumbent water undertaker’s ability to deliver services. The test involves assessing factors like projected costs, risk profile, delivery complexity and the water company’s competencies, among others, to determine whether specifying the project to an extended provider would result in better value for money and service stability. The amendment’s goal is clear: it is to remove this test.
I have listened to what the noble Baroness said. It is argued that the amendment would allow smaller or less complex projects potentially to be outsourced or treated as specified infrastructure projects, SIPs, and offer better economic efficiency. While we recognise that this could lead to broader applications of the project licences and potentially facilitate more third-party infrastructure projects in the water sector—we share this ambition to accelerate infrastructure delivery—we are cautious on this amendment, and I follow the line that we took in Committee. The current regulatory framework, which includes a size and complexity threshold, exists as a crucial safeguard. Ofwat’s regulations are intended, and the test ensures it, for ambitious projects, if managed by an incumbent company, not to threaten the water company’s fundamental services obligations to its customers.
Given the widely acknowledged fragility of the water sector more generally and the broken infrastructure that has led to substantial water wastage, we must think carefully before rushing to add to this. Instead of risking unintended consequences through a quick legislative fix, we prefer a more robust path that could be considered by the Government co-funding models, for example, similar to those used in the nuclear sector, if crucial projects exceed what companies can realistically deliver.
It is also essential to take note of the Government’s concerns raised in Committee regarding the amendment. They confirmed that they actively resisted this amendment, certainly in Committee. They have already made a commitment to review the specified infrastructure projects, SIPR, framework. Our understanding is that Defra intends to amend it to help major water companies to proceed more quickly and deliver better value for bill payers. The Government stated their concerns that removing the size complexity threshold now would pre-empt that planned review process. They emphasised the importance of ensuring that any changes are properly informed by engagement with regulators and industry to create a regime that remains targeted and proportionate to the sector’s diversity needs. The Minister assured the Committee that this essential review, which follows the publication of the Cunliffe review on water industry modernisation, will be completed in this calendar year.
For those reasons, while we welcome the spirit of Amendment 58A, we believe that the responsible course of action is to allow the Government to complete their committed to and planned regulatory review, so we are unable to support this amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 58A, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey. As we have heard, under the current framework, only projects deemed sufficiently large or complex can be considered for a separate infrastructure licence. This threshold may have made sense at the time that the regulations were introduced, but it now risks being a barrier to innovation and investment in the sector, which is already under increased strain. By removing this test, the amendment would allow projects to be assessed on their value for money alone—a clearer, more practical standard. It would not lower the bar for scrutiny but rather broaden the scope for alternative delivery models, where they can be demonstrated to give clear public benefit.
Given the ongoing challenges around water security, pollution and climate resilience, we should be enabling a wider range of solutions and not limiting them to outdated regulatory constraints. This is a modest and targeted amendment that would give Ofwat and the relevant authorities greater flexibility to support efficient investment in our water infrastructure. We agree with its intent, we support it, and we hope that the Government will think again.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, which seeks to ensure that the specified infrastructure project regulations are amended to enable a broader use and to ensure that we get value for money for customers.
Two procurement models for delivering infrastructure exist at the moment: SIPR and direct procurement for customers—DPC. I acknowledge that we have to do all we can to make sure that customers get the good value for money that we are all seeking. That is why, in the Government’s response to the independent water review undertaken by Sir Jon Cunliffe, we will address our proposals for changes across both those procurement models, in the White Paper that will be published shortly. For that reason, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am looking forward to the White Paper. I hope, even if it does not come up in the White Paper, that there will be a water Bill coming at some point in the next year or so. If I have not persuaded the Government today, I hope that we will return to this in due course. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Thornhill
“(ba) the requirement for proportionality in the level of the fee or charge, based on the nature and size of the development to which the fee or charge will apply;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require that any fee or charge set out in regulations is proportionate to the nature and size of the development it applies to.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I was very pleased when this amendment was debated in Committee, as there was a very small but warm consensus that it seemed fair and reasonable. We are well aware that SMEs face many challenges, but we believe that this is a small but significant signal to them that we understand their concerns.
The problem could not be clearer: the planning system is, by its very nature, stacked against the little players—small and medium-sized housebuilders, those local and skilled firms that know their communities best. They are operating in a system designed for the big players. They already face headwinds from finance, land supply and market exposure, yet our own planning system makes these headwinds stronger. Planning fees are one of the clearest examples of how policy, unintentionally, financially disadvantages smaller builders that are already struggling to survive. Small builders now deliver only 10% of new homes in the UK, which is down from almost 50% in their 1960s and 1970s heyday. The number of SME housebuilders has fallen from more than 12,000 in the 1980s to around 2,500 today.
When we debated this in Committee, the Minister said that the Bill already provides a clear framework and that local authorities will have the flexibility to vary fees through consultation and benchmarking. This is precisely the framework that has created the problem. Benchmarking, consultation and cost recovery sound absolutely reasonable in theory, but in practice they are the very mechanisms that have produced the current imbalance. SMEs already operate under a national system built on these principles, and it has led directly to them paying far more per home than large developers. This is an evidenced fact. Simply devolving this flawed model to local authorities will not suddenly make it fair.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness. I find that there is much to commend in her amendment, which I hope gains the favour of the House and, indeed, the Government. I am also very taken by the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley, who will explain it momentarily. I have tabled Amendment 60 on Report to extract a commitment from the Minister and the Government that fees will include the cost of enforcement measures.
In Clause 48, the Government recognise that the local planning authority in England may set the level of a fee or a charge. Indeed, Clause 49 goes on to consider the raising of a surcharge on planning fees, which I think is going much further than my modest little Amendment 60. I am deeply concerned about the issues raised by insurance companies such as, in this case, Aviva: that the Government seem to be in denial as to the implications for potential future floods of their commitment to build 1.5 million homes in the course of this Parliament.
We will come on to discuss greater flood resilience measures and, indeed, possibly not building on the most functional flood plains, but at the moment the Planning and Infrastructure Bill has no measures to improve the flood resilience of new homes. We have to accept that these measures are expensive. They include such measures as increased insurance costs and measures to make homes more resilient. Many of them are geared to reducing the impact of climate change, and I think it is generally felt that it would be a small price to pay if these measures were included and recovered in a modest increase to planning fees. I do not think it would be disproportionately high, as the Minister responded when summing up on the amendment in Committee; that is why I have sought to raise this.
I am sure that the Minister, the department and the Government would like to see these resilience measures included. Many of them are now hopefully becoming more affordable than has been the case in the past. Life is about choices. If the Government are going to build on functional flood plains, we have to accept that those future homes have to be flood-proofed and resilient. These measures cost money.
The purpose of this amendment is simply to ensure that the increased cost of ensuring that those measures are adequately and properly installed will be covered in the cost of a fee. I do not believe that the fee will be disproportionate. Therefore, I have returned with this amendment today to make a plea to the Minister that she will see that this is only a potentially modest increase. It is something that she, her department and her Government are asking householders to do, and I believe that the enforcement cost should be covered in the fee. That is the proposal that I put to the House this afternoon.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 61 in this group is in my name. I will talk to that in a moment, but first I want to say one or two things about the helpful amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. I think it points in the right direction, but we need to understand where we would end up if we were to go in that direction.
Some noble Lords will have participated in the debate that we had toward the latter stages of the last Parliament about the new regulations relating to planning fees. One thing that came through quite forcibly from that was that householders—for example, making applications in relation to their own houses—were paying significantly less than the cost of dealing with their application. I completely take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that there is, and has been subsequently in the Government’s changes to the planning charges, some balancing of that, and that householders are paying more.
If I understand correctly, it is the noble Baroness’s intention that the fees charged should be proportionate to the number of households or the scale of a development—although that is not actually what her amendment says. The amendment simply says that it should be proportionate; it does not say proportionate to what. Basing it on the size of a development could mean basing it in a positive correlation or a negative correlation. I am afraid that when you write legislation, you have to write specifically what you want. Otherwise, the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and his colleagues will take it apart. We do not want that; we want to be very clear about what we are setting out to achieve.
I am sure it is not the noble Baroness’s intention to press the amendment, but it raises an important issue. When Ministers bring forward regulations to set out how the planning fees should be set and the criteria by which they should be set, it is at that point that I hope they will take full account of what the noble Baroness said and the purposes she was describing.
My amendment is derived from our debate in Committee. I did not have an amendment then, but we had an exchange about Clause 49, which relates to the surcharge that can be charged for the purpose of meeting the costs of statutory consultees and other bodies that support the planning process. When we reach Clause 49, we see that new Section 303ZZB(6) states that the level of the surcharge must be set so as to
“secure that, taking one financial year with another, the income from the surcharge does not exceed the relevant costs of the listed persons”.
I noticed, in listening to the debate, that new Section 303ZZB(8) says that:
“Regulations …may set the surcharge at a level that exceeds the costs of listed persons”.
We therefore have the curious situation where, in the same section, it says that it should not exceed the costs and also that regulations have the specific power to exceed the costs. I have not had a conversation with the Minister, but I have been thinking about this quite carefully. The purpose of tabling this amendment is to ask whether my understanding is correct. If it is, I think it would be very helpful for that to be said explicitly.
New subsection (8), which says that the surcharge could exceed the costs of the listed persons, relates to a specific application, so the charge does not have to be set so as not to exceed the costs of the work done in relation to any individual application. New subsection (6) tells us that, in effect, it is not just taking one year with another or looking at the costs, but looking at costs across all of these activities and applications, and that, overall, the listed persons should not receive more by way of income from the surcharge than meets their costs. I hope that the explanation of the Bill is precisely that: subsection (8) should only be referenced in relation to an individual application and could not be used to set surcharges so as to provide greater income to statutory consultees or others than the costs they incur dealing with planning applications.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 59 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would require that any fee or charge set out in regulations be proportionate to the nature and size of the development to which it applies. Proportionate fees are of course vital to ensure fairness between applicants and avoid placing undue burdens on smaller developments. However, we cannot support this amendment as further prescription in the legislation risks reducing flexibility for local authorities and the Secretary of State to respond to changing circumstances. We agree with the principle of proportionality, but we do not think this is the right way. I hope that the Minister will look at our Amendment 103 later today.
Amendment 60 tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh would allow the cost of enforcement measures, such as checking whether specified flood mitigation or resilience measures have been properly installed, to be included in the fees. While I entirely agree with the intention to ensure that local planning authorities can recover their costs, we cannot support this amendment. We are concerned that this might blur the line between the cost of enforcement and the wider issues of fees, which are separate statutory functions, although this is an issue we should continue to look at into the future.
Finally, Amendment 61 tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley seeks to reduce what may be included in fees for planning provisions made under subsections (5A) and (5B). I recognise my noble friend’s concerns about the overreach in fee structures and I hope the Government can take the time today to set out the reasons and intentions behind these subsections.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions regarding planning fees. I turn first to Amendment 59 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, which we had the pleasure of touching on briefly at our meeting last week. I agree with the noble Baroness on the importance of ensuring that fees are proportionate to the type and size of the planning application. However, I respectfully suggest that this amendment is unnecessary and will explain my reasons.
The principle of proportionality already exists in the planning fees regime; in view of the noble Baroness’s comments, I give an example of why I say this. Planning application fees for fewer than 10 new houses are currently £588 per dwelling; for between 10 and 50 dwellings, fees are £635 per dwelling; and, for more than 50 houses, there is a set fee of £31,385, plus £189 for each additional house, up to a maximum fee of £411,885. The fee increases with the number of houses to be built, reflecting the cost to the local planning authority of processing the planning application. This Bill already provides a clear and strong framework to ensure that planning fees are proportionate to the type and size of development.
As mentioned in previous debates, the Government plan to introduce a local variation model—I realise that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, was not confident of this, but talking to the sector about how we do this will be important—under which a nationally set default fee developed through benchmarking and public consultation will serve as a baseline. As is currently the case with planning fees, this will account for variations in the size and nature of sites.
To ensure that any locally set fees remain proportionate and reflective of local circumstances, the Bill requires that they must not exceed the cost of delivering the relevant service and that local communities must be consulted on those proposed changes. Significantly, the Secretary of State will also retain the power to intervene where fees are considered inappropriate; this is an important safeguard to uphold consistency and fairness across the system.
I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, is concerned about SMEs. As I have said previously in the Chamber, I had a meeting last week with the APPG for SME House Builders, which raised a number of issues with me. We are all concerned about ensuring that we make things as efficient as possible for SMEs—as well as for those in the charity sector, such as Centrepoint, which the noble Baroness kindly brought to a meeting with me last week—in terms of providing much-needed homes. I assure the noble Baroness that we recognise that SME housebuilders are an indispensable part of the sector. That is why the Government have brought forward a package of financial support for SMEs, including: an extension of £700 million to the home building fund to provide loans and financial support to deliver 12,000 more homes; £2 billion of ENABLE Build guarantees; and a commitment to £100 million of funding for SME accelerator loans. In view of these measures, I am certain that the Bill already addresses the concerns that this amendment seeks to resolve. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for Amendment 60. Well-resourced planning departments are essential in enabling the development that our communities need. They also safeguard communities from unauthorised or harmful development by ensuring compliance with planning permissions and conditions, including monitoring and taking enforcement action where that is necessary. We understand the intention behind this amendment—supporting the resourcing of enforcement activity—but, because planning enforcement serves a much wider public interest, we consider that it is appropriate for local authorities to allocate funds to support these services, rather than for individuals to bear the responsibility.
Additionally, we consider that allowing local planning authorities to set planning fees that included enforcement costs could result in disproportionately high fees for applicants; indeed, it may have an impact on the very SME builders whom the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, discussed. We are concerned that this may discourage development at a time when we are very committed to accelerating housing delivery and getting Britain building. More widely, the Government have committed to a £46 million package of investment to support the capacity and capability of local planning authorities. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, will not press her amendment.
Amendment 61, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would remove our ability to introduce a straightforward planning fee surcharge, instead requiring that only the costs incurred in relation to the specific planning application could be recovered. It might be helpful if I elaborated a little more to answer his questions.
We propose to calculate the surcharge on the basis of the planning fee that a developer must pay when submitting an application. We recognise that some applications will require detailed input from half a dozen consultees, while others will require little or no input. As we are not calculating the fee on the basis of application-specific costs, developers may sometimes pay more and sometimes less than the costs incurred by the relevant statutory consultees with regards to that specific application. However, we will be required to set the surcharge so that it does not exceed the relevant costs of the statutory consultees in aggregate. If it costs a certain amount to operate the statutory service, the surcharge must be set so that its income does not exceed that amount. I hope that is helpful.
We fully recognise that direct cost recovery works well for some regimes, such as for NSIPs, where there are relatively few projects. Engagement occurs over a longer period and predominantly takes place prior to the application for development consent being submitted. It also works well for voluntary pre-application engagement. It is important to note that statutory consultation under the Town and Country Planning Act regime is different: it occurs only once the planning application has been submitted. The planning authority must identify which organisations are required to be consulted, and these organisations must respond within statutory timeframes, generally of 21 days.
It is also an issue of high volume. The six largest statutory consultees receive around 50,000 consultations a year, with tens of thousands of unnecessary referrals on top of this. Instituting direct cost recovery by statutory consultees would require a billing mechanism capable of dealing with up to hundreds of thousands of planning application referrals each year, with money and information passing between 300-plus local planning authorities, up to 29 statutory consultees and individual developers. It would significantly increase the complexity of the planning system, increase the administrative infrastructure required and place a substantial pressure on the ability of statutory consultees to deliver within statutory timeframes. Our concern is that instituting this approach would be costly and bureaucratic, create uncertainty for developers over costs and create delays. Just as importantly, it would also remove any incentive for statutory consultees to deliver efficiencies.
The alternative that we are putting forward in the Bill is for a simple, straightforward percentage surcharge on top of the planning fee. This means that, in some cases, as I have said, a developer will pay more through the surcharge than it would cost the statutory consultee, and in some cases the developer will pay less. However, developers will know how much they need to pay upfront, and there will be no unexpected costs. That way we will not be creating more hoops for developers to jump through to get their application considered; they will pay a fee when they submit their application and that is it. Before regulations are introduced, we will consult on proposals to establish the level at which the surcharge will be set and the types of planning application it should apply to.
Lastly, we recognise the risk that charges could be set at inappropriately high levels and that is why our proposed powers make it clear that the surcharge cannot be set at a level which exceeds the relevant cost of the persons, such as the statutory consultees, that the surcharge is intended to cover. That ensures that we limit ourselves to cost recovery in aggregate, even if it does not apply on the basis of individual planning applications. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for this amendment but, given the reasons and explanations I have set out, I hope he feels able not to move it.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, it is of absolutely no surprise to me that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spotted my drafting omission, which is why we always take his amendments seriously. I hope that the Minister will take on board his comments, which I thought were quite pertinent.
I was seeking to make proportionality a clear legal duty rather than a well-intentioned aspiration. So, put very simply, I guess it is about the proof of the pudding and “watch this space”. I hope that we will keep an eye on this, but I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hampton
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (1) must require that prescribed training promotes a science-based approach with regard to—(a) climate change and biodiversity; and,(b) ecological surveying including botanical and mycological surveying.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that the mandatory training for members of planning committees and planning officers must include climate and biodiversity and enhanced ecological literacy training, in line with the latest scientific guidance.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 62 in the names of my noble friend Lady Boycott—who sends her apologies; she has been unavoidably detained—and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
This amendment, which is very similar to one tabled in Committee, would mean that the mandatory training for members of planning committees must include climate and biodiversity, and enhanced ecological literacy training, in line with the latest scientific guidance. It is welcome that the Government recognise how crucial expertise on biodiversity issues is for planning committee members.
This amendment has been revised since Committee to address concerns raised by the Government who did not wish to prescribe a list of the training materials that would need to be included. Instead, Amendment 62 would simply require that the training introduced by the Bill would be delivered such that it promotes a science-based and evidence-led approach on matters related to climate change, biodiversity and botanical, mycological surveying. In so doing, the amendment recognises the importance of retaining flexibility and accommodating the fact that there can be developments in new data that will inform training over time.
The Home Builders Federation, in its 2025 Government Progress Report published in August, points to a number of blockers for new housing developments, such as insufficient resourcing of local planning authorities and support for home ownership. It says:
“However, more broadly, as BNG has bedded in, issues with its implementation have emerged, as outlined in a recent BNG HBF report. Unsurprisingly, one key issue is that local authorities do not have sufficient capacity to process BNG applications, with a shortage of public sector ecologists causing increasing delays home builders face before construction can begin”.
Accepting this moderate amendment would help to unpick this issue, as it would ensure that planning members have the skills and confidence to interpret and apply guidance such as BNG. and have a better understanding of the underlying evidence around climate change and the environment and how their decisions impact on local authorities’ ability to contribute to climate and nature targets.
The problem is that planning committees, and indeed the people supporting them, are stretched. I am afraid that, if this is not a statutory requirement, the status quo will continue. People will be making decisions about applications without any scientific understanding of, arguably, two of the biggest threats facing us, at least on a domestic basis.
This is not to attack the planning committees at all, but a 2022 survey prepared on behalf of the Association of Local Government Ecologists found that only 5% of respondents said that their current ecological resource, including in-house and external sources, was adequate to scrutinise all applications that might affect biodiversity. We do not see how that matches up with what the Minister said in Committee. She said that
“it would be unthinkable for the training not to mention that there are special statutory requirements for biodiversity net gain”.—[Official Report, 4/9/25; col. 970.]
However, it is unnecessary to stipulate all that in the Bill.
If trained, the planning committee can take informed decisions about the ecological benefits and maintenance requirements of ecological enhancements. This would reduce the risk of enforcement actions against developers in the future and provide people with high-quality, nature-rich spaces in which to live and work.
On the climate side, the Minister did not really respond to that in Committee, so I would like to know what is being done to further this. Giving a duty for a science-based approach on these issues would be future-proof, retain the necessary flexibility and not be overly prescriptive while ensuring that anything built is fit for the future. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who so ably introduced Amendment 62 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I do not need to say very much, but I will just add a couple of extra perspectives. This amendment would ensure that there is training for members of planning committees and planning officers on climate and biodiversity and an enhanced ecological literacy. I particularly applaud the appearance of mycological surveying here as someone who is very passionate about soil science, but I will not go further down that road at this moment, given the hour. What I will say is that this ties very well with our extensive discussion in Committee on the plans and ideas put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about overall strengthening of the planning process—the idea of a chief planning officer and of strengthening planning committees—namely, that we need to strengthen public and political trust.
I declare here my position as vice-president of the Local Government Association. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, noted the lack of resources that local authorities have. If something is not statutory, it is very likely that it will not get done—that is all that local councils have the money to do. We have a huge problem with lack of trust in politics, lack of faith in politics, concern about the planning system and concern that local voices and concerns are not being heard in the system. This is a way of both strengthening the system itself in technical and scientific terms and helping to strengthen trust in the system, which is so crucial in terms of restoring trust in our overall political system and local government system.
I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is planning, but I think that this is something on which we should think about testing the opinion of the House. I look forward to hearing the Minister perhaps tell us that the Government will follow along these lines, in which case a vote would not be necessary. It is really important that we put these principles in the Bill and make them statutory. Then we can ensure that they will get done; otherwise, it is very likely that they will not.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, nobody, I believe, would want to disagree with members of planning committees, those decision-makers at all levels, being trained. Noble Lords will remember that I tabled an amendment in Committee on Ministers and the Secretary of State having the equivalent training as that expected of councillors. I have not pressed that on Report.
However, I am concerned because, if we are going to start enumerating all the essential skills that the committee must take into account when weighing all the evidence in the balance, and if we are going to cherry pick climate, quadrats and field trips on mycorrhizal fungi and everything else, how will they rank against the impact on residents, business, the economy and the socioeconomic impacts of development? They are all sort of subjective, but then we get the objective ones: space standards, design, viability and so on. It would be invidious to single out just climate change and mycorrhizal fungi in the Bill. Regulations will come forward and we will have an opportunity to influence those, potentially, at a later date in the Moses Room when we can have this debate all over again.
I have sat on a planning committee, and I have appointed a planning committee. We take our obligations and our own authority for training very seriously and it is right that we do. It costs tens of thousands of pounds—hundreds of thousands in some cases, as we heard in the previous debate—to bring a planning application forward. Members of the planning committee should have the widest experience and training.
That training should be not necessarily in the issues themselves but in the ability to work out, critically, whether what they are being told by officials and quangos is valid scientifically. There are different types of science.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I was not making a suggestion about whether climate science is there. There are different levels of science in all manner of different disciplines in planning. Some of it is contested and others are not so. That is why we have planning officials, quangos and scientists. I cannot support this amendment, and I rise because the noble Baroness indicated that she may want to press it to a vote, so I place my objection on the record.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, contrary to my noble friend, I support Amendment 62—in part. The “in part” is because I do not want climate change to freeze out biodiversity, which is ultimately far more important for local authorities, which have specific biodiversity duties but no legal climate change responsibilities. The other reason that it is in part is that, while some of the training is meritorious, it need not be mandatory.
I was privileged to serve on the board of Natural England for almost seven years and on the extraordinary Joint Nature Conservation Committee—the official adviser to the four Governments of the United Kingdom on all matters of biodiversity, both in the UK and internationally. All the top experts in both organisations said that, if we could go back to the drawing board, there would not be two UN conventions—one on climate change and one on biodiversity—but just one. Our chairman, Tony Juniper, consistently said that they were two sides of the same coin, and I entirely agree with him, even if agreeing with Tony may antagonise some of my noble friends around me. The point is that, if we saved our peat bogs, planted enough of the right trees in the right place and stopped ripping the ocean floor apart, we would save so much carbon that we would not need to put our industries out of business, inflict heat pumps on households and penalise anything that produces carbon.
The consequences of those two conventions are that all NGOs and Governments have focused heavily on climate change and that biodiversity gets a poor look-in, and that is a tragedy. With a tremendous amount of political will and with horrendous expenditure that will impact every person, it is possible to reverse climate change eventually. However, we are losing species in the world at a phenomenal rate and, when a species is gone, it is lost for ever. Forget these gimmicks of restoring mammoths, since most of the species being lost are the unsexy flora and fauna that may be vital to future human existence.
I come to the point of council training. The UK has lost dozens of species; even hedgehogs are critically endangered. Also endangered are water voles, turtle doves and farmland birds. Local authorities need to be aware of that, and training for councillors on biodiversity is quite important, in my opinion.
I cannot find any legal duty on councillors to take climate change into account when making decisions. I researched this in case my memory was failing, and the only law on climate change is the Climate Change Act 2008, which was amended in 2019 to add the net-zero requirement. All the requirements of the Act relate to action by central government not local authorities.
I understand that local councillors need to be trained in the legal matters to be taken into consideration when determining a planning application—nothing more, nothing less. My concern is that more than 300 councils have declared a so-called climate emergency and 85% of them have adopted climate action plans, which are all inconsistent with each other. Many of these plans are showboating; some are meritorious, such as Wirral Council’s tree-planting policy, but it is not a legal requirement. Councillors should receive training in strictly only those matters that are legal requirements to be taken into account in planning applications, not in things like Waltham Forest’s policy to divest its pension fund from fossil fuel companies.
We have a completely different scenario with biodiversity, since we have lots of legislation on biodiversity that needs to be taken into account in deciding planning applications. I will not go into it all, but the key elements for councillors are contained in my noble friend Lord Gove’s marvellous Environment Act 2021. It is a watershed Act.
The sections that I will briefly mention now will deliver nature recovery for the first time, provided that the Government do not cut the funding. The key item is local nature recovery strategies, which councils, NGOs, Defra and Natural England consider to be the main vehicle to bring about nature recovery. All 48 designated areas have now completed their LNRS plans, I think, but only five have been published so far. I believe that the rest are due to be finished by the end of this year. The success of the strategies will depend on farmers and landowners doing their bit through ELMS, and it is a tragedy that the Government are cutting ELMS funding.
I suggest that training for local councillors needs to focus on the 2021 Act. The main sections are as follows: Sections 98 to 101 on biodiversity net gain; Sections 102 and 103 on the general duty to conserve and enhance biodiversity; Sections 104 to 108 on local nature recovery strategies; Section 109 on species conservation strategies; Section 110 on protected site strategies; Section 111 on wildlife conservation licences; Sections 112 and 113 on habitats regulations amendments, which might possibly be for councillors; and Sections 117 to 139 on conservation covenants, which they might come across. There may be other things, but I suggest to the House that these key issues are what local councillors should be informed of and trained on.
I am intrigued by proposed new subsection (b) in the noble Baroness’s amendment, whereby councillors would be trained in “ecological surveying”. The only training that they need is to be able to read and understand the technical ecological reports they might receive, not to do the surveying.
I turn to the mycological bit. As far as mushrooms are concerned, I initially assumed that this was one of those in-jokes we used to have in government that councillors and Ministers were treated like mushrooms by their civil servants—that is, kept in the dark and fed a lot of bull stuff. Of course, I can understand the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, being interested in mushrooms. If she invites me to dinner, I hope she will not serve me mushrooms, being an Australian.
Seriously, however, I am concerned about the huge increase in the last 12 months of trendy Tik-Tokers deciding that foraging is the latest fad and stripping woodlands of far too many mushrooms. That has happened in just the last 12 months. Many years ago, when I was food Minister, I became friends with the wonderful chef, Antonio Carluccio, and had various meetings with him. He was a mushroom afficionado. After a four-course lunch consisting of a mushroom starter, a mushroom amuse-bouche, a mushroom main course and a delicious mushroom pudding, he presented me with an official Italian mushroom picker’s knife. Italy takes fungi seriously. It had a little curved blade; a centimetre scale, so that no ceps were cut under 4 centimetres and others at no less than 2 centimetres; and a little brush at the end to clean off the dirt. Antonio drummed it into me that mushrooms should never be washed—
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Can I ask the noble Lord to stick to the amendment? Italian mushrooms might be a very important issue, but as far as this amendment is concerned, it is very discursive.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I take the Whip’s comment with a slight pinch of salt—albeit not on my mushrooms. The amendment refers to mushrooms, and I am citing an example of mushrooms because it is relevant to the debate. If we were working normal hours, my remarks would probably be shorter, in view of the timescale. Since the Government have deliberately added an extra three hours to this debate, my remarks, which are still only seven minutes’ long, are quite relevant and apposite.
I conclude by saying that there is some merit in what the noble Baroness has suggested in these amendments, particularly on the biodiversity training, but we should leave aside the rest of it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I want to point out, since he addressed me directly, that mushrooms are a tiny fraction of the mycological ecosphere and that what we are talking about here are the fungi that are essential for plants to be able to attract nutrients. I would be very happy to discuss all this with him later.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I hope that in two minutes we will adjourn. Right from the outset of the debate on this Bill, the Liberal Democrats have supported the idea of mandatory training for councillors who serve on planning committees, and I am pleased that this amendment does not challenge that principle, which is a good one.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 62 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, which was moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. Although I understand the good intentions behind this amendment, there needs to be a recognition that the planning process is a quasi-judicial process. We also support mandatory training for councillors; we would have supported training for officials and, potentially, for Government Ministers, had my noble friend Lord Fuller’s amendment arisen, but I will let that pass for now.
Such training must focus on the statutory duties of members, ensuring that those who sit on planning committees are fully aware of their roles; of the legal and regulatory environment; and of the procedures on which they need to make judgment. They need to make decisions based on the legal and regulatory aspects that pertain to the proposals brought to the committee. Climate change, biodiversity, ecology and so on are already embedded in national planning policy. There is guidance on them; that guidance will, and should, be part of the training process.
By expanding the scope of the training beyond the statutory duties—as well as ensuring that consideration of the relevant legislation, planning guidance and local policies occurs in determining an application—the proposals risk adding confusion to the training process and, potentially, undermining the quasi-judicial role of a planning committee. I would have been more sympathetic to proposals around ensuring both that the training is effective and that it covers all aspects of the guidance, policies and legislation—including those highlighted today. However, as I said, having training that is more generic risks confusion. Therefore, I cannot support these proposals.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, first, I express my gratitude to noble Lords for providing broad support for the concept of mandatory training for members of local planning authorities.
I turn to Amendment 62, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. As I have set out previously, I am very sympathetic to the issues that were raised by noble Lords in Committee. I reiterate what I said at the time: it would be unthinkable that prescribed training would not include, for example, content on biodiversity net gain. The Government maintain, however, that such specific reference to the content of training should be reserved for secondary legislation. On that, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for once; that is not always the case.
Let me respond to the point about the status quo continuing. This Bill brings mandatory training into force for the first time, so it does move us on from the status quo. Including specific details in the Bill would require the inclusion of an exhaustive list—the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, gave some examples of what may or may not be in there—which would have to be kept up to date as we move forward, thus requiring valuable time in Parliament.
I will respond briefly to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, on what is being done. The Government are working to bring forward the training package; we consulted on our general approach earlier this year. We will ensure that the training is comprehensive and based on both best practice and ongoing engagement with both industry and local government.
For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, will feel able to withdraw this amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I have learned a lot during the past 15 minutes, some of which I have immediately forgotten. I particularly enjoyed the exposition from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—his stream-of-consciousness, mushroom, anti-Australian cuisine comment —which will live with me for a long time.
I know that my noble friend Lady Boycott did not want to press this amendment. I am optimistic, thanks to what the Minister said about mandatory training being comprehensively in the guidance, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Drink-Drive Limit
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to lower the drink drive limit.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill)
My Lords, this Government take road safety seriously. We are committed to reducing the numbers of those killed and injured on our roads. We are considering a range of policies under the new road safety strategy, the first for 10 years. This includes the case for changing motoring offences such as drink- driving. I assure the House that, as part of this, we are deeply considering concerns raised by campaigners and bereaved families whom my ministerial colleagues have met.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that reply, in particular that the Government are considering changing offences such as drink-driving, reflecting concerns raised by bereaved families, such as mine. I lost two family members this way.
A fifth of road deaths—about 250 people a year—are because of drink-driving. That is equivalent to a Boeing 787 crashing every year; if one of those crashed every year, we would take it seriously. Even at 50 milligrams a person is severely impaired, which is why the police and the PCCs—everyone—have called for a reduction to 50 milligrams, which is supported by three-quarters of the public. Can the Minister urge colleagues to take seriously the possibility of saving the equivalent of a plane crash every year on our roads by reducing that level?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend has my deep condolences for her family’s loss; I am sure that is echoed by your Lordships’ House. The Government’s view is that driving under the influence of drink is unacceptable and illegal. We are determined to combat this behaviour and to ensure that all such drivers are caught and punished. We have a combined approach of tough penalties and rigorous enforcement, alongside our highly respected and effective THINK! campaign. This reinforces the social unacceptability of drink-driving, reminding people of the serious consequences it has on themselves and others. We will have more to say.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, is it not the case that the Scottish Government did exactly what the noble Baroness proposes, then commissioned research that showed the change made absolutely no difference whatever to the accident rate in Scotland?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Earl is certainly right that the Scottish Government changed the limit. I cannot confirm his analysis of the results. Of course, in determining a new road safety strategy, the Government will not only take evidence but look at what has happened as a consequence of different levels. Whatever he thinks the effect is—and it is a consequence of both penalties and enforcement—the Government will think carefully and act decisively.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, drug-driving, as well as drink-driving, is deadly. What work are the Government carrying out to look at international developments in roadside detection devices to collect evidence on wider drug misuse while driving, such as the inhalation of nitrous oxide?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a strong point. Drug-driving is as lethal as drink-driving. She will know that there has been some recent publicity about that particular method of drug-driving in London. I am confident that the police and enforcement authorities are working their way through that particular episode. The Government are looking carefully at all the methods of enforcement for driving under the influence of a variety of different drugs.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, do the Government recognise that young drivers in particular with any alcohol in their bloodstream at all are at greater risk of other dangerous behaviours, such as not using seatbelts and speeding, and that in their accidents it is very often young people or children who are killed or receive life-changing injuries? Therefore, we should have a message that if you are drinking, you do not have the car keys.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right. The primary audience of THINK!, the flagship road safety campaign, is young men aged 17 to 24. The campaign targets priority issues, such as drink-driving and speeding, as well as communicating key policy interventions. There is, of course, a form of restricting novice drivers through the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995. On acquiring their first full licence, a new driver is on probation for two years and subject to a limit of six penalty points.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is perfectly correct that the reduction of the limit in Scotland did not reduce the number of accidents. In fact, at one point the number of accidents was 7% higher after the law was changed than before. However, the same researchers who came to that conclusion suggested that the policy failed because it was not accompanied by sustained, high-visibility enforcement, such as random breath tests. They argued that the law needed that, otherwise it would not deter high-risk offenders who regularly ignore the limit.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that intervention. Of course, enforcement is absolutely necessary. Noble Lords will know that enforcement is a matter for chief police officers, and it is one that they consider very carefully. It is not difficult to agree with my noble friend that rigorous enforcement is entirely needed in these circumstances to effectively police any limit.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I come back to the question of drug-driving, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. Nobody expects there to be available a roadside test for drug-driving that is as effective as a breathalyser for alcohol. However, given that figures from the department show that there are now more deaths from drug-driving than from drink-driving, what in particular is the department doing in terms of training or other equipment that would assist the police in roadside enforcement, which has been shown to be the most effective way of deterring this activity?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
There are, of course, a variety of drugs, which need to be tested in different ways. The department is very concerned about drug-driving and will look at it again in the revised road safety strategy. The noble Lord is right that detection is more difficult because of the variety of drugs, but the department is looking carefully at it because the enforcement effort has to be consistent over drugs and drink.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, the Road Victims Trust does very important work in supporting those families that are affected by drink-drivers and drug-drivers. It is a charity that relies mostly on public donations. What could the Minister do to encourage police and crime commissioners to support the work of the Road Victims Trust through their grant-making?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for that question. The work of that trust is very well regarded. I will consider further what we might do with police commissioners to help support its activities and write to him.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I am told that the programme for drug testing on drivers is in serious disarray, with many people’s samples not being tested. Has the Minister considered using breath as well as blood tests, and can he look at sorting it out? I am told that there are now thousands of tests outstanding, which have not moved towards prosecution.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am not an expert in how you test those things, but I am disturbed to hear something that I had not heard previously: the suggestion that the programme is in disarray. I will find out whether the Government believe that it is in disarray and, if it is, what can and will be done about it, and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Labour Government were minded to make this change in 1998, in moving from 80 milligrams down to 50 milligrams? We are now the only country in Europe that is still on 80 milligrams; everyone else has gone down to 50 milligrams. The Welsh Government have sought permission to introduce the change. Even if we do not do it for England, can we at least let the Welsh do what they want to do?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The reason why I stated in my Answer that we were deeply considering the concerns raised was because the opportunity of a new road safety strategy gives just the opportunity to consider whether reducing the limit is the right thing to do. That is what we are going to do. In that process, I have heard clearly what many have said today. We will reflect and consider, because this is a really important matter.
Rules on Duty-Free Goods
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hoey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that the same rules on duty-free goods apply for those flying from Belfast to the European Union as those flying from the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, duty-free shopping between Northern Ireland and the EU would require the application of personal allowances and associated border checks to prevent the uncontrolled flow of tax-free goods into either Northern Ireland or the EU. The enforcement controls required for this would run counter to the Windsor Framework and to the principle of the frictionless movement of people and goods between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that rather predictable Answer. Could I press him? Does he understand the frustration and anger that families in Northern Ireland have when they travel on their well-earned holidays to sunny parts of the EU and cannot get duty-free, while other citizens of the rest of the United Kingdom can? Does he understand that not having duty-free is costing Northern Ireland’s small airports about £5 million a year? Does he have any sympathy or empathy with the people of Northern Ireland? Will he make a commitment that when His Majesty’s Government are involved in the much-heralded reset, this will be one of the issues—it may seem a minor issue to some people, but it is quite an important one—to be negotiated with the European Union to change?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. She says that my Answer was predictable, but one thing that was entirely predictable was the impact of Brexit, which she campaigned for. Back in 2016, Sir John Major and Sir Tony Blair said clearly that Brexit would present specific challenges for Northern Ireland, given its land border with an EU member state and the importance of safeguarding the Good Friday agreement, yet the noble Baroness dismissed those concerns. Now that the reality of Brexit does not match up to the fantasy version which the noble Baroness had, she seeks to blame others for the consequences of her own actions.
Let me be very clear: the Windsor Framework is the best workable solution to Northern Ireland’s unique circumstance. The noble Baroness asked whether I have empathy—absolutely I do. Placing Northern Ireland in a uniquely beneficial position within the United Kingdom, by being part of the UK internal market and the EU single market for goods, provides significant opportunities for growth and ensures that there is no hard border on the island of Ireland. She mentioned the reset. As part of the EU reset, the EU and the UK have agreed to negotiate an SPS agreement. I urge the noble Baroness to support that reset.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that it would be much better for Members of your Lordships’ House to argue for and underpin the value of dual market access whereby businesses and communities in Northern Ireland can avail themselves of access to the UK internal market and the EU single market? I agree with my noble friend when he said that Brexit was the cause of all these difficulties. It would be better if noble Lords sought to work to eradicate the difficulties and challenges presented by the Windsor Framework to underpin our local economy.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very grateful to my noble friend for her question and I agree with every word she said. The Windsor Framework is the best workable solution to Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances. As she said, it places Northern Ireland in a uniquely beneficial position within the United Kingdom—which I hope we can make a lot of—by being part of the UK internal market and the EU single market for goods. That provides significant opportunities for growth and ensures that there is no hard border on the island of Ireland.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, the Minister highlighted the principal rationale for there not being duty-free at Northern Ireland airports when flying to the EU as the need to maintain frictionless trade with the Irish Republic, presumably on flights to the Irish Republic. Is the Minister aware that not a single flight goes from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland? Does he agree that we are left in the absurd position of creating an additional problem to solve a problem that, in practice, does not actually exist?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I will clarify this for him. The original Question asked about flights from Belfast to the European Union, so that is what this Question is about. I will be very clear. If we have duty-free, we have to have allowances. If we have allowances, we have to have checks and enforcement. If we have checks, we have to have border infrastructure, and border infra- structure is contrary to the Windsor Framework and the Good Friday agreement.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, one of the key outcomes of the Windsor Framework was the plan for green lanes for goods leaving the UK but staying in Northern Ireland rather than being transported to the Republic. Can the Minister tell the House what progress has been made on the introduction of those green lanes?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
This may have been another of the fantasies that people had about certain Brexit outcomes rather than reflecting reality. What we have ended up with—I pay tribute to the previous Government for negotiating this—is the Windsor Framework, which, as I said, is the best workable solution to Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances. We absolutely support the implementation of the Windsor Framework.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, the Minister described a very glowing situation in Northern Ireland, which is not necessarily the experience of the people in Northern Ireland, subsequent to the Windsor Framework. While accepting that the Windsor Framework is what we have to live with at the moment, does the Minister accept that there are many problems, that people cannot get access to many goods and services, and that goods are increasingly not being supplied to Northern Ireland because of the bureaucratic difficulties and economic costs? Would the Minister commit to considering all these matters and to bringing forward a reset that actually benefits Northern Ireland?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question and insight. I will say up front, as I have said before, that we are committed to implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith and to protecting the UK internal market. We will work constructively with all stakeholders—the EU, the Northern Ireland Executive, businesses, and political parties and civic society in Northern Ireland—to achieve that aim, taking into account the implementation deadlines. As the noble Baroness said, the Windsor Framework agreement secured substantial legally binding changes and flexibilities that do improve things. I hope that the EU reset will further improve things, and I therefore urge all noble Lords to support it.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the Lib Dems next and then my noble friend Lord Grocott.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, will the Government please start to renegotiate our entry into the customs union? It would eliminate the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and many others and increase prosperity for us. There is a very simple and direct set of answers.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question and I pay tribute to her consistency on this matter. We share many similarities in our observations and analysis of the impact of Brexit. She will know that we are engaged in the EU reset, which will achieve substantial benefits for growth in the UK and for British citizens travelling around the European Union. I urge her to support the reset.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My noble friend, on this Question and a number of others that I have heard him reply on, demonstrates the passion that he feels for the European Union. It is a passion not shared by everyone. Some of us remember that the 40 years when we were in the European Union were not exactly flowing with milk and honey as far as the British economy was concerned.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My noble friend will notice the support he gets from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Can I have my noble friend’s assurance that we stand very strongly by the Labour Government’s manifesto promise that there will be no question of us rejoining either the customs union or the single market?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am sure my noble friend and I agree on many things, but Brexit is not one of them. I hope that when he talks about our experience in the European Union he will acknowledge the OBR’s calculations that, had we remained in the European Union, by the end of this Parliament the economy would be £100 billion larger than it will be otherwise. That is a significant disbenefit of Brexit. As my noble friend knows, the manifesto stands.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, returning to the Question, we on these Benches fully recognise the importance of the agreements reached between the previous Administration and the European Union. However, there is a legitimate question about whether practical solutions could now be explored to address the specific anomaly. Will the Minister consider supporting a joint UK-EU technical group to examine practical options for restoring duty-free parity for Northern Ireland travellers, which could overcome the difficulties the Minister outlined? That process could be undertaken without undermining the Windsor Framework.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Let me be absolutely clear, again. If you have duty-free, you have to have allowances. If you have allowances, you have to have checks and enforcement. If you have checks, you have to have border infrastructure, and if you have border infrastructure, that will be contrary to the Windsor Framework and the Good Friday agreement.
Open Access Rail Services
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Snape
To ask His Majesty’s Government what is the impact on rail capacity of open access rail services.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, in the right circumstances, open access operations can provide benefits such as improved connectivity and choice for passengers, but they can also increase costs to taxpayers and create additional performance pressures on an already constrained network. Large areas of the network are already operating at full capacity, and additional open access services can exacerbate constraints along the busiest corridors of the network and impact operators’ abilities to operate revenue-generative services that would reduce taxpayer subsidy.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Can he assure me that any further applications for open access trains will not prejudice the existing train paths, particularly on the east and west coast main lines, and particularly train paths reserved for freight trains, if the Government are to meet their target of increasing rail freight by 75% over the next few years? Further, does he believe that the fact that open access trains enjoy a different charging regime from the companies that run the majority of services, including the state-owned companies, leads to a more profitable situation for open access trains, and will he do anything about it?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend is correct. Both the east coast and west coast main lines are now heavily constrained, and under the current arrangements the regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, has recently declined most of the additional applications for train paths simply because there is no room. He is also right to suggest that we need to leave room for increased freight operations. There is a general consensus that more railway freight is good for the economy and the environment, and it would be right to leave paths for freight expansion.
In respect of his question about profitability, it was recently reported that FirstGroup’s open access business achieved a 32% operating profit in the 2024-25 financial year. These profits arise because open access operators do not pay the full cost of accessing the track, and nor do they have to meet public service obligations to operate the services that most people need. This allows them to offer reduced fares and provide journeys only between the most profitable locations. Currently, Lumo is the only open access operator that contributes towards fixed costs via an infrastructure cost charge, which leaves taxpayers to fill the shortfalls. The railways Bill will propose to change the arrangements for access and will consider what needs to be done further in respect of charging.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, the Minister just said that the ability to grow open access is constrained by the lack of capacity on the network, yet he says that the Government intend to increase rail freight by 75%. How are both of those true?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am surprised that the noble Lord does not know the answer to that, as one of the many former Secretaries of State for Transport in the Chamber. The answer is that there are protected freight paths on all the main lines that are likely to carry freight, in order that freight operators can respond to short-term demand measures—which they do frequently, changing trains on a daily and weekly basis—and have room for expansion. It is important that they are left to do that. Otherwise, there is no chance of freight expansion and the commercial freight businesses would be damaged.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, under the new world of Great British Railways, will the Government allow existing open access operators to continue their current routes beyond the permissions granted by the ORR, even with a new charging regime?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness has a good point. The regulator necessarily needs to give a successful open access application sufficient time to recover the significant costs of rolling stock. Many of these arrangements run for at least 10 years, and it would not be right to curtail those activities. Serious investment has been carried out to allow them. What happens in the future we can debate during the passage of the railways Bill, but for the moment those open access operations that have 10-year or similar periodicity will continue.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I spent 32 years of my career working in the public sector and came to understand that the objective was the needs of the customer, value for the taxpayer, protection of the environment and having regard for society in general. Open access, on the other hand, tends to create conflict, encourages gaming the regulator and inhibits evolutionary change. Will the Minister exercise extreme caution when considering open access bids?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I listened to my noble friend with care and respect because he has significant prior experience in running railways. He is right that we should be careful, because we are dealing with only 1% of the passengers and the rest of the network has 99%. We should be careful to allow people to innovate where innovation is a good thing and where there is space for it. We should not allow innovation where it is not a good thing, costs taxpayers money and cannot be accommodated on a very constrained network.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, a lot of people listening to this might think it quite disedifying and perplexing to hear this hate fest against open access services, which are the most popular with commuters, drive down prices where they exist and give consumers what they are looking for. Under the Government’s proposals, the decision on whether open access will be granted for new or continued services will be transferred from an independent regulator to Great British Railways, which is an interested party as a provider of competing services. Does the attitude expressed by the Minister not show how unfit for that purpose the new Great British Railways will be when it starts with such an antagonistic disposition?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord has drunk his own Kool-Aid on this. I made it quite clear that there are benefits to be provided. He also needs to do a bit of careful research, because there are very few commuters on open access services. Commuting is one of the things that has a high fixed cost and generally does not cover the cost of its operations. Open access is successful for people making long-distance journeys irregularly, and some of the operators are very good at it.
The noble Lord also referred to the future railways Bill. We have already made it quite clear that Great British Railways needs to be the body that decides who implements the timetable. Currently, there is not one. It will have to have some rules for access to the railway, which will be developed from the current rules and will be consulted on. If third parties believe that they have been disadvantaged by GBR not following its own rules, or doing something in the wrong way, our proposal will be that they have the ability to appeal to the independent regulator. I think that is perfectly fair, but I also think it is really important that your Lordships’ House recognises that nobody is currently in charge of the national railway timetable except the Secretary of State and me. Outside North Korea, that is really not a good circumstance to have.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
Further to the question by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, can the Minister confirm that train operators offer choice for travellers, jobs for those in the railway industry and direct links to London from stations not served by other operators? Will he condemn the words of Mick Whelan, the general secretary of ASLEF, who described open access operators as “parasites”?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I think the railway trade unions are quite capable of speaking for themselves. The noble Lord is right: I did say that open access provides benefits such as improved connectivity and choice for passengers. It does provide jobs, although the House might like to note that Hull Trains has been in dispute with its own drivers since February—a dispute that shows no signs of being resolved and results in a reduced service, for which the operator, which is owned by FirstGroup, has no substitute.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, the Minister told us that the west coast main line either is out of capacity or will be very shortly. Why have the Government acquiesced to the previous Administration’s curtailment of the HS2 project?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The curtailment of phase 2a of HS2 was a peremptory decision taken with little thought and, I suggest, no good information. The result is that, as the noble Earl says, the west coast main line is currently full, as decided independently by the regulator, which declined all the applications for open access on it. This Government have to consider very carefully what we now do with the results of that peremptory decision. Cancelling a railway to Manchester in Manchester is a pretty crazy thing to do, but that is what happened. We will be back in due course to say what our proposition is, having thought about it a good deal more carefully than the last Government did.
International Maritime Organization: Net-Zero Framework
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mountevans
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the postponement by the International Maritime Organization of a decision on the Net Zero Framework until 2026.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
I am here again.
The United Kingdom is disappointed that adoption of the IMO net-zero framework has been delayed by a year. This stalls crucial efforts to give the maritime sector regulatory certainty and to respond swiftly to the urgent threat of climate change. We remain committed to working with other IMO states to secure adoption of the framework next year. We hope that the regulations can take effect as soon as possible, potentially in 2029 at the earliest.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Given the urgency for climate action and the industry’s need for certainty, does he agree that it is vital to maintain momentum, despite the IMO delay? Will the Government commit to continuing their input during the intersessional period, helping shape the technical framework, building consensus and ensuring that the competitiveness of the UK’s shipping industry is supported in the final agreement?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The simple answer to the noble Lord is yes. Adopting the IMO net-zero framework is vital for climate action and giving industry the certainty it needs to make net-zero shipping a reality. The UK will, as he suggests, maximise our effort to maintain momentum so that the framework can be adopted next year. We are committed to working with others at the IMO, which we are honoured to host here in London, and industry generally, to progress the necessary intersessional work to shape the framework’s technicalities.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, while I welcome the IMO decision—as other noble Lords have said, it is a shame that it has been delayed—when it actually comes into effect, who is going to police the enforcement of lower emissions from ships on a worldwide basis? It sounds a pretty horrendous task.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The purpose of the IMO, of course, is to have an international way of policing things, because shipping is necessarily carried out at sea, so policing in the sense of communities does not work. The way it works is that IMO resolves as a whole to have binding regulations and that is what is being discussed at the moment. We desperately need to give some certainty to people who invest large sums of money for the long term in this. This Government are determined to drive this forward in order to give that certainty, both for decarbonisation and for a healthy shipping market.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, last week in London, only 49 of the 127 delegates—around one-third—voted for the net-zero framework. Does the Minister agree with me that the IMO would be well advised to focus a little more time during the interregnum on things such as the uninsured dark fleet, on unwinding the insanity whereby the charterer pays the ship owner’s ballast legs and on not penalising the large ships that are significantly more fuel-efficient than the small ones per freight tonne?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I recognise that the noble Lord has extensive experience. However, I think he must agree that the subject under discussion—last week’s decision to defer—is far from the only thing that the International Maritime Organization does. Some of the things he has listed are, of course, very important. I have no doubt that we will press the IMO not only to move forward with the decarbonisation agenda but to deal with the things on his list.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, these really important negotiations were effectively torpedoed by the Trump Administration using quite unpleasant tactics at the last moment. What reassessment are the UK Government making of how we can further our international climate objectives, with those who support us, in the wake of a more hostile American Administration?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
If we are to play the role in the IMO that we should, we have to respect the policy positions of other IMO member states. That means working with people who support our position and trying to persuade those who do not that they are wrong and that they should change. Following last week’s decision, this is precisely what we will continue to do with new vigour.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the decision of the IMO was very disappointing. He will know that UK shipbuilders and designers are at the forefront of options for green shipping. Can he give a commitment from the Government that this will continue, despite this delay?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend, who is absolutely right. UK shipbuilders and designers are at the forefront, which is why it is important for this Government to continue to support those efforts. We need this for our economy and for our position on climate change, and what is good for the country ought to be good for the world.
Lord Geddes (Con)
My Lords, following up on the telling question from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is the use of drones not a possible answer to policing?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am afraid I am not qualified to judge whether or not flying drones over major oceans is going to work in this respect. I will certainly take that suggestion back to my department to see whether or not they can make sense of it.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, given the apparently implacable hostility of the United States Administration and the very low number of states that voted for this framework in London last week, are the Government not deluding themselves in thinking that one more heave and we will achieve it next year? As my noble friend Lord Fuller suggested, would it not be better if the IMO, guided by the Government, were to focus on the question of the dark fleet? This is being used to ship sanctioned oil around the world in a way that only benefits dictators. Would it not be sensible to get real about some of these things?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I think the noble Lord needs to recognise that a worldwide organisation such as the IMO can do more things than one at the same time. What he says about the dark fleet, and what the noble Lord previously said about it, is right, and the IMO should challenge it and do what it can about it. As the noble Lord has just heard, UK shipbuilders and designers are at the forefront of designing new low-carbon and no-carbon shipping. It would be an awful shame if the Opposition Benches were not to support a good piece of the British economy which has the potential to sell not only in Britain but around the world.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, following up on the noble Earl’s point, the Trump Administration unequivocally rejected the net-zero framework, but it went much further than that. It issued warnings on measures it could take against countries voting for the framework, including blocking vessels from US ports, imposing new regulations and extra visa restrictions and applying commercial penalties on government contracts. What is the Minister’s reaction to this kind of pressure?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My reaction to that sort of pressure is that we are an important member of the IMO. We need to persuade others to support us. Following last Friday’s decision, we will renew our efforts with those who also support us to persuade people who do not agree with us that this is the right thing for international shipping and for low carbon. We have an important place in the world. We need to pursue those arguments at the IMO and outside it in order to make progress.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
We should all recognise that carbon emissions from shipping are a significant contributor to global warming. Is there any possibility, given the difficulty of global agreement, for any sort of regional agreement and regional enforcement on a European scale for vessels that pass through the channel or visit European ports across the North Sea? We are conscious that, if there were regulation of ships passing through the English Channel, the dark fleet would be affected. If ships registered in the Marshall Islands came into European ports and were refused permission to unload, there would be some sort of enforcement. Can the Minister give some attention to the possibility of some regional enforcement mechanism?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I will certainly take away the noble Lord’s suggestion of regional action, but it is not the same as a worldwide agreement to change emissions from shipping, and we should not shy away from trying to persuade people of that, not least because the technology used will always be better and cheaper if it is used worldwide than if it is used in only one region of the world.
Business of the House
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
Further to the resolution of the House of 25 July 2024, that for the remainder of the current Session Standing Order 9(5) (Hereditary peers: by-elections) be amended as follows: leave out “eighteen” and insert “36”.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I have a sense of déjà vu in moving this Motion today, so I will say few words about why it appears on the Order Paper.
Last July, following helpful and constructive discussions in the usual channels, the House agreed to suspend hereditary Peers by-elections for 18 months. Those 18 months have now passed, and if we were to do nothing, they would have to restart. We have all listened to the discussions that we have had recently, and the usual channels have agreed that is not desirable to restart those by-elections and that the suspension of the by-elections should continue until the end of this Session. This Motion therefore extends the suspension until the spring, when we expect this Session to end. Having listened to the debates we have had recently on this and related issues, I hope this Motion reflects the will of the House and that Members will be prepared to accept it. I beg to move.
Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this is a shameful state of affairs, sending a message that groups of fans and indeed groups of people across our country are not safe on the streets of Britain. Can the Minister tell us when the Government were first told by the safety advisory group that it was intending to advise a ban on Maccabi Tel Aviv fans attending this football match? Were any Government departments besides her own notified before DCMS was aware of it?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I very much associate myself with the noble Lord’s sentiment of being appalled. Discrimination in all forms, including antisemitism, is fundamentally opposed to our British values of fairness, decency and respect. In relation to the noble Lord’s question, the Home Office, through the UK football policing unit, was involved in the risk assessment process led by West Midlands Police. Banning away fans was one of a package of potential operational options being considered. The initial ban was confirmed by Birmingham City Council only last Thursday and this is when intervention from the Secretary of State, DCMS, and broader government intervention began.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister go a bit further about the Government’s activity? It is quite clear this was not a conventional situation for the local boards that were operating. Is there not some structure by which this intelligence can be brought forward to make sure that local authorities know that there is support from outside available to them, as the Government now seem to be telling us there was?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Clearly, we need to look at why no request for additional resource through mutual aid, which is quite a standard process, was sought beforehand. I assure your Lordships’ House that, as soon as the decision was made known, the Culture Secretary, Home Secretary and Community Secretary had extensive discussions with the police, local government and others, trying to come up with a form of support that would enable the Maccabi Tel Aviv fans to be present at the match. Noble Lords will be aware, however, that since then Maccabi Tel Aviv has decided to refuse any allocation of tickets. I assure the noble Lord that the Government were very active in trying to resolve the issue, particularly over the weekend after this became known.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that this incident has increased the perception of the UK, here and abroad, as an unpleasant, indeed hostile, place for the Jewish community? The obsession of some politicians with banning the attendance by Maccabi has increased it. Does the Minister agree that it is not enough for the Government to carry on saying, “We will not tolerate antisemitism?” It is not enough for the Government to say, “Here is a few more million pounds for security”. That is just whack-a-mole. Instead of spending money on security, the Government need to get to the roots of where antisemitism is coming from. I suggest it has come from the way young people have been taught nonsense about colonialism and apartheid, and from religious teaching. Does the Minister agree that it is time to bring together all the Jewish organisations and get their collective wisdom to deal with the roots of this and not just stick more plaster on it?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We know people are scared, including people in your Lordships’ House. We also know that there is no easy answer, but no answer is appropriate without the involvement of the community. This Government are working with the community to try and address this. Antisemitism is an age-old hatred, and responsibility lies with each and every one of us to fix what is clearly broken. We will use every lever available to the Government to make sure that we build community cohesion and tackle extremist hate wherever it is found across society. I know all my colleagues will agree with me that words are not enough; we will take the action that is required to address this.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register. What plans do the Government have to ensure that they can call in and, if necessary, overturn decisions made by safety advisory groups, and what would the implications be for the operational independence of chief constables?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Government are clear that there should be operational independence for the police; it is one of the fundamental tenets of our democracy. The safety advisory group role has been much debated, but it is generally seen as a role that works consistently and has an advisory function. What would have been desirable here would have been for those discussions to have taken place and been escalated sooner, before the decision was made. That is a matter for the MHCLG to deal with going forward; however, at the moment MHCLG is working hard on the immediate issue around community cohesion. I think it is right that we allow operational decisions to be made by the appropriate people, but we also need that to happen within the wider context. Clearly, there was a much wider context, and there were much wider potential repercussions of the decision. That will be a matter for MHCLG to discuss with local government.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, the Statement says:
“It is a long-established principle, set out in law, that the … safety advisory group are operationally independent of government, and that it is for them to take decisions on safety”,
as the Minister has repeated today, but would the Minister agree that this is only half the story? The Safety of Sports Grounds Act, in legislation which I piloted through another place as the Minister responsible, ensures that safety advisory groups must routinely consider relevant government advice and policies, such as from the Home Office on crowd management. Why did it take until the weekend to offer clear, unequivocal advice that nobody in our country would be excluded from football matches because of who they are or their legally held beliefs? Can the Minister assure the House that discussions are under way with safety advisory groups to ensure the full protection of Jewish community fan groups at matches this weekend and in the future?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
In relation to the second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, absolutely: the safety of Jewish fans is of the utmost importance and priority to this Government. On the safety advisory groups, I have not been party to all the discussions with the people concerned, but my understanding is that the resource implications did not get escalated to the right level. That is not an excuse for it happening, but now that we know it happened, we can address it for the future. I know that my colleagues across government are desperately keen to make sure that this happens.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that inflammatory and racist comments by a local Member of Parliament in this matter are an absolute disgrace and contrary to all decent concepts of British values, shared by almost every Muslim as well as every Jew in our population?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I could not agree more wholeheartedly with the noble Lord. I found it absolutely appalling that a Member of Parliament would initiate a petition of the nature and content that the relevant local MP did. It also highlights the need for us to be clear that, while we might want political interference through the Government in one way, political interference was clearly also at the heart of what went wrong in this instance.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, it seems clear that the main motivation locally was in fact to boycott Israel. None the less, it is necessary to get clear the degree of blame that has been attributed to the fans of Maccabi Tel Aviv. There is an account in the Guardian today which seems seriously distorted. Have the Government got it clear in their own mind, at least for all useful purposes, that while there may well have been bad behaviour, hooliganism and even some racist behaviour by a minority of fans in Amsterdam, the majority of the harm was committed against them and not by them? It is important to capture the picture that the Government have of what happened in Amsterdam, because it has been recycled a lot.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My understanding of what happened in Amsterdam is as the noble Baroness has just outlined. One of the things that I found most appalling about the decision that was made is that it was based on the risk to fans, primarily. In a country where we manage violence associated with football on a regular basis, we cannot have a situation in which it is the risk to fans which means that those fans themselves are barred from a sporting or other public event.
Rape Gangs: National Statutory Inquiry
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, when updating the other place on the progress of a national inquiry on child grooming gangs on 2 September, the Minister for Safeguarding said:
“Most importantly, the chair must have the credibility and experience to command the confidence of victims and survivors, as well as the wider public. Meaningful engagement with victims and survivors is paramount”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/9/25; col. 162.]
But four months on from the announcement of this inquiry, there are no terms of reference and no chair, while four of the victims have resigned from the victims and survivors’ panel. How do the Government seriously still believe that this inquiry will have the confidence of the victims, when all evidence points to the contrary?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel. First, I say to him that when the Infected Blood Inquiry and the Covid inquiry were established, it took seven months to put a chair in place. We are currently at the very late stages of determining who the chair for this inquiry should be. It is very important, as he has said, that the inquiry, its chair and its terms of reference have the confidence of victims and survivors. I am sorry that a number of victims and survivors have walked away from the process; they will be welcomed back, should they wish to return.
We are working closely with the charity, NWG Network, to ensure that a range of victims put their views to this purpose; they are doing that currently. I believe that we will be in a position shortly to establish the inquiry, with the terms of reference to ensure that we do what we said we were going to do on the tin: to meet the objective that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, set of a national inquiry, focusing on grooming gangs and on the ethnicity issue. I hope that we will have full support from the noble Lord and his colleagues in doing those important tasks.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, public trust in statutory inquiries is already fragile, and it is weakened by concerns about independence, delay and failure to act on recommendations. Take, for example, the Jay inquiry: it took seven years and reported in October 2022, but only a tiny percentage of its recommendations have so far been implemented.
This inquiry must be led by victims and survivors; their involvement is essential to its integrity and to uncovering the truth. The inquiry must go where the evidence takes it. If there is any suggestion that there were racial and religious dimensions of abuse, and if these are found to be true, then they must not be minimised. Can the Minister give an unequivocal assurance that these issues will be addressed directly and say what steps will be taken to ensure that this inquiry’s recommendations, unlike those of so many before, are fully implemented?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I refer her to the Statement that the Home Secretary made in response to the issues that arose out of yesterday’s Urgent Question in the House of Commons. The Home Secretary said today that the inquiry will
“explicitly examine the ethnicity and religion of the offenders”,
as well examine offenders who have been part of grooming gangs and who are not from a particular ethnic minority; the examination of those issues is also paramount.
The noble Baroness will know that we have set a time limit on the inquiry. We want the inquiry to report speedily, because the important thing is to get recommendations. As the Minister in the Home Office responsible for inquiries, I am very clear that we need to get the inquiry’s results, get the recommendations out and, very importantly, see them through as a matter of some urgency.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, the Minister said that the Government are in the late stages of choosing a chair. If the reports are to be believed—that the two preferred candidates have walked away from the inquiry—it means the Government may yet have some time to go. The position of being in such an inquiry without a chair or a timeline is one I understand only too well. The thing we did was to go back to the beginning and to the victims and survivors to really understand what their concerns were. That was the only way that we could move forward. Will the Government perhaps look again at how they are engaging with victims and survivors given that a lot of them are coming out to say that they have lost trust in the process? In those circumstances, it is very difficult to just say “business as usual”.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very fair point. The confidence of victims and survivors is central to the effectiveness, quality and outputs of this inquiry. As I mentioned in response to the earlier question from her noble friend on the Front Bench, the Government have engaged NWG, a very respectable charity, to engage with victims and survivors on their behalf, and to give a sounding board to the issues that we are involved in. I regret that people have walked away from that process, but there are many others involved in it, and I want to ensure that they reflect strongly both on the appointment of the chair, on the terms of reference and, ultimately, on the recommendations of the inquiry, which is the most important aspect of this business.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, one reason why the survivors resigned was that there were very different accounts from them and the Minister for Safeguarding. Indeed, the Minister for Safeguarding implied that anyone who was saying different was using misinformation, in effect, accusing those survivors of lying.
In fact, the account from Home Secretary was very different from that of the Minister for Safeguarding. I think we can safely say that this is not being handled well. It is not like other inquiries. The Minister might want to reassure us that the inquiry’s terms of reference will be absolutely watertight, that it will not be frightened of saying that the rape grooming gangs were predominantly Pakistani Muslim, and that those things will be faced head on. At the moment, there is not enough reassurance that that is happening. The Home Secretary reassured me; I am not sure that the Minister for Safeguarding did.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Let me first defend the Minister for Safeguarding. I know nobody else in the House of Commons who has committed so much time, energy and passion to ensuring that these issues are addressed. She is paramount in her ambition to secure some outcomes on safeguarding women and girls and on violence against women and girls. As I have said to other noble Lords and noble Baronesses today, the Home Secretary has been clear that the terms of reference will be determined and that the focus will be on grooming gangs and on ethnicity and background. That also means that we need to look at grooming gangs in the round, but there is a real focus on the ethnicity and background of a number of grooming gangs that have operated, which have caused distress and have led to this inquiry in the first place.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, when I was Secretary of State, I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to look at Rochdale. I know the kind of pressure that is placed on a politician when you take that kind of decision, so I am much more sympathetic to the Government. I do not think that this should be political. We are going to uncover some very unpleasant truths about how the establishment in this country looked the other way, so can I ask the Minister to give lots of consideration to the recommendation of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, that this should not be judge led? The nature of a public inquiry, led by a judge, will be overly daunting. We need the confidence of the victims, the confidence of the community and the confidence of the country.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support in this area. He is right to draw attention to the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, recommended that we should try to move away from the judge-led model for this inquiry. That is what we have been trying to do. The very difficult issues that we have been discussing with victims and survivors—of who should be the chair and how the chair should be appointed—are one reason why there has been the delay to date and the very reason that the noble Baroness mentioned. As I said, the Covid inquiry and the Infected Blood Inquiry took seven months to get to a chair. It has been around three and a half to four months since the inquiry was announced. I hope we can make the appointment shortly, along the lines that the noble Lord mentioned.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, the Church of England has in recent years been forced to face up to our own, significant failures in the areas of safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults. We were far too slow to realise the devastating impact of safeguarding when it goes wrong, and we are even now struggling to put in place appropriate ways of ensuring accountability and of being led by survivors. Can the Minister therefore tell me what the Government are doing to support all faith communities in addressing safeguarding, to go beyond simply the requirements of the Charity Commission and to show that no group is above the law when it comes to safeguarding?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
No group is above the law, and this inquiry has been established for the purposes of examining the challenges that arose in certain communities with regard to child sexual abuse and grooming gangs. I hope the right reverend Prelate will recognise that, for example, in the Crime and Policing Bill—which had its Second Reading last Thursday—there are significant measures to improve safeguarding and reporting measures and to meet the outcome of the Alexis Jay report to government, ensuring that we put in place a range of measures to protect victims, wherever they come from, whether from a faith community or not. I hope the right reverend Prelate can work with the Government during the passage of that Bill to give early implementation to strong safeguarding measures to protect children and ensure that we do not have future victims of these terrible incidents.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:46 - Division on Amendment 63 - Ayes: 246 / Noes: 169 - Amendment 63 agreed.
17:53 - Division on Amendment 64 - Ayes: 163 / Noes: 236 - Amendment 64 disagreed.
Baroness Coffey
“(2A) The regulations must not allow an officer of the authority to approve any planning application which—(a) allows building or development outside the boundaries set out in the local plan, or(b) has a housing density for the area that is below the level prescribed in the local plan.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to prevent officers to whom decisions have been delegated from approving planning applications which would (1) require land outside of the boundary of a local plan, or (2) build at a lower density of housing than prescribed within a local plan.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. We are at the stage now where we are considering the Government’s significant changes—basically, removing decision-making from councillors on a huge scale, which gives me cause for concern—but I have decided to highlight just a couple of issues.
I shall start with Amendment 87F, which goes to the nub of one of these issues. The Government seem to be proposing, in Part 3, that councillors no longer make decisions and that they be handed over to officials, who are obviously not locally elected. Amendment 87F would require the reporting of planning permission that has been granted but not actually commenced. We already have plenty of homes that have planning approval right around the country, never mind the 700,000 homes that are currently sitting empty. I do not necessarily mean second homes; I am talking about other homes that are sitting there doing nothing. This is important to me when I think of communities around the country that have had huge housing targets imposed on them, when actually, the worst situation is in London, where, sadly, hardly any homes are being built at all. Instead, to be candid, we are seeing this rather Stalinist approach. Amendment 87F is intended to encourage the Government to make sure that at least we have some transparency on what is happening with all the homes for which development permission is being granted, but which are not being built.
Amendment 62A deals with what happens when officials talk about planning applications that do not fit within the boundaries of the plan. We have been told at various stages of the Bill that the real democratic process is in the initial creation of the plan. My experience of various places I have lived in is that communities rarely get involved—councillors do, of course, but there is a lot of consultation—until there is a particular development in their area. Nevertheless, even if the focus will now be put on consideration of where housing can happen—with, we hope, little further argument once that is done—officers should not then be allowed to approve planning applications that sit outside the plan.
The second issue is something I have seen in the Felixstowe area in particular. Land has been set aside for 2,000 new homes on the edge of Felixstowe, but we are already starting to see officers questioning the housing density being proposed, and making recommendations in line with other policies. If the same principle was applied to every single planning application, instead of the land that has been set aside, which is already substantial at a housing density of about 150 per acre or per hectare—I apologise; I cannot remember which—the implication is that three times the amount of land would be needed. That is a huge extension of what communities that have been encouraged to get involved in plans thought they were getting when they signed up to this.
That is why I believe that if councillors want to go beyond the boundaries set out in the local plan and change the density, they should be the ones making that decision, not officers. I am conscious that at this stage, we have not seen any draft regulations or proposals from the Government, and those would be helpful. But my intention today is to press again to make sure that, as and when the regulations come forward—of course, we do not have an opportunity to amend regulations —this issue is covered.
I fully endorse Amendment 63 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley. It makes a lot of sense that this House and the other House at least consider the proposals that are going to be put forward, which will determine the sorts of issues I have just mentioned. I also support Amendment 76 in the names of my noble friends on the Front Bench. Again, it seems quite straightforward that if there are valid planning reasons why something should be turned down, the elected councillors should get to say that.
This is a huge change that is coming and we need to make sure that there are safeguards for communities, so that when they vote for their local council, or in the future for their mayor, they have some assurance that these will actually have some powers rather than this being dictated from Whitehall, which has not always proved to be the best way to achieve housing in the past. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will confine my remarks to Amendment 63 in my name. Noble Lords will recall that in Committee we had quite a substantial discussion about the national scheme of delegation and the extent to which decisions should automatically be delegated to planning officers rather than going to a committee.
I do not really want to dwell on all that, other than to say that we are continuing to wait—in my case, with optimism—to hear about a national scheme of delegation and how it might assist in the delivery of our planning and housing targets. In my view—and I will just reiterate it because presumably Ministers are still considering how to proceed with the scheme—it was a mistake that the Government’s proposal for the scheme for consultation did not follow through on the original plan, which would have meant that where decisions could be made wholly in accordance with the existing local plan, they should be delegated to planning officers, since the democratic input of the planning committee, as my noble friend Lady Coffey just said, is and should be primarily in establishing the local plan and then we should be guided by that, rather than revisiting every decision under the local plan through the planning committee.
We also continue to wait on the Government consulting on national development management policies. I know it is their intention to do so. But, again, once we have national development management policies, by their nature, if they include policies which would determine how an application for permission should be treated—for example, in relation to planning applications in greenbelt and grey-belt land—those should necessarily go to planning officers because the planning committee would have no discretion not to make a decision in line with the national development management policies.
I say that to reiterate those points I feel strongly about, but also because it illustrates that when the scheme is first brought in, it will make substantial decisions about the framework within which the delegation of planning decisions is to be made. When we debated this in Committee, it was on my amendment which would have meant that such regulations were always to be by an affirmative resolution. I completely understand the Minister’s response that there may be quite detailed aspects of these regulations and that as a consequence there may be regular iterations—almost every time, probably, there is a change in the guidance, particularly the National Planning Policy Framework; we tend to have those as a little present just before Christmas every year—so we are probably going to get new regulations on a frequent basis and they may be quite detailed.
However, the first regulations set up the principles and the framework for how this scheme of delegation will work in the longer term. It is not acceptable for that to be subject to a negative resolution. This House should have the opportunity to see, approve and, as my noble friend says, debate the framework for the national scheme of delegation the first time those regulations are made. That is the purpose of Amendment 63: to provide that when the regulations are made for the first time, it is on an affirmative basis, and subsequently on a negative basis. When the time comes, I hope to have the opportunity to move the amendment and, if it secures support in this debate, I may well look to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches are firm and constant supporters of the right of locally elected councillors to make decisions in their area based on clear national policies. The proposals in the Bill for a national diktat of delegation are the backdrop to this group of amendments. The Government are ostensibly in favour of devolution of decision-making. However, there is a tendency within the Bill to centralise decisions on planning by making it virtually impossible for local decisions to reflect local need and nuance.
Amendment 62A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, is interesting but could be problematic—actually, I thought it less problematic when I heard the noble Baroness’s explanation of the first part of the amendment. Although there are occasions during the life of a plan when unforeseen events arise which mean the local plan is not sacrosanct, on the whole it ought to be, otherwise it will be nibbled away at during its lifetime through precedent.
I have some sympathy with the second part of the noble Baroness’s amendment. Too often, housing sites are assessed as being able to accommodate a large number of units, then along comes the developer—with his eyes on the profit line—who applies for a different balance of houses in which larger, more expensive and more profitable units are to be built. The consequence is that the balance that we need, which is somewhere in between, is not met. The result of allowing developers to determine the density of a site is that more land then has to be allocated for development. I will give one example from my own area. A housing site was allocated in the local plan, under the national rules, for 402 homes. Currently, just over 200 are being built, because of the need—apparently—for five-bed exec homes. The local assessment of housing need shows that what are required are start-up homes and smaller homes with two or three beds. I have a lot of sympathy with that part of the amendment.
Amendment 63, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is right to seek to put safeguards in place in the rush to take the local out of local democracy. As the noble Lord explained, the amendment is to ensure that the affirmative resolution would be required for the initial changes to the national scheme of delegation. That has got to be right, because it will set the tone for the future of what is accepted as being part of a national scheme of delegation and what is okay for local decision-makers. That is fundamental, and the noble Lord is right to raise it in the amendment. If he wishes to take it to a vote, we on these Benches will support him.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, has not yet had the opportunity to speak to her Amendment 76, so I hope she does not mind if I comment on it. We on these Benches will support the noble Baroness if she wishes to take it to a vote. This amendment would be another move towards empowering local decision-makers with the right to take planning applications to committee where there is a volume of valid objections to an application, and then to have the debate in a public setting.
Amendment 87F, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks a sensible change to help understand where the real problems lie in the failure to build the houses the country needs. As the noble Baroness hinted, it is not with local planning committees or authorities, otherwise there would not be 1.2 million units with full planning permission waiting for construction. Those figures are from the ONS, and I am not going to quarrel with the ONS. If the Government could get the housing developers to start building those 1.2 million units, we would be well on the way to the 1.5 million that the Government reckon they need during the lifetime of this Parliament.
This is an important group because it is about getting the balance between national need and local decision-making, and between a national view of what is acceptable and local elected councillors being able to reflect local need, nuance and requirements in their local setting. I hope that at least the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, will put his amendment to the vote. It is fundamental to the democratic process to have local decisions on planning.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 76 in the name of my noble friends on the Front Bench. As I have reminded noble Lords before, I have sat on a planning committee many times, I have appointed such a committee as a leader of a council and chosen the chairman, and I know it is a very important quasi-judicial position. Planning exists to arbitrate between the public good and the private interest. I use the word arbitrate purposely because people who sit on the planning committee have a difficult job. They have to weigh up so much conflicting information. It is an adversarial system, because, ultimately, either the proposer wins or the objector wins. There is no grey purpose in the middle.
Much of the Bill is established under the false premise that local planning committees are the blockers of development and it is only with the ranks of officials that we can get things going. Of course, this is rubbish. Evidence for that assertion was given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which this morning ruled that it was wrong that Governments and quangos had asserted that Ramsar sites had an equivalence to European sites and thus had to have a full environmental assessment, and overturned it on that narrow point. Within an hour, we had officials and Treasury solicitors boasting how this Bill is going to turn that around and reinstall that unnecessary gold-plating—gold-plating that, after four years, the Court of Appeal ruled should not have happened.
The Government’s suggestion that Ministers should usurp planning committees and instead form a national planning committee among themselves in Marsham Street is as fanciful as it is risible. It is a recipe for hurry up and slow down, and it is not fooling anybody that that is going to speed up development.
The premise is that officialdom brings none of its own particular personal or institutional prejudices to bear, but each quango brings its own vetoes. We have Natural England, with a track record of leaving no stone unturned in blocking or delaying development. We have the railways, which ballast every proposal for a new footbridge with £5 million-worth of cost and preposterous delays. We have the highways authorities, which tie themselves in knots over overly precious technical guidance and misdirect themselves that the private motorcar is intrinsically bad, when it is not. And that is before we get to the other bad actors, which time does not permit me to list.
I do not deny the importance of these quango representations, but the problem is that they all claim a veto, and it is from this that we have the £100 million bat bridge or that mitigating trade in great crested newts, which are rare in Europe but commonplace in every pond in my electoral ward in Norfolk. It is the way that planning works: it takes only one of these proverbial blackballs or vetoes from one of the statutory consultees to stymie a proposal.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, it is pleasing to hear support for local democracy from around the House, which I can only endorse.
Amendment 63, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, concerns the first set of regulations made under the proposed national scheme, which, as drafted, would determine how local planning decisions are to be made in the future. My noble friend’s amendment seeks to ensure that these initial regulations are subject to the stronger form of parliamentary scrutiny, the affirmative procedure. That requirement is important, as the national scheme represents a major structural change in the planning system. It alters fundamentally the balance between decisions taken by elected planning committees and those delegated to officers.
Such a shift in decision-making authority carries significant implications for local accountability, democratic oversight and public confidence in the planning system. Given the scale and significance of these reforms, it is only right that Parliament should have the opportunity to consider, debate and explicitly approve the first set of regulations before they take effect. Therefore, my noble friend’s amendment seeks not to delay progress but to strengthen legitimacy, to ensure that this House and the other place have a proper role in scrutinising the framework through which these changes will be implemented. In short, the affirmative procedure would provide a vital check and balance at a moment of genuine structural transition in the planning system. I hope that the Government will look favourably on my noble friend’s sensible and proportionate proposal.
Amendment 76, tabled in my name, aims to ensure that the vital role of local democracy in the determination of planning applications continues, while ensuring that spurious call-ins are avoided, by requiring the head of planning and the chair of the planning committee to confirm that the objections are on valid planning grounds. This reflects best practice in many authorities today.
We believe in local democracy because we believe in local people. That means ensuring that the right homes are built in the right places, with the consent and confidence of the communities they affect. Committee chairs and chief planning officers are well placed to judge when wider scrutiny is needed. Retaining their discretion in this way would ensure transparency and trust, without dismantling the efficiency of a national delegation scheme.
Ministers may argue that the amendment would undermine the purpose of national delegation by allowing too many applications to go to committee, but that is simply not the case. It requires the agreement of both the professional planner and the elected chair, and only when the objections rest on valid planning grounds. That is a proportionate safeguard, not a free-for-all. This is about balance and maintaining efficiency in the system, while giving communities the confidence that genuine concerns will be heard and scrutinised. That is how we build trust in planning and how we deliver development that truly has local consent.
Finally, I will briefly speak to Amendments 62A and 87F, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey. Amendment 62A is in a similar vein to my own, as it proposes that an officer should not determine an application outside of an adopted local plan. Amendment 87F looks to the issue of the failure to build out, so can the Minister say why the Government have not moved forward with the parts of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act that sought to address that?
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Jamieson was quicker to his feet than I was. I will make a few comments on Amendment 87F, standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey.
I served as a councillor for eight years on the unitary Medway Council, working for some of that time on planning, and had the benefit of representing a constituency in Kent in the other place. I am very aware that whenever a substantial planning application is put to the local community there is generally uproar and a lot of concern. There may be a lot of consultation and a lot of money spent by the developer. There are presentations to the local public and local councillors, and everything else that goes with that. It can be quite upsetting for local communities. In my experience, the Liberal Democrats are very adept at exploiting that concern, usually for political advantage.
Having gone through that process, we find that a lot of the planning applications never actually get built out—and at a time when we have a huge demand for housing. Developers then look again at somewhere a bit simpler to develop out. It is not for us in this place to dictate the market—that is obviously for developers—but the terms that my noble friend Lady Coffey has proposed are right. Perhaps we should start to recognise some of the names among the bigger developers that seem to be going for applications and not building them out. We hear, obliquely, about hundreds of thousands of planning applications that have been approved that are yet to be built out. I do not know the exact figure —I do not think that I have ever known it—but we are told that it is in the many hundreds of thousands.
If my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment were to be adopted, it would be very refreshing to know those numbers regularly. It could give local people some pressure to knock on the doors of the developers and ask, “Are you going to do this or not?” In addition, other authorities would be able to look at neighbouring authorities elsewhere in the country and, if they see similar developer names, they might start to wonder what those developers were doing.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. When I looked at the figures last year, I found that 1.1 million homes were approved that were not built. That is quite a few hundreds of thousands.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his clarification. As I said, I was only guessing that the figure was in the hundreds of thousands; I am glad to have the clarity that is 1.1 million. There we have it: there is the potential for the growth that we are looking for and for the supply of housing within a local plan, yet we seem to keep hearing calls for new land and new development. The answer, however, is in our lap. It would be nice for this to be rather more transparent, so that we could consider it more closely.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, that was an interesting debate on these amendments. Believing in local people also means building the homes that they need and the infrastructure to support those homes. This problem with buildout did not commence in July 2024; it has been there for a long time, and this Bill is trying to do something about it.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for Amendment 62A, which would require applications for development not included in the local plan, or for a housing density lower than that specified in the plan, to be determined by committee. I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment; however, it is common for applications to be submitted for development that do not accord with the local plan. That does not mean that all those applications are controversial or that they require committee scrutiny. To bring all such applications to committee would undermine the whole point of Clause 51. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 63 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks to make initial regulations relating to the national scheme of delegation subject to the affirmative procedure. As I mentioned in Committee, it is common practice across planning legislation for regulations of a detailed and technical nature such as these to be subject to the negative procedure. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has published its report on the Bill and has not raised any concerns about either this power or the proposed procedure.
I recognise that the noble Lord has altered his amendment so that it applies only to the first set of regulations, but I still do not believe that the revised amendment is necessary. We already consulted on our proposed approach in May this year. The Secretary of State, under the Bill’s provisions, will be required to consult appropriate persons before making the regulations and the subsequent changes to them. That means that the Government will conduct another consultation on these very regulations before they are brought into force. In practice, this means that key stakeholders, including local planning authorities, will be able to respond on the detailed proposals set out in the regulations to ensure that they will work effectively in practice. They are the practitioners, after all, so I look forward to hearing their comments.
Amendment 76 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, seeks to give the chair of a planning committee and the head of planning the discretion to allow any planning application to be determined by committee where there are objections on valid planning grounds. Noble Lords will recall that we debated an identical amendment in Committee, and I can confirm that the Government have not changed their position on this issue. The intention of the amendment undermines the introduction of a national scheme of delegation. Valid planning objections are a frequent occurrence on planning applications—anyone who has ever been on a council will know that only too well. This amendment would therefore mean that almost any application would be capable of being referred to committee. That is clearly something we would not want to support. However, I repeat that the intention behind the national scheme of delegation is not to undermine local democracy. It is simply to allow planning committees to operate more effectively in the interests of their communities.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for Amendment 87F relating to the buildout of development, which is a key issue. The amendment seeks to improve the transparency of buildout data by requiring the Secretary of State to publish information on a quarterly basis about the number of planning consents granted where building has not started or completed in each local planning authority. I start by reaffirming to the noble Baroness, as I did in Committee, that I fully support the aim of improving buildout and the rate of residential development. The Government remain committed to making sure that all planning permissions are translated into homes. That said, I remain of the view, as I have previously set out, that we do not need this amendment to achieve that.
When we debated buildout in Committee, I highlighted our publication in May of an important working paper, which sets out a more effective and comprehensive approach to speeding up buildout. It includes greater transparency of buildout rates, new powers for local planning authorities to decline to determine applications from developers that have built out more slowly and greater emphasis on mixed-use tenures, as well as exploring a potential delayed homes penalty as a last resort. The working paper also emphasised that we want to make it easier for local authorities to confirm CPOs, which will help unlock stalled sites and make land assembly easier when this is in the public interest. We have also set up our new homes accelerator, which will help to unblock some of those stalled sites and find out what is causing the problem that is slowing down buildout. We are now analysing the responses to that working paper, and we will set out our next steps in due course. I reiterate that the measures set out in the working paper will make a real difference to the buildout of residential development that we all want to see. Therefore, given our strategy to support faster buildout, I hope the noble Baroness will not move her amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Can I ask for clarification? I asked a specific question regarding the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act and its sections saying that a planning authority does not need to determine an application where the applicant has not built out elsewhere. I think the Minister was hinting that this is what the Government are doing, but will they implement that?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We did consult on that very issue. We are still analysing the responses to the working paper. As soon as we have done that, I will inform the House of the outcome.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Are the Government not prepared to implement the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act sections as they stand now, despite having the power to do so?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I can only repeat that, on the powers on which we consulted in the working paper, we want to look at the responses and then implement them.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have contributed on this group. It has been a useful discussion.
I say candidly to the Minister that these are the powers of transparency that, if I had served as a Minister in her department, I would have wanted to know of, so that I could go after those developers, hold their feet to the fire and enact what my noble friend has just said from LURA 2023. However, with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lansley
“(3) In section 333 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (regulations and orders), after subsection (3ZAA), insert—“(3ZAB) The first regulations under sections 319ZZC or 319ZZD may not be made unless a draft of the instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(3ZAC) Regulations made under sections 319ZZC or 319ZZD are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament (except for the first such regulations).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require that when regulations for a national scheme of delegation of planning decisions are made for the first time, these should be made by an affirmative resolution procedure.
“Directions restricting refusal of planning permission in EnglandIn section 74 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (directions etc as to method of dealing with applications), in subsection (1)(a), after “grant” insert “or, in the case of an authority in England, the refusal,”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow a development order to enable the Secretary of State to give directions restricting the refusal of planning permission or permission in principle by a local planning authority in England.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 64 and 259 are in my name. They seek to amend the Town and Country Planning Act to address an anomaly in the Secretary of State’s existing powers, allowing him to issue holding directions to local planning authorities.
Currently, powers under the Act allow the Secretary of State to make a provision in the development order that allows him to issue a holding direction to a local planning authority, restricting it from granting planning permission. Such holding directions are used to allow the Secretary of State to consider whether to use his powers to call in the application for his own consideration under powers in Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act.
This amendment addresses an anomaly. It will enable the Secretary of State to issue a holding direction to prevent local planning authorities refusing an application for planning permission. I should make it clear that this does not significantly change the way in which call-in currently operates. The Secretary of State can already call in any application, provided the local planning authority has not issued a formal decision notice. It merely prevents the local planning authority issuing a refusal and allows the Secretary of State to consider whether to determine the application himself.
It is a well-established part of the planning system that the Secretary of State can intervene in planning decisions. This has been in statute since the inception of the modern planning system. The Written Ministerial Statement of October 2012 set out the Government’s existing policy on call-in. Under this policy, in general, the Secretary of State considers the use of his call-in powers only if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Even when an application is called in, it does not mean that planning permission will be granted. The Secretary of State is bound by the same duties as local planning authorities.
To conclude, government Amendments 64 and 259 are minor, but they are no less important in enabling the more effective use of the Secretary of State’s call- in powers. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley
“(2) After section 74(1)(a) of that Act insert—“(aa) for authorising the local planning authority, in relation to a direction restricting the grant or refusal of planning permission or permission in principle under paragraph (a), to grant planning permission or permission in principle insofar as the planning application is in accordance with the provisions of the development plan if the latter is up-to-date;”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This addition to the amendment tabled would provide an incentive to a local planning authority to adopt an up-to-date Local Plan and, in consequence, to regain control over the grant of planning permission in accordance with the Plan.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 64 relates to a subject that we did not discuss in Committee. It was tabled only at the beginning of last week. Although the Minister said there was just an anomaly, as though it was some sort of gap, I have to confess that, when I looked at it, I found it quite difficult to work out what this gap was. Under the existing powers, if the Secretary of State sees that a local authority is not intending to grant planning permission but wishes that planning permission to be granted, they can issue a direction for that purpose. If the Secretary of State sees that a local planning authority is likely to refuse a planning application, leaving aside the fact that the applicant might choose to appeal such a refusal, the Secretary of State could, if they sought to move quickly, make a direction for the purpose of granting planning permission, or simply call it in, which I would have thought would be the obvious thing to do.
The purpose of my amendment is to test the use case a bit. What worries me is that, on the face of it, the ostensible purpose here might be to give the Secretary of State much clearer power to issue a direction to stop a local authority refusing planning permission for an application that is not in accordance with the development plan. Clearly, the Secretary of State already has the power to grant planning permission not in accordance with the development plan. That is in Section 74, in a later subsection. The Secretary of State can still do that, but it looks to me as if what this actually adds is the ability to stop local authorities refusing permission in circumstances where an application is not in accordance with the development plan. We have spent a lot of time, especially those of us who remember the debates on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, emphasising the importance of local authorities having up-to-date local plans and that decisions should be made in accordance with those plans.
My Amendment 65, as an amendment to Amendment 64, would add into Section 74 of the Town and Country Planning Act a specific provision that the Secretary of State may issue directions in effect to grant planning permission or to refuse planning permission in accordance with the development plan. That seems to me to be the best way of guaranteeing democratic input into planning and, indeed, that the delivery of planning happens in ways that are relatively predictable and successful from the point of view of local communities. I commend Amendment 65 as an alternative approach, but, in the absence of Amendment 65, it seems to me that Amendment 64 adds risk to the system rather than substantial benefit. I beg to move Amendment 65.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendments 87A and 87D in this group. Amendment 87D is a bit of an outlier, so I will come to that later in my contribution. In essence, Amendment 87A is supposed to be a bit of a helping hand to the Government in achieving the outcome that they are intending, whereas the Government’s Amendment 64 really is a huge overreach. I should start by thanking Alexa Culver for helping draft Amendment 87A.
Government Amendment 64 would allow the Secretary of State, in effect, to force through planning permissions, even when material considerations such as failing EDPs, water shortages and insufficient infrastructure would normally warrant planning refusal. In the press release that was put out, although it did not directly mention the amendment, the closest explanation that could be found was:
“Ministers will be able to issue ‘holding directions’ to stop councils refusing planning permission whilst they consider using their ‘call-in’ powers. Under existing rules, they can only issue these holds when councils are set to approve applications”.
The suggestion is that this amendment would allow the Government properly to use their call-in powers.
It is possible that this explanation is a red herring and does not match the much broader powers contained in Amendment 64. At the moment, Written Ministerial Statements can govern the procedure for call-in; there is no need for legislation to improve or refine the process. I have suggested an alternative to the Government through Amendment 87A. Planning authorities are allowed to refuse planning permission only when there are justified grounds to do so. If that refusal is appealed, of course, the Secretary of State can call in that appeal, known as recovering the appeal. Therefore, the Government’s stated concern around obstructive or hair-trigger refusal is a fairly minor one to legislate for.
The challenge here is that we need to try to make sure that we improve other parts of the Bill. To give a bit more detail, the clause would permit the Secretary of State to pass a new type of development order that prevents local planning authorities refusing to grant planning permission, for example where there is insufficient water supply or the like. Up until now, development orders have been used only to govern or constrain how planning authorities positively grant consent. This amendment turns that around for the first time and allows the Secretary of State to prevent refusals of planning permission.
Development orders have to be made by statutory instrument—although I believe it is through the negative procedure—but there are no obvious constraints on how the power can be used. The bars to refusal can be used to override local, real-world, on-the-ground constraints to development, and planning authorities may be forced to consent, for example, where EDPs are failing or unimplemented.
On the speed of impact, there are widely publicised water shortage issues in many parts of the country and I am very concerned that, given that this clause is expected to come into force on the day, we could see a flurry of directions being issued. Amendment 87A—by the good help of Alexa Culver, as I say—would not have entire overreach but would potentially help the Minister achieve their aim.
Amendment 87D is on something very close to my heart: considering local communities. They go to a lot of effort to register assets of community value, but at the moment the regulations are such that there are very few examples of buildings being protected from demolition under existing permitted development rights. Those are a pub and, I think, two other examples of some social issues. I think a theatre is a good example. I have seen this at first hand when a community came together. Registering an asset of community value is not the most straightforward of processes, but they did. When the owner of said community assets was starting to get fed up, they literally just pulled the buildings down, not even allowing the local community the chance to buy those assets from the developer.
I am conscious that the Government will have legislation later this year about local communities. I really do not want to have to return at that stage to press the case; I want to get these changes made now. When we bring in legislation to empower communities, which happened in the Localism Act and which I know the Government say they support, let us not continue to have legislation where the rug can be pulled away from those local communities. In the particular case it was a sports centre and a theatre, both much cherished and both used in marketing for housebuilding in that area and as reasons for people to move there. We are talking about all these new communities. Unfortunately, those things could be built and within a day they could be pulled down to make space for more houses—exactly what happened in that community in Suffolk. It may be the only example. I have not investigated right around the country, but I feel so strongly about it and this Bill has been my first opportunity to try to rectify what I genuinely believe is a wrong. I hope that the House will support that later tonight.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly in support of the outlier Amendment 87D from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. I have Amendment 102, likely to be heard on Monday, which seeks to extend the current assets of community value scheme to include cultural assets, so I have a particular interest in how the scheme as it stands at present does and should work.
The noble Baroness’s amendment and mine were considered in the same group in Committee; she pointed out that, as she said just now, some if not all cultural buildings had already been added to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. This has been a move in the right direction, but I certainly agree that assets of community value should be added. Strangely, we have a situation where, through the 2015 order, certain cultural venues such as concert halls and theatres are protected but community assets as such are not, which feels incredibly inconsistent, certainly in relation to the community asset scheme as it stands now.
I find what the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has described today, and in considerable detail in Committee —about how a new owner can ride roughshod over a community—not just wrong but, frankly, outrageous. Legislation is not always the right thing, as the Minister points out quite a lot, but I think this is a perfect instance of where a gap in the law ought to be plugged and ought to be addressed in the community’s interest. I will certainly vote for Amendment 87D if the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, takes it to a vote.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 64 has been packaged in the media, and even in the Marshalled List, as augmenting the Secretary of State’s power to call in an application, but, as the Minister made clear in opening, in fact it does not do that. It leaves Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which is the call-in power, unchanged. What it actually does is augment the holding power, under Section 74 of the 1990 Act, so that the Secretary of State can issue restrictions on the refusal of planning permission to facilitate consideration of the call-in power. In that context, I seek some clarification from the Minister as to what is intended procedurally, were this amendment to become law.
Currently, there are procedural safeguards in place in relation to called-in planning applications: there is a statutory safeguard in Section 77(5), which gives either the applicant or the local planning authority the right to be heard before an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. That, plainly, will not be changed, because there is no proposal to amend Section 77, but the obligation for the Secretary of State to cause a hearing to be heard is also the subject of a policy that exists in the Planning Inspectorate’s guidance on call-in proceedings. The policy in the Planning Inspectorate guidance is that the right of a local authority or an applicant to be heard under Section 77(5) is to be exercised by means of the inquiry procedure. The public inquiry procedure, of course, allows for greater scrutiny of the evidence and greater public participation than a mere one-day informal hearing.
Is the Minister prepared to offer a commitment on behalf of the Government that there will be no dilution of the procedural safeguard in the Planning Inspectorate’s published policy and that the right of a local planning authority to insist on an inquiry and to exercise its statutory right to be heard through the inquiry procedure, as opposed to a lesser procedure, will not be diluted and will remain?
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s Amendment 64 was billed by the Minister, in the letter that she wrote to all Peers laying it out, as seeking to address a minor gap. I am not sure about that. I think other noble Lords have also expressed different concerns from mine. I take this opportunity to seek reassurances from the Minister. I am grateful for the way in which she presented the circumstances in which call-in takes place, and the safeguards, in her introduction to the amendment, but the amendment could be read as a considerable change in tone on the Government’s intentions and role in the planning system.
I am probably caricaturing it but, under the current arrangements, the Government used to be regarded almost as a knight on a white horse. They would come in at the last minute on planning decisions where the local authority was getting it wrong in granting permission, often in cases which were going to be to the detriment of the environment. That was a rather fine thing, in my view.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, in the last group your Lordships’ House gave a pretty strong steer when it felt that the role of councillors and councils in determining local planning applications locally, based on a plan—not acting capriciously but on balance, with all the material considerations taken into account—was a very important principle, not just for the way that we run things in the country but for the fact that decisions are made by accountable people in a democratic way.
I am astonished that government Amendment 64 has come forward—although I am not surprised that the Government’s Back Benches are so sparsely populated. What this amendment would do is emasculate the principle of a proper local planning process. It raises the spectre of political interference, at very short timescales, in what is a quasi-judicial process. Clearly—and this is the reason I will ask for reassurance in a moment—it demonstrates a prematurity that is likely to slow down the process of development, rather than speed it up.
My evidence for the slowing down was given by my noble friend Lord Banner. I did not take down all the different sections and stages, but there are clearly statutory safeguard overrides, as well as practice guidance, procedures and statute, so that when development processes come forward, everybody has their say, in the right way, with the appropriate process. While there will always be a winner and a loser, at least people can say that it was done properly.
My concern with this is what the process will be whereby a Minister may call in a decision for stalling it. What intelligence will be relied on, and on what timescale? Planning committee agendas are normally published seven days in advance of the meeting. So within five working days of a recommendation for refusal from the officers, what is the process by which Ministers will be advised, “You’d better jump in on this one; this one might go wrong”?
What happens if there is a recommendation for approval but, on the basis of hearsay, rumour or possibly a letter in the local newspaper, there is a suggestion that the committee might decide to go the other way? I cannot quite understand how that would normally happen, because, as anyone who sits on a planning committee knows, they keep their mouths shut for risk of predetermination. This is where I am concerned about party-political interference in planning. There may be nods and winks and comments such as, “We think that so and so on the other side might be going this way”.
It all belies the fact that, as we all know, because the planning committee meets regularly and because it is quite an onerous thing and other people have different responsibilities, there is a series of substitutions, which are quite proper, with trained substitutes on that committee. With all those moving parts, I wonder, with a week to go, on what basis would the Secretary of State jump in?
I play to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about a quango report. At what stage are we going to prematurely judge that, of all the different material considerations, one report may be more important than another, when we all know that it is the role of the committee to balance all of them in the round and take in all the material considerations? Are we going to sleepwalk into a situation where Ministers give an additional vicarious respectability to one set of reports over another, with only half the evidence to hand and without seeing in the round the benefit of all the objections, proposals and debate in the chamber? We understand that the purpose of the Bill is to speed up planning, but it seems that its consequence is to slow it right down. How on earth would we end up in a situation where Ministers could be properly advised?
In this House, and in Parliament, there is a proper 12-stage process. We are at stage 10 of 12. For the reasons that my noble friend Lord Banner gave—about the interplay of all the complexity and detail here—this should have been brought forward in Committee or at a much earlier stage. But here we are, at the 11th hour, in Parliament’s revising Chamber, trying to work this out on the hoof. I cannot support this. It rides a coach and horses through established process, principles and democracy. It is half-baked, and it should be thrown out.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, to speak in strong support of Amendment 87D in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. It seeks to address a clear gap in our planning framework: the ease with which valued community buildings can be demolished under permitted development rights.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for reminding us in Committee that, since 2017, it has not been possible to demolish a pub under permitted development rights and that, since 2020, the same protection has rightly been extended to theatres, live music venues and concert halls. But every other community building—from sports halls to scout huts, youth clubs, village halls, arts centres, community hubs, social clubs, rehearsal rooms, day centres and faith spaces—can legally be demolished through permitted development under class B, in Part 11 of the general permitted development order, usually via only a prior approval notice to the council. In other words, a community can spend months achieving an asset of community value status, believing it has secured protection, yet the owner can still flatten the building with no full planning process, and the opportunity to save it is lost for ever.
The Minister suggested in response to the noble Baroness in Committee that local authorities can already protect such assets by issuing Article 4 directions. Although that may sound reassuring, in practice it is neither adequate nor realistic. Article 4 powers are slow, complex and discretionary. They require public consultation, ministerial approval and significant resources that many councils simply do not have. They are rarely used pre-emptively, and too often they are invoked after buildings have already been lost.
This amendment would provide a far simpler and fairer solution: an automatic national safeguard for assets that communities have already demonstrated to be of real social value. These are not sentimental relics but the social infrastructure of everyday life: the places where children learn to play sport, where community choirs rehearse, where food banks and lunch clubs operate and where amateur dramatic societies, after-school classes and local support groups meet. Once demolished, these spaces are almost never replaced.
As has been referenced, the London Nightlife Taskforce, which offers strategic advice to the mayor and will publish a major action plan later this year, has already underlined the urgency of this issue. Its early findings show that demolition and redevelopment continue to erode London’s community and cultural infrastructure, despite existing local powers. The task force, supported by the Night Time Industries Association, the Music Venue Trust and UKHospitality, is calling for stronger statutory safeguards to prevent the loss of spaces that sustain local life and creativity. Although its recommendations are directed at London, the same challenge exists nationwide. Communities in Manchester, Bristol, Cardiff, Glasgow and countless smaller towns face the same slow erosion of shared civic space, too often replaced by development that contributes little to social cohesion.
If we accept that pubs, theatres and music venues deserve protection from demolition, surely the same logic must apply to any building formally recognised by its community as an asset of value. This modest reform would give communities a genuine say before their most valued spaces disappeared.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, who is one of the House’s great champions of the arts and cultural life. Briefly, I will express the Green group’s support for Amendment 87D in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. This would ensure that assets of community value cannot be demolished. It is worth going back to where the assets of community value started, in 2011. Creating that category of buildings and structures was so hard fought for, and it could, in effect, be lost under permitted development rights. The noble Baroness has identified a really important issue, and I hope the House will back that.
I rise chiefly to speak against government Amendment 64. We have already heard some important points. Both the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Fuller, pointed out just how late this is coming in the process and how we have not had the chance to have proper scrutiny. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, is right about a considerable change in tone, but I would go further and say that it is a considerable change in the direction of the entire law, and that should surely not be done this late in the process.
More than that—like other noble Lords, I am sure— I have received a pleas from the Better Planning Coalition, the National Trust and the Wildlife Trusts to reject this government amendment. If we look at the situation and the arguments they make, absolutely rightly, we see that this amendment embeds into the law a concerning narrative about development at any cost. It does not acknowledge, and it pushes aside, the fact that economic activity and human life are dependent on the environment —the economy is a complete subset of the environment.
The core purpose of planning policy is supposed to be to ensure that developments do not happen in the wrong place or destroy nature gratuitously or without adequate consideration. It really feels, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, said, that this would open up decisions to politics. Well, this is purely politics: it seems to have been put in to drive headlines that say that the Government are taking a hard line with councils that oppose new housing.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, once more, the Government have chosen to add a new clause, through Amendment 64, at this very late stage in the Bill’s progress, as other noble Lords have pointed out. It really is not acceptable practice, for the reason the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, gave, which is that we have not been able to give this new clause proper and appropriate depth of scrutiny. The new clause has only four lines, and that includes its title. The other two and a half lines, if enacted, will have, as other noble Lords have said, a significant and maybe serious impact on local planning decision-making.
When I first saw the amendment, I was concerned and thought that I had perhaps got it wrong. However, we have now heard from across the House, including from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and we have heard the noble Lord, Lord Banner, our expert in this House on planning matters, questioning the Minister on the meaning of what is proposed. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Young, have all raised considerable concerns about the extent of what this brief clause will actually achieve. In her own inimitable way, the Minister has been able to underplay the clause by saying, “It is just an anomaly. It’s not going to make any difference really”. If it is not going to make any difference really, do not bring it in at this late stage. If it were so important, I am sure the Government would have noticed it, either in the discussions at the other end of the Parliament or at least in Committee here, so I have a feeling that it may not be as unimportant a clause as the Minister has been making out.
Where does that leave us? All noble Lords who have had experience, as many of us have, of the process of planning applications will know that planning committees are rightly required to make their decisions in accordance with planning legislation, the National Planning Policy Framework, all relevant national policies and their local plan, which includes local planning policies.
If a planning committee wishes to refuse a planning application, it has to do so, as others have said, with valid planning reasons. Failure to do so means that the applicant, rightly, takes that to the Planning Inspectorate for an appeal against that decision. If the planning committee has made a foolish decision, not giving valid reasons for refusal, the Planning Inspectorate, rightly, awards costs against the council, which is why there are not many planning appeals where costs are awarded against councils because planning officers in a local planning authority will advise their members accordingly.
Then you ask yourself: if that is the case and a refusal could go to inquiry or a written resolution of it, why is it necessary to call it in before a refusal has been given? The only reason I can come up with is that the Government wish to push through applications that are not relevant or appropriate to a local plan. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, hit the nail on the head: it substantially changes the tone and direction of planning, so that it becomes more of a national rather than a local decision-making process.
For somebody who is a cheerleader for local decision-making, who wants proper devolution, who thinks that making decisions locally is the right thing to do —as do many other parts of western Europe, which have successful governance as a consequence—to bring things back to the centre all the time is simply not acceptable. We on these Benches will strongly oppose government Amendment 64. I have explained to the Minister, out of due courtesy, that we will be doing so. This is overreach and will not do.
I turn to Amendment 87D. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and others have referred to it. The noble Baroness and I had a brief discussion the other day. She knows that I support Amendment 87D. If she wishes to take it to a decision of the House, we will support her. But, fundamentally, the balance between local and national decision-making is being tipped too far in the direction of national decision-making on policies, and that is not acceptable. As I have said, we will oppose Amendment 64.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Government Amendment 64 in this group. As we have heard, this amendment would allow a development order to enable the Secretary of State to give directions restricting the refusal of planning permission in principle by a local planning authority in England. Under Section 77(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Secretary of State already possesses powers to intervene by calling in an application for their own determination. Therefore, I ask the Minister, what has changed? Will the existing guardrails and provisions governing the call-in process remain intact? Will the mechanisms by which call-in operates continue as they do now? How will the Secretary of State ensure that this power is not overused, thereby overriding local decision-making?
The Government should explain precisely what this amendment achieves that cannot already be done under existing law. If it represents a fundamental change to the call-in power, the Government should set that out clearly today, including the proposed changes, the safeguards and how the new power is intended to operate. If the Minister cannot provide that assurance, we will be inclined to test the opinion of the House on whether this amendment should proceed. Instead of tinkering with this power, the Government’s real focus should have been elsewhere: on proportionality and addressing the implications of the Hillside judgment. Energy should be directed towards tackling the real blockages in the planning system.
I turn to Amendment 65—which I hope will not be required—tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley. This amendment would provide an incentive for local planning authorities to adopt up-to-date local plans and, in doing so, regain control over the granting of planning permissions in accordance with those plans. This raises an important point: the absence of up-to-date local plans across much of England remains one of the central causes of delay, inconsistency and local frustration with the planning system. The Government must therefore give the issues this amendment raises due regard and set out in clear detail how they intend to address the concerns it raises.
Finally, I am not quite sure why my noble friend Lady Coffey’s Amendment 87D is in this group, but we have heard the feeling of the House on this. I know it is an issue my noble friend is rightly passionate about, and it is important. On the one hand, the Government have given communities their assets or enabled them to take them over; on the other, they are not protected from being lost. This is an important issue for the Minister, and I look forward to a very positive response to this especially important amendment.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I hear the strength of feeling in the House on this amendment. It might be helpful if I set out in a bit more detail the way the Section 31 direction works. It is important to note that a Section 31 direction allows time for the Secretary of State to consider whether to exercise call-in powers. It is exactly what it says on the tin: a holding direction to enable that process to go through.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, the use of holding directions helps to prevent exactly the circumstances he described by restricting the issuing of a decision on a planning application—whether it be to grant or to refuse—to allow time for full consideration of whether it raises issues of more than local importance, such that it merits calling in, and to help prevent the rushed consideration of such matters. I have dealt with a number of these call-ins of applications since becoming a Minister. Every time we look at a called-in application, we have to consider the criteria against which the Secretary of State will consider the call-in of a local application. I hope it will be helpful if I very quickly go through those.
Compliance with the local development plan is not the question here; it is whether the Secretary of State will use the call-in powers, and they will use them only if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Such cases may include, for example, those which, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, may conflict with national policies.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am confused. The Minister referred to Section 31 directions, but surely, we are talking about Section 74 directions. Section 31 is to do with grants for local authorities.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My apologies: I got my numbers mixed up there. I am talking about the call-in power.
Such cases could include, for example, those which may conflict with national policies on important matters, may have a significant long-term impact on economic growth and meeting housing needs across a wider area than a single local authority, could have significant effects beyond their immediate locality, could give rise to substantial cross-boundary or national controversy, raise significant architectural and urban design issues, or may involve the interests of national security or of foreign Governments. However, each case will continue to be considered on its individual merits.
Lord Banner (Con)
I appreciate that this amendment would not change the procedures, but the question I was seeking the Government’s clarification on is: will the Government commit to not diluting the policy commitment that the right to be heard in a call-in process is exercised through the rigorous public inquiry process, which allows for public participation, rather than the lesser process of a hearing? Will the Government commit not to diluting that policy requirement for an inquiry?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that clarification. Of course we keep the procedures under review in order to ensure they are fit for purpose. It is very important that we would inform the House in the proper way if we were to make any procedural changes in regard to the issues he raises.
Amendment 65, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, as an amendment to government Amendment 64, seeks to incentivise local planning authorities getting up-to-date local plans in place and to allow them to determine applications subject to a holding direction where an up-to-date plan is in place and the proposal accords with this plan. I assure the noble Lord that we appreciate the sentiment behind his amendment. As I have often said, we too want to ensure that local planning authorities make positive decisions and grant planning permission for development which is in accordance with up-to-date local plans. However, we are not convinced that the noble Lord’s amendment is necessary. Under our amendment, the Secretary of State will be able to restrict refusal of planning permission or permission in principle. Where the Secretary of State has not also restricted the local planning authority from approving the application, they will be free to reconsider the application and grant it if they wish. We believe that this addresses the intent of the noble Lord’s amendment.
Amendment 87A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would amend secondary legislation to enact government Amendment 64. I assure the noble Baroness that this amendment is not needed, as we will bring forward the necessary changes to secondary legislation shortly following Royal Assent of the Bill.
Amendment 87D, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to remove assets of community value from the permitted development right which grants planning permission for the demolition of certain buildings. I am not responsible for the grouping of amendments, so I understand her issue about where this has been grouped, but we will debate it as it is in the group before us. I very much appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment, and I share the noble Baroness’s desire to ensure that local communities do not lose the community assets which are so important to them. We do not have many old houses in our town, because it is a new town, by its very nature. However, I have relayed before my story of a beautiful old farmhouse in my own ward of Symonds Green. An application came in for that property, and we tried very hard to get it listed before the application was considered. Unfortunately, the inside of the property had been amended; so much work had been done to it internally that we could not get a listing for it and, unfortunately, it was, sadly, demolished. The reason I am saying that is because there are a number of routes that local communities can take to protect properties, which I will come on to in a minute.
It is already the case that the demolition permitted development right excludes many types of buildings which are particularly valued by local communities. We know how important these buildings are, and Members across the House have stated this both this afternoon and in previous debates. These include pubs, concert halls, theatres, live music venues and many other buildings of local value.
Local planning authorities, as I have stated before and as I was reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, can use Article 4 directions to remove permitted development rights in their area, where it is appropriate to do so. While I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, about Article 4 and the possible complexities of dealing with that, it is possible for local authorities to apply for these in advance.
There is also another route that local authorities can go down, which is to set up a register of buildings of local community interest, which, while it does not carry the weight of statutory protection that Article 4 does, provides a checklist for communities and planners for buildings that cannot be listed, against which they can be checked, should proposed development come forward.
We believe that the current approach is the right one. However, I assure the noble Baroness that we continue to keep permitted development under review, and this and other matters related to that are always under review. With these assurances, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I think we are debating Amendment 65, which I moved.
The debate has illustrated that, in effect, this is the debate we ought to have had in Committee. There is one set of people—I count myself among them—who cannot understand what the Government are trying to achieve, and why the amendment is necessary, and another set who are saying that it gives the Government powers to do things that might be objectionable.
Actually, of course, the Government have all those powers. If they wanted, for example, to grant planning permission to all data centres, they could issue guidance for that purpose. They could issue national development management policies, for which they have powers. The question I keep coming back to, which is where I started, is: what is this trying to achieve? Calling it an “anomaly” seems to be completely misleading. If you put it alongside a holding direction to stop the granting of planning permission, that stops a local authority giving planning permission because, once it is given, you cannot take it away. Having a holding direction to stop the refusal of planning permission simply stops the local authority saying no, and then the applicant has the opportunity for appeal or a further application, and many other routes—and the Secretary of State has many routes to deal with it. I am afraid that I cannot see the benefit.
The Minister was kind enough to say that my amendment was not necessary, as she wants to do the things that my amendment calls for, so that is fine. So I do not need to proceed with my amendment and will beg leave to withdraw it, in expectation that we will focus on Amendment 64 itself.
“Directions giving deemed planning permission: special regard to heritage assets(1) In section 90 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (directions deeming planning permission to be granted for certain development with government authorisation), after subsection (2A) insert—“(2B) Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (special regard to listed buildings) applies to a government department or the Secretary of State in considering whether to make a direction under this section as it applies to the Secretary of State in considering whether to grant planning permission.”(2) In section 90(2B) of that Act (inserted by subsection (1))—(a) for “applies”, in the first place it appears, substitute “and section 58B of this Act (special regard to other heritage assets) apply”;(b) for “it applies” substitute “they apply”.” Member’s explanatory statement
There is currently a duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings, their settings and their features of special architectural or historic interest when deciding whether to grant planning permission. This new Clause would apply that duty to certain powers to put in place deemed planning permission (including in relation to a Transport and Works Act project).
“Planning permission etc: extension of time in event of legal challenge(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).(2) In section 91 (general condition limiting duration of planning permission), for subsections (3A) and (3B) substitute—“(3A) In subsections (3B) to (3BB)—“implementation period” means the period before the end of which a development to which a planning permission relates must be begun (see subsections (1) and (3));“relevant proceedings” means proceedings to challenge the validity, in respect of the development of land in England, of a grant of planning permission or of a deemed grant of planning permission.(3B) If a person is given permission by a court to bring relevant proceedings, the implementation period is extended by one year.(3BA) If a party to relevant proceedings is given permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision determining the challenge, the implementation period is extended by one year.(3BB) If a party to relevant proceedings is given permission to appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision determining the challenge, the implementation period is extended by two years.(3BC) Any extension of a period under subsection (3B), (3BA) or (3BB) is to run concurrently with any other extension of the period under the same subsection (so far as they overlap).(3BD) Any extension of a period under subsection (3BA) is to run consecutively to the previous extension of the period under subsection (3B) (if they would otherwise overlap).(3BE) Any extension of a period under subsection (3BB) is to run consecutively to the previous extension of the period under subsection (3B) and any previous extension of the period under subsection (3BA) (if they would otherwise overlap).(3BF) The references in subsections (3BA) and (3BB) to determining a challenge are to determining it after a full hearing (and accordingly do not include a refusal of permission or leave).”(3) After section 92 insert—“92A Extension of outline planning permission etc in event of legal challenge(1) This section applies where a person is given permission by a court to bring proceedings challenging the validity, in respect of the development of land in England, of—(a) a grant (or deemed grant) of outline planning permission, or(b) the approval of reserved matters under such a permission. (2) Any reserved matters application period or implementation period that is running when the court gives permission to bring the proceedings is extended by one year.(3) If a party to the proceedings is given permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision determining the challenge, any reserved matters application period or implementation period that is running at that time is extended by one year.(4) If a party to the proceedings is given permission to appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision determining the challenge, any reserved matters application period or implementation period that is running at that time is extended by two years.(5) Any extension of a period under subsection (2), (3) or (4) is to run concurrently with any other extension of the period under the same subsection (so far as they overlap).(6) Any extension of a period under subsection (3) is to run consecutively to the previous extension of the period under subsection (2) (if they would otherwise overlap).(7) Any extension of a period under subsection (4) is to run consecutively to the previous extension of the period under subsection (2) and any previous extension of the period under subsection (3) (if they would otherwise overlap).(8) For the purposes of subsections (2) to (4), an implementation period that is determined by reference to an approval of a reserved matter starts to run when the reserved matters application is made (and the reserved matters application period ceases to run at that point).(9) Subsection (10) applies if a reserved matters application is made without taking advantage of an extension under this section.(10) Any implementation period determined by reference to the approval sought by the reserved matters application is extended by the number of days by which the reserved matter application period is extended under this section.(11) Subsection (12) applies if a reserved matters application period is extended (or further extended) under this section and the reserved matter application is made taking advantage of the extension but before the end of the period as extended.(12) Any implementation period determined by reference to the approval sought by the reserved matters application is extended by the number of whole days remaining in the reserved matters application period (as extended) when the reserved matters application is made.(13) In this section—“implementation period” , in relation to a grant of outline planning permission, means the period before the end of which development to which the permission relates must be begun (see section 92(2)(b), (4) and (5));“outline planning permission” has the same meaning as in section 92;“reserved matters application” means an application for the approval of a reserved matter in pursuance of section 92;“reserved matters application period” , in relation to a grant of outline planning permission, means the period before the end of which a reserved matters application relating to the permission is required to be made (see section 92(2)(a), (4) and (5)).(14) In this section, references to determining a challenge are to determining it after a full hearing (and accordingly do not include a refusal of permission or leave).” (4) In the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, in section 18 (limit of duration of listed buildings consent), for subsections (2A) and (2B) substitute—“(2A) In subsections (2A) to (2BB)—“implementation period” means the period before the end of which works to which a listed building consent relates are required to be begun in pursuance of subsection (1) or (2);“relevant proceedings” means proceedings to challenge the validity of a grant of listed building consent or of a deemed grant of listed building consent.(2B) If a person is given permission by a court to bring relevant proceedings, the implementation period is extended by one year.(2BA) If a party to relevant proceedings is given permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision determining the challenge, the implementation period is extended by one year.(2BB) If a party to relevant proceedings is given permission to appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision determining the challenge, the implementation period is extended by two years.(2BC) Any extension of a period under subsection (2B), (2BA) or (2BB) is to run concurrently with any other extension of the period under the same subsection (so far as they overlap).(2BD) Any extension of a period under subsection (2BA) is to run consecutively to the previous extension of the period under subsection (2B) (if they would otherwise overlap).(2BE) Any extension of a period under subsection (2BB) is to run consecutively to the previous extension of the period under subsection (2B) and any previous extension of the period under subsection (2BA) (if they would otherwise overlap).(2BF) The references in subsections (2BA) and (2BB) to determining a challenge are to determining it after a full hearing (and accordingly do not include a refusal of permission or leave).”(5) The amendments made by subsections (2) and (4) do not operate to extend any implementation period that has already expired.(6) In relation to proceedings begun before the day on which subsection (2) comes into force (“the commencement date”)—(a) any extension of time under section 91(3B) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that had already arisen before the commencement date as a result of those proceedings is unaffected;(b) subsections (3B) to (3BB) of section 91 of that Act (as inserted by subsection (2)) apply so far as any event in the proceedings giving rise to an extension of time under those subsections occurs on or after the commencement date, but not otherwise.(7) In relation to proceedings begun before the day on which subsection (3) comes into force, section 92A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by subsection (3)) applies so far as any event in the proceedings giving rise to an extension of time under that section occurs on or after that day, but not otherwise.(8) In relation to proceedings begun before the day on which subsection (4) comes into force (“the commencement date”)—(a) any extension of time under section 18(2B) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 that had already arisen before the commencement date as a result of those proceedings is unaffected; (b) subsections (2B) to (2BB) of section 18 of that Act (as inserted by subsection (4)) apply so far as any event in the proceedings giving rise to an extension of time under those subsections occurs on or after the commencement date, but not otherwise.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would extend the time for implementing a planning permission or listed building consent where the permission or consent is challenged in legal proceedings. There would be an extension of one year in all cases, with a further year where the case goes to the Court of Appeal and a further two years where the case goes to the Supreme Court.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 67 and 261.
The Government listened carefully to the persuasive arguments made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, about the unfairness that occurs when planning permissions lapse simply because they are caught up in lengthy judicial or statutory review proceedings. We agree that the current provisions are too limited and do not reflect the realities of modern litigation.
At present, Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides only a single one-year extension when proceedings are begun to challenge a grant of permission or consent. This is narrow in scope; it does not apply to outline permissions or reserved matters approvals, and it does not cater for cases that progress through the appellate courts. In practice, this means that permissions can expire during prolonged legal challenges, forcing applicants to reapply and causing unnecessary cost and delay.
Our amendment introduces a more comprehensive and predictable approach. Where a court grants permission to bring judicial review or statutory challenge proceedings, the commencement period will be extended by one year. If the case proceeds to the Court of Appeal, there will be a further one-year extension, and if it reaches the Supreme Court, an additional two years will be added. These provisions will apply to all types of planning permissions and listed building consents, including outline permissions and reserved matters approvals. They will also apply to existing permissions subject to legal proceedings.
This approach provides clarity and certainty for applicants and developers. It avoids permissions expiring due to delays entirely outside their control, reducing the need for costly and time-consuming repeat applications. It also ensures that the planning system remains fair and proportionate, supporting investment and the delivery of development while respecting the judicial process.
We considered the “stop the clock” proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Banner. While we agreed with the principle, that approach would have required complex calculations based on the start and end dates of proceedings, creating irregular and unpredictable timeframes. Our tiered system offers a simpler, more transparent solution that achieves the same objective without introducing administrative complexity. The amendment strengthens the Bill’s overall purpose: to streamline planning processes and to remove unnecessary barriers to development. It balances the right to challenge decisions with the imperative to deliver homes and infrastructure efficiently. For those reasons, I hope that the House will support the amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for all the meetings we have had to discuss this and for his constructive approach to this matter.
I will come to the other amendments in this group when they have been spoken to. I beg to move.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 77 to 79 propose to limit applications for judicial reviews that are without merit. It is proposed that they may be blocked by a judgment of the High Court. The amendments were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and me. In the likely absence of the noble Lord, I have undertaken to speak in support of them.
On Monday, the first day on Report, I spoke to Amendment 83, which describes a means of circumventing lengthy and costly judicial reviews that can affect infrastructure projects of national significance by giving the associated development consent orders—DCOs—the status of Acts of Parliament, which would be legally incontestable. There was no intention in that amendment to curtail meaningful processes of scrutiny and consultation. The purpose was to protect projects from costly and dilatory legal reviews initiated by tendentious factions that are liable to promote their own interests at the expense of those of the wider community or the national interest.
In recent years, the planning system has become increasingly sclerotic. The average time it takes to obtain planning permission for major infrastructure projects has more than doubled in the last decade to more than four years. A judicial review with a minor or frivolous justification may occasion a resubmission of an application for a development order. The revised application might become subject, in turn, to a further judicial review. Despite the eventual dismissal of these appeals, the legal processes can be so costly and cause such delays that the infrastructure project goes into abeyance. Then the contestants have effectively won their case, despite its lack of legal merit.
I should say that I am not averse in principle to judicial reviews. Many of them do have merit. However, a very large and increasing number of requests for judicial reviews are rising nowadays, and hearings are granted in 75% of the cases. They form a lengthy queue and pre-empt the legal resources.
The fashion for judicial views may have been greatly stimulated by the experience of the Archway Road protests, which took place over a period of 20 years from the early 1970s to the 1990s. These protests were prompted by a proposal to develop a motorway dual carriageway in Archway, where the A1 trunk road effectively begins. It was said the purpose of the scheme was to expedite the escape from the centre of London of politicians, senior civil servants and a body of secretaries in the case of the threat of a nuclear missile strike. They were to be conveyed to a secret nuclear bunker in Kelvedon Hatch in Essex, where they might continue to govern the country, while the rest of us perished. It was said that they might have the task of regenerating the population that had been obliterated.
The road scheme would have destroyed 170 houses, for the loss of which the residents would have been given very meagre compensation. It was said that they would have been given no more compensation than would have enabled them to purchase a one-bedroom flat in Tottenham Marshes. A question has to be asked about whether compensation tends nowadays to be more generous. Does its inadequacy continue to provide an incentive to resist infrastructure developments and to resort to judicial procedures to block them? This unpopular scheme has had a long legacy. It established a precedent for judicial reviews that has been followed ever since, for good and for bad reasons.
Amendment 83 did not receive favour from the Government, and in withdrawing it I was clear that I was somewhat disappointed by their response, because we are facing a crisis caused by the wilful delay and obstruction of virtually every important infrastructure project. There is nothing in the Bill or forthcoming from the Government that will address the crisis adequately. We are left with nothing more than the present group of amendments which propose that, in various circumstances pertaining to the Town and Country Planning Act, the listed buildings and conservation Act and the hazardous substances Act, the High Court may deem an appeal to be unworthy of further consideration. I believe that the Court of Appeal already has this prerogative, so there may be very little substance in these amendments, but nevertheless they serve to highlight the problem.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 104 and the government Amendments 67 and 261, which would extend the time for commencing a planning commission which is subject to judicial review.
I start by saying to the Minister that the feelings are entirely reciprocated. I am very grateful to the Government for the continuous engagement on this issue over quite a long period recently. The Government’s amendments, although differently worded to mine, would have essentially the same effect and would make a significant difference, as would my amendment, to mitigating the prejudice to developers whose planning permissions are subject to challenge, and indeed land promoters and landowners too, and to reducing the incentive on claimants to bring and perpetuate meritless challenges. So I support the government amendments and I do not need to press mine.
However, this amendment was not the most impactful of my package of amendments. The planning world is watching what the Government will do on Hillside; it is going to be debated next week, and I reiterate my encouragement to the Minister and her colleagues to roll out the same level of engagement and co-operation as we have had in relation to “stop the clock” for JR to the Hillside amendment, because that is the one that will really make a massive difference.
In the interests of time, I do not want to say very much about the other amendments in relation to totally without merit judicial reviews for non-NSIP judicial reviews other than this. I supported the sentiment and principle of those amendments in Committee. The difficulty I have with them on reflection is that, given that to be workable and constitutionally appropriate, the striking out of any right of appeal for totally without merit cases would need a hearing, the problem with extending it to all planning judicial reviews is that it would eat up the very limited bandwidth of the planning court. The planning court simply does not have the resources to deal with the proliferation of hearings that apply the Clause 12 procedure to all planning judicial reviews as opposed to the NSIP judicial reviews, which are much narrower. There have been only about 40 NSIP judicial reviews ever, whereas in the planning context it is a lot greater. So reluctantly, I do not think those amendments are workable at present stage, but if there were to be a new planning Bill in future, it should be looked at.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, briefly, I have a simple question about government Amendment 67, which would allow an extension of time to implement a planning permission or a listed building consent where there has been a legal challenge. This returns to the ecological surveys which got such a discussion in the group before lunch. Ecological surveys are taken at a particular point in time, and, particularly in this era of the climate emergency, species are moving and appear and disappear. How are the Government planning to deal with the fact that the ecological survey may become profoundly out of date and so, if this goes on for a long period, the grounds on which the decision was made initially may need to be redone? Is there some plan to deal with that issue?
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I point out that this is yet another late-in-the-day government amendment. However, the Minister will be pleased to know that this time I am in agreement with Amendment 67.
To extend the time limits from implementing a planning consent where there has been a legal challenge seems right and fair. I did not quite catch whether the Minister explained the full extent of it, but I assume that it means that for general applications that are subject to a judicial or statutory review it will be a one-year extension, a further year if it goes to the Court of Appeal, and then a further two years if it goes to the Supreme Court. The noble Baroness nods. So that is right and fair. That is a balanced approach, which is one of my ways of judging things: “Is it right, fair and balanced?” I think that is fair to the applicants. So, with the nod that I had from the Minister, I agree with Amendment 67 and with Amendment 104, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banner, which is very similar.
The other amendments in this group, Amendments 77, 78 and 79, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, introduced by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, would make serious changes to the ability of citizens to go to law where they feel that due process has failed them. Restricting those rights does not feel to me acceptable without further and full consideration by those who are expert in these matters—which is not me. With those comments, I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 104, tabled by my noble friend Lord Banner, and to government Amendment 261. We are grateful for the Government’s engagement with my noble friend on this issue.
These amendments would prevent planning permission from timing out as a result of protracted legal challenge and remove the perverse incentive for meritless claims designed simply to run down the clock. At present, judicial reviews, as we have heard, often outlast the three-year planning deadline, leaving permissions to time out, wasting money on repeat or dummy applications and discouraging serious investment. Stopping the clock during a judicial review would protect legitimate permissions, reduce waste and deter vexatious claims. It carries no real downside for the Government.
The Government say that they agree with the policy intention. We welcome the Government’s move to address the concerns held on these Benches and their work with my noble friend Lord Banner on these issues. This is a question of proportionality and fairness in the planning system. If time is lost to litigation, that time should not count against the permission. Properly granted permissions should not be undone by process; it should be done by merit. Far from slowing down planning, this change would help to speed it up by reducing wasteful repeat applications, giving confidence to investors and allowing us to get on with building in the right places.
Finally, I speak to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The ideas, the intentions and the thoughts processed behind these amendments are good ones, built on a sound principle. However, we do not believe that these amendments are practical. The proposed process would involve going straight to a hearing. In our view, the court would simply not have the necessary bandwidth. Nevertheless, we are sympathetic to the purpose of his amendments.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the support from across the House for the Government’s amendment. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Banner, has had to rush off to the Supreme Court, apparently, but I am grateful for his support for our amendment.
I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that this amendment has been developed in response to a discussion that we had in Committee and with extensive engagement with fellow Peers to improve the process of judicial review, which has been an ongoing issue. I hope that this reassures her.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Banner, is not here, I shall put on the record that there is work ongoing on the Hillside issue, as he is very aware. We continue to engage with him on that issue.
I cannot answer the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, off the top of my head, but I will provide a written answer. I appreciate that two years is quite a long time. If surveys have been done, they may need to be done again. I will come back to her on that issue.
I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for tabling Amendments 77, 78 and 79, introduced by my noble friend Lord Hanworth. These seek to remove the right of appeal for certain planning judicial reviews if they are deemed as totally without merit at the oral permission hearing in the High Court. The effect of these amendments largely reflects the intention of Clause 12, which makes provisions specifically for legal challenges concerning nationally significant infrastructure projects under the Planning Act 2008. The measures being taken forward in Clause 12 follow a robust independent review by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and a subsequent government call for evidence, which made clear the case for change in relation to major infrastructure projects. We do not currently have any evidence of an issue with legal challenges concerning other types of planning decision. Therefore, we will need to consider this matter further to determine whether the extension of changes made in Clause 12 would be necessary or desirable in other planning regimes.
Amendment 77 seeks to clarify that legal challenges are to be made to the High Court. As mentioned in Committee, this is not necessary as it is already clearly set out in the existing relevant rules, practice directions and guidance documents. In light of these points, while I agree with the intent behind the amendments, I kindly ask that my noble friend does not move them.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
I am happy not to move the amendments. However, I observe that the government amendments are occasioned by the very problems that I have been describing.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“Provision of advice by Natural England to public authorities(1) The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).(2) In section 4 (advice)—(a) after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) Natural England is not required by subsection (1) to give advice in response to a request to which subsection (1B) applies that is made by a public authority other than a Minister of the Crown.(1B) This subsection applies to a request for advice relating to—(a) a specific development that requires, but has not been granted, planning permission under section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”),(b) an application for any consent, agreement or approval required by a condition imposed on a grant of planning permission required under that section,(c) permission in principle for a specific development under section 58A of the 1990 Act, and(d) the approval of a reserved matter within the meaning of section 92 of the 1990 Act.(1C) Natural England may give advice in response to a request to which it is not required to respond as a result of subsection (1A).”;(b) in subsection (2), after “(1)” insert “or (1C)”.(3) After section 4 insert— “4A Supplementary provision(1) Natural England must prepare and publish a statement setting out how it intends to deal with requests for advice which it is not required to give as a result of section 4(1A).(2) Natural England must review the statement before the end of—(a) the period of five years beginning with the day on which it is first published, and(b) each successive period of five years.(3) Natural England may review the statement more than once during any of those periods.(4) Natural England may revise the statement following a review.(5) Natural England must publish any revised statement.(6) Before publishing a statement (including a revised statement) under this section, Natural England must—(a) consult the Secretary of State, and(b) make any changes to the statement that the Secretary of State may require in response.(7) But the duty in subsection (6) does not apply in relation to the publication of a revised statement which, in the opinion of Natural England, contains no substantial revisions.(8) The Secretary of State may require a change as mentioned in subsection (6)(b) only if the Secretary of State considers that the change would promote Natural England’s general purpose.”(4) The duties imposed by section 4A(6) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, as inserted by subsection (3), may be satisfied by consultation carried out, and changes made, before this section comes into force.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would permit Natural England not to respond certain to requests for advice under section 4(1) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, and require it to publish a statement about how it intends to deal with requests to which it would no longer be required to respond.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, there are two government amendments in this group. I will introduce government Amendments 68 and 262 and respond to the other two amendments at the end of this debate.
Government Amendments 68 and 262 seek to provide Natural England with discretion when considering how best to deal with requests for advice from public authorities relating to planning applications under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Currently, the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 requires that Natural England must provide advice to all requests from public authorities, regardless of the level of environmental opportunities or environmental risk related to the project. This requirement exists despite the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 already setting out a narrower scope for when Natural England should be consulted on planning applications for Town and Country Planning Act casework.
Amendment 68 removes this “must” requirement and provides that Natural England must produce an operational statement setting out how it intends to deal with such requests for advice in relation to Town and Country Planning Act casework. This approach will avoid Natural England having to provide advice to routine and duplicative casework and instead allow it to prioritise higher-risk and higher-opportunity casework. This will help to resolve issues up front, which will speed up decision-making and embed opportunities for nature recovery within plans and projects. It will also allow growth and nature to be delivered together.
In parallel, Natural England will continue to expand its suite of standing advice, providing local planning authorities with easier access to guidance from the outset. This helps to avoid unnecessary consultations and ensures that engagement is focused where bespoke advice is most valuable. It also brings the requirements on Natural England in line with those on other statutory consultees, which are not required to provide advice to all queries.
In 2024, Natural England wrote to all local planning authorities setting out its aim to focus effort on higher- risk and higher-opportunity planning casework. This amendment supports this strategic shift, which Natural England welcomes. Crucially, this does not remove Natural England’s advisory role but refocuses it from handling large volumes of low-risk casework to more strategic engagement that can deliver greater environmental impact. This aligns with government ambitions as set out in the Written Ministerial Statement by Matthew Pennycook MP in March. This stated a need to reconsider the means of engagement and provision of expert advice, and that in some cases this could be done through undertaking more effective strategic engagement at local and strategic level, reducing the need for comments on individual planning applications. This corresponds with recommendations made by Dan Corry in his independent review of Defra’s regulatory landscape.
To provide clarity for local planning authorities, the amendment would require Natural England to produce an operational statement that sets out how it intends to deal with requests for advice relating to Town and Country Planning Act casework. This will make it clear to local planning officers and authorities how they can expect to receive Natural England advice. This operational statement would be produced in consultation with the Defra Secretary of State. Natural England will provide further information to local planning authorities on the implementation of this change in due course.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the premise on which the amendment she moved is based. My Amendment 194 seems to be a little out of place. I should have asked for it to be taken with the rest of Part 3, because it seeks to amend Clause 86 in Part 3 to insist that the power to designate a person to exercise functions under this Act should indeed belong to a public body.
Clause 83 provides the power to acquire land compulsorily, including new rights over land, to Natural England, subject to the authorisation of the Secretary of State. Subsection (2) provides that the power can be exercised only if the land is required for purposes connected with a conservation measure set out in an EDP. This came as a surprise to many, not least, as the Minister will be aware, the NFU, which is deeply anxious about the purport of Clause 86, in particular the definition of a “designated person”. It is alarmed that Clause 83 gives Natural England the compulsory purchase powers set out in that clause. It is further exasperated by Clause 86 allowing the Secretary of State to designate “another person” to exercise Natural England’s functions, potentially giving another party compulsory purchase powers. On what basis would those powers be given and who would these people be?
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for lending her support to this amendment. I am grateful to her, and indeed to the Ministers, for agreeing to meet us to discuss this amendment last week. I would like to understand what bodies the Government have in mind. Are they individuals? Are they organisations? Can the Ministers name them this evening, so that we have an idea who they are? Is it an indication that, as I understand it, Natural England is losing staff over the coming months and therefore the Government are accepting that, possibly, Natural England will not have the capacity to cope with the volume of work set out in Part 3?
We will go on to consider the whole remit of compulsory powers in Clause 83 onwards. I think that will be next week, unless we are here all night. I would just like to understand the basis on which it will not be Natural England, when these powers are being given to Natural England for the first time, who the other bodies or individuals might be, and to make a plea that, for the purposes of that clause, a “designated person” must be a public body.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to two amendments in this group. Government Amendment 68 would permit Natural England to not respond to requests for advice under Section 4(1) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, so that it can prioritise more important cases. That reflects pretty well what is happening at the moment, if the truth were known, because the reality is that Natural England’s resources are very thinly stretched and, in many cases, it provides advice simply on the basis of standing guidance and sometimes on the basis of empty silence. I want to probe the Minister a bit further on this and I apologise for giving her grief when she is clearly beset with some affliction.
I have three questions. The first is, it is my understanding that Natural England would have to consult only the Secretary of State on the development of this statement about how it intends to deal with requests for advice. Should there not be a wider consultation on such a statement, which is important for how local planning authorities are assisted to make more informed planning decisions?
The second question is: has the Minister any concerns about Natural England reducing further its support to local planning authorities when we know that only one in three local planning authorities now has in-house ecological advice? We are facing a reduction in the advice coming from Natural England and a reduction in the available advice to local authorities. I know that they can buy that in, but it is less flexible and less readily available.
My third question is: should we perhaps wait for this change to happen once the Government’s forthcoming consultation on statutory consultees has taken place? This is a consultation about consultation—this is the sort of world we live in these days.
Noble Lords are being asked to approve this change, which it is intended will come in immediately on the passing of the Bill, and there is a specific clause that effects that, without seeing the wider picture of reform for statutory consultees within which the statement of prioritisation would sit. If a requirement to consult more widely on the statement that Natural England is supposed to produce were placed in the Bill, that would enable proper consideration once the picture on statutory consultees had been settled. So I think that hastening rather more slowly on this would make for a much better decision.
I support Amendment 194 from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. In Committee, the Minister said that the Government would expect any delegation by the Secretary of State of Natural England’s role in developing or implementing an EDP to be generally to a public body. In talking to the Minister—I was pleased to be able to talk directly to both Ministers about this issue—the only examples that so far have been put forward for this power of delegation have been either to National Parks England or the Marine Management Organisation, in circumstances where the expertise might be more relevant to a particular EDP. That is entirely appropriate. If a reliable public body is publicly accountable and has the right sort of expertise to draw up and implement an EDP, it is appropriate that that happens. But, if it is normally going to be a public body, why do we not just say “a public body” in the Bill rather than “another person”?
There needs to be a lot of clarity here about the difference between delegating to “another person” to develop and implement an EDP and the sorts of partnerships that I am sure most EDPs will involve, where Natural England can partner with or delegate the delivery but not the preparation of part of an EDP to a whole range of partners, including businesses, including some of the natural resources businesses that are growing up, NGOs, landowners and farmers. I am sure that there will be a huge range of people joined with Natural England in delivering EDPs and that that will happen widely. But that will happen with Natural England as the co-ordinating body, co-ordinating the delivery by partners in line with the EDP.
That partnership working is absolutely admirable and can happen without this delegation provision. Clause 86 is, in reality, about taking the development and/or the delivery of these potentially highly controversial EDPs away from the body that is the Government’s statutory adviser and agency on nature conservation and potentially giving extensive responsibilities and powers to a person or persons as yet unidentified. If they are to be public bodies, why not state that in the Bill? If they are not, can the Minister help us understand a bit more who these non-public bodies might be? Can she give us some examples? I would find it very difficult to believe that a private individual or organisation would have the range of expertise and experience that statutory bodies accrue from doing these things successively over time, and which they will develop even more as they take forward successive EDPs and learn increasingly how to do it.
If I were a landowner, I would be very anxious about not knowing who might, in the future, have all these Natural England powers to develop and implement EDPs; not knowing their background and expertise; not knowing the extent of the powers they are to be given, and their stance on and approach towards compulsory purchase. Public bodies are, to a large extent, known quantities; another person or persons unknown are not. If public bodies screw up, the Government can sack the chairman. I know all about that. The Government have no sanctions of that sort for private bodies. Can the Minister tell us how they will hold them accountable? Can she reassure landowners about their concerns? If Ministers are pretty clear that, in reality, they would delegate these important duties and powers only to a public body, I would suggest that the safest way forward is simply to reassure everybody by saying in the Bill that it will be a public body.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I do not want to speak to all the amendments in this group. I want to speak to Amendment 200 and make just one remark about Amendment 194.
I am not persuaded by Amendment 194. Our day- by-day experience of working with organisations which provide environmental impact assessments and environmental outcome reports, and that have all the expertise we might need in this context, is not to be found exclusively in public bodies, so I would not support this amendment.
Turning to Amendment 200, in Committee we had a short debate about the relationship between Natural England and the making of development plans. Clearly, as we noted then, Natural England has to have regard to these. The sooner Natural England can be aware of the potential requirement for environmental delivery plans, the better. They do not necessarily start at that stage, but they can certainly engage in programming for their activity. The pressure on them is clearly going to be considerable. My Amendment 200 is about local authorities having a duty to tell Natural England when they have potential sites for development. I interpret this as being at Regulation 19 stage. If they are coming forward with the development sites they are proposing for consultation, they should tell Natural England. Natural England can then factor into the thinking about environmental development plans what might emerge, typically a year or more after that point, as the adoption of a development plan. It gives them access and time.
I completely understand if the Minister says that this is not necessary because they can already do this. We are talking about statutory processes and local planning authorities who are so pressed that they will not do what they are not required to do. In order to make this system work, a Regulation 19 requirement to notify Natural England to inform the process of EDP making would be a helpful addition.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has made a very important, practical point.
I shall speak chiefly against government Amendment 68. I shall also briefly reflect on Amendment 194, following the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about these powers being delegated to another person. I hope the Minister can reassure me that this is not in the Government’s mind. I hope she can guarantee that there will not be the outsourcing to giant multinational companies that are expert in bidding for contracts but terrible at delivering on them that we have seen in so many areas of government, and that we will not see another outsourcing disaster follow the many other outsourcing disasters. When we think about what has happened, for example, with building control, it is really important that oversight is not outsourced to the people who then end up marking their own homework.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, in view of the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, saying that she is opposed to the measure, I feel it is my turn to stand up and say that this is a very sensible amendment. Based on my time in Natural England, I strongly support it.
Generally, it was my experience that local authorities bounced over to Natural England tens of thousands of planning applications, most of which were irrelevant to us, in that we had no real reason to give a view. If the application affected an SSSI, a national nature reserve, a national park or AONB as they were they called, something protected by the habitats regulations, or developments on the finest agricultural land, then Natural England was duty bound to respond, and always did so—in complex cases sometimes not as quickly as some would have liked. However, we had to get it right, or as right as possible, since it could result in the rejection of the application by the council, leading to appeals and judicial reviews and possibly the loss of a good infrastructure project.
What are the statistics to justify this change? In its 2023-24 annual report to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Natural England reported that it had received 24,664 planning application consultations; 20,503 consultations—91.7%—were responded to within 21 days or to an otherwise agreed deadline. Some 754 deadline extensions to planning application consultations were granted—that is 3.7%. Natural England sent 20,370 responses to customers, with the average time taken to provide a substantive response being 11.9 days. In addition, Natural England received 1,096 pre-application consultations, either directly from developers or via local planning authorities. They responded to 68.9% of these within 21 days or to otherwise agreed deadlines.
Natural England now deals with a high proportion of complex cases, mostly relating to impacts on habitat sites or protected landscapes such as national parks and national landscapes. In 2023-24, this included receiving 161 consultations for nationally significant infra- structure projects, or NSIPs, 895 local plan consultations and 96 environmental impact assessment requests relating to screening and/or scoping.
In the past few years, there has been a 40% increase in NSIPs, and they require a lot of work and, in some cases, site visits and meetings. However, as the Minister said, Natural England is legally bound to respond to all requests. All told, in that year, Natural England had more than 32,000 planning consultations, and in 47% of them, it had no statutory remit, since they were very low risk. That is 15,000 cases where Natural England had to spend time writing back, saying that it had nothing to comment on. I got the clear impression, and I am not that cynical, that many local authorities bunged applications to Natural England to tick a box and show their local representatives that they were investigating every avenue before granting permission and that even Natural England was happy because it did not object.
Therefore, I was very keen for Natural England to move to this new strategic approach and shift to focusing on high-risk and high-opportunity casework, with an emphasis on strategic engagement and delivering solutions up front. Natural England also wants to emphasise the importance of high-quality applications as well as the need to reduce the level of unnecessary consultations that it receives. It can do that by signposting local planning authorities to its new impact risk zones delivery advice service.
This is an exciting and long overdue shift. I have no time to dig into the details tonight, but there are three main thrusts in my opinion. First, low-risk, routine applications must be put on what I would call autopilot so that Natural England can concentrate on planning advice work and moving on to a more strategic place. There need to be standard responses for lower-risk work, and the supplementary provisions that the Minister has outlined in subsection (3) of the new clause in Amendment 68 will set out how local authorities can determine these applications themselves based on criteria published by Natural England and approved by the Secretary of State.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has tremendous experience of this from her time at Natural England, but I assure her that this is very low-risk stuff. My shelves are full of books called, “The Idiot’s Guide to How to Work Your Mac”, “The Idiot’s Guide to How to Work Your iPad” and “The Idiot’s Guide to Switching on Your Mobile Phone”. I am not making an insinuation about local councils, but I can see the Natural England advice being something like “The Idiot’s Guide to How to Grant Planning Permission in Local Councils for Low-Risk Applications”, and I hope the guidance will be that simple.
The second thrust is that Natural England needs to concentrate on the big strategic stuff. This is where it can make the biggest impact for nature recovery, recognising that nature and economic growth co-exist and need to thrive together. Thirdly, Natural England is keen to do much more upfront, pre-application engagement and sees the importance of securing opportunities and mitigation for nature within development policies. It needs to focus its efforts on where the opportunities are greatest as well as addressing significant environmental risks. This means having as much time as possible to advise on high-risk and high-opportunity casework. If it can take that approach now, it will secure lasting environmental outcomes and create wider economic and social benefits for communities.
I must tell noble Lords what justifies doing this upfront work. It was just before I joined, but I understand that Natural England reached out to HS2 as soon as it got the original Bill passed to say, “Come to us as soon as possible with any and all the plans you’ve got which may impact on protected sites or habitats along the route, and we’ll work on mitigation measures to head off the problems”. I understand the answer that came back was, “We are HS2; we do not need your input, so just butt out”. Then, when it was too late, HS2 came along to say that it had hit a problem with protected bats and to ask what it should do about it. It was HS2’s plan to build that £100 million tunnel, not Natural England’s, but we had to approve it, since HS2’s arrogance meant it had run out of options.
I see the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in his place. He might agree that we would all say that £100 million for a bat tunnel is obscene, but to HS2 it was just pocket money that it was spending. I must say to some of my noble friends that Natural England’s decision on this and other things was not an out-of-control quango doing it for the hell of it or doing it because it thought it could do it. It was following United Kingdom habitats regulations. I say United Kingdom habitats regulations because we incorporated them all into UK law. I said to Conservative Ministers at the time, “If you don’t like Natural England implementing the law, then change the law”.
Finally, nearly every official I spoke to was certain that if HS2 had involved Natural England eight years ago, the problem of the route and the bats would have been headed off and it would have solved it without that expense. That is why pre-planning engagement is so important: it speeds up planning and avoids crises arising at the last minute because organisations have found that they have hit an environmental problem. Natural England must be freed from the 15,000 irrelevant low-risk cases so that it has time to deal early on with the big strategic stuff that will make a difference and promote growth while safeguarding our biodiversity. That is why I support the amendment.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and it reflects well the view that there are differences of opinion on this late Government amendment, Amendment 68, around the House. It also reinforces the point that it is disappointing that at this late stage in the Bill a significant shift in policy is being introduced by this Government. This is not tidying up, this is not in response to anything that anybody raised in Committee; it is clearly something that is driven by political aims, as was made very clear in the press release that accompanied the indication of the Government’s new amendments at this stage of the Bill.
It is very disappointing that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned, a large consultation by the department on statutory consultees is upcoming, and if there was going to be a detailed look at the role of Natural England as a statutory consultee, it could have fitted into that. There could have been a proper consultation with those most affected, local authorities, whereas instead it is just foisted on us at this late stage with no consultation in the meantime with the LGA. I have spoken to the LGA, so I would be delighted if the Minister could tell me that she has any views from it. She was very keen to tell us what the view of Natural England was, as was the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, but what are the views of those most affected, which is hard-pushed local authorities? The absence of planning advice is not going to speed up planning. They are still going to have to make the decisions. It is not going to do what the press release said, which is,
“helping to accelerate approvals for new homes and infrastructure”.
They are going to be struggling around to find the advice that they have previously had.
I have a couple of questions to put to the Minister. First, in her opening remarks, she talked about the fact that, last August, Natural England sent a letter to all local authorities telling them that there would be a cutting back in planning services. Given that Natural England already has an established modus operandi from last year, which was about cutting back in a progressive way, what is the problem since then that needs solving? Why do we need legislation given that there was a perfectly reasonable non-legislative means for Natural England to prioritise cases?
Secondly, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned, and looking at the wording of the amendment, the only person that Natural England has to consult in determining the statement on dealing with requests for advice is the Secretary of State. For a Labour Government—a Labour Government—to be saying that Natural England will do a consultation on something that will fundamentally change the resources available to local authorities, which are in the vanguard of protecting our countryside and building the homes we need, and the only people it is going to talk to are people in the department is a disgrace. It is an absolute disgrace that new Section 4A(6) just says:
“Before publishing a statement … Natural England must … consult the Secretary of State”.
It does not have to talk to local authorities, and yet they will have to live with these decisions.
I go back to my central point. I do not see why this is needed, given that a perfectly reasonable process was put in place by Natural England to streamline the advice that it gives to local authorities. It leads me to believe that there is something more lurking behind this amendment that we cannot quite see. It is absolutely wrong that a Labour Government are putting this forward without consulting the very people at the heart of our communities who are responsible for doing this.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my register of interests as a landowner and a housing developer. Before addressing this group of amendments, I would like to ask the Minister whether her Government have considered the impact of the Supreme Court judgment in the CG Fry case that was released today. This question is relevant to this and other debates we will have today and in later days on Report in your Lordships’ Chamber. For the benefit of the House, the judgment found that Ramsar sites impacted by development do not have the protection in law previously assumed to derive from the habitats regulations.
From that I have several questions. If the Minister does not yet have answers, I wonder whether she would be able to write to me before the next day of Report or perhaps comment in a later group. We know that this decision releases 18,000 housing units in the Somerset Levels alone. Of the 160,000 units currently blocked nationally by Natural England advice on nutrient and other neutrality, how many are due to Ramsar and how many to European designations, where the rules still apply? In other words, how many houses nationally have now been released from blockage by nutrient neutrality rules?
The Bill, as drafted, imposes the legal obligations of the habitats regulations on Ramsar sites. Therefore, the effect of the Bill now becomes to block housing development rather than allow it. We on these Benches will seek to amend the Bill to remove this effect. My Amendment 208 would take Clause 90 out of the Bill, and I will table further amendments as needed. Have the Government’s intentions towards Clause 90 and Schedule 6 now changed as a result of this ruling? On these Benches, we are delighted with this ruling as it releases much-needed supply into the housing market. I hope the Government are equally delighted as it is a step towards their target of 1.5 million houses. It also highlights the issue that the small nut that is being cracked by the sledgehammer of Part 3 of this Bill has just been shrunk even further, and we will return next week to the many questions around Part 3.
I turn to the amendments in this group and begin with government Amendments 68 and 262. We are satisfied that it is appropriate to reduce the obligations of Natural England as a welcome streamlining of the planning process.
Amendment 194 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering is important, and we would welcome clarity from the Minister in her response that the intent is that Natural England’s powers can be delegated only to public bodies and which bodies those might be. We agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that it should say public bodies in the Bill. We will oppose the powers being given to Natural England in this Bill as they risk creating an authoritarian empire. The idea that these can then be delegated to private sector entities or potentially unsuitable bodies really is intolerable, and we will return to this later, if necessary, in my Amendment 195.
Amendment 200 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley is a sensible amendment that would allow for better planning of EDP requirements. I look forward to the responses from the Minister.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I will first go through the responses to the government amendments, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his support.
My noble friend Lady Young and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, both asked why we feel this amendment is needed now. I remind noble Lords that Natural England currently receives around 22,500 town and country planning consultations every year. Many are low to medium risk and about 30% of them do not actually need Natural England’s input because they either fall outside the statutory remit under the development management procedure order or do not relate to its general purpose as set out in the NERC Act.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, specifically asked what problem this was trying to solve. It is mainly because, over the last decade, the volume of planning casework received by Natural England has increased by 75%. There is nothing lurking behind it—it is just the huge amount of extra work that Natural England now has to deal with. Because of this, there is less time available for the work that makes the most impact, such as shaping local plans, advising on major infrastructure and protecting nature where the risks are greatest.
My noble friend Lady Young and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, both asked about local authorities. We are looking to work with LPAs in advance of any change coming through and work through the details of exactly how it is going to work and what it is going to mean for them, so we are involving local authorities.
Regarding access to sufficient ecological advice, Natural England will continue to provide advice to local planning authorities in cases where bespoke advice is necessary, which will include any high-risk and high-opportunity casework. In addition, Natural England will still be required to provide a response under the development management procedure order, which is not affected by this amendment. This includes where a development is likely to affect a SSSI or would involve the loss of more than 20 hectares of best and most versatile agricultural land. However, local planning authorities are ultimately responsible for assessing the environmental impacts of individual planning applications in line with relevant planning policy and legislation, and this will remain unchanged.
The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked specifically about the Supreme Court judgment in the Fry case, which was handed down this morning. We are very grateful to the Supreme Court for the clarification. We will continue to drive the delivery of the homes and infrastructure the country needs but, as we move forward with the Bill we are debating today, we are clear that the planning system has to do everything it can to support sustainable development. On his more detailed questions, the judgment was only this morning so we need time to analyse the decision; I am sure we will be coming back to this.
I turn to the other amendments in this group. Amendment 194, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, would provide that only a public body could be designated to exercise the functions of Natural England under this part. Obviously, we have discussed this previously and debated it in Committee. While I absolutely recognise the noble Baroness’s concerns, I reassure her that the policy expectation is that this power would only be ever used to designate a public body to carry out such functions. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned, sometimes there could be unforeseen circumstances where it could be appropriate for a private body to take on some functions under this part. My noble friend Lady Young and others asked about examples. As I said in Committee, it could be national parks, the MMO and others as appropriate. The noble Baroness reminded us of the examples I had given earlier. This is not to do with shifting decision-making away from Natural England and has nothing to do with it not having the capacity. It is entirely to do with expertise and having the most appropriate body making these very important decisions. That is why we do not want to remove the possibility of it going to a private body. However, our expectation is that it would always be a public body because it would be unusual for a private body to have an expertise that a public body did not.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
The reason for bringing the amendment back is that we do not seem to have moved on from Committee stage. If the expectation is that it will be a public body, then I go along with what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, that it should be in the Bill. I also support what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, that there are circumstances in which it would be entirely inappropriate for it to be given to a private company.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
That is why the delegated powers are subject to the Secretary of State’s authorisation. It is not just Natural England’s decision; it is subject to the Secretary of State’s authorisation and the use of the powers is subject to the affirmative procedure so that Parliament would have a say in any proposed designation. That is why I hope that the noble Baroness will understand that the ongoing role of Parliament will be sufficient and allow her not to press her amendment. This is not just about a Natural England decision; it is really important that that is clear.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
I know this is against the rules on Report, but I think this is such an important issue. I do not understand what the Government are saying now because the Bill is very clear. It actually says that the Secretary of State will make decisions about who the powers will be delegated to, not Natural England. If it was Natural England doing it, I would be entirely content. That is not what the Bill says at the moment, so I am unclear as to exactly what the Minister’s last couple of sentences mean.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I was trying to clarify that it is the Secretary of State.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
Is the Minister saying that the Secretary of State will consult on this and that Parliament will be given an opportunity to comment?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
What I am saying is that any delegated powers from Natural England are subject to the Secretary of State’s authorisation and that the use of this power is subject to the affirmative procedure, so Parliament would have a say in any proposed designation. I hope that is clear.
I will now turn briefly to Amendment 200 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which would add a duty on local authorities to inform Natural England, when making development plans, of potential sites for development that may require an EDP. As we mentioned in Committee, Natural England is already required to have regard to relevant development plans when producing an EDP. We have also ensured that local authorities will be required to co-operate with Natural England during the process of preparing an EDP, which will ensure that information on site allocation can feed into the design of EDPs. We share the noble Lord’s desire to ensure that EDPs dovetail into the wider planning system, and I understand where he is coming from with this amendment, but we believe that placing a further duty on local authorities to provide such information is unnecessary, given that the Bill requires Natural England to proactively consider such plans when designing an EDP. On that basis, I trust that the noble Lord is content not to press his amendment.
Earl Russell
“Promotion and use of mediation etc(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.(2) After section 323A insert—“323B Promotion and use of mediation etc.(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance in relation to the promotion and use of mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) technique in relation to the following—(a) the preparation of local development plans and related evidence reports under Part 2,(b) a prospective applicant’s compliance with any requirements in respect of pre-application consultation imposed under or by virtue of sections 61W or 61Z, (c) assisting in the determination of an application for planning permission, including related planning obligations or their variation under sections 106 and 106A, and(d) any other matter related to planning that they consider appropriate.(2) Guidance under subsection (1) may include provision about—(a) the form of mediation or other ADR technique that is to be used in a particular circumstance, and(b) the procedure to be followed in any such mediation.(3) Local authorities must have regard to any guidance issued under subsection (1).(4) Before issuing any guidance under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—(a) planning authorities, and(b) such other persons that they consider appropriate.(5) The Secretary of State must make any guidance issued under subsection (1) publicly available.(6) The power under subsection (1) to issue guidance includes power to—(a) issue guidance that varies guidance issued under that subsection, and(b) revoke guidance issued under that subsection.(7) For the purposes of this section, “mediation” and “ADR technique” includes any means of exploring, resolving or reducing disagreement between persons involving an impartial person as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(8) The Secretary of State must issue guidance under subsection (1) within the period of two years beginning with the date on which the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 is passed.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires that guidance must be issued on the promotion and use of mediation and other forms of ADR in the planning process. It is intended to engender a culture of informal resolution of disputes, in order to reduce the risk of the delay and expense caused by litigation.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, this group is on the principles of planning. I speak to Amendment 69, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, to which I have added my name; I also added my name to this amendment in Committee. This amendment seeks to place mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution at the core of our planning system. It represents a vital opportunity to transform a process that is all too often adversarial and cumbersome into one that resolves disputes quickly, locally and constructively. Indeed, I might dare to say that the power of mediation has brought us together on this amendment, which otherwise might be unlikely.
As a local councillor, I have sat on a planning committee and witnessed at first hand how adversarial planning can be and how complex it is—a zero-sum game. More importantly, I have worked as a community mediator and a caseworker for a number of years, specialising in neighbour disputes. That has taught me a lot, which I continue into my politics to this day. The first thing I learned as a mediator is that the problem is never what people tell you it is.
Our current planning processes revolve around conflict, often forcing developers, residents and authorities into these zero-sum games. It can be very difficult for those involved to escape from those processes themselves. This, ultimately, can lead to long legal battles, rising costs, delayed homes, immense frustration and broken systems. These are exactly the kinds of problem that this Bill is intended—and the Government state that they want—to resolve. This amendment is here to try to offer a way forward. My wish in speaking again to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, is that I really want this Government to be open to considering a large-scale trial of mediation so that adequate data can be found and the Government can make an assessment as to the true usefulness of mediation in the English planning system.
In Committee, the Minister rejected this amendment on a number of grounds. The first was that it was not new and that the Government had explored it before. That might be true, but I believe that, when it was explored before, it was not done fully and properly. Mediation is embedded in the Scottish system and has been since 1997, with updated planning guidance in 2020-21. There it is a voluntary process, and the Scottish authorities have found that it has been very useful at all stages of planning, including in complex cases and developer-community discussions.
Research conducted by the University of Strathclyde has found that 65% of mediated Scottish cases were settled successfully in 2024, saving vast amounts of money for the courts, avoiding delays and helping to get infrastructure and homes built. Equally, the Scottish Government have commissioned independent research that found that mediation, where it was used, fostered trust, reduced conflict and helped to achieve earlier agreements compared with traditional legal routes.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, as time is short, I will simply focus on the lifeblood of local communities: small enterprises, or SMEs as we call them. A journey of a thousand leagues starts with a single step, we are told. Equally, major corporations driving economic growth did not start as large enterprises. That is why I always seek to “think small first” in regulating, and indeed why I supported the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, on planning fees. I trust that the Government will deliver on the lowest possible fees for SMEs.
My Amendment 119, which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has kindly supported, seeks to build on the constructive discussions we all had with the Bill Ministers, in which they expressed their wish to support SMEs and small developments in the planning system. The fact is that such enterprises are at a disadvantage in our system. We need to do something about it and to bring about a culture change in the attitude to SMEs. It is a chilling fact that, according to the Government’s SME plan, SME housebuilders’ share of the market has declined from 39% in 1988 to 10% in 2020, yet they contribute disproportionately to local communities and local employment, helping to fill the skills gap in construction.
My amendment in Committee focused on giving new guidance to Natural England, because I want it to support smaller players and to take a more balanced view than its current remit permits. On reflection, I thought Ministers might prefer a more general duty that would give SMEs a special role in the whole planning system. This would require all involved to “have regard”—not the strongest of words—to the fact that SMEs
“may in practice face more difficulties when engaging in the planning process”,
and to “consider”, again a gentle word,
“whether such barriers can be removed or reduced”.
It is derived from a similar duty that we introduced to the Procurement Bill, in which I and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, were involved. This was widely welcomed by businesses and charities. In my amendment I have kept the definition of such enterprises modest to make it more acceptable—
“between one and nine residential dwellings”—
but I would be happy for the Government to amend this at Third Reading or ping-pong.
The role of SMEs in development is a serious omission from the Bill. This is bad for community cohesion and a lost opportunity for growth. The Government said in their own small business plan that accelerating the growth of SMEs could boost growth by 1% a year. Unfortunately, what we heard from the Minister in Committee does not cut the mustard. An example would be the requirement to consider the viability of development in making levy regulations. I cannot see how this would make a big difference to SMEs. The truth is that none of the considerations, nor the financial support she has mentioned, have any chance of reversing the adverse trend in SME housebuilding or changing the culture in local authorities and agencies, let alone in Marsham Street.
Unless the Minister can give an undertaking to bring forward a suitable proposal on SMEs in the planning process itself, I will want to test the opinion of the House when we reach that clause.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 119 and agree with the excellent case set out by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. My support comes from two cases in my constituency some years ago, caused by the forerunner of Natural England. I think it was the Countryside Commission at the time, and then it was the Countryside Agency, before being amalgamated into Natural England. These two cases simply demonstrate the point that my noble friend has been making. They were a couple of years apart, but the issues were the same, and they have annoyed me to this day because I was absolutely powerless to help small businesses in my constituency.
The first was on creating the Pennine Bridleway, and later a national trail alongside Hadrian’s Wall, both of which had many miles in my constituency. Some of that opened in 2002, some in 2006, and some is not opened yet, but the approval process in principle started either in the late 1980s or early 1990s. The plan was to make these national trails and encourage thousands more people to use them—no bad thing in itself, and I liked the idea. Local farmers were generally not opposed, since they thought they could get involved in providing services to the walkers and riders.
Farmers and householders along Hadrian’s Wall said that, without toilet facilities en route, their stone walls—or behind them—had become toilets. With no cafeterias for miles, sandwich wrappers and uneaten food were dumped in their fields and were a hazard to sheep. They said it would be good for them if they could convert a barn into a coffee shop or toilets, as a quid pro quo for letting thousands of people march over their land. It seemed a very good idea to me at the time to assist small farmers in this way. This was in the wilds of northern Cumbria, near the Scottish border, where some farms had more rushes than grass. It used to be called marginal land but the EU terminology is “severely disadvantaged area”. The lush land of East Anglia it is not. They need every opportunity there to make money and survive.
Farmers on the route of the proposed Pennine Bridleway also wanted to convert some barns into tack rooms, providing food and water for people and horses, and parking space for their trailers. Only a few riders would want to traverse its whole length, or at least the stretches which were open; most wanted to park up and ride a loop of about 15 miles or so. Again, that was a reasonable suggestion which I thought would benefit everyone: walker and riders, the local farmers who would have them on their land, and the environment, which would not be desecrated with rubbish. But that was not to be.
The Countryside Commission said, “Nothing to do with us”. Its job was the trails and bridleway, and it did not care about helping the rural businesses along the route. It was purely a local planning matter. To hear that from a body set up with a remit of helping rural businesses, I was appalled and angered. It would not even publish a statement suggesting to local councils that it might be a jolly good idea to support planning applications which would provide those small infrastructure developments. I approached the local councils, which said they could not comment until an official planning application was received and would not bend the rules to look favourably on them in principle.
I ended up opposing something that I thought was a good thing because of the recalcitrance of government bodies and local councils that would do absolutely nothing to help small businesses in their own patch. I may be wrong but to this day I do not think that a single farm or private building on either of those routes has been given planning permission for even a simple tearoom. That is why I support my noble friend.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, briefly, I support Amendment 103, in the name of my noble friend Lord Banner, who I see is now in his place, on proportionality in planning. In Committee, his amendment was rejected out of hand.
This is a Bill promoted by several departments. We have spent the last hour with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, from Defra, justifying government Amendment 68 strictly on the grounds of proportionality between good governance, effective value for money and so forth. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, from the other department, that the Government cannot have it both ways. Government Amendment 68 having been pressed so hard on the positive angle of proportionality, I now challenge her to accept Amendment 103, which makes exactly the same grounds, but of course from my noble friend Lord Banner’s perspective rather than the other.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I wish briefly to support Amendment 69, for the reasons advanced by the noble Earl. I just want to raise one question. The amendment would provide for guidance promoting the use of mediation. I would like to know whether the expectation of that amendment, if agreed, is that mediation should become mandatory, as is really the case in much civil litigation. If it is to be mandatory, what would be the sanctions for non-compliance with a direction for mediation?
Earl Russell (LD)
I welcome that question. It is not that mediation would be mandatory. I strongly believe that mediation should be a voluntary process. The idea is to have guidance to make sure it is available and consistent where it is required.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 103, tabled by my noble friend Lord Banner and co-signed by my noble friend Lord Jamieson and me. At present, planning processes have become anything but proportionate. The precautionary principle is too often applied as though it requires zero risk. Environmental statements run to thousands of pages; inspectors demand reams of questions; statutory consultees require unnecessary detail, even at outline stage; and consultants, fearful of liability, produce overlong reports that few people will ever read. None of this improves the quality of decisions, but it clogs up the systems, slows delivery and undermines confidence.
This amendment would not abandon the precautionary principle; it would preserve it in its proper sense by ensuring no regression on environmental protections while restoring a degree of pragmatism and common sense. It would help to strip out duplication, shorten an unnecessary process, and empower the Secretary of State to issue guidance to ensure flexibility and future-proofing. In Committee, the Minister conceded the main point. She openly accepted that proportionality is desirable and that the system has become overly complex. In doing so, she essentially validated the case for this amendment before rejecting it. That position is not sustainable. If we agree that the system is disproportionate, we should act to correct it.
This amendment does exactly that. It would embed proportionality into planning as a guiding principle, striking the right balance between proper scrutiny, environmental responsibility and the need to deliver homes and infrastructure in a timely way. When the time comes, we intend to divide the House on this amendment.
I turn to Amendment 119, tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. This amendment seeks to ensure that the public bodies discharging duties under this Act give due consideration to the difficulties often faced by small and medium-sized developers when engaging with the planning system.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I turn first to Amendment 69, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. This amendment seeks to introduce statutory guidance on mediation and dispute resolution into the planning system.
First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for his continued engagement with us on this matter since Committee. I have had a meeting with him this week on this subject. He is a passionate advocate for mediation and I appreciate the insights he has shared on this issue. I think we both want the same thing: fewer disputes on matters of planning. There are certainly areas where mediation and alternative dispute resolution can play a valuable role in the planning system—for example, on the compulsory purchase and Section 106 agreements, where negotiating and reaching consensus is required.
However, we feel that third-party mediation would not be appropriate or necessary for all planning activities. For example, it would not be applicable to planning decisions, as planning law requires the decision-maker to consider all relevant planning matters set out in the local development plan and weigh them with other material planning considerations. Furthermore, a statutory approach to mediation may add a further layer to an already complex planning framework.
Much of what we are both seeking to achieve can be done through national planning policy and guidance. Our National Planning Policy Framework actively encourages proactive and positive engagement between applicants and local planning authorities, including pre-application consultation. This is a well-established part of the system and only 4% of all planning decisions lead to an appeal. On larger-scale schemes, planning performance agreements have also played an increasingly valuable role, and we actively encourage them as a tool to assist co-operation between all parties.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, quoted the example of the way that Scotland deals with mediation. Section 286A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 enables Scottish Ministers to publish guidance promoting the use of mediation. Planning Circular 2/2021 sets out this guidance. Importantly, this guidance promotes the use of mediation rather than requiring its use. It clearly states that the use of mediation is not a requirement on local planning authorities. We do not need legislation to encourage the use of mediation, especially for all planning activities. As I said, there are examples of where we have used guidance to encourage the use of mediation, particularly on compulsory purchase orders.
Amendment 103 from the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seeks to give decision-makers, applicants, consultees and the courts confidence that less can be more in the planning system. I thank the noble Lord for his engagement on this matter. He will know that we are taking forward regulatory reforms to this regime, removing the need for mandatory pre-application consultation and overhauling the permission stage for judicial review, which we discussed earlier.
Elsewhere, we are introducing the new nature restoration fund, reviewing the role of statutory consultees, removing the statutory consultation requirements relating to preliminary environmental information within the environmental impact assessment regulations for infra- structure planning and examining regulatory and policy requirements for small and medium-sized sites.
I again reassure the noble Lord that we agree with the sentiment of this amendment to remove unnecessary layers of duplication, and our actions show this. However, as I said in Committee, we still do not think that this amendment, though well intentioned, would provide the remedy for the lack of proportionality in our planning system. It would create a new legal test for decision-makers that risks more opportunities for legal challenge and more grounds for disagreements. It is better to promote proportionality through regulatory and policy reforms, which I know the noble Lord is aware we are committed to. It will be a key principle driving our new National Planning Policy Framework, which we are committed to publishing for consultation later this year.
Amendment 119, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, seeks to ensure that public bodies discharging duties under the Bill pay consideration to the difficulties faced by small and medium-sized developers when engaging with the planning system. I am sure she will know that we appreciate the intention of the amendment and recognise the crucial role that small and medium-sized businesses play in driving up housebuilding rates, particularly by supporting a diverse housing market, responding to local housing needs and supporting faster build-out rates.
We also recognise that this part of the sector has faced incredibly significant challenges in recent years and that the planning system has become disproportionate, contributing to delays, costs and uncertainty. However, this amendment is unnecessary and duplicates the emerging reforms to the planning system.
The amendment would create a statutory obligation for public bodies to have regard to SME-specific issues. This approach is neither necessary nor proportionate. It would impose a legal duty on authorities to demonstrate how they have considered SME concerns and barriers when exercising their planning and development functions. This would create a new burden for local planning authorities and other public bodies. It would also further complicate our complex planning system and create a new avenue by which legal challenges to decisions could be brought.
That said, I assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to improving the experience of SMEs in the planning system. In May this year, we published a site thresholds working paper, seeking views on how we might better support small-site development and enable SME housebuilders to grow. This paper proposed introducing a medium-site definition, alongside a range of proposals to support a more simplified and streamlined planning process.
For applications within this new medium threshold, we are considering simplifying BNG requirements, exploring exempting these sites from the proposed building safety levy; exempting them from build-out transparency proposals; maintaining a 13-week statutory time period for determination; including the delegation of some of these developments to officers as part of the national scheme of delegation; ensuring that referrals to statutory consultees are proportionate and rely on general guidance that is readily available online where possible; uplifting the permission-in-principle threshold; and minimising validation and statutory information requirements. We are currently analysing all the comments received on this working paper, which will inform a consultation on more detailed proposals ahead of finalising our policy approach.
An amendment seeking to define SMEs in an alternative way and adding further steps to the process risks adding further complexity to the planning system and undermining the efforts to support proportionality. For these reasons, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. This has been an interesting and, dare I say, different group of amendments. It is always important to look at principles, particularly first principles, that underline and guide what we do and why we do it. I welcome the Minister’s comments. I take her points about mediation and that we all want fewer disputes. We share all those things in common. I will go away and think about what more could be done with guidance. We want the Government to go a little bit further and support trials and rollouts to see what more can be done to better incorporate this as a tool within our planning system.
On Amendment 119, it is important that we raise these issues. The need to do more for small and medium-sized developers is widely felt among all parties across the House. I recognise what the Government have done on the site threshold paper, and it is welcome that they are looking at the results that have come back from that. I think the House as a whole would welcome further developments from that.
On Amendment 103, obviously the principle of proportionality is important. Less can indeed be more. We wonder what more can be done in this space on regulatory and policy reforms going forward.
With that, I reserve the right of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, to bring back his amendment, should he wish to. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Post-16 Education and Skills Strategy
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Government for this White Paper, which is an incredibly important and wide-ranging document. It is essential that we build the skills pipeline to turn around the current stagnation in productivity and economic growth. But we also know, on all sides of the House, that this is a tough problem to crack. I read somewhere—I did not double check the data—that there have been 41 attempts to address this issue since the Labour Government were elected in 1997. As with all major reform, the challenge will lie in effective implementation. Delivering the scale of change envisaged in the White Paper will depend on clear accountability and long-term stability of decision-making. I am sure it is an issue that we will come back to in this House in the years ahead.
We are pleased to see that there are elements in the White Paper that build on the work of the previous Government. We are pleased to see a date confirmed for the introduction of the lifelong learning entitlement. We hope very much that this will build a pipeline of skills at levels 4 and 5, which we know are significantly lacking in the economy. It is not clear how this change will be incentivised. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to create a pull from employers and how they will manage the financial risks to higher education institutions that, understandably, might be nervous about moving from a three-year degree model to a more modular approach.
As the Minister knows, there is a huge marketing task to be done. The pilots that we ran when in government significantly lacked demand—that is a polite way of describing it—so making people aware of these opportunities will be very important. It is also important that the Government can reassure the House that level 4 and level 5 qualifications will retain rigour and labour market currency, and not simply represent partial completion of degree programmes.
We are pleased to see the continuation of the technical excellence colleges, which build on the institutes of technology that we founded, which received significant public funds. We wish them every success. But there is limited clarity on how the network of excellent institutes of technology will be utilised within the new framework. Can the Minister confirm their role in delivering the higher technical education ambitions within the White Paper?
I spent a lot of time at the Dispatch Box arguing with Peers all around the House about the streamlining of level 3 qualifications, so I wish the Minister good luck with that. Can she clarify the sequencing of the ending of funding for BTECs and advanced general certificates and the start of the new V-levels? How confident is she that there will be the workforce to deliver this, given the significant pay gap between staff working in FE and teachers in our schools?
The vocational levels sound promising, but the timeline looks very tight. Can the Minister clarify what will happen if there is a delay? That is obviously important. The other day, the Secretary of State said in the other place that funding would be kept in place for “most existing qualifications”, as opposed to all existing qualifications, until V-levels are brought in. Can the Minister confirm whether T-levels will be extended into areas such as sports science, performing arts, catering and hospitality, and hair and beauty, where there is strong learner and employer demand?
The White Paper rightly commits to simplifying what is currently a confusing qualifications landscape. In that spirit, can the Minister confirm that, as V-levels are introduced, proprietary titles such as BTEC, City & Guilds, and Cambridge Technicals will cease, giving clarity to young people, parents and employers?
There are a number of areas where we have concerns, and perhaps that is just a question of clarification. The Government appear to have scaled back the promotion and rollout of higher technical qualifications designed to meet employer-set standards. Can the Minister clarify the current commitment to the HTQ model? Can she also clarify the details on the ability of colleges to self-certify their HTQs? Previously, IfATE signed off on the quality of courses, with significant input from employers. Without external verification, surely there is a risk that, in future, levy funds are spent on what could be, in some cases, low-quality courses. It feels like we have seen this in the university sector, particularly franchise providers, where there is not enough oversight of qualifications or standards. Similarly, can the Minister clarify the timeline for addressing the quality issues with some degrees? Our concern is that fees are going up before quality is addressed.
Turning to the introduction of a Progress 8-type measure in higher education, will the Minister outline how this will be constructed, given the different curricula in each institution? For pupils who did not pass English and maths GCSE while at secondary school, we of course welcome the additional investment to support them but are concerned that there will be a risk that some children are deemed to be unable to pass these important qualifications. Have the Government estimated how many pupils they expect will never complete their maths and English GCSE?
The White Paper is fairly silent on incentives for employers to invest more. The noble Baroness knows very well about the significant drops in employer investment in these areas. It is also silent on plans for boosting apprenticeships at levels 2 and 3, which are obviously very important, and further plans for simplifying the funding of further education. Finally, is the noble Baroness able to confirm that the employer contribution to the growth and skills levy will stay at 2%, or are there plans to increase it?
The White Paper has a very brief section on measuring impact which is mainly, if I may say, about counting outputs. How will progress and impact be measured in a really transparent way, maybe through employer engagement, learner outcomes or gains regionally in terms of skills? To say it another way, can the Minister say whether her every dream was fulfilled in this White Paper? If every measure knocked it out of the park, what would be the impact on productivity in this country?
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Statement. We share many of the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, raised, and she quite skilfully teased those out with the questions she asked. Looking at the Statement, my immediate thought is that there is a lot of rhetoric in it, but there needs to be less rhetoric and more detail about some of the proposals. The biggest issue we face, which is not addressed, is the cultural shift in this country. Parents regard it as a successful education, quite honestly, and I have said this before, if the child or young person gets the required number of GCSEs, goes into the sixth form and goes to university. Schools lap up the number of students who go into the sixth form because they get extra funding for it, yet we know that half the pupils in our secondary schools are not academic, and we have this academic curriculum.
The other thing that surprises me in the Statement, which I think is crucial, is that young people need guidance. They need advice. They need help. They need support. I am surprised that there is no mention of careers education or careers guidance in the Statement —at this point, I declare an interest as a patron of Career Connect. It rightly says that
“our young people risk being left behind.”
That is absolutely right, because currently we have about one million NEETs in this country—not in education, employment or training. It talks about
“local businesses becoming more productive … and bustle returning to the high street”,
which begs the question of how we are going to do that. That is not just by quality training; there are number of other issues. Of course, the hike in national insurance did not help businesses, to be honest, and it certainly did not help high streets either.
The Statement talks about
“a muddle of confusing pathways”,
yet in some respects makes the muddle even more confusing, replacing BTECs with V-levels and cutting funding for the international baccalaureate programme in state schools. We welcome V-levels bringing flexibility, but we would rather see the phasing out of BTECs by 2027, both running in parallel during the transition so that outcomes can be compared. We know that BTECs work, because 200,000 students took them last year and 99% of universities accept them. One in five workers hold them. We need the Government to be more supportive here and look at funding streams. Why can sixth forms claim VAT, yet further education colleges cannot, for example? We support V-levels, but only if the transition from BTECs is based on evidence and if sufficient funding is provided to truly deliver a world-class vocational education.
Briefly, I am pleased about the section on universities. On the last Statement, the Minister gave us an assurance that the Government would face up to the funding crisis in universities, and they have been true to their word, but it is a bit disappointing that more money could have been available for universities had they not slapped on the levy for overseas students. That could have been an income stream that benefited the university sector.
I turn to the international baccalaureate. It sets the global benchmark for education. It is trusted by universities, employers and educators around the world as a mark of academic excellence, and thousands of British families choose to send their children to schools offering the IB diploma. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of this cut to students’ ability to study under an internationally recognised programme?
We welcome the Government’s ambition to create a joined-up, strategic approach to education. However, the glaring omission of lifelong learning cannot be ignored. Learning does not end at 21. What steps are the Government taking to provide pathways for essential professions and deal with shortages in social work, nursing and engineering? It is important to all of us—we all have a real stake in this, the present Government and the previous Government—that we get this right and that it works. I hope that the mantra of two decades ago, “education, education, education”, is replaced by “skills, skills, skills”.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, in the relatively short time left for me before we get on to other questions, I will endeavour to respond to as many of the points raised as possible. Just to reiterate, this White Paper outlines the Government’s plans to deliver a joined-up skills system that targets skills gaps and leaves no place or person behind, a specialist and prestigious FE sector with high-quality study pathways into work and a world-leading higher education sector that drives innovation and growth and delivers high quality and good value for students. It is the blueprint for delivering the Prime Minister’s bold new target for two-thirds of young people to participate in higher-level learning—academic, technical or apprenticeships—by age 25.
On the first point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about higher technical qualifications, we will work with the Office for Students to develop new HTQ awarding powers for providers and we are reforming the process for designating higher technical qualifications to make them meet a wider range of employer and local needs. I am glad that she recognised the development of technical excellence colleges as an important way of raising standards in further education. We are outlining plans for a further 19, following the 10 construction techs, in a range of other industrial strategy areas, and techs, of course, will enable us to raise standards by developing advanced equipment, specialised staff and new curricula, all alongside industry. We will learn and build on the model of institutes of technology, although I note that they have not been as successful in developing levels 4 and 5 as I suspect noble Lords opposite wanted them to be.
On the development of V-levels, this Government have taken the decision to maintain that important vocational route for young people—a route that would have disappeared under the previous Government’s plans. In doing that, we will build on what works in current vocational qualifications but we will also make sure that these new qualifications are linked to what employers need to see in those areas, guided by national standards.
On defunding, as we said last year when we carried out the qualifications review, we believe that where there are large courses in the same area as T-levels, students will gain more by following a T-level course. But we are going back from the defunding proposals of the previous Government, even some of those in the qualifications review last year, and we will maintain funding for all large qualifications in non-T-level routes, and for medium-sized and small qualifications in T-level routes, up to the point at which V-levels are available, ensuring that the transition is as smooth as possible. In developing V-levels, we will engage with colleges, employers and, of course, awarding bodies.
On the English and maths qualification, it remains incredibly important that young people achieve that grade 4 in English and maths, and that is why we have both increased funding and been clear in our guidance that that should continue to happen in further education colleges. But there is no point in somebody keeping on taking an examination when they have not yet been able to gain the foundation necessary to succeed in that. That is why we will introduce new opportunities through level 1 qualifications for those foundations to be built on, so as to achieve success for young people rather than failure. We will invest in the further education workforce, as we already have done, and we will provide £800 million extra next year for the further education sector.
Yes, we will consider areas where we can expand T-levels.
I will probably get the opportunity to say more about higher education quality later, but we are clear that where there is bad value for public money, we will, alongside the OfS, ensure that it goes out of the system.
There is mention, by the way, of level 2 and 3 apprenticeships, not least in the £1 billion of investment that this Government have put into sector skills packages.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, suggested that the Statement was rhetorical. Yes, elements of it were, but I am sure that he has also looked at the considerable amount of detail in the White Paper, and I am sure we will have many more opportunities to get into more detail on that.
Fundamentally, as the noble Lord says, what the White Paper does is to improve the status of our technical and vocational qualification routes, for young people and for older people, to ensure that we bring about a fundamental renewal of the skills system as part of our national renewal. This White Paper is a turning point, and I look forward to working through how we deliver this fundamental change, how we measure it and how this therefore leads to an improved skills system, improved opportunities for people throughout their lives, and improved growth for our economy.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I too welcome this White Paper. I think it is a turning point. It is a document of ambition and a very serious document. If it is implemented, it is a turning point—there will be no going back on some key issues. But the devil really is in the detail and, although it is an ambitious document, I just want to press the Minister on the BTECs and the V-level qualifications because that is the biggest change. If they do not work, this will not be a successful White Paper.
Did I hear the Minister say that there will be no gap between the defunding of the successful BTECs and the introduction of the V-levels, even if that is later than anticipated in the White Paper, which may very well be the case? A query I have in my mind is: if the content of the BTEC is successful now with both employers and learners, will that content be reclassified as a V-level or will it cease to exist?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
To reiterate, what we have said is that where there is a T-level in place, we will, as we said we would in the qualifications review that we did last year, defund a large qualification that sits alongside it because all the evidence is that students get through T-levels—and the placements, for example, that go alongside T-levels—a better chance of progression. But, yes, in all other areas we will maintain existing qualifications up to the point that a V-level is in place to replace them. We will want V-levels to build on what is good about current vocational qualifications, including BTECs, and that is why we will engage, through our advisory group, with college principals, the awarding organisations and others. Of course, we have issued a consultation document on the development of V-levels and the other important reforms in post-16 qualifications, which I encourage not just noble Lords but anybody else who is interested in this to contribute to.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, this is certainly an important document. The first thing I noticed about it, though, was that it is being fronted by DSIT but not DCMS, which does not seem to be involved at all—when the creative industries are such an important aspect of the industrial strategy, and in particular the many skill sets that will be needed to drive these industries. Those skills will have their own pathways. So I ask the Minister: what thought has been given to vocational pathways for those who wish to work in the creative industries?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
There will be opportunities through V-levels for those interested in vocational routes into the creative industries. There will be opportunities through some of the sector skills packages—not least, for example, in the area of digital—to support the creative industries. There is, of course, a sector skills plan as part of the creative industries element of the Government’s industrial strategy.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I particularly welcome the increase in fees for students, as that sets the resources available for the education of students without affecting the monthly repayments that graduates subsequently make. However, the international student levy will take away quite a bit of that resource, so does the Minister agree that the real resource available for educating students overall will continue to fall? Does she accept that that cannot carry on indefinitely?
I also welcome the recognition in the White Paper that there is no viable alternative to the fees and loans system that we have now had for over 20 years. But is the Minister concerned that there are still misunderstandings and misplaced anxieties that it is somehow a fixed amount of debt like a credit card debt or stops you getting a mortgage? If anything, those concerns appear to be increasing. Will the DfE energetically commit to explaining to young people the realities of how the system works?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
On the noble Lord’s first point, no, I do not accept that an index-linked increase in tuition fees—a certainty of funding that no other public or private sector organisations, or very few, could have committed to them—will leave universities worse off. That is notwithstanding this Government’s decision that in order to reinstate the maintenance grants removed by the last Government we will use a levy on international students to reintroduce targeted maintenance grants for students. Of course, asking students to invest in their education is right, alongside government investment, but we need to make sure that that world-leading higher education system is open to all who can benefit from it and that we close the gap in access, which has persisted for too long.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the Government have stated, and the Minister has repeated, the concentration on English and maths. They have also talked about special educational needs and I once again declare my interests: I am president of the British Dyslexia Association—whose event in the Commons I am missing at the moment—and chairman of Microlink plc, which does assistive tech packages.
On special educational needs—dyscalculia, for example—I met somebody the other day whose brother had failed the maths component of an apprenticeship for the 15th time. Can we make sure that, when we look at the qualifications, if we are going to bring everybody into the skill set, everybody is allowed to pass, either by changing the qualification or allowing assistive technology to be used? This does not happen in universities, which can make their own rules, but for the higher education sector—levels up to five—it is essential that we have that guidance from the Government.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Quite often in further education, there is very good special educational needs provision, which we will learn from. We will also ensure, as part of our special educational needs reform, that further education is included as a part of that. However, the whole point about the reform in English and maths qualifications—particularly the introduction of a new qualification that will enable students to demonstrate and build on their foundations—is to support more young people to pass. The noble Lord will also know that we have changed the conditions for adult apprenticeships so that it is no longer necessary to get a separate English or maths qualification in order to get an adult apprenticeship.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, while I associate myself with the comments on the IB from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, I want to focus on the issue of NEETs. The White Paper seeks to address the growing problem of NEETs with pre-NEET targeted support in schools, the youth guarantee and short courses funded by the growth and skills levy, and the lifelong learning entitlement. Can the Minister tell us how these short courses will consolidate into the high-quality apprenticeships that this vulnerable group need if they are to prosper in the labour market?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for recognising the range of reform necessary to tackle this enormously worrying problem of young people who are neither learning nor earning. In order to prevent that in the first place, as he identifies, we will have higher expectations on schools to ensure suitable destinations for young people. We will look at the ways in which we can ensure that every young person has a place in a college and is auto-enrolled if necessary. We will then, through, for example, the Chancellor’s announcement of a backstop youth guarantee work placement for young people on universal credit who have been out of work for 18 months, make sure that people no longer start their working life without the work or training that can lead them to succeed.
When it comes to short courses, this is part of our reform of the apprenticeship levy into a much more flexible growth and skills levy, which, alongside short courses, also introduces foundation apprenticeships. These will be a very important way in which young people can enter the workforce and will have an important impact on NEETs as well.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
I ask noble Lords to keep their questions short. We have enormous interest in this subject and we want to get through as many questions as we can.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a visiting professor at King’s and chairman of FutureLearn. I welcome the Statement, particularly, like my noble friend Lord Willetts, the bold decision to index fees with inflation—it is absolutely the right thing to do after a decade of real-terms freezes. However, I regret the missed opportunity to fix some of the big problems with the lifelong learning entitlement and the decision to take away with the other hand what the Government have just given on the fees front. Can the Minister please confirm the scope of the proposed tax on international tuition fees? Does it include, for example, online provision and transnational education—that is, courses taken by students from British universities while they are studying in other countries? Given that the Government have acknowledged that they do not have a strong evidence base on elasticity of demand, would it not be a better idea to pause to rollout of this tax or, better still, shelve it altogether?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I explained to the noble Lord’s colleague the reason behind the international student levy. I do not think it is true to say that there is not an evidence base on the elasticity of demand for international students, but we will have more to say about the design of the international student levy at the point of the Budget.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
I welcome also the ambitious nature of the White Paper, but can the Minister respond to how the strategy will ensure that creative industries and crafts are seen as legitimate skill sectors on an equal footing with engineering, manufacturing and industrial bodies? Given that many creative and craft roles are bespoke, freelance or project-based, how does the strategy accommodate non-standard employment and income models in training and qualifications? How will successful craft and creative routes be measured and how will this compare with other sectors?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
There are a lot of questions in the noble Lord’s question, most of which I will have to respond to in writing. I reassure him that, in the sorts of crafts he talked about, we maintain a considerable number of apprenticeship standards that can be used by employers to take on apprentices and continue those sorts of important crafts.
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)
My Lords, I too welcome the Statement. I want to probe the issue of franchising in the higher education sector. I am delighted to see the Government take action, but, as the Minister will be aware, there is some anxiety that, by requiring only the largest providers to register, we may miss some of the bad actors in this area. Will the Government keep the case for universal basic registration of all providers under review?
Secondly, as the Minister is aware, there have been excess profits made. Can she assure us that the department will be monitoring these returns, to mitigate the profiteering with public money and tackle the inadequate teaching that there has been for some students involved in this sector? Finally, will she keep under review the risks of keeping the student loan book open to high-risk providers in this area?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is right that, over recent years, the doubling of the effective subcontracting of university education through franchising has led to concerns around the quality for students and the value for money for the taxpayer. That is why we will take action to register providers of franchised provision and we will strengthen the ability of the Office for Students to tackle poor provision where it is found.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
I support the comments of my noble friend Lord Storey and the noble Lord, Lord Knight, on NEETs and funding for them. One of the issues about NEETs is the “not known” figure. We might know the young people who are not in employment, education or training, but often there is a cohort who are not known, and that is where investment in information, advice, guidance and youth work will be essential.
I have two questions for the Minister about lifelong learning. There is a glaring omission from the Statement, and that is post-21 apprenticeships. Lifelong learning does not end at 21, and I would like the Government to look again at the cuts being made to those apprenticeships in the health sector, et cetera. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, asked about the assessment of the cut to the international baccalaureate, and what impact that will have on transnational students, particularly those who want to study abroad as well.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
First, there is an increase in the number of apprenticeships that have started under this Government. Secondly, on the issue of the international baccalaureate, colleges and schools will continue to receive funding to provide courses, including the international baccalaureate. What they will not receive is the additional top-up that they have for the international baccalaureate, because this Government have made the decision to focus that on maths and STEM subjects, where people take larger numbers of courses. Prioritising those areas is a legitimate decision. Where the IB is being taught, there will be transitional support as the top-up is removed.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, the White Paper places heavy emphasis on modularity and credit transfer as mechanisms to improve post-16 education. Has the Minister taken full account of the evaluation of the previous attempt, the qualifications and credit framework, brought in in 2008 and scrapped in 2015, and all the lessons that this should have taught us about the risks and important requirements for such a system?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I think the noble Baroness was welcoming the development of a more modular approach, supported through the delivery of the lifelong learning entitlement. Of course, we will want to look carefully at previous experiences, but we have a big opportunity here to increase both the prevalence of students who are able to go through a pathway to level 4 and 5 courses and the willingness of higher education institutions to work with further education to promote the possibility of that happening. As I say, we will learn from previous experiences in doing that.
Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, alignment with the industrial strategy is vital, and I am really pleased to see that the White Paper is taking a national view of skills in target sectors. It is good news that sector skills packages with significant investment attached have been agreed for construction, TechFirst, engineering and defence.
As has been said, there are also shortages in the creative industries. I therefore press my noble friend the Minister: does she agree that the development and agreement of a sector skills plan and package for and with the creative industries—working with DfE, DCMS and DSIT—is a priority and needs to be developed at pace?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As my noble friend knows, there is a sector skills plan that goes alongside the creative industries’ inclusion in the industrial strategy. Of course, it is already the case that among the sector skills packages—for example, the digital package, with £187 million behind it—we will be developing important skills for the creative industry. As well as the sector skills plan, jobs plans will be developed in each of the areas, and I am sure my noble friend will maintain her pressure to make sure that this makes the difference to skills in the creative industries that I know she wants to see.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, on the reality of student debt, for the cohort that started to be liable for paying off debt in April 2025, the average debt was £53,000. In the government stats for students starting in 2024-25, it is expected that about 56% of full-time undergraduates will repay in full, which of course means that 44% of those students will spend 40 years paying off a loan they will never finish paying off. Can the Minister tell me, either now or in writing, what these increases in fees will do to those two figures?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness has identified the very different nature of student loan provision from an ordinary form of borrowing. What a student repays is dependent neither on the size of the debt nor on the interest rate; it is dependent on the student’s level of income once they are working. The noble Baroness can shake her head, but that is the reality of the way the system is designed. Therefore, there is both a student contribution and, in many ways, a taxpayer contribution to ensuring that there is no upfront cost to students going to university. The noble Lord makes an important point that we need to clarify the nature of the student loan system, in order that we do not discourage young people from going to university.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a working teacher. I very much welcome this wonderfully optimistic White Paper and its positively Churchillian language. At one point, it says that
“we are improving careers advice in schools … and introducing 2 weeks’ worth of work experience throughout a young person’s secondary education”.
The Gatsby Foundation’s Ghost of Provisions Past talks about the difficulty of securing meaningful work placements. When schools’ biggest complaint is that T-levels are incredibly difficult to teach because you cannot get meaningful work placements, how do the Government see this working?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
One of the big advantages of T-levels is that students are able to gain a 45-day work placement alongside their studies. T-level students continuously tell me that this is what they find most satisfying about doing a T-level. Yes, there is a challenge to make sure that those are of a high quality, but that is why, through our T-level ambassadors and through a very good meeting I had just last week with employers, we are continuing to work to make sure that employers provide those placements. They are of benefit not only to the students but to the employers themselves, who often find the workers of the future in those placements.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
22:07 - Division on Amendment 73 - Ayes: 83 / Noes: 113 - Amendment 73 disagreed.
22:18 - Division on Amendment 74 - Ayes: 84 / Noes: 113 - Amendment 74 disagreed.
“Property flood resilience measures: planning permission(1) Planning permission for the building of new homes at higher risk of flooding can only be granted if property flood resilience measures are implemented as part of the construction.(2) For the purposes of implementing subsection (1) and within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 to require that property flood resilience measures are included in any new homes at higher risk of flooding.(3) Property flood resilience measures under this section may include—(a) raised electrical sockets;(b) non-return valves on utility pipes;(c) airbrick covers;(d) resilient wall plaster;(e) any other measure as the Secretary of State may specify.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to Amendments 70 and 81. I also say in passing how appealing I find the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. There was a much-ignored review by Anna Walker on water efficiency, and the amendments that the noble Baroness has proposed encapsulate the recommendations, so I look forward to hearing her and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, speak to them.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for supporting both these amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for supporting Amendment 70. These amendments are flip sides of the same coin. The Government have a choice. If they are going to build on flood plains, particularly on the most hazardous, the riskiest and the most prone to flooding, they must take the precautions of introducing property flood resilience measures, as I have set out in Amendment 70. These are very practical: raised electrical sockets and non-return valves, among other specifications that I have set out.
In fact, I am sure that many of these could be introduced through building regulations, so would take the form of secondary legislation. I do not believe that we necessarily need to have the detail. But I would like the Government either to make a commitment to increasing property flood resilience measures where we are building on functional flood plains or to desist from building on functional flood plains completely.
When I tabled a similar amendment to Amendment 81 to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill—now Act— I was very encouraged to have the support of the then Opposition for the proposition now contained in Amendment 81, so I hope that this support can be repeated and that the Government will now support the contents of that amendment. It is very clear. It just seeks to ensure that local authorities cannot grant planning permission for residential properties to be built on flood plains or in areas at a high risk of flooding.
In particular, I have focused on zones 3a and 3b. Why is that important? Some 6.3 million homes in the UK are currently at risk of flooding and this will increase to 8 million, or one in every four homes, by 2050. If the Government continue that trend, 115,000 of the planned 1.5 million homes would be in higher-risk flood areas. Perhaps the core reason it is inappropriate to build on flood plains which are zone 3a or 3b is that, as we know, since the Flood Re scheme came into effect, any house built on a flood plain since 2009 will not be insured under the scheme. They may be able to have insurance, but it will be very expensive indeed. It seems mind-boggling that we would even consider building on those most at-risk flood plains. If the Government persist with their desire to build on these particular flood plains then I am asking that we make them resilient through these measures.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as noted in the register as a non-executive director of NatCap Research. This declaration is particularly appropriate as I stand to support the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, in bringing back this sensible amendment—indeed, I support all the amendments in this group—because this company, along with many others, provides a scientific evidence base for nature and climate-based risks for companies that are concerned about the changing environmental landscape in which they find themselves, not least because of the costs to their businesses, stocks and shares, and the bottom line if they do not bring in mitigation measures.
I am therefore struggling to understand why the Government feel unable to support such a sensible amendment, which would ensure the same sort of mitigation approach for individual homeowners, especially those in the lower socioeconomic bands who may not be able to afford the high costs of flood risk or have any insurance. We must acknowledge that flood risk is real. We hear many examples, and I could give more— I will not, because of time. It is a rapidly increasing risk. It is not something that might happen; it is something that will happen, and we are seeing yearly changes occurring now. What is being suggested here are simple and low-cost measures that can be taken by developers to ensure that the homes they sell in areas of higher flood risk are future-proofed.
In Committee, the Minister responded that:
“Designers of new homes may also choose to follow the Construction Industry Research and Information Association code of practice, which includes installing flood-resilient features”.—[Official Report, 4/9/25; col. 1024.]
What happens when designers decide not to follow this and the burden of repairing homes damaged by flooding falls to the owners and their insurers? Strengthening planning rules to encourage low-cost property resilience measures, such as those proposed in this amendment, means that the risk to individual homeowners can be reduced from the outset, and the costs of flooding—not just financial but to mental well- being—can be avoided.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the two noble Baronesses who have just spoken, demonstrating the breadth of support for this set of amendments around the House. As the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, said, to paraphrase, this is a common-sense set of measures which are not big-P “political” at all—it just something that obviously needs to be done.
I am speaking to Amendments 70 and 81, to which I attached my name, and for my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who tabled Amendments 86, 120, 121A and 121B. Briefly, on the first two, we have to set the context. A week ago, the Committee on Climate Change told the Government that we have to be preparing for 2 degrees of warming by 2050. Even more critically perhaps, in the context of this Bill, the Government and the country have not yet adapted to the levels of warming that we already have.
As in so many other areas—not just flooding but heat and cold—we are building homes that immediately need to be retrofitted, or homes that are setting people up for months, if not years, of misery. If a home was flooded and we had the kind of measures proposed by Amendment 70, it would be possible to clean the home up and, potentially, for people to move back in quite quickly. Without those measures, there are issues around the cost of insurance and months or even years of misery before there is any way that the home is occupiable again. We should not be building homes in that condition, and where homes are being retrofitted it should be to prepare them for that.
Those are my views on Amendments 70 and 81. I spoke extensively in Committee on Amendment 81, so I shall just repeat: the flood plain is not beside the river; the flood plain is part of the river.
My noble friend’s amendments are about the other side of this issue. They do not deal with the flood-water rushing down the river, the surface water that is rushing off the hard surfaces that is so typical of many areas, or the impounded soils that reflect so much of our land management now. This is saying that we should catch that water and use it in the right kind of way. It is talking about having infrastructure systems that have sustainable harvesting—we talked a lot about water butts in Committee—in order to distribute fit-for-purpose water among residents. It makes no sense at all that we still use massive quantities of expensive—in both financial and energy terms—treated drinking water for purposes where we do not need anything like that quality.
These amendments are also about reducing costs. We have a cost of living crisis, so if we can use free water rather than water that we have to pay for, that would be a win-win all round. Similarly, Amendment 120 is about water efficiency and making sure that the design minimises the amount of water use. These are all practical things and it is hard to see any reason why anyone could argue that they should not be in the Bill.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my registered interests, particularly that I chair a company that advises people on sustainability, and water is central to that.
I want to encourage the Government to move on this subject. I hope that they will allow me to do so by pointing out that the previous Government still have to explain how they managed to get rid of the regulations that would have meant that, instead of building 1.5 million homes that are not fit for the future and that have to be retrofitted, we reduced the opportunities to make our building code insist that, when people sell a house, it is fit for the future. This is a wonderful opportunity for the present Government to show that they have changed that way of looking at things and I am very surprised that they have not done so on this central issue of water.
We know what will happen. There are not many things in life that are certain, but one is that we will have too little water at some times of the year and far too much water at other times of the year. Therefore, I wonder why the Government have not jumped up to say how good these amendments are and that this is exactly what we should have. I do not always agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but I agree with her comment that this is obvious: this is what we should be doing and there should not be any argument about it. So why are we not doing it?
When I was chairman of the Climate Change Committee, one of the problems we faced was that the adaptation side did not have the same statutory role that the mitigation part had. There is no doubt that, historically, we have not adapted fast enough, so we need to adapt very much faster.
I say to the Minister: if we do not start putting right the new houses, when we have such a long history of old houses that will have to be done, all we will do is build a greater problem for ourselves and our children, and that is unacceptable. It is much more unacceptable for the Government to say that designers “may” use the best advice. The problem is that, if they do not use the best advice, people will sell houses to others who will have to pay the cost of retrofitting. The housebuilders are therefore making profits by taking the money and not building houses that are suitable. It is the duty of the Government to insist that the standards are such that, when you buy a house, you can rely—at least for some reasonable time—on it being proper and fit for the future.
I hope that the Minister will be extremely generous in her acceptance of these amendments and, if not, that she will promise to come back with amendments that will do what—as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said—everybody needs and knows needs to be done.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh, Lady Willis, Lady Bennett and Lady Jones, for resuming this all-important discussion we held in Committee. Indeed, many of the amendments aim to define whether the Bill meets the climate reality of what is happening today or continues to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Amendment 70 strengthens the requirement that planning decisions consider cumulative flood risk. Too many developments are still approved on already saturated land, leaving new residents vulnerable and the taxpayer to pick up the cost of recurring floods. As our colleague in the Commons, Gideon Amos, argued:
“Nobody should have to deal with that raw sewage coming into their home and garden”,—[Official Report, Commons, 12/3/25; col. 416WH.]
when flood-waters surge. However, this remains a lived experience for thousands today, because sustainable drainage rules have not been made mandatory. Amendment 70 ensures that flood plain development decisions properly account for these realities.
Amendment 81 would require local plans to align with catchment-wide flood mitigation strategies. That is long overdue. After all, flooding has no respect for, or understanding of, council boundaries, so planning policies must be equally joined up to match that. The amendment would prevent the patchwork approach that critics have warned has left entire communities at risk.
Amendment 86 focuses on sustainable drainage systems —SUDS—echoing the unfulfilled recommendations, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, of the Pitt Review from 2008; and on our own Benches there is a long-standing call to commence Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. These systems manage rainfall where it lands, reduce sewage overload and help alleviate combined sewer overflows, reducing the unacceptable discharge of sewage which has been witnessed so often in flood events.
Amendments 120 and 120A shift focus from drainage to water efficiency and the long-term supply. They would require the Secretary of State to issue national guidance promoting water reuse, rainwater harvesting, greywater systems and distributed storage at development scale. These are pragmatic, tried and tested approaches to reducing both flooding and water scarcity—two sides of the same crisis which increasingly confronts so many of our UK communities.
Taken together, all these amendments turn abstract sustainability pledges into enforceable planning duties, at a time when the Government’s own reviews have concluded that the current policy is simply not working. We on these Benches believe that these fixes are essential, not optional. Our planning system must no longer treat flooding as an afterthought but as a central test of responsible design. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these very useful amendments.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her commitment to this flooding issue, which impacts far too many households in this country and which, as our climate changes, is likely to impact far more.
New housing built on flood plains since 2009 is not able to be reinsured under Flood Re, supposedly because that housing does not need it. However, as my noble friend points out, that is not the case. Her Amendment 70 requires greater flood resilience measures if we are not to rule out building on flood plains entirely. It seems eminently sensible to help protect homeowners and ensure that insurance is available at an affordable price, and so we support this amendment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, makes strong points in Amendments 86, 120, 121A and 121B, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Clean drinking water in our country is a finite resource, and measures to improve efficiency, analyse demand and increase reuse are sensible. I will welcome any comments from the Minister that show what the Government are already doing and plan to do to address these matters. However, we would not be in support of adding this to our already overburdened planning process.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.
I will first address Amendments 70 and 81, concerning flood risk and resilience within the planning system. They draw attention to the important matter of how we prepare for and mitigate the impacts of flooding, particularly in light of the growing challenges posed by climate change. The Government treat these concerns with the utmost seriousness. We are aware of the distress, disruption and financial cost that flooding brings—so ably illustrated by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender; of the heightened risks associated with a changing climate; and of the necessity to maintain a robust but proportionate framework for managing these risks.
Amendment 70 seeks to require property flood resilience measures in new homes located in areas of high flood risk. As has been made clear in previous debates, enhancing the resilience of properties exposed to flood risk is indeed an important objective, which I know we all share across the House. In support of this, building regulations already promote flood-resilient construction in flood-prone areas through approved document C, while ensuring that where properties do not require additional measures, they are not subject to undue burdens.
Amendment 81 seeks to impose a statutory ban on residential development in flood zone 3. While we agree with the principle of steering development away from areas at highest flood risk, this amendment would prohibit development even in major urban areas such as Hull and central London, which, although within flood zone 3, are protected by robust engineered flood defences. Such a blanket ban would prevent development coming forward that could otherwise be made safe for its lifetime and would not increase flood risk elsewhere. Instead, the National Planning Policy Framework already provides strong safeguards, directing development away from the most flood-prone areas, including flood plains, and makes it clear that inappropriate development in these areas should be avoided.
Our policy also ensures that new housing and most other development types are not permitted in functional flood plains—flood zone 3b—where water must flow or be stored during floods. Where development is allowed, it must be proven safe for its lifetime, with full consideration of the vulnerability of its users. The effectiveness of our current policy position is clear: in 2024-25, 96% of all planning decisions and 99% of all new homes proposed in planning applications complied with Environment Agency advice on flood risk, and these figures have remained stable over time.
Finally, I highlight that we are making a record £10.5 billion investment in flood and coastal erosion defences, the largest programme in history, including £300 million for natural flood management over a 10-year period and unlocking further investment from public, private and charitable sources.
Amendments 86, 120, 121A and 121B were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I am sorry that she is not in her place because it would have been my first opportunity to welcome her back to the Chamber. The amendments, ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, concern sustainable water management and draw attention to the important need to reduce demand on water resources. The Government fully acknowledge the critical nature of sustainable water management and water efficiency.
To address that issue, in September the Government launched a consultation to review the water efficiency standards within the Building Regulations 2010. This will ensure increased water efficiency for new housing and tighter standards for water-stressed areas. The consultation includes a call for evidence on water reuse systems in new developments to enable even greater water efficiency. We are investigating how we can bring technologies such as rainwater harvesting into new developments safely. Reuse of grey water or rainwater should be subject to careful policy consideration, as any accidental, inadvertent or incompetent contamination of potable water could lead to a public health incident. In support of this, we are also examining how we might upskill those in the plumbing and construction sectors, ensuring that they can safely install such systems. Additionally, in December 2024, we updated our National Planning Policy Framework to expand the requirement for sustainable drainage systems to all developments that have drainage implications. These systems can incorporate rainwater harvesting, which not only aids water storage but helps regulate flow rates from sites.
In the light of this, I am concerned that the additional measures proposed through Amendment 86 would be duplicative and would remove the appropriateness of efficiency measures to be determined on a case-by-case basis. We must remain mindful of not imposing blanket requirements, as a one-size-fits-all mandate may not be suitable in all local contexts. This can instead risk unintended consequences, such as increased expenses for developers and home owners, and may slow down the housing delivery that we so desperately need.
On Amendment 120, planning authorities already consider water efficiency targets in applications and can set tighter optional water efficiency standards through the planning process. Water efficiency standards and guidance are determined through building regulations. Duplicating this, adding further monitoring and evaluation requirements, could impose administrative and financial burdens on local authorities.
On Amendment 121A, planning authorities must already consider water supply and quality through strategic environmental assessment, also informed by strategic flood risk assessments, while water efficiency standards are set and enforced through the building control process. We should not duplicate existing planning guidance and building control processes.
Regarding Amendment 121B, the Government support sustainable water management and water efficiency and are already giving consideration to how water reuse can reduce water scarcity and drainage and wastewater pressures on growth where they are needed—for example, through the current consultation on Building Regulations and the associated call for evidence on water reuse systems in new development. In addition to the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework for all new development with drainage implications to incorporate sustainable drainage systems, planning policy also requires that strategic policies should make sufficient provision for water supply and wastewater.
The existing statutory requirement that local planning authorities engage with specific consultees such as the Environment Agency and sewerage and water undertakers when developing local plans is supported by our planning guidance, which encourages early engagement between strategic policy-making authorities and water and sewerage companies. Strategic and local planning authorities will need to consider these requirements when preparing their spatial development strategies and local plans. I therefore kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to those who spoke in favour of my amendment, in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis of Summertown and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lord Deben. I am deeply disappointed by the Minister’s response because, actually, she made the case for precisely why these amendments are needed. I hope that, at the behest of my noble friend Lord Deben, the Minister might agree to come back with amendments in her own name at Third Reading. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Agent of change: integration of new development with existing businesses and facilities(1) In this section—“agent of change principle” means the principle requiring planning policies and decisions to ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities so that those businesses and facilities do not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of developments permitted after they were established;“development” has the same meaning as in section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (meaning of “development” and “new development”);“licensing functions” has the same meaning as in section 4(1) of the Licensing Act 2003 (general duties of licensing authorities);“provision of regulated entertainment” has the same meaning as in Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003 (provision of regulated entertainment);“relevant authority” means a relevant planning authority within the meaning of section 91 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, or a licensing authority within the meaning of section 3 of the Licensing Act 2003 (licensing authorities).(2) In exercising any functions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or any licensing functions concerning development which is or is likely to be affected by an existing business or facility, a relevant authority shall have special regard to the agent of change principle. (3) An application for development within the vicinity of any premises licensed for the provision of regulated entertainment shall contain, in addition to any relevant requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/595), a noise impact assessment.(4) In determining whether noise emitted by or from an existing business or community facility constitutes a nuisance to a residential development, the decision-maker shall have regard to—(a) the chronology of the introduction of the relevant noise source and the residential development, and(b) what steps have been taken by the developer to mitigate the entry of noise from the existing business or facility to the residential development.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for lending his support, and his considerable knowledge and expertise, to Amendment 71. In moving Amendment 71, I will also speak to Amendment 82.
Amendment 82 is a consequential amendment, which would follow on from Amendment 71 if that amendment finds favour with the Government and your Lordships. I draw particular attention to the part of my amendment that says that a
“local authority must have special regard to the desirability of preventing unreasonable restrictions”
for a
“business or facility resulting from the implementation of the development”.
This goes to the argument set out in Amendment 71 as to why the agent of change principle needs to be adopted on a statutory basis.
When I brought forward this issue in the Committee debate, the Minister replied that she felt it was already in the planning framework and that we did not need a statutory footing. I thank her for having a meeting with me in which we briefly touched on the agent of change principle. I draw her attention to the excellent letter from the Music Venue Trust, in which it expressed its concern about the agent of change principle not being on a statutory basis. As many noble Lords will be aware—I spent so longer preparing for my professional qualifications that I never experienced being a raver, but perhaps it is not too late—of the 366 small music venues in which Ed Sheeran played while learning his trade, over 150 have now closed. Of the 34 venues in which Oasis played to launch its members’ careers, only 11 remain. The figures speak for themselves.
One concern at the moment is that the right noises are being made by the various departments, but they are not joined up. The Home Office, which is responsible for licensing, issued updated Section 182 guidance in February, which it went on to say should not be too onerous. I repeat that that guidance is not statutory. The Department of Business and Trade’s licensing task force,
“made up of representatives from government, industry, police and local government”,
published its policy paper report to government for consideration on 31 July 2025, updated on 14 August 2025, calling for reform and wide-ranging proposals, titled, Licensing Policy Sprint: Joint Industry and HM Government Taskforce Report—“sprint” is an odd word to use but is apparently the expression being used—recommendation 10 of which was to
“Make the agent of change principle a factor that must be considered when making licensing decisions”.
Then, of course, we have the Treasury which we understand is important in moving this Bill at pace through both Houses in order that it can be on the statute book as soon as possible. We also have the Department for Business and Trade policy paper.
If the Minister is responsible for planning law; if the Government are hoping to have growth, and if we are trying to protect as many of the remaining live music venues as we are, what is the status of the policy? We were very fortunate to have a licensing practitioner advise the ad hoc committee of this House on the review of the Licensing Act 2003. She was firmly of the view, as are all those like-minded practitioners, that where the agent of change is already embedded in the Section 182 guidance, following the 2003 Act, this needs to be put on a strong, statutory basis. I beg to move.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 71 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, to which I have added my name. I support Amendment 82 as well.
First, I briefly pay tribute to those who have argued for the agent of change principle for much longer than I have, including the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Spellar, among others—some of whom, as the noble Baroness pointed out in Committee, are sadly no longer with us. I am not going to repeat the arguments for the agent of change principle that I made then. Suffice it to say, as I have been making clear, it has been widely supported on a cross-party basis across the whole of Parliament. It has the backing of the music industry, in particular many household names including Paul McCartney. I thank UK Music and the Music Venue Trust among others for their briefings.
As the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, said in Committee, the committee led by the noble Baroness looking at the 2003 licensing legislation was delighted—that was the word it used—that the then Government agreed with it. However, experience has since then proved—and it is now widely understood—that the guidance that has been in place is simply not enough. It is not working.
My main point is to take issue with the Minister’s statement in Committee that embedding these principles in law
“risks increasing the number of legal challenges to developments”.—[Official Report, 4/9/25; col. 1031.]
In disagreeing with this conclusion, it is worth quoting fully what the Music Venue Trust says in response to that statement by the Minister. It states:
“In terms of legal challenges, we believe the opposite. The Music Venue Trust mostly makes planning objections because developers do not have to abide by agent of change, and therefore do not. If they had to abide from the off, we think this would greatly reduce the number of objections we would put in … in cases where objections did have to be placed, they would be resolved much more quickly because the objector would have legislation to point to, which would empower the local authority to respond emphatically”.
The Music Venue Trust points in particular to the significant distinction between Scotland, where the agent of change is statutory, and England, where it is not. In comparative terms, the process in Scotland is straightforward and open; in England, it is characterised by avoidance and prevarication.
I want to make just a couple of other points. First, the Government’s consultation that is currently out on pubs, many of which are also live music venues, makes it even more imperative that the agent of change is legislated for to create the certainty which is now required. Secondly, we are awaiting the imminent publication of the London Nightlife Taskforce report, which my noble friend Lord Freyberg referenced earlier today and which will certainly address planning regulations in relation to the current concerns and live music venues. Whatever happens to this amendment, I hope the Minister will look carefully at the recommendations contained within that report, which will have relevance also to the country as a whole.
Finally, this is an important amendment. If the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, wished to take it to a vote, I would certainly support her.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, live music events and things like that improve people’s lives and the quality of life. You are going down there. You may annoy one or two people, but most people will benefit from them. They are an important part of community involvement, and making sure that they remain is something that this House should be taking seriously.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and others who have expressed their support for this amendment as well as to colleagues in another place who raised similar arguments when the Bill was considered there, not least Dame Caroline Dinenage, the chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in another place.
As noble Lords have said, these venues are vital parts of our cultural infrastructure. They are the reason that we can look forward with excitement to the musicians, artists and talented cultural figures of the future. They are also vital components in building not just houses and housing estates but communities where people want to live with things to do, things that bring joy to their lives. If the Government want the communities that are being built, with the commendable focus on new building that they have, to be vital living and attractive places, it is important that we encourage space for those who are going to brighten our lives with cultural output. We have also seen in the regeneration of coastal communities and many other places how important it is to have those important bits of cultural infrastructure to help revitalise local areas.
Like others, I commend the work of the Music Venue Trust in this regard. It has campaigned long and hard about the plight of live music venues at grass-roots level. My noble friend mentioned Ed Sheeran and Oasis, whose careers were built on these grass-roots venues. I would like to mention Sam Fender, who, like me, hails from North Shields and last week won the Mercury Music Prize and was spotted in the Low Lights Tavern in North Shields. So many of the artists that we like and enjoy today would not be here were it not for those grass-roots venues.
The Music Venue Trust has pointed out how many venues we are losing through all the many challenges. Some 43% of live music grass-roots venues did not make a profit last year. They operate on very tiny margins. There are obviously contending with the rise in national insurance contributions that the Government have set, and last year’s Budget cut rate relief from 75% to 40%, adding a £7 million tax burden on them. Anything we can do to make it easier for the number of grass-roots music venues and bits of cultural infrastructure to grow rather than diminish is worth supporting, and I add my voice in support of those who have spoken up for this amendment.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 71 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and my noble friend Lord Clancarty. As has been said, this is a long-standing issue and it lies at the heart of how new development coexists with existing businesses and community facilities. It concerns fairness and foresight in the planning system, ensuring that when new homes are built near established venues and facilities, the newcomers, not those already there, bear the responsibility for mitigating any resulting conflicts.
The crisis facing grass-roots music venues is now acute. As the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, according to the Music Venue Trust, the UK lost one grass-roots music venue every fortnight in 2024 and almost half of them—43.8%—now operate at a loss, with a quarter facing imminent closure. This follows the loss of 16% of all such venues in 2023, with 125 spaces for live music gone in a single year. The pattern is sadly familiar. A venue thrives for decades, new flats are built nearby, residents complain, and the venue faces crippling restrictions or closure. The iconic Night & Day Cafe in Manchester and the Ministry of Sound in London have fought costly, protracted battles simply to continue existing.
The agent of change principle is meant to prevent exactly this. After years of campaigning led by the Music Venue Trust and supported, as my noble friend said, by Sir Paul McCartney, Brian Eno, and many others, it was finally incorporated into the national policy framework in 2018, yet seven years on, that policy has fallen short. Why is that? It is because guidance alone cannot override statutory duties under environmental health law. Local authorities must still investigate noise complaints and issue abatement notices, even when the source of that noise long predates the new development. The principle exists in spirit but lacks legal force.
This amendment would put that right. It establishes a statutory duty spanning both planning and licensing functions. It requires developers to submit proper noise impact assessments to mitigate the impact of the schemes on existing venues and, crucially, requires decision-makers to consider chronology. Who was there first must matter in law, not just in principle. This is not only about nightclubs or music venues; the same logic protects churches from complaints about bells, pubs from garden noise and sports clubs from cheering crowds. Indeed, it protects any established community use threatened by incompatible new development. This is a modest but essential reform that will help stem the loss of venues that make our towns and cities vibrant and give local authorities the clarity they need to balance growth with cultural sustainability. I urge the Government to support it.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I am going to be extraordinarily brief, because the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, has explained explicitly what this is about and why it is desperately needed. I add my name to all those who have spoken so passionately in favour of it and look forward to the Minister, with equal passion, agreeing to it.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I am going to try to be brief, but I am afraid I am going to be beaten by the Liberal Democrats—just occasionally one has to accept this. I offer our support for Amendments 71 and 82, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. As other noble Lords have said, it is a principle of fairness. If you are the one bringing change, you should be responsible for managing its impact. Yet, time and again, we have seen valued businesses, particularly in the live music, hospitality and cultural sectors, threatened or closed down due to new developments that arrive without sufficient mitigation and proper regard to the context within which they are being introduced. If you build a house on the edge of a cricket pitch, do not be surprised to see the occasional cricket ball flying into your garden.
The reality is that guidance, however well intentioned, is inconsistently applied. Local authorities are left without a clear statutory duty to uphold the agent of change principle. Amendment 82 extends this principle to a licensing regime we would also support. We see this as a constructive and proportionate improvement to the Bill that balances the need for new development with the equally important need to protect existing cultural, social and economic structures. We on these Benches are pleased to support this principle and hope that the Government will recognise the value of giving it a clear statutory footing. I ask the Minister for an assurance that existing businesses and community facilities will not be put at risk from subsequent developments.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for a very interesting debate on this topic. Next July, I will have the benefit of five days of Oasis concerts in the fantastic venue of Knebworth House, which is just about a mile away from my house, and this summer we enjoyed Old Town Live, a day-long festival for local bands including, I hope, some of the successors to Oasis—we never know. I can hear and enjoy both of these from my house, and they represent the important cultural role of music venues and their place in the ladder of musical talent that not only contributes so much to our culture in this country but makes an enormous contribution to our economy as well. I say that to show that I understand the issue here and the Government share the desire to ensure that new homes do not undermine the operation of long-established businesses in their local area, be they music or other cultural venues.
The agent of change principle is embedded into the planning system. Where the operation of an existing premises could have a significant adverse effect on new development in its vicinity, the responsibility lies with the applicant or agent of change to put suitable mitigation in place, whether that is engineering solutions, layout, planning conditions or mitigating the impact through noise insulation. This policy forms part of the National Planning Policy Framework and local planning authorities must already have regard to it where it is relevant to a planning decision.
We are exploring how we can make the agent of change policy in planning as clear as possible through our new national policies for decision-making, which we will consult on this year. We have recently launched a call for evidence, which seeks views on how we can better apply the principle in licensing. This will reduce inconsistent decisions, while ensuring that we have the flexibility for local authorities to balance the needs of businesses with housing growth. I would therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to withdraw her amendment.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
Why will the Government not make it statutory? This is a very simple question.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think I have explained several times during the course of the Bill that I do not think it is correct to say that the National Planning Policy Framework is a statutory framework in itself: it is not. It sits within the statutory framework of planning. We need it to be more flexible than a statutory framework, so it can change as times change. When we bring in these policies, they will not be coming through as pieces of law. They will be planning policies, so that they can be flexible and adapt to the situation as it changes. That is a very important part of planning. The National Planning Policy Framework must maintain that degree of flexibility: otherwise, every time we want to change it, we will have to come back through Parliament. That would not be agile enough to deal with the changing situation.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
It is very seldom I am lost for words, but I am hugely disappointed by that response to this short debate. I am grateful to all those who spoke in support of my amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, expressed the considerable cost that is incurred by those who have to take mitigation measures; the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, set out why it is currently not working. To repeat what he said, it cannot override the noise abatement laws. That is why I think that we are failing both developers and residents at this time. I do not believe we are giving the clarity to licensing practitioners that they request. That is precisely what Sarah Clover, who was the expert specialist adviser to the committee looking at the Licensing Act 2003, has pointed out on successive occasions. So, while I will not press to a vote and test the opinion of the House at this stage, I reserve the right to bring the amendment back at Third Reading.
Lord Best
“Delivery of affordable housing(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for ensuring that when planning permission is granted subject to requirements for the delivery of affordable housing schemes on the relevant site, such requirements are fully implemented.(2) The requirements for the delivery of affordable housing schemes referred to in subsection (1) shall be satisfied only if the percentage of the total housing constructed let as social rent housing exceeds the percentage set out in the authority’s affordable housing threshold or twenty per cent, whichever is higher.(3) In subsection (2) “social rent housing” has the meaning given in paragraph 7 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2019 together with paragraph 4 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2023, as modified by paragraph 8 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2023.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment is intended to ensure affordable housing is actually delivered where this is the subject of planning consent, and the proportion of social rent housing is at least 20 per cent.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 72, which addresses the issue of affordable housing delivery. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and I know the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, wanted to add his name to this amendment. I declare interests as vice-president of the LGA and the Town and Country Planning Association, honorary member of the Royal Town Planning Institute and honorary fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects. I pay tribute to Shelter for championing this amendment.
The amendment introduces a new clause providing for regulations to ensure that affordable housing actually gets delivered where it is a condition of planning consent, usually through a so-called Section 106 agreement. In Committee, I noted the problem—only too familiar for many of us—that housebuilders agree to provide a quota of affordable homes for local people, but these homes fail to materialise in the developments that actually get built. The housebuilders back out of delivering some or all of the affordable homes they promised, with the excuse of “changed viability”. They say they have encountered unexpected problems, choosing from a long list of possibilities, from increased interest rates to unexpected site conditions. They claim it is no longer possible for them to make a clear profit of 20% or more, and it is the affordable housing element that they insist must take the hit, despite that having been a condition of planning permission.
The Minister may say that this is a matter for local authorities to handle but, as a report from the National Audit Office set out in June this year, negotiations between local planning departments and well-resourced developers are hopelessly unbalanced, with the latter employing expensive consultants and legal experts to find ways of negotiating their contributions down. Cash-strapped councils are unwilling to fight expensive legal battles and feel obliged to give in.
This amendment would bolster the position of the planners by ending the arguments and making the agreed affordable housing element non-negotiable. It aims to ensure that developers actually deliver the affordable homes that were a fundamental reason for planning consent being granted in the first place. The amendment adds a safety net by obliging the house- builder to provide a minimum of 20% of new homes in relevant developments to be for social rent, or the percentage set out in the local authority’s policy framework—the local plan, where it has one—if that is higher. Importantly, the definition of social rent housing is that used by the Regulator of Social Housing in its rent standard. Although planners may also require some other forms of affordable housing, such as shared ownership and near-market renting, the baseline of no less than 20% for the all-important social rented housing is secured by this amendment.
The 20% minimum for social rent is also a figure recommended by the New Towns Taskforce, which reported last month. Its report recommends a total of 40% for all the various kinds of affordable housing put together, with at least half of that—20%—for social rent. This important requirement could be applied not just to new towns but to all major developments; this amendment provides for that outcome. Nearly half the nation’s current programme of affordable homes comes from these planning obligations on the house- builders but, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, noted in Committee, the CPRE has found that, despite agreements by the housebuilders to produce an average of 34% of relevant developments as affordable housing, the actual figure has turned out to be just 18%.
Shelter’s research has also shown that, in relation to the core social rent product, rather than the more upmarket versions of affordable housing, over the last 20 years less than 3% of developers’ housebuilding has been for social rent. This is despite the fact that, in most parts of the country, only the social rent accommodation is within the means of households in the lower half of income distribution.
The constant reneging by housebuilders on the contributions they agreed to make at the outset makes this amendment an urgent one. Indeed, I wonder whether it is worth all the time, money and effort to achieve so many new homes if so few of them can meet the acute needs of those suffering most from the nation’s housing shortages. Instead, enforcement of an obligation that delivers at least 20% social rented housing would substantially enhance the value to the nation of building 1.5 million homes by 2030. I hope the Minister will feel able to accept this amendment, at least in principle, and I beg to move.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Best has given an empirical and quantitative justification for this amendment, which I support, and I will not repeat what he said. What I will say, however, is what social rent housing does and why it is a necessity.
It is a living instrument that improves our society in many ways. It creates the opportunity for stability for young families, and for continuing education for young people in those families. It also creates loyalty to the town where they live, and a history that is developed into the future by those who live in social housing. These days we often hear people commenting on the fact that they are the first person who went to university in their family. Many of those people went to university because they lived in social rent housing with the stability that enabled them, with the support of their parents, of course, to be educated to go to university. I believe that in this Parliament there are many people who fall into that category. This is a living instrument that we are trying to create—a system of social rent housing that produces the growth that creates the flowers of our society, or at least many of them, and gives our society a future we can be proud of.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I support the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Carlile, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Thornhill, who is unable to be here this evening—she has been got by the lurgy that everyone is coming down with. I will make some of the arguments that my noble friend would have made.
At its core, this is about trust between developers, local authorities and communities to deliver what the developers have said they would. Does it not make your blood boil to hear and learn how often social housing has been promised and how often it has failed to be delivered? Research from Shelter shows that, in some parts of England, as many as 40% of the affordable homes initially promised are never delivered. The Local Government Association has estimated that, over the past decade alone, more than 100,000 affordable homes have been lost because of renegotiations and that absolute panto villain, the viability assessment, which is used and prayed in aid to stop the delivery of social homes for rent, which are so critical and important to society.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, would bring much-needed transparency and restore faith in a promise that has been broken again and again over successive Governments. It would give councils the confidence that when they negotiate for affordable homes, the homes will actually materialise.
I know it is late, but if the noble Lord, Lord Best, moves to a vote, we will be there with him, and I am very hopeful that the Conservative Benches will join him as well. This is an absolute scandal that has gone on for too long. We need to restrict developers to deliver on their promise of social homes for rent.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I apologise for gazumping the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. For the record, I am always happy to take my name off amendments in a case where we can demonstrate political breadth, but I was very happy to sign Amendment 72 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best.
I will give one example. In July this year, Rother District Council received an application from Brookworth Homes to amend its permission for a 20-residence project in Battle, East Sussex, to, of course, zero homes for social rent. That is just one example of a place that desperately needs social housing. I will stop there, because I want to get to a vote if the Government do not give way.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, my Amendment 85 in this group concerns an issue that I first raised in Committee. At the national level, there is much talk of the urgent need to build 1.5 million new homes. They are even promoted with rather empty, Trump-like slogans. Mere numbers of new units will not provide a solution to many families and individuals in our country. What is urgently required is a national debate about the type of housing unit that is most needed, and how these will be provided. The noble Lord, Lord Best, has rightly focused on one area of desperate need: homes for social rent. Amendment 85 throws a beam of light —maybe even hope, if the Minister responds as I hope she will—on those families, and especially the children, living in temporary accommodation.
The numbers should shame us all. Over 170,000 children in our country—one of the wealthiest in the world—are living in temporary accommodation. Some 50% of all those experiencing homelessness are children. This could be a result of domestic violence, family breakdowns, debt or receiving a Section 25 eviction notice—at least, and at last, the Government have outlawed Section 21 evictions.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we support the intentions behind Amendments 72 and 85 and thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Pinnock, and others for bringing them forward.
There is no doubt that we need more affordable housing and more social rent homes. We also recognise that planning permissions must be followed through and that, too often, affordable housing secured at the outset does not fully materialise. Amendment 72 puts forward a clear principle that, if affordable housing is agreed to as part of a planning consent, it must be delivered, and that social rent should form a meaningful part of that. This is right and we are entirely supportive of that aim. There are, of course, practical and legal complications around how these obligations are enforced, and we would want to ensure that any new duty works effectively within existing planning and viability frameworks.
However, councils also need to have a degree of flexibility to meet local needs, which is why I have a concern about putting a specific figure in the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, is well aware, I am particularly interested in housing for older people and specialist accommodation for those with disabilities. This is often more costly to build than standard housing. By taking a flexible approach at the local level on affordable percentages or mix, specialist but more expensive housing that meets local needs can be delivered. Imposing a national requirement may undermine that flexibility to deliver for local needs. That is how I, as leader of Central Bedfordshire, was able to deliver specialist accommodation for older people—freeing up family homes as a consequence—and for those with significant disabilities, as well as short-term accommodation. I would not want the opportunity for this lost because of an imposed national target in legislation. That said, let us make this absolutely clear: we are very strongly in support of the need for clarity and accountability for developers. They should and must deliver what they agree to when they get a planning permission.
Amendment 85 rightly highlights the needs of children and families facing homelessness or in temporary accommodation, a group whose experiences are often invisible in planning policy. Ensuring that local planning authorities take account of these needs is a modest but important step and we support it, but I refer to my earlier comments on the need for flexibility. Again, I am going to refer to my own experience, and to one of the proudest things I did when I was leader of Central Bedfordshire Council. We had about 125 households in bread and breakfast; 10 years later, that was effectively zero. That was 125 households who had the opportunity to live in a proper home. There were two key reasons for it. One was that we built specialist temporary accommodation and converted some buildings for that; but the second is that we built homes they could move into. So, we also need to consider that we must build the quantum of homes that is needed if we are truly to address the issue of homelessness.
Both amendments speak to the same wider truth: housing policy must be about delivery, not just ambition. We hope the Government will take these proposals seriously and come back with measures that match the urgency of the housing crisis we face.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for Amendment 72. I have to say that the last words of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, when we are trying to sort out a housing crisis that his party created, are a bit rich. But I will park that for the moment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I am pleased that the last Government delivered 1 million homes over the last five years. I will be delighted if this Government deliver 1.5 million, but at the moment, they are on track to deliver considerably fewer, increasing that crisis.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord’s Government left 130,000 children in temporary accommodation.
As noble Lords will know, the Government are committed to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation and to prioritising the building of new homes for social rent, but we take a different view from the noble Lord on how to achieve this. The revised NPPF provides local authorities greater flexibility to deliver the right tenure mix to suit local housing needs, and planning practice guidance that supports the NPPF sets out that plan-makers should collaborate with the local community, developers and other stakeholders to create realistic, deliverable policies.
I understand the frustrations around the issue of viability, so the Government are also reviewing the planning practice guidance on viability to ensure that the system works to optimise developer contributions, and that negotiation or renegotiation of Section 106 agreements takes place only when genuinely necessary. Once planning obligations are entered into under Section 106, they run with the land and are legally binding on all parties to the agreement, so they can be enforced by the local planning authority. As we take forward work on a set of national policies for decision-making, we will also consider further steps to support social and affordable housing.
Turning to Amendment 85, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, while we agree that we need to tackle homelessness, especially where children and families are involved, I will explain why we cannot support this approach. The planning system is already complex, and adding duties to have regard to particular matters, no matter how laudable, are not required in statute, given that national planning policy is a strong material consideration in planning decisions. As we take forward work on a set of national policies for decision-making, we will also consider further steps to support social and affordable housing. Councils must, by law, make sure that any temporary accommodation placements are suitable to the needs of the people placed there. On World Homelessness Day this month, we announced £10.9 million to increase access to support and services for families in temporary accommodation. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I am deeply grateful to noble Lords for their support for Amendment 72. I thank my noble friend Lord Carlile for his eloquent words, and I offer the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett, sincere thanks for their support. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, is unfortunately unable to support this amendment, which, without his help and that of his colleagues, I fear would not achieve the majority it needs.
I do not accept the noble Lord’s point that having a 20% baseline below which we would not go in terms of affordable housing, and social rented housing in particular, is necessarily a blockage to flexibility. The baseline of 20% at social rents—the typical housing association and council rents—would not put a great burden on the housebuilders negotiating with the planning authority that also wanted to produce housing for older people. I do not think it would entail an additional burden.
Sometimes the older people’s housing of the kind that the noble Lord has produced in his own borough—and I strongly congratulate him, as council leader, on achieving a disproportionate amount of housing for older people; he has done a great job—will be social housing and would count towards the affordable housing quota that I am talking about; sometimes it will be housing for outright sale, which would not be part of this equation so we would not worry about it. Having a baseline of 20% social housing as an absolute minimum is not going to impede—
Lord Jamieson (Con)
If I may just be clear, I apologise but I meant affordable housing that was for older people; I did not mean housing for private sale, when I talked about flexibility. I apologise if that was not clear.
Lord Best (CB)
Yes, well, I am sorry that we differ on this because it means that it would be pointless me taking this to a vote.
What I will say is that I am deeply grateful to the Minister for explaining that the issue of viability advice is now under consideration and that we will be getting new advice, which I hope will be much stronger and more positive than in the past. So I am grateful to her, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Use of hotels as accommodation for asylum seekers: requirement for planning permission(1) Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (meaning of “development” and “new development”) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (1), insert—“(1ZA) For the purposes of this section, “the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land” includes—(a) the repurposing of a hotel as accommodation for asylum seekers, and(b) where a hotel has already been repurposed as accommodation for asylum seekers, the continuation of its use as such accommodation beyond the date on which the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 comes into force.”(3) At the end of subsection (2)(f), insert “unless the building is a hotel proposed for use as accommodation for asylum seekers”.(4) After section 106C of that Act insert—“106D Use of hotels as accommodation for asylum seekersAny existing or future development order under Part 3 of this Act does not have the effect of granting planning permission for the use of a hotel as accommodation for asylum seekers.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensure that an application for planning permission is required in all cases of repurposing of a hotel as accommodation for asylum seekers, together with the associated requirement for consultation of affected local communities.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 73, 74, 75, 263 and 264, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, and Amendment 87E tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, are about fairness, transparency and democratic consent in how planning decisions are made, particularly when it comes to the provision of asylum accommodation.
Too often, decisions to convert hotels into asylum accommodation have been imposed on towns and cities without consultation, leaving residents feeling powerless and ignored. Asylum hotels have dominated the news this summer, sparking protests and dividing communities—divisions that could have been avoided if people had just been given a voice.
The principle is straightforward: changing the use of a hotel or a house in multiple occupation—HMO—to accommodate asylum seekers should be recognised as a material change of use under planning law. That would mean that planning permission is required, ensuring proper consultation and clarity for councils, residents and local businesses. At present, the law is uncertain and councils are left to fight retrospective battles in the courts. This is not about the approach of the current or the previous Government; it is about what is right for the British people.
Protecting local voices has been a priority and an issue we have fought for consistently throughout the Bill. It is a terrible shame that, when the same principle arises in relation to asylum, an issue that is dominating our local communities, people such as the Liberal Democrats have chosen not to support our plan to give local people a voice on this issue. We had hoped that all noble Lords would have been consistent with their commitment to protecting the voices of local people. These amendments are not a question of asylum policy; this is simply a question of giving communities a voice. The country is watching, and it is vital that we act. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this is an important group of amendments, given that its focus is on the planning issues surrounding the use of hotels for asylum seekers, pending assessment of their applications. Amendment 87E in my name offers a different solution to those challenging issues. On these Benches, we recognise the importance of reducing the backlog of asylum applications and we are committed to constructively ending the use of hotels to house asylum seekers. I note that the Government have also committed to doing so by the end of this Parliament.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, there is a danger that this subject tends to generate more heat than light, as I think we have heard just now, so I thought I would—from the perspective of a planning silk—explain what these amendments would and would not do, so that we are all clear about that.
These amendments are not about the principle of asylum hotels, nor are they about the principle of small boats. They are about providing clarity and certainty to the planning regime, which needs clarity and certainty in order to operate effectively. Currently, the position in law under Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act is that a change of use of premises requires planning permission only if that change of use is material. There is case law—most recently the Epping judgment, but there are other judgments over the last few years, including cases in Great Yarmouth—to the effect of whether a change of use is material is an evaluative judgment on the facts of the case.
In the context of asylum hotels, that can be a very difficult and unpredictable evaluative judgment, made even more difficult by the mission creep of some of these hotels. They can start off with families, then the nature of their use can change. That uncertainty is disadvantageous to all participants in the planning system. It is disadvantageous to the commercial hotel operators, because they are being asked to invest money to fit out the hotel for asylum seekers, without knowing whether that investment may come back to bite them if it later turns out they needed planning permission and did not have it, and they are enforced against. It creates uncertainty for communities, because they do not know whether particular operations in their neighbourhood require planning permission and are something to which they should be given a right to participate in the decision-making on.
Fundamentally, it creates uncertainty for local planning authorities, which are on the horns of a dilemma. They have to choose whether to turn a blind eye and let a potential breach of planning control continue, or to bring enforcement proceedings, which, if brought in court, can cost hundreds of thousands—sometimes millions—of pounds, putting them and the local taxpayer at risk of significant adverse costs. It is very hard to tell in advance what the prospects of success in such proceedings will be, given the very delicate, nuanced nature of the decision, and the evaluative judgment on whether a particular change of use is material or not.
Fundamentally, the clue is in the name. Planning is meant to be predictable in all forms and all manifestations of the regime. If you cannot plan, the system does not work. Therefore, this amendment would make it very straightforward and provide a clear line in the sand that any change of use to an asylum hotel or an HMO would be deemed a material change of use. Every protagonist in the planning system would then know where they stand: that this needs planning permission.
These amendments do not constrain the decision whether to grant planning permission, and nor do they in any way affect the merits or prospects of an application for planning permission. All they do is let everybody know where they stand. I urge the House, and particularly the Liberal Democrats: let us focus on the real issue that these amendments put into play and cut the rhetoric.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I will comment briefly on these amendments. The Government may say that if you stop these conversions of hotels, where will we put the people? The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked the same question. That is a fair question. The answer is to use all spare military accommodation, recently used by servicemen and women. From what I read, the Government want to do that, and they must have the guts to stick to it, because they will have public support, even though left-wing immigration lawyers will mount judicial reviews against it.
So, His Majesty’s Government, do not be terrified into closing RAF Wethersfield, but increase numbers there to the maximum possible and reopen Napier barracks. I stayed there 50 years ago, and it is 100 times better now than it was then. Many noble Lords will have experience of military accommodation in the past, including officer accommodation, and it was not up to the standards now available for illegal migrants.
It was deplorable that some lawyers and immigration groups took action to close Napier, which was used only for single men. How did these single men get here? They walked hundreds, perhaps thousands, of miles through Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, Greece, Romania and other European countries, and lived in appalling conditions near the beach at Calais, before crowding into a little boat. Others have come from Eritrea, Somalia and up through Egypt, Libya, Italy and on to Calais. I am sure they had premium accommodation en route.
How dare anyone suggest that the accommodation in any of our former military bases is not good enough for single men of fighting age, when it was good enough for British men and women of fighting age? If they had to stay in Barry Buddon, stuck out in the coast in Fife next to Carnoustie, where 30 of us were in a nissen hut with one big cast iron potbelly stove, they might have something to complain about, but not in the current accommodation. So, His Majesty’s Government, please do not back down on the use of former military accommodation, or any other spare government accommodation, and that can take the pressure off unsuitable hotels.
On Amendment 87E, I do not trust any Government to use this power anywhere in the country, and put up temporary accommodation all around the land, but if some of the military bases are not big enough, or are regarded as not having quality accommodation, then move in temporary accommodation—caravans, chalets, portable homes, portakabins—and put them on these bases or other military land. That is a better solution and answers some of the question, “If you close these hotels, where will you put them?”. I have suggested it in my comments tonight.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I first turn to Amendments 73 to 75, 263 and 264 brought by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. I thank the noble Baroness for once again raising an important issue but I point out that it relates to ongoing legal proceedings, which I am sure that she appreciates I cannot comment on.
The asylum accommodation system is under significant pressure. While the priority is to end the use of asylum hotels as soon as possible, the Government need to be able to control the number of such hotels and retain the ability to open new asylum hotels—only if and when it is necessary—to manage fluctuations in demand. The amendments would remove the ability to do so.
The Home Office is under a legal obligation to provide accommodation for destitute asylum seekers while their application for asylum is being considered. We know that this has led to concerns among some people about the use of hotels for this purpose. We are conscious that the use of hotels for the purpose of housing asylum seekers has caused understandable concern. That is why we have an ambition to resolve it in a controlled and orderly way.
Listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, I was frankly astonished to hear her words about giving local people a voice. Under her Government, as a council leader I pressed over and over again for our hotels in Stevenage not to be used for this purpose by agents of the Home Office, not least because international businesses in my town needed them. Her Government did not listen to our community, its elected representatives or our businesses; they overruled us and ploughed ahead regardless.
This Government have made clear our intention to stop the use of hotels to house asylum seekers. This is borne out by the fact that the number of hotels so used has almost halved since its peak under the previous Government. More broadly, the Home Office is working on a future strategy for asylum accommodation. The department is working in collaboration with local authorities to develop several potential accommodation models that could test a more sustainable, flexible and collaborative outcome. The department is also working at pace to deliver a range of alternative sites, including—to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—military sites, that would contribute to a more flexible estate.
Restricting the use of houses in multiple occupation for asylum accommodation would have the perverse effect of making it even more difficult to end the use of asylum hotels. While we understand why these amendments have been brought forward—I will not comment on why, but we understand it—they would nevertheless result in greater instability in the provision of asylum accommodation, and prevent us proceeding in the controlled and orderly way that we want to.
Amendment 87E, brought by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would give the Secretary of State powers to make regulations to deal with applications for planning permission where temporary asylum application processing facilities were proposed. The amendment is unnecessary, as these powers would be duplicative of existing powers in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In particular, Section 59 allows the Secretary of State to make a development order that can either itself grant planning permission or make for the grant of planning permission by the local planning authority or the Secretary of State. That includes timescales, publicity and consultation. Section 70 allows local planning authorities to grant planning permission for development, including conditional planning permission, and Section 77 makes provision in relation to the Secretary of State being able to call in applications for planning permission to determine them himself.
In addition, it would also not be appropriate to take such powers for a specific type of development in primary legislation. We are committed to progressing asylum cases in an efficient and cost-effective way. The Home Office’s programme of transformation and business improvement is speeding up decision-making, reducing the time people spend in the system and reducing the numbers who are awaiting an interview or decision and remain in hotels.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I will speak as Leader of the Opposition; I do not wish to interfere with this debate. I have no intention of moving the adjournment of the House, which has been suggested might happen. We will proceed to the end of the debate and my noble friend Lady Scott will respond to the Minister.
I draw the House’s attention to the fact that it is now past 10 pm, the normal hour when the House rises according to the Companion. We had a discussion last Tuesday, on my initiative, about the sitting times of the House. We were told that it would be to the advantage of the House to meet at 11 am. That was not agreed by the opposition parties or the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers. We find ourselves here at 10 pm, having sat in the morning for three hours, still with many groups to consider.
With all due respect to the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms, this is not the proper way to conduct the business of this House. We have had Ministers here on duty since 11 am and we have had members of the staff here on duty for 11 hours. If the House chooses, as it chose last Tuesday, to meet at 11 am, we must end at the time when the Companion says that we should end. There is a better way of proceeding, which has to be done by agreement in the usual channels.
I have no doubt that, after my noble friend Lady Scott responds, we will move to a Division in the proper way of your Lordships’ House. However, I expect—and I think many other Members of your Lordships’ House would expect—the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms to come to the Dispatch Box after the Division to explain quite how long he expects the House to continue this evening. It would be to the improvement of us all if we could return to our normal ways of doing things. I therefore give him notice of that.
Let us proceed with and conclude the debate, and let us have our Division. Please let us then, outside this Chamber if need be, reach an agreement on drawing stumps at an appropriate time. Ministers have done enough; my colleagues have done enough; the House has done enough; and the staff have done enough.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
I can very briefly come to the Dispatch Box now. Can I first say how much I respect the noble Lord? We are very clear: I know that the noble Lord and his party did not support the suggestion of starting at 11 am, but that was a decision of the House. My intention is that, when these votes are finished, we will rise. We have three votes, so after about 30 minutes we will be rising; I have no intention of going beyond that. We will have the votes and then go home.
I am also always very happy to discuss things in the usual channels, and obviously we will discuss things in the coming days and weeks. But we will have our votes and then we will adjourn the House.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, going back to the debate, it is quite extraordinary that the Minister has chosen to use her reply once again to dwell on the Government’s record on asylum hotels. This debate is not about asylum policy; it is not even directly about those who arrive in this country. It is about the rights of local people: the rights of communities to have a say when there is a change of use in their area, just as they would for any other form of development or planning decision.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Will the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, explain to the House why it has taken five years for her party to come to the conclusion that planning permission for a change of use is needed?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
We did—and the party opposite voted against it. We had a plan and we were bringing down numbers quite considerably in asylum hotels. In fact, we would not have any open now if we were still in government.
At its heart, this debate is about fairness and local accountability. Time and again, communities feel that decisions are being made over their heads and imposed without notice, consultation or trust. This is precisely what this amendment seeks to put right. It is therefore deeply disappointing that the Minister has sought to distract from the substance of this issue. The Government’s record on asylum hotels is neither here nor there. What matters is whether local voices are heard and respected in the decision-making process.
On Report, the Minister suggested that I tabled these amendments for a different purpose. She knows me well enough to know that, when I say something, I mean it. The purpose is clear and principled: to ensure that local communities are not treated as bystanders in decisions that reshape their neighbourhoods. Time and again, the pattern emerges: decisions are made from the centre, delivered without dialogue and defended without accountability. This cannot continue. This amendment is about restoring the balance between national necessity and local democracy, and we on these Benches are determined to stand up for local people and local communities. Now I wish to test the opinion of the House, first on hotels and then on houses of multiple occupation.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Use of houses in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekers: requirement for planning permission(1) Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (meaning of “development” and “new development”) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (1), insert—“(1ZA) For the purposes of this section, “the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land” includes—(a) the repurposing of a house in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekers, and(b) where a house in multiple occupation has already been repurposed as accommodation for asylum seekers, the continuation of its use as such accommodation beyond the date on which the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 comes into force.”(3) At the end of subsection (2)(f), insert “unless the building is proposed for use as a house in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekers”.(4) After section 106C of that Act insert—“106D Use of houses in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekersAny existing or future development order under Part 3 of this Act does not have the effect of granting planning permission for the use of a house in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekers.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensure that an application for planning permission is required in all cases of repurposing a house in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekers, together with the associated requirement for consultation of affected local communities.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, the Question should be that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
My Lords, I was just too keen, after sitting on the Bench since 11 o’clock this morning.