Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
Ministers from Government Departments have met organisations including the National Farmers’ Union, the Tenant Farmers Association, the Country Land and Business Association, the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, the Ulster Farmers’ Union, and the NFU in Scotland and Wales. I also met farmers in the north-east of England only last month. After listening and considering the independent Centre for the Analysis of Taxation report, the Government believe that the approach we have set out is an appropriate one.
David Smith
I am proud to support a Government who believe in progressive taxation, as I am sure the Minister does—that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden. Under the CenTax minimum share rule proposal, farm estates where at least 60% of the estate is used for farming would receive relief of up to £5 million per person. This would reduce the risk of family farms being broken up, place a greater burden on very large estates and those gaming the system, and double the forecast tax take. Will the Minister direct Treasury officials to take another look at the CenTax proposals on APR prior to the Budget?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for his question—he is a strong advocate in this place for his constituency and for farming communities. Just last week, he made the point to me that our farmers and farming communities are crucial to economic and social and cultural life. Along with other Labour colleagues from rural constituencies, he has been working hard to raise the points that matter to farmers, and this Government are doing all we can to support our farming industry.
On the specific point about CenTax’s proposals on minimum share, I do not need to direct officials to look at them, because I have read the proposals. It is worth noting that the number of losers from the proposed policy would be more than double the number of people affected by the changes that this Government are making. Over 1,000 estates would be affected by the proposals put forward by CenTax.
Sarah Dyke
A Liberal Democrat freedom of information request revealed that the Treasury recently had plans to review the family farm tax. Farmers across the country are fed up with bickering and infighting from a Government who just do not understand them, but there is still time to act and end months of confusion and misery. Will the Chancellor and her Ministers meet farmers from Glastonbury and Somerton, and me, to provide some clarity and reveal the full extent of the Government’s discussions on revoking this damaging family farm tax?
Dan Tomlinson
Just a few weeks ago, I met farmers to discuss this and other important issues. The Government believe that even though this tax is a difficult change—I do not shy away from that fact—it is the right change to make, because it is a method of raising revenue in a fair way that helps contribute to restoring the public finances.
Ben Maguire
I kindly ask the Chancellor to please respond to my joint letter on Cornwall’s future funding, sent last week, which asks her to meet all Cornish MPs without delay. Alternative proposals to this damaging family farm tax—such as a clawback scheme, as proposed by the NFU, or increasing the threshold to £5 million—would raise more in revenue than the Government’s current plans. In contrast to her speech this morning, the Chancellor now has the opportunity to do both the right thing and the popular thing. The mental health toll on farmers is becoming completely unsustainable, so please, Chancellor, rethink this damaging policy.
Dan Tomlinson
I would be happy to meet the hon. Member and Members from across Cornwall to discuss the issues raised in the letter to the Chancellor.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
As the Minister has just highlighted, the main argument against the CenTax proposals for APR now seems to be a fear that more people will be subject to inheritance tax under those proposals, even though most of those extra people are essentially private homeowners with agricultural fields. Does he agree that Labour values call for supporting hard-working farmers, who are the backbone of this country, over millionaire homeowners who have money in their wider estate to pay the inheritance tax?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and for her time last week—it was good to meet her to talk about important issues affecting farmers and rural communities. On balance, the Government believe that the policy position that was set out at last year’s Budget is the right one, and we will be continuing with it.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
This morning the Chancellor failed to take responsibility for her poor choices in a Budget that whacked up taxes, borrowing and spending, and made it clear that she would once again break her promises on tax. The farmers whom I have met have been in tears about the family farm tax, not because they are worried about losing their jobs but because the Chancellor is putting generations of farming at risk. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Chancellor has actually met any farmers, the NFU or other farming organisations to understand the impact of her policy and why she should scrap the family farm tax?
Dan Tomlinson
The Government have assessed the impact of this policy. According to the estimates that we issued at the time of last year’s Budget, about 500 farms would pay additional tax as a result of the changes; those numbers were contested by all Opposition Members, but the CenTax report—which the hon. Member has said that he and others are interested in reading—backs them up and confirms the Government’s estimates.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
On Friday I sat with farmers and their families in Brecon and Radnor, and they are desperate. If they are 65 or over, they have no time to plan for the family farm tax, they cannot get insurance, and they will be put in an impossible position if the Government go ahead with the tax unamended. The CenTax report sets out options that could extend extra protection for family farms while rightly raising funds from people who are currently exploiting the tax loopholes in APR. Those farmers asked me to put a question to the Chancellor. They asked, “Can the Chancellor please say precisely which parts of the CenTax report the Government disagree with, and why?”
Dan Tomlinson
I have already answered the question about the CenTax proposals, but it is clear from its analysis that the number of estates that would pay more inheritance tax would be more than double the number contained in the proposals that the Government have put on the table. I understand that changes in inheritance tax are always difficult, but last year the Government had to make the decision to raise more revenue to ensure that we could fund our public services adequately, and this change raises half a billion pounds in a fair way.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
The Government understand the importance of in-person banking to communities, and we are working closely with industry to roll out 350 banking hubs across the United Kingdom. More than 240 hubs have been announced so far, and more than 180 are already open. I know that that includes two in the hon. Member’s constituency, and I look forward to our upcoming meeting to discuss her constituents’ banking needs.
Caroline Voaden
When Labour was in opposition, its shadow Economic Secretary, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), welcomed measures to protect access to cash, but was concerned about the fact that they did
“nothing to protect essential face-to-face banking services.”—[Official Report, 26 June 2023; Vol. 735, c. 71.]
Such services go beyond a banking hub, but they are now vanishing. While the Financial Conduct Authority is responsible for access to cash, it appears that there is no Government body overseeing access to face-to-face banking services. Does the Minister agree that new regulation is needed to support residents and businesses in rural areas, especially as banks will prevent customers from cashing cheques in post offices from January?
Lucy Rigby
We recognise the important role that post offices, in particular, play in providing essential banking services as well as banking hubs. Decisions about which services are available at post offices—such as cheque deposits—are made by banks as part of their commercial arrangements. I should emphasise that customers continue to have other options for paying in cheques, which I know is an issue for the hon. Member; in the case of Lloyds, it can be done via Freepost. As I have said, I look forward to discussing these issues further with the hon. Member during our meeting.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
One way of improving access to banking in rural and, indeed, urban areas would be to increase the reach and role of community banks, or community development finance institutions. Given that CDFIs play a big role in American economic life and are backed to do so by the biggest banks, would it not be good if our biggest banks helped to fund their expansion here as well?
Lucy Rigby
My hon. Friend is well versed in all these areas, and has done considerable work in this regard. As I have said, the banks play a role in providing access to cash, for instance via post office banking services.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
In this month of blaming everyone else for every woe that befalls the Government and using it as an excuse to bust manifesto pledges left, right and centre, it seems that the Government are claiming credit for more banking hubs, but we all know that the rolling out of banking hubs is a purely commercial decision by the banks. It is the banks that are choosing to do this, to serve their customers. Is it now the Government’s policy to blame everyone else for their own incompetences, and to claim credit for everyone else’s good ideas?
Lucy Rigby
Where it is appropriate to do so—indeed, it is very often appropriate to do so—we will blame the Conservative party for the state of the country, and it is appropriate to do so here. On the criteria that Link uses for banking hubs, I will remind the hon. Gentleman that, in relation to the access to cash regime, that was designed and passed by the previous Government.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She is a proud supporter of everything in the Congleton constituency. This Government are committed to regional growth, with growth in all parts of the United Kingdom. That is why the Treasury has reformed the Green Book, looking at the value for money of different projects. It is also why, in Cheshire East, where my hon. Friend’s constituency is, we have put £47 million into local transport grant funding.
Sarah Russell
I thank the Chancellor for her answer. In my constituency, Dane Valley Community Energy, a marvellous group of volunteers, has raised hundreds of thousands of pounds for solar panels on schools and other local buildings, including Daneside theatre and Havannah primary school. Unfortunately, recent Government guidance has suspended applications in respect of solar panels for schools. Will the Chancellor look at that guidance and work with Ministers in other Departments to review that outcome?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for drawing this issue to my attention. I agree that community projects such as solar panels are a fantastic opportunity to get down bills for schools so that they have more money to spend on teachers and on books. On my hon. Friend’s specific question about solar installations, there was a temporary pause in applications, but I am happy to confirm that the Department for Education has resumed approvals for solar panels on school sites. I would urge my hon. Friend to encourage the schools in her constituency to apply for the new projects in the normal way.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
At the heart of this Government’s pension reforms is the goal of bigger and better pension schemes. We are legislating for that in the Pension Schemes Bill by requiring all local government pension scheme assets to be pooled next year, and multi-employer defined contribution schemes to have at least £25 billion-worth of assets. This reform agenda will deliver returns for savers and ensure that schemes have the scale required to invest in productive assets across the country.
Anna Dixon
Many of my constituents have assets in the West Yorkshire Pension Fund, which manages more than £19 million. I am concerned, however, that some of the fund’s investments are concentrated in sectors that cause harm, such as the fossil fuel industry. Does the Minister agree that the West Yorkshire Pension Fund could invest in socially valuable activities, such as the regeneration of the town centre in Shipley and social homes?
Torsten Bell
The LGPS actually has a strong track record of local investment of exactly the kind that my hon. Friend mentions, including in social housing, and we want to build on that record. The Pension Schemes Bill will introduce requirements for local government pension scheme pools to work with strategic authorities, including mayoral strategic authorities, on local investment opportunities—[Interruption.] Before they decided that full-time chuntering was their business of the day, I thought the Conservatives used to be in favour of that. With the highest sustained levels of public investment since the 1970s, Britain will get back in the business of investing in its future once again.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Pension providers play a key role in helping Britain’s tech start-ups turn into world-leading scale-ups, but around £3 trillion in pension funds sits idle. That money should be used to support our tech sector. Will the Minister commit to accelerating the Mansion House reforms successfully introduced by the last Conservative Government?
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Member for his question. I agree with where he started, but unfortunately he then went on to praise some of the work done under the last Government, when we did not see the investment that he talks about coming through and reaching entrepreneurs, who he rightly says we should do more to support. That is what the Mansion House Accord, which we have now put in place and supported for the private sector, is doing, and what the British Business Bank is doing by bringing forward the British Growth Partnership. We need to see UK pension funds investing in our most innovative, fastest-growing companies.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
The establishment of the Sterling 20 sends a strong signal that this country is serious about mobilising more of its own domestic capital into productive domestic assets. As the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor’s anchor, my Buckingham and Bletchley constituency is primed to offer high-quality investment opportunities. Can the Minister set out more detail about how he is working with local authorities, such as the Labour-run Milton Keynes city council, to ensure that we provide that pipeline, and will he meet me to discuss how we can take it further?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend is always a powerful advocate, both for the fast-growing companies in his constituency and for the right pension policy for the UK as a whole, as we saw when he sat on the Pension Schemes Public Bill Committee. Sterling 20 is a new, investor-led partnership between the UK’s 20 largest pension funds and insurers. It was established at the regional investment summit in Birmingham on 21 October, and we are working closely with the partnership to deliver exactly the kind of investment that my hon. Friend talks about.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Pension scheme trustees have an obligation to make decisions that they believe are in the best interests of savers, which is otherwise known as their fiduciary duty. The reserve powers in the Pension Schemes Bill could force investment in Government vanity projects, which is contrary to that duty. Does the Minister agree with me and much of the pension industry that mandation is a massive state overreach and is gambling with the futures of those saving for retirement?
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
Mobilising more investment from the UK pension fund market is critical to driving regional economic growth. The Chancellor says that she is a builder, not a blocker, but her proposed builders tax threatens to drastically increase the cost of building anything from homes and roads to nuclear power stations. This will make investing in UK infrastructure increasingly unviable. To avoid even more investment-killing uncertainty, will the Minister agree to scrap Labour’s proposed landfill tax reforms and let Britain get back to building?
Torsten Bell
I can reassure the hon. Member that we are scrapping the attitude of the Conservative party, which blocked any building from happening anywhere in this country year after year. Houses were blocked. Railways were blocked. Anything that involved any difficult choices was blocked by a party that gave up governing long before the general election.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
HMRC is committed to improving day-to-day performance and the customer experience. Call waiting times in the first quarter of this year were half as long as in the same period last year, which is good news for customers. At the 2025 spending review, the Government allocated £500 million to make HMRC a digital-first organisation, and that transformation is well under way.
Shaun Davies
I welcome the Government’s £20 million investment in relocating and upgrading Telford’s HMRC office, with 1,000 members of staff working hard to deliver the best service possible. Will the Minister meet me and Telford and Wrekin council to discuss how the new HMRC campus can be at the forefront of improving the customer experience, including by harnessing the potential of AI and tech, as well as partnering with the start-up sector?
Dan Tomlinson
My hon. Friend is a very strong advocate for Telford, both for jobs in the private sector and for those in the public sector that we are able to support in his community. I am glad to hear that he, like me, is proud of HMRC’s Telford campus and wants to see it play a key role in improving customer experience through innovation, AI and digital technology. I will be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those issues.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
The Chancellor has justified her lack of a licence for renting out her house as an “inadvertent error”, but HMRC is never prepared to accept that people make inadvertent errors. Will this now change, or does the Chancellor expect to be treated differently from everyone else who makes an inadvertent error?
Dan Tomlinson
I am not sure that the matter that the right hon. Member just raised has much to do with HMRC.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Treasury Committee looks at HMRC’s customer service. We have recently seen people having their child benefit stopped, ostensibly on the basis of travel data. Could the Minister explain what he is doing to resolve this issue and what data HMRC based its information on?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for her service on the Treasury Committee; she is doing a sterling job as its Chair. This is a really important issue. Last year HMRC undertook a pilot to try to find a way to reduce fraud in the child benefit system. That measure is expected to save £350 million over the next five years, and we have already managed to prevent £17 million in wrongful payments, but my hon. Friend is right to say that a very small number of claimants had their child benefit incorrectly removed. I am really sorry that that happened. HMRC is writing to those who have been affected and ensuring that people who should get their child benefit payments do receive them.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
My constituent Hollie from Wimborne applied for a self-assessment refund of just £300 in April. When she chased it in June, she was told it had gone to a specialist tax team, with no reason and no time frame given. She complained in August, but it is now November, and she has heard nothing. While she may be owed only £300, this is happening around the country. Can the Minister tell me whether he thinks seven months is a reasonable time within which to receive a basic refund, and what the Department is doing to speed things up?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for raising her constituent’s issue, and I would be happy for her to write to the Department about it. Even though it is not appropriate for me to get involved in an individual taxpayer’s affairs, I hope the Department can improve on that service. We have improved the response rates for both people making phone calls and people getting in touch via the post, but of course there is always more we can do.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
The previous Government left a £22 billion black hole in the public finances, and in the Budget last year I had to take urgent action to ensure our public finances were on a firm footing and to properly fund our public services, including a £29 billion investment every year in our national health service. The Opposition cannot support more investment in our public services unless they support the tax changes to pay for it.
Wendy Morton
I am not convinced that that answer went anywhere near my question. Family businesses are the lifeblood of communities and constituencies such as mine. Last week, I met Family Business UK to discuss how the Government’s national insurance hike and restrictions to business property relief are forcing businesses to pause investment, think twice about taking on more staff and, in some cases, even to close their doors. Ahead of the Budget, will the Chancellor meet me and representatives from family businesses to seek ways in which the Government will work with, not against, these really key businesses?
Rachel Reeves
I thank the right hon. Lady for that question, and 43% of employers—almost 1 million—will pay no employer national insurance this year. That is an increase because of the changes we made to the employment allowance. Over half of employers with NIC liabilities will see no change, or will gain overall, and businesses can employ younger people—those aged under 21 and apprentices under 25—without NICs. However, the Conservatives must decide whether they will stick with this change to national insurance. If they are not going to, they will have to admit that they will not be able to put the money into the national health service.
Joe Robertson
According to the British Retail Consortium, the Chancellor’s last Budget caused a £7 billion cost to retail, leading to shop closures, declining high streets and job losses. If the Chancellor will not acknowledge the damage she has caused, how will she go about rectifying it? Can I recommend that she starts with the 100% business rate relief put forward by the shadow Chancellor?
Rachel Reeves
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. In his own constituency in the Isle of Wight, the six-monthly waiting list figures show that 5% fewer people are waiting for 18 weeks or longer. That is only possible because of the money we put into the NHS because of the tax changes we made. On retail sales and the impact on shops, retail sales have increased for the last four months in a row, with the most recent numbers for August and September outpacing expectations.
Gareth Bacon
It was always blindingly obvious that increasing employer national insurance would lead to an increase in business costs, which would lead to higher prices hitting working people directly, and to rises in inflation. Sure enough, inflation has risen steadily under this Government, and it is now at almost twice its recommended level. At the last Budget, we were told it was necessary to raise taxes on businesses by £25 billion to pay for the NHS, and large amounts of money have indeed been paid to unionised workers, but just yesterday the Office for National Statistics announced that NHS productivity had fallen by 1.5% since Labour took office. Can the Chancellor explain what exactly my Orpington businesses are paying more tax for?
Rachel Reeves
In the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, the number of people waiting more than 18 weeks for an appointment has also fallen. That is exactly what that money is being used for. He needs to be clear, and so do those on the Opposition Front Bench: if they want to reverse the increase to national insurance, they must also accept that there will be less money for our national health service. That is a choice, and it would be interesting to hear whether it is the Opposition’s choice.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
On 6 December, Small Business Saturday will have us all out in our constituencies supporting small businesses. Following the announcement this morning about the need to enhance productivity, what measures will the Treasury be introducing to assist small businesses in the current tough climate?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is a strong champion for people in Hornsey and Wood Green, including small businesses. Last year at the Budget, we set out the principles in the consultation on business rates reform. Our principle is to make it easier for small businesses and high street businesses, while making sure that the online retail giants pay their fair share of tax. We will be setting out more information on our reformed business rate system to help our high streets and help our small businesses on 26 November.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Conservative party gave us austerity, Brexit and Liz Truss, including high interest rates and high inflation. This Government, so far, have delivered the highest growth in the G7, five interest rate cuts and record high levels of investment. Is it not the truth that the Conservative party, over 14 years, was the reason businesses were struggling?
Mr Speaker
Order. This is just a rant, with nothing relevant to the question.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Opposition Members spend a lot of time complaining about the difficult decisions taken by this Labour Government, so I wonder whether the Chancellor can remind them what we have been able to do for public services and infrastructure as a result of this Government’s revenue-raising policies.
Rachel Reeves
That is exactly the case. The tax changes we made at the Budget last year enabled us to put £29 billion extra a year into the NHS, but also to roll out free school meals and free breakfast clubs for young people. That is the difference this Government are making. On capital spending, because of the changes I made to our fiscal rules, we are able to invest £120 billion more on our energy security, our digital infrastructure and new homes through our industrial strategy. That is the difference that this Labour Government are making.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Analysis by UKHospitality suggests that more than half the job losses in the UK since last year’s Budget have come from its sector. That is further evidence that the jobs tax has been bad for growth and bad for job opportunities. We Liberal Democrats have set out fairer ways of raising revenue and going for growth, so rather than the Government suggesting that we have not done so, can I instead ask them: will they use the Budget to consult on a new lower national insurance contribution band to create opportunities for part-time workers, especially in hospitality?
Rachel Reeves
We increased the employment allowance at the Budget last year. That is, rightly, agnostic between part-time and full-time workers. That is why 865,000 businesses will not be paying national insurance at all this year—an increase to help our smallest businesses. Employment is up 358,000 so far this year; that is very different from the picture that the hon. Lady just tried to set out.
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
The Government value our world-leading distilling industry and recognise that the spirits sector has found recent economic conditions challenging because of both tariff uncertainty and high energy costs. The Scotch industry is set to be among the biggest beneficiaries from the landmark trade deal that this Government secured with India, which is set to reduce tariffs from 150% to 75% initially, and then to 40% over time.
Maureen Burke
Scotch whisky is one of Scotland’s greatest products, with high demand at home and across the globe, but many are worried about the challenges facing the industry. The Scotch Whisky Association is calling for a multi-year freeze on excise duty for spirits to relieve some of those pressures and to back the wider hospitality sector. Will the Minister join me, GMB Scotland and others by committing to freeze spirits duty in the Budget later this month?
Dan Tomlinson
My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for the businesses and industry in her constituency and in the areas nearby. As she is aware, the vast majority of Scotch is exported, so it is not subject to UK excise taxes. Nevertheless, the Government appreciate the importance of the domestic market to Scotch producers, and I do acknowledge the wider pressures facing the industry. On her specific question, the Government’s baseline assumption remains that alcohol duties will be increased with inflation each year to maintain their real-terms values, which means that any cut or freeze would come at a cost to the Exchequer. Of course, as with all taxes, the Chancellor—not a junior Treasury Minister—will confirm her decisions on alcohol duty as part of the Budget process in the normal way.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The Scottish Secretary—a grown man who seems easy to upset—was very upset recently when the First Minister of Scotland had direct meetings with the President of the United States over whisky tariffs. The SNP and the First Minister will always stand up for Scotch whisky. Will the Chancellor follow suit, or will she continue in the Treasury’s long-standing tradition of suckling off the enterprise of Scottish businesses rather than supporting them? Her tax hike on Scotch whisky last year cost jobs and investment in Scotland. Will she now stand up—
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for his question, and I remind him of the landmark trade deal that this Government secured with India. He criticises the Government for not doing enough, but we have secured a trade deal with India, the EU and the US. We are also reducing tariffs to support industry and investing in Scotland with a record-breaking Budget to support jobs, investment and growth, and the public sector across the whole of Scotland.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
More than 700,000 small businesses across the UK pay no business rates at all as they receive 100% small business rate relief. We are transforming business rates over this Parliament. We are cutting bureaucracy, too—removing the need for the owners of small businesses such as family-run cafés to submit pages and pages of directors’ reports to Companies House.
Siân Berry
Grassroots music venues are a vital part of the heart, soul and economy of Brighton Pavilion. Treasury Ministers have admitted that fairer business rates valuation methods are not currently used for many of these businesses—my local venues are calling the burdens punitive and a threat to viability. Will the Chancellor assure me that she will not forget grassroots music venues in her Budget?
James Murray
We very much recognise the role that grassroots music venues play in constituencies right across our country. In our reforms, on which we will set out more detail at the Budget on 26 November, we will have permanently lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure premises, with rateable values below £500,000.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Despite representing only around 9% of the UK’s economic output, the retail and hospitality sectors contribute around a third of all business rates paid. Does the Minister agree that high streets such as that in St Austell are public goods, and will he ensure that independent small businesses such as those he has described, which are central to our communities and economies, are no longer penalised by an arcane business rates system that undervalues their public contribution?
James Murray
High streets in St Austell and constituencies right across the country need more support from the business rates system. That is why we are transforming the system to ask larger premises, including the warehouses used by online giants, to pay slightly more in order to cut permanently the business rates payable by smaller premises on high streets across the country.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
When the Chancellor imposed £40 billion of tax rises, she chose to double business rates for leisure, retail and hospital businesses—and she is going to come back for more. It may be in vain, but perhaps I can offer her a policy suggestion: scrap business rates for 250,000 shops, pubs and restaurants. Rather than hike taxes, will she adopt Conservative policy and control welfare spending so that we can back our small businesses?
James Murray
That question barely deserves a response. The business rates relief we inherited from the previous Government when we came into office was due to end entirely in April of this year. It is only because of us that it was extended for a year while we put in place permanently lower multipliers for retail, leisure and hospitality businesses. Those are businesses on high streets right across our country, and that will be announced at the Budget on 26 November.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
We consulted on measures to simplify gambling duty and improve compliance. The responses from the consultation have now been analysed, and a response will be set out at the autumn Budget. We recognise the social and cultural value of horseracing, which is why we are listening to the horseracing sector as we consider our response to the consultation.
Sally Jameson
In Doncaster we have historic links to the horseracing industry, and we know at first hand the economic value it brings to our community and the country. Will the Minister agree to meet the British Horseracing Authority to discuss the potential impact on harmonisation and the impact that an increase in betting duties will have on the viability of racecourses, jobs and levy payments that support horseracing and the wider sporting industry?
Dan Tomlinson
My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for the horseracing industry and the jobs and economic activity in her constituency. I was glad to meet her just last week to discuss the topic she raises. As part of the consultation, there has been engagement with the horseracing industry to identify any potential unintended consequences for the sector and consider how they might be mitigated. As I said, the Government will respond to the consultation at the Budget. In response to her question, yes, I will happily meet with the BHA.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
Both Ascot and Royal Windsor racecourses are incredibly important to my constituency. I have visited both, and I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. On this issue, I urge the Minister to heed warnings from across the House and, more importantly, the industry. I cautiously welcome the briefing to The Telegraph at the weekend. Racing should be treated very differently from online casinos and gaming. Can he assure the House that taxes on horse and greyhound race flutters will not increase?
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
I thank my hon. Friend for her question; I know she is a tireless champion for working families in Newcastle. We know that for too long, people have felt that they are putting too much in and not getting enough back. That is why this Government have increased the national living wage by £1,400 this year for full-time workers, putting more money directly into the pockets of around 3 million working people. The north east combined authority investment zone will benefit from £160 million of investment to deliver £2 billion in private sector investment and 4,000 jobs.
Dame Chi Onwurah
Under 14 years of Tory misrule, workers in the north-east saw their average annual earnings fall, causing a cost of living crisis for families across the region. We have fantastic, passionate and productive workers. Will the Minister promise to continue to turn back on Tory failure by investing in the industry of the north-east to deliver high-wage, high-quality jobs as part of a Budget for working people?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the Conservatives’ record in office, and she is right that in her constituency there are fantastic, passionate and productive workers who need a Government—which they now have—who will invest in good jobs and skills, and who will put workers’ rights on a better footing than they were when we took over from the previous Government. At the Budget, the Chancellor will be led by the Government’s commitment to fairness, and she will be focused on protecting our NHS, reducing the national debt and improving the cost of living.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. This question is linked to Newcastle, so we will go to the next question.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her years of work to further financial inclusion both during her time here and prior to Parliament. This is a timely question, because tomorrow we will publish the Government’s financial inclusion strategy, which sets out an ambitious programme of measures to improve financial inclusion and resilience for communities right across the UK.
Gill Furniss
Earlier this year, I chaired a roundtable with the all-party parliamentary group on debt and financial inclusion that highlighted our five key asks. Nearly 70% of adults in my constituency are considered to be in financially vulnerable circumstances—among the highest proportions in the city. What steps does the Minister plan to take to measure the impact of the financial inclusion strategy? Will she meet me to discuss that?
Lucy Rigby
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. As part of developing the strategy, the Government have engaged with Financial Inclusion Committee members and other organisations on how to measure the impact of the strategy, and indeed to drive its delivery. The strategy’s implementation will be reviewed two years from publication against outcomes-based metrics to provide an update on progress. I will be more than happy to meet her to discuss this.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
When I was Economic Secretary, against the advice of officials I advanced something called the no interest loan scheme. I am given to believe that one of the Minister’s two predecessors since the general election may have suspended that valuable attempt to support the most vulnerable in society. Will she look at that again in advance of the Budget in three weeks? There really was wide cross-party support for it.
Lucy Rigby
I am aware of the scheme that the right hon. Member talks about. He will appreciate that I cannot pre-empt the launch of the strategy tomorrow, nor indeed the Budget, but I would be more than happy to meet him to talk about it in more detail.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
May I first pay tribute to all those who responded to Saturday’s horrendous attack: the quick-thinking driver, the emergency services, and the heroic LNER staff member Samir Zitouni who bravely saved the lives of passengers?
The Government were elected to break a cycle of decline. We have returned the public finances to a firm footing, invested in Britain and begun to rebuild our economy. But times remain challenging: global uncertainty is dampening growth and increasing the cost of borrowing; while inflation remains too high and productivity too low. In the face of those challenges, my task is clear. At the Budget later this month, I will continue to build the strong foundations to secure Britain’s future, protect our NHS, reduce our national debt and improve the cost of living for a fairer, more prosperous Britain with an economy that works for everyone.
Dr Opher
I am proud that the Government have invested £250 million in putting solar panels on schools and hospitals. In Stroud, we have a programme whereby, through community energy funding, we will put solar panels on every school in the area. I was going to ask the Chancellor about Treasury rules that were blocking that, but I heard from her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) that that may no longer be the case. Will she confirm that that block has been removed?
Rachel Reeves
It was good to see my hon. Friend and the engineering company Redler in Downing Street yesterday. On the issue about schools, as I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell), the scheme is now reopened. I have not had a look at the schools mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher). There may be some issues with maintained schools, but we are looking into that and are keen to work with him to ensure that schools in his constituency—indeed, schools in all hon. Members’ constituencies—can benefit from the scheme.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
What is the Chancellor’s definition of “working people”?
Rachel Reeves
A working person is somebody who goes out every day to earn their income. They rely on prices that are affordable in the shops, low interest rates and taxes that are as low as possible, but also public services that work for them, like the NHS, where waiting lists have already come down by more than 200,000.
Richard Fuller
That is a very broad definition. Maybe the Chancellor should speak to the Prime Minister, the Transport Secretary, the Education Secretary and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who have all given different definitions of working people over the last 12 months. After last year’s Budget, the Chancellor said that she had wiped the slate clean, but that was not true, Chancellor, was it? She said that she would not be coming back with more taxes, but that was not true, Chancellor, was it? At the election, the Chancellor said that she would not raise taxes on working people, but that was not true either, was it, Chancellor? When will the Chancellor learn the truth that she is not a commentator on the country’s economic problems; she is the cause?
Rachel Reeves
When we came into office last year, there was a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. The reserve that is set out for genuine emergencies had already been spent four times over only three months into the financial year. That is the reality. We increased taxes in the Budget last year to stabilise the public finances and to put a much-needed injection of cash into our public services, principally our national health service. Since then, anyone can see the big challenges facing the world, as well as the productivity that never materialised under the past Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Please, I have a lot of Members to get in and I am trying to help everybody. Don’t be tempted—that is the easy answer.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
At the spending review, we enabled better investment in temporary accommodation stock and strengthened local authorities’ financial position. Those changes will support local authorities to increase the supply of good-quality temporary accommodation and drive down day-to-day spend on such accommodation.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
James Murray
At the spending review, as announced earlier this year by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), we set out record investment into the farming and rural communities right across this country. That is only possible because of the choices that we have made on taxation and to balance the public finances.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his campaigning work on this. At the spending review, I announced the changes to the Green Book and particularly our work on place-based business cases, looking at how spending can cumulatively benefit an area. We are rolling out the new Green Book with some test cases. I am determined that we get investment that is long overdue into our northern towns and cities.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
The House will be aware that the 5p cut to fuel duty is set to expire in March 2026, and as with other tax policies, the Chancellor will make a final decision on fuel duty rates at the Budget in the context of the public finances.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Rachel Reeves
The NHS will remain free at the point of use for as long as there is a Labour Government. That is not something that Reform is able to promise. As usual, Reform does one thing and says another. In Kent, the party said that it would find efficiencies to keep down council tax, but it has not found a single one and that is why the 2 million people who live in Reform council areas will get a council tax rise next year.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Dan Tomlinson
Under the last Government, time and again, council tax went up and up and the funding for local councils went down and down. We have left councils on their knees, struggling when it comes to special educational needs, temporary accommodation and funding for homelessness and adult social care. This Government will make the right decisions when it comes to funding our councils and having a fair property taxation system.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. The Government are fully committed to doing all they can to supporting the UK car industry to grow, invest and provide employment in constituencies such as his and in other important sites across the country. Specifically on the employee car ownership scheme, we should be clear that private use of a company car is a valuable benefit to an employee but it is also right that company car tax is paid on it, ensuring fairness with other taxpayers who pay tax on cars provided by their employers. That said, I would be happy to meet—
Mr Speaker
Order. Please. I am trying to help Members. Minister, tell me which one you do not want to get in, because that is what it is getting to.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I recently joined Sarah Laker and the wonderful team at Stationery Supplies in Marple to celebrate an impressive 20 years in business, but recent research by the British Retail Consortium and UKHospitality has shown that 120,000 high street jobs are potentially at risk as a result of proposed changes to business rates next April. Could the Chancellor and Ministers confirm that the forthcoming Budget will support my 250 local retail businesses through a meaningful reduction in rates and ensure that no shop pays more?
Mr Speaker
Order. Members are meant to shorten their questions for topicals.
Dan Tomlinson
We will be introducing permanently lower rates for those businesses in the Budget.
Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
I am indeed aware of this issue. I know that it affects people in my hon. Friend’s constituency and in plenty of other Members’ constituencies, too. I also know how concerned he and other Members are about it. It is for the Financial Conduct Authority to consider whether it is appropriate to take any further steps, but I have asked my officials to engage with the FCA on how it is approaching this.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Economists have told the Chancellor that stamp duty is a terrible tax because it damages growth. The Government’s response is to double stamp duty on a £300,000 house. Why?
Dan Tomlinson
In the end, when it comes to property taxation, we have to make sure that we have a fair and sustainable system that brings in revenues from a range of sources. Scrapping individual taxes without any realistic and plausible plan to fund them is the road to economic ruin in this country. We have seen what happened in the past when Conservative Governments came forward with plans to cut taxes without the means to afford it. We on this side of the House will not be making that mistake.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
James Murray
The work that my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have been doing with Europe is all about taking down trade barriers where they get in the way of our national interest and economic growth. That is our priority, as well as cutting bureaucracy for businesses here in the UK.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Chancellor justified at the Dispatch Box what a working person is. Will she reiterate at the Dispatch Box now what she said to the British public during the general election campaign, which is that her forthcoming Budget will not raise taxes on working people?
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
How will the Government help to fund the green infrastructure that we need, as through the coastal energy partnership that I helped to set up in Bournemouth, with Great British Energy taking on early stage project development and the National Wealth Fund making those critical long-term investments?
James Murray
Through our investments in the National Wealth Fund, Great British Energy, the British Business Bank and UK Export Finance, we are using every lever the Government have to support businesses to thrive—in stark contrast with the previous Government, which left them high and dry.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Charities, trade unions, academics and industry are united in their view that replacing the energy profits levy is not just an economic imperative, but a moral one. How many more of my constituents need to lose their jobs before the Government do just that?
Dan Tomlinson
At the Budget we will set out clearly our proposals for the future of the energy profits levy and the oil and gas mechanism. We will ensure that we can provide the certainty to business on the future regime as soon as we can.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
People in Crook and Tow Law are excited by the £20 million that the Chancellor is investing in our area through the pride in place scheme. After years of decline under the previous Government, which failed to spend most of the levelling-up money that they promised our community, what assurance can she give me that this time it will be local people in the driving seat and that we can spend the funds?
James Murray
I am glad to hear that the people of Crook and Tow Law are already thinking about how to use their pride in place funding to improve their local area. Children at Peases West primary school will be reassured to know that improving local playparks and upgrading community facilities will be possible under this funding.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
From her CV to her tax promises, would the Chancellor know the truth if it stood right in front of her?
Mr Speaker
Order. You do not need to bother answering that, Chancellor—we will now move on.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)
Will the Chancellor update the House on how and when schools can apply for libraries for primaries funding, which she announced on 29 September?
Rachel Reeves
We have made a commitment that every single primary school in England will have a library by the end of this Parliament. The Department for Education will set out the process in due course, but any primary school without a library can rest assured that it will have one soon.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Will the Chancellor consider in her Budget closing the loophole in small business rates relief that allows wealthy second homeowners to have their homes on the rental market for 72 nights a year and therefore avoid paying any tax whatsoever? My constituents working the minimum wage are having to subsidise them. That is not fair, is it?
Dan Tomlinson
We will set out the changes that we will make to business rates at the Budget.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
The Government’s pride in place programme presents a welcome opportunity for communities across the country to once again feel proud of where they live, especially after years of austerity and neglect under successive Conservative Governments. However, the Isle of Wight received none of that funding, which feels like an oversight, given the challenges our island faces, not least with cross-Solent transport. Will the Chancellor assure me that she is doing everything possible to ensure that islanders are not left behind and that they, too, can benefit from this programme and feel pride in our island once again?
James Murray
The pride in place funding is going towards 250 communities across the country to ensure that local people are in control of investing in their local areas. I note my hon. Friend’s comments about the community that he represents. Of course, the Government’s wider agenda about driving growth, increasing people’s wages and ensuring that people are better off is central to improving the lives of his constituents and those right across the UK.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Since the Chancellor delivered her speech this morning, the FTSE 100 has dropped by over £22 billion—the real £22 billion rather than the fantasy £22 billion black hole. What can the Chancellor say right now to steady the markets so that all our constituents’ pensions are protected?
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
What this Government have done to steady the markets is to kick the Conservatives out of office and leave them in opposition for years to come.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
I welcome our Government’s recent Typhoon deal with Türkiye, which will see the brilliant team at Rolls-Royce in Filton play a key role in engine production and maintenance. Will the Chancellor join me in congratulating them, our local small and medium-sized enterprises and others, and set out how integral she sees defence as an engine for growth?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is a solid defender of businesses and working people in her constituency. The defence industrial strategy is about supporting British industry as we—and other countries around the world—up what we spend on defence. We want British businesses and British workers to benefit from that investment.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)
Through freedom of information requests, Restore Britain has uncovered unpublished Treasury analysis breaking down contributions by ethnicity. Evidently the data exists, so will the Chancellor commit to going further by publishing the same analysis by nationality, so that we can see which groups are paying their way, and, more importantly, which groups are not?
James Murray
Mr Speaker, I am considering how to respond to that question. I will simply leave it at saying that everyone must pay their fair share of tax. That is something that the Labour party are committed to in government.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
On a more constructive note, for the past year I have been campaigning hard for Eden Portland to open in my constituency. If opened, it would be a world-class attraction, rejuvenating Portland, attracting investment, creating well-paid jobs and promoting our coast. The project is a success story waiting to happen, so will the Chancellor of the Exchequer continue to work with me, Dorset council and the team at Eden Portland to deliver that exciting project as soon as possible?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend again for raising the opportunities in Portland. As he knows, we are working closely with Dorset council, the project and him to bring that to fruition.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
The Chancellor knows that I agree with her that the use of public research and development is one of the most effective levers for economic growth, but it will not significantly increase over the entire five-year spending review period. If the Government are serious about economic growth, they must find a way to increase public research and development. Does she agree?
Rachel Reeves
We are increasing spending on research and development in real terms and in every year of this Parliament, for exactly the reasons that the hon. Gentleman mentions. But we are doing more than that: we are supporting start-up and scale-up businesses through our pensions reform, through the British Business Bank and through UK Export Finance. We are absolutely determined to ensure that the money that goes into R&D in this country turns into great businesses that stay in this country.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Will the Chancellor join me in congratulating the great work of Red Hat, a catapult based in Hyndburn that has supported the safeguarding of over 300 jobs and the development of 46 new products? Will she meet me to consider the role of catapults in supporting economic growth in places such as Hyndburn?
Rachel Reeves
Catapults have been a big success in driving economic activity, especially in manufacturing and engineering, which are prevalent in all parts of the country, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency. It was a pleasure to visit Hyndburn with her last year. I look forward to having the opportunity to do so again.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
In the past few weeks, I have visited two incredible local businesses: Saragusta Spirits, a local gin distillery, and Williams Family Wines, an award-winning winery. However, such entrepreneurial success is being hampered by small producer relief adding significant additional duty cost and preventing businesses from growing. With English viticulture and wines enjoying a surge in popularity, will the Chancellor consider extending small producer relief to drinks above 8.5% ABV, and if not, why not?
Dan Tomlinson
All decisions relating to tax will be made at the Budget in late November.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
Claire founded Little Foxes Play Town in my constituency. It caters for and is enjoyed by children and parents in the community. However, Claire’s business has struggled with the cost of business rates and now with the requirement to pay VAT. Will the Minister assure me that the change in business rates will benefit small business owners such as Claire and ensure that they can continue to serve their local areas?
Dan Tomlinson
One important thing about the business rate reforms that the Government will undertake is that we support small businesses in growing and investing. They are the backbone of our communities and our country. The reforms that we will set out at the Budget—and on which we will continue to have conversations with Members across the House and with businesses—will, I hope, continue to support and enable investment in our small businesses.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
This morning the Chancellor spoke of difficult decisions for everybody but the ultra-rich. With billionaire wealth soaring while living standards for most people fall, does she agree that it is time to double down on gross inequality in our country and tax extreme wealth fairly, so that we can tackle the cost of living crisis, end child poverty and invest in our public services?
Rachel Reeves
As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not what I said in my speech this morning. In last year’s Budget we got rid of the non-dom tax status, we introduced VAT and business rates on private schools, we increased capital gains tax, we increased tax on private jets and we got rid of the carried interest—more than the Green party has ever done to reduce inequality in this country.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
So often the farm is the very core of a rural economy. Could my hon. Friend confirm what assessment has been made about the impact of proposed changes to agricultural property relief on growth opportunities in rural areas and the viability of rural communities?
Dan Tomlinson
As I said earlier, the proposals made by CenTax and others in relation to agricultural property relief would result in twice as many farms paying more tax as are planned to do under the Government’s proposals. We think our proposals are right and fair.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Asylum accommodation costs are set to quadruple in Northern Ireland, from £100 million to £400 million, and across the UK to £15.3 billion in the next decade. Before hiking taxes again, should the Chancellor not look at where the waste really lies, when we are funding an asylum system that is failed, chaotic and expensive? This is not racist or far-right; it is looking after our own citizens who cannot pay their bills.
James Murray
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that we should reduce the cost of asylum accommodation. Indeed, that is why our commitment to close all asylum hotels in this Parliament is so important.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Ind)
When will the Government lift the two-child cap?
Torsten Bell
The previous Labour Government cut child poverty significantly, and so will this one.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Between 2010 and 2020, the personal tax allowance threshold went up by 9.2% on average per year. However, it was frozen by the previous Government in 2021, and the freeze has continued under this Government. Will the Chancellor consider unfreezing the personal tax allowance and adjusting the additional rate and higher rate bands to compensate, to ensure that tax receipts are maintained?
Dan Tomlinson
It is important to realise that changes to taxation, if they are unfunded, will mean additional borrowing. This Government will ensure that we do not return to austerity, as the Conservatives did, but nor will we return to additional borrowing, which causes interest rates to rise, causes the cost of mortgages for families to go up and leads to economic chaos. That is not the approach this Government will take.
Bill Presented
Dairy Farming and Dairy Products Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sarah Dyke presented a Bill to make provision to require the Secretary of State, in any negotiation relating to an international trade agreement, to seek to ensure that the agreement does not result in any detriment to UK dairy farmers; to make provision about the labelling of dairy products imported from outside the UK; to make provision about fair dealing between dairy farmers, processors and retailers, including in relation to pricing; to provide for certain additional contractual protections for dairy farmers; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 November, and to be printed (Bill 323).
Fertility Treatment (Right to Time Off)
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a right to paid time off work for fertility treatment; and for connected purposes.
Deciding to start or grow our family should be a time of joy and happiness, and of making plans for the future. Every year in the UK, hundreds of thousands of babies are born under such circumstances, but for some people the path to parenthood is not simple or easy. According to the World Health Organisation, infertility affects one in six people globally. Whether it is due to medical factors, being in a same-sex relationship or considering solo parenthood, there are so many people who desperately want children but cannot without extra medical support.
That support comes through the form of fertility treatment. In 2023, 52,400 patients underwent IVF in the UK. These are not statistics; these are our friends, our colleagues and our constituents, and right now, they are not entitled to the support they deserve. Of course, this has an especially big impact on women, given that they are the ones most often undergoing fertility treatment in the form of IVF.
Currently, there is no legal right to paid time off to attend fertility appointments. Women have to hope they have an understanding employer or, as I shall come to, take sick leave or annual leave instead. In fact, the Equality Act 2010 code of practice on employment makes a comparison between a woman having fertility treatment and a man having cosmetic dental surgery. How can that be right?
Let us be clear: fertility treatment is not a lifestyle choice; it is a necessity for so many people. However, as I have heard from many women, some employers treat fertility treatment as an elective procedure, and do not allow employees time off, as they would in the case of other medical procedures. IVF is not a simple filling or a dental clean-up. A single cycle of IVF typically involves five to seven appointments, often at short notice. The timing is dictated by hormone levels and follicle development, which cannot be predicted. Throughout, someone is pumping their body full of hormones and drugs, which can have an extraordinary physical and emotional toll. Indeed, according to research conducted by Fertility Matters at Work—I pay tribute to it for all its work on this issue—87% of people say that they experience anxiety or depression directly related to their treatment.
So many stories have been shared with me and other organisations about the impact of having no legal right to paid time off for fertility treatment. Women have had to use all their annual leave, have faced disciplinary action, and have hidden what they were going through from their employers, and that has had a huge toll on their mental and physical health. At an already stressful time, these people, in particular women, are having to navigate more uncertainty and stress. I am introducing this Bill because of the huge impact that the situation has on many of our constituents.
Sarah—I have changed her name for legal reason—paints that story clearly. After pouring her all into her job for five years, she and her husband decided that it was the right time to start a family. After months trying to conceive, she began IVF, and what followed, in her words, “completely blindsided” her—the staggering number of tests, the drop-everything-at-once appointments, and the cocktail of drugs that she would have to inject into her body in her office toilet. Sarah feared disclosing to her employer that she was undergoing fertility treatment, and she was right. She developed complications and had to spend weeks in hospital, which meant she had to tell her employer that she was undergoing IVF. Not long after, her boss suddenly told her that she needed to work abroad. When she explained that she needed to be close to her IVF doctor, she was told that she had to go anyway. An employment lawyer told her that she had no legal grounds to challenge that, and the choice she was left with was to stay or to leave—family or career. It was a choice she should never have had to make. That cannot be right, and the current situation is deeply unfair. The issue has a disproportionate impact on women and contributes to wider equality challenges—for example, to do with the gender pay gap and career progression. In the most extreme cases, women are having to choose between a career and a child.
The Bill aims to right this wrong. It is straightforward: it would create a statutory right to paid time off for all necessary appointments for employees undergoing fertility treatment. It gives partners a right to time off, too. That is important, because as one person said:
“I wanted to be there at the conception of my child.”
I do not think that an unreasonable request. The Bill mirrors the existing framework for antenatal care, recognising that fertility treatment is equally deserving of workplace protection. Fundamentally, it raises these questions for the House: do we believe that everyone who wishes to have a child deserves a fair chance of doing so? Will the state support all its citizens who have chosen that path? Do we have a moral duty to level the playing field for those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves struggling to get pregnant? This is about fairness.
On that point, although the Bill’s scope is limited to employment rights, we must also tackle the postcode lottery of access to NHS-funded IVF cycles, which organisations such as Fertility Action and LGBT Mummies have so powerfully campaigned to address. Fewer than 10% of integrated care boards in England offer the recommended three cycles of IVF, but someone’s chances of having a baby should not depend on where they live.
The Bill is in our national interest. As Becky Kearns from Fertility Matters at Work said:
“This is also a workforce crisis hiding in plain sight. We’re facing a global fertility decline but failing to support those actively trying to start a family”.
Last year, the fertility rate in England and Wales reached an all-time low, falling for the third year in a row to 1.41 children per woman. Just to sustain current population levels, it needs to be 2.1, so we need more people to have babies. We should be helping those who wish to become parents and grow their families, and who will be raising the future workers and taxpayers on whom this country will depend. That is, of course, not the only solution to falling fertility rates, but it would help.
Meanwhile, while there is a climate of stigma, in which women are afraid of revealing that they are undergoing treatment, there is a very real cost for British business. Without the right to receive time off, up to 63% of people take sick leave to attend appointments. Because many are concerned about telling their employer, they often take whole days off to hide their appointments, instead of the few hours that they actually require. Recent research published this week estimates that this costs UK employers up to £54 million in unplanned sick leave alone every year, and that is just one example of the cost to businesses. Providing a statutory right to time off not only protects employees, but gives them permission to take that time off openly, and to plan it with their employer, transforming chaos into clarity for everyone. Accessing treatment can be even more challenging for those working in certain circumstances, such as those doing shift work or travelling often.
In fact, this right is also smart business, because 86% of employees would be attracted to a role in an organisation that provides fertility support. Many businesses already recognise that this is not only the right thing to do, but in their interests. Businesses such as Centrica, Cadent Gas and Aviva, which has a strong presence in my constituency, have all voluntarily given paid time off to their employees for fertility treatment, but whether someone can attend their fertility appointment should not depend on the luck of the draw, a kind manager or an understanding employer; it should be the norm for everyone. In many other countries, bespoke employment legislation has already been developed. People in South Korea and Malta, for example, are entitled to paid time off for fertility treatment.
We have come a long way as a society. For decades, we provided paid time off for antenatal leave, then maternity leave, and soon, thanks to Labour’s Employment Rights Bill, we will have day-one rights for paternity and parental leave, and for bereavement leave after pregnancy loss. We must look at fertility treatment too, because, as I know myself, the pathway to parenthood is not always easy.
This Bill would help shift the culture and narrative in workplaces about a topic that has remained taboo for far too long. I know there has been support across the House for this change; I pay tribute to the former Conservative Member Nickie Aiken, who introduced a similar private Member’s Bill in the last Parliament. I also thank the Government, and current and past Ministers, for their engagement with me on this issue, and I know that they are listening. If it is not possible to get a change in the law soon, I would encourage Members to ask businesses in their constituency if they will join others in voluntarily providing paid time off for fertility treatment.
Finally, it is deeply fitting that this Bill is presented in Fertility Week—a time to challenge taboos and raise awareness of the devastating physical, emotional and social impacts of fertility problems. How better could this House show that it is alive to these issues and injustices than by giving its support to this Bill?
This Bill is about fairness. It is about saying to the thousands of people who undergo fertility treatment every year that we see them, we support them, and they should not have to face it alone. That is morally right, right for our economy and right for our national interest. I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Alice Macdonald, Andrew Pakes, Daniel Francis, Jess Asato, Kate Osborne, Matt Turmaine, Michael Wheeler, Olivia Blake, Rachel Blake, Sarah Owen, Sarah Russell and Stella Creasy present the Bill.
Alice Macdonald accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 November, and to be printed (Bill 320).
Supporting High Streets
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 106 / Noes: 321 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to support high streets by cutting public expenditure to facilitate the abolition of business rates for thousands of retail, hospitality and leisure premises on the high street; and further calls on the Government not to proceed with the Employment Rights Bill to avoid hiring freezes and job losses, to remove red tape for businesses, including by reviewing IR35, to cut energy bills for businesses and to tackle retail crime, thereby protecting key pillars of local communities including post offices, pubs and pharmacies.
I am pleased to move the motion in my name and that of the Leader of the Opposition. We celebrate and support our high streets—their independent shops, the warm refuge they provide from loneliness, and the way that they incubate new business. They bring us together as communities, provide markets for local farmers and food producers, offer venues for street festivals and often afford young people their first step on the career ladder, but across Britain’s high streets, the lights are dimming, the laughter in our pubs is falling silent, and shutters on shops are coming down for the last time. When high streets thrive, communities thrive. When our high streets retreat, so does civic society. We Conservatives profoundly value our high street enterprises, which is why one of our first actions in government will be to abolish business rates for thousands of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses.
In July, the Chancellor said that she will make the UK
“the best place to start and grow a business”.—[Official Report, 29 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1051.]
Well, goodness me, she has an odd way of showing it! In her very first Budget, the Chancellor slapped businesses with a £25 billion tax raid, and with a national insurance jobs tax, which hit high-street businesses the hardest, and meant that it cost business owners more simply to give someone a job.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Hospitality was hit particularly hard by that toxic concoction. A UKHospitality survey found that 76% of businesses put up their prices, one third restricted their hours and 63% had to cut their staffing as a result. Is that not the reason why we need this policy to try to improve our high streets?
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point: it was a devastating concoction of the Chancellor’s last year, and I believe that I am right in saying that UKHospitality calibrated the figures and estimated that 98,000 jobs have been lost across the hospitality sector. How proud this Government must be of costing mostly young and often vulnerable people their first chance!
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
My hon. Friend is giving a powerful speech. Hospitality is fundamental to social mobility. I would have thought that Government Members would be ashamed of a policy that means that those furthest away from the labour market—young people—are put off from trying to get their first job. Hospitality is essential to enabling them to join the labour market, and the Government have put blocks in the way of people who want a better life.
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend is exactly right. Let us be optimistic: we are here to celebrate our high streets, and perhaps all is not lost. The Chancellor could yet repent and reverse some of her most damaging policies, or adopt our policy of cutting business rates entirely for 250,000 high-street businesses.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
When I visited Salisbury chamber of commerce on Friday, it gave me the example of a single mother doing 30 hours a week on the national living wage. As a result of the combination of the increase in the national living wage, the threshold changes and the rate changes on national insurance, that individual costs a business 11% more than they did last year. As a consequence, they cannot take on anyone else. What does my hon. Friend think about the impact that has on the economy?
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend represents his constituents in Salisbury diligently, and makes exactly the same point. With respect, the Government have not understood business, and the Treasury did not pause to consider, or to conduct an impact assessment. In particular, the capricious change in thresholds from £9,100 down to £5,000, without any impact assessment from the Treasury, has done immense damage to high-street businesses. The Government should hang their head in shame.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
My hon. Friend will know that cafés, including small cafés, play an important part on the high street and bring people to it. Is he aware that under this Government, mushrooms are up, bacon is up, eggs are up, sausages are up, bread is up, tea is up and milk is up? Therein is a threat to the full English breakfast. This Government might be forgiven for many things, but taking away the full English breakfast from the high street is not one of them.
Andrew Griffith
I enjoy a full English as much as I suspect my colleague does. It is not just breakfast that is under threat; it is also lunch, supper, tea, dinner and the great British pub.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for bringing this debate forward, and I welcome it. I am always constructive and encouraging, so let me say that Ards and North Down borough council, my local council back home, has a scheme for a new, thriving high street. A council grant enables shop owners to repaint their premises, provide new signage and address the blight of vacant shops. Online shopping without investment means that the high street cannot survive. Does he agree that the Government should extend the initiative that we have back home in Northern Ireland, in my council area, to councils here, to help with jobs and rebuilding the high street?
Andrew Griffith
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is so much that we in this House and those in the Government—if they are minded to do so—can do to alleviate the burden on business. It is hard to run a business at the best of times, and it is even harder when the Government seek to be a headwind, rather than a tailwind.
Andrew Griffith
I have so many wonderful contributions to take from my colleagues. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have his chance later.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
One thing that the Government might like to reflect on is the perverse situation that people facing VAT find themselves in. The £90,000 threshold is causing many small business people, such as barbers, to adjust their behaviour—classically, reducing their working week from five days to four or three. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Treasury needs to look at the increased tax take that it might receive if it changed VAT thresholds to allow those small businesses to work full time?
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend makes another excellent point. I recently had the wonderful opportunity to meet Dr Arthur Laffer, whose pioneering economic research showed that reducing taxes increased not only the growth rate of the economy but, as a consequence, the tax take to the Treasury. That is a very important point about incentives and what we in this House can do.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
The hon. Member is speaking about the tax rate. Is it not also important to talk about the tax gap? That gap is £46.8 billion, of which £6.4 billion is linked to tax evasion. We are seeing a lot of that on our high streets up and down the country. What does he think should be done across Government to tackle it?
Andrew Griffith
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman must have overstayed oral questions to the Chancellor, because what we are doing in the Chamber now is celebrating, cherishing and supporting our high streets, not accusing businesses in our constituencies of tax evasion. However, I am sure he has impressed his Treasury colleagues, who are never shy about trying to transfer wealth from the private sector to the less productive public sector.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Growth, increased turnover and increased profits for microbusinesses should be a cause for celebration, but the reality is that crossing the reduced VAT threshold can be a disaster. So many suppliers of small businesses are themselves small businesses; there is no VAT that they can reclaim, so it can be dreadful.
Andrew Griffith
Again, that is an excellent point. It is something that the Chancellor, who is spreading uncertainty and consternation again this morning, should think about in relation to the conduct of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. While businesses absolutely understand that part of their role is to contribute to society—to the communities in which they exist—it seems that HMRC so often goes out of the way to make it hard for our businesses. This is an organisation that literally sought to turn its telephone lines off for six months of the year, until the previous Government refused to allow it to do so.
Hospitality venues, which we have talked about, are really suffering. They are at the apex of those affected by the changes to employment law, taxes and business rates.
Andrew Griffith
I will make some progress. Last week, I had the opportunity to visit the Queen’s Head in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), which brought home to me the challenges that that business is facing. Of course, all hon. Members in this Chamber represent constituencies, and traders on high streets in places like Arundel, Midhurst, Petworth, Pulborough, Storrington and Henfield have worked tirelessly throughout history to make our high streets and our communities what they are today, but—from the unacceptable time it has taken to fix the fire-damaged Angel Inn in Midhurst to the imposition of higher parking charges by Liberal Democrat councillors—government is too often a headwind, rather than a tailwind.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Member is talking about the importance of high streets. In Hastings town centre, £150,000 of levelling-up money was provided to renovate the old Debenhams building and open a family fun factory. Sadly, that closed after a couple of weeks, the staff were not paid, and the building was boarded up. That taxpayer money was given to one of the biggest Conservative donors, Lubov Chernukhin. She has left with the money, and has not replied to my letter asking for it to be given back to the people of Hastings. Will the hon. Member, or perhaps the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel)—who received £70,000 from that donor last year—help me to get a response about where our money is?
Mr Speaker
Can I just check that you have let the right hon. Member know that you intended to refer to her?
Andrew Griffith
I am sure that the hon. Lady will wish to take that matter up with Ministers through the appropriate channels, but there will not be many fun factories on our high streets when they feel the burden of Labour’s further changes.
Running a business—something that Conservative Members understand—is not easy at the best of times, but thanks to this Chancellor and this Government, these are far from the best of times. For the average pub, business rates have soared from £4,000 per year to over £9,000, and this morning, we have learned that the Chancellor is coming back for more. A year ago, she promised that she was done—that her tax raid on business was the end of it. She is leading us down the garden path. Spending is out of control, and she expects taxpayers, including businesses, to clean up her mess.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we have a Government who simply do not understand business? They seem to think that they can just squeeze and squeeze small businesses because they make unlimited profits. If they do that, there will be no businesses left on our high streets.
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. One only has to look at the wording of the motion we are debating and that of the Government amendment. We Conservatives talk about lifting burdens, removing business rates, cutting red tape, and taking more action to address crime on our high streets. The Labour party talks about compulsory purchase, more grants and more subsidies—it is not interested in lifting the burden on business.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government present an illusion of choice? I will give him a very brief example. Two weeks ago, I met the owners of a business in my constituency—a young couple who own a hospitality business. They have two young children; one is three weeks old. They are buying a new house, and have said to me that because of the pressures bearing down on them as a result of choices made by this Government, they fear for the future of their business, which may have to close next year. Is it not the case that the Government are giving people an illusion of a choice, when in reality they are stifling the economy?
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the choices that businesses face are enormously difficult. Every single day, they have to ask themselves whether they should put up prices to try to claw back some of the damage—some of that £25 billion cost—thereby increasing inflation and keeping interest rates higher for longer, pushing up the cost of living. Do they reduce the number of employees or the hours per employee, or do they simply fold in the face of disincentives, a lack of support and headwinds rather than tailwinds? Do they shut up shop before the Chancellor’s next intervention heaps on more and more burdens?
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The hon. Member is making a very powerful speech. High streets across my constituency are struggling, and one additional burden that they carry is a parcels border in the Irish sea caused by the Windsor framework and the protocol. It cost a children’s clothes retailer over £200 to get a delivery from GB. Does the hon. Member agree that this is an extra burden that retailers should not have to carry, and that the Government need to do something about it quickly before businesses go out of business?
Andrew Griffith
Rather than giving away our fishing for 12 years and getting nothing in return because of a dogma, or spending time on international affairs—giving away the British Indian Ocean Territory and paying for the privilege—the Government should be prioritising the needs of business and focusing on the specific barriers mentioned by the hon. Member. Doing so would make a huge difference to businesses in her constituency.
It is not just the Chancellor. The Business Secretary seems to be doing his bit too, creating more small businesses by shrinking existing large ones. His 330-page unemployment Bill, which is due to come back before the House tomorrow, will make life a nightmare for every employer on our high streets. It will make flexible and seasonal working impossible, and will prevent employers from taking a risk on young people and work returners—some of the most vulnerable people in society—for fear of joining the backlog of 490,000 claims to employment tribunals.
Andrew Griffith
If the hon. Lady wants to talk about what the Government are doing to help employment, I would love to hear her intervention.
Amanda Martin
The flexible labour market under the Tories meant that people were employed but did not know when they were working, how long they were working for and how much they were getting paid.
Andrew Griffith
You do not improve workers’ rights by making them unemployed, creating a generation of jobless young people who cannot find their way into gainful employment. And do you know what? It is not just the Conservatives who are saying that. Even that finishing school for socialists, the Resolution Foundation, opposes Labour’s Bill because of the unemployment that it will yield.
What this shows us is that the Government are simply not serious about business. We Conservatives get it. Many of us have worked in business ourselves, and we understand that businesses take risks, create wealth and employ millions. That is why we introduced business rates relief before this Labour Government cut it, and it is why we will introduce a 100% relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, taking 250,000 high street premises out of business rates entirely.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The shadow Minister will, of course, be delighted to know that the Scottish National party was the first party anywhere in the United Kingdom to introduce business rates relief for small businesses. As for the Labour Government’s business literacy, which the hon. Gentleman critiques quite accurately, does it concern him that it manifests itself in deeply disingenuous moves, like taking a penny off the price of a pint, while the same pub—the Taybank in Dunkeld, perhaps, or the Stag in Forfar—is seeing its national insurance contributions put up and its energy bills going through the roof? This Government cannot join the dots. Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that this is only going to get worse?
Andrew Griffith
I am enormously concerned. I was concerned when I woke up this morning, and I am even more concerned after hearing the intervention from our Chancellor: no certainty, confidence plummeting, and the promise of more taxes to follow.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I hope that the shadow Minister will explain something to me. I totally agree that business rates need reform, but I am deeply concerned about the hole in local government finance that it will cause. My local council, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, has calculated that it retains £66 million from business rates. Can he please tell me where that will come from?
Andrew Griffith
To coin a phrase, we are not going to balance the books of local government on the back of entrepreneurial businesses that are keeping our high streets alive, providing services for the community and allowing our economy to grow.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
When the shadow Minister’s party came into government in 2010, I was working in the Animal store in Queens Arcade in Cardiff, which was an anchor institution there: it brought people in, and ensured that retail was thriving in the community. When his party left government 14 years later, the Animal store was closed, as were the majority of the other units in the arcade. Can he comment on why that happened on his party’s watch?
Andrew Griffith
I am not sure that we were in charge in the particular area that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but I am pleased to know that, like so many of us, he had his first experience of work—his first leg-up, his first work opportunity—in the retail and hospitality sector. It is hugely important, and gives people great opportunities in life.
I have talked about our promises—[Interruption.] I do not want to get too deflected by stories about the Animal store, of which the hon. Gentleman clearly has enormously fond recollections, and where he spent many a happy hour.
Andrew Griffith
I will, but I suspect that I should then make a bit more progress.
Dr Hudson
May I move the conversation on from animals, much as I would love to talk about animals today?
In Epping Forest we have fantastic pubs, restaurants and cafés—including the Queen Vic, Il Bacio, Gosht, Alecco, Papillon and Poppy’s—but they are all struggling under this Labour Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should listen to our sensible proposals to cut business rates and help them to get their energy bills and food costs down?
Andrew Griffith
I absolutely agree. We are all here individually today representing our fantastic constituencies, our wonderful high streets and our entrepreneurial businesses—those residents and constituents who seek to be employed and contribute to a growing part of our economy. That is why we in the Opposition are here to talk about our plan to save the high street, not to make the sort of partisan points that we are hearing from Labour Members.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Family businesses are crucial to our high streets, including mine in Inverurie, Ellon, Turriff and Huntly. Indeed, they are the backbone of our high streets, yet this Government’s national insurance contributions changes and Employment Rights Bill, and their slashing of business property relief, will have a huge impact on them and employment in them. What does the shadow Minister think of that, and what can we do to help our high streets and, in particular, family businesses in them?
Andrew Griffith
So many family businesses will be devastated by the family business death tax introduced by the Labour party. We often hear about the plight of farmers and food producers, but family businesses are even more numerous. If you have survived Labour’s job tax, if you have survived Labour’s more than doubling of business rates, if you have survived the red tape— so much more of it—that Labour is imposing, all that awaits you when you seek to pass your business or your family farm on to the next generation is Labour’s family business death tax. That is why, as part of our plan for the high street, we will repeal those damaging measures.
Andrew Griffith
I hope that the hon. Lady is rising to commit herself to repealing them too.
Catherine Fookes
No; I want to remind the shadow Minister that we on this side of the House talk up our high streets, while all I can hear from the opposite Benches is people talking them down. As for red tape, the family businesses in my constituency were desperate to get rid of the red tape that the Conservatives created during their botched Brexit deals. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that by giving £5 billion to the Pride in Place scheme, this Government are doing a great deal more to support our high streets than his Government ever did?
Andrew Griffith
That was a valiant attempt to return to past history, but on this side of the House we are looking forward. Our plan for the high street would remedy the damage that has been done not over past years but over past months, and even again this morning—the collapse in confidence caused by our Chancellor.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that many of those sitting on the opposite Benches have clearly been dragooned into coming here to support the Government—as often happens in government, God help us. Does he think that they walk down their high streets telling the shopkeepers, “It is great to have national insurance charges so high that you cannot employ anyone, it is great to have an employment Bill that means you will not be able to employ anyone again, and with the rates that are out there, you may all be out of business—suck it up”?
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend has made exactly the right point. It is genuinely bewildering—and we will see this again tomorrow—that when every single major business group in the country urges the Government not to proceed with their damaging unemployment Bill, when Labour think-tanks urge them not to proceed with that Bill, and when not a single business in favour of that Bill can be named by a Labour Minister—other than the Co-op and one that is overseas—they still seek to proceed with it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Andrew Griffith
I will make some progress.
We have talked about the damage being done by the Chancellor, and we have talked about business rates and our plan to reform them and give the high street a chance, but there is more. Our cheap power plan will cut energy bills by 20%, with the average restaurant saving a very real £5,000 and the average pub saving £1,100. Perhaps Labour Members would like to emulate that energy plan. We will save the high street from the scourge of crime and shoplifting, and early release of prisoners, by hiring a further 10,000 police officers, tripling the use of stop and search and reversing Labour’s release of criminals to make our high streets safer. We will repeal those most damaging elements of the Employment Rights Bill, and rather than paying lip service to cutting red tape, we will take a chainsaw to bureaucracy and blockages to business, from planning to licensing to IR35, and so much more.
We stand with the makers, not the takers: the people who put their time, energy and money on the line to make our communities a better place. We know that one cannot build prosperity by punishing those who create it, that one cannot revive our high streets by taxing them into submission, and that one cannot protect a worker by bankrupting their employer. Our message to the Government today is simple: give businesses the confidence they need; remove the threat of taxes hanging over their head; listen to the voice of business; and support our plans to support our brilliant high streets.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to end and insert
“recognises the need to rejuvenate high streets following 14 years of decline under the previous Administration; welcomes the Government’s action to restore Pride in Place backed by £5 billion to support 339 locations to empower communities to drive meaningful change in their local area, including high streets; supports local communities being given new powers to tackle vacancies, and prevent new betting and vape shops in their areas, including the ability to auction off persistently empty premises through High Street Rental Auctions; further welcomes the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill that will ban upwards-only rent reviews in commercial leases, helping to create fairer rental conditions; endorses the Government’s support for property owners; also welcomes that from April 2026, eligible retail, hospitality, and leisure properties with rateable values below £500,000 will benefit from permanently lower business rates multipliers; welcomes the Plan for Small Businesses which supports high street small businesses as the backbone of local economies and which commits to cut the administrative burden of regulation for businesses by 25%; and further recognises that the Employment Rights Bill will bring employment rights legislation into the 21st century, extending the protections that many small businesses already offer their workers to all.”
I will start with where I agree with the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith). Our town and city centres are part of our identity and our sense of belonging. When they do not meet expectations—when shops are shut and footfall is down—that can dent pride in place, hold back the economy and leave our communities divided. Put simply, they are part of the nation’s barometer of whether we—all of us in this House—are doing a good job. That also means that, when our high streets prosper, the country can too. Retail and hospitality form the engine of our economy. Every pound spent on our high streets supports jobs, renewal and living standards.
But, after 14 years of decimating our high streets, I think the Conservatives have some cheek in raising this debate and pretending they have solutions. The shift to online and out-of-town retail left too many high streets with increased vacancy rates, and the Conservatives did absolutely nothing about it. Austerity and cuts to local government robbed our public realm of investment, and they did absolutely nothing about it. The harshest pain of all was felt because of the cost of living pressures resulting from Liz Truss—remember her?—and her catastrophic mini-Budget, which Conservative Members supported every step of the way.
Where the Conservatives oversaw neglect and decline—for which they should hang their heads in shame—this Labour Government believe that the best days of the nation’s high streets are ahead of us. But to reach them, we need the full force of Government to make that a reality. Only by raising household incomes and putting more money in people’s pockets can we boost the demand that our high streets need.
To the Conservative party, who pretend that there is a quick fix, I say this: you crashed the economy; do not forget that. You put jobs and livelihoods at risk; do not forget that. You oversaw 14 years of decline for our high streets and our district centres; this Labour Government are dealing with the mess that you left behind. So, quite frankly, we will take no lectures from the Conservatives.
Graham Stuart
Does the Minister regret the fact that unemployment has gone up every single month since Labour came to power, whereas, over the 14 years of the Conservative Government, 800 more people a day—4 million in total—came into work? Surely she must recognise those facts, away from her—albeit rather brilliant and fiery—rhetoric.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Any economist will tell us that there is always a lag. What we are now seeing are the consequences of the last party’s failures. We are fixing the mess; we are fixing the foundations in order to repair, and I will give examples of that.
Growth is our priority for the nation’s high streets, but we also recognise that, historically, the effects of that have not been equally felt. That is why we are giving communities greater control over their areas, so that they can drive the change that they want to see. In September, the Communities Secretary and I set out the Government’s Pride in Place programme and strategy. We will deliver up to £20 million of funding and support across the 244 places that need it the most—places that were neglected by the Conservatives. It will be up to new neighbourhood boards to decide how that is spent over the next decade, but each area will be encouraged to use the funding to build thriving public places.
Catherine Fookes
Does the Minister agree that the £1.5 million that my constituency of Monmouthshire will get for our five high streets will make a huge impact and help deliver the change that we so vitally need in our high streets?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is completely right. Through our Pride in Place impact fund, we are providing a cash injection to 95 places across the country. That will be spent by local authorities specifically to drive and improve high streets. That is a direct, tangible action that this Labour Government are taking against those 14 years of decline.
Mark Pritchard
I know that, as a London MP, the Minister spends a lot of time reading the Shropshire Star, so I am sure she will be aware of its recent report that, year on year, there has been a 15.5% increase in businesses in severe distress; across the west midlands, year on year, the figure is 11.9%. Does the Minister not finally get that raising taxes does not grow the economy?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We absolutely understand the pressure that businesses are under, but that pressure did not happen overnight; it is the consequence of 14 years in which we have not seen productivity growth and 14 years in which the economy has not grown. We understand the economic reality and we are taking action to respond to it, but, candidly, it is pretty disingenuous for the Conservatives to pretend that the foundations that they left for the economy were not absolutely corrosive and decimated. That is the inheritance that we are building on.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for giving way; she has been very generous with her intervention time. In Harlow, we have a lot of sole traders—workmen and workwomen who are self-employed. One issue that they face is the long waits to actually get seen by the NHS, which has a huge impact on their businesses. Is it not right that we need to invest in the NHS, and that we should welcome the record investment that this Government have put into it?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We know that there is a fundamental link between public services that work and can support people across the economy and how well the economy does. This Labour Government have made the decision that it is right for us to invest in our public services, and right for us to invest in our NHS, because it is good for people, but also good for the economy. We do not resile from that decision.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I strongly empathise with the Minister’s articulate fury at the previous Government and the damage they did to our village and town centres. But will she acknowledge the fact that Cumbria Tourism, which represents the employers of 60,000 people in Cumbria, reports that the national insurance rise has seen 37% of those businesses cutting staff, 34% freezing pay and 33% halting recruitment? Is that not likely to reduce the tax take—as well as damaging businesses generally—and reduce our ability to support the public services that she says she is so passionate about?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We understand that businesses across all sectors are under pressure. We are working with the tourism sector, because it is absolutely vital to the growth of the wider economy, and with all sectors. This requires a whole set of interventions, whether that is what we are talking about today, in terms of our high streets, the action we are taking to support training and skills for the workforce, or the investment we are putting into the economy.
We recognise the pressure, but I come back to the fact that that pressure did not come overnight. If you decimate and under-invest in the economy for 14 years, you end up where we are now. The choice for this Labour Government is that we can now do the job of renewal. It takes time, and we recognise that, but that is a journey that we are determined to go alongside business on.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
In a polycentric city such as Stoke-on-Trent, we have six town centres, as well as many other areas of trade. One big thing that affected us under the last Conservative Government—we also had a Conservative council in Stoke-on-Trent—was the closure of five of the six town-centre police stations, which made those town centres feel unsafe, and the complete hollowing out of our bus network, which meant that many people could not get to the town centres to spend their hard-earned money in the shops. Could the Minister set out what this Government are doing to reverse those terrible trends under the last Government?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank my hon. Friend for setting out all the failures and mistakes that we are now having to fix. We are very conscious of that. That is why, through our Pride in Place strategy, for example, we introduced an action plan that was fundamentally about how we build strong communities, create thriving places and allow our communities to take control. As part of that, we are taking new steps to support high streets and town centres. That includes rolling out high street rental auctions, banning unfair upward-only rent review clauses in England and Wales, supporting property owners to establish business improvement districts, reforming the compulsory purchase process and land compensation rules to allow local authorities to shape their high streets, and opening a new co-operative development unit within the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to help our communities take greater control and ownership of their high streets. The problems in our high streets so often stem from the “we know best” attitude that we saw from the last Government over 14 years, so the answer must be to hand power to communities.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I emphasise the importance of the pride in place programme for places such as Ramsgate, where the vacancy rate in the high street has been an appalling 24%. We were left with the legacy of 14 years of Tory Government, and only because of the social and community energy in Ramsgate have we been able to turn that around, with the support of the pride in place programme.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is completely right. We feel that we are giving places the tools and levers that they need to turn around the legacy of the last Government.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The hon. Lady is making great pace through her speech, but I want to bring her back to one point. She has made the case for all the peripheral things that the Government have done to try to help high streets, and for various other things. Does she not understand—I would like her opinion on this—that raising national insurance on small businesses, and reducing the time in which they have to pay, has damaged their ability to take people on and is really costing them, to the point that many have closed? Does she not agree that that single decision has done more damage to our high streets than anything that she talks about repairing?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
What has damaged the high street is 14 years of neglect. The Conservatives pretend that it was thriving for 14 years and that we did not see shops closing down, boarded-up shops and the decimation of our public realm. We will take no advice from them, because they had 14 years to respond, but they categorically failed.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that it will be infuriating to many of my constituents to hear the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) describe what the Labour Government are doing as “peripheral”? That presumably includes the growth mission fund, which is making a multimillion-pound investment in my high street in Kirkcaldy. The high street was left in a state of decline after 14 years of Conservative government.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning that what we are doing is not peripheral—I was so incensed by that that I forgot to mention it. It is fundamental that we respond to the challenges in our high streets.
The key point that I want people to take away is that we are acting, whether it is through the pride in place strategy and programme or through the action that we are taking on business rates. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs mentioned business rates. From April 2026, eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties with rateable values below £500,000 will benefit from permanently lower business rate multipliers. That will, critically, level the playing field between online retailers and high streets.
Wendy Morton
The hon. Lady talks a lot about footfall on high streets, and I think we all agree that more footfall benefits businesses. With that in mind, what consideration has she given to regenerating our towns and city centres by building on brownfield sites and setting proper housing targets in our city centres, rather than on the peripheries of cities?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right, and we are densifying. I return, however, to the 14 years for which the Conservatives failed on housing. Do they remember removing housing targets completely? Their carping on at us for making progress on our commitment to deliver 1.5 million homes is for the birds. We are clear that we need thriving high streets, and that requires mixed use and a range of things in our strategy.
Helena Dollimore
The Minister is talking about the Conservative party’s record of damaging our high streets. As I mentioned earlier, in Hastings, £150,000 of levelling-up money was given to a Conservative donor, who ran off with it and left a boarded-up shop in our town centre. I did not hear from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), whether the Conservative party will refuse to take any donations from Ms Chernukhin after she ran off with that money.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I hope that when the shadow Minister stands up, he will respond to that question and say whether the Conservative party will return the money.
In the end, we need investment in our communities. That is what we are providing, whether it is by reducing business rates or through the work of my Department for Business and Trade colleagues to deliver the backing your business plan, a long-term strategy for supporting small and medium-sized enterprises and the everyday economy. As part of that, family-run businesses on the high street will benefit from new tools to unlock access to finance, action to crack down on late payments—we know that is a massive issue for SMEs—and easier access to the business growth service.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will make progress.
Hon. Members have mentioned retail crime. We have scrapped effective immunity for low-value shoplifting, and we are taking action to protect retail workers from assault. Alongside the Employment Rights Bill, which we are proud of, that will make retail a more desirable career choice, improve retention and make recruitment clearer. We are very clear that employment rights are good for workers, but also for businesses and for the economy.
Dr Luke Evans
The amendment contains a bit of an oxymoron, because it says that the Government’s plan for small businesses
“commits to cut the administrative burden of regulation for businesses by 25%”,
but it then goes on to mention the Employment Rights Bill. Will the 25% cut in regulation take place before or after the Employment Rights Bill becomes law, and where will that cut come from? In all the measures that the Minister has talked about, we have not heard about that one.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
It is incredibly telling that the hon. Member thinks that regulation consists of things such as protecting our workers, banning exploitative zero-hours contracts and ensuring that workers have sick pay. This is a fundamental part of the social contract. We are trying to ensure that when the economy does well, the everyday person does well, and that requires them to have basic rights and protections. We are very clear about and proud of that. Quite frankly, it is tragic that the Conservatives, who governed for 14 years in which workers were hugely exploited and the economy crashed, cannot see that.
Finally, before I make progress, I will reflect on energy bills. We understand that businesses are under pressure from energy bills. That is why we are driving forward our clean power mission, because we are clear that the shift to renewables will drive down bills. Alongside that, we are giving SMEs access to the Energy Ombudsman for the first time, strengthening their ability to renegotiate contracts through blend and extend, and helping businesses to reduce their use in order to reduce energy costs.
Dave Doogan
Does the Minister understand the immediacy of the pressure on small businesses? She may have the best of intentions, and I am sure that prices will unwind in five or 10 years, eventually resulting in lower energy bills for commercial enterprise across the United Kingdom. That will not happen this week, however, or even this year or next, and many of them will not survive. What is her message to them about this perpetual “jam tomorrow” culture?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We understand the pressure that businesses are under with energy, but it is driven by our dependence on global fossil fuel markets. We can do sticking-plaster or short-term fixes, or we can deal with the fundamental problem. We are pushing towards clean power, because that is how we ultimately drive down bills. That is not an offer to do so in 10 or 20 years; we are committed to driving down bills in this Parliament, and we will not resile from that.
Labour Members agree that our high streets will always be at the heart of our communities, and we welcome the cross-party agreement on that. Unless we grow the economy and put more money in people’s pockets, however, our high streets will never match local people’s ambition. That is why our high streets are front and centre of our growth mission, and why we are committed to driving their renewal.
I ask everyone in the House to remember the record and the legacy of the Conservatives, who are holding this debate pretending that they really care. For 14 years, our high streets were decimated, shops were boarded up and people in all our communities saw the impact of the Conservatives’ actions.
Amanda Martin
There has been a lot of talk about hospitality, with people mentioning it as a great source of first jobs. Under the last Government, however, 7,000 pubs were closed—last orders were called on those pubs. Does the Minister agree that our plans for thriving high streets mean that Labour is the only party looking to ensure that more pints are poured for our hard-working people?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is completely right—7,000 pubs.
Statistic after statistic speaks to the Conservatives’ failure, so rather than being smug and providing fake solutions, they should be far more humble about the state in which they have left our communities. It is now on this Labour Government to fix the mess they left behind.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I make it clear that we will be on a six-minute time limit from the first Back Bencher. I call Sarah Olney.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The current landscape is extremely challenging for high street businesses. I am sure that Members across the House have heard from countless local businesses in their constituencies, on their high streets and in the hearts of their communities about the challenges they face—from the Government’s national insurance increase to sky-high energy bills and uncertainty about what the Employment Rights Bill means for them.
I wish to contextualise the motion and the challenges of the business landscape after years of dire economic mismanagement by the last Conservative Government. On their watch, energy costs soared and economic chaos unfolded following their mini-Budget. Business confidence fell, in part because of the scrapping of the industrial strategy and the huge increases in trade barriers following their botched trade agreement with the EU.
Graham Stuart
Does the hon. Lady understand the immediacy of the problem facing companies in the high street? She has mentioned energy costs, and she is quite right to do so, but why does the Liberal Democrat amendment suggest that changes should be made to reduce them “within a decade”?
Sarah Olney
The Liberal Democrat plan aims to halve energy bills within the decade by scrapping the link between gas and electricity prices. We have a positive plan to make a real difference to energy prices for households and businesses.
I wonder whether the Conservatives have really learned the lesson from their time in government. I listened with interest when my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) asked the shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), about how their plans for business rate cuts would impact on local government finances, and he had nothing to say. To me, that is an indicator that the Conservatives have not yet learned the lessons of the mini-Budget, and that they plan to repeat all those errors again if they ever get back into government.
However, many of the challenges that businesses face are being compounded by decisions taken by this Government, from their damaging national insurance rise to continued uncertainty about Ministers’ approach to the Employment Rights Bill. The economy is practically stagnant, with business confidence down and unemployment up. The Government must act more urgently to support our high streets, which are vital to our local economies and provide the jobs that so many rely on.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
Stalham, a beautiful market town in North Norfolk, is one of the places receiving support from the high streets taskforce to revitalise its high street, and local businesses are enthusiastically getting involved. However, to support businesses to thrive, we have to equip them with skills and expertise. Will she join me in praising the work of my local councils in providing training for small businesses, and does she agree that we need more ways to upskill and support business owners and managers so they can run the most successful businesses possible?
Sarah Olney
My hon. Friend represents his constituents and their businesses in North Norfolk so admirably. He is absolutely right about skills, which neither Conservative nor Labour Members have yet mentioned, but which are fundamental to powering the growth we really need in our economy.
Providing the support that our high streets need should not and cannot be done by cutting public expenditure, as the Conservative motion calls for, but by taking bold action: implementing the industrial strategy with more urgency, addressing the workforce crisis and negotiating a new bespoke UK-EU customs union to grow our economy.
In 2019, the previous Conservative Government made a manifesto pledge to fundamentally review the business rates system, and the Liberal Democrats agree that we need a fundamental overhaul of this broken system. However, throughout their tenure, they failed to keep that promise to businesses and local communities, so we will continue to call on this Government to reimagine business rates, and not just by tinkering around the edges and putting in place sticking-plaster solutions.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
On business rates, coastal communities such as West Dorset are heavily reliant on hospitality for providing jobs—over 6,000 locally—and it is vital to our tourism economy. The George in West Bay has seen its business rates go from £8,000 to £27,000, which basically ends any chance of its making a profit in the foreseeable future. How can we talk about supporting hospitality, tourism and small businesses when such businesses have to suffer those kinds of costs?
Sarah Olney
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Businesses all across the country, including in my own constituency of Richmond Park, have reported similar massive increases in their business rates bills, and the Government urgently need to get to grips with that.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I would like to raise the plight of hairdressers. Angels in Thames Ditton in my constituency told me that this Government are hitting small businesses with higher employer costs, rising business rates and wage hikes that are already squeezing very thin margins. They are facing not just one increase, but a combination of high utility supply costs, wage rises, NI hikes and business rates that are all adding up, and they are really struggling to survive.
Sarah Olney
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not just one thing or two things, but a whole range of different costs are being loaded on to businesses one after the other, all at the same time and during a time when the economy is very sluggish and growth is extremely difficult.
Tim Farron
My hon. Friend has listed a number of factors, but one that would not cost the Government very much money to put right is the lack of a workforce. In areas such as mine, 63% of all the hospitality and tourism businesses are operating below capacity, because they cannot find enough staff. There is surely room in town centres, helped by flexibility in planning law, to create more affordable housing in those town centres and create a workforce, as well as to create footfall to create demand for those businesses.
Sarah Olney
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are talking about high streets, but there is a much wider issue across the entire economy about the workforce. If we can get solutions to work for some of these things, they will have a knock-on impact, and many more sectors will see a boost to their economic prospects.
On business rates, which so many of my hon. Friends have raised, the current Government pledged in their manifesto to replace the business rates system, but still no meaningful action has been taken. As we are nearly 18 months into this Government, I wish to ask if they plan to keep their word on that commitment.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way four times in such quick succession. Of the £40 million of business rates levied this year by Surrey Heath borough council, only £1 million has been retained locally. Given that borough councils levy business rates and that businesses have an expectation that the money is retained locally, does my hon. Friend agree with me that it is vital that the money gets put back into the local economy to improve infrastructure and to increase the sense of place? If that cannot be done, perhaps business rates should be scrapped altogether and replaced with a more just way of raising funds.
Sarah Olney
My hon. Friend’s local high street in Camberley is very close to my heart, because my first job was in WH Smith there some years ago now. He is absolutely right about business rates, and I repeat my question to the Government: please, what action are you going to be taking on business rates?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Member should say, “What action are they going to take?” If she says, “What action are you going to take?” that means me, and I am not taking any.
Sarah Olney
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker: what action are they going to take?
While the last Government did so much damage to our high street businesses, the Labour Government’s national insurance jobs tax has only made things harder for them and for the workers. The Liberal Democrats have voted against the change to employer national insurance contributions at every opportunity, and I once again urge the Government to scrap these measures. The changes to employer national insurance contributions announced in the last autumn Budget are an unfair and deeply damaging tax measure that is hitting small businesses of all kinds—social care providers, GPs—and the lack of sector consultation and business foresight prior to the changes has been hugely damaging to business confidence.
The Government’s handling of the Employment Rights Bill seems to have only compounded that uncertainty. So much of the detail that was expected in the Bill has been left to secondary legislation or future consultation, making it impossible for businesses to plan ahead with certainty. The lack of clarity on probation periods risks piling undue worry on to business managers who are struggling to find the right skills in the first place, for which many of my colleagues have provided evidence.
Chris Vince
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. This is a friendly intervention. She is a pro-European. Is she pleased that IKEA, a brilliant Swedish company that invests heavily in this country and has a fantastic business model, is pro the Employment Rights Bill? Will she push her colleagues in the Lords to get it through and on to the statute book?
Sarah Olney
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. There are many parts of the Employment Rights Bill that we are happy to support. However, there are some bits—
Sarah Olney
There are, dare I say, perhaps some bits missing, which mean it does not add up and we can’t put it all together—I don’t know where I am going with that, sorry! [Laughter.]
The training, hiring and retaining of a skilled workforce are issues affecting businesses across the country. The apprenticeship levy does not work and many businesses cannot get the funding they need to train staff, while hundreds of millions in funding goes unspent. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for the apprenticeship levy to be replaced with a wider skills and training levy, which would give businesses flexibility over how they spend their money to train their staff. We therefore welcome the Government’s intention to reform the levy and refocus it towards growth and skills, but we need faster progress and Skills England made into a properly independent body, with employers at its heart. However, we have concerns about moving funding away from level 7 apprenticeships, as we know this initiative increases social mobility. I will continue to ask the Minister if they will accelerate the announcement of the details of the new scheme, outlining exactly what training will be eligible so that businesses can plan with certainty and develop the workforce we need.
Perhaps the most obvious issue that has impacted our high streets over recent years is the last Government’s botched Brexit trade deal. Many business owners have highlighted the reams of red tape and trading forms that they must navigate to import goods from Europe or export them to the continent. This is valuable time taken away from the productive tasks involved in running a business, and Government policy has simply made life for managers far more difficult.
Meanwhile, unemployment has gone up and a range of sectors are facing acute labour shortages, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) has highlighted on many occasions in this place. Many high vacancies are concentrated in high street sectors such as hospitality, retail, the arts and entertainment. Those are exactly the kinds of industries that young people visiting the UK for a few years might wish to work in. A youth mobility scheme would offer British businesses a real opportunity to address staffing shortages by welcoming young people from EU countries for a limited period, bringing fresh talent and energy to our workforce. I ask the Government to set out a timeline for when their announced youth experience scheme will be introduced.
However, the Liberal Democrats welcome the motion’s call to increase support for high business energy bills. I urge the Government to act with more urgency in addressing energy costs for businesses, including by accelerating the launch of the industrial competitiveness scheme, the consultation for which is not even due to be launched until the end of the year. The Liberal Democrats will continue to push the Government to look closely at our proposals to break the link between gas and electricity prices, halving household bills within a decade and significantly cutting business energy costs over the same period.
Graham Stuart
I would fascinated to hear from the hon. Lady precisely how the energy market can separate gas from electricity prices. If she has a plan to do so, it would be lovely to hear it.
Sarah Olney
By breaking the link between gas and energy, electricity does not need to be sold at the same rate as wholesale gas. We are advocating for a change to the way the market operates. That deserves serious consideration, because currently the current market and the current way it is managed is resulting in enormous energy bills for both businesses and households.
Our party also agrees that more must be done to tackle retail crime. Shoplifting not only causes shops to lose out on sales, with the costs then passed on to paying customers; it also means that staff members—often young people—are met with the possible threat of violence. Shoplifting has risen by a staggering 48% in England and Wales over the past five years, and by an even more horrifying 104% in London. Every time I meet the owner of a local store, I am told that shoplifting has become effectively decriminalised, as thieves do not feel the threat of reprisal. And then there is the impact on prices.
The Government talk about bringing down inflation. One measure that can be taken to reduce the cost of everyday goods is to tackle the rise in shoplifting. It is incredibly frustrating to me that the Government have not connected the dots between an increased fear of crime and the stripping back of our police forces’ ability to do their jobs. As is so often the case, shop owners are told by the police that it is not a cost-effective use of their resources to follow up on relatively minor thefts. However, to every local business and paying customer, it is. I urge the Government to recognise the detrimental impact that shoplifting is having in our society, and to take this issue seriously.
The Liberal Democrats acknowledge that the Government inherited a dire economic landscape from the Conservative party. However, 18 months in, I do not believe that businesses feel that life has been made easier for them. Small businesses are struggling with the cost of doing business. They are finding it hard to plan around parts of the Employment Rights Bill, and they are struggling under the burden of sky-high energy bills and the employer national insurance contributions rise.
Ms Billington
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I am interested in her acknowledgment that we have made specific progress in dealing with the botched Brexit deal left as part of the legacy of the previous Tory Government, which she may indeed welcome. For example, our sanitary and phytosanitary deal includes being able to boost exports by slashing red tape and bureaucracy specifically for our farmers and food producers, lower food prices at the checkout and co-operation on energy. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may chunter from a sedentary position, but it is actually really important when you look at how—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Lady will know that interventions need to be short, and not read off phones.
Sarah Olney
I am, of course, delighted that we are making some small progress towards a better relationship with Europe—I welcome that wholeheartedly. However, we could go a lot further. The Liberal Democrats have been pushing for a UK-EU customs union, which would unlock many, many more benefits, but the Labour Government are very reticent. I welcome some of the noises from both the Treasury Bench and many Labour Back Benchers. I find it astonishing the number of Labour MPs I have encountered over the past couple of weeks who are suddenly desperate to tell me how very pro-European they have always been. I am very pleased to hear that, but I would say that I have not always heard that from the Labour Benches. But all progress in this area is welcome.
Dr Murrison
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and I am listening very carefully to what she has to say. One of the more useful things the Liberal Democrats have done in the past is to support the future high streets fund, brought in by the last Government, but she has not mentioned it and neither did the Minister. That is surprising. Nearly £10 million of future high streets funding was given to Old Kent Road in Peckham in her constituency, but she did not mention it. A large sum of money was given to Trowbridge, the county town of Wiltshire, to good effect. What does she think of the fact that the future high streets fund has been ditched and replaced by something called pride in place, which is a pale reflection of the future high streets fund? Would she like to think about including that in her contribution?
Sarah Olney
I am very grateful to take advice from the right hon. Gentleman as to what I should and should not include in my speech. What I would say is that it is always targeted pots of money for individual places, but we have always advocated for a much more wide-ranging set of policies that would support all high streets wherever they are in the country.
The Government must take bold action to boost our economy. We urge Ministers to scrap the national insurance jobs tax and act with far more urgency on implementing the industrial strategy, cutting energy bills and strengthening our workforce. We call for bolder, more ambitious and fairer measures to replace business rates with a fair new system that can boost high streets and town centres, and we call on the Government to negotiate a new customs union with the EU, which would cut red tape for small businesses and supercharge our economy as a whole.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
This motion is a masterclass in political gaslighting. It claims to support high streets, but proposes slashing public investment, scrapping workers’ rights and deregulating the very protections that keep our communities safe. It is not really a motion; it is a demolition notice for our high streets and our town centres. Neglect, not regulation, is the real threat to our high streets. Under the previous Tory Government, shoplifting rose by 71%, street theft increased by 59%, and violence against shop workers hit 2,000 incidents per day. This is the legacy of the Conservative party—a record of abandonment and inaction. The Conservatives let crime spiral and neighbourhood policing collapse. This Labour Government are reversing that damage.
Through the safer streets summer initiative, more than 500 towns, including my town of Stevenage, are seeing a surge in visible policing, targeted enforcement against shoplifting and antisocial behaviour, and bespoke local action plans to tackle violence against shop workers. This is not a short-term stunt; it is the first wave of Labour’s neighbourhood policing guarantee, backed by a £200 million investment this year alone. This Government will deliver 13,000 new officers and police community support officers by the end of this Parliament and £5 million for our pride in place programme, giving communities the power to reclaim boarded-up shops, save derelict pubs and block unwanted gambling and vape outlets. This means boots on the ground—not empty promises—restoring safety and confidence to our high streets.
This motion offers slogans about energy bills, but it is Labour that offers systemic reform. We are reforming the energy market to make it fairer and more transparent for businesses and accelerating clean, home-grown energy to reduce long-term costs and dependence on volatile fossil fuel markets. We are not capping chaos; we are ending it.
The Opposition attack the Employment Rights Bill—a Bill that bans the fire and rehire practices that caused the exploitation of so many workers under the previous Government, introduces bereavement leave for grieving parents after pregnancy loss, ends non-disclosure agreements that silence victims of harassment and discrimination, and lifts standards for thousands of my constituents in insecure work. The Opposition call it red tape; I call it basic decency. The Bill will reward decent employers by punishing the bad behaviour of others.
In their motion, the Opposition talk about protecting post offices, pubs and pharmacies, which we all want to do. But how dare they? How dare they preach about protecting post offices? The Conservative candidate in a by-election in the Roebuck ward of Stevenage sent out leaflets to my constituents falsely insinuating that the local post office was closing—this was scaremongering. I checked with the post office, and there was no threat of closure. It was part of a national campaign by the Conservatives, telling people, “Your local post office is being closed,” with no evidence behind it. It is merely a cynical attempt to mislead voters.
Graham Stuart
The previous Conservative Government had a national guarantee of 11,500 post offices, which this Labour Front Bench has put under review. That means that there is a threat to post offices across this country. That was highlighted. If anyone has gone further than that about a specific post office, that would obviously be wrong. The truth is that there is a threat to the post office network, and it is one instituted by the Labour Front Bench. Can the hon. Gentleman at least acknowledge that?
Kevin Bonavia
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The point is that we, as politicians, have a duty to explain facts and base our arguments on evidence, which was not done in this case. I put it to all politicians and would-be politicians to base their arguments on facts.
This motion is a Trojan horse. It dresses up deregulation as a gift to our constituents while gutting the very foundations of our high streets—fairness and community power. If we accept the premise of this Tory motion, we are no better than a modern-day Troy.
Labour is rebuilding what the Conservatives hollowed out of our communities: safety, fairness, opportunity and, dare I say it, pride. We are putting power back in the hands of local people, bobbies back on the beat and dignity back in the workplace. Our high streets do not need hollow gestures; they need real change. Only this Labour Government are delivering it.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
What my hon. Friend is saying really resonates with me. Does he agree that the fact that pride in place is a 10-year fund allows us to be really strategic about the regeneration of our high streets? Instead of them receiving bits and bats of money for six months with really tight frameworks, local people will be empowered by the fund to regenerate their own area.
Kevin Bonavia
My hon. Friend is spot on. Pride of place is about actually getting our local communities involved. They know their high streets best, and we should work with them to use that money for long-term strategic decisions.
I oppose this motion. It is illiterate and has no answers for our future, it does not add up economically, and it ignores the good work that this Government are already doing for our high streets.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I was somewhat entertained by the lines about Labour being the new Trojans, which I suppose makes us the Greeks. It might be worth remembering that the Greeks won the war, and that the current Greek Government are generating employment while this Government are cutting it.
While we are telling stories, it might also be worth remembering that there are some really rather good books out there—none of them written by the Treasury team, it is true. A rather good one came out recently on prosperity for growth, written by Dr Laffer, whose name came up earlier in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), and two Members of the other place, Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell and Lord Hintze—I declare an interest, as Lord Elliott’s daughter is my goddaughter. It is still a good book, despite the fact that there is a connection there. It sets out the principle that we all know—a principle that has been known for hundreds of years—that taxation deters investment, lack of investment deters growth, and lack of growth deters future opportunity to look after all of us, including, in particular, the poorest. What we are seeing on our high streets today is a reflection of that tax policy. We are seeing the increasing ratchet of control—control through regulation, through taxation and through any number of different tools that this Government have brought in.
In wonderful towns such as Tonbridge, Edenbridge and Borough Green—I am sure you could add a few of your own, Madam Deputy Speaker; it would be worth saying that Portsmouth itself—[Interruption.] I have got that completely wrong, haven’t I?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
As a point of information, it might help the right hon. Gentleman to know that my constituency is Romsey and Southampton North.
Tom Tugendhat
This explains why I was never welcome in the Navy.
You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there are many other high streets, such as those in Romsey and Southampton, that are doing well despite this Government’s policies. However, we are seeing a series of changes that are costing us all, and I think it is worth focusing on a few of them.
The first affects retail, hospitality and leisure properties, which are seeing their rate relief reduced to 40%, and only up to a cash limit of £110,000 per business. Why is that happening? Well, this is basically just another tax grab. It is just another attempt to ensure that those who are working hard to put food on their tables—and, by the way, to put food on the tables of everybody else in this country by generating that employment—
Tom Tugendhat
I will just finish the point, if I may.
While they are working hard to do that, this Government are trying to squeeze them. I understand why they are doing that, because they have got themselves into a level of debt that is genuinely extraordinary. They are piling it on even more quickly than anybody—
Tom Tugendhat
If I may, I will just finish my point.
They are piling on the debt even more quickly than any other Administration for a long time, with the exception of during covid, when, as Members will agree, Labour wanted to spend even more. That squeeze is hurting businesses more and more.
I know of independent retailers in Tonbridge and Edenbridge that have seen 300% increases in business rates as a result. It is simply not sustainable. We are talking about taking money off businesses before they are able to pay those who are working there 24/7—those who own the business. That charge, that squeeze and that pain are being put on individuals who are getting up early and trying their damnedest to keep their business going. It is completely absurd.
The £110,000 valuation is artificial, because business rates are set by the Valuation Office Agency, and local businesses have no input. There is no way for decisions to be challenged and no real accountability. We are seeing a Government agency setting a valuation that allows taxation to rise with no possibility of appeal. This is simply no way to run an economy. We are seeing ever-increasing centralisation.
The correct thing to do would be to allow businesses to keep some of the money that they are making in order to reinvest in themselves and in staff, and to actually allow councils to have some say. If we believe in democracy and in individuals having the ability to shape their future, surely we must extend them the right to control how towns, villages and communities across our country tax themselves. Sadly, that is not what we are seeing. We are seeing what we used to describe as a nation of shopkeepers—that nation that defeated tyranny in Europe not once but many times—becoming a nation of bookkeepers, all taxed by the state.
Lizzi Collinge
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman got to his point, kind of. He mentioned hospitality workers. I was a hospitality worker for many years, so I know how hard work it is. I also know about the people who will benefit on the shop floor from the Government’s Employment Rights Bill. Could the right hon. Gentleman say more about how regulation is supposedly harming workers, because as a former hospitality worker I see the benefits of the Employment Rights Bill for all my former colleagues.
Tom Tugendhat
I would be delighted to, because direct comparison can be drawn with other countries that have extended these same rules. They protect the workers who are in the job—that is absolutely true—but they dissuade anybody else from joining and starting as a new hire. Then those countries see exactly what we are seeing in the UK today: growing youth unemployment. When there is a burden on a business that makes it harder to change its employment structure, it simply delays employment. That is all that happens.
Lizzi Collinge
I thank the right hon. Member for his generosity in giving way, because I am finding this debate very interesting. In the rural areas of my constituency, businesses are struggling to hire workers not because of the cost but because local workers cannot afford to live in those areas because there is no affordable housing. Does the right hon. Member agree that it is very welcome that the Government are focusing on the practicalities that ordinary workers need in order to be employed, which will help rural businesses like those in my area that are struggling to recruit?
Tom Tugendhat
Forgive me, but I do not agree. I can see that transport connections and the £2 bus link—which has now gone up by 50% under this Government—was crucial to helping small businesses survive in rural areas, but businesses that were taking in younger people as new starters are not hiring them because of cost. The cost of any change that may be needed in the business, which may evolve or shape itself differently, means that effectively it is not worth the risk. We see this again and again.
The tragedy is that I am not telling this House anything new. This speech could have been given anytime in the past 50 years. The reality is that we have tried all these experiments, and we know how they work: they end up with rising unemployment, rising debt burdens and fewer public services. We know where this goes.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The real problem in all this is that the Government imposed a national insurance increase on businesses. The second problem is what they have done for businesses that might have taken on new starters by lowering that threshold. It has been an absolute killer on both counts for businesses, so there is a reason why they are not taking on new starters at the moment.
Tom Tugendhat
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the reality of what this Government have done. I understand that they have decided to defend the established strength of unionised and employed workers. I get it, but they have chosen specifically to punish incoming workers, young people and those who are trying to enter the labour market. That is the choice they have made. They have also chosen to defend established businesses—those businesses that can pay a large amount for human resources functions—rather than the smaller businesses that innovate and start up. Again, that is a choice that they have made, and let us not ignore the fact that it was a choice. They have chosen the large company, the institution, the established worker, and they have decided to punish the high street.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I am going to reduce the time limit to five minutes, starting after Jim McMahon.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Oldham has always been a town of hard work and heart. It has been built, rebuilt and reinvented time and again, and is reinventing itself again now, but let us be honest: the challenges facing Oldham, Chadderton, Royton and towns like them up and down the country are significant.
It has been interesting to hear the debate. We can all as parliamentarians reflect on just how much we care about the places we live in and represent, and that should be lauded. We have also heard honesty about the fact that much more should have been done in the past than was, and much more needs to be done than perhaps is being done. The pace has to be improved. I should say that I have every faith that the Government and the Minister will do just that. We understand the power and importance of place. Our high streets and town centres are, for many people, the barometer of how well the country is doing.
When I look at Chadderton, I see a fantastic place. I see a stable community that has terrific community pride, but it is a town without a single bank branch. It has seen very little new development, and quite a lot of the land that is ripe for development is held in private ownership by distant landowners who have no stake in the local community. In Royton—another a thriving town, just a couple of miles away—not a single bank is left in the town centre or the precinct, yet there are shoots of growth. The council invested in Royton town hall. New independent bars and restaurants are bringing life back into the centre, and a Thursday market is still thriving. That shows that when we support local businesses, the community responds with footfall and support. By the way, I think we too often take for granted and underestimate the importance of our local markets, whether they are indoor or outdoor.
Then there is Oldham itself—our borough’s heart—once home to a magistrates court, a county court, and many public sector agencies that have either reduced their presence or closed altogether. Stores such as Debenhams, BHS, HMV, Woolworths, H&M, Thorntons, WH Smith and Clintons were the anchors of the town centre and the shopping centre in the past, but unfortunately will not be in the future. Across the country, there are 20,000 fewer shops open than in 2010. Each closure is more than just a lost business. It is a small part of the town taken away. It is people’s jobs and livelihoods. It is the story of a place, and people’s memories; we have heard that in the debate.
Across the country, we see 6,000 banks closing. In my town, RBS and Barclays are closing, but we still have banks. It is really important that the Government’s strategies for investment, planning reforms, and schemes such as Community Britain, which give communities powers in the place where they live, do not allow the kind of free-for-all that we saw under the previous Government. Under the previous Government, banks were at the Government’s door when they needed a bail-out and times were bad, but walked away from our communities when it was time to repay money.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)
The hon. Member makes a good point about bank closures. Does he agree that the innovation of banking hubs, which we have seen since 2022, is welcome? As of April this year, there were 150 around the country, and they can be a lifeline for many communities. Does he agree that the criteria applied by Cash Access UK for granting a banking hub can be quite narrow? I ask this for the Minister’s benefit. Would the hon. Member join me in urging the Government to reconsider and review some of the narrow criteria? In Portchester, we are campaigning for a banking hub—
Jim McMahon
I will. I have heard the right hon. and learned Lady raise that point a few times, and I think it is legitimate. If the criteria do not work for the town she mentions, or for my town, or Royton or Chadderton, then the criteria are the problem, not the towns and communities that need banks. We can agree on that.
In Oldham, there is progress. Sometimes we rush to a deficit model of talking down our places a bit too quickly. The old town hall, built in 1841, was left derelict for decades but has been reborn as a cinema. The grand Egyptian Room has been restored to life. It was once a banking hall where people paid their council tax, but I guarantee that it is a lot more popular today than it was when it was used for that purpose. The old library, built in 1883, was long empty; it is now home to the new council chambers and the inspiring Oldham theatre workshop. Every single week, 600 young people go through those doors to celebrate the arts and culture. The Spindles shopping centre has been transformed with the new indoor Tommyfield market, an events space and the local studies archive. That shows how the community can benefit when we invest in our towns. Of course, as has been mentioned, we should use derelict brownfield sites to build housing for local people. In Oldham, that will mean up to 2,000 new homes in the town centre—decent, safe and affordable places to live—and footfall in the town.
Much though we talk about the household names that have been lost, let us not forget that many of our towns are built on the work of independent traders—local people who give something of themselves, and sometimes their life savings, to invest in our towns. They should be celebrated.
Things are not easy. Online retail now accounts for 25% of retail sales. Business rates changes will shift the balance in favour of the on-street, local, independent traders, and convenience stores. There is also the changing dynamic between out-of-town retail and city centres. We have the benefit of being on Manchester’s doorstep, but it means that it is easy for Oldham’s people to travel to Manchester. In large towns, we have seen the hyper-local becoming more popular. District centres like Royton, where people want to create somewhere to go, are thriving, and our cities are thriving, but the towns, somewhere in the middle, are struggling. We need a strategy for our towns, as well as wider investment.
The same goes for the planning system. Honestly, I am sick to death of seeing low-quality, substandard accommodation being built in my town. Under the previous Government’s free-for-all, office accommodation could be converted in a blink, and there was also conversion to houses in multiple occupation. The concentration of social pressures in town centres and district centres is having a real impact on community safety and the local housing market.
There is a different way. Through Community Britain, we can rebuild our towns, civic pride and confidence. Through co-operation, we can give power to people in the places where they live and that they care about. We can end the top-down model of command and control, in which we tell people what they need for their area. We should give money to communities, so that they can decide matters for themselves and collectively co-produce solutions for their places.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
Every MP in this place thinks that they have the best constituency in the United Kingdom, but I am afraid that only one of us can be correct. Perhaps with the exception of Romsey and Southampton North, Madam Deputy Speaker, the best constituency must be Windsor, with its beautiful towns and villages.
As well as our green spaces, including the Great Park, which has been in the news slightly more than we might like of late, and our heritage, we also have our high streets, our small businesses and our hospitality crown jewels, which range from Ascot racecourse, Royal Windsor racecourse and Legoland to smaller attractions, such as the Windsor Museum, French Brothers boat trips along the Thames, and Windsor Carriages. Because of the Windsor constituency’s exceptional features, it has some of the greatest high streets anywhere in the country. Our hospitality businesses turn over £600 million every year—one of the highest figures outside London—and the industry employs over 10,000 people locally. A huge part of that is down to tourism. People come from all over the world to walk through our town, and to enjoy refreshments after exploring Windsor castle or working up a thirst on a long walk.
The most recent statistics from the excellent Visit Windsor team highlight that 12.2% of the borough’s population are employed as a result of tourism. It is no surprise that one in 10 people in Windsor rely on the industry to make a living. There is a whole ecosystem of retail, hospitality and hotels that makes up the economic background of my town. All that stimulates the brilliant high streets and venues that make up our towns and villages. They are the subject of the debate, and I am afraid that all of them are feeling the pinch under this Labour Government.
My constituency goes well beyond its namesake town. That was evidenced in my most recent “best pub” competition. Over 32 pubs were put forward from across the constituency, and hundreds of my constituents voted. It is only right to give special mention to the winner, The Swan in Clewer village, which is a great example of a community-led pub. I will not have time to talk about everything that makes The Swan special, but it has the Green Room school for special needs pupils, the Windsor cycle hub, a “chatter and natter” to tackle loneliness and social isolation, board games, the Stitch Gang for knitters, and a dog walkers’ group. However, the landlord, Mickey Foden-Andrews, whom I have met multiple times, stressed that while The Swan is well loved and used by the whole community, it is feeling all the pressures on our treasured pub industry, including from increased VAT, beer duty, business rates and now the extended producer responsibility tax.
I am sure that we have all been guilty of complaining about the cost of a pint, but we must recognise the huge overheads that pubs face just to keep their doors open, which include paying their staff, soaring electricity prices and alcohol duties. The increase in national insurance in last year’s Budget compounded all those pressures and hit the hospitality sector hard. The sector has suffered more than half—85,000—of all British job losses since the last Budget.
Pubs like The Swan provide a public service by bringing people together, letting neighbours check in on one another, hosting events and being a place to hash out ideas or discuss the politics of the day. On all my visits to pubs, hospitality and other high-street businesses, I hear that they are struggling, and Windsor is a relatively prosperous place with a clear unique selling point, so I am sure that such businesses will be struggling everywhere. That should come as no surprise. The increase in the minimum wage and national insurance, and the so-called new workers’ rights that are being brought in, are all incompatible with thriving high streets.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
The hon. Member is talking passionately and making many points that I agree with, but which constituents would he tell that they will not get that rise in the minimum wage? Will he tell his constituents that he opposes their getting that rise?
Jack Rankin
The point was well made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) that there are people who benefit from the minimum wage and new rights, but thousands of jobs will never exist as a result of the measures. We have to be cognisant of that in this House. All those measures are incompatible with a thriving high street and any aspiration to bring down welfare spending, as they are all job killers.
Graham Stuart
We should be mindful that the last Labour Government, though they did not mean any ill, increased youth unemployment by 45%. That is the worst time for unemployment in life; at that point in life, it has a long-term, scarring, negative effect on people’s outcomes and opportunities, but the Government are doing the same again in the name of protecting workers. The people on the outside are the ones who pay the price.
Jack Rankin
My right hon. Friend is right, as always. The best way to back workers in this country is to back our small businesses, and our hospitality businesses in particular, which provide so many jobs to our constituents.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Nearly 100,000 jobs have been lost in hospitality since the last Budget. Does the hon. Member agree that if that number of jobs had been lost in the steel industry or a car plant, it would have been front-page news day after day for weeks on end? Yet almost nothing is said about the jobs lost in hospitality, because they are dispersed right across the country, so they are almost invisible. Actually, an enormous number of jobs have been lost.
Jack Rankin
I absolutely agree. It goes beyond that, because a lot of hospitality jobs are the first jobs that people do. We talk about youth unemployment; we need to get people into the pattern of earning a living, and to enable them to gain the softer skills of serving customers and getting up on time. As we all know, that is so important to young people’s development. That is a problem not only now but for the future.
What do my landlords, hotel managers and businesses on the high street tell me their biggest problem is? Business rates. That is why I welcome my party’s commitment to permanently scrapping business rates for all retail, leisure and hospitality businesses up to a £110,000 cap.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Jack Rankin
I am afraid that I do not have time. That would lift 250,000 businesses out of business rates altogether, and it would provide essential relief to keep businesses afloat and money flowing through the local economy. The proposal is fully costed and follows our new golden economic rule.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Our high streets are the heart of our communities. They are where people meet, where local pride grows and where livelihoods are made. High streets have certainly struggled over the last decade, with vacant properties, antisocial behaviour and concerns about the impact of densely populated HMOs. I am certain that there will be further discussion on this matter today, and rightly so, because we must help our high streets to regain that buzz and splendour—they must once again become that hive of activity—that people associate with community shopping areas and places of the past. This Government have a huge role to play in making that happen and we have committed to supporting the injection of renewed life into our high streets.
Today I want to use my time, as others have done, to talk up our high streets—the remarkable staff, the shopkeepers, the landlords and landladies, and the volunteers—and to highlight the great work done by local businesses in my constituency. I want to show just how much our residents need to come out to our high streets in order to support our local economy and to experience the great things on offer.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and shows himself to be a true champion for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme. Does he agree that we all ought to talk up our high streets? There is a danger that some on the Conservative Benches are failing to see that, and they are doing real damage to small businesses.
Lee Pitcher
I could not agree more. We must be ambassadors and advocate for the wonderful innovation, ingenuity and entrepreneurship that business owners show along our high streets.
I also want to show today areas that the Government are already helping to revitalise, so I am going to take hon. Members on a small tour of places in my constituency: a Doncaster East and Isle of Axholme Monopoly tour. In Epworth, you will find a wonderful and diverse array of independent shops—Hatty’s Tea Room, the Cosy Cake Shop, Godiva Hair Loss and Wig Specialists, and Imelda’s—bringing people into the centre and supporting local jobs. In Crowle, Elizabeth Kate Bridal and Sadie’s Tea Room on the high street show how specialist independents and long-standing family businesses can thrive side by side.
Haxey has long benefited from a community of traditional pubs that helps keep the historic Haxey Hood alive; in fact, the Kings Arms has just unveiled a mural of the hood that many people come to see. In Rossington, Death by Fudge has grown from a kitchen idea into a much loved shop, proving that when small businesses find the right high street home, they thrive—and I can tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are definitely worse ways to go than death by Kinder. On a Friday, the Rossington market, straight opposite Death by Fudge, is always open and welcome to residents. This weekend I look forward to popping into the newly opened Thorne Park Café.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) mentioned shoplifting. It is hugely commendable how the shopkeepers in Thorne have come together. A great example is the Shop Watch scheme—a partnership between retailers and the neighbourhood policing team that is cutting retail crime and giving shopkeepers the confidence to trade. Reports show a 34% fall in shoplifting since the scheme started, with repeat offenders brought to justice. That is the kind of common-sense collaboration that keeps our high streets safe and welcoming for shoppers.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
On the issue of shoplifting, does my hon. Friend agree that the Tories are having a bad day with their memory? Not only have they forgotten that next to my seat of Southampton Itchen is Madam Deputy Speaker’s equally fine seat of Romsey and Southampton North, where twice I failed to persuade the people to vote for me; they are also forgetting what happened on their watch. They gave shoplifters a £200 free pass, which has brought violence and intimidation to our streets; that is in contrast with our plans to put more police back on the beat and get rid of that free pass. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the kind of change that Labour is making to my constituency and to his?
Lee Pitcher
That is 100% the kind of change that a Labour Government make to our high streets.
In Bawtry, our traders have been flying the flag for our area at No. 11, engaging directly with the Chancellor on how small firms power local growth. That connection matters because it is about national decisions that are grounded in the reality of our market towns. Where else can you visit the China Rose for an amazing Chinese banquet at a 40-year-young family-run business while listening to a little bit of Dolly Parton? But if you do visit, check out the website first, because the restaurant is not only open 9 to 5! At the Crown Hotel, you can have a coffee on a Sunday next to a saxophonist—that is not easy to say after a few beers, so stick to the coffee! And in Hatfield, independents like Kayna’s, 4 On The High Street and Ju Belle show what local enterprise can achieve.
Committed owners and real community spirit are keeping our high streets vibrant and resilient, and it is not just businesses but committed local volunteers who are making their communities better places to live—people like Leah Richmond in Lindholme, who has led a scheme to turn a traditional phone box into a mini library on the high street.
This Labour Government are matching that local energy with national action. We will invest £20 million in Rossington through the pride in place programme, allowing the neighbourhood to take charge of regeneration, reviving the high street and renewing our parks and public spaces. In Moorends, we have put levelling-up funding secured by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) and myself to good use, turning plans into projects that people can see and use, improving facilities for sport, families and community groups, and helping to unlock pride and opportunity. Part of that comes through investment in shop frontage areas to ensure that the environment is as wonderful and welcoming outside as the shops are inside—shops like Chris Huby Butchers, where I often go to buy mum her corned beef and spam of a weekend.
We will give our communities new powers to buy back beloved assets, use compulsory purchase to tackle long-term shop vacancy, and block the clustering of unwanted outlets where they undermine the character and safety of the high street. For large, empty sites, those powers will help to bring forward new health facilities and housing where appropriate. We are also backing businesses by cutting red tape by 25%, freeing up time and money for owners to grow.
I pay tribute to the shopkeepers, market traders and small business owners across Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme. Let me finish by extending an invite: come and visit the high streets in my constituency—spend your money in our shops, enjoy yourself, and delight in everything that Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme has to offer.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Our high streets are not just places to shop; they are the hearts of our communities. Yet every business I speak to in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton tells me the same thing: they are unsure if they can survive another year of this Labour Government. Families are under pressure too, worried about keeping their jobs, paying their mortgages and affording the food shop. They are reining in spending: fewer coffees or pints, fewer meals out and fewer days out in venues like the brilliant Harbour Park in Littlehampton.
Last Friday, I sat down with the owner of Richard Pearce Hairdressing in Aldwick. He has worked for years to train the next generation, giving young people their start in life, but the constant hammering on his overheads is relentless. He tells me that the current Government have lost all touch with local businesses and the impact of their policies. Under Labour: employer national insurance—up; cost of hiring—up; and energy bills—up.
Let us be clear about what is driving this. First, it is business rates. For shops, cafés and pubs, like the William Hardwicke in Bognor Regis and the Beresford in Middleton-on-Sea, business rates are a tax on just showing up. They punish the visible, but leave online giants untouched. The Conservatives would abolish business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure; Labour will not.
Alison Griffiths
I am going to keep making some progress.
Secondly, let me turn to energy costs. Too many small businesses are paying bills far higher than they were just a few years ago. Green levies are a political choice and the result of the Government’s ideological pursuit of net zero by 2030. While big manufacturers get relief, high streets are footing the bill.
The third factor is retail crime. There is more shoplifting and more harassment, leaving more staff feeling unsafe at work. Behind every incident—like Clarkes Estates in Bognor Regis having its windows smashed—is a real cost to the bottom line in stolen stock, lost hours and rising insurance. We have plans to crack down on retail crime with tougher penalties and real consequences.
Finally, there is the family business tax and the Employment Rights Bill that will come back before the House tomorrow. These place unfair costs and uncertainty on the very employers, like Reynolds Furniture in Bognor Regis, that hold our high streets together. They are already under pressure, and we should be helping those who create jobs, not frightening them off. Yes, of course, workers must be protected, but those protections must not undermine the small businesses that provide the jobs in the first place.
Today I join my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in urging Ministers to abolish business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure, to cut energy bills for all small businesses, to tackle retail crime with tough consequences, and to scrap the unemployment rights Bill. Do these things and we can begin to restore confidence in high streets. Fail to do them and we will watch shutters fall, more shops disappear and more communities lose the places that make them feel like home.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
The subject of high streets is one that matters deeply in constituencies like Crewe and Nantwich, where the story of decline is slowly but surely being rewritten into one of renewal. For too long, our high streets were left behind. Fourteen years of Conservative government saw projects stall, shopfronts shuttered and absentee landlords allowed to hold back regeneration. In Crewe, the failed Royal Arcade redevelopment became the symbol of that neglect. Shops were demolished as part of a regeneration scheme, only for inflation, particularly construction inflation, to soar through the ceiling as a result of Liz Truss’s mini-Budget—[Interruption.] This meant that the project failed and in Crewe we have been left with a wasteland.
Amanda Martin
Every time we mention the name Liz Truss, we hear groans from the Conservatives Benches, but I am not sure that people in my constituency really want to hear those groans, given that their mortgages and rents have gone through the roof and that business are unable to borrow.
Connor Naismith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Conservative Members do not like it, but what I am articulating is the lived reality of my constituents and the impact of the Conservatives’ record on the economy while in government.
The failure to tackle the root causes of decline was compounded by economic mismanagement that drove up construction costs and by the devastating loss of HS2, but I am pleased to report that Crewe is turning a corner. We are seeing real investment, real ambition and real pride returning to our town centre, and that transformation is visible. It is being led by local leaders, our community and our entrepreneurs, backed by the economic stability that this Labour Government are delivering. The Crewe market hall, for example, has been reborn. It is now a thriving hub of food, drink and entertainment. The Lyceum theatre, a jewel in our town, is now joined by the Lyceum Square, a modern development that complements its historic charm. Together, they anchor a growing cultural quarter, and that quarter is expanding. The former Dorothy Perkins and Burton unit on Market Street, once another empty shell and blight on the high street, now hosts Crewe Creates—a vibrant space for arts and culture. This shows what can happen when creativity meets opportunity.
Matt Rodda
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about the importance of arts and culture in town centres, and of restoring and reclaiming historic buildings to bring a sense of place, to help small traders to flourish, and to bring arts activities to the public and footfall into our town centres. I would commend the work done by Reading borough council to create a similar hub in Reading town centre. I really hope that my hon. Friend continues with his great work.
Connor Naismith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about restoring old buildings, and that is exactly what is taking place in Crewe.
Alongside this, a rolling programme of cultural events from Crewe town council and the Crewe business improvement district is helping to make our town an early contender for this Government’s first town of culture award.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Connor Naismith
I am going to make some progress.
Opportunity is exactly what the repurposing the high street grants delivered by our Labour council in Cheshire East has delivered. These are £30,000 grants for local entrepreneurs to renovate empty shop units, and they have empowered small and independent businesses to take risks, fill empty units and breathe new life into our town centre. They have transformed vacant spaces into thriving ventures, and I invite Ministers to come to Crewe to see the impact for themselves and to consider whether the scheme could be a blueprint for a national roll-out, because it works. The scheme, alongside the Southern Gateway project, is a great example of public investment connecting the dots, creating vibrant public spaces and opening up opportunities for a new community of businesses to emerge on our once-neglected high street.
Businesses such as the Arena, the Ice and Fire tattoo studio and ABC Childcare are leading the way, and the upcoming Youth Zone, opening in spring 2026, will give young people a space to thrive right in the heart of our town centre. Even the old M&S unit, long a symbol of stagnation, now has a positive future under new ownership. It is a powerful metaphor for Crewe itself: written off by some but now ready to rise. We have seen investments in places such as the Mirion Street boxing club, supporting grassroots sport and building community resilience. These are the building blocks of a high street that works for everyone.
This is what happens when local leadership, community, ambition and targeted investment come together, rather than when we talk our communities down, as we have heard too often from Conservative Members. So I say to investors: come to Crewe. I say to artists and entrepreneurs: come to Crewe. I say to Government Ministers: come and see what happens when a town refuses to be left behind. As with our railway past, Crewe town centre is on the right track.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
For decades, high streets have been more than a place to shop. They are a barometer of the economic and social vitality of the country and of the communities where they are located. They are a gauge of whether we are prospering or declining. They are the sweet spot on the Venn diagram of societal indicators and policy areas including economic confidence, aspiration, entrepreneurship, crime and confidence in policing, the prominence of institutions, the quality of the public realm and changing social habits.
Today, however, high streets across the country face existential threats from unaffordable costs, dwindling footfall, surging illicit activity and a loss of purpose. I know that that sentiment is not just mine; it is shared by many. An August 2025 UKHospitality survey revealed that 42% of people nationwide believed that their high street was worse than it was a year ago, with that statistic rising to 55% in suburban areas.
High streets are the cornerstone of British history. Their decline is not just economic; it is cultural. Their disappearance is a stark signal that the identity of many communities is also changing and, in many cases, eroding. In 2024, an average of 38 shops or stores closed every single day, with independent retailers accounting for 85% of those closures. We are allowing our proudly owned family-run shops and ambitious independents to be replaced by a sea of cheap e-vape outlets, barbers, charity shops and unregulated aesthetic clinics, many of which are linked to the black market.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
So much of this debate focuses on high streets under a magnifying glass. In my constituency, one in five people work in the retail or wholesale sector. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if our shop fronts were a factory or a shipyard, the Government would be framing the challenge very differently?
Bradley Thomas
I agree with the hon. Member. Earlier, the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) made the point that because the losses in retail are dispersed thinly across the country, this erosion takes place in plain sight, but if the same thing were happening in an industry with a collective centre in one location, it would probably be viewed differently.
Our town centres need essential services such as banking hubs to compensate for the decrease in bank branches between 2010 and 2023, so that people of all generations can manage their finances. We need the heart of our cities, towns and villages to be restored and to thrive once again.
Let us look at the environment in which businesses are operating. National insurance changes hit sectors hard last year, and those that provide accessible careers, including hospitality, were hit hardest. Employers have to pay thousands of pounds more just to recruit people compared with a year and a half ago, and hospitality has seen job losses at the expense of some of the lowest paid in society, who have been unable to get a foot on the employment ladder. We know the economy is underperforming, and there were tax hikes of £40 billion in the Budget last year. The Chancellor promised that last year’s Budget was a one-off hit of a kind that would not be replicated again in this Parliament, yet the Government are facing the reality of their own choices, and their economic naiveté plays out once again.
A typical pub in my constituency pays £2,000 per month in additional costs, including hiked business rates, employment costs and, crucially, energy costs compared with this time last year. To put that into perspective, if a couple go to a pub and spend £80 on dinner and drinks, that pub would have to serve an extra 25 such bookings each month just to cover those additional costs. That is staggering. I speak to so many publicans and hospitality operators in my patch who tell me that next year is the critical year when they will have to decide whether to close their doors for good. They are literally on the brink and questioning their own survival.
There are other points that I want the Government to focus on and the Minister to address, particularly around the public realm. I would like the Government to focus acutely on how we can revitalise the quality of our public realm. That includes design codes, which should be mandatory for all local authorities. One of this Government’s first acts last year was to abandon the need for beautiful design as part of the national planning policy framework and to close the Office for Place. That is important, because if the quality of the public realm decays, our town centres will not be as attractive as they might otherwise be for private sector investment. With the closure of prominent banks on the high street, large historic buildings, which are often anchor points, fall into disarray and it is much harder to get occupants. That is why I am pleased to support the Conservative proposal to abolish business rates for pubs, shops and hospitality. That would be a real shot in the arm for high streets up and down the country.
I am conscious of time, but I would like to touch on one other point that has not yet been mentioned, relating to the role that local councils can play. Local councils are great at kickstarting local economic activity, but for them to be empowered to act as catalysts in their local areas, we need to address the elephant in the room that is adult social care. While the Government focus on local government reorganisation, I implore them to think about that. The hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) shakes his head, but the reality is—
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I welcome the hon. Member’s new interest in adult social care. The Dilnot report was delivered in 2011. What were the Conservatives doing for the subsequent 13 years while they were in government and not delivering meaningful change to social care?
Bradley Thomas
That is a bit of a cheap jibe. If the hon. Member takes a look through Hansard, he will realise that I have taken an interest in social care for some time.
The reality is that councils across the country spend circa £7 out of every £10 on social care. It is important that society spends money on social care, but while the Government focus on local government reorganisation and social care continues to be a huge financial obligation for local authorities, less money can be spent on the public realm. We have to address that. We must address the long-term positioning of social care, where it is funded, and from which pot, in order to support councils and give them the best possible foundation for addressing the economic needs of their areas.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I am delighted to take this opportunity to speak about Longton—a beloved town centre in my constituency that is very much on the up. I am excited that the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), who is not in her place, has offered to visit. I am sure that she will be excited to find out about the wonderful work happening in Longton.
There is a real sense of momentum in Longton right now, and a growing confidence and pride in what the town has to offer. Much of that is thanks to the brilliant, award-winning team at our busy shopping centre Longton Exchange, led by Chris Ward, which is doing so much to breathe new life into the town centre. Its commitment has helped to support traders, attract new businesses and bring fresh energy to the heart of the community. The high street is absolutely the heart of Longton. It is where community life happens—where people bump into friends, visit our beautiful Victorian market, grab a coffee or pop into one of our many brilliant independent shops. When the high street thrives, everything else follows, and we are seeing that now with businesses like Kiln at Number 12, So Very Dog and the wonderful Crumbs bakery, which won the “Win a Shop” competition and has set up its brilliant new bakery in the exchange.
Longton has always been a creative town. From the world-renowned Belstaff, whose clothes are sold right across the globe, to the Gladstone pottery museum, home to “The Great Pottery Throw Down”, creativity is in our DNA. That spirit is alive and well today thanks to groups such as Urban Wilderness, which keeps art and imagination at the heart of the town. Its famous pig walk brings thousands of people to Longton every year—that magic footfall—as a joyful celebration of community and creativity that shows what is possible when people come together. Its passion for ground-up community leadership, hosting the Longton town forum to bring together local businesses and residents, is vital for the future of our town, and I support it in its aim to turn the old bank into a fabulous arts centre. We also have the fantastic Sheila Cowell and her team at the Longton community partnership, continuing to bring residents together and making Longton bloom.
We also see a real focus on supporting the next generation. Launch It, in our renovated town hall, does brilliant work helping young entrepreneurs turn their ideas into real businesses, giving them the confidence and practical support to get started. Tangible investment is starting to flow into the town, showing the difference that a Labour Government working with a Labour council makes. Stoke-on-Trent city council’s ongoing public realm works are helping to make Longton more welcoming, accessible and better connected, especially around the high street and market area.
With £1.5 million of pride in place funding being rolled out in Stoke-on-Trent thanks to this Labour Government, I will be working hard to ensure that Longton gets its fair share. That funding needs to build on the progress that is already being made locally, ensuring that my constituents’ priorities are reflected and acted on. It would be remiss of me not to mention Meir North and the £20 million of pride in place funding for that area. Meir North also has its high street, and I promise the residents there that, along with their councillor Lauren Davison, we will deliver on their asks to make it a safe and secure high street on Weston Road.
All that sits alongside the Labour Government’s wider commitment to invest in our high streets, restoring pride and prosperity to towns that have in the past been overlooked. With new community right to buy, compulsory purchase powers, lowered business rates and support for more neighbourhood policing, I am confident that the Government will ensure that Longton continues to have a strong local centre—somewhere that reflects its identity, supports small businesses and brings people together.
Of course, there are still challenges. The much-loved Crown Works stands as a reminder of Longton’s industrial past and its potential for renewal. Its long-awaited regeneration into housing is something the community is eager to see finally delivered. We must confront the problems that have blighted our high street, such as fires in old, neglected buildings and too many empty properties left to decay. Those issues cannot be ignored, and absent landlords must be held to account. Our town deserves better than to have its heritage and future put at risk.
Despite those many challenges, the people remain resilient, creative and proud. That is why I am leading a preliminary Longton town centre masterplan, ensuring that businesses and customers have a say in how their town centre is regenerated for them, by them and with them. I have run out of time, but I have every confidence that Longton’s best days are ahead.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
Britain’s high streets are the beating hearts of our communities. They serve as social hubs, cultural landmarks and vital sources of jobs and prosperity. Yet in my constituency, as in the rest of the country, our high streets are under immense pressure. Local residents are concerned when they see empty shopfronts in the town centre and in our local shopping centre.
As we know, the growth of online shopping has changed the culture of retail, and that trend has only worsened as a result of the pandemic. According to Eastleigh business improvement district, footfall in Eastleigh town centre is 56% below pre-pandemic figures, which shows the depth of the decline that our high street has faced. Cuts to local bus services by Conservative-controlled Hampshire county council have left many residents without bus services. The impact on our high streets has been an afterthought for the county council, and our local businesses are starting to feel it.
It is not just declining footfall hurting our local businesses; there is also the growing threat of retail crime. According to the Office for National Statistics, shoplifting increased by 13% in the year ending June 2025. I recently met a local retailer who had been the victim of shoplifting and lost thousands of pounds-worth of stock. We have all heard stories of staff members at retail shops being subjected to verbal abuse. The Government must tackle that issue head-on and with more urgency. We need a return to proper community policing to deal with that type of crime, which is why I have long campaigned for the reopening of Eastleigh police station.
Pubs—of which there are 32 in my constituency—are perhaps the greatest symbol of our high streets. They are vital social gathering hubs for people to come together and feel part of their community. According to the British Beer and Pub Association, increases in costs after last year’s Budget mean that pubs now face a 9p loss per pint unless they raise prices by 21p. If the Government continue on this path, we risk losing the very pubs that enrich our high streets.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The Loft bar in Street—a locally owned and run business—contributes so much to the social fabric of the town but has been crippled by business rates and rocketing utility and national insurance costs. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must support the hospitality sector, through the fundamental reform of business rates, so that it can thrive?
Liz Jarvis
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which I will address shortly.
Independent businesses face an incredibly tough environment. The reduction in retail, hospitality and leisure relief from 75% to 40% effectively leaves small businesses subsidising large chains. We are incredibly lucky to have many thriving independent businesses in Eastleigh, including AC Models, O’Briens, Artisan, the Coffee Cabin and Choices sandwiches. My constituent David, who is the owner of Steam Town Brew Co., told me that higher staffing costs are hitting his business hard. The employer national insurance contributions increase disincentivises businesses from investing in local jobs.
I have also spoken with local hairdressers, including Jemma from Jemma George Hair Artistry and Jane from Elite Salon in Chandler’s Ford, about the challenges they are facing. They are worried about structural flaws in the VAT system for labour-intensive businesses, challenges to the employer model within the industry, and the lingering impact of the covid pandemic. Those small businesses enrich our high streets, but they are having to fight so hard and work incredibly long hours to make themselves viable. We should be celebrating entrepreneurship, not putting more roadblocks in their way.
The previous Government left business rates unreformed, negotiated a disastrous Brexit deal, and oversaw a massive spiral in energy costs, rents and interest rates, all of which piled incredible pressure on high street businesses. So many of the challenges that those businesses are facing have been caused by policy choices made over the past decade. For all of the Reform party’s showboating, we have seen no coherent plan from it. Indeed, its Members have not even bothered to show up to this debate.
The Liberal Democrats are calling for business rates to be replaced with a commercial landowner levy, so that we tax the land value, not the productive investment. That would give struggling high streets the breathing space that they desperately need. It is wrong that households and high streets are being punished while big banks, gambling companies and social media giants get away without paying their fair share. We must shift the tax burden away from small and medium-sized businesses and on to those with the broadest shoulders.
Our communities deserve better than short-term stunts and uncosted Tory headlines. They deserve a long-term plan to revive our high streets, restore pride in our towns and put small businesses at the centre of Britain’s economic recovery.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate for the very simple reason that my first job was on the high street in the town centre, in Weymouth, where I grew up. I do not like to talk about it too often, but it was at the particularly popular and well-loved fish and chip shop, the Marlboro. It is clear to me that the high street in Weymouth has struggled in the time since then. A lot of the challenges facing the high street began before the covid pandemic. It is right to acknowledge the pandemic’s devastating impact on high streets, but much of the damage was delivered before it, by the previous Conservative Government. If the House will indulge me, I will set out in a little more detail exactly how I feel we can revitalise our high streets, especially in Weymouth town centre and on Portland.
First, the Weymouth Museum Trust received over £40,000 of new funding in September, paving the way for it to be able to maintain a temporary pop-up museum in Weymouth town centre. I am grateful that the Labour Government chose to invest in Weymouth museum, which is a fantastic hub that celebrates our history and heritage, showcasing everything that is special about our town. However, that funding is just a short-term solution. We urgently need to move Weymouth museum back into Brewers Quay in the heart of Weymouth—a much more suitable permanent home for it. I look forward to working closely with the developers, Dorset council, local businesses, the museum trust and, of course, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to do just that. I know that we can return the museum to Brewers Quay. It is clear that, if we want to revitalise our high streets, including in Weymouth, we need effective partnership between businesses, charities, the council and national Government in backing our local museums.
Dr Gardner
Does my hon. Friend agree that increased accessibility for people with disabilities is a crucial aspect of town centre regeneration that would unlock the power of the purple pound? If we make the high street accessible for disabled people, we make it accessible for everyone.
Lloyd Hatton
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Making places in the town centre accessible—be they local museums or other institutions—is essential to making them a success.
I know that Ministers understand the importance of supporting heritage and our local museums, so I look forward to working closely with them and cracking on with the important work of restoring Weymouth museum at Brewers Quay.
Secondly, I have been working closely with Treasury Ministers finally to deliver a world-class attraction in Eden Portland—or MEMO Portland, as it is officially known. That project has been in the pipeline for many years—successive Conservative Ministers unfortunately failed to recognise its huge potential—and it could breathe new life into the economy on Portland. If delivered, the project could boost Portland’s small businesses, attract new visitors to the island, secure well-paid jobs and create a truly unique attraction that celebrates our Jurassic coast and educates visitors about biodiversity.
It is clear that Eden Portland could be a significant anchor institution, attracting new visitors not just to Portland but to the whole of Dorset. The brilliant Eden Project down in Cornwall is a proven success story, so I am eager to see the Eden Portland proposals delivered so that we can realise similar benefits in my part of the world. Local businesses across Weymouth and Portland tell me time and again that Eden Portland could create a year-round visitor economy, meaning that shops, cafés, pubs, hotels and restaurants feel the benefits of increased visitor numbers outside the summer season and school holidays. If built, Eden Portland can be the anchor institution that we desperately need in Weymouth and Portland, delivering year-round benefits to the local economy. I will continue to do everything I can, working alongside the Treasury, to secure the funding needed finally to deliver that exciting project as soon as possible.
I look forward to working with this Labour Government to finally deliver a Weymouth cultural and visitor centre at the Old Rectory building. Years of under-investment in Weymouth by the previous Conservative Government mean that we have never had a dedicated venue to showcase art, music and culture. We urgently need a stand-alone space in our vibrant town to do just that. If opened, this centre would be a landmark venue offering a year-round programme of exhibitions, performances and community and educational events. If you have been to Dorset, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that there are so many successful artists, musicians, photographers and creatives who all richly deserve a venue like this in Weymouth. Many other seaside towns have celebrated and leant into an art and culture offering.
Ian Roome
As a frequent visitor to Weymouth, I have seen the dog-friendly sticker scheme in the businesses on the high street. Does the hon. Member agree that making high street businesses dog-friendly helps to increase their profits? It has certainly cost me a bob or two when I have gone into shops that allow me to take my dog in with me.
Lloyd Hatton
I thank the hon. Member for his custom and for investing in Weymouth. As the proud owner of a Newfoundland, I know that dogs get us out, get us spending and get us on the high street.
To conclude, towns like Margate, Folkestone and Falmouth have championed art and culture, and it has boosted the high street and drawn visitors into those seaside towns. I now want to see the same happen in Weymouth. Unsurprisingly, I will be banging the drum for a new cultural and visitor centre at the Rectory building in Weymouth. This project is just another way that we can breathe new life into Weymouth’s town centre and attract new businesses and visitors to our town. As I have hopefully made clear today, there are so many exciting projects on the cards.
Gregory Stafford
I have listened to the hon. Member’s speech very carefully, but I think I missed him mentioning the £19.5 million of levelling-up funding that Weymouth got in 2023 under the last Conservative Government.
Lloyd Hatton
That money went unspent by the previous Conservative administration at Dorset council. It now falls to me and the new administration at Dorset council to spend that money wisely, which we are doing. I remind the hon. Member that this Labour Government have just invested £20 million in Weymouth as part of the pride in place programme.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. After the next speaker, I will reduce the time limit to four minutes. However, it might be helpful if I draw every Member’s attention to page 5 of “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons”, specifically as it pertains to interventions. It is rude to come into the Chamber and intervene when you have not been here for the majority of the debate.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
It is good that the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) finally remembered the money given to his area by the last Government, even though it has not been spent, which is a double pleasure for him; I am sure he will find another way to spend it.
I speak today to support the key high street shopping areas in my constituency: the Mount, Hatch Lane, Highams Park, Station Road, Woodford Broadway and George Lane. Each one of them now suffers as a result of a whole lot of different problems, some of which have been going on for a long time and some of which are more recent issues that have erupted as a result of Government policy.
There has been a slow, progressive increase in difficulties on the high street under many Governments, even though Governments have tried to do different things. What this Government have done is not helpful. The Minister spoke about the difficulties that high streets face and all the things the Government want to do for them, but they have decided to introduce higher national insurance contributions. More importantly, in a way, the Government have also lowered the starting point for paying national insurance, which has been a body blow to small shops and retailers in all our constituencies.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Andy Rafter, owner of the award-winning Rafters greengrocers in Driffield, was telling me just this morning that the bill he has received as a result of his national insurance contribution increase is £30,000 a year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that deters investment, deters future employment and is just bad for businesses on our high street?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I instinctively agree with my hon. Friend’s constituent, even though I have never met him, but I wish him well—I was worried that I should have remembered meeting him, but I realise now that I have not, so there is no early onset.
If the Government really wanted to raise national insurance, surely they should have made a major change by not imposing it on small retail outfits, and certainly not small shops and shopkeepers. It has been a disaster, frankly, and it has added massively to the bills. Another huge problem for these businesses is the rise in electricity costs, which is not necessarily to do with the strike price of gas but is massively down to the fact that we are now charged huge amounts on our bills simply to subsidise the unbelievably high-paced drive to get to net zero, which will affect many of them.
I recommend that the Government look again at the hospitality sector, which has lost 100,000 jobs. As has been said, 100,000 jobs lost in any other industry would have been a major issue debated on the Floor of the House. It is a huge number. This is an industry where many people start their businesses, and these pubs, restaurants and so on are high points on our high streets.
Added to all this, Labour councils seem incapable of understanding why parking charges are a real problem for these businesses. The council in my area now levies very restrictive parking charges on high streets. The trouble is that many high street businesses rely on passing trade—somebody who wants to get one thing pulls in for 15 minutes of free parking, goes over to another shop and buys something there before getting back into their car. Free parking encourages people to do that. My high streets—particularly Station Road—have seen a significant fall-off in trade simply because of those parking charges being imposed. It is not helpful.
Adam Thompson
In my area, the Conservative administration brought in a parking charge after Labour campaigned extensively for free parking. I was reassured by the local council recently, because the data showed that parking charges actually made no difference at all to footfall. Could the right hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that, in many areas, small parking charges do not make an awful lot of difference?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I do not have a Conservative council to criticise, although I would criticise it if it had done that. It was a Labour council that introduced these charges, and they have had a dramatic effect on those who would have come to shops. A small bookshop that has been there for many years is now thinking about calling it a day. That is a real problem, and it is bonkers to add that to the other problems these businesses have.
Something that ruins high streets and causes real problems is the inability of local authorities to control the number of adult gaming centres on the high street. I and many others are campaigning to get the Government to allow local authorities to make a decision about that, rather than being overridden. I hope the Government will look at that in due course.
The big thing that is affecting our high streets above all else is the crime and shoplifting going on. We have had a huge problem in our main shopping centres. These people go into shops and are violent. They threaten the shopkeepers, who are often pressed to the wall while they take thousands of pounds—this is not £1 or £2; thousands of pounds of goods are robbed from shop shelves. Those who are shopping are also threatened, and it drives people out of the high street.
We have tried hard to bring this all together, so that the shops report the crime and the police are there for it, but despite that, this crime is still rising. One of the biggest problems is that when a shoplifter is arrested, they say that they wish to be tried in the Crown court. They know full well that the backlog in the Crown court is so great that they will be out on the street again that afternoon. The Government should consider carefully whether shoplifters should be allowed to do that, and whether magistrates courts, which do not have a backlog, should be doing summary charges on shoplifters in criminal cases—with limits, obviously—which would get them off the street that day, not back on the streets committing crime again.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I cannot give way again because the hon. Gentleman does not have a minute to give me—sorry about that. Otherwise, I would have loved to give way.
That kind of shoplifting is a major problem, and I want to know that the Government will do what is necessary to bring the levels down. As long as crime is at such a huge scale on our high streets, we will lose more and more people and see more shops close. I ask the Government simply to think again about the national insurance charges, the level of business rates, and the nature of crime on our high streets. Those are the three main things driving people away from the high streets, mostly into shopping centres, which are not where we want them. We want people on our high streets, which are really important and vital to our communities.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I was initially surprised to see this motion on the Order Paper, given that it is essentially a resubmission of a motion previous submitted by the Opposition and rejected by the House in February, but I should not have been. After all, they do say that culprits often return to the scene of the offence, and when it comes to the current parlous state of many of our high streets, the Conservative party is especially culpable. But really we should be grateful: today’s debate has been an opportunity to talk about the high streets in many of our constituencies that were so badly let down under 14 years of Conservative administration.
Northfield high street is home to some excellent and specialised vendors, but the street is tired in too many places, and problems relating to homelessness, addiction, shoplifting and other forms of crime stretch back many years. Three years ago, it looked as if the tide would turn, when great hopes—encouraged locally and nationally by the Conservatives—were raised over round 2 of the levelling-up fund. A bid was prepared for £11 million to regenerate the high street, but those hopes were cruelly dashed and not one penny of that funding was allocated to the city of Birmingham. Instead, much of that funding was redirected to leafier and more affluent parts of the country, as the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) so memorably boasted.
Our high streets are still dealing with the legacy of the hollowing out of West Midlands police in the 2010s, when the force lost 1,200 police officers and police community support officers. The local authority suffered the sharpest cuts to spending power of any unitary council over the past decade. Attempts were made to distract our constituents from the slow deterioration, with grand visions of schemes that were as solid as the wind. Five years ago, the then Conservative Mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street, published a transport map of the region as part of his election campaign. It detailed a prospective new metro line down Bristol road and through Northfield high street, but that metro extension was not mentioned again after the election and, as far as I can tell, no serious development work was ever done on the idea.
I have had to spend too much time since last July chasing ghost trains, spectral station upgrades, and phantom tram lines, and that approach has continued today with the will-o’-the-wisp pledge to abolish rates completely. That will not convince a single business in any of our constituencies. That is why today’s motion is so risible: it is the political equivalent of returning once more to kick the cracked paving stones, the empty units, and the broken bus stops that the Conservative party left behind.
I am glad that, under Labour, progress is now being made. Capital funding has been secured for infrastructure works on our transport network, which will mean more money in people’s pockets and greater footfall. Crucially, £20 million has been committed over 10 years to the Hawkesley estate through the pride in place funding. I am grateful to the Minister with responsibility for high streets, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), for promising to visit the constituency. When she does, we will talk with local businesses about credible policies that will assist their current position. These are real measures that will help businesses, not the fantasies of Conservative Members, who broke Britain but have come to the House today with not a hint of self-criticism, with no credibility and with no shame.
I will finish with a few words about the Employment Rights Bill—I draw attention to my connection with the GMB trade union. It is welcome that the Liberal Democrat amendment to the Conservative motion seeks to strike out the words about the Employment Rights Bill. I hope that represents a change in approach, and that Liberal Democrat Members will not again line up with the Tories and Reform when the Bill returns to the Division Lobbies tomorrow night.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Like so many people across Chester South and Eddisbury, I rely on our local high street for all sorts of everyday things, from popping to the shops for groceries, to grabbing a coffee with a friend, getting a haircut, posting a parcel, or simply seeing familiar faces and feeling connected. The high street is where community happens; it is where local life comes together.
In recent weeks and months, however, countless local businesses I have spoken to say that they are working incredibly hard but struggling under the weight of rising costs, red tape and taxes. At a time when we know that the Chancellor is preparing her Budget for later in the month, this debate is more important than ever, because it already looks worryingly likely that we are heading for yet another business-busting Budget from this Labour Government. Perhaps today those on the Government Front Bench will listen carefully not just to the voices of Opposition Members, but to the small business owners in Chester South and Eddisbury who keep our high streets alive.
In my constituency there are no large supermarkets, no banks and no big chain restaurants. Our high streets are not just part of community life; they provide vital services. Supporting them is not optional, but essential. Let me give an example. No high street is really complete without a pub. Yet this Labour Government’s decisions have left the hospitality sector reeling. Last year, the Chancellor cut business rates relief for the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, meaning that the average pub has seen its rates bill rise from around £4,000 to over £9,600 a year. Add to that the rise in employer national insurance contributions, and the frustration felt by many businesses that the burdens imposed by the Employment Rights Bill will, in practice, do the opposite of what is intended, and instead of protecting jobs, it risks making them harder to provide. This Government have created a perfect storm for pubs and hospitality businesses.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
One of the biggest problems with the Employment Rights Bill is the day-one rights that it introduces, which will remove the flexibility that allows employers to decide whether someone is the right hire or not.
Aphra Brandreth
My right hon. Friend makes an important point, and it is one that businesses have raised with me directly. They all want to do the right thing, but they need the flexibility to be able to employ in different circumstances.
Just last week I met Richard, who runs several independent pubs across Cheshire, including the Boars Head near Wybunbury. Like many landlords, his biggest worry is not just his own business, but his staff. Because of higher costs and new employment burdens, he has been forced to make difficult choices. He is concerned that he will not be able to offer part-time jobs this Christmas to give young people some extra cash—and, more importantly, some experience—and help him meet the demands of the festive season.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
My hon. Friend is speaking eloquently about pubs. Does she agree that one of the best ways to support pubs is to give them a fair excise regime, and that that falls on the Government?
Aphra Brandreth
Absolutely; my hon. Friend makes an important point. Supporting pubs is vital, because they really are at the heart of many of our high streets. Since last year’s Budget, tens of thousands of jobs have disappeared across hospitality and retail. That is Labour’s record, and it shows exactly why we need a Government who understand business, back enterprise and believe in delivering growth.
Another vital high-street service is the post office. As there is no bank in my constituency, post offices are indispensable, but many struggle to keep their doors open. When the branch in Kelsall shut, I launched a petition to save it; I am grateful for the support of nearly 350 residents who added their names to the petition. I have since met representatives of the post office, which is actively seeking a new location, but as our high streets shrink, and as local businesses face mounting pressures as a result of the damaging policies of this Labour Government, finding suitable premises is increasingly difficult.
Aphra Brandreth
I will make progress.
In Malpas, the post office recently closed with no notice at all. After sustained community pressure, thanks to the dedication of our hard-working local councillor Rachel Williams, and through further discussions with Post Office Ltd, it has thankfully reopened, although at present it operates without cash services. I continue to work with it on restoring the full range of facilities, so that the many people who rely on them every day will again be able to access them.
I want to end on a positive note, supporting our Conservative vision of how we can restore and revitalise our high streets. Businesses in my constituency have welcomed the plan set out by the shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition, particularly our commitment to permanent, 100% business rates relief for the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors.
Aphra Brandreth
I am sorry; I need to make progress.
That policy would support around 250,000 businesses nationwide. As the Chancellor prepares her Budget for later this month, I say to her and her Ministers: “Step outside Westminster this Friday. Walk down your local high street. Speak to the shopkeepers, the publicans, the hairdressers and the café owners. Listen to their concerns, and put them at the centre of your Budget.” They should support this Conservative motion, which will deliver for our communities and our high streets.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I am very fortunate to represent the beautiful villages across the Shipley constituency, including Baildon, Menston, Burley-in-Wharfedale, Wilsden, Harden, Cullingworth and Eldwick. These communities are thriving because they have village halls; churches, like Wesleys in Baildon; post offices, like the community post office run by volunteers in Wilsden; pubs, like the Malt Shovel in Menston; local Co-operative supermarkets; and many independent cafés and shops. I will focus on the two main towns, Bingley and Shipley.
Bingley is a historical market town. It has a thriving arts centre that has recently benefited from upgrades after receiving grassroots arts funding. Bingley’s anchor business is the famous Damart factory, which makes thermal underwear. It hosts community events, and has hosted a fantastic exhibition for Bradford 2025. There are new charitable enterprises, such as the Brick Bank café, and independent shops, such as Luscombe’s, Hedgehog Organics and Eldwick Creamery, as well as cafés such as the Craft House, the Loft and the Lounge.
At the heart of the town is Bingley pool, which sadly remains closed due to the devastating cuts that the Tories made, over 14 years, to local councils such as Bradford council, and due to the previous Conservative Government’s false promises of levelling-up funding, which never materialised. By contrast, this Government have committed millions through the pride in place programme, and are rebalancing the amount of money for councils like Bradford. They are giving more power and money to local communities. I am keen for the Minister to say more about how Labour is strengthening the community right to buy, which will make it easier for local communities to take on and run facilities such as Bingley pool.
Let me turn to Shipley town centre. While there are some brilliant businesses there, it was really neglected under the Tories; there were vacant shops and many charity shops, banks closed, crime was up, and shoplifters were free to commit crime with no consequences. I congratulate Bradford council on delivering a fantastic upgrade to the market square, and I also congratulate this Labour Government on increasing neighbourhood policing, which led to a summer crackdown on street drinking and new powers to crack down on retail crime. Unlike other areas we have heard about today, we are seeing new pubs opening, such as Reconnection in Shipley, which opened just this weekend under the ownership of Beth and Nathan, who already run a successful pub in Baildon. I hope that the Minister agrees that high streets like Shipley’s are on the up; we have a Labour Government and a Labour council finally working together.
There is huge potential in Shipley to increase footfall. It is well connected to Leeds and Bradford by train, and now that this Labour Government are getting the trains back into public ownership, we will see improved services and better affordability. It is vital that we build more housing on brownfield sites, such as the riverside in Saltaire and the old Ian Clough Hall in Baildon, so that more people live near and on our high streets. We should also convert excess commercial, retail and office spaces into much-needed social and affordable homes. I hope the Minister will set out how Homes England funding and planning reforms will unlock those sites, stimulate growth on our high streets, and reverse the situation that we faced under the Tory Government, when so few homes were built.
To sum up, places and town centres like those in Bingley and Shipley have huge potential. After 14 years of neglect and decline under the Tories, this Government are supporting our high streets, so that they can thrive once again.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
For 30 years, MJ’s Gym has been central to the Northway and Tewkesbury communities. It is one of those gritty local gyms with a playlist 10,000 songs long, where men and women of all ages train out a hard day’s work. I met Chris for the first time a few months back. He tries to keep MJ’s running in his spare time while he works as an electrician, but because of decisions made by this Government, he is struggling to keep MJ’s solvent. I do not want to lose MJ’s and all its history to another sterile gym chain.
Will says that the Cleeve Bookshop is only viable in the current economic climate because it is kept afloat by online sales. I do not want to lose the Cleeve Bookshop to another chain store. Lauren is sustaining Bumpyland Softplay using the wages that she earns from her full-time job. As well as giving our children somewhere to play and build their social skills, she is employing young people in their first jobs. I have already spoken, frequently and at length, in support of my hospitality sector. Needless to say, the businesses in that sector need the Government to change course, too.
My high streets in Bishops Cleeve, Tewkesbury and Winchcombe have soul and character, and are worth preserving. However, if the Government do not change course, we will lose them forever. Clearly, support for small businesses should not come at the cost of further cuts to public spending, as proposed in the motion that the Conservatives have tabled today. None of us has any economic lessons to learn from the party that drove our local services to ruin. Therefore, will the Government take reasonable steps, such as increasing the digital services tax and the online gambling tax, so that they can reverse their employer national insurance contributions hike and create a new, lower-rate NIC band to lower the cost of employing part-time staff?
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It takes some audacity, or maybe amnesia, for the Conservatives to table a motion about our high streets, given the absolute mess that they left them in after 14 long, depressing years in government. They say, “Let’s look forward, not back,” but those years cannot be wiped away by the people of my city—the cuts were too deep, and the damage was too much. Portsmouth is a proud city, but in Portsmouth North, we have seen what neglect looks like up close. Once-vibrant shopping parades and community spaces were left to decline on the Conservatives’ watch. Allaway Avenue, London Road north end, Cosham high street and the Hilsea shopping areas—to name a few once-bustling local centres—have been blighted by empty shops or inappropriate ones selling counterfeit or stolen goods, as well as by vandalism and illegal employment.
Local businesses tell me the same story again and again: despite being in charge, the Conservatives did nothing. Businesses closed, trade dropped, rents and rates remained high, footfall fell, and basic safety and cleanliness were ignored. One shopkeeper in Cosham told me last summer that
“We’ve had three break-ins this year alone. We reported it, but no one came.”
Data from Portsmouth neighbourhood police backs that up. Recorded incidents of shoplifting and intimidation of local shop owners increased by 30% between 2019 and 2023. Police officers were doing their very best, but under the Tories, law and order was neglected, under-resourced and overstretched for far too long, but there is hope. Under this Labour Government, the situation is changing.
Through the safer streets campaign, and now that we have neighbourhood officers, we have seen targeted action in Portsmouth North that has delivered a dramatic downfall in crime in key areas. Links between police and retailers have improved, and modern technology is being used. UK Partners Against Crime is working in partnership with our high street retailers. Neighbourhood officers such as PC Ben Treed and PC Hannah Kelleher need and deserve real credit for tackling antisocial behaviour and protecting our shopkeepers and residents. It is a privilege to go with them on their rounds.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
The hon. Lady is right to recognise the advances made as a result of our having named neighbourhood officers. Will she therefore congratulate the Conservative police and crime commissioner, Donna Jones, who brought in that policy before the hon. Lady’s Government did?
Amanda Martin
I welcome the work of my PCC, particularly on retail crime and in rolling out UKPAC.
The police officers I have mentioned deserve real credit, and with proper investment and community backing, they can finally do the job that the experts want them to do. That is why the initiatives I have described, alongside the pride in place programme, are so vital for my city. Portsmouth North has been awarded £20 million to breathe life back into local high streets and communities in Paulsgrove. That funding will go directly towards regenerating community spaces, improving safety and supporting the local economy. Importantly, how that money is spent will be decided by the community—the people who know the area best.
We already see progress being made by a Labour Government acting on behalf of our communities—in education, in our NHS and in our armed forces. Local residents have told me that they finally feel hopeful that their neighbourhood will receive the investment and respect that it needs and deserves.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), whose outstanding campaign for high-street renewal has inspired so many of us. It was her work that encouraged me to launch my own local initiative, the “Back Our High Streets—Stop Dodgy Shops” campaign. The campaign tackles an issue that has plagued communities like mine for too long: the rise of so-called dodgy shops—unregulated outlets selling counterfeit goods and illegal vapes, massage parlours and barbers, often operating outside proper licensing and safety standards and shirking their tax responsibilities, leaving an unfair playing field for those who do follow the rules.
Anna Dixon
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the number of pop-up shops and illegal traders on the high street. I am running a petition about the antisocial use of fireworks; does she agree that more needs to be done to stop their illegal sale in pop-up shops?
Amanda Martin
Absolutely. Such shops are unregulated and potentially not paying their taxes, unlike other businesses on the same high streets. They drive down the quality of our high streets, put legitimate traders out of business, and create environments where antisocial behaviour can flourish. I am working closely with Portsmouth city council’s trading standards team and Portsmouth police to ensure that enforcement action is taken, including raids and seizures. We need to push councils to use the powers proposed in the new Planning and Infrastructure Bill; to work with communities; and to take compulsory purchase opportunities, so that we replace empty units with genuine local businesses and community spaces. This is about restoring pride, safety and opportunity to our local shopping areas.
However, our high streets are not just about shops. In a changing world of retail, we can and should ensure that retail, leisure, hospitality, personal services and houses sit together, because high streets are places where people come together and find friendship, conversation and connection. Supporting them is central to rebuilding vibrant, safe and welcoming communities. Conservative Members talk today about “reviving” our high streets, but it is a Labour Government and a Labour MP who are actually doing that in my city—investing in people, working with small and medium-sized enterprises, hospitality and leisure, and rebuilding our communities. We are ensuring that local pride has national action.
Let me end by thanking residents, volunteers, tradespeople, retailers, those who work for small and medium-sized enterprises and community groups in Portsmouth. They are out there every single day keeping our high streets alive, and their pride and persistence are the heartbeat of our communities. With this Labour Government and two Labour MPs, they finally have partners in Westminster who share their ambition, their passion and their pride in our city—and we are not stopping there, because we want to reach the heights and become the City of Culture.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), whose passion I always admire, even if I rarely follow or agree with her arguments.
From the day you start your business until the day you pass it on, Labour simply sees a target to tax. Labour Members have shown that today. By contrast, Conservatives see a dream to back. Labour makes it harder to start a business, takes more from you as you grow, and leaves a tax bill for your children when you are gone. We on this side of the House back entrepreneurs. We give them the freedom to build, the tools to invest, and the chance to pass their success to the next generation. That is what our plan will deliver to get Britain working again.
Starting a business is a leap of faith, taken by someone with an idea and the determination to make it work. Conservatives understand that, because many of us have started and run our own businesses. Sadly, just one Cabinet Minister can say the same. I do not think that Labour Members detest enterprise and business; they just do not understand it, and see it as something that they must relentlessly tap. In 14 years under the Conservatives, the number of businesses grew by 1.1 million. We have built businesses, so we know what it takes to make them grow. This Government have not, and it shows.
I am sure that Members across the House love going into schools in their constituencies. The ones in Beverley and Holderness are brimming with budding entrepreneurs —young people full of ideas but lacking the tools to turn them into reality. Research by the Federation of Small Businesses found that, while 60% of young people want to own a business, only 16% ever will.
Joe Robertson
The British Retail Consortium has warned that £7 billion of costs have been put on to businesses because of national insurance contributions levied by this Government, and the Chancellor’s attitude was to say, “Well, the NHS is working.” Does she really think that the hospital budget should rest on the entrepreneurs in our constituencies?
Graham Stuart
We see it in speech after speech from Labour Members. Perhaps it is because of the careers they have had. They think the key to unlocking the high street, or indeed the wider economy, is public investment. It is not; it is about government getting out of the way. Of course we need a facilitating local and national government, but here are the fundamentals: it is not their money—the money of government—which businesses are allowed to have; and it is not their space, which businesses are allowed to occupy. It is our space—the people’s space—and government is there to facilitate and support, humbly. But humility is something that the Labour party never seems to display when it comes to dealing with business. All it ever does is seek to tax it.
Graham Stuart
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect.
Jim McMahon
On the basis of the right hon. Gentleman’s argument, he must support a rise in the national living wage. That is the purest form of a contract between the employer and the employee and, of course, that money goes straight back into the local economies in the towns that he speaks about.
Graham Stuart
Of course, we did lift the minimum wage by more than, I think, any other Government. But if we go too far and do what this Government did with young people—making them cost the same as older people, even though they have no experience—funnily enough, they do not get a job.
Of course, Government Members trumpet about the Employment Rights Bill: “Oh, we are providing all these rights for workers!” That is not much use if people are pushed out of the labour market. I thought the Labour party was supposed to care about the marginalised. Well, the marginalised are the people who are missing out—not your fat, union-backed workers getting vast pay at vast cost. Billions were spent paying off the union paymasters of the Labour Government, while young people are once again disadvantaged, and people who are far away from the labour market because of mental health or other issues are pushed further away from it.
Let me give the House an example from my constituency. It does not get much more rural or isolated than down in Kilnsea, just above Spurn point, and if you go to the Crown & Anchor there and speak to those publicans, you will hear that it is this Government, not 14 years of the Conservatives, who have increased their taxes, meaning that they are not taking on a young person—a young person who would have had their first chance. I know those guys are absolutely committed to finding people who are far away from the labour market, providing a nurturing environment and helping them get into work, but that dream is being killed by the Labour party.
I spoke to Viki Foster, careers leader at Withernsea high school, who shared how valuable the right business support in schools can be, and how much more schools could do if they had the resources to match. Our plan will launch business challenges in schools, introduce entrepreneur-led mentoring schemes and provide seed funding from government, so that we can unlock the potential of the next generation. There is a role for government, but it is in facilitating. We have got to make sure that government does not crush and oppress business, but supports it instead.
Starting a business is one thing, but keeping it going is another. Around 60% of businesses fail within the first three years. They need our support, because when Toll Gavel in Beverley or Market Place in Hedon thrive, that creates jobs, boosts spending and drives stronger growth for Britain.
Labour just does not seem to get it. From listening to the speeches today, there seems to be no limit to the amount of tax the Government think can be imposed on business—as long as it is channelled into public investment in their particular constituencies, they think that will grow the economy. They can come here to trumpet and name a vast number of public investments, but if the overall position is that young people are further away from the labour market than they were before, if entrepreneurs and people who would have had high-growth businesses are moving abroad, and if high net worth individuals are dissuaded from working hard in this country, or, worse still, move abroad, then all of us are poorer—our high streets in particular.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
My residents care deeply about our high streets. From Earl’s Court Road to Queensway, and from Notting Hill Gate to Portobello Road, those high streets have a lot of potential but were put through the wringer by the previous Conservative Government. We had empty units, unconstrained rows of slot machine casinos, and the rise of vape shops, candy shops, Harry Potter shops and barbers squeezing out legitimate businesses. Banks closed, with no coherent Government response, and neighbourhood police budgets were slashed. We have seen the rise of shoplifting, attacks on retail staff and, of course, wages flatlining for a decade. People have less money in their pockets to spend on the high streets, thanks to the mini-Budget. As revealed by London Centric, we have even had snail farms cropping up across the country to take advantage of tax loopholes. That is a symbol of the Tory economy: sluggish, brittle and hard-to-swallow molluscs taking up retail space and pushing out legitimate businesses.
Change is needed, and it is coming not just from the Government but from communities. I pay tribute to the residents and councillors in Earl’s Court who joined forces with me to block a 24/7 licence for an adult gaming centre. That is a precedent that I hope will apply to other casinos and slot machine proposals, and I welcome the Government introducing new powers to say no to new betting shops, vape shops and others that degrade our high streets. The planning system can prevent those outfits from opening in the first place, and I am encouraged to hear that Treasury colleagues are looking at how to step up enforcement. The National Crime Agency’s Operation Machinize hit hundreds of barber shops and other cash-intensive businesses suspected of illicit activity.
I was astonished that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), dismissed the arguments on tax evasion, given the harms that it causes to legitimate businesses. At one end of the spectrum, we have businesses linked to serious and organised crime, hiding the proceeds of the drugs trade and washing that money through our high streets. At the other end, we have VAT evasion, business rate evasion and dodgy trading practices. I commend Westminster city council for cracking down on the candy shops on Oxford Street and across our city—a pioneering council supporting our high streets where its predecessor failed.
I want to make the House aware of a particularly nefarious practice that has caught on. A shady organisation will pop up, with directors who have no idea what they are in control of. The organisation then fleeces the taxpayer and sells the public a dodgy product. Before it can be held accountable, the leadership changes and the organisation reappears under a new brand. This is not just the Conservative party’s strategy, but the practice of phoenixing. I welcome Treasury Ministers’ previous commitment to go further on this practice by boosting HMRC to include community harm in its evaluation of whether to take on cases, and encouraging the Insolvency Service to do more to get back taxpayers’ money. Adding those practices on enforcement and planning to the suite of other things that this Government are doing to support our high streets is the way that we will work with our communities to revitalise them and to bring their high streets back to life.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Napoleon’s famous remark that “England is a nation of shopkeepers” was meant as an insult. However, for many of us up and down these isles, the high street and its many small businesses are a source of immense pride. My constituency is home to one of the highest concentrations of small businesses in the country, with more than 3,000 operating locally. Although not all are on the high street, they are all part of the entrepreneurial ecosystem that makes up the local economy.
I have seen at first hand the sacrifices that SME owners right across my constituency make day in, day out: the sleepless nights as financial pressures hit; the long hours away from family, working six or seven days a week; and people’s Herculean efforts to make sure that they might even take a holiday. Those are the challenges facing the self-employed, the sole traders, the family business and the small team.
For over 30 years, my parents had their own small business, which is called Mainly Kitchens. They made huge sacrifices. Dad worked six days a week. They survived the recessions of the 1980s and the financial crash in the early noughties. Because of their financial prudence, they had a business to sell to my brother when Dad retired. Britain is built off the back of small businesses like those in my constituency and the one owned by my family. They account for 99.2% of the business population, employ 16.9 million Britons—60% of private sector jobs—and contribute £2.8 trillion to the UK economy.
Many of these businesses can be found on high streets like the Broadway and the Ridgeway in my constituency—businesses including Therapy Hair and Beauty Boutique, owned by Effi and her husband Daniel; the new Plymstock post office, which postmaster Steven Boyd has opened this month, taking a huge risk at a time of great uncertainty; and Tubb pharmacy in Newton Ferrers.
There are also many off-the-high-street businesses in my constituency, such as Serpells farm stores, owned by Scott. That is a classic example of a business that is a critical part of the local rural economy, and which, because of the Labour Government’s Budget decisions, has had to stop hiring new staff as employment costs rise. In addition, it is experiencing a doubling in its business rates, not the reduction that was promised by the Chancellor. For the avoidance of doubt, the jobs that are not being given are to the young people we have heard much about this afternoon.
The contribution of small businesses cannot be measured purely in pounds sterling. Our high streets form the centre of our communities, and are places where generations have shopped, socialised and worked. For many, the decline of the high street is the clearest sign of the nation’s decline, so it is surprising that this Labour Government seem so determined to kill Britain’s entrepreneurial spirit.
The Labour Government’s business rates reform is nowhere to be seen. Subsequent Treasury reforms have raised concerns that larger businesses, which act as anchor tenants by drawing people to town centres, may be forced to close, which has an impact on smaller retailers by cutting the number of visitors to high streets. This was compounded by the Chancellor’s £40 billion tax raid, funded off the back of hard-working small business owners. Thanks to the small business rates relief brought in by the previous Government, a third of properties were taken out of business rates all together, but this Labour Government seem intent on undoing that progress.
Finally, last week I visited Bidfood UK in Lee Mill, which raised with me serious concerns about the knock-on effects of these rising costs on food wholesalers. This is important because wholesalers play a key role in connecting food producers with local shops, restaurants and public services. The pressures they face from increased operating costs and changes to business rates risk driving prices higher throughout the entire food supply chain, ultimately placing additional strain on small business owners and putting our high streets at risk. If this is not taken seriously by the Government, the impact on food costs and inflation will be huge. The one thing I would love to hear from the Minister about is the point on food wholesalers; in that respect, what is he going to do at the big end to make sure that our high streets remain intact?
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
It is unusual that I find myself agreeing with the shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), but it is high time that we discuss our local high streets in this place. I would gently say, however, that doing so requires us to look back at the record of the Conservatives during their time in government, and frankly, when it comes to our high streets, it is a record they should be ashamed of. Coming to the House feigning indignation and refusing to accept any responsibility for the damage they have done will really get under the skin of my constituents.
Fourteen years of hollow funding commitments, with antisocial behaviour out of control and the scars of neglect visible across our high streets, but the Conservatives instead choose to come here to talk down the Employment Rights Bill, which is a critical piece of legislation that will protect the very workers who have a stake in our high streets. If they are satisfied with workers remaining in deeply insecure employment—like those at Tetrosyl in Greater Manchester, who are facing the prospect of fire and rehire as we speak—they should just come out and say so.
The people of Heywood and Middleton North are resilient. They are grafters and they care deeply about their local community. They know that the challenges facing our high streets will not be overcome overnight, and that for us to rebuild that image of a bustling local centre—an image that invokes a sense of real pride—there must first come investment not just of capital, but of responsibility and confidence. This is where we need to meet people halfway. Too many people look at their high streets and see a landscape they no longer recognise. Where we once saw the trading of local produce, in recent years we have seen the proliferation of illicit goods that not only perpetuate antisocial behaviour on our streets, but run down public health and corrode our towns from the inside.
My constituents refuse to buy into the defeatism that Opposition parties feed off. We recognise the strengths and assets that underpin our diverse communities, and I am proud to stand alongside this Labour Government, who are finally providing the means for local people to take back their high streets. I am delighted that my borough is a beneficiary of pride in place impact funding and I thank Ministers for their engagement with me in recent weeks. I was proud to host a community meeting at Burnside community centre in Middleton, where I heard decisive calls from local people on the changes they want to see for their local amenities and their high streets. Unlike the previous Government, which deliberately moved money away from areas of most acute need, this Labour Government are working in tandem with local councils and local people to revive the assets that our towns are built on. This investment, which should be allocated to Middleton, coupled with the community right to buy and compulsory purchase powers, will allow communities to seize untapped assets and turn around shops, pubs and buildings in disrepair. We are empowering local councils to block unwanted shops, from vape shops to dodgy barbers.
This Government understand the challenge before us—the shattered trust we need to rebuild. Rather than capitulate to the declinist narratives that suit the Opposition parties all too well, we are cracking on and delivering change, and coming at this from all sides. Through tangible and lasting investment from national Government to the cutting of local red tape, and through the talent, grit and innovation of the people and businesses I represent, I know that the best days of our high streets lie ahead.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
I want to raise the concerns of fantastic businesses in the Yeovil constituency. The current Government’s employer national insurance increase will damage high street businesses. Shaun, who runs Lanes Hotel in West Coker, put it better than I ever could:
“At a time when we needed help,”
the Chancellor
“has chosen to give us another kicking. We are sick of it”.
That is why we Liberal Democrats oppose the unfair jobs tax that has hit small businesses hard in rural areas like mine.
Andrew, who was the landlord of the Cat Head Inn in Chiselborough, which has sadly now closed, wrote to me to point out that the business rates system is “fundamentally outdated”. He is right and changes to the system keep getting kicked down the road. I urge the Government to replace the broken business rates with a commercial landowner levy as soon as possible. The system would be based purely on the value of the land where the business is located, shifting responsibility for tax from businesses to commercial landlords.
This would not be a debate about high streets without mentioning banks and banking hubs. We were able to get one in Crewkerne in my constituency, but Chard and Ilminster were denied banking hubs despite having the same needs—in some cases greater. That is why assessment criteria for banking hubs must include the need for in-person banking services and financial advice. The Government must also be a bit more ambitious and push for far more than 300 banking hubs over five years. That is hardly any, considering there are 650 constituencies.
Small businesses in the area, including the Acorn café, have told me that antisocial behaviour in Yeovil is negatively affecting footfall and trade. That is why we need the Government to invest more in community policing in rural areas. Rural areas seem to get missed off the list. We have heard that many times today and we have been overlooked for far too long.
Finally, for rural communities such as those in Yeovil, a huge issue nowadays is just being able to get to your local high street. Public transport is a nightmare, shown by the constant issues with the cancelled No. 11 bus. That is why most people drive, but parking is also an issue. Local business owners, such as Jane who owns Café 50 and the owner of the Mad Hatter, are really worried about the potential closure of car parks in Yeovil and the impact on footfall and revenue.
Gregory Stafford
I have a similar problem in Farnham. We are being hit by the headwinds of what is going on nationally, but the Farnham infrastructure programme means there is disruption locally. Now, we all welcome the outcome, but what we have a problem with is Lib Dem-run Waverley council whacking up car parking charges, which is deterring people. Can the hon. Gentleman have a word with his colleagues in Waverley to stop that?
Adam Dance
One reason why house building on some of our car parks is being proposed is because of the Government’s underfunding of rural areas. I agree that parking charges are a problem. We have the same issue in Somerset. They are having to be levelled out because of the unitary council, which the hon. Gentleman’s Conservative Government pushed on Somerset council. Parking is a massive issue and charges do sometimes deter people from coming to our constituency. I know that is not the council’s intention, so I urge them to take on those concerns and think again, but Somerset also needs more money from central Government for better rural public transport and roads. For too long our high streets have been left to decline. That must change.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Like people around the country, my constituents are tired of watching their high streets decline. They are tired of seeing good, local businesses close, replaced by dodgy barbers, vape shops, betting shops, or worse: nothing at all, with the shop left to rot. The decline in our high streets is a political choice that was made knowingly by the Conservative party over 14 years. The Conservatives stripped our local councils of power, defunded them and prevented them from intervening on their own high streets. The Conservatives have brought forward an Opposition day debate on an issue that they themselves powerfully undermined for more than a decade.
I am proud that this Government are taking a different approach. Through the pride in place funding, residents of Cotmanhay in my constituency are receiving £20 million to invest in their community over 10 years. When I met Cotmanhay residents at a community meeting the weekend before last, I was struck by their enthusiasm and general desire to improve our community. Many people in Cotmanhay are brimming with ideas of how to revitalise the area and, for the first time, they are being listened to and given the power to make the changes that they want to see in their area.
I am also pleased that councils will finally be given greater power to say no to fake barbers, vape shops and bookies, which we all know are covers for the drugs industry. Councils will be able to seize boarded-up shops, save derelict pubs and create space for genuine, innovative businesses that will revive our high streets. Strong local government and community empowerment are the best ways that we can revitalise our high streets. Residents ultimately know best what their towns need.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should also look at the police having the power to close illegal shops and stop them trading immediately, rather than having to take lengthy processes through the courts before they can be closed down?
Adam Thompson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very reasonable point, although I think it is probably more a question for the ministerial team than for me.
I am extremely proud to work with Labour-controlled Erewash borough council, which has been taking a lot of firm action recently on our declining high street. Since taking control of the council just two and a half years ago, the Labour council has been tackling absentee landlords and negligent property owners, including those responsible for the decaying Wigfalls building on Bath Street in Ilkeston, which has been decrepit for more than 20 years. The owners have been given a clear choice: invest in their properties, with council support, and show pride in our town centres, or face enforcement through a section 215 clean-up order.
My colleagues on the council have also massively expanded the council’s shop signage grant, offering local businesses up to £2,000 for new signage. The scheme has been extended beyond our immediate local centres—beyond the hubs in Ilkeston and Long Eaton—including Cotmanhay, Kirk Hallam and Sawley. It will help us to brighten our towns and villages and to support small, independent businesses across the borough with direct intervention.
The measures this Government are taking to empower local councils and finally end the scandal of underfunding in councils across the north and the midlands will strengthen the hand of dedicated local authorities such as Erewash and communities such as Cotmanhay in the fight against empty town centres. It is time for us to focus on innovation over stagnation, on the grassroots over national diktat and on pride over neglect. I am deeply proud that this is the Labour Government’s approach.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is natural in these debates that we repeatedly hear phrases like “lifeblood” and “beating heart”, because colleagues across the House love our town and village centres; they are the essence of our local communities. For me, that means principal towns like Alton and Petersfield and substantial villages like Liss, Four Marks, Clanfield, Horndean and Rowlands Castle. Why do we care? Of course, it is important to have the provision of goods and services for our residents, but mostly it is because these are the places that bring people together; they stop isolation, form social bonds and give life and form to the idea of community.
Lots of different things are needed for a successful high street. There is the physical environment and its aesthetic appeal, which Members have mentioned. I pay tribute to those who give up their time voluntarily to maintain and improve that landscape, including litter pickers such as those from the Alton Society, the Petersfield Society and the brilliantly named Rubbish Singers.
A good events calendar can really make a difference and can go a long way. I think you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is hard to beat an events calendar like that of Alton in Hampshire. It is about having cultural assets, such as Petersfield museum. In fact, this morning the Culture, Media and Sport Committee heard about the role of heritage buildings in creating a sense of place. It is about initiatives that bring people into the town centre, such as Dementia-friendly Alton and “Health on the High Street”. There must be wider community facilities, including libraries and nurseries—in fact, anything that just brings people to that specific place.
Most of all, it is about people and the shops, cafés, pubs and restaurants that they work in. The great British high street still has a lot going for it, but it faces some very difficult headwinds, principally from out-of-town shopping and online shopping and home delivery. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not blame the Labour Government for either of those things. They are forces that our country and the world has been dealing with for quite some time—and we can add to those more recently the indirect effect on banking, as a couple of colleagues have mentioned.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I am very lucky in my constituency to have a thriving high street in Minehead. It was obvious when I was wandering around doing my Small Business Saturday that the strength of the independent traders is what makes Minehead high street particularly successful and a thriving part of my constituency. Does the hon. Member agree with that point?
Damian Hinds
I largely agree. In truth, it is a blend. Having distinctive independent traders is what sets all our towns apart; it makes them unique and it makes us very proud of them. But customers want both those independent traders and some brand-name retailers, and there is nothing wrong with being a brand-name retailer. The secret comes from having a combination of both.
I was just saying that I want to join in with what other colleagues have said about the need for banking. On the need to review the criteria, I think it is the Financial Conduct Authority that sets the criteria. As this development in banking goes further, we need to ensure that towns the size of Petersfield in my constituency have a business banking facility that is open at least five days a week, and I hope that the Government can look at that with the FCA.
Given the headwinds that our high streets face, the most important thing we need is more people to come into those places. Efforts to create more residential accommodation in town centres, which the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) talked about, are useful, as is maximising the use of brownfield land. Most people coming into town centres are coming in for a purpose, and we need to be hospitable to them. Walking and cycling are great, but we must remember that most people are still coming in by car, especially in an area like mine, and we must make sure that it works for them too.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making a very impressive speech. Cultural institutions are also important for our high streets. I note that it is the 200th anniversary of the death of Jane Austen, who lived in Chawton House in Alton in his constituency. Hopefully that will help to regenerate his high street as well.
Damian Hinds
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I might return the favour by mentioning the Robert Bolt theatre, which I think is in his constituency. Colleagues will know of “A Man for All Seasons”, and the hon. Gentleman is something of a man for all seasons himself.
As well as bringing more people into the town centre, I think the No. 1 imperative right now is to address the cost of doing business and employing people. There are good arguments against every tax—anyone who has ever worked at the Treasury will know that—and that is why we end up having a blend of lots of different taxes. Business rates are an especially bad tax, because it is a fixed cost being to imposed on businesses. That makes it harder to turn a profit, and crucially it deters new people from coming into business.
In the case of retail and hospitality, we must remember that as well as their roles as businesses, they are volume employers—two of the three biggest volume employers. As well as being the home of workers, they are a big source of customers who will use other businesses.
There was a bit of talk about the national living wage and so on. Of course, it is good that the national living wage goes up. The point is that when that is done at the same time as other things that impose further costs on business, making it harder to employ people, we will see an effect. We are already seeing damage, not in mass lay-offs but in marginal hiring decisions, with employers not taking on some Saturday help and not offering some extra hours. In fact, we see some pubs closing earlier than they would do ordinarily. I am afraid that will all become worse with the Employment Rights Bill, and the biggest impact will be on those furthest from or newest to the labour market. I encourage the Government to think again.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. There will be an immediate three-minute time limit.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Calder Valley is a string of communities. From Brighouse to Elland and from Hebden Bridge to Todmorden, each town has its own character and pride, shaped by its high street. But after 14 years of Conservative government, too many of our local high streets were left in decline. In Calderdale, we lost nearly a quarter of our pubs between 2010 and 2018, and more than 10,000 hospitality venues closed across the country. That was before the pandemic and the cost of living crisis. The Conservatives had chance after chance to deal with that, which is why their debating how we will best clean up their mess came as a bit of a shock today.
The voices of local businesses tell the same story. In my business survey, 85% of high street businesses said that there was not enough support under the last Government. The Conservatives fell asleep at the wheel, too busy fighting among themselves and swapping leaders every year, with a new business Minister or community Minister every five minutes.
The world has changed, and the high street is changing with it. Although internet retailers are hoovering up customers, successful businesses are those that can innovate, offer value, curation and experiences—the entrepreneurial spirit. But in order to deliver that we need a Government who talk to small businesses and not just the big actors.
Calder Valley is one of the most entrepreneurial places in the country. We have the highest business density in West Yorkshire, and over the past five years people have created 6.5% more businesses, which is well above the national average and a testament to the character of my community. But, instead of backing that energy, the Tories left productivity to stagnate, costs to spiral and small businesses to struggle on their own. Nowhere is that clearer than on high streets up and down the country. For too many people, the story of their town centre is boarded up shops, which, if they are lucky, are replaced by vape shops and bookies.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
It is unfortunately a similar story in parts of my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree it is striking that the one word we have not heard from Conservative Members in the debate for everything they have done is “sorry”?
Josh Fenton-Glynn
Absolutely. There is a complete lack of contrition about the Conservative legacy of neglect. The Tories let our valued pubs and shops close.
I once explained to an American friend—they have a different culture—the difference between pubs and bars: a bar is just somewhere you go to drink, but a pub is your community living room. That is why this Labour Government are giving communities the right to buy a much-loved pub, post office or community hall that is under threat. Local people can step in and save businesses. That was pioneered by the then unique community ownership scheme that took over the Fox & Goose in Hebden Bridge.
This Labour Government are cutting red tape and tackling late payments so that businesses can focus on serving customers, rather than fighting to survive. It is not just that the vast majority of our high street businesses in my survey said that they want to grow, and they can do with the right support; they told me that they chose to be in Calder Valley because of the brilliant community spirit that makes our places special. It is the same spirit that Sally Wainwright has put on our screens with “Happy Valley” and “Riot Women”. I know that every community represented across this House has its own story, its own community spirit and its own pride. Labour is backing that pride.
The Labour Government know that local communities matter, and they require real capital, not failed platitudes from across the House. This is about pride: pride in towns, pride in communities and pride in place. The Conservatives left our high streets to die. Labour will bring them back to life town by town, community by community, in Calder Valley and across the country.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Picture this: Downing Street, a hub of activity, alive with purpose, people moving with intent, heated debate and entrepreneurship at every turn. You look confused, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not talking about the Downing Street here in SW1, but Downing Street in Farnham, where the high street starts and where the most heated debate is over whether the Farnham infrastructure project will ever end and the concerns about the local Lib Dems whacking up car parking charges at the same time.
The other big debate is about how high streets will survive the headwinds of tax rises that this Government have thrown against them time and again. From hospitality to leisure and retail, the high streets of Farnham, Haslemere, Liphook and the new town centre in Bordon are hives of business activity. Some 98% of the businesses across my constituency are small or medium-sized enterprises, providing the backbone of our local economy and the foundation of community life.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
My wonderful constituency of Bromley and Biggin Hill is also home to many SMEs, and they tell me that they are being punished because of the irresponsible decisions taken by this Labour Government. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Gregory Stafford
I entirely agree. The truth is that Labour does not have the backing of small and medium-sized businesses because it is stifling growth with its costly net zero commitments, layers of red tape, changes to the living wage, cuts to business rate relief, the Employment Rights Bill and higher national insurance contributions. That is a toxic cocktail designed to choke off enterprise and ambition.
The Conservatives have a very good record on supporting local businesses. Just think back to the pandemic, when we delivered 100% business rates relief for many businesses. Indeed, when we left office last year, business rates relief was at 75%. Yet what did Labour do? As soon as it came in, it slashed that relief to just 40%, which is absolutely crippling for small businesses in my constituency. That is why I am proud and pleased that we have announced the abolition of business rates altogether, meaning that nearly a quarter of a million businesses will benefit. Financed by the golden rule, that is responsible, sustainable and, most importantly, pro-growth.
An hon. Member on the Government Benches argued that removing the rates will let landlords raise rents, but that assumes a balanced market. The reality is oversupply, with retail space outstripping demand. Abolishing business rates will therefore not drive up rents, but will make high streets more sustainable. The Brightwells development in Farnham, in my constituency, proves the point.
When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition visited my constituency last week, we met Steve at Hamilton’s, Mario at Serina, and Julian at The Castle pub. All three said the same thing: business rates are crippling, HMRC’s red tape is growing and energy bills are too high. That is why I am delighted that we have a plan to scrap business rates and cut energy bills for those small businesses.
In Bordon, in my constituency, we are working intensely to ensure that the new high street and town centre can thrive. We are making progress, but that progress will be undermined by this Government’s attack on business. These are not just businesses; they are the heartbeat of our community. They train young people, they create jobs and they invest in the place they call home. I am also afraid that the disconnect that Labour shows nationally is echoed by the Liberal Democrats in my area. They simply do not understand the struggles that our high streets face under this Government and therefore have no empathy for our local businesses.
High streets are not just the commercial zones; they are social, and the social and economic soul of our towns. Supporting them requires a Government willing to protect essential services, invest in rural areas and cut through the bureaucracy that holds small businesses back. Conservatives understand that if we back ambition, we build prosperity. If we bury it in bureaucracy, we destroy it. Our high streets and the communities that they serve deserve better than that.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I am grateful, in particular, to see the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) back in his place. I was particularly struck by the significant intellectual differences between him and those of us on the Government side of the House about the importance of the public realm and investment in our communities in order for those places to flourish.
I think that most of us on the Government Benches understand that we cannot look to the horizon and seize those opportunities of entrepreneurialism unless we are secure in ourselves and our communities and have those assets available. That is why the investment in our national health service is so important. There has been no assessment from the Conservatives of the importance or the potential or actual costs to business of days off due to sickness. Long waiting lists have caused insecurity and uncertainty in small businesses in my community, increasing both costs through staff absences and pressure on management.
It is important for us to have security as well as flexibility in our employment market. Indeed, the small business owner Carly Cannings, who runs the Happy Business School, has said that our Employment Rights Bill is
“a set in the right direction towards raising standards.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 28, Q22.]
I know that responsible business owners want to ensure that they can recruit and retain staff. That is vital in small communities such as mine, where our high streets have been hollowed out.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
Does my hon. Friend agree that Conservative Members could learn from that not-very-famous left winger, Henry Ford, who put up his workers’ wages so that they could afford to buy his cars?
Ms Billington
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution.
Other consequences of the past 14 years for our high streets include retail crime. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) is no longer in his place, because he spoke strongly about the consequences of shoplifting. Shoplifting rose by 70% under the last Conservative Government, with 2,000 incidents a day in 2023-24. With that record, the Conservatives need to recognise that they are significantly responsible, rather than complaining about what is happening now.
I know that there is a significant issue with energy costs, because it is often raised with me by small businesses in my constituency. The reversal of the Conservatives’ commitment to net zero means that they would be risking a shift away from renewables, but it is renewables that will help us to shift off the gas price. The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness should know that well.
The reality is that the public realm matters when we are talking about ensuring that we have a thriving high street. For example, there are now fewer buses. In Thanet we have seen bus services cut dramatically—by 7 million bus miles in Kent alone since 2020—and fewer police lead to the kinds of situations that we have seen. We also have insecure work with low pay, and fire and rehire.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Coastal communities such as Scarborough, which have benefited from the safer streets initiative, have seen incidents of antisocial behaviour drop by 23% this year compared with the previous summer. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour Government, by tackling antisocial behaviour, are breathing new life into our high streets and restoring pride in our neighbourhoods?
Ms Billington
I agree with my hon. Friend. It has been striking in my community to see the local social energy of our businesses, particularly in Ramsgate, coming together to help tackle antisocial behaviour, work with the police and bear down on some of the worst excesses of the consequences of the last 14 years.
We also need to be aware of the consequences for small businesses of the fear and uncertainty brought on by the chaos of Brexit. The botched Brexit deal has had a direct impact on my communities, particularly through the loss of our language schools in places such as Ramsgate and Broadstairs. Not all of them have been impacted, but some of them have, and that reduces the footfall on our high streets. That is a direct consequence of failures by the Conservatives.
Ramsgate High Street, for example, has a 24% vacancy rate, as I mentioned earlier. The British Property Federation, when confronted with that statistic, suggested that that meant the people who owned the businesses were simply economically irrational. Well, there seems to be a lot of economic irrationality, which needs to be countered by people who understand the importance of shaping our places—hence our community compulsory auction leases and powers for local authorities such as Thanet to control the proliferation of vape shops and gambling centres. I am sure that the Minister will note my concern that there would be a greater appetite for compulsory purchase if we had a better funding settlement for places such as Thanet when these things come to pass.
Of course we need to reform business rates. We know that they are disproportionately impacting on hospitality enterprises in places, such as my constituency, that rely significantly on the seasonal tourist economy, but I emphasise again the importance of the ability of communities themselves to shape their high streets, from Ramsgate Space and Margate Town Action Group—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I call Gagan Mohindra.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
As many have said, our high streets are the heart of our communities. From small retail and hospitality ventures that allow people the opportunity to own their own business, to post offices and pharmacies where the more vulnerable can go to see a familiar face and get support, to our pubs, where people have gathered together for years, our high streets give us everything we need. We must support them, not restrict them.
I spend much of my time in South West Hertfordshire on local high streets, hearing at first hand from many business owners about the struggles that they face due to Labour’s increase in national insurance contributions, and their worries about the upcoming Employment Rights Bill.
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend talks eloquently about the problems facing high streets. One of my constituents, a publican, told me that things were worse than during covid, because at least there was financial support during covid. Now, pubs and other hospitality businesses are being hung out to dry.
Mr Mohindra
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The small businesses that I speak to say that they feel abandoned by this Government. They face high energy bills and rents, and poor footfall. They have been harmed by Labour’s decisions, and have ever-growing worries about the Budget later this month.
We already know that hospitality is struggling. One in five high street premises are empty, and 100,000 hospitality jobs have been lost since Labour’s Budget. Two thirds of those jobs lost were done by 18 to 24-year-olds. That is simply not sustainable. Business owners do not want that to happen, but they have no choice. A third of businesses are reducing their opening hours as they simply cannot afford to staff up. They include Kitchen Croxley in my constituency, which warned me that as a result of Labour’s policy changes, job losses are inevitable, if it is to keep its doors open.
Businesses of all sizes are affected. Hubs, a franchise owner in my constituency, made me aware that due to Labour’s national insurance contributions increases, his NICs amounted to £138,000 for April to September. He has been warned that his contributions could increase to over £275,000 for the business’s first full-year cycle. That franchise owner is creating 90 local jobs and filling a large high-street unit that sat unoccupied for over a year and a half. It simply seems unfair. Business owners are willing to contribute their fair share—they are investing significant amounts in our high streets—and they should not be penalised for trying to grow their business.
The spirits industry disproportionally faces the effects of these policies; it has contributed £676 million less in taxes than expected, despite the rise in alcohol duty. One business in Kings Langley, Fells, which employs over 70 people in the area and regularly supports charitable causes in the community, faces mounting costs and regulatory burdens. It urges a freeze in duty rates to mitigate the need for further price increases. We are talking about an industry that contributed over £75 billion to the UK economy in 2022, according to the Wine and Spirit Trade Association. Why are we stifling it?
This summer, I spent a week visiting pubs across South West Hertfordshire, to see how they are being affected by Labour’s decision making. I spoke with Nick, the manager of the Coach and Horses in Rickmansworth, who told me that the rises in the minimum wage and NICs have made staffing incredibly difficult. As I have said before, many businesses sympathise with the need to ensure job security and good working conditions. However, that comes at the cost of rising prices, which just pushes the issue on to customers. Rising prices lead to fewer people visiting pubs and putting their money back into the community.
Graham Stuart
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Chancellor would do well to consider a draught beer duty relief? We brought one in when we were in government. It could be balanced up by taxes elsewhere. It would ensure that our locals were supported, instead of facing ever greater costs.
Mr Mohindra
My right hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. Members on all sides of the House claim to support pubs, but our policy means that our position is a lot stronger than this Labour Government’s. As I have said before, where this Labour Government get it right, they will have our support. They should not be fearful of changing direction—I will not use the word “U-turn”, because they have done a few of them already. We will absolutely support them changing direction for the better.
Post offices remain critical to our high streets. They are a credible and trustworthy high-street brand, and a place where constituents regularly see a friendly face. I represent seven post offices in South West Hertfordshire and visit them regularly, including the one in Croxley Green, which I visited just two weeks ago. I have seen in person how busy postmasters serve the community. Many postmasters see their regulars frequently; they are often the first to see how their customers are doing.
Post offices have evolved to provide services that go beyond just post. Many now also provide banking services, owing to the closure of high-street banks. Danny, the postmaster at the Rickmansworth branch, is able to offer enhanced banking services. Without them, my constituents would be stuck waiting for unreliable buses to travel to their nearest bank, just to access their money.
In 2023, when we were in government, we extended the retail, hospitality and leisure relief scheme. We will reverse this Government’s decision not to support our high streets. When it comes to helping our high streets, I look forward to support from across the House, rather than political point scoring.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
This debate has reminded me of the maiden speeches we heard last year. We have had a really good tour of the country, taking in Animal shops, fun palaces and all sorts of stuff.
It has been great to talk about high streets, which are more than just shopping streets. They shape how people feel about where they live. When high streets are thriving, people take pride in their towns and feel a real sense of optimism about their area and, by extension, the country. When shops, cafés and pubs are closing, that optimism fades, leaving people discouraged and looking for change.
If the Government want people to feel that their lives are improving and their communities are thriving, and if they want people to feel hopeful and optimistic, supporting the high street must be a priority. That will not only help our traders and shops survive, but help restore pride in our towns. It will ensure that people are invested in the future of their communities and, by extension, the country, rather than being drawn to alternative voices offering quick fixes. I hope that that will be an incentive for the Government to rethink those of their measures that have been hitting the high street.
I am really proud to represent a constituency with fantastic high streets, including in Kingsbridge, Brixham, Modbury, Dartmouth, Salcombe and, of course, Totnes, which is widely praised for its unique high street, on which I was a trader in one of my past lives. As attractive as those streets are, in reality, all the traders are struggling. As many Members have said, the increase in national insurance contributions has hit those businesses hard. One small café in Brixham faces an extra £15,000 in national insurance costs this year. That is just unmanageable for a small café. I was told by a larger restaurant—part of a chain of 17 successful restaurants, which act as a magnet, bringing people to communities across south-west England—that the cost of the increases is equivalent to the money that would be spent opening a new restaurant, and opening a new restaurant would revitalise another town. That is so damaging. Not only is the NIC rise causing hardship, but the reduction in business rates relief from 75% to 40%, combined with the abolition of the cap, effectively leaves small businesses subsidising large chains.
I am running out of time, but I would just like to add that eight pubs are closing every week, and nearly 100,000 hospitality jobs have been lost since the Budget. If that happened in any other industry, it would be headline news, but the Government seem oblivious to what is happening. We call on the Government to exempt hospitality SMEs from the employer national insurance contributions increase, and to consult on creating a new band, from £5,000, to reduce the cost of employing part-time and seasonal staff, who are absolutely vital to the hospitality industry.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Minister.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I thank the shadow Business and Trade Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), for ably setting out the Conservative case for restoring our high streets, and the costs and consequences of the Government’s decisions. As a former Woolies worker, and having chaired the all-party parliamentary group on the future of retail, I am particularly passionate about our high streets and their role as the lifeblood of our local communities.
We have heard brilliant examples from right hon. and hon. Members of fantastic high-street businesses in their communities. Few will be as incredible as those in Yarm, Stockton and Thornaby, but valid points were made. We heard about the huge threat to the full English in greasy spoon cafés across the country, but price rises for mushrooms, tomatoes and bacon pale into significance when compared with Labour’s slashing of small business rates relief, its job tax and its unemployment rights Bill. From Bognor Regis to Windsor, and from Doncaster to Crewe, we see the butcher’s, the baker’s and—less frequently—the candlestick maker’s. Our high streets apparently offer everything, from wigs to corned beef and spam, and Members are rightly clearly proud of them.
One of the messages we have heard today is, “Shop local and support local small businesses,” but another message was heard loud and clear. It probably came from Members on both sides of the Chamber. It is a message that is familiar to any Member who engages with local small businesses: our high streets face an existential threat, and the problem is compounded by the choices of this Government. We are a nation of shopkeepers.
Bradley Thomas
My hon. Friend is making a good point. As I often point out to my constituents when talking about the future of the high street—the situation will be similar in other constituencies—there are approximately 50,000 households in my constituency, and if each one of those spends £5 per week supporting a local business, that is £1 million per month that stays in the local economy. If we multiply that, it becomes quite powerful support for local businesses, and helps their long-term vitality.
Matt Vickers
It is a clear message: “Stop scrolling through Amazon, and go buy local—it’ll benefit your local economy greatly.”
High streets define places. Their success allows us to feel pride in our towns. They are a place where people come together. They help us to tackle social isolation, and they are often the place where people get their first job, and their last. The retail, hospitality and leisure sector employs 5.8 million people, and generates billions of pounds for our economy.
Amanda Martin
Does the shadow Minister agree that those 5.8 million people deserve a decent wage, deserve to know what hours they are working, and deserve proper sick pay?
Matt Vickers
My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs made a very good point: we do not support workers by bankrupting their employer. In the nine months before this Government took office, 22,000 jobs were created in the hospitality sector, and in the nine months since the last Budget, 100,000 people lost their job—their ability to provide for their family, and to live out their aspirations and dreams. That is a disgrace.
The sector is also the natural home of social mobility. It allows people to climb and achieve incredible things. There are so many stories of people who started by stacking shelves and serving coffee, and who went on to reach the boardroom. Without doubt, our high streets are really struggling. The truth is that they were battered by the Chancellor’s Budget last autumn—a £25 billion tax bombshell on British businesses and jobs, as a result of measures including the jobs tax and the slashing of small business rates relief.
Conservative Members understand that businesses need to be supported, not tied up in red tape and taxed into extinction. If this Labour Government do not change course, we risk making our high streets unrecognisable and unrecoverable. The problems are clear for all to see: higher taxes, punitive business rates, soaring energy costs, rising crime and more red tape and paperwork for employers. The Government must take urgent action to fix that.
Laurence Turner
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way; he is being generous with his time. I wonder if he could clarify his party’s position on the Employment Rights Bill. The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), said that a Conservative Government would seek to repeal what he called the most damaging elements of the Bill. Could he set out for us which measures they welcome and would retain?
Matt Vickers
Basically, Labour’s trade union paymasters seem to have written a large part of the Bill. In fact, we found a really rare thing today: one employer on the face of the earth who apparently supports the Bill was mentioned earlier, but of course, they were not British.
In my constituency in Stockton, almost every time I visit a small business owner, they tell me the same story: since the Chancellor’s Budget, they have had to let staff go or reduce their hours; they have had to put up prices, and some are now considering whether there is any future at all for their business. As the chief exec of UKHospitality has said, pubs, bars and restaurants are already closing earlier because of the jobs tax, and more than 200 leading hospitality businesses have written to the Chancellor to warn that her decisions will force companies to cut jobs and reconsider investment.
Too many businesses are closing. Too many jobs are being lost. Boarded-up high streets will eat away at the pride people can have in their communities and town centres. Throughout today’s debate, we have heard Labour MP after Labour MP—soon, I am sure, to be followed by the Minister—talk about the virtues of their Government’s policies. I have to ask them, have they seriously had a conversation with the small businesses on their local high street about the challenges they face?
We are now just a couple of weeks away from the Chancellor’s next Budget. She has the opportunity to change course, yet this morning we heard the same old story, with the Chancellor laying the groundwork for more tax rises—another nail in the coffin of our high streets, alongside people and businesses across the country. But we on the Conservative Benches have a clear plan for stronger high streets. First, we would abolish business rates for thousands of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. That would benefit a quarter of a million businesses—savings that would not only help them thrive, but could be reinvested in better premises, low prices, and more jobs. It would lift thousands of businesses out of business rates all together.
Graham Stuart
Is my hon. Friend as shocked as I am to find that the Liberal Democrats have joined their comrades in Labour in saying that not a penny can be saved from public expenditure, and instead more taxes must be imposed on businesses that are already struggling with the weight?
Matt Vickers
They need to go back on YouTube—we’ll encourage a bit of online interaction—and listen to that fantastic speech from the Leader of the Opposition about the £47 billion of savings that can be made, that will be supported by the public, and that can help us balance the books and save high street businesses.
Another issue facing businesses that has been highlighted by many hon. Members is the impact of energy bills. Britain has the highest electricity prices in the world. It does not have to be this way. The situation is making our high street businesses less competitive and stifling economic growth. That is why we would axe the carbon tax and scrap net zero subsidies to reduce the cost of electricity. That would of course benefit consumers, but also businesses; the average restaurant would save £5,100 a year.
The third point in relation to our plan for stronger high streets is stronger policing. Under this Labour Government, crime is on the rise in high streets across the country, eroding community trust and public safety. It is having a huge impact on our high streets. Indeed, just a few weeks ago I met Costa Coffee, a well-known high street chain. Despite its huge resources, its representatives told me that they face constant thefts, and even ram-raids to steal sandwiches and drinks—an unbelievable situation.
Even Greggs—one of the nation’s favourites, and mine—has had to start locking up its sandwiches, soft drinks and sausages rolls in some locations, because of prolific shoplifting. In fact, shoplifting has risen by 20% in this Labour Government’s first year in office. That is the highest figure since modern records began, but it is no surprise because police numbers are falling. There are 1,316 fewer police officers since this Labour Government came to power.
As part of our plan, we will hire 10,000 extra police officers backed by £800 million in funding. We will end Labour’s early release scheme to keep criminals behind bars, introduce intense police hotspot patrolling in areas to cover serious violent crime and robbery, and treble stop and search to take knives and weapons off our streets. We will also redirect resources to catch real criminals, abolishing non-crime hate incidents so that police can spend 60,000 more hours policing our streets and not our tweets.
Kevin Bonavia
Will the shadow Minister confirm that under the previous Conservative Administration, thieves could get £200 worth of goods with impunity, and that has changed under this Government?
Matt Vickers
That is a complete and utter myth. The hon. Gentleman will be able to check the Government facts and stats that will confirm that 90% of all cases of people charged with shop theft related to goods under £200—would he believe it? Indeed, I have a question for him and I will let him answer: could he name a single police force in the country that had a policy of not actioning thefts of under £200?
Kevin Bonavia
I am very happy to intervene. We are talking about changing the status quo under the hon. Gentleman’s Government.
Matt Vickers
Not a single police force in the country had that policy, and 90% of all cases with charges for shop theft involved goods under the value of £200. That is a fact, and what the hon. Gentleman says is a myth.
At the heart of our high streets lies entrepreneurship—those incredible people who get up early, take the risks and build something. They create jobs, wealth and opportunity. This Labour Government have spent the last year making it harder to start a business. That means that now just one in four young people who want to start a business do so, as highlighted by the Federation of Small Businesses.
We need to cut red tape so that our businesses can breathe again. We need to make it easier for entrepreneurs to open a bank account and engage with HMRC, and we need to expand business coaching in schools. It is no surprise that those on the Government Benches just do not get it; just one member of the Cabinet has started their own business, and less than half of them have ever worked in the private sector.
Let me conclude with this point. The high street is suffering. As a result, people who have invested their lives in creating businesses are suffering, those youngsters who might have been able to get their first job on the high street are suffering, and those older people who felt pride in their town for years and decades are now watching as shops are boarded up and they are suffering too. Analysis of insolvency notices has revealed that businesses are closing at the fastest rate since the world economic crash, and as a result 17% more people are without a job.
Tonight is a chance to join the Conservatives in backing the people who work hard and do the right thing. Any Member of this House who wants to support our high streets, the entrepreneurs who work hard and do the right thing, and more job opportunities for people—young and old—and any Member who wants to ensure that people can continue to have pride in their town centres should support the motion and our plan for stronger high streets. I commend the motion to the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
It has been a pleasure to listen and respond to this passionate debate. Before we get into the things on which we may disagree, I should say that it has been really interesting to hear how many times people have used metaphors like “heart and soul” and “backbone” when talking about their local high streets and local businesses.
This issue is personal to us; it is about how we feel about the places we live in. As a former retail worker, I remember the customers who would come in and maybe pay more than they would at the big supermarket because they got that personal touch. I remember the elderly customers who would come in, and I knew that I was perhaps the only other human being that they had had a conversation with that day. This is about entrepreneurship and business, but, as someone said, it is also about the soul of our communities.
It has been fantastic to listen to so many Members talking with great pride about high streets and businesses in their communities. The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) invited us to Downing Street; I hope that is the only time that a right winger invites me to Downing Street for some years to come. We had a cultural trip to Weymouth and heard about the exciting plans there. I may also have a pint at the Swan in Windsor next time I go to Legoland with my children.
As someone who is no stranger to the sweet trolley, I look forward to the Cosy Cake Shop and Death by Fudge in Doncaster and also to another pint at the Fox & Goose and the T-Bar; I do not remember terribly much about the last time I was in there, because I was on a stag do. So much pride has been expressed, and I hope that everyone in the Chamber will repeat that pride in their local high street in a few days’ time on Small Business Saturday, because it helps to drive footfall and to support those local people.
We heard lots of talk from Members across the House. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) raised the issue of business rates and business rates reform. The Government are to remove barriers to investment, and to help businesses to succeed and grow. Reforming business rates was a key manifesto pledge, and it is one that we are going to fulfil.
The right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), for whom I have some affection, and the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), both quoted Napoleon—I do not know if that was a signal that they are not going to cross the Floor to Reform. I will be slightly more patriotic and quote Nelson: we cannot “turn a blind eye” to the cost of the tax measures that the Conservatives set out. Fiscal credibility and sustainability are not abstract concepts. Because we got the public finances under control, small businesses across this country have lower borrowing costs, and because of those interest rates, people across the country have more money in their pockets. We need a real plan, not a fantasy, which is why we will introduce permanently lower business rates for retail and hospitality in the Budget.
Dr Luke Evans
I previously tried to ask about the Government amendment that is going to be voted on, because it explicitly states that the administrative burdens of regulation for businesses will be cut by 25%. I have two questions: what is that 25% of and how will it be judged, and will it be from before or after the Employment Rights Bill comes into law? I put those questions to the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), but she dodged it and decided to attack the Opposition. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell me, because it is key information for the vote on the amendment.
Blair McDougall
We made it clear a few days ago that we plan to reduce the administrative cost of the regulatory burden by nearly £6 billion, and that is what we will do. Conservative Members have spoken about the Employment Rights Bill and their intention to repeal it, but they are forgetting that that Bill will set up a single regulator for the labour market, which will actually reduce red tape for businesses across the country.
Damian Hinds
Let me try to help the Minister, because Conservative Members are very keen to know the answer, and probably many of his colleagues are keen to know it too. It is one thing to say, “We would like to reduce the cost by 25%”—sure you would! The question is: how do the Government think they are going to realise savings of 25%?
Dr Luke Evans
It’s your amendment, Chris! That is what you are voting for.
Damian Hinds
It is the Government amendment in an Opposition day debate. How are those 25% savings going to be realised?
Blair McDougall
In a moment, I will come to our plans to reduce the mountain of red tape that the right hon. Member’s Government left us with, and to reduce the cost of that red tape.
Conservative Member after Conservative Member spoke about the Employment Rights Bill. I should say at the outset that we want the rights in that Bill to be fit for the 21st century—the last time that we properly reviewed our employment law and the relationship between employer and employee was in the last century. However, I am astonished that right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches do not seem to see the connection between how much money people have in their pockets and the ability of their local high streets to thrive. Giving people more secure work and higher wages means that the money in their pockets ends up in the tills of local businesses.
Tom Tugendhat
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for giving way—he is a friend, and he is a great man, but he is entirely wrong on this question. The argument he is making is a correct one, which is why I advocate for lowering taxes. However, this Government have raised taxes and rates for businesses, and if we are to believe what the Chancellor has been saying this morning, we have all been warned that she is about to raise taxes on individuals as well. That is costing us all, because people are reining in their spending in anticipation of being poorer.
Blair McDougall
I will return the compliment to my right hon. Friend before I disagree with him. This is the problem; there is a certain cheek to the Conservative party leaving us a burning building and then criticising us for reaching for the fire hose. We had to stabilise the public finances—and again, that is not abstract. The Conservatives have to learn the lesson—here comes the groan—from the Liz Truss Budget. They have to learn that lesson, because this is not abstract for businesses.
Returning to the issue of stripping out the costs of red tape, in March the Government pledged in our regulation action plan to cut the cost of regulatory burdens by 25%. At the regional investment summit last month, my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Business Secretary made a great start on that, creating an additional £230 million of savings for businesses by changing the requirements on directors’ reports for businesses of any size.
Graham Stuart
As the Minister will be aware, according to the Government, that figure is less than 5% of the cost imposed on business by the Employment Rights Bill.
Blair McDougall
The cost of the Employment Rights Bill is around 0.4% of wage costs across the country, and the additional help that the Bill provides will have a huge impact on small businesses and high streets.
Many Members raised the issue of crime, but let me reassure the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who spoke of the character of local areas, and suggested that there should be greater local powers to control the spread of gambling shops. We intend to deal with that when time allows.
For 10 years we waited for a small business strategy, and in July we introduced one. We are taking action on late payments for businesses, on access to finance and on cutting red tape. Across this Government there is an urgency—it is there today, and I wish it had been there before—to support small businesses and help to get our high streets back on their feet.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question.
Welfare Spending
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 92 / Noes: 403 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected either of the amendments tabled. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House regrets the failure of the Government to get people off welfare and into work; believes that reforming the welfare system is a moral mission; and therefore calls on the Government to take urgent action to fix Britain’s welfare system by restricting welfare for non-UK citizens, stopping benefits for those with lower-level mental health conditions, increasing the number of face-to-face assessments, reforming the Motability Scheme so that only those with serious disabilities qualify for a vehicle, and retaining the two-child benefit cap, to get people into employment and build a stronger economy.
All of us surely remember our first job and the moment we got our first paycheque. I was 16, I got paid £40 and I bought myself a pair of shoes. They were nothing fancy, but I remember that feeling. It was the first time I had money in my pocket that I had earned to spend how I pleased. It was a moment of liberation from which there was no going back. Of course, as we get older, it is not so simple. We have more obligations and bills to pay, but the basic fact is the same. Having a job and paying our own way is how we get independence, freedom and agency. We can make our own choices and have a chance to build up our financial security. Not every job takes us on a path paved with gold, but if we are not in work, we do not even have a chance of changing our fortune.
Millions of people up and down the country know what I am talking about. They are the people who get up each morning and go to work, or the people who go to work every evening if they are doing a night shift, while some people are doing both to make ends meet. However, it is not everyone: in fact, it is not a lot of people. Let us look at the numbers. There are 6.5 million people of working age on out-of-work benefits, nearly 1 million young people are not in any form of employment, education or training, and every single day 5,000 people are signing on to long-term sickness benefits with no requirement to work. Those numbers should worry all of us in this place. They are not just statistics; we are talking about people—mums, dads, women in their 50s, young men in their 20s—who are missing out, sat at home rather than at work, and waiting for the handout to drop into their bank account rather than out there putting their shoulder to the wheel.
For every person on benefits and out of work, there are many more who suffer the consequences of worklessness, such as the increasing number of children who are growing up in workless households. More than 1 million children across our country have neither the income nor the culture of work, so worklessness gets passed from one generation to the next, stunting life chances—opportunities, prosperity and longevity—in every sense of the word.
This applies to entire communities: there are large parts of our country where being on benefits is not a rarity, it has become the norm. From our great cities such as Birmingham and Liverpool to historic seaside towns such as Blackpool, around a quarter of the population are in out-of-work benefits. Drop into some of the poorest areas of those cities and you will find communities where the majority of people are on benefits. Think what that means in practice along a street, door after door. And watch out if you are the odd one out actually trying to go to work, as I heard on one of my visits recently. A whole family were yelling at their son, who was trying to break the cycle of worklessness, because his 7 am alarm clock was disturbing their sleep.
As shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, I travel the country talking to people and finding out the facts on the ground. One story that stuck with me is about a young man in his 20s from Bridgend in Wales. He is on benefits, but he got a place on a course at the local college—the exact course he wanted to do. It had the potential to give him skills and transform his life. It could have got him off benefits and into work at the job he really wanted to do, but it did not happen. Why? Because he was terrified of being worse off—that he would lose his personal independence payment and end up broke. That is wrong. And let us be frank: his story is not a one-off. It is going on all around the country. Everywhere, every day, people are deciding they are better off on benefits.
Our welfare system should be a safety net but it has become a welfare trap, condemning people to live off the state rather than off their elbow grease. Of course, help should be there for people who are unable to work or who need a lot of support to do so. In fact, if the system worked better, it might be able to help some people—those who really need it—more. Instead, we have many thousands of people making rational decisions to claim benefits rather than work, the benefits bill rocketing, and still people who are disabled facing a struggle to get help and make ends meet.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady not recognise that personal independence payment is not a benefit paid on your ability to work—it is paid regardless—so providing that case study is perhaps not the most appropriate to making the argument she is trying progress?
Helen Whately
Of course I know that, but if the hon. Lady had talked to as many people who receive PIP as I have, she would know that many people worry that if they go into training or work, they will then, when they are reassessed, lose their PIP. Even though in theory, yes, you can work if you can while you are getting PIP, people worry that because they are working it will be then be seen as them not actually needing it and that they do not actually have that level of health problem. That is why at the moment it is acting, in the way in works, as a barrier and a disincentive to work, and that is why it needs reform.
Reforming welfare is not cruel to people on benefits—quite the opposite. What is cruel is ducking the challenge, accepting the status quo and continuing to spend millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on keeping people on benefits, but that is exactly what the Labour party is doing. Just a few months ago, the Prime Minister and the former Work and Pensions Secretary did have a go at doing something about it. They set out some welfare cuts—rushed and poorly thought-through, as I said at the time—but their Back Benchers were having none of it. We have never seen anything like it. It was the very definition of shambles in this Chamber. Right in the middle of the debate, their savings Bill became a spending Bill, with the Government frantically making concessions that we still live with, such as the Timms review into PIP.
I have a great deal of respect for the Minister for Social Security and Disability, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), but what hope can we have for his review when it was conceived as a bargaining chip to buy off angry Back Benchers? It has taken months to even kick off the review and months to come up with the terms of reference. Now we have them, we see that welfare savings are off the table. And yes, I said “savings”, a word the Secretary of State was careful to steer clear of in questions last week. What a situation this is.
The Chancellor keeps talking about welfare savings; she did so again this morning. However, the review by the Minister for Social Security and Disability ruled out making any savings. The Secretary of State will not even utter the word. Who will win this argument? Will it be the hapless Chancellor with her back against the wall or the wily Welfare Secretary playing a longer game?
While Ministers spar behind the political scenes, the clock is ticking and the benefits bill keeps heading up and up towards £100 billion, with no prospect of the Government slowing that trajectory, let alone actually getting it down. Instead, as the Chancellor as good as told us this morning, the Government will turn to tax rises to fund welfare and more job-destroying, growth-killing policies, reducing opportunities and saddling future generations with the bill, leaving them to pay it off for decades to come. The Government have not only given up on saving money; they have given up on millions of people across Britain.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
On savings and leaving the next generation with a bill, can the hon. Lady remind the House just how much the now shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), increased Department for Work and Pensions spending on welfare during his time in the Department? The figure I have on the tip of my tongue is somewhere north of £30 billion. Could she comment on that?
Helen Whately
The hon. Gentleman thinks he is so clever, but I am sorry to say this is a whole lot more serious than that. [Interruption.] I am glad Labour Members liked that. The fact is, if the hon. Gentleman looked a little further than his time in politics, back to 2010, he would know that the welfare bill and unemployment figures came down, and that we had the huge reform of universal credit, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), which made a huge difference. [Interruption.] As has been chuntered by those on the Government Front Bench, yes, of course, the pandemic made a difference. We had a set of reforms going on, and then those on the Front Bench and some of their predecessors—there has been a certain amount of turnover—came in and gave up on those reforms. Where are we now? There are no savings and no plans to get people off welfare and into work.
However, it does not have to be this way. The country knows that this is not working, and people want change. They want a fairer system: one where people who do the right thing are rewarded; where work does pay; where people taking personal responsibility for themselves and their family makes sense; where there is help for those who need it, but not for just anyone who might fancy it; and where welfare is a safety net, not a way of life. It might be hard for Members on the Government Benches to hear, but this is what people out there want. They want it now—let us get on with it.
The Conservatives have set out our common-sense proposals to start fixing the welfare system. We would stop sickness benefits for people with lower-level mental health conditions like anxiety and reform Motability, putting an end to taxpayer-funded cars for people who have conditions like ADHD and tennis elbow. We would bring back face-to-face assessments, which are going down under this Labour Government, and change the sick note system so that it does not just funnel people out of the office and on to benefits. We would prioritise Brits in our welfare system, stopping people with indefinite and limited leave to remain claiming benefits. Of course, we also believe in retaining the two-child benefit cap, because it is fiscally responsible and fair. Removing the cap would cost more than £3 billion and would be deeply unfair on families who are not on benefits—the couples who decide they cannot afford another child, but would pay taxes for someone else to do just that. The Conservatives are the only party fully committed to the two-child benefit cap—no ifs, no buts.
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
I have read somewhere that the list of things the hon. Lady has gone through would, the Conservatives estimate, save £23 billion. Part of that is from housing benefit. Can she tell us how much of the £23 billion would be saved from housing benefit?
Helen Whately
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. As he says, we have earmarked potential savings of £23 billion, and housing benefit is one area. There is the other set of savings that I have just gone through. I am very happy to go through some of our sums and how we have got to those figures with him. As I have said to him, I believe that this Government should be picking up on our suggestions, because that is how they could bring down the welfare bill and avoid what we saw the Chancellor clearly rolling the pitch for this morning: tax rises at the Budget.
Times are hard. I do not want the Government to put up taxes. I do not want them to keep spending other people’s money on welfare, because we all know that one day it will run out. I do not want them to keep people living a life on benefits rather than being in work. That is why I have been so clear about what they could and should do.
I have heard Labour Back Benchers say in this Chamber, “I didn’t come here to cut benefits”, and that is why we have offered to help. The Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Chancellor and I have made a big offer to the Government. We will help them make welfare savings, and we will work with them in good faith to get the welfare bill down and get people off welfare and into work. Labour Back Benchers do not want to make the tough decisions on welfare, but our door is open. We will work with the Government in the national interest. It is not too late to make those bold decisions and make serious savings. A vote for our motion is a vote to get Britain’s welfare system back on track, to get the welfare bill under control, and to set out on a moral mission to get millions off welfare and into work.
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
I enjoyed listening to the shadow Secretary of State’s fierce critique of the state of the benefits system that was left behind after 14 years of Tory government. She made some good points about it. By contrast, this Government are building a welfare system that is proactive and pro-work, has opportunity at its heart, and will change lives for the better—in rather the way she suggested that the system needs. For every person we can help into good work, it will mean a better life for them and better mental health and finances. It will be better for the public purse as well.
Getting people off welfare and into work requires an active approach, and we do have a plan. The system left behind by the last Government of passive benefit processing was simply not up to the job. That is why they left behind, as the shadow Secretary of State said, nearly a million young people not in education, employment or training, and 2.8 million people economically inactive through long-term ill health. We are determined to put those failures right.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making a great introduction, because the Conservatives clearly need to be reminded of their failures over 14 years in government. During their time in office, the disability employment gap remained stubbornly at 30%. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is only this Labour Government who will do all they can to ensure that disabled people have opportunities for work?
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The disability employment gap fell steadily under the previous Labour Government, but it has been stuck at about 30% ever since 2010. There was one moment in those 14 long years of Tory rule when it looked as though they planned to do something about it. In the middle of the 2015 general election campaign, David Cameron announced a target of halving the disability employment gap. It was like they suddenly woke up at that moment, but as soon as that election had been safely won, they scrapped the target. They just went back to passive benefit processing again.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister is a good man, and I mean that sincerely. I think he understands and shares the faith that I have when it comes to looking after those who are less well off. Every day in my office I meet constituents who have disabilities or complex health needs, anxiety and depression or severe mobility issues and people whose health problems are impacting their families. They are burdened with financial pressures. Those who cannot cope with life must not be penalised. Can the Minister reassure us that the vulnerable will not become a target for the Government or indeed anyone in this Chamber?
Sir Stephen Timms
Yes, I can. I will come on to talk about that in a couple of minutes.
In contrast to the passive approach of the last Government, we will be active. We are investing in and joining up work, health and skills support. We have brought adult skills and apprenticeships, further education, training and careers into the DWP so that we are better able to give people the skills to thrive in today’s economy and to enable them to move into good secure jobs.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
At the minute, an estimated 13 million households in this country—just over 50% of all households—are net recipients from the state, rather than net contributors to it. What would the Minister expect that figure to be by the end of this Parliament?
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Gentleman makes another interesting reflection on the state of the system left behind by 14 years of Tory government. We are going to be making progress, as I said.
Our plan will help deliver our ambition not just for jobs but for national renewal by building new homes, making the NHS fit for the future and powering the shift to green energy. Among people of working age, those with low or no qualifications are some 2.5 times more likely to be out of work than those who are better qualified. Just closing that gap would mean a million extra people in work.
But skills are not the only barrier; for many, it is ill health, and we are determined to get people back to work and back to good health. We will open up more opportunities for people who have been out of work because of ill health in the past with WorkWell employment advisers embedded directly in healthcare teams, from GP surgeries to mental health services.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Sir Stephen Timms
I will make a bit more headway first.
Connect to Work will go to the end of the decade to support 300,000 disabled people and people with health and other complex barriers to employment to get into and get on in work. Our Pathways to Work guarantee, backed by an additional £1 billion a year by the end of the decade, will bring all that together with personalised work, health and skills support for anybody on out-of-work benefits with a health condition or disability who wants that support.
We already have 1,000 new Pathways to Work advisers in place, working in jobcentres across the country to help disabled people. A few weeks ago I met a couple of them in Edinburgh, and they told me of the positive reactions from the people they ring up. The system gave up on those people years ago, but we have not given up on them.
Dr Evans
The Minister mentioned WorkWell, which is a fantastic scheme introduced in 2023 that dealt with 59,000 people through £64 million of Conservative Government investment. I am glad that the Government are taking that forward and looking to expand it. My concern as a GP is about trying to get more people on the premises. Where will the work coaches go when premises do not have the space? That delivery is really important. Will he explain what has happened from the pilots to where we are now and how this will be taken forward?
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Gentleman raises a good, practical point. Quite a lot of GP surgeries certainly do have space and welcome work coaches or an adviser on to the premises, but he is right that that does not work everywhere, so we need to be flexible and have a local approach for each area. That is what Connect to Work will deliver.
We also need to stop people from falling out of work unnecessarily in the first place due to ill health. Stopping work is often not in the interests of either the employee or the employer, but far too often it happens by default. Therefore, Sir Charlie Mayfield has been leading the Keep Britain Working review on how Government and businesses can work together for more inclusive, healthier workplaces. He will report his findings very soon.
This active approach is particularly important for young people, as the shadow Secretary of State suggested in her opening remarks. After 14 years, so many were left not in employment, education or training, and being out of work for a long time at the start of what should be working life does long-term damage to their health, earnings potential and prospects. There are obviously consequences for the social security system as well.
If we do not get somebody on a productive path early on, it can be really hard to change course further down the line, so we are expanding the number of youth hubs, partnering with sports clubs to get help to people in the community and developing a youth guarantee to ensure that 18 to 21-year-olds are earning or learning. As the Chancellor announced last month, learning from the success of Labour’s future jobs scheme, that will include a jobs guarantee. Our youth guarantee trailblazers are up and running, innovating and testing out the best ways to join up support and make the most of young people’s talent and potential, from mental health support to flexible work experience sessions. Those trailblazers will inform the national roll-out of the guarantee so that everybody has the chance to start off their working lives on the right foot.
We are reforming jobcentres by introducing the jobs and careers service: a universal service, moving away from one-size-fits-all and offering much more personalised support. We are also testing changes to the claimant commitment as we look to free up work coaches.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I am listening carefully to everything the Minister says, including about being productive. The key for him is that for the first time sickness benefit is now within universal credit, which also includes all other benefits. That gives a face-to-face opportunity with all these staff. As he gets more people back to work—particularly those who have mental health problems such as depression and anxiety, for which work is a health treatment, as the health service will say—does he anticipate calculating on the back of that whether any money will be saved as a result? If so, will he at some stage come up with a plan for saving that money?
Sir Stephen Timms
I do envisage that, as people get back to work, there will be savings on social security. I think we will see at the Budget projections from the Office for Budget Responsibility of future moves into employment as a result of the changes that we are making, and savings will certainly arise. We want our work coaches, as the right hon. Gentleman has just pointed out, to spend less time on bureaucracy and more time on what they do best, which is giving people the benefit of their expertise and helping people move closer to work.
Good work will also be a key part of the child poverty strategy, which we will bring forward by the end of the year. We will tackle child poverty by increasing family incomes, reducing family costs, building financial resilience and improving local support. Some people will remember that I took the Child Poverty Act 2010 through Parliament, with all-party support at the time. It was quickly scrapped by the coalition Government and the number of children growing up in poverty has gone up by 900,000 since then. Welfare spending has also rocketed. Reducing both child poverty and welfare spending are not opposites.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in recognising the benefit to the labour market of the roll-out of 30 hours of free childcare? I met a single mum in my constituency who is taking on more hours to support her family. That will help her children get out of poverty, thanks to this Government’s efforts.
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is a welcome and much-needed step.
The early years are crucial to somebody’s life chances. Ensuring that children grow up happy, healthy and able to fulfil their potential is certainly, to borrow a phrase from the motion, “a moral mission”. However, it is also about reducing demand on social security, instead of sitting on our hands like the last Government and leaving the system to pick up higher costs further down the line.
The child poverty strategy will build on our cross-Government approach to lifting people out of poverty through rolling out free breakfast clubs, raising the national minimum wage and, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) points out, expanding free childcare and free school meals to all families on universal credit. It will be an ambitious strategy and in developing it we will consider all the levers available to give every child the best start in life.
To make work pay: that was what universal credit was intended to do. Yet it was left with perverse disincentives to work in the system, forcing people, as many did, to aspire to be classified as sick in order to qualify for a higher payment. We have addressed that by rebalancing the payments in universal credit, alongside other reforms. The system should not force people to aspire to be classified as sick; it should promote and encourage work and provide support to make work feasible.
As the shadow Secretary of State kindly mentioned, we are progressing the review, which I am responsible for.
Sir Stephen Timms
I will make a little more headway. The review will be co-produced with disabled people, to ensure that the system supports disabled people to achieve better health, higher living standards and greater independence, including through work. We will also carry out more face-to-face assessments over the next year, boosting the number of health professionals working in assessment centres. Face-to-face assessments were stopped for understandable reasons during the pandemic, but they were never really brought back. The places where they were carried out were sold off and we are having to reinstate and rebuild that service.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Minister talks about perverse disincentives and aspiring to be classified as sick. Does he accept that, with sickness benefits, someone will get £2,500 more than if they are on the national living wage full time? If that is the case, which it is, what is his plan to reverse that perverse disincentive?
Sir Stephen Timms
We have made major changes in the Universal Credit Act 2025, which will take effect in April of next year. We are making the changes that are needed.
Lastly, when building a more active welfare system, we need to ensure that every penny we spend goes on the support that it is designed to provide. That is why the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill is working its way back through this House under the guidance of the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western), as we speak. In that Bill, there are new powers for the Department to tackle fraud and error, so that we can realise £1.5 billion in benefits by 2029-30. Those are among wider measures that we expect will save £9.6 billion over the same period. That is needed, given that on the previous Government’s watch, in 2023-24, fraud against the public sector stood at an estimated £55 billion. In the same year, benefit fraud alone was £7.3 billion. There is a lot to be done.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Nothing frustrates genuine welfare claimants more than seeing claimants who are not deserving, or who are defrauding the system. In Northern Ireland, the cost of fraud is £240 million per annum and, to be honest, that is just the tip of the iceberg, given the restrictions around investigations. In Northern Ireland, the Communities Minister has started naming and shaming. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there needs to be a UK-wide strategy on fraud to ensure that those in real need do not miss out?
Sir Stephen Timms
It is vital that we make sure that those in real need do not miss out, and I can reassure the hon. Lady that I am in fairly regular contact with her colleague in the Northern Ireland Assembly. These are certainly things that the two Governments need to discuss.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Will the Minister give way?
Sir Stephen Timms
I am going to make a bit more progress.
We have seen what happens when social security is not managed properly. We have seen the consequences for child poverty and for the many thousands denied the opportunity to work—people who want to work, and who could work, with the right support. We are taking action now to give people the best chances in life, so that they can support themselves and their family. We are delivering on our plan to make work pay, including by removing the work disincentives from universal credit. We are joining up support, so that people get proper help into work. We are giving children and young people the best possible start in life and are setting them up to succeed in future. Unlike the previous Government, we are not resigned to failure. We are investing in success, in work, in health, and in skills support to provide hope for a better future. We are actively helping people along their own path to work, and creating an opportunity welfare state. We have made a great start, but there is a huge amount still to do, and I welcome this chance to seek the House’s support for our mission.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Steve Darling.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is important that the House, first of all, reflects on where the Conservatives left our community when they left power. We should reflect on the fact that the number of people who are economically inactive has gone up from 2.1 million in 2019 to 2.8 million. The fact that the bill for incapacity benefits has gone up from £34 billion to £51 billion is quite shocking. It is interesting that the Conservatives feel able to share their pearls of wisdom with the Chamber after leaving the world in such a sorry state. The Conservatives have climbed into the gutter to produce the proposals before us this evening; Disraeli and Peel must be turning in their graves.
There are some real challenges. We need a true culture change, both in the benefit system and in the employment world, to help people get into work. That culture change should involve us taking a trauma-informed approach, in the DWP, in our civil service and in our society, so that we can help people who can work into work.
I would also like to reflect on the sorry state in which the Conservatives left our NHS after they starved it of cash and failed to invest in it for many years. It is a great pity that so many residents came to me in my first year as MP for Torbay to tell me that they were unable to have the operations they required, due to the Conservatives’ lack of investment over many years. They bled money out of the capital system to cover the costs of revenue. That is utterly shameful. Torbay hospital continues to crumble and, sadly, under the new Labour Government, we still see £250 million of in-year cuts to our NHS services. While the Conservatives undermine those with mental health challenges, Devon partnership NHS trust is set for £21 million in cuts.
Dr Evans
It was the Conservative Government who brought in the mental health investment standard to ensure parity for mental health. It is this Government who made the capital cut the hon. Gentleman mentions, and who are not meeting the standard. I am intrigued; why does he think that there is so much difficulty understanding that, and why are the Labour Government making cuts to mental health payments?
Steve Darling
I thank the hon. Member. I reflect on the savage cuts made to public health spending. I would particularly mention the number of people who sleep rough on our streets. I campaigned on the issue as a young Liberal, more than 30 years ago. Sadly, those rough sleepers are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the challenges in our society. The cuts faced by the Devon partnership trust are a real challenge.
I want to move on to Access to Work. Ministers have said on the record that it is one of the Government’s best kept secrets, but I fear that it has not performed as strongly as it could in driving people into work. In fact, I and others have real concerns that changes to the system could undermine it. Someone with a disability is 50% more likely to be out of work. A quarter of people who are registered blind are in work. That clearly means that 75% are out of work—those are shocking figures.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the Charlie Mayfield report on how we can engage appropriately with the employment world, and on the positive lessons that can be learned from our nearby colleagues in Europe. I look forward to that coming forward, but perhaps the Government put the cart before the horse; the report should have been undertaken before the Employment Rights Bill was progressed.
Finally, I come to a policy that Liberal Democrats have voted against on three occasions in this Parliament: the two-child limit and the benefits cap. What choice was there for the widow and her children? I am shocked that the Conservatives have such heartlessness that they are turning their backs on those individuals. Some 4.5 million children—that is, every third child—live in poverty in the United Kingdom. In a visit that I made to Barton Hill academy in recent years, I asked the kids what they liked and did not like about Torbay. Their answers were not so much about things like litter; they were more about mum and dad not being able to make ends meet. I wonder how many of those youngsters were impacted by the two-child limit.
In conclusion, there are elements of the Bill that we Liberal Democrats welcome, such as the ability that it will give us to manage the benefits bill, and a return to face-to-face assessments where possible, but others are totally derisible. We see the benefit system as being akin to our NHS: it should be there to support people in living their best life. We will therefore not support the motion.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. With an immediate four-minute time limit, I call Luke Akehurst.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
It is beyond belief that Conservative Members have chosen today to shine a spotlight on the subject of welfare, when their record on it is one of failure, chaos and incompetence. Under the previous Conservative Government, welfare spending ballooned out of control. The final Office for Budget Responsibility forecast on their watch projected that annual welfare spending would increase by close to £100 billion by 2028-29. That is enough to fund the entire NHS for a year, but instead, the money was spent patching up the consequences of Conservative failure.
The Conservatives now want to run from their record. The Leader of the Opposition has even called for a “totally different approach” to welfare from the one that she supported when in government. So who did she appoint as her shadow Chancellor? The right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride)—the very Member who, as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, oversaw the overspending. When the Conservatives say that they have changed, I say: look at their Front Bench—the architects of failure are still drawing up plans.
And what a failure it was. On the shadow Chancellor’s watch, more than 800,000 people left the labour market. What does it say about a Government when hundreds of thousands of people give up on looking for work? Those people had lost hope. That is not just money lost in tax revenue—it is a parent who can no longer work because they are on an NHS waiting list; it is a young person with mental health challenges, left behind by cuts to mental health services.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I am listening, as always, to the hon. Gentleman’s wise words—he presents his case very well—but, honestly, has he forgotten the pandemic? Will he give any credit to the then Government for managing it? Does he talk to his constituents, and all the businesses that are still going thanks to the work done at that time? With regard to his attacks on the Conservatives, will he just grow up? I hope to goodness that Labour never has to manage what we had to manage, but if it does, I hope that it manages it even half as well.
Luke Akehurst
Obviously, the pandemic was a factor, but the right hon. Gentleman cannot blame every Government policy failure on external factors. All Governments must deal with external factors.
Unpaid carers are having to leave their jobs because the Conservatives never fixed social care. Behind every one of those 800,000 people who are outside the labour market is a tragic story of wasted opportunity and a Conservative Government who looked the other way. That abject failure hits constituencies like mine the hardest; North Durham has more economically inactive people than the national average.
Let us contrast that with the record of this Labour Government in our first year in office. Economic inactivity has fallen and employment is up: 730,000 more people are in work, and 360,000 fewer working-age people have been out of work and not looking for work since we entered office. That is 360,000 stories of lives moving forward, new parents able to get back to the workplace, people off NHS waiting lists thanks to our record investment, and young people accessing training. Behind every one of those stories is a Labour Government who refused to accept wasted opportunity.
There is still so much left to do to fix the mess that we inherited from the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Chancellor and the rest of the Conservative party, but I am proud to support a Labour Government who want to help people into work, so that they can get on with their lives.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
The welfare bill is out of control. A system with laudable aims that was designed to act as a safety net for those who fall on hard times now threatens not only the nation’s finances but the spirt of hard work and self-reliance. That is why I will support the motion.
My Conservative colleagues and I believe in fairness. We are the party of the strivers—the men and women who rise early, work long hours and provide for their families. The shopkeeper who opens up before dawn, the construction workers on site in all weathers, and the parents balancing multiple jobs—these are the people who make Britain great. They keep our economy going and our communities alive. This Government are letting people down. People see many others gaming the system, while their taxes continue to rise to fund a welfare bill that has spiralled out of control.
Of course, I understand that there must always be a safety net—I say that as someone who has lived experience of being on the breadline growing up—but this safety net has turned into a fishing net, with a culture that promotes the idea that it is okay not to work, that it is fine for others to pay for our lifestyle choices and that it is acceptable to rely on the state forever. Since the general election, we have seen over 1 million more people added to universal credit—1 million more people. For all the Government’s talk of saving the NHS and helping people back into work, the numbers tell a different story.
Mr Charters
First, I congratulate the hon. Member, because I think his audience here in the Chamber is bigger than his party leader’s for her speech on welfare earlier today. Could he look back to his party’s record in government when it comes to the NHS? As the intelligent man I think he is—I consider him a friend—does he agree that larger NHS waiting lists, which his party left, increase the benefit bill? Does he agree with that easy-to-accept premise?
Mr Bedford
When the Conservatives left office, there were just 2 million people on universal credit for health-related reasons. Today, that number stands at 3 million—a remarkable increase that highlights the sheer lack of action by this Government to get welfare under control. It tells the younger generation that aspiration is no longer the British way and that it is easier to depend on the state than to strive.
While the Government continue to spend, it is our constituents—hard-pressed taxpayers—who are footing the bill. We in this House would be wise to remember that there is no such thing as public money; there is only taxpayers’ money. Unfortunately, taxpayers are getting a rough deal. Our approach is different. Only the Conservative party is on the side of the taxpayer. The Government published proposals to save £5 billion in welfare spending.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Conservative Members talking about what they would do in government is like me talking about having the ability to take a penalty in a world cup final. The Conservatives left us with 1.4 million PIP claimants for mental health reasons and 1.2 million on mental health waiting lists—that is 217,000 people in the midlands, where the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is.
Mr Bedford
Anyway, to go back to the £5 billion of welfare savings the Government proposed, that was a small but important step in the right direction that we on the Conservative Benches would have supported. Embarrassingly, they conceded to the hard left in the Labour party, so we are now in the perverse position that their welfare changes will invariably end up costing the taxpayer more and not achieve even the smallest of savings they intended. Other parties that claim to be fiscally conservative are now openly supporting the removal of the two-child benefit cap—a move that undermines the very principle of personal responsibility.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister for Social Security and Disability, who is no longer in his place, was in the extraordinary position of starting a debate arguing that he needed to save £4.5 billion and ending the debate saying he needed to spend an additional £300 million. Was that not a bit odd?
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
On the two-child benefit cap, will the hon. Member give way?
Antonia Bance
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Do some children deserve to go hungry?
Mr Bedford
Of course not.
We on the Conservative Benches know that the hard-pressed taxpayer deserves better. I am proud that the shadow Secretary of State has outlined tough but fair proposals to cut the welfare bill. Our plan to make work pay and to stop the unfair gaming of the system would make savings of £23 billion for the Exchequer.
First, we will clamp down on the ridiculous system that enables people with mild health conditions to receive thousands of pounds from the state, when people with the exact same conditions go out to work and pay their dues. Secondly, we will reduce fraud and error in the system by bringing back face-to-face assessments, which are a means of ensuring that support is in the right hands. Finally, we will restrict benefits for non-UK nationals. We all know that migrants are attracted to the UK, because of our welfare system perhaps being too generous.
Antonia Bance
Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr Bedford
I am not giving way.
The welfare system should be there for British people who need it, not for others who perhaps just want it, and Conservative Members will never apologise for believing in aspiration over dependency.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
Today’s motion represents the same failed punitive and cruel social security system that the Conservative party had for 14 years—a system that did not help people into good jobs or get social security spending down, and that led only to destitution. By contrast, our approach is to create good jobs, get good training in place, and help people into those jobs.
Let’s talk about the record of the Conservative party. Let’s talk about the rise in employment. The rise in employment was not among those who they punished. Non-graduate employment fell from about 73% when we were last in office, to 68% when the Conservatives left office. The rise in jobs was not among the non-graduates who they were punishing or those who they drove into destitution; the people who took those jobs were the increasing number of graduates. What was the cruelty that they put forward? They were measures that saw someone sanctioned because they went to their wife’s funeral, or that saw someone get punished because they went to a job interview—sanction after sanction, cruelty after cruelty.
It is the same with the Conservatives’ cuts—cuts that led to 3 million foodbank parcels being handed out. I did not know what a food bank was when I was growing up, yet every one of us in the Chamber knows what they are today. We see the growing destitution and homelessness before us, but what we did not see was any improvement in our country. There was no economic growth, and no extra good jobs. Cruelty and futility—that was the record of the Conservative party.
Think about where we are today. What do we need to do to ensure that people have decent jobs? We know that to live a decent life, a working family is this country needs to include two parents earning about £35,000 each, yet in 80% of this country the average wage is less than that. About 40% of full-time jobs pay less than £35,000. Going beyond that—[Interruption.] Would someone on the Opposition Benches like to intervene?
Oliver Ryan
To quote the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend thinks he is “so clever”, arguing with facts! Those facts are not particularly appreciated by those on the Conservative Benches. Does he agree that what is important in this debate is the people who were left destitute by the policies of 14 years of Conservative government?
Dr Sandher
I could not agree more. When we go forward and think about how to create a good life for people, we first need to create good jobs, but we also need to ensure that people have the training and support they need to get there. That is exactly what this Government are doing.
We are creating good jobs by working with the private sector through our industrial strategy, and ensuring that the private sector gets the support it needs to work with businesses and—yes, of course—with trade unions. We are ensuring that there are good jobs for people to get into in the green economy and healthcare. We are creating the good jobs that people need and, more than that, the training they need. Through our work on the social security system, we are making sure that people can try work without the fear of losing their social security payments. That is the difference between us and the Conservative party. It is a difference in values.
We believe that every single person should be able to afford to live a decent life, that we should create good jobs for them to move into, and that the job of the Government is to work with the private sector to create those jobs directly, so that people can work and earn a decent wage. We are not about being punitive or cruel, and our measures will not lead to more destitution. That is the difference between Labour and the Conservatives. I am proud to be on these Benches; I do not know how they feel today.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Every one of us in this Chamber, and generations of MPs before us, want to help and improve the lives of our constituents. That is why this debate is so important, and we really have to tackle it.
The issues with welfare go back generations. We talk about the welfare state as we know it now, coming in after the second world war with Clement Attlee and the establishment of the NHS, but the history of welfare goes back so much further. The National Insurance Act 1911 introduced insurance against sickness, invalidity and—unusually at that time—unemployment. We can even go back even further than that, to Henry VIII and the abolition of the monasteries; it was the monasteries that used to provide charity and care for the infirm and the needy. Since then, we have seen the development of welfare in various forms, and it is something that we have all struggled with. We saw it with the development of the Poor Law and the friendly societies. It has been an area of great change and it has been going on for generations.
I appreciate that anyone coming to this topic comes with the best of intentions. I think there is consensus that welfare reform is needed, but the way in which the provision of welfare is developed at the moment is entirely damaging both to the public purse and to those who are caught in the welfare net. Today’s welfare state has become like the modern-day helicopter parent. For those who do not know, a helicopter parent is one who hovers over their child like a helicopter in every aspect of their life, managing their experiences and feeling that they always need to be involved in order to solve problems. But we know that is not healthy for the child. They can feel smothered, are unable to develop and become trapped. That is what is happening with our current welfare system; it is trapping people and not giving them opportunities.
Sarah Smith
I recently met a constituent who was made unemployed in 2020 during the covid pandemic, and she has struggled ever since to find and hold down a job. She has an autism diagnosis, and it is only since this Government started improving the system that she has had access to a disability-trained job coach, who has supported her to get some volunteering and move into a college course; she now has a job ahead of her. That is what we are doing to grasp the system and tackle its challenges.
Sarah Bool
I am very sorry that that was the experience faced by the hon. Lady’s constituent, but it is good that she has managed to get the opportunity to work. That is the thing; that is the difference. Changes need to be made. We have come to the Chamber today to try to find a route through this issue for all of us. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) has offered help.
I have a big issue with the language being used in this Chamber all the time. This is a very difficult and sometimes uncomfortable conversation, but it is absolutely essential that we take the action needed. Sentiments like “living within your means”, which I think all our constituents have to do from day to day, should not be replaced by words like “austerity” and then the idea slammed down. That is not helpful to any debate or any of our constituents.
We always ask our constituents to look after their money—money in, money out—and the Government have to do the same. This depends on what our own views of the Government are. There are those who want the Government to be involved in absolutely every element of everyone’s lives—and so be it, but do expect cost rises, inefficiencies and abuse of the system. The most compassionate thing is to put people on the path to take their own opportunities, to have their own jobs and to grow. That is the place we are trying to get to. Sometimes we are too involved, and we are not creating the system of fairness that we all seek.
Given the sums of money that we are talking about, it is even more imperative that we grasp this nettle. It cannot be right or fair that sickness benefit pays £2,500 more a year than the amount received by someone living on the national living wage. A responsible Government have to take proper action to tackle this issue. That is why the Conservative party has come forward with proposals that would reduce spending by £23 billion, through our plan to deliver £47 billion of savings.
The pen sits with the Government. It is entirely with them to take these actions—the actions that constituents are asking for. Rather than dismissing our solutions, as Government Members have constantly done today, perhaps the Government should take some of them on, take up our offer for help and improve the welfare system.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Ind)
Although I currently sit as an independent MP, I am still a proud member of the Labour party. Instead of preoccupying myself with the stances, opinions and views of other parties, which I have absolutely no control over whatsoever, all I care about is where Labour is and what Labour does.
I wholeheartedly agree with any Labour party member whenever they say that our party’s mission and reason for being is to lift people out of poverty—after all, that is one of the main reasons why I joined. In 2024, 411 Labour Members were elected to provide change. It was an effective campaign message, but 16 months on, we still have the wicked and cruel two-child benefit cap. There have been promises that the Government are looking at lifting that cap and will do so when the fiscal situation allows and improves, but ultimately, it still has not been done.
I regularly hear Members on my side of the House shouting “14 years!” and pointing the finger. I understand the roleplaying and game-playing that is involved, and with respect to all Members, everyone knows that the Conservative Government—in my opinion, certainly—was a cruel shambles for the past 14 years, one that punched down on the most vulnerable people in society. However, they are out; we are in. We are a Labour Government, but it is things like retaining the two-child benefit cap that we are being judged on. [Interruption.] I am happy to take an intervention—no?
If Members think I am wrong or making life awkward, what I say to colleagues is, “Have a look at the polls. Listen to what people are saying.” What I hear from people on the doorstep and when I am out campaigning is anger at things like the two-child benefit cap, winter fuel, the treatment of the WASPI women, and welfare cuts. When will the leadership appreciate that the people impacted by those things are our people—our class? Instead of chasing disaffected Tory right-wing votes, what about looking after our core vote?
The bottom line is that we must do more to lift people out of poverty and improve living standards. To not do so is a poverty of ambition. We are the Labour party, and we are in government; go and govern by real Labour party values.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Britain’s welfare system was created as a safety net. It is a system designed to protect people who face hardship through no fault of their own, but today, that net is becoming a trap—for individuals, for families, and for this country. Any welfare system must be fair, providing support for those who truly need it and a reward for those who do the right thing—who get up in the morning, go to work and provide for their families. Right now, too many people feel that doing the right thing is punished, not rewarded. Under Labour, Britain has stopped working, because for too many, it has stopped making sense to work. There are good fiscal reasons why we Conservatives plan to cut welfare spending by £23 billion, but there is also a moral argument. By making work pay less and welfare pay more, the Government are incentivising welfare over work, which is profoundly unfair.
One of the best examples is the two-child benefit cap. We all know that the Chancellor is going to announce its removal in the Budget, and will no doubt be supported by the Liberal Democrats, by Reform UK and by other high-spending left-wing parties. She will do so because she and the Prime Minister are terrified of their own Back Benchers. The Prime Minister now says that the welfare reforms he is carrying out strike “the right balance”. Who does he think believes that? He is like brave Sir Robin in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”. Brave Sir Keir ran away—bravely ran away. When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled; bravest of the brave, Sir Keir. He was forced to retreat and turn a Bill designed to save money into one that actually cost the taxpayer more.
Why are we Conservatives committed to keeping the two-child benefit cap? It is not just because there is a limit on what the state can afford; it is also a question of fairness. Millions of families across Britain make careful choices about whether or not they can afford a child. Why should a taxpayer who has decided that they cannot afford a third or subsequent child be asked to subsidise one for someone who is not working?
Antonia Bance
One of my constituents lost her husband after they had made a decision to have three children together, as working taxpayers. Her husband had died, and she needed the help for which she had contributed: was that a lifestyle choice?
Sir Ashley Fox
When we design welfare rules, it has to be for the whole economy and all our people, and I believe that the two-child benefit cap is fair.
Under this Labour Government, unemployment has risen every month since they took office; 5,000 people a day are now signing on for sickness benefits, and, thanks in part to the Chancellor’s jobs tax, the number of graduate jobs has fallen by a third; and what is the Government’s response? It is more tax, more borrowing, more spending, and more excuses. When the Chancellor breaks her promise and raises taxes again in the Budget, what will be her excuse? Will it be 14 years of Conservative government? Will it be this mythical black hole that only she and her Back Benchers can see? The Office for Budget Responsibility cannot find it. Perhaps it will be the pandemic, or perhaps it is all because of Brexit. The Chancellor’s excuses are growing increasingly thin, and the people who elect us know that. They know that it is the Chancellor’s fault.
We will cut welfare spending by focusing support on those who truly need it, not those who can work but choose not to. We will use those savings to get the economy working again for individuals and for businesses. We will scrap punitive taxes on family businesses, family farms and local shops. We will abolish stamp duty, because when people can buy a home and when businesses can hire and grow, Britain prospers. We respect the fact that taxpayers already paying too much. We respect small businesses that cannot just pass on additional costs to someone else, and we respect the next generation, who deserve to inherit opportunity and not just the debts of this Labour Government.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, and I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) —who has just left the Chamber—for speaking without notes, which I think is commendable.
You will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my mind is currently dominated by thoughts about babies. It is incredible that human babies are so reliant on their parents and guardians to feed them, clothe them, bath them and keep them warm. That led me to consider how, given its humble beginnings, the human race has been so successful, creating societies, creating communities and—if I may give a local plug—creating the fibre-optic cable in Harlow. Then I realised that it was because of exactly these vulnerabilities that human beings formed societies and communities. It is not only human nature for us to support one another; it is essential. I believe it was Mahatma Gandhi who said that a society should be judged on how it treats its most vulnerable.
The original motion claims that it is a moral duty to stop benefits for certain people. I must be honest and say that I do not like that wording, although I recognise the need for welfare reform. I feel that there needs to be a great deal more meat on the bones: what do the Opposition mean by “lower-level” mental health issues? The motion also refers to the Government’s “failure” to get people on benefits back into work. I mean, come on! Give us a chance. Let me gently point out that inactivity increased on the Conservatives’ watch, and the United Kingdom was the only G7 country whose employment rate was still lower than it had been before the pandemic.
I support the Government’s aim to get people back into work, and I welcome the inactivity trailblazer scheme, whose purpose is to design local solutions to tackle this issue. I will talk later about having been a teacher, because I do that in every speech, but having worked for a homelessness charity, I know that the reasons for which people are out of work for long periods are complex and often vary, so those local solutions are very important.
Sir Ashley Fox
On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Chris Vince
I am going to make some progress, but I must get to my “teacher” point. I may have mentioned a few times in the House that I used to be a teacher. When I visit Harlow’s schools and colleges, I am blown away by our talented young people. I want the best for them: high-quality jobs, and an ambition that does not stop at a glass ceiling and a lifetime on benefits.
I genuinely believe that getting people into meaningful employment can and will help some of the mental health issues that people suffer from. I have seen that in my work for a homelessness charity. I therefore welcome getting employment advisers into GP surgeries and mental health institutions.
One way to get people back into work is by getting NHS waiting lists down. I know a number of self-employed people in Harlow who are really struggling because of the huge impact that long waiting lists have on them getting back to work. This Government are funding our NHS not just for now, but for the future.
I gently add that the number of people claiming unemployment benefits has actually gone down over the last year under this Government, which we should welcome. I also welcome the review into PIP, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability is leading the charge on that important piece of work.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
We have heard a lot of nonsense from the Conservatives; we have had a nursery rhyme and the claim from the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) that the first instance of welfare in this country was the monasteries under Henry VIII. But to take that example, when Thomas Cromwell came in to advise King Henry VIII, he realised that they were not working and needed reform. It was extremely difficult. That Government passed two very difficult Acts of Parliament to dissolve those monasteries and to get the wealth back out to people. Does my hon. Friend agree that the difficult act of Government is actually to reform these things, rather than just to complain about them retrospectively?
Chris Vince
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his intervention. I cannot pretend to be a huge historian—I do not know a great deal about the selling of the monasteries—but I take his point about the difficult decisions that Governments need to make, and that reform is really important. There are so many things that have been left for us to look at in terms of reform. As a former teacher—I always mention it—special educational needs and disabilities reform is obviously a huge one that needs to be on the agenda.
As I was saying, I welcome the review into PIP being led by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham. After I left teaching, I worked for a homeless charity and had to help clients with PIP forms; they are cumbersome. I would encourage people from my constituency to participate in that review, either through the formal process or by writing to me. I will make sure that their feedback gets to my right hon. Friend.
The one thing in the Conservative motion that I would agree with is the need for more face-to-face assessments. It is right to say that the number of assessments went down because of covid—of course it did—but it is important that we get back to those face-to-face PIP assessments.
Finally, one of my top priorities in this place is to ensure that all young people in Harlow have the opportunity and aspiration to succeed, not just for the good of the community and our society, but for themselves.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
A few hon. Members in this debate have mentioned the record of the last Government, so it is worth putting on the record that, under the last Government, 4 million jobs were created, youth unemployment was halved and a million more disabled people moved into work. Sadly, under this Government, we have already seen unemployment rise every single month that they have been in office. They are going to have the record that every Labour Government have had—of leaving unemployment higher than they inherited. The number of people on health and sickness benefits is also increasing significantly. Under this Government, 5,000 people are being signed on to long-term sickness benefits every day, which is double the rate pre covid.
Simply put, our welfare system is not sustainable, nor fair. It is not fair for taxpayers and it is not fair for people who are left on benefits, without the support that they need. Yet Labour Members have blocked welfare reforms, and the Prime Minister and Chancellor clearly lack the backbone to get on with this urgent work. The Chancellor’s panicked speech this morning underlined that serious welfare reform is not any part of their agenda.
It should be common cause across the House that we understand the value and dignity of work. The moral case for change mentioned in our motion could not be clearer: we must protect the vulnerable and help those who can work to get the support to do so, because work is not just about pay; it is about pride, personal responsibility and the health benefits that come from it. Yet this Government are failing to help people who want work to find it. A welfare system worthy of the name should help people up, not hold them down. We will judge this Government by their record. Unemployment, as I have said, is increasing, and sickness claims are going up.
Helping people is why, when we were in government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) introduced universal credit to simplify welfare and reward work, which halved unemployment between 2010 and the pandemic. We were making real progress. Of course, the pandemic created a real challenge for us and we saw a rise in claims, particularly for mental health. The shadow Chancellor, whose name has been taken in vain, actually put in place a number of reforms that were going to drive down the claims that were coming through. He put in place universal support to help people. He put in place WorkWell, a great scheme that has been effective in Norfolk.
The big point is that welfare spending on health and disability benefits is set to hit £100 billion by the end of this Parliament—a point made by the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst)—which is twice what we spend on defence. Yet what do we see? We see a Government with no serious intent to bring the total down. Indeed, the PIP review that has been announced, which will not report for ages, specifically excludes savings from its terms of reference.
Despite increasing taxes, the Government are apparently going to lift the two-child policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) has already made a good argument for why that should not happen, so I will not repeat it, but it prompts the question of why the Government, despite critiquing the last Government for apparently spending too much on welfare, do not have a plan to do anything. They could look at the plan that the shadow Secretary of State has set out, which would deliver £23 billion across the board. We should be guided by Conservative principles: living within our means, protecting the most vulnerable, and making sure that work always pays and that those who can work do so.
We have a duty to ensure that the system is fair and sustainable. From the moment that Labour Members blocked their own reforms, we have seen a Government with no ideas and a Chancellor who is clear that spending restraint does not form any part of her plans. Taxes are going up and welfare spending is going up, but there is an alternative: back our motion and build a welfare system that truly works for Britain.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to contribute briefly on this huge topic. While I am glad to discuss welfare reform, I am perplexed as to why the Conservatives would want to do so, given their completely disastrous record. In response to the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), I wonder whether he has read the plans for their £23 billion-worth of welfare cuts, on the back of the fag packet on which it is displayed, because there are no details to speak of on things such as housing benefit, which was raised by the Minister beforehand.
I do not even think it is brass neck any more from the Conservatives; it is just desperate. Their hope is that we forget what they left us only last year, and forget what they were like in government: employment is lower than before the pandemic; 10 million households are now net recipients of Government support; 4.5 million children are growing up in poverty; 2.8 million people have been left languishing on waiting lists and out of work; and 1 million young people are out of work and have been left jobless in the first straits of their lives—all while we have record welfare spending, with billions of pounds spent every year on failure. Indeed, when the shadow Chancellor was at DWP—I made this point earlier—we saw the biggest rise in welfare spending since records began in 1996, including £33 billion in one year alone.
The Conservatives have zero credibility on this issue and a record of expensive failure. It is a disastrous legacy, which they ought to be utterly ashamed of. They left people in this country languishing on benefits and left out of work, and left us to pick up the bill for years to come. I have touched on their plan, so I will not say any more on that, but it feels a bit like standing next to an arsonist who is watching a house on fire and complaining, “Someone should really put that out,” having started the fire.
I am short of time, but I want to say something about reform—real reform, not the turquoise Tories of Reform UK, who I notice are not here for the debate and who I believe would destroy the welfare system as we understand it. We all know that welfare spending must come down, and we all want to get people into work—young people, disabled people and those who can, want and should work. The current system—the Conservatives’ system—does not enjoy public support system because of the Tories’ failure, and risks undermining the whole welfare state and social contract as we know it; hence our reforms earlier this year. If we believe in helping those who really need it—the disabled, the sick and those unable to work, whom the welfare state is designed for—we must make the tough choices that the Conservatives did not make over 14 years.
The current front door for the work capability assessment is not fit for purpose, and I am glad that we are doing away with it, but neither is the assessment for personal independence payments, as it is considered by many to be out of date and unfit for the modern wave of claimants living with mental health conditions and likewise. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on whether more reform in this area would be welcome and will come.
The arguments made for reform, which were explored in the papers earlier this year, still stand. Too many people are rolling on to PIP, too many are failing and falling out of work ill, and too many, having done so, are not re-entering the jobs market. So I am glad that we are stimulating more people into work through measures such as our £1 billion Pathways to Work guarantee. Because of the sheer number of applicants and particularly of successful applicants since the pandemic, we have to consider the appropriateness of some of the thresholds for people currently applying for PIP to ensure that the support is still there for those who really need it.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is interesting to hear what is being put forward, considering that this lot on the Conservative Benches created the welfare system that we currently have, and that lot on the Labour Benches are keeping it going. The reality is that the mini-Budget that massively changed house prices and meant mortgage interest rates went through the roof has contributed to the cost of living crisis. The reality is that Brexit has meant that we are all worse off. The reality is that, with a UK Labour Government now, the economy is not growing: there is no creation of jobs and, for example, we still have a massive issue with productivity. We still have an incredibly broken system, and the problem is Westminster—it is all of you; every one of you on both sides has contributed to the current system.
People are not standing up today to talk about the fact that we have child poverty, and to say that what the welfare system should be doing is improving that system so we do not have so much child poverty. Child poverty is reducing in Scotland. However, the child poverty strategy was pushed back from the spring to the autumn, and now the Minister for Social Security and Disability is saying that it will be the end of the year. When he stood up, he said he was going to seek the support of the House for the Government’s mission, but he is not actually going to do so. What he is going to do tonight is vote against the Tory motion. The Government have not put forward an amendment laying out their plans for what they intend to do.
The Tory motion is a complete and total mess. The Tories seem to be trying to assign value to humans. They seem to be saying, “As long as you’re earning a significant amount of money, you were born in the UK and you’re a British citizen, you’re okay. If you are not—if you don’t fit in those boxes—you are somehow less valuable.”
Both sides have been making the argument that people are either getting universal credit and other benefits or they are in work, but those two things are not mutually exclusive. For a significant number of people, work does not pay. The income of a significant number of people has to be supported by the welfare system, because the economy that both sides have created means they are not getting enough money to be able to pay for the basic things they need. The price of butter, olive oil, potatoes and rice has gone through the roof, and people cannot afford their energy bills because of rampant inflation, which continues, and the cost of living crisis continues to bite because wages have not kept pace with those prices.
The current welfare system is not reducing poverty, but it also has to support people currently in work because they are not getting enough money. If the Conservatives are assigning value to humans—saying that people who are not UK citizens do not necessarily deserve benefits—they are going to be having very interesting conversations with expats in Spain and Canada, with which we have reciprocal social security arrangements. They will be immensely furious that they will no longer be eligible for any of the support they receive from those Governments, and I think it is bizarre for the Conservatives to support such a position, given how many of those expats are Conservative voters who are going to be monumentally stuffed as a result of the Tory position.
I think it is absolutely ridiculous that we are here listening to the Conservatives, who created this system, arguing about how terrible it is. What we should be doing—
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Kirsty Blackman
No, thank you.
What we should be doing in the Budget and in the child poverty strategy is talking about how the welfare system should support people and about how the welfare system fails to support people. I wish the Minister for Social Security and Disability well in his work co-producing his report, but the welfare system is currently broken, and that is not because the costs are spiralling out of control. The welfare system is currently broken because people are being demonised simply for claiming enough to live on.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I call the shadow Minister.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I want to start the debate by acknowledging the fact that many Members here do not know that much about me. The debate so far, with this caricature of Conservatives who do not care, has saddened me. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who is no longer in his place, I am entirely motivated by social justice and care for the most vulnerable, as are many colleagues on the Conservative Benches. Indeed, it was my right hon. Friend who founded the Centre for Social Justice, which I know feeds in a huge amount of work to what the Labour party is doing. So I just want to set the record straight. We just differ in how we help. We are also that voice for the voiceless, the hard-working individuals and families who want the system to be fair for them, as well as for the most vulnerable. That is why I believe that reforming Britain’s welfare system is a moral imperative.
As Conservatives, we believe in the dignity of work. We believe that work provides purpose, independence and, ultimately, a path from poverty to prosperity. We want to empower people to take control of their own lives, not abandon them to a lifetime on benefits. But right now, as we have heard multiple times this afternoon, work simply does not pay. A person on sickness benefits can get between £2,500 and £5,000 more per year than a worker on the minimum wage, which is something that my constituents have been at pains to ensure that I am aware of. They are hard-working business owners who cannot believe that those figures mean that somebody working is often less well-off than somebody who is not. Faced with such a disparity, it is easy to understand why living off welfare is a more attractive option for many.
I am a Conservative because I believe in personal responsibility and living within our means. I see our welfare system as a safety net for the most vulnerable, not a lifestyle choice, as has been mentioned several times in the debate. However, that safety net has reached its breaking point. By 2030, around £1 in every £4 of income tax will be spent on health and disability benefits. That is nearly £100 billion—an eyewatering sum that surpasses our entire defence budget. Only the Conservatives have a realistic and sustainable plan for reforming the welfare system. We will get more people into work, while providing support for those facing genuine need.
When our Government left office, over 4 million more people were in work than in 2010.
Rebecca Smith
I am going to make some progress, if I may.
Youth unemployment had fallen by nearly 380,000, giving far more young people the security of a meaningful career. However, under this Government, the unemployment rate is set to reach 5% by next year, compared with 4.1% a year ago. We have already heard that graduate jobs have gone down by a third since last year, and we have 1 million young people not in education, employment or training.
So far, Labour has shown little appetite for making tough decisions. As we have already seen, the Prime Minister’s plan to reduce welfare spending ended with a U-turn, with key measures being ditched in a last-minute attempt to win over his own MPs. I do not think I will ever forget the day the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Bill became simply the Universal Credit Bill mid debate—a parliamentary pantomime, or even a farce, that encapsulates the Labour party’s inability to take welfare reform seriously.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has admitted that his much-anticipated review being conducted by the Minister for Social Security and Disability, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), the Timms review, will not involve any welfare cuts. That means that our public spending will continue to rise, running out of control, and taxes will inevitably rise at the next Budget. Labour is now staring at a £9.3 billion welfare black hole. Scrapping the personal independence payment reforms alone will cost £4.5 billion by 2030.
To truly encourage people into work, we need to look at long-term solutions. It is easy to dish out sickness benefits. It is harder to provide the right combination of physical and psychological support to ensure that people facing challenges can keep or find meaningful employment. Yet these are the solutions we owe it to people to deliver, offering them a chance at a better future, one that is not entirely reliant on the state. That is why the Conservatives have set out a clear plan that will reduce the welfare bill by £23 billion. We urge the Government to consider our proposals.
First, we must prioritise British citizens in our welfare system. That means making the system fairer and preventing non-UK citizens from claiming benefits such as universal credit, the personal independence payment and the carer’s allowance.
Secondly, we must stop benefits for those with lower-level mental health conditions. Under this Government, 5,000 people are being signed off work sick every single day. This figure has ballooned to twice the size it was last year, mainly because thousands of people are signing up to benefits for less severe mental health issues, including anxiety and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Dr Luke Evans
One of the concerns I have when we discuss mental health in this place is the confusion between mental health and mental wellbeing. Everyone has mental wellbeing challenges—we saw that in the pandemic—but not everyone has a mental health issue. It is absolutely normal, for example, to get very anxious going to a driving test; it is not normal to have that response going to the supermarket. Those two things need different responses and different treatment; some might need support and help into the workforce, while medical support is needed for those with serious mental health issues. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is so important that we acknowledge this discrepancy when we debate the issue, to ensure that we get the policies right for both the patient and the taxpayer?
Rebecca Smith
I bow to my hon. Friend’s medical wisdom. I agree that we need to give people hope and ensure that our policies tackle the most severe mental health problems. However, if is mental wellbeing that we are talking about, we need to do more to ensure that people have the skills and tools to stay in work, so that they can enjoy the future that they can have.
Given the right support, many people benefit enormously from the social interaction and sense of achievement that comes from regular employment. Holding down a job provides a sense of agency, and breaks the cycle of dependency. Enabling access to benefits for those whom we should be encouraging to work feels perverse and is a dereliction of duty.
Thirdly, we must increase face-to-face assessments for disability benefits. Since the covid-19 restrictions, the number of face-to-face assessments has tanked, with 90% now happening over the phone. This is unacceptable, and has opened the door to so-called sickfluencers, who are coaching people online on the right words to say to get the maximum amount of benefit. Insisting on in-person appointments will mitigate this issue. With the Chancellor now beginning to blame covid for the economic challenges she faces, other Departments should be free to acknowledge the same and crack on with changing things back—in this case, to in-person assessments.
Fourthly, we must reform the Motability scheme so that only those with serious disabilities qualify for a vehicle.
Rebecca Smith
Sorry; I am going to continue.
Motability is a lifeline for those with serious mobility issues, yet under Labour, Motability costs have surged by almost 10%.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Rebecca Smith
I am going to continue because I am running out of time.
We will stop taxpayers subsidising new cars for people with ADHD and tennis elbow, and will ensure that the scheme is targeted at those with genuine mobility issues. It is not compassionate to pretend that our welfare system can solve everyone’s problems. If we continue turning a blind eye to misuses of the system, it will not be robust enough to help those who need it most.
Lastly, we must keep the two-child benefit cap in order to encourage people into work and to strengthen our economy. Having parents with a stable job is the best foundation from which a child can better their prospects in life. Of course we want children and families to thrive, but fairness requires that families on benefits should face the same decisions as those in work about whether they can afford another child. The Conservatives are the only party that believes in keeping the cap and living within our means; Labour, Reform and the Liberal Democrats would all scrap it, costing £3.5 billion by the end of this decade. As I have said before, scrapping the two-child benefit cap, like rolling out universal free school breakfasts, is a sticking plaster at best that will not tackle the root causes of poverty—something that I believe we all want to do.
By returning to sustainable levels of welfare spending, a Conservative Government will build a stronger economy. These welfare savings will enable us to axe stamp duty on primary residences, helping first-time buyers to get on to the property ladder. We will introduce a permanent 100% business rates relief for the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors, enabling a quarter of a million businesses to invest in better premises, more staff and lower prices. We will deliver a £5,000 first jobs bonus, giving a boost to young people’s savings or home deposit.
The Conservatives are the party that backs ordinary working people who play by the rules, while Labour seems bent on making our country into a welfare state with an economy attached. We urge the Government to reform the welfare system. They must continue to provide support for those who need it, while refusing to consign people to a lifetime on benefits.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
The reason why we are having this debate is straightforward: the welfare system is broken. We have begun the job of fixing it, but the fact is that the system was broken by the Conservatives. They oversaw 14 years of failure on welfare until they were kicked out last year.
Johanna Baxter
Does my hon. Friend agree that we should take no lectures from the people who broke the system in the first place? In Scotland, one in six young people are not in education, employment or training; 12,000 Scots have been stuck on NHS waiting lists for over two years, and 8,300 people are economically inactive in Renfrewshire alone due to ill health. Far from lecturing us, should Conservative Members not look at themselves first?
Andrew Western
I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. [Laughter.] I see Members are surprised to learn that. She passionately makes the case that neither the SNP nor the Conservatives should be listened to on this issue. If I were in the Conservatives’ position, I might want to shy away from the subject, given their unenviable record. Their Government left us with a social security system that traps on benefits hundreds of thousands who could work and want to work. Fraud against the public sector was at eye-watering levels; some of the Department for Work and Pension’s powers to tackle fraud were over 20 years out of date; and a generation of young people have been neglected—there was a shameful rise in child poverty, and nearly a million young people were left out of work, education or training.
The Conservatives ignored every warning light on the dashboard while they drove down opportunity and drove up inactivity. They delivered the worst of all worlds, and now they have the cheek to come to this place and preach fiscal rectitude. We are cleaning up the mess that they left behind.
Let me turn to comments made in the debate, beginning with those by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). She talked of generations of families experiencing persistent worklessness, but this is a system that the Conservatives built. She gave an example of a young man in Bridgend who she says “fears” that he would be worse off in work, but who created that system? Where has that disincentive come from? The Conservatives entrenched that fear.
I fundamentally disagree with the shadow Secretary of State’s analysis, because the personal independence payment is an enabler of work for many people. It is there to meet the additional costs of disability and help disabled people with day-to-day living costs, and it helps many of them get to and from the workplace. She talked about the trajectory of welfare spend, but who set us on that trajectory? We heard that covid was to blame, yet 2022, 2023 and the first half of 2024 were not the ideal time to begin addressing the issue. Funnily enough, that ideal time was from July 2024. The Conservatives are running from their record, and they are right to do so.
We heard that the number of face-to-face assessments is too low. I absolutely agree that the number of face-to-face assessments needs to increase, but the shadow Secretary of State would do well to remember that the contracts we are signed up to were signed by the Conservatives, and they commit the contractors to 20% of assessments being face-to-face. This is the problem.
We also heard from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), who is not in his place. He was right to highlight the shocking way that economic inactivity spiralled between 2019 and 2024, and to reference the state of the national health service. However, I will briefly correct his suggestion that NHS spending is being cut under the Government. We are increasing day-to-day NHS spending in real terms by £18.5 billion by 2028-29.
The hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), whom I like very much, congratulated the shadow Secretary of State on her £23 billion package of savings. I hope he shares my concern about the fact that the shadow Secretary of State was unable to say how much of that was coming from proposed changes to housing benefit. I hope that he noted the same irony that I did: earlier, the shadow Secretary of State responded to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) by telling him that he thought he was so clever for knowing his statistics. If only she could say the same of herself.
We then heard from the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), who espoused the virtues of living within our means. That would have had significantly more clout had the Conservative party done the same in the welfare space in recent years.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) said that Britain under Labour had stopped working. I remind him that over 700,000 more people are in work now than were before the election, and economic inactivity is down by 363,000.
Andrew Western
I will not. The hon. Member said that we should respect the next generation and respect the fact, too, that taxes are too high, but the Conservatives left almost a million young people out of work and many trapped in a housing crisis, and they left the highest tax burden since the second world war.
As ever, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) gave a passionate speech about child poverty. I share her concerns about levels of child poverty, but it is my understanding that her SNP Government in Scotland missed their interim child poverty target in 2023-24.
I turn to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith). We face each other a lot across the Dispatch Box, and I know that she cares—I do not question that—but we fundamentally disagree on the best way to help people, and that is particularly shown by the motion before us. Let us go through it. It begins:
“this House regrets the failure of the Government to get people off welfare and into work”.
That was a failure of their Government. It continues:
“believes that reforming the welfare system is a moral mission”—
yes, the Conservatives do believe that, now that they are in opposition—
“and therefore calls on the Government to take urgent action to fix Britain’s welfare system by restricting welfare for non-UK citizens”.
They have given no explanation, either in any of their speeches or in the text of the motion, of who that applies to. That is vague. Does it include those covered by the withdrawal agreement, those here under the Ukraine and Afghan schemes, or just those who came over as part of the Boris wave? Without such specificity, how could anyone support the motion?
The same applies to the proposal to stop benefits for those with
“lower-level mental health conditions”.
Again, that phrase is poorly defined. What are lower-level mental health conditions? PIP is not condition-based, at any rate, and we would hope that the Conservative party would know that, because it created that benefit. The Opposition then call for an increase in the number of “face-to-face assessments”. As I said, we are keen to achieve that, and we will do so, but we are constrained by the contracts that they signed, which restrict face-to-face assessments to just 20%.
The motion mentions
“reforming the Motability Scheme so that only those with serious disabilities qualify for a vehicle”.
Again, what is a “serious” disability? It is impossible to know from the text of the motion, or indeed from any of the speeches made. The motion then mentions
“retaining the two-child benefit cap”.
Hon. Members across the House are well aware that we will shortly bring forward our child poverty strategy, and that all levers available are under consideration, so we could never support that statement at this stage.
All that is rounded off with the line:
“to get people into employment and build a stronger economy.”
What a joke when we consider that the Conservatives left us as the only G7 country with a lower employment rate than we had before the pandemic. The motion, like the plan that it aims to underline, is not worth the paper that it is written on. I urge all Members to oppose it.
Question put.
Petitions
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I present a petition on behalf of British national overseas passport holders in my constituency and beyond. The petition
“Declares that altering the 5+1 settlement route for British National Overseas (BNO) passport holders, which currently allows them to apply for Indefinite Leave to remain after 5 years and citizenship a year after that,”
which could be changed by the Government, would be
“unfair…on a community of nearly 150,000 people who have made the UK their home following China’s imposition of a National Security Law on Hong Kong in 2020, and are largely expecting to become eligible for indefinite leave within the next year”.
Locally in Harrogate and Knaresborough, we have a thriving Hongkonger community that contributes in all walks of life. I am personally grateful to Albert Kam, who has helped round up over 300 signatures for the petition.
The petitioners
“therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to change course and keep the current 5+1 settlement route in place for those British National (Overseas) visa holders already residing in the UK, to ensure that they can continue to settle”
and contribute in their new lives in the UK.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that altering the 5+1 settlement route for British National Overseas (BNO) passport holders, which currently allows them to apply for Indefinite Leave to remain after 5 years and citizenship a year after that, but would likely be changed to 10 years under current plans, would be an unfair change on a community of nearly 150,000 people who have made the UK their home following China's imposition of a National Security Law on Hong Kong in 2020, and are largely expecting to become eligible for indefinite leave within the next year; and further declares that the changes will severely disrupt the dignity and stability of this group of people who are subject to transnational repression from China.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to change course and keep the current 5+1 settlement route in place for those British National (Overseas) visa holders already residing in the UK, to ensure that they can continue to settle into their new lives in the UK.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003125]
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on specialist treatment for stroke patients at Scarborough hospital. It declares that
“Scarborough Hospital should once again provide specialist emergency assessment, investigation, treatment and care for patients who are potentially suffering from, or have suffered from, an acute stroke”.
Currently, my constituents have to travel more than 40 miles on the traffic-choked A64 to be assessed and treated in York.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Scarborough and Whitby,
Declares that Scarborough Hospital should once again provide specialist emergency assessment, investigation, treatment and care for patients who are potentially suffering from, or have suffered from, an acute stroke; and further declares that this is to avoid the need for patients to be transported, over 40 miles and often many more, to York Hospital from the East Coast region, and so that they do not undergo a lengthy and slow journey causing unnecessarily excessive clinical delays to their management out with current national guidelines, and so that their friends and relatives are able to readily visit them at a time of distress and need.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take steps to ensure that Scarborough Hospital can again offer timely and accessible emergency care to acute stroke patients in Scarborough, Whitby, and the East Coast catchment area.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003127]
Sudan: Government Support
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
We are in Remembrance Week, when we remember the dead of past wars. Right now in Sudan, a war as murderous and horrible as anything the world has faced is shattering the lives of civilians, of children, of women and of men, in ways we can scarcely countenance.
I have secured this debate because what is going on in Sudan cannot continue. The fall of the city of El Fasher, after a brutal 18-month siege, is the latest disaster in what the Foreign Secretary accurately described at the weekend as
“the largest humanitarian crisis in the 21st century.”
Over the past week, reports have been coming in of executions, forced expulsions and organised massacres—the evidence of which is literally visible from space, with images of carnage and bodies strewn in the streets. Conditions in El Fasher have been described as “apocalyptic”. However, this was not unexpected. Tragically, it was very much predicted, with warnings from numerous sources. Descriptions of El Fasher as another Srebrenica are not misplaced, although they are in many ways worse.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate and for all his work across Africa before coming to this place. I respect him greatly for his desire for human betterment.
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I have spoken and asked questions about Sudan some 14 times in the past year—as have others—because I am acutely aware of the precarious situation for Christians in the region. Christians have been murdered in the beastliness and wickedness that is happening. Patients and staff have been murdered in hospital. I have consistently asked the Government to step up support for those who are being targeted because of their faith. It grieves me greatly, it grieves the hon. Gentleman greatly, it grieves us all greatly. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must use any and all methods at our disposal to help those desperately needy and innocent people as a matter of urgency?
Brian Mathew
I thank the hon. Member for his kind comments. I agree with him, and I hope to put forward some ideas that may prove useful.
There are no United Nations peacekeepers on hand even to witness the killings. Current events are a continuation of a calculated political strategy to destroy and ethnically cleanse a province that gives its name to one of the tribes —namely the Fur. The Zaghawa, Berti and Masalit tribes have been similarly targeted in a strategy that began, arguably, well over 20 years ago. Despite the commendable efforts to improve international accountability—including through support for the International Criminal Court and UN fact-finding missions—as well as the efforts of many Members here and our UK aid programme to raise awareness and support the Sudanese people, what has been done so far is clearly not enough.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Over 30 million people now need humanitarian aid in Sudan, and millions more have been displaced, with countless others living in fear, hunger and deprivation. Does the hon. Member agree that this crisis has been overlooked for far too long and that, for the sake of humanity, we need to turn our attention to Sudan and do what we can to provide aid and support to those who so desperately need it?
Brian Mathew
I heartily agree with the hon. Member.
Humanitarian workers are also under threat, and I commend the work being done as we speak by groups like Doctors without Borders—MSF—and the International Committee of the Red Cross. MSF has been treating hundreds fleeing El Fasher over the last week, including men, women and children suffering from severe malnutrition, gunshot wounds and other injuries linked to beatings and torture. As a former aid worker who has lived and worked in Sudan, although many years ago, I want to express my deep sadness over the killing of five Sudanese Red Crescent Society volunteers in Bara, North Kordofan. Humanitarian workers are often the first and sometimes only responders for people in desperate situations around the world, and they selflessly give their time and skills, as well as their courage and compassion. My heart goes out to their families.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Does he agree that part of the great tragedy of Sudan has been the way it is unfairly overshadowed by conflicts happening elsewhere in the world, and we should be less squeamish about pointing that out to the public here in the United Kingdom and the rest of the world?
Brian Mathew
I totally agree; we need to be far more outspoken on this issue.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this debate. When I read the transcript from the International Development Committee, I was struck by the contribution from Liz Ditchburn, who said that the Government’s approach to this was not sufficiently structured and that there needed to be focus and strategy. Does he agree that we need to convene such focus and strategy in this place in order to have a comprehensive response?
Brian Mathew
I very much agree with the hon. Lady, and I hope that my speech will bring some ideas to the floor.
The Government need to be bolder, more direct and proactive in their work to support Sudan and the Sudanese people. As UN Security Council penholder on Sudan and lead in the core group on Sudan at the UN Human Rights Council for the protection of civilians, it is our duty to try every possible avenue to push for peace and change. I am sure we are all glad to see the recent announcement from the Foreign Secretary that £5 million in aid will be going to Sudan, in addition to the £120 million already allocated this financial year, with £2 million specifically going to support survivors of sexual violence. This conflict has been particularly devasting for the women and girls subjected to that violence. They often have no potential recourse, justice or even access to the most basic health services after being attacked.
We need to look to the future and to recommendations from the sources that predicted the ongoing violence. Protection Approaches, an organisation that repeatedly predicted the potential for extreme violence in El Fasher, has pointed to the city of Tawila as a next step in the trajectory of the Rapid Support Forces’ strategy.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for doing so much on this issue. In January 2025, the Biden Administration said they judged that the RSF and associated militias had committed genocide in Sudan. I have had a number of constituents from the Sudanese community in Stockport and across Greater Manchester contact me about the horrors taking place in Sudan. Does the hon. Member agree that our own Government should make a similar assessment?
Brian Mathew
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I agree with him. Will the Government do for Tawila what was not done for El Geneina, Zamzam, or El Fasher, and recognise its precariousness before it is too late? Will the Government use every diplomatic pressure and avenue available to secure guarantees that humanitarian assistance and aid can be delivered unimpeded?
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for securing this important debate, and to everyone who has participated. He mentioned impediments to aid, and he will be aware that the most recent, very disturbing IPC assessment showed that famine is taking place in El Fasher and Kadugli. That came out after the quad statement from the US, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE. On the subject of diplomatic pressure, does the hon. Member agree it is important that the UK uses its influence with those quad members, to say that they must pressure the belligerents to stop blocking that much needed aid in this famine situation?
Brian Mathew
I completely agree with the right hon. Lady and thank her for raising that point. A third of children under five in El Fasher are suffering from acute malnutrition, and some are resorting to eating animal feed and plant waste to survive. I would hope that everything possible will be done to allow humanitarian corridors to open for civilians to leave besieged areas, and to be assured they are not going from the frying pan into the fire. The supply of weaponry and military equipment is the oxygen keeping this conflict alive, and we as penholder should lead efforts to impose a binding, enforceable arms embargo across all of Sudan.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
My hon. Friend urges an arms embargo, and for the UK to use its role as penholder at the UN Security Council, but Martin Griffiths has said that peace is likely to come out of the region through powers such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Does my hon. Friend think that the UK should be using its bilateral relations with those countries to bring peace?
Brian Mathew
I know my hon. Friend has military expertise so I thank him for his points. Crucially, we must also suspend arms sales to the United Arab Emirates. The fact that British-made weapons, tools and equipment could be flowing into the hands of those perpetrating these actions is terrible beyond words, and I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), who said that equipment made on our soil must never end up in the hands of those committing such atrocities.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
My hon. Friend raises an important point in his powerful speech, and I would like to take it further. Even if British-made weaponry is not being diverted and ending up on the battlefield in Sudan, the UK is still breaching sections 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 of its own arms export licensing criteria. Those rules not only prohibit the export of weapons that are proven to be misused, but they also restrict their sale to any country that may use arms to violate international humanitarian law. Does my hon. Friend agree that in exporting arms to the UAE, the Government have been acting contrary to international humanitarian law, and that we must stop selling arms to the UAE?
Brian Mathew
I agree with my hon. Friend. We must ensure that this business with arms is stopped. The atrocities that we are witnessing through the news, with the work of Barbara Plett Usher at the BBC, others at The Guardian and Al Jazeera, and through social media trickling through the media blackout, will be remembered for generations. El Fasher, like Srebrenica before it, will sadly likely stand as a symbol of what happens when the world turns a blind eye.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this very important debate. He has mentioned Srebrenica and the Bosnian conflict twice. Does he agree that in years gone by, conflicts causing immense humanitarian suffering, death and carnage resulted in international, UN-mandated military forces protecting civilians and humanitarian corridors? Is it not a reflection on the sorry state of international affairs that that does not even seem to be on the table as an option, despite this being the greatest humanitarian crisis that the world faces right now?
Brian Mathew
I agree with the hon. Gentleman; the world needs to wake up. As the penholder, we have the means and the moral responsibility to act and ensure that we and the rest of the world do not turn our backs on Sudan once more.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this important debate. I have been to Srebrenica, and I was in Sudan in 2002. As I travelled with my research team to the northern Nubian desert, our path was blocked by the presence of the Wagner Group, which was training the RSF militia and extracting vast quantities of gold. This is an internationalised civil war. Does my hon. Friend agree that an internationalised civil war requires an internationalised solution? Britain is morally bound to play a leading role in assembling a coalition of the willing.
Brian Mathew
I agree with my hon. Friend.
I call on the Government to follow on from the London Sudan conference held in April and hold a Lancaster House-style peace conference for all the parties to the conflict. They must hold it in a place of safety, on neutral ground, where peace in Sudan and the means to achieve it can be fully debated and a way forward can be found for peace, reconciliation and rebuilding. Some may say that such a journey is impossible, but if we do not try, we will not succeed. If a journey begins with a single step, let this be such a step. We cannot and must not allow the killing, torture and rape to continue.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this really important topic. I suggest one additional thing he might feel that he needs to add: a sense of urgency to get this solution in place. Does he agree?
Brian Mathew
I totally agree. I thank my hon. Friend for that point. With that, I will conclude my remarks.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) for securing this debate at such a critical moment for Sudan, which I know will be a matter of concern not only to this House and to his constituents, but to all our constituents across the country. I also thank him for his contribution to this morning’s Westminster Hall debate on official development assistance —I know there are Members here who also spoke in that debate. I acknowledge his work on the International Development Committee and his work in aid prior to entering this House. I thank the other hon. Members who have contributed to this debate.
The hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes will have followed the urgent question on Sudan in the House last week, to which the Minister of State at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), replied. I am responding on his behalf tonight.
I recognise the seriousness of the situation that we are witnessing. The conflict has left more than 30 million people in need of urgent help in what is the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. Supporting Sudan remains a vital and top priority for this Government. We have heard a number of contributions about freedom of religion and belief, so perhaps I can briefly speak to that issue before I continue my remarks.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The United Kingdom has always stood as a defender of human rights. I say this with deep conviction: how many burned churches and murdered worshippers in Nigeria and Sudan will it take before we call this what it is: namely, a campaign to exterminate Christians? British aid must never bankroll corruption or indifference. Will the Minister urgently press the Governments of Sudan and Nigeria to protect all citizens, but particularly Christians, and ensure that our aid goes towards addressing their needs?
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. Perhaps I can reassure her by saying that the UK remains extremely concerned about the persecution of individuals on the basis of their religion or belief, a point that has also been made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) during the debate. We have strongly condemned the violence in El Fasher and north Darfur, as well as attacks on places of worship, including in other countries across the world. We also regularly use our role as leader of the core group on Sudan at the Human Rights Council to advocate for the protection of civilians in line with international law, including the right to freedom of religion and belief.
Turning to some of the other points that have been made, as has been referred to, we have recently seen advances by the Rapid Support Forces into El Fasher, accompanied by shocking reports of mass murder and rape. Last week, the Foreign Secretary condemned the horrific massacre at the Saudi maternity hospital, as well as the murder of five very courageous humanitarian workers, and called on the RSF to urgently facilitate rapid, safe and unimpeded humanitarian access across El Fasher. That point has been made extremely powerfully by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who has raised this issue and the need to support action in Sudan several times in recent weeks. I thank her for her contributions.
As the United Nations Security Council penholder, we called an urgent council meeting on 30 October to respond to the worsening crisis, and penned a press statement condemning the RSF’s assault. Last week we mobilised £23 million in emergency aid for El Fasher, and on 1 November the Foreign Secretary announced a further £5 million to help get food, clean water and medical supplies to over 100,000 people in north Darfur. Our special representative to Sudan, Richard Crowder, remains in contact with the RSF and its political alliance, Tasis, pressing for restraint and reminding it of its obligations under international law. We are also talking to international partners, calling on those who have influence over the parties to use it to urge restraint and bring them to the table.
The hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes made a very important point when he said that this cannot go on—we need to find a way to establish a ceasefire and ensure that we have a political solution. As such, our approach to Sudan is based on three pillars: first, pushing for that permanent ceasefire and supporting a civilian-led transition; secondly, securing unimpeded humanitarian access in order to deliver lifesaving aid; and thirdly, protecting civilians and ensuring accountability.
In April, as has also been referred to, the UK convened the London Sudan conference, alongside co-hosts France, Germany, the EU and the African Union. That conference brought together a broad coalition of international partners to build consensus on protecting civilians, improving humanitarian access and ending the conflict.
We have sustained the momentum built by the conference, and at the UN General Assembly in September the Foreign Secretary hosted high-level events, alongside our conference co-hosts, refocusing global attention on the crisis and the urgent need for action. That call for a continuation of global attention has been echoed by a number of Members this evening. The UK special representative for Sudan has maintained regular engagement with Sudanese civil society—including the anti-war coalition Sumud—and has done so, for instance, through the Sudan stability and growth programme, which aims to support Sudan on the path to an inclusive, resilient and peaceful political settlement. UK support has helped to establish Sudan’s largest pro-democracy coalition, and has included work with 200 women to shape a national political dialogue.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the Minister for what she has said, but can she tell me how the UK is approaching the UAE, especially in relation to the supply of arms and the use of mercenaries who are being deployed into Sudan?
Seema Malhotra
I should first make it clear—as the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, did recently—that we take very seriously allegations that UK-made military equipment may have been transferred to Sudan in breach of the UK arms embargo. The UK has one of the most robust and transparent export control regimes in the world. There is no evidence in recent reporting of UK weapons or ammunition being used in Sudan, and there are no current export licences for the equipment reported on. However, my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) may wish to continue to raise her concerns with my hon. Friend the Minister of State.
The UK continues to emphasise that external support for warring parties only fuels the conflict, and we urge all actors to press for that vital political solution. We welcome the Quad’s efforts to secure an immediate three-month ceasefire, and to end this terrible suffering. Conversations continue with members of the Quad and others across the international community.
Seema Malhotra
I am conscious of time and will continue my speech, although I may be able to give way in due course.
On humanitarian aid, the UK remains one of the largest donors to Sudan, and the Prime Minister has made it clear that funding to Sudan will be protected for the next three years. At the London Sudan conference in April, we also announced £120 million in new funding to reach more than 650,000 people with food, cash, water, sanitation and nutritional support this year. In May, Baroness Chapman announced a further £36 million for Sudanese refugees in Chad to help to ease the regional burden of displacement, and UK aid has already reached 2.5 million people since the conflict began. Last year alone, we treated more than 98,000 children for malnutrition, gave 744,000 people access to clean water, and supported 71,000 victims of international humanitarian law violations with cash assistance.
Tessa Munt
Returning to the conference, is the Minister absolutely certain that all the actors in the region were part of the conference? There has been reference to the United Arab Emirates, and there are other actors in that region who did not seem to be on the list of people she mentioned who might have been here in April.
Seema Malhotra
We continue to work with the members of the Quad, and with others across the international community. In our role as penholder we continue to engage with the international community, because we need to see a ceasefire and a political solution.
Seema Malhotra
I will try to give way later. In relation to support from the UK—
Draft Trade Act 2021 (Power to Implement International Trade Agreements) (Extension to Expiry) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Trade Act 2021 (Power to Implement International Trade Agreements) (Extension to Expiry) Regulations 2025.
I have never been so kindly called by the Chair in Committee, Mr Stringer, so thank you very much. It is a genuine delight to sit under your chairmanship.
The draft regulations will authorise the enactment of sections 2(10)(b) and 2(11) of the Trade Act 2021 and extend the power under section 2(1) for a further period of five years. The proposed extension is a vital measure to ensure that the UK can remain flexible and proactive in managing its trade relations with important international partners. By extending the power, the Government will be able to pursue their ambitious trade agenda with minimal interruption.
To provide the Committee with a little more background, the Act was introduced by Liz Truss, but that does not mean it is all wrong. When it received Royal Assent back in 2021 under the previous Administration, the legislation granted the UK Government the authority to implement, through domestic law, trade agreements with countries that previously had such arrangements with the EU before Brexit. That is specified in section 2 of the Act. In practice, under the power in section 2(1), the Act enabled Ministers from the UK Government, as well as those from the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, to make regulations via secondary legislation, specifically to address non-tariff elements of such agreements.
Rightful concerns about the scope of the power were expressed in Parliament at the time, including by the Labour party, resulting in the previous Government having to introduce several safeguards, including a sunset clause meaning that the power in section 2(1) will lapse at 11 pm on 31 December 2025 unless extended for up to five years by affirmative statutory instrument, which is what this Committee is about. We believe that such an extension is now necessary for our trade programme.
Any agreement that may have aspects implemented by that provision and that falls within the scope of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 will still be subject to the usual pre-ratification scrutiny, alongside the Government’s additional commitments to parliamentary transparency and oversight. All the original safeguards that we fought for at the time of the 2021 Act’s passage will remain in place. The draft regulations will have no effect on them.
We will continue to ensure that the power cannot be used to lower UK standards in areas such as the protection of human, animal or plant life, animal welfare, environmental protection, employment and labour rights, data protection, and safeguarding children and vulnerable adults online. Regulations made under section 2(1) of the 2021 Act that affect healthcare services must also uphold the principle of a publicly funded healthcare system. I cannot see a single Member on the Government side who was in the House when the 2021 legislation went through, so I realise I might be telling people ancient history.
Since coming into office, the Labour Government have made considerable progress in negotiating agreements that may require the continued use of section 2(1) beyond its expiry. It is crucial that we retain the ability to implement the outcomes of such negotiations. That is vital not only for businesses operating under new terms, but for maintaining the UK’s reputation as a dependable trading partner.
In practice, the extension could facilitate the implementation of forthcoming agreements with major partners, such as Switzerland, worth some £45 billion in trade, and Türkiye, worth some £28 billion. The agreements, once operational, are expected to deliver substantial economic benefits, open new markets, create jobs and stimulate growth across the UK. Without the power under section 2(1), delivering on our negotiated successes would be significantly more challenging. I am sure no Members of the House want to make that the case.
It is worth noting that the power under section 2(1) has already been used to implement agreements domestically, enabling the passage of statutory instruments on matters ranging from chemicals to roaming charges. The powers may also be needed for the ongoing management of existing arrangements, an example of which is to facilitate changes to the wholesale rates set out in an annexe to the European economic area and European Free Trade Association free trade agreement with the UK.
What I am trying to demonstrate to colleagues, I hope successfully, is the range of circumstances in which the power may be required. Extending section 2(1), therefore, is the most sensible course of action. A five-year extension is necessary to provide comprehensive coverage and to address any unforeseen issues that may arise during the ongoing administration of our trade agreements. Given the reasons that I have outlined and the assurances that I have made, I trust that the Committee will support the measure.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. His Majesty’s Opposition do not intend to detain the Committee any longer than necessary.
We welcome the Minister of State, whose feet have probably not touched the ground since his appointment, and wish him well in his endeavours to grow the economy by securing trade deals, lift people out of poverty and help to deliver the Government’s objective for growth. We are delighted that, in so doing, he is making the most of the benefits of Brexit—our freedom to determine our own trade deals. That is part of why the draft regulations are so important. Extension for another five years attracted the full support of the diligent House of Lords Legislative Scrutiny Committee—we thank it for its work, which is important in ensuring that this House discharges its job on secondary legislation properly. In this case, we are delighted to support the Government on the measure.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The Liberal Democrats strongly opposed the Trade Act 2021, as it failed to provide sufficient parliamentary scrutiny of future trade agreements and risked weakening the UK’s high standards on health, food, labour and the environment. Despite that, the Bill passed the House of Commons in July 2020 without amendment, despite cross-party efforts to introduce greater transparency and accountability.
In contrast to the Labour Back Benchers, I was there and I tabled those amendments to require transparent investment courts for investor disputes, to ensure human rights considerations in trade negotiations and to mandate impact assessments of trade agreements. Those, along with other Opposition amendments such as protections for the NHS and food standards, were voted down by the then Government.
The Liberal Democrats further criticised the Bill for lacking clear national priorities or principles to guide future trade negotiations, such as commitments on climate action, animal welfare and international development. We warned that that omission could lead to deals that lower standards or allow foreign influence over public services. Then and now, we believe that the 2021 Act grants excessive power to Ministers, excluding MPs from meaningful involvement, and it provides no guarantee that UK standards, public services or democratic accountability will be protected. We will not vote against this draft SI, but we will continue to call for reforms to ensure transparency, fairness and parliamentary scrutiny in future trade policy.
Chris Bryant
The shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, argued for the benefits of Brexit—well, I have searched very high and I have searched very, very low for those. The previous Government even had a Minister for the benefits of Brexit, although he lost his seat, of course, at the last general election. I was a remainer and I remain a remainer, and we know that there has been significant damage to our ability to prosper because of what Brexit did to us. When I was at the World Trade Organisation last week, it was striking how many countries pointed to the number of UK businesses that are no longer trading in Europe because of the difficulties relating to Brexit.
I will say two things. First, we are where we are and we intend to exploit the ability that we have by virtue of not being in the European Union to its utmost, so as to secure trade deals wherever we can in the rest of the world. It may be that in some instances we are able to lead the way, such as on the free trade agreement that we have agreed with India, which is a significant success. That will point the way for the EU itself, in some cases, to be able to follow in our wake. It also gives us a seat at the WTO for the first time, which means that we can lead some of the conversations on reform of the WTO at the ministerial conference next March in Cameroon.
We will exploit the opportunity, but secondly, we must also ensure that, wherever possible, we secure the frictionless trade that was promised us by the shadow Minister and his ilk. We will try to secure that with the European Union because, frankly, any business in the UK that manages to find an export opportunity is more likely to be more resilient, succeed and grow into the future, which is precisely what we want for British businesses.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, sounded very grumpy. I always think, when a Liberal Democrat stands up, that they will be full of cheer and joy, and then they are always grumpy. I sympathise with some of the arguments that she makes about scrutiny, and I want to make sure, as Trade Minister, that we can provide whatever scrutiny is possible without so limiting our freedom of action to secure a deal with another country. It is a very careful balancing act and we need to get it right.
I was the Minister in the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office who took forward the clauses in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—CRaG. I stand by them. We will provide as many opportunities as we possibly can in relation to all the trade deals that we are going through at the moment for people to scrutinise, question and, if necessary, tell Ministers off. I will now give way for what will probably be another grumpy Liberal Democrat intervention.
Sarah Olney
I will ask this question in the brightest way I possibly can. The Minister referenced CRaG, which was passed in 2010. Does he still think that that is a sufficient level of scrutiny, given that we are now outside the EU and in a different trading environment to the one that we were in when those provisions were made?
Chris Bryant
We would obviously always want to keep that under review. As part of the CRaG process everything gets notified to the several Committees that might have an interest. When I was on the Foreign Affairs Committee, it struck me that it was always at that moment that all the members would put their heads on the table—it was like the moment from “Absolutely Fabulous” when the accountant comes along.
There is a very strong argument that the whole of the House should take these trade issues far more seriously than we have in the past—though that is not me committing to changes in legislation, in case that is what the hon. Lady thought I was doing. She has started smiling again; it turns out I can put a smile on a Liberal Democrat face. However, I take the issue of how we consult extremely seriously. I know she is a trade envoy, and I still need to have a conversation with her about that.
Broadly speaking, everybody has said that they agree with the motion, so I should probably shut up.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Motor Fuel Price (Open Data) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Motor Fuel Price (Open Data) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell, in my first Statutory Instrument Committee as Minister for Energy Consumers. Through these regulations, we will establish the legislative basis for creating a statutory open data scheme called Fuel Finder, which will increase fuel price transparency across all UK petrol filling stations, empowering consumers to compare prices on a near real-time basis.
In recent years, fuel prices have risen and that has had a profound impact on households, businesses and communities across the UK, as I am sure Committee members have witnessed in their constituencies. In my constituency, the Greenock Telegraph has run a very active campaign for years on fuel pricing. Between 2021 and 2022, the price of petrol and diesel rose by more than 60p a litre, driven by global supply and demand shocks stemming from the covid-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In 2022, drivers paid an estimated £900 million more at the pumps across major supermarket retailers than in the previous year. By 2023, higher fuel margins across the whole market had cost drivers a further £1.6 billion.
The Competition and Markets Authority found that price rises for fuel and disparities between prices at a local level were driven by major retailers using the volatile backdrop and the lack of transparency to increase their profit margins unfairly and at the expense of consumers across the UK, contributing to the cost of living crisis and the hardship that families up and down the country have felt in recent years. My job as the Minister for Energy Consumers and the job of the Government is to change that picture and to protect households from price hikes, and that is why we are delivering change to protect consumers, to put an end to unfair pricing practices and to increase transparency in the fuel retail market.
In line with the CMA’s recommendations in the road fuel market study, we are rolling out a statutory open data scheme for fuel prices at the end of the year. These regulations will replace the CMA’s current voluntary scheme and mark a decisive step forward in empowering motorists across the UK to compare prices easily and to make informed choices about where they purchase their fuel. Motorists across the UK will have greater visibility on the range of choice available to them, and retailers will be incentivised more than ever to offer more affordable prices in a more competitive market.
The regulations will require all petrol filling stations in the UK to register and report changes to their fuel prices within 30 minutes of a change. The information will be freely available almost in real time. That marks a fundamental step to restoring competition and fairness in a market that has proved that it will not self-correct without Government intervention. By making this information openly available to any third parties that request it, we will enable the market to integrate the data into digital mapping services and vehicle satellite navigation services to help motorists to locate the best prices in their area.
We recognise that the regulations will deliver a change in the operations of the industry, and that is why the scheme has been carefully designed to take into account the operational complexities of a wide range of fuel retailers to ensure that the measures are clear and proportionate. The regulations were designed in consultation with the industry, and our aim is to build an open data scheme that not only serves a purpose for consumers, but supports the retailers that are involved in reporting. We have designed a simple and time-efficient system for retailers to provide price updates using a practical and accessible digital solution that works across all types of retailer. It will be a change for operators at the beginning, but we expect it to become business as usual quickly and to create transparency in the market without placing unnecessary administrative burden on businesses.
It is impossible to predict how fuel prices will respond as they remain incredibly sensitive to wider geopolitical factors, but we estimate that implementing a statutory open data scheme for fuel prices in the UK could result in fuel cost savings for drivers of £10.4 billion across a 10-year period. We have seen the benefits of other fuel price open data schemes in countries such as Australia and Germany, and we have learned from them in designing this scheme. Where consumers have access to real-time data, prices have decreased. Those international examples show that markets respond to open data schemes and that the schemes deliver their promise to bring down prices, which makes me confident that Fuel Finder will not only meet the expectations, but set a new standard for transparency in the UK fuel market.
This instrument represents an important step in bringing forth real change in market transparency, making a progressive step to a more transparent and fair market. The Government are committed to honouring the promise in the 2024 Budget to restore fairness at the pump, ensuring that motorists are no longer disadvantaged by pricing practices. Fuel Finder is not just a technical solution, but a practical one that puts consumers across the UK at the heart of policy design. By shining a light on pricing practices, Fuel Finder will increase competition to help to bring down fuel prices and ensure that no driver is left overpaying at the pump.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Lewell. His Majesty’s official Opposition recognise the urgent need for transparency in the fuel market, something the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), took significant steps towards under the previous Government through the introduction of Pumpwatch—now called Fuel Finder—which received Royal Assent in 2024. That went alongside the work of Howard Cox from FairFuelUK, whose persistence has been instrumental in pushing for progress through 15 years of research into fuel pricing.
The regulations require every fuel station to register with the Government’s appointed data aggregator and report any change in pump prices within 30 minutes. That data must then be made openly available, free of charge, for use by third-party apps, navigation systems and consumer groups. The aim, as the previous Conservative Government set out, is to allow motorists to see in real time who is offering the best price in their area, enabling genuine competition across the fuel market. Fuel Finder is not a bold new idea from the Labour Benches. It is a continuation, albeit a delayed and diluted one, of the Conservative commitment to ensure that motorists can finally see in real time who is charging what and where. This is a rebrand, not a positive policy change.
It was the Conservatives who commissioned the Competition and Markets Authority’s landmark investigation into road fuel pricing, which revealed that retailers were increasing margins at the expense of consumers. The study showed that average supermarket fuel margins had risen by around 6p per litre since 2019 and that a typical family driving a car could save up to £4.50 a tank by driving just a few minutes further to a cheaper station. It exposed a market that was not functioning as it should—one where falling wholesale costs were not being passed on to consumers and where, in some cases, motorists on motorways were paying 20p plus more per litre than they needed to.
There are several areas where the Government fall short, starting with margin transparency. Motorists will see today’s prices, but not how they have changed over time, nor whether any increase reflects market forces or simply wider retailer margins. The CMA’s evidence shows that it is precisely those margins that have driven up prices in recent years. Without addressing margin transparency, the real cause of the problem remains hidden. Across Europe, in Austria, Germany, France, Italy and Spain, Governments publish not only live pump prices, but also historical and margin data, allowing drivers and regulators to see whether retailers are passing on savings or quietly padding profit. By comparison, this Government’s fuel finder offers only partial transparency. It tells motorists where fuel is cheapest today, but not whether the price is fair.
The Opposition also object to the lack of a legal requirement for fuel stations to report when a fuel type is unavailable. Drivers need to know not only the cost of a litre of petrol or diesel, but whether diesel or petrol will actually be available when they get there. Making that optional undermines the very purpose of transparency.
Enforcement is also left vague. The CMA has powers to issue civil penalties and pursue criminal sanctions, but the Government have not set clear thresholds or standards for when those powers will apply. Nor have they addressed the risk that some operators may plead technical failure or poor connectivity as an excuse for not reporting prices promptly. That kind of leniency invites abuse. If the Government truly want transparency, they must ensure that IT issues cannot be used as a standing excuse for non-compliance.
The same potential penalties—up to 1% of global turnover or 5% of daily turnover per day—apply to all data reporting obligations under this legislation. While sanctions for non-compliance in price reporting were anticipated, it is notable that the same provisions extend to non-price data. The Association of Convenience Stores, for example, has raised concerns that this could include reporting on the availability of coffee machines, baby changing facilities and even microwaves. I am sure people do want to know if such things are available, but we believe that level of reporting goes beyond the original policy intent and imposes unnecessary burdens on retailers already facing significant compliance pressures.
Furthermore, there has been no formal engagement with industry ahead of publishing the non-price data requirements. With the obligation to report on 30 additional categories, that introduces unnecessary cost and complexity for retailers, not only during the initial registration window which runs from 18 December to 2 February, but also on an ongoing basis, given the requirement under the regulations to update information within three days. That directly contradicts the Government’s own target of reducing the regulatory burden by 25%, penalising businesses that are already operating in a challenging economy and diverting resources away from delivering value and service to consumers.
Then there is the question of smaller, rural fuel stations like those in constituencies like, to pick one at random, mine of Mid-Buckinghamshire. The regulations are set out to apply universally but there is little evidence the Government have considered the burden on low volume operators, or how those will be supported to comply. Transparency should not come at the cost of driving independent rural stations out of business.
Finally, we must look at timing. The Government intend to launch Fuel Finder by the end of this year, two years after the CMA’s recommendation and a year later than originally planned under the previous Conservative Government. For motorists already struggling with record living costs and high fuel prices under this Government, progress has been far too slow. Every month of delay means that families continue to overpay at the pump and competition remains weaker than it should be.
The Opposition do support the principle of open data for fuel prices. We welcome the continuation of a Conservative policy that sought to bring transparency for drivers, encourage competition and deliver accountability in a sector that too often escapes scrutiny. But we will not let the Government claim credit for a policy that they did not originate, nor overlook that its implementation has been slow, cautious and incomplete. Conservatives began this work and in opposition we will continue to press for its full and timely delivery for fuel, with stronger enforcement, real transparency and genuine competition for every motorist in Britain. I hope that when the Minister concludes this debate he can address some of the shortcomings I have highlighted this afternoon.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. The Liberal Democrats support this statutory instrument. We have long called for measures, including the introduction of a fuel finder scheme, to allow drivers to directly compare fuel prices, to protect from rip-off prices and improve competition between petrol stations. Far from it being a burden in rural areas, we think those living in such areas, where there is a greater reliance on cars—like my Thornberry and Yate constituency—will welcome this change. It is disappointing it has taken so long to enact this scheme. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) has just said, I do not think things were moving in a particularly speedy manner under the Conservatives, but it is now nearly two years since that Government first launched their consultation on the design of a fuel finder, back in January 2024. Given the figures quoted by the Minister in his opening statement, it is clear that motorists will have lost a great deal of money in that time. We will, however, support this statutory instrument.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, the shadow Minister, has set out, we welcome the intent behind the statutory instrument, which has the potential to considerably benefit the consumer. I echo a number of the points made by my hon. Friend. He highlighted the mission creep in what will potentially have to be reported, and a degree of vagueness in the SI and its supporting documents.
Paragraph 238 of the impact assessment states that there are 8,329 PFSs, of which 698—just over 8%—are deemed to be those of minor brands. One can surmise that means they are smaller operations and therefore potentially disproportionately impacted by a one-size-fits-all approach. I have about half a dozen factual questions, if I may. First, what was the rationale for using worldwide turnover as the basis for the fines? Has the Minister made any assessment of whether there are—and there may not be—any operators that have huge overseas operations but only a very small footprint in this country?
My hon. Friend the shadow Minister talked about the potential impact on small rural operators. Paragraph 7.4 of the explanatory memorandum refers to the potential impact of legacy technology, and to how the reporting mechanism will work. It simply says that the impact will be
“mitigated with taking a holistic view…of the scheme.”
What does that mean, in practical terms?
Paragraph 246 of the impact assessment says that the scheme will be launched at the end of this year, from which we are less than two months away. Is it on target to be launched then? If so, where has the procurement process for the aggregator got to? If an aggregator has been appointed, is the Minister able to tell the Committee which company or organisation has received that appointment? Similarly, paragraph 247 of the impact assessment talks about training that will be done in advance of the launch of the scheme. When will that be done and how, given the very tight timescales?
Finally, paragraph 248 of the impact assessment talks about enforcement guidance to come. Where has that guidance got to in the process, and when will it be published?
Martin McCluskey
That was detailed, if nothing else. It is refreshing to hear those on the Conservative Benches back their own policies in opposition. At the moment in my brief, I am more used to hearing Conservative Front Benchers disavow the policies of the previous Government in my Department. The shadow Energy Secretary could learn from this breakout of consensus.
I will begin by responding to the points of the spokesperson for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire. If I neglect to answer any of those points, he should please intervene to remind me of anything I did not scribble down quickly enough.
The CMA annual report will address margin transparency and the other issues that he laid out. It would likely be quite difficult to put margin transparency in place in the current scheme until we have Fuel Finder operational, but it will be included in the CMA’s annual report. On the legal requirement around whether or not fuel is available at a particular filling station, that point was raised during the consultation and examined by officials. A thorough analysis was done of how easy, or not, it would be to collect that information. The determination was made that, although the request for inclusion is well intentioned—and I can understand it; it would be useful information—it would be very technically difficult to include it on a real-time basis in the scheme, which could potentially undermine a lot of the other measures that we are trying to ensure as part of the scheme. On enforcement, I would point the hon. Member towards part 6 of the instrument, which gives details on enforcement. I do not share the hon. Member’s concerns.
Concerns were raised about amenities. It is clear, both from what the CMA has already published and from the impact assessment and explanatory memorandum, that a proportionate approach will be taken to any enforcement, on a case-by-case basis. The published guidance has been clear about that, which hopefully reassures those who have raised concerns about the amenities being included. We are, and have been, actively engaging on amenities, but it is also important to note that amenities were consulted on as part of the consultation exercise that was undertaken, so it is not quite right to say that there has been no consultation with industry on this point.
Greg Smith
The Minister has said that there needs to be proportionality, but he supports some of the other amenities being reported on. If it is possible for any fuel retailer to say whether they have a current working coffee machine or microwave, how is it not possible to report on whether they have any petrol or diesel in the tanks?
Martin McCluskey
That is why we are, and will continue to be, in constant engagement with industry on amenities.
Let me address the points made by the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston. The rationale for worldwide turnover is commonly understood, and already used within the industry. That is why that measure was selected. On the concerns around rurality, there will be other mechanisms for people to feed in that do not rely on, for example, an internet connection. People will be able to text the price in real time, and able to use a telephone service—though we do not actually think that there will be an issue with wi-fi, because lots of rural fuel stations will use wi-fi for their payment systems.
VE3 Global was appointed as the successful supplier to become the aggregator of Fuel Finder. VE3 Global specialises in digital transformation, data aggregation and cloud-based solutions, so it has lots of experience in this area. The right hon. Member also asked a final question on guidance. We will publish the guidance and training before the whole programme is rolled out, so that people can have some certainty and assistance. As I said, we understand that this is a change for businesses, and certainly represents a change to business as usual, so we want to make sure that people are properly guided and trained.
I thank hon. Members for their valuable contributions to the debate and the questions they raised. I also thank the Lib Dem spokesperson for her support of the statutory instrument. I conclude by reaffirming our commitment to creating a firm and transparent UK road fuel market. Now more than ever we need to protect households and businesses from pricing practices and deliver change to reverse the sharp spikes in road fuel prices in recent years. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison, in my first debate on a piece of delegated legislation in the rigorous venue of a Committee Room. The draft regulations will be made under powers provided by the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022. The PSTI product security regulatory regime comprises of part 1 of the 2022 Act, together with the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) Regulations 2023.
That world-leading regulatory regime came into force in April 2024. It better protects consumers, businesses and the wider economy from the harms associated with cyber-attacks on consumer connectable products such as mobiles, smart cameras and smart appliances more broadly. The law requires that products that can connect to a network or internet are made available to customers in the UK only when they meet baseline cyber-security requirements. Those requirements include banning the use of universal default or easily guessable passwords such as “admin123”, reducing one of the most commonly exploited vulnerabilities in connectable products.
Manufacturers must also be transparent about the minimum duration for which they will provide much-needed security updates that patch vulnerabilities. They must publish information on how to report security vulnerabilities directly to them, and provide status updates about reported issues. There are also important duties that importers must comply with, as they play an important role in ensuring that vulnerable products are not imported into this country. The same applies to distributors, as they are often the last line of defence against non-compliant products making their way to customers.
The PSTI Act was the world’s first legislation of its kind, but let me be clear that we are not alone in our commitment to improve the security of connected products. Across the world, countries that share our values are taking action. One such country is Japan, where the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and the Information-technology Promotion Agency launched the Japan cyber-security technical assessment requirements labelling scheme for internet of things products in March 2025. Similarly, the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore launched its cyber-security labelling scheme for consumer smart devices in March 2020.
The Japanese and Singaporean labelling schemes require manufacturers to ensure that their products meet a set of baseline security requirements that are based on European Telecommunications Standards Institute standard EN 303 645 on cyber-security for consumer IOT products—a standard that the UK developed in partnership with over 90 countries and to which we aligned our own security requirements. Products issued with a valid label under either scheme will therefore have an equivalent or greater level of cyber-security than required under the UK’s PSTI regime.
There is no security advantage in duplicating compliance processes for manufacturers that have already met equivalent or higher security standards. Our focus must be on removing undue burdens from businesses, reducing unnecessary costs and opening the door for UK businesses to succeed in markets around the world. Subject to the approval of the House, the draft regulations will establish two alternative routes for manufacturers of consumer connectable products to demonstrate compliance with the UK’s product security regime.
On 23 October, at Singapore international cyber week 2025, the UK’s Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and Singapore’s Cyber Security Agency formally signed a memorandum of understanding on the mutual recognition of consumer internet of things cyber-security regimes. The UK will also shortly be signing an MOU with Japan. Those MOUs represent a significant step forward in our international collaboration on digital security and innovation. They each establish a framework for recognising cyber-security certifications across borders. When both MOUs come into effect, UK businesses will benefit from streamlined access to the Japanese and Singaporean labelling schemes, boosting their product credibility and market appeal in those regions. The draft regulations will enable the UK to uphold its commitments, allow Japanese and Singaporean businesses to trade more easily with our market and reinforce our shared dedication to securing the connected device supply chain.
Regulations 4 and 8 amend the 2023 regulations to provide for deemed compliance with the requirement under section 9 of the 2022 Act that relevant connectable products must be accompanied by a statement of compliance. Under new regulation 4A and schedule 2A to the 2023 regulations, a manufacturer will be deemed to have complied with this requirement where the relevant connectable product carries a valid label under Japan’s JC-STAR STAR-1 labelling scheme, or a label under any level of the Singapore cyber-security labelling scheme. Regulations 5 to 7 amend schedule 2 to the 2023 regulations to provide for deemed compliance with other relevant security requirements set out in schedule 1 to those regulations, where a manufacturer’s product carries either such label. Regulation 3 inserts definitions of Japan’s JC-STAR STAR-1 scheme and the Singapore cyber-security labelling scheme into the 2023 regulations for the purposes of the deeming provisions.
Cyber-security is not just a technical issue; it is a strategic priority. By aligning with like-minded nations and reducing unnecessary barriers to trade, we are strengthening our digital resilience, supporting UK businesses and protecting our consumers. The UK must continue to lead by example, championing the global adoption of cyber-security standards and advancing mutual recognition, which are both a vital part of establishing a trusted global supply chain of connected products.
These new mutual recognition arrangements, which will be implemented in part by the draft regulations, will not only reduce the regulatory burden on businesses, but streamline compliance and support our ambition to make the UK a more attractive and competitive market for secure digital products. The draft regulations will extend and apply to the whole of the United Kingdom and will have practical effect throughout the United Kingdom. I hope the Committee will recognise their importance.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
As always, Dr Murrison, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. His Majesty’s official Opposition welcome this statutory instrument, which establishes alternative routes to achieve cyber-security compliance for manufacturers of products within the scope of the product security and telecommunications infrastructure regime. It serves to remove non-tariff barriers to trade in digital products and devices with our strategic partners in Asia—Singapore and Japan.
I recently visited Japan with the British-Japanese all-party parliamentary group, supported by the Japan Society, to strengthen UK-Japanese relations. It was a fantastic visit. It is not yet declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but it will be in due course and Members should refer to my entry if interested.
Regulations such as these build on and complement the strong free-trade foundation established by the last Government through their negotiation of UK accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership trade bloc and other bespoke bilateral trade agreements with Japan. I am glad the Minister welcomed the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022. I think he said it was a world-leading piece of legislation. Given that it was put together by the previous Government, I am glad that he has demonstrated today the same wisdom as his predecessor. I very much welcome him to his place.
Several significant cyber-attacks recently have demonstrated the need for Government and industry alike to increase their cyber-resilience without delay. It is becoming increasingly evident that our cyber-security is a vital component of our national security. We are yet to have sight of the Government’s cyber-security and resilience Bill, which we understand will be targeted at supply chains and providers of digital services to our critical industries. We also eagerly await the Government’s national cyber-security strategy, which they have said will be published by the end of this year.
However, what attracts significantly less public attention is the routine and widespread cyber-risk to consumers of internet-connectable devices in their homes and pockets, such as smartphones, wearable health devices and home sound systems. The last Government recognised that risk and the UK’s consumer connectable product security regime was brought into effect in April 2024. The changes were intended to reduce consumer exposure to cyber-threats and raise the baseline of product security.
Diversifying the supply chain and the market for internet-connectable products has benefits for price competition, product choice and consumer confidence. It also reduces over-reliance on exports from individual states in an era of increasing geopolitical tensions. Charles Parton, senior research fellow in international security at the Royal United Services Institute, has highlighted the multifaceted risks of over-reliance on Chinese cellular internet of things modules, or CIMs. Those are hardware components that enable internet of things devices to connect to the internet via cellular networks, and they are essential for devices that need remote connectivity without relying on wi-fi or wired networks. Chinese products already have more than 50% of the international market for those components. While the use of CIMs is widespread, the option of purchasing products from strategic partners with common security concerns and goals is likely to assist in improving consumers’ ability to choose the most secure products.
For the reasons that I have stated, we are supportive of the regulations. Nevertheless, I would be grateful if the Minister could answer a couple of questions. What assessment was undertaken to determine the equivalence of the Japanese and Singaporean regimes? Can the Government quantify, either in value or in volume, the trade that the regulations are expected to deliver in the first year, if not in coming years?
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The Liberal Democrats support the statutory instrument, as it will simplify market access for manufacturers, reduce duplication in testing and certification, and facilitate UK exporters’ entry into Japan and Singapore for smart connected consumer products. It demonstrates the important principle that cutting red tape is vital to promoting economic growth and reducing compliance costs for businesses—which is why the Liberal Democrats, alongside many businesses, are also calling for a customs union with the EU. That would similarly break down the bureaucracy holding British businesses back and boost our economy.
We must, however, ensure that safeguards remain. Given the critical importance of maintaining robust cyber-security protections, can the Minister confirm what oversight mechanisms are in place to monitor ongoing alignment with these international schemes, and how these measures will be integrated into the long-awaited cyber-security and resilience Bill, which will be vital in keeping our economy safe?
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I welcome the move to recognise standards mutually between Japan, Singapore and the UK. It is a clear statement that alignment of specifications and standards can help industry to thrive and is essential in this high-tech world.
For many years, I worked in telecoms, where increasing alignment of standards means that we now have a truly global industry with easy global connectivity. Twenty years ago, we saw the folly of having protectionist views and using different standards. In those days, the mobile world was divided, and we could not use mobile phones from the UK in the USA, or vice versa. Clearly, that cannot work in the age of the internet of things, especially considering the increased need for high security standards. Having multiple standards and certifications is wasted effort and cost for everyone concerned. Will the Minister consider further alignment, at scale, of technical standards with the EU, rather than the path we have been following? Although some have equated deviation from agreed standards with commercial advantage, the reality is commercial disaster.
Kanishka Narayan
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I will address first the questions that were asked.
I thank the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge for his warm welcome. On the question of how assurances were sought about the equivalence of the Japanese and Singaporean standards, the maturity of those standards and the time for which the countries have been implementing them have been particularly material assurances. Japan and Singapore have aligned their security requirements and labelling schemes to the globally accepted ETSI EN 303 645 standard, which happens to be the same standard that underpins the UK’s PSTI regime. Therefore, products that have a valid label issued by Japan or Singapore will meet the security requirements specified in our regime. The Office for Product Safety and Standards, as the regulator of the regime as a whole, is equipped with a comprehensive set of enforcement powers and will continue to keep under review any mutual recognition agreements.
Of course the Government recognise the strategic importance of the European Union as the UK’s largest trading partner, and we will explore opportunities to reduce technical barriers to trade in the security space in that context, too.
On the question of benefits, my understanding is that we have had representations from a number of small and medium-sized businesses, in particular, about how this measure will open up export markets in Japan and Singapore, allow Japanese and Singaporean firms to trade, and ensure that British consumers can benefit. I do not have a number to give, but I hope very much that we will see the benefits of that freer flow of trade in connected devices very soon.
On the cyber-security context, more everyday products than ever before are connected to the internet, ranging from smart TVs to fitness trackers and voice assistants. From April 2024 to March 2025, we surveyed the participation of consumers and found that 96% of folks personally owned and used a smartphone, 76% a smart TV, and 68% a laptop computer. It is now very rare to find a UK household that does not own a connected device in the scope of these regulations; less than 1% of people reported that they did not own a smartphone, laptop, desktop PC, tablet, games console, smart printer or smart TV.
This growing connectivity brings convenience but also new risks. The Government have taken action to ensure that UK consumers and businesses purchasing consumer connectable products are better protected from the risk of cyber-attacks, fraud or even, in the most serious cases, physical danger. The cyber-security regulatory landscape is evolving, with countries around the world, including Japan and Singapore, introducing similar regimes. The UK must remain agile and forward-looking to maintain its leadership in this space. The draft regulations will ensure that the UK remains a global leader in product cyber-security, while strengthening our position as an attractive destination for digital innovation and trade.
By recognising Japanese and Singaporean IOT labelling schemes, we are reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens, supporting UK businesses to expand internationally and enabling Japanese and Singaporean manufacturers to bring compliant products to our market more efficiently. This measure is a practical step forward in delivering the Government’s mission to drive economic growth and build a more resilient digital economy. It also complements our efforts to harmonise security standards across major economies, in partnership with Brunei, the United Arab Emirates, Australia, Germany, Finland, South Korea, Canada, Japan, Singapore and Hungary, via the global cyber-security labelling initiative. With forecasts suggesting that the global IOT market will grow to 24.1 billion devices by 2030, generating more than £1.1 trillion in annual revenue, it is more essential than ever that we enhance the security of connected products on a global scale.
Dr Spencer
The Minister has referred a few times to cyber-security strategy. Can he update us on when we will see the Government’s cyber-security and resilience Bill?
Kanishka Narayan
I am afraid that I cannot commit to a legislative timeline, but we want to move very fast on the Bill and are looking for the right opportunity in Parliament to introduce it.
The draft regulations are a significant step in achieving our goal for cyber-security. I look forward to continuing this work and building on the momentum we have established.
Question put and agreed to.
Developments near Lutterworth and its Surrounding Villages
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
Official Development Assistance Reductions
(1 day, 6 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
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of planned reductions in Official Development Assistance on international development.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate, and my co-sponsors from across the House—the hon. Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), and my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding)—for their support in securing it.
It is almost a year since the Prime Minister announced sweeping cuts to official development assistance, a decision that prompted the resignation of a former Minister for International Development, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who could not in good conscience support the dismantling of Britain’s global leadership in aid to fund increased defence spending. That decision marked a turning point. It signalled that Britain, once a leader in development and compassion, was willing to trade its soft power for short-term savings, instead of taking strong and bold decisions such as increasing taxes on tech giants or a bespoke customs union with the EU, as my party has so often urged.
The UK’s proud record as a global leader in aid has been left shredded. The previous Conservative Government reduced the aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5% of our gross national income. This Labour Government now plan to cut it further to just 0.3% by 2027—the lowest level this century. Nearly one third of what remains of the UK aid budget is being spent not on tackling global poverty, preventing instability and migration, but on in-country asylum accommodation. That leaves far less for the world’s poorest and most vulnerable. The very budget designed to prevent displacement is being used to pay for its effects. At far greater cost to society, we are left treating the symptoms, not the cause.
These cuts come even as global need rises. Over 123 million people are displaced by conflict. The World Food Programme warns that reduced funding for aid could push another 13.7 million people to severe hunger. In Sudan alone, 30 million people now need humanitarian assistance, with 25 million facing food insecurity. Children in Gaza are enduring unimaginable suffering, with families driven to starvation amid a humanitarian catastrophe. Over 640,000 people now face catastrophic food insecurity, and projections warn that as many as 43,000 children could die from malnutrition by June 2026.
The Liberal Democrats have always helped to lead on international development. We proudly enshrined the 0.7% target in law, because it was an investment in peace and prosperity, but also in long-term security. Aid is not charity; it builds peace, prevents conflict and addresses the root causes of instability and migration.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
The hon. Member is raising some good points about national security and migration. He is probably well aware that the top three nationalities that come to the UK on small boats are from conflict-affected states: Afghanistan, Syria and Iran. Does the hon. Member share my concern that the UK dismantling the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s conflict and migration department is the wrong decision at a time when we should be investing in conflict prevention, rather than withdrawing from it?
Edward Morello
I thank the hon. Member, who is my colleague on the Foreign Affairs Committee. His background and expertise in this area is unrivalled, and I agree 100% with his sentiment; it is money badly spent when we do not invest in conflict prevention. The decision to cut our official development assistance from 0.7% to 0.3% of GNI by 2027 comes at the worst possible time. It adds to the nightmare caused by earlier cuts in 2021 and the devastating aid freezes in the United States by Trump’s White House. If we stay on this trajectory, by 2027, Britain will be spending over £6 billion less on aid than if we had simply maintained the 0.5% commitment. That is equivalent to cutting the entire education or health portfolio from our overseas spending.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
My hon. Friend speaks about security and education. A charity in my constituency, School in a Bag, based in Chilthorne Domer, has delivered 160,000 school bags filled with stationery to children all over the world, giving those who live in the most deprived circumstances the tools for an education and a lifeline out of hardship. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the reach of brilliant charities such as School in a Bag will be shrunk without stable ODA-backed grants?
Edward Morello
I agree 100%. What is so wonderful about Britain is how, time and again, communities step into the void left by Government spending, but we cannot rely entirely on the charity and good will of others.
The UK’s contribution to global health, education and nutrition, which are the foundations of our stability, is being eroded. Nutrition-focused aid has fallen by 60% and education spending has declined by 83% since 2016. Aid for reproductive health has fallen by 68%, and primary education now accounts for only £71 million of the entire ODA budget. The list goes on, and they are not just statistics. They are classrooms that will never reopen; vaccines that will never be delivered; and children who will never have a fair chance in life.
As a member of both the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, I have seen at first hand how aid and development are integral to our security. In recent weeks, we have seen the malign influence of China and Russia on our domestic politics. Those malevolent threats are already prevalent in the countries we support. We must not give them space to grow because, when we retreat, the vacuum is filled by those countries that do not share our values.
The strategic investments of Russia and China are already exploiting that space. China would have no difficulty stepping in to replace UK influence, especially in the global south, where its belt and road investments already run deep. But Beijing’s model of aid is transactional, not transformative. We should not be surprised when those nations fill the void, with motives far removed from our liberal and democratic values.
As Members of this House, we should never forget that the world watches what Britain does. When we lead, others follow. When we stand firm, others shrink back. Development and defence are not opposites; they are two sides of the same coin. Soft power—the influence we exert through compassion, diplomacy and culture—is what gives our country the moral legitimacy that has underpinned our diplomacy since the post-war era. It is what makes Britain a leader on the world stage. When we cut aid, we cut influence. When we weaken our global reach, we make ourselves less safe.
The Government have argued that the reduction is necessary to fund a rise in defence spending, to reach 2.6% of GDP by 2027. Yes, we must invest in defence, but we cannot defend Britain by turning away from the world. We cannot keep our citizens safe by cutting the very programmes that prevent conflict and suffering at source.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. This weekend, the Government announced £5 million for Sudan and £6 million for Gaza. By contrast, the Government are spending £2.2 billion of ODA on hotels to house asylum seekers in this country. Does my hon. Friend share my view that the money would be better spent on preventing conflict and keeping people safe in their own regions?
Edward Morello
I agree 100% with my hon. Friend. Purely on a value-for-money basis, it is wiser to spend money where people are, to prevent them from getting on the road, than to try to house them here.
Migration and global instability do not begin at our borders. They begin when climate change destroys livelihoods, when wars displace families and when hunger drives desperation. Compassion and prevention are not opposites of security; they are the foundations of it.
Climate change remains the single greatest threat we face. Carbon knows no borders; it does not respect treaties or national boundaries. If we cut funding to those on the frontline of climate vulnerability, we are cutting our own future resilience. Whether that is in the Caribbean, the Sahel, the middle east or the Pacific, our partners need leadership, and Britain should be that leader.
The Government’s commitment to meet their £11.6 billion international climate finance pledge by 2026 is welcome, but it is increasingly hollow if other aid streams are being dismantled. We cannot claim climate leadership while simultaneously cutting the very funds that protect vulnerable nations from its impact and help them to decarbonise sooner. The UK has always been at its best when leading with principle and pragmatism. We led on eradicating smallpox, on fighting HIV/AIDS, on girls’ education, on tackling modern slavery and, of course, on the creation of the United Nations.
Today we must show that same moral courage. The cuts to the ODA budget are not only a betrayal of those values, they are a strategic mistake. Every pound we invest in aid saves far more in the long term, by preventing wars, stopping pandemics and reducing the need for emergency interventions. We live in a globalised society. Our economies, supply chains and security are inter- connected. Disease, conflict and climate crisis spread across borders with ease. To imagine that Britain can isolate itself from those realities is naive; if we fail to act abroad, we will pay the price at home.
I pay tribute to the humanitarian workers who continue to serve in some of the world’s most dangerous environments, and who risk their lives daily to deliver aid. They embody the best of British values, yet their work is getting harder. From Gaza to Sudan, from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Ukraine, aid workers face extraordinary challenges. In 2024, one in eight people worldwide was exposed to armed conflict. Humanitarian staff have been detained, attacked and even killed, and entire operations have been halted due to insecurity. Our response to that sacrifice should not be to cut funding for their organisations—they deserve not only our gratitude but our tangible support. We must ensure that safeguards and funding are extended to humanitarian workers, who represent British values in the most fragile corners of the world.
The Government expect aid reductions to provide £500 million for defence in 2025-26, £4.8 billion in 2026-27 and £6.5 billion in 2027-28. That may satisfy Treasury spreadsheets, but it will come at the cost of lives, stability and influence. In the coming weeks, this House will debate spending priorities at the Budget. The timing of this debate could not be more important. It is a time of hardship and high costs of living for all. There are difficult decisions to be made, both domestically and abroad. But we should remember that the choices we make here ripple far beyond our own borders. They shape how the world sees us, and how safe, stable and prosperous our shared future will be.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member agree that at a dangerous moment geopolitically, with tensions high and multilateralism facing challenges—which, as members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, we are more than aware of—it is incumbent on all of us to advocate an approach that treats global co-operation, our international obligations and our defence and security as interconnected?
Edward Morello
I agree 100% with the hon. Member. The more we work with our partners, the more we can deliver. We are living in an interconnected society; there is no way we can do this alone. We must work with others, and we must show leadership in that space.
If aid spending remained at 0.5%, it would have reached £15.4 billion by 2027. Instead, it will stand at £9.2 billion, the lowest in real terms since 2012. When we retreat, Russia and China advance; when we stay silent, violence speaks for us. There can be no security without stability, and no stability without development. Development is not an add-on to security and foreign policy, but what that policy is built on.
I therefore urge the Government to reconsider the planned reductions ahead of the Budget, and to bring forward sustainable, long-term plans for funding both our defence and our diplomacy, rather than setting them in competition. I urge them to recognise that global leadership cannot be built on cuts and withdrawals, but on conviction and compassion. The world we are shaping today, through the choices we make on aid, diplomacy and climate will determine whether future generations—our children and grandchildren—inherit a planet of opportunity for all.
We must stand up for liberal values, for compassion and for the rules-based international order. Britain has always stood tall on the world stage. Our leadership has mattered. It must matter again.
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
I call Sarah Champion. I suggest five minutes.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your guidance, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for his powerful and accurate speech, with which I associate myself.
Recent reductions have meant that UK ODA has dropped from the legally enshrined 0.7% to 0.5%, and it is now projected to be at 0.3% by 2027. That represents a significant retreat of UK leadership on international development and on the international stage. If ODA were to remain at 0.5% of GNI in 2027, it would total £15.4 billion; at 0.3%, it would be £9.2 billion, the lowest ODA in cash terms since 2012. That is a reduction of more than £6 billion in support for millions of vulnerable people around the world—people whose safety, health and long-term stability are in the UK’s immediate and long-term interest.
The Government acknowledge that this reduction requires many hard choices. In May, when Baroness Chapman appeared before my International Development Committee, she told us:
“The days of viewing the UK Government as a global charity are over”.
As I said to her then, money spent on aid and development is not charity; it is an investment. Let me give two examples.
First, the support that we give to fragile and conflict-affected states helps stabilisation efforts and prevents the creation of conditions ripe for generating extremism, which can lead to problems that end up on the UK’s doorstep and to a direct impact on our national security. Aid is now being cut for victims of the raging conflict in Sudan, from £146 million to £120 million, but the casualties, the victims and the devastation are only increasing. The many millions of Sudanese civilians displaced by the war are at severe risk of food insecurity and may seek security in Europe, worsening the pressure on the continent’s already struggling refugee protection systems. The lack of support for the Sudanese people over recent years has been devastating. My Committee was told last week by Shayna Lewis, an independent expert who works on the ground in Sudan, that the UK has refused to heed warnings and invest in atrocity prevention in Sudan over the past year, which could have been vital in preventing the horrors that are unfolding today in el-Fasher.
Secondly, UK ODA has been vital to global health programmes such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which has cut the combined death rate from those three diseases by 61%, saving 65 million lives—arguably the most effective global health initiative of all time. Experts have warned our Committee that cuts to such programmes will reverse the gains in disease prevention, maternal health and pandemic preparedness.
Similarly, the Government must protect investment in global nutrition. ODA reductions in 2021 led to a cut in nutrition spending of more than 60%, and in 2023 nutrition spending was drastically cut. In Afghanistan, it was down £87 million to £8.9 million; in Nigeria, it was down £11.8 million to £15.9 million; and in Myanmar, it was down £9.9 million to just £0.2 million.
How will the Department deliver the four essential shifts announced by Baroness Chapman when funding, staffing and support programmes around the world are being so dramatically scaled back? It is not clear how the Government will deliver more with so much less. With the United States Agency for International Development shut down, and with other Governments reducing aid, it seems that instead of stepping up to fill the gap, the UK is stepping further back.
What is most concerning is that the Government do not seem to have a strategy to manage the impact of the cuts on those who are affected. For example, the Government’s own equality impact assessment acknowledges the disproportionate impact of aid cuts on women and girls, risking the reversal of hard-won gains in that area. Previous cuts to ODA led to a 41% cut in programming to prevent violence against women and girls, and a 66% cut in funding for women’s rights organisations. Furthermore, even a 30% decrease in funding for sexual and reproductive health rights could lead to an additional 1.1 million unintended pregnancies. These programmes are vital for the safety of women and girls and the sustainability of societies around the world.
Reducing ODA is not merely a budgetary adjustment. It is a political choice: a choice not to consider the longer-term benefits of investing a small percentage of taxpayers’ money in return for vast benefits to the poorest communities around the world and to our own safety and security. I urge the Government to reconsider the damaging, deadly trajectory that we are on.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
Order. I suggest four minutes from now on.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), the Chair of the International Development Committee, because I want to refer to one or two things that the Committee has been doing. I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing the debate.
Given that this is a major change in Government policy, there has been very little debate in Parliament about it. I fear, though, that we will not be able to secure an increase in spending unless we can increase public support for development. Those of us who have been committed to development have to concede that we have been complacent in thinking that that support would automatically be there, and that people would see good for what it is. That is not the case. As I think most Members would recognise from their mailbags, when this change was made there was very little public reaction.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The right hon. Member hits on a very important point. There is not much wider public support, for two big reasons: corruption in some of the countries to which aid is going, and the misappropriation of food and other produce that is delivered. Until we address those issues, we will face an uphill battle in getting public support in the UK for more money.
David Mundell
That is partly right, because negative stories have prevailed and we have not had people on the other side rebutting them, as we have not had advocates on the ground. I feel that many non-governmental organisations became far too corporate in their approach: they did not have the local people who were able and willing to collect money or to stand up and make the case in their community environments.
The International Development Committee has visited the US, to try to find out what is happening there. One of the great ironies is that—subject to the budget currently being frozen—it looks as though the US cuts will be less than the cuts in the UK, because various interests in the US have pushed back on them. There is no doubt that what is happening in the US will significantly affect the global development structures, and we must react to that. We cannot simply say, “We want to go back to 0.7%, and it will all be all right.” That is not the world we are in.
We will have to demonstrate specific things that the UK can contribute in a leadership capacity. For example, we have heard that the US will not be funding any family-planning activity or LGBT activity, so others will have to step up in a strategic and co-ordinated way. Whether it is our Government, other Governments or philanthropists, we must find a co-ordinated way of doing this.
We must also look at how we can deliver most effectively with the reduced funding that we have. As the hon. Member for Rotherham knows, I have been a strong advocate for nutrition. One of the biggest disappointments to me of late has been that, after the International Development Committee conducted an inquiry into sustainable development goal 2, we received a very, very poor response from the Government. I accept that it took place during a period of change, but there was nothing concrete in the response. In fact, there was less in it than what was said a few months ago at the nutrition for growth summit in Paris.
It seems to me that the Government embarked on these cuts without a strategy. We might disagree with the strategy in the US, but at least there was one: there was a clear objective, and it took certain actions to pursue it. I am not aware of any clear strategy being pursued in the UK.
Finally, as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV/AIDS, I want to make a pitch for the Global Fund. The Global Fund has been a huge success in combating HIV and AIDS, and I hope that the Government can proceed with a replenishment of £1 billion. I campaigned against my own Government to get £1 billion last time, and it would be very disappointing to find an incoming Labour Government cutting that.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) on securing this important debate and on his excellent speech. I declare an interest as the chair of the APPG on global education. I will focus on the transformative nature of ODA for the education of children worldwide.
Education has been a crucial component of the UK’s international development effort over the past two decades. It has long been recognised that providing education improves health outcomes, contributes to economic growth, improves gender equality and reduces poverty. In 2013, the percentage of the UK ODA budget spent on education was 13.5% of 0.7% of GNI, but just a decade later it was 3.5% of 0.5% of GNI. With the further projected cuts to ODA—to 0.3% of GNI by 2027, equating to a real-terms cut to funding of roughly 73% since 2019—the situation in the education sector looks dire, with a projected 2.2 million fewer children in school and learning.
The Global Partnership for Education is the largest multilateral fund for education in the world. Its work started here in the UK and now reaches every corner of the globe. It works tirelessly to ensure that every child has, in its words, the “hope, opportunity and agency” that a quality education brings. In 2021, the UK pledged £430 million for GPE. That money has helped to enrol 5 million more girls in school, train 4.7 million teachers and support 372 million children with better education. Although 60% of partners have kept or raised their education budgets to over 20% of total spending, planned cuts raise the possibility of limited or no funding for the upcoming replenishment of GPE. Without UK aid, GPE will struggle to continue its life-changing work.
In the past, UK development has allowed the FCDO to support the strengthening of education systems world- wide, to improve teacher quality, to build accountability mechanisms and to reach the most marginalised children, particularly girls and those in crisis zones, but we cannot celebrate those achievements without recognising the dangers of the planned cuts. To understand the risks, we must understand what is being planned. By 2027, UK aid spending will fall to 0.3% of GNI. At the end of 2025-26, bilateral aid from the FCDO will be down £600 million on the year before. New aid spending decisions have been paused, and payments to multilateral bodies such as GPE have been delayed.
Alongside the planned cuts, the Government have set out new priorities for development aid: health, climate and humanitarian spending, all underpinned by economic growth. Funding allocations have not been confirmed, but those priorities cannot leave education behind. Without investment in education, low and middle-income countries cannot unlock jobs, trade and innovation, and economies cannot grow. The foundation of our priorities must be education.
Conflict zones are in desperate need of development aid. We have seen conflicts in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, Afghanistan and Yemen, to name but a few. One extra year of education can reduce the risk of conflict by up to 20%. Although I did not welcome the cuts, I ask the Minister whether she will commit to 0.7% when the economy allows. Will she confirm that the UK has committed to funding GPE and Education Cannot Wait in future rounds?
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) on securing this debate and on his excellent speech.
As we have heard today, Britain’s aid budget supports international development in countries facing extreme poverty and conflict. We can see it every night on our television screens—in Gaza and Sudan, to name but two places. The aid budget also helps people in developing countries to address the impact of climate change. We have recently seen the devastating damage wreaked by Hurricane Melissa. Communities will need our help to rebuild their roads and housing and get clean water back again. Those are the sorts of things that our aid budget funds.
I am proud that in coalition the Liberal Democrats increased the aid budget to 0.7% of GNI. It is shocking that the Conservatives very quickly reduced it to 0.5%, and I cannot believe that Labour is now planning to reduce it further to just 0.3%. By 2027, as we have heard, that will be £6 billion less than it would have been even at 0.5%. That means £6 billion less for maternity care, vaccination programmes, food aid, education, clean water, flood protection and more. People at the sharp end of the climate crisis and in extreme poverty will die because of the cuts. We should not shy away from that.
At 0.3%, ODA stands at the lowest proportion of gross national income since 1999. That represents an abdication of our moral responsibility on the global stage. Of course, we have to strengthen our national security and defence in uncertain times, but not at the cost of withdrawing support from some of the poorest communities around the world. Does the Minister accept that not only is proper investment in ODA critical to tackling poverty, but it can help prevent conflict abroad? Strengthening national security and stability and addressing poverty and development abroad is not a binary choice: they are intertwined; they are essential for each other. The Government’s decision represents a further retreat into insular attitudes when we need to be doing what we can to tackle poverty and security threats abroad as well as here at home.
For decades, international aid has been vital in growing our nation’s stature through soft power and building a hard-won reputation for supporting the poorest countries in the world. In opposition, the Labour party agreed with us, so it is regrettable that it abandoned those values upon entering government. I hope that the Government will take the contributions to this debate in the spirit that they are intended. We want the UK to be seen as the gold standard for promoting international development, just like the Labour party said in opposition.
This cut is a risk to international security and plays into the hands of Russia and China, so I hope that the Minister will reflect on the message of this debate and explore alternative ways of meeting defence spending commitments, rather than this ill-thought-out cut. In the long term, will the Government consider increasing taxation on social media giants and tech firms to fund defence and increase official development assistance back to 0.7% of GNI? We live in dangerous times, and we are not alone in that. Now is the time to step up on the global stage, not step back.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir Desmond, for chairing the debate, which I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing. The huge amount of consensus from all parties shows that this is not a big-P political issue; it is about how we make the world, and the UK, more secure.
Development is about UK security. I agree that the new global reality means that we have to increase our defence spending, but we should be looking at how to increase our development spending at the same time, because the two serve each other. China and Russia have their own agenda, which is in conflict with our values of democracy and human rights. Their agenda is to destabilise the international rules-based system; they want to exploit, not support. I saw that with my own eyes when I lived in Kenya, where they promised roads in exchange for minerals, and also seemed to kill a bunch of elephants for their ivory on their way out.
The BBC World Service is being picked up at every opportunity, every time we step back. For so many around the world, it has been their only link to the outside world and to free and fair reporting. When we withdraw, desperate countries that need the infrastructure spend have only Russia and China to turn to, and that comes with a very heavy cost. It is destabilising our Commonwealth, which the King leads and for which we have a huge moral responsibility. Countries’ economies are collapsing and famine is returning. That drives migration, as people flee war looking for work and safety, and millions are dying.
We have an opportunity to change that. Malaria has been eradicated from many countries, HIV treatment is on the cusp, based on UK science, and polio has almost been eradicated. We could protect millions across the world, as well as in the UK—because we know that viruses know no borders. We are co-hosting the Global Fund replenishment, yet last time, under the Conservatives, the UK was the only country to cut its commitment. We risk global embarrassment by cutting it further at a time when the world needs global leadership again from the UK. Even the US is not cutting its commitment. There is a huge job ahead to rebuild Gaza and, now, Jamaica. We could demonstrate our generosity by using aid match—I should declare that I am the chair of the APPG for aid match—to show the public that, for every pound they contribute, the Government contribute too in helping to rebuild Jamaica and Gaza.
This is the time not for short-termism just to make the balance sheet work, but for long-term thinking—it is in our Labour values and our Labour history. The world needs the UK to lead. The Prime Minister said that this was one of the hardest cuts that he had to make and that it would be temporary, so what is the route out of the cut and how will we rebuild over the coming years to ensure that development spending is seen as spending on UK security, alongside our defence spend?
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for bringing this vital debate to Westminster Hall. I want to start with the words of Jane from Cheadle, who wrote to me to ask:
“How will the Government’s cuts impact the world’s most vulnerable children?”
I would like to put that very question to the Minister today.
The Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned by the Government’s decision to reduce the UK’s official development assistance from 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3%—the lowest UK aid contribution as a percentage of GNI since 1999—thereby diminishing the UK’s long-standing reputation as a global leader in humanitarian assistance and development. What will happen to the countless children across the world who will no longer receive healthcare, education, vaccines, social protection or climate disaster mitigation? Millions of children will grow up in a less stable world, more likely to be drawn into extremism or crime, more likely to suffer poor mental and physical health, and less likely to be educated, employed or able to participate in and contribute to democracy—the cornerstone of global security.
The statistics are stark: 2024 was one of the worst years on record for children in conflict. Almost 20% were affected—double the figure just two decades ago. This year, 63 million children have gone hungry, as food insecurity due to violence has increased. The Government’s decision to cut aid is deadly, dangerous and short-sighted. Although we agree with the importance of strengthening the UK’s national security and defence commitments, particularly in the light of increasing global security challenges, we recognise that cutting ODA diminishes the UK’s soft power.
There is an intimate connection between supporting international aid and preventing conflict abroad. ODA investment is an essential tool in tackling poverty, promoting stability and reducing the causes of conflict and migration, all of which serve the UK’s own security interests. It is concerning that the UK’s retreat from its status as an international aid superpower creates a vacuum into which Russia and China flow. The UK’s influence in the world comes through a combination of hard power and soft power, including our development funds. Further diminishing the UK’s soft power will only play into those states’ hands.
A recent briefing from key organisations including UNICEF highlighted the dire impact that these cuts will have on ground operations. Operations across the globe will be scaled back, causing serious harm to citizens of affected countries and those putting themselves in harm’s way to help others—the humanitarian workers. I have highlighted in this Chamber the impact that reducing the aid budget will have on those selfless workers and, as a consequence, on those who need aid. I am sure that everyone in the Chamber knows that 2024 was the deadliest year on record for humanitarian workers. Violence against aid workers has reached unprecedented levels, with injuries, harassment, kidnapping —the list goes on. Slashed budgets mean that the workers have fewer protections and less security, that less aid reaches victims of conflict, natural disasters and climate change in their hour of need, and that children in Sudan, Gaza, the west bank, Yemen, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Ukraine will miss out on vital lifesaving support.
According to Plan International UK, in Sudan, at least 638,000 people are already experiencing famine conditions, and children are dying of starvation; there have been reports of mothers and children eating leaves from trees just to stay alive. The people of Gaza have suffered beyond anything that we could imagine; with a very fragile ceasefire now in place, we need unprecedented amounts of aid to be pumped into the region. According to Action for Humanity, nearly half of Yemen’s people are already at crisis-level food insecurity, with another million people expected to fall to that level in the coming months.
I will conclude with a quote from David, another resident of Cheadle, who said to me:
“Strengthening our defence should not come at the expense of international aid. These cuts are short-sighted and they are counter-productive.”
I have said before that we must not underestimate our soft power. We must invest in our future security to maintain democratic values, reduce displacement and decrease the chances of conflict. Ministers must reaffirm the UK’s commitment to global security. We can be a beacon of conscience and compassion. Helping now will help the world.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
Order. I am imposing a formal four-minute limit.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) on securing the debate.
I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I have recently met Unite representatives who work for development agencies. They set out the challenges that they face, professionally and personally, from the cuts to the aid budget. As they face job losses here and around the world, their greater concern is the impact of the cuts, not least given that $44 billion of development funding has been cut this year alone. That is a scandal, given that the UN highlights that for every $1 invested in peacebuilding and development initiatives, $16 are saved, and that for every $1 invested to stimulate economic growth and stability, $103 can be saved by averting future instability.
The World Health Organisation warns that the cuts will mean 38 million essential immunisations not being delivered to children, and that we will see regression in TB, AIDS, malaria and many other programmes. The UN World Food Programme will be starved of vital funds, and the loss of education will deny too many, especially girls, a future. This is a false choice between development, defence and diplomacy, which are now out of balance with one other, causing instability to grow.
I urge the Government to rethink and restore our 0.7% commitment, and to look to raise it to 1%, as we are now learning of the real climate devastation that is causing so much unrest around the world. The last Labour Government built global respect as we modelled our investment approach on building resilience and enabling local providers to sustain services for themselves, multiplying their impact. The erosion we have witnessed since we lost office—the shutting of the Department for International Development, the removal of a Cabinet member and the diversion of funds to pay for the asylum hotels scandal—has been stark. We need to reset our strategy and focus.
Climate and geopolitical challenges are unabating, so the UK approach is needed more than ever to de-risk and build stability in the system. Get this wrong and demands on defence will rise; cut too deep and diplomacy will lose impact. Scaling down funding will have a particular cost for women and girls—it is gendered. Yet fund them, and their empowerment and resilience is unparalleled. Cutting our aid presence gives countries such as China and Russia further space to intervene, as we have heard. Their interests are far removed from ours: while we seek independence, they drive dependence. Their economic models are self-serving; they seek power, control and extraction, and escalate risk for recipients and for us.
We have been such pioneers in providing leadership. Staff have excelled globally. Now they are fighting for others, so today I am fighting for them. The Minister knows the arguments all too well, and I trust that her powerful voice will echo around the Treasury over the coming days so that we can avoid this futile cut, which will cause such harm, cost lives, and cut hope and opportunity. We cannot afford to look away now, when the world is looking to us to step up and lead again.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing this important debate.
Getting UK aid spending to 0.7% of GNI was undoubtedly one of the Liberal Democrats’ proudest moments. It fulfilled a promise and it put us ahead of the game in the race to reach the Brandt target, but more importantly it meant that the UK was doing its bit to make poverty history around the world. The cut to 0.3% is a tragedy for the poorest on the planet, and it diminishes our reputation and influence.
I want to focus on my own area of expertise: water, sanitation and hygiene, or WASH. Sustainable development goal 6 is clean water and sanitation, but WASH also underpins most of the other SDGs. We know that the world could face a 40% shortfall of fresh water by 2030, and that progress on the sustainable development goals is way off track for meeting that 2030 deadline. More seriously, the UK’s annual budget for WASH has been cut by approximately 82% since 2018—from £206.5 million to a critical low of just £37 million in 2022. Two thirds of healthcare facilities in the 46 least developed countries do not have access to basic handwashing facilities, and without access to WASH, infections are more likely to spread. That increases the risk of antibiotic-resistant infections, which cause 5 million deaths annually.
There are also economic costs. Research by WaterAid has shown that infections developed in healthcare facilities cost seven countries across sub-Saharan Africa $8.4 billion each year. In Malawi, those infections are consuming almost 3% of the country’s GDP, and a staggering 10.9% of its annual healthcare budget is being absorbed in treating them. Many antibiotic-resistant infections treated by the NHS originate elsewhere in the world. Healthcare-acquired infections already cost the NHS at least £2.1 billion a year—a cost that will increase as those infections become increasingly resistant to antibiotics. To protect the NHS, we need to ensure global health security, and that requires investment in WASH.
Women’s health is disproportionately affected by inadequate access to WASH, because they are the primary household managers of water and sanitation, and because of their specific needs in childbirth and menstruation. Every year, more than 16 million women give birth in healthcare facilities that lack WASH, and infections associated with unclean birth environments account for 11% of maternal mortality. Some 1.7 billion people do not have a toilet, which makes managing periods much more challenging. With no facilities at school, at work or in public places, many women and girls stay at home every month. Many girls opt out of school altogether when they start their periods. I could go on at great length, but I will say this: let us do the right thing and restore the 0.7% aid spend.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.
Official development assistance is changing. Just two weeks ago in Nigeria, one of the UK’s largest development partners, my colleagues and I from the International Development Committee had a glimpse of the future. Although the FCDO runs dozens of centrally managed programmes in the country, what stood out was not just the scale of the UK’s presence, but the way that we worked hand in glove with state Governments and public institutions to build the capacity that underpins long-term development. Whether that was in technical assistance to the revenue service or tax administration, support for reforming the public health system or advice on the macroeconomic reforms that Nigeria is beginning to implement, the emphasis was unmistakeable: partnership not paternalism.
That is a mature partnership that points the way to the future of international development. As painful as it is for a proponent of international development to say this, when the Government cut aid earlier this year, the writing was on the wall. The system must evolve from trade, not aid, and to transformation rather than transactions.
In that evolution, the UK possesses an extraordinary toolkit. We remain a leader in technical co-operation and capacity building, we are a pioneer in development finance and, perhaps most importantly, we sit at the centre of the global financial architecture. Nearly half of sovereign debt worldwide is governed by English law. That fact alone gives the City of London a moral and practical responsibility. If we want to see fairer, faster and more transparent debt restructuring and prevent another lost decade for low-income countries, the UK is uniquely placed to lead. Global debt reform will not happen in New York or Beijing unless it also happens in London.
In British International Investment—I declare an interest as a former employee—we have a leader among European development finance institutions, one that understands that development finance is not just about providing capital but about building markets. BII’s mission is to identify the bridges that must be built to get economic activity off the ground, create jobs and lift people out of poverty, while delivering a fair return, even when that return is concessional to the British taxpayer. That is smart, modern development policy, which will strengthen Africa’s hand.
Nowhere is the shift from aid to investment more necessary than in northern Nigeria. While parts of the south of Nigeria power on, the north is facing a humanitarian crisis, deep insecurity and environmental stress. Yes, there is an urgent need for aid to combat famine, strengthen healthcare systems and stabilise communities, but we must also confront the structural causes. A major driver of that instability is economic exclusion. Across the Sahel and the north of Nigeria, young people are being pushed off their land by drought, flooding and declining soil resilience. Many of those who end up in the orbit of Boko Haram or bandit groups are not idealogues; they are victims of climate and market failure.
Those problems are not insurmountable, but aid without investment is not the answer to that market failure. If we can give rural farmers the means to invest in sustainable crops and farming practices, agriculture can be a source of peace, dignity and security. The World Bank’s forthcoming Nigeria agricultural value chains growth project—on which I hope the Minister will comment—is now at concept stage, but it aims to do just that, and to mobilise more than $500 million to foster the kind of growth that I have described. I also commend the work that BII is doing with its investee Babban Gona in that realm.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I declare an interest in that my wife works for Save the Children. Indeed, I met her while working in the sector almost 11 years ago to this day.
I start by setting out some context around the erosion of the budget, because it has not just been reduced in absolute terms but as a proportion. That makes some of the arguments about not being able to afford official development assistance due to the lack of growth in the economy slightly disingenuous—because, of course, when the economy does not perform, the amount that we contribute goes down anyway.
There has also been a lot of salami-slicing of the budget. The merger with the FCDO was bad for the amount of aid being directed to the global south; we have also heard about the Home Office eating into the budget. With regard to the latest reason for reducing the aid budget—which is about defence—a lot of the uplift in the defence budget has been on the capital side. We are borrowing to invest in that capital. Therefore it is also slightly disingenuous to say that there is a direct transfer between the international aid budget and the money that is going into defence. That needs to be made clear.
The public misunderstand how much we commit to spending on international aid. In polls, they consistently overestimate it. I believe that if the British public truly understood that the commitment was 0.7%, they would stand by that commitment. It is like asking somebody who is down to their last £100 if they would give 70p to somebody more needy than them. I know that the British public are generous, and that they would not baulk at that figure. I think that they would maintain that commitment.
I now move to the points that were excellently put by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on how we have allowed public support to erode over time. The public’s perception of international aid is that a lot of it is wasted, that some of it is spent on woke projects, that it goes to corrupt Governments, and that the trade-off between investment in the poor overseas and the poor in the UK is a zero-sum game.
It would be easy for me to say that it is the fault of right-wing populists, the media and so on. However, I think that the sector itself has failed to communicate properly. It has failed to tell a long-term story of its success. For 30 years, we have had the same images on our screens—starving African children with flies hovering around their noses. That is the image that we consistently feed to the public, instead of telling some of the stories of progress, such as how we have halved infant mortality and lifted a billion people out of destitution. Those are the stories that we should have been telling the public all along.
I believe that the development sector was one of the most scrutinised in terms of its monitoring and evaluation. From time to time, I am sure that there have been pet projects that were useless. However, generally speaking we have achieved so much from our investment in international aid, so we need to get that message across.
The following points were made by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), so I will not go into them in detail. However, we need to sell the changing purpose of aid—how it is about not dependency but creating independence, how we work in partnership because it is not mere charity, and how it is based on shared values because we all want a good future for our children. It is about telling those stories of progress.
Other Members have already made good points about how this is also in our self-interest—the raw, naked interest of Britain. If we vacate this field, it will be filled by others. When I lived in Uganda for a period, I saw how China is moving in where the UK is moving out, so this has an impact on soft power all over the world.
The points made about conflict security have been well put; whether we feel it in inflation or migration, these problems arrive back on our shores. The arguments against the aid budget are rooted in moral confusion, they demonstrate a poor analysis of the efficacy of aid, and they are strategically short-sighted. That is why we need to restore the 0.7% budget and recreate an independent Department for International Development, so that we can start marshalling that money towards the good, effective and important work that it has always done.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for setting the scene so incredibly well. International development aid has been significant in helping at-risk individuals and groups around the globe. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I acknowledge the importance of providing financial and physical support to religious minorities that are facing threats, violence and persecution on a daily basis.
International aid has long served as a lifeline for minority groups to rebuild their lives, to provide additional education and to support local organisations. It is a reminder that we have not forgotten those facing the most horrific forms of persecution simply because they choose to believe, whether that is the Rohingya population in Myanmar, Christians in the middle east or the Ahmadiyya in Pakistan, all of whom face ongoing violence, forced displacement and deep-rooted discrimination.
The devastating effects of global cuts to international aid have been evidenced most clearly in the decision to dissolve USAID. In January 2025, thousands of humanitarian and international aid projects were put on a 90-day freeze, and over 80% of its projects were permanently terminated. Global organisations such as World Vision and Samaritan’s Purse, which are active in my constituency of Strangford, were directly impacted, as well as Catholic Relief Services.
Several affected projects involved a focus on freedom of religion or belief, such as Asia and ethnic freedom, or the documentation of religious freedom incidents in Sudan. The NGOs and faith-based humanitarian organisations have now been left with depleted resources, unfinished missions and heartbreaking reports from the field, where support is now absent. That is the effect of the cuts: the staff, volunteers and international partners, who are driven by compassion, conviction and service, now find themselves unable to meet human need because the infrastructure that enabled them to do so has been abruptly dismantled.
The termination of USAID has led to a global vacuum in which NGOs struggle to survive, rendering communities such as the Yazidis in Iraq increasingly vulnerable to the termination of psychosocial support and humanitarian aid. The effect is like a stone hitting water—it ripples the whole way out. Persecuted religious minorities are suffering more than ever without the commitment of permanent, ongoing support. The Government must ensure that their needs are protected and addressed.
The UK has long been a leader in championing freedom of religion or belief, and the Government made a good decision by renewing the appointment of a special envoy for freedom of religion or belief—the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) —in December 2024. To ensure that we are upholding our reputation and protecting the right to religious freedom, we must strongly oppose cuts in the budget that clearly harm the vulnerable individuals that we are striving very hard to protect.
I believe that we must remain committed to providing high-quality international aid that will contribute to a long-lasting positive change in areas where the persecution of individuals is most targeted. We cannot allow the most vulnerable to be left to suffer, and we cannot turn our backs on injustice.
I am always minded of Proverbs 31:8-9—I know you will appreciate this, Sir Desmond, as I do—which states:
“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves,
for the rights of all who are destitute.
Speak up and judge fairly;
defend the rights of the poor and needy.”
There must also be full transparency about how our international aid is being used to promote the fundamental right to freedom of religion or belief, particularly in countries such as Nigeria, Pakistan and Myanmar where so many continue to suffer simply because of their faith. While continuing the aid is vital, it is equally essential that receiving Governments uphold their responsibilities and adhere to the highest human rights standards. Our support must be accompanied by a clear expectation that Governments respect the dignity and freedoms of all people within their borders. I ask the Minister that, where aid is extended, so too must there be a commitment to protect vulnerable religious and ethnic minority groups.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
It is indeed a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing this debate on a critical issue. It is critical because we are at a cliff edge. This year, with 120 armed conflicts, more than at any moment since the second world war; this year, with nearly 320 million people facing acute hunger; this year, when 2024 was the hottest year on record; this year, when the deadly trio of climate, conflict and hunger collide to force the displacement of 123 million people, this Government decided to slash the aid budget to the lowest level this century—after, because of or in spite of the United States Administration’s decision to close USAID, cut the foreign assistance budget by 85% and shed 10,000 jobs.
This year, under a Labour Government, we surrendered our global leadership on aid and development. That represents one of the most consequential and devastating decisions of recent years, with long-term consequences for our stability, security and prosperity, and it will cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
It is a mistake, both morally and strategically—strategically, because aid is not an act of charity, as we have already heard today. It is a long-term investment in our future; it is not a cash machine in the sky, but a deposit account from which we withdraw for our own prosperity. There is a reason why some of the most vociferous voices against these cuts are those of former military leaders. In contradiction of the Government’s attempt to reframe the cuts as a choice between defence and development, they argue instead that the two are mutually supportive. To undermine one, is to weaken the other; as former US Defence Secretary Jim Mattis said:
“If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately.”
These are short-term decisions with long-term repercussions—easy now, but so hard further down the line, and costing Britain more in the long run.
Through our development spend, we invest in peace and resilience building. We know that when fragile states collapse, they create breeding grounds for extremism and terror, and that preventing wars is cheaper than fighting them. The ONE campaign has emphasised that every dollar invested in conflict prevention saves more than $100 in emergency response. However, funding for the UK Integrated Security Fund has been reduced by over £130 million this year, leaving vital peace building efforts without support.
Strategically, cutting aid is a mistake because aid keeps our borders safe. When we invest in the economic development of a nation, we give people opportunity and a stake in the success of that nation, so they will choose to stay there rather than feeling compelled to seek those things in Britain by migrating to these shores. As the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world unfolds in Sudan, in 2024 alone more than 2,000 Sudanese nationals crossed the channel on small boats.
Strategically, cutting aid is also a mistake because development spend protects our health and security, and the NHS, keeping disease from our shores. Strategically, it is a mistake because development spend creates the conditions for trade and partnership, strengthening economies that become markets for British goods and services and promote growth.
Strategically, cutting aid is also a mistake because development is an investment in our soft power—the global influence that comes from being a trusted partner. When Britain leads on aid and development, our voice carries further in diplomacy, trade and security; when we withdraw, our influence diminishes and our adversaries, who watched us jealously, knowing the value of that influence, move in. As we cut our soft power tools, such as the British Council and the BBC World Service, China and Russia cement their influence across the African continent.
Those are the strategic arguments against cutting aid, but the moral arguments alone are enough. Government projections show UK aid spending falling from £14 billion to around £9 billion by 2027, a near one-third reduction in real terms, and the actual numbers are far worse. In-country donor refugee costs, or asylum accommodation costs, are consuming a fifth of our entire aid budget. What right have the Government to spend taxpayers’ money—including that of my Esher and Walton constituents—money that had been allocated to help the poorest in the world, in our own country to balance the inefficiencies of the Home Office?
Will the Minister ensure that the FCDO follows the International Development Committee’s recommendations, as set out in its report on the FCDO’s approach to value for money, published last week, that formal steps should be taken to cap the ODA that the Home Office can use for in-country donor refugee costs, including capping those costs at a fixed percentage of total ODA, and make a formal commitment that unspent ODA funding by other Government Departments is channelled back into the FCDO?
Analysis by Save the Children estimates that UK aid cuts will leave 55 million of the world’s poorest without access to basic resources, 12 million without access to clean water or sanitation and 2.9 million fewer children in education. This year’s cuts to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, alone will mean 400,000 fewer lives saved.
Let me be clear about what all that means on the ground: in the DRC, a flagship girls’ education programme that we supported will close early next year, and 170,000 children, mostly girls, will lose access to education. Other hon. Members have mentioned Yemen. In the DRC, around 27 million people face acute food insecurity, while cholera and measles spread unchecked. In Afghanistan, half the population—23 million people—require humanitarian assistance. All those are unprioritised by Government cuts. I could go on.
The Liberal Democrats believe Britain can and must reclaim its leadership on development. We need a clear road map to restore the legally enshrined 0.7% aid target. I ask the Minister: will the Government rule out any further cuts, and set out a plan to return to 0.7%?
We must embrace the role that the US has abandoned as the facilitating and convening power. I urge the Government to take up that mantle again, as successive Governments have done before, including Prime Ministers from the Minister’s own party—Blair and Brown, pledging to make poverty history. Before she retorts that those were the good times, I remind her that the coalition Government reached 0.7% for the first time, after the financial crash of 2008. Those were choices. This Government’s choice is to follow Boris Johnson, but to cut deeper, and to join the Conservatives and Reform in a race to the bottom.
I urge the Government to retrieve their progressive mantle; reverse these cuts; restore our legally enshrined commitment and reclaim our leadership on the world stage. Let us make sure that Britain’s generosity, leadership and belief in humanity remain not only a lifeline but a light in our ever-turbulent world.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing this timely debate. I also welcome the Minister to her place on the Front Bench; I think this is the first time we have met across the Dispatch Box in Westminster Hall, and I genuinely wish her well. I also thank in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), who, as ever, demonstrates a very deep understanding and knowledge of development issues and, importantly, the challenges that we face in today’s world.
The UK has a proud record as a global leader in international development. I am proud that that record was shaped and delivered by successive Conservative Governments. On this side of the House, we have always believed that development is not simply about charity, but about partnership, soft power, security and the projection of our national interest. Over the past decade, Conservative Governments delivered real and lasting results that have made the world healthier and safer, and unlocked economic opportunities.
Millions of people were lifted out of poverty through targeted aid programmes and economic development initiatives. We were the single largest public contributor to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, which has saved over 18 million lives. Our water, sanitation and hygiene programmes reached over 120 million people worldwide. That is a record that we Conservatives can be proud of.
Today, though, the world we face is very different from that of just a few years ago. We are living through an era of multiple and overlapping crises: conflict in Europe and the middle east; state fragility in the Sahel and the horn of Africa; climate and weather-driven disasters displacing millions and a growing contest of influence, where authoritarian regimes ruthlessly exploit entry points. Against that backdrop, the UK must ensure that every pound of taxpayers’ money spent abroad delivers maximum impact and advances our critical national interests.
We need to focus our resources where they make the greatest difference, where they advance our economic prosperity, strengthen our national security and support global stability. Our country will always play its part internationally, but our development funding must work harder for Britain. Development assistance is a powerful tool of foreign policy: it helps us to prevent conflict before it reaches our shores, to tackle the root causes of migration, and to build the partnerships that underpin trade, investment and shared security.
Our approach should therefore be guided by one simple principle: every pound we spend abroad should strengthen Britain’s influence, advance our prosperity and help to keep our people safe. That does not mean turning our back on those in need—far from it: it means ensuring that our aid budget is targeted, effective and sustainable, not fragmented across hundreds of small programmes, but concentrated in areas that serve both moral purpose and strategic value.
To achieve that, we must also work differently. First, we need to harness the power of economic development. Development finance should not just be about grants; it should open markets, create opportunities and support British business too. When our aid helps to build capacity, digital connectivity and a resilient infrastructure, it lays the groundwork for trade and investment that benefit both sides. British International Investment is a vital vehicle for that. We should go further in aligning ODA with our export strategy and business partnerships. I ask the Minister what specific steps the Government are taking to ensure that private investment is being leveraged to its full potential. How is the FCDO supporting British International Investment and other financial instruments to deliver maximum value and measurable returns for both partner countries and the UK taxpayer?
Secondly, we must modernise our partnerships. Development should be about partnership, not paternalism. It should empower countries to build their own institutions, tackle corruption and take ownership of their future. That is how we strengthen democracy, counter malign influence and help our partners to become resilient, prosperous nations and reliable allies of the UK. We also need to be bolder in linking aid to security outcomes. Our support has helped to build resilience in countries targeted by Russian destabilisation, such as Moldova.
Those are examples of ODA directly strengthening our own national security. Will the Minister set out how the Department is embedding that security lens across its ODA portfolio, and whether new co-ordination mechanisms exist between the FCDO, the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office to align aid spending with defence and resilience goals, including in relation to combating disinformation from hostile actors? In doing so, we should continue to ensure that our support reaches those to whom it makes the greatest difference. Women and girls must remain at the heart of our international development approach. Targeted programmes save lives and support education, health and safety. This work is not only a moral responsibility. It is one of the most effective and value for money ways to deliver on our wider development and foreign policy goals.
Bobby Dean
The right hon. Lady is making an excellent case for international aid and is talking about the need for it to evolve and to be better and bigger in some ways. Why therefore is her party proposing cutting the aid budget to 0.1%?
Wendy Morton
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; I was just going to come on to the point that I believe answers his question.
Our development partnerships must adapt to the changing geopolitical landscape that we face today. That is at the heart of this issue. The minilateral model, where like-minded countries pool resources for shared objectives can be a powerful force multiplier, nimbler and more accountable than large multilateral programmes. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government are exploring new minilateral partnerships to deliver aid more efficiently and to help to ensure that developing nations choose genuine partnerships of openness and mutual benefit with the UK over one-sided deals with authoritarian powers that can often lead to debt traps?
Within that same vein, the Commonwealth is an immense asset, so what are the Government doing to use ODA to strengthen democratic resilience, improve internal trade and support the new Commonwealth secretary-general’s priorities on prosperity and governance?
We owe it to the British taxpayer to ensure that every pound of ODA is well spent, fully accountable and transparently reported. That means rigorous evaluation, better oversight and a clear demonstration of value for money. It also means having the courage to stop funding programmes that are no longer effective or aligned with our priorities, and to focus on what works. I ask the Minister to set out how her Department is strengthening accountability and transparency mechanisms across its ODA portfolio.
We must recognise that defence, diplomacy and development are interdependent. Strategic flexibility matters in an increasingly dangerous world, and reprioritising elements of the aid budget to strengthen our defence and security capabilities is pragmatic and responsible. We must deliver on that. Security is the foundation of development. Without stability, prosperity and progress, it cannot take root.
Finally, I return to the question raised last week at the Dispatch Box by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) regarding the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. Given the position expressed in recent days by the US Administration about its future role in Gaza, can the Minister confirm what discussions the UK has had with the US and other partners on that issue? What assessment has been made of the implications for UK aid, and what safeguards are in place to ensure that British taxpayers’ money is being used responsibly, effectively and in line with our values?
As we look ahead, our approach to international development must continue to reflect who we are as a nation: outward looking, confident and compassionate. My party’s approach stands for a proud record of global leadership, a focus on results and accountability and a belief that partnership, not dependency, is the path to lasting progress and security. Britain will remain a force for good in the world, not because of the size of our aid budget, but because of the clarity of our ambition, the strength of our partnerships and the integrity of our leadership.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond, and to respond to an incredibly thoughtful and important debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing this debate, and I thank him for his work on the Foreign Affairs Committee and multiple APPGs.
The Minister for Multilateral, Human Rights, Latin America and the Caribbean, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore), who covers development in the Commons, would have been here to participate in the debate, but is currently representing the UK at the world summit for social development in Doha. I am sure that the House will understand his unavoidable absence. I am grateful to respond on behalf of the Government. I will endeavour to cover a number of the points that were raised today, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will also be willing to pick up on some of those issues that hon. Members have put on the record. I also thank the Chair of the International Development Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for her work, her remarks today and the Committee’s recent report, which the Department will be responding to in due course.
A number of issues were raised today, and the same very important point was made by a number of hon. Members about the connection between our security and global security. We continue to be clear-eyed about risks to security, which are at the forefront of our minds. We believe that international development is an important lever in delivering mutually beneficial outcomes, including security for us and across the world. A number of other issues were also raised, including on soft power influence in the world, long-term planning, shaping the world of tomorrow and aid matching. Let me add context to those challenges and the question of whether this Government are looking inwards more than outwards. The whole direction of our Government over the last 18 months has been to step up on the global stage. We are a Government who inherited a very difficult set of finances, but more than that, we inherited a broken Government in so many respects, which had stopped looking outwards and had lost respect and trust across the world.
I am proud that we are a Government focused on our responsibilities and place in the world. I am proud of the work that we have done to bring stability to our economy, but we are also now focusing on the long term here and abroad. That is also illustrated through some of the main trade deals and resets that we have had with the US, the EU and India, but we have been upgrading our partnerships with so many countries. I recently participated in the Aqaba process in Italy, hosted by the Italian Prime Minister and the King of Jordan, with a focus on counter-terrorism, development and support in the Sahel region. It is important that we recognise the links between security and prosperity across the world.
Earlier this year, to enable a necessary increase in defence spending, the Government made the decision to reduce our official development assistance budget. We have consistently affirmed the UK’s commitment to international development and to restoring spending of 0.7% of GNI on ODA when the fiscal circumstances allow. It is also the case—this point has been made by a number of hon. and right hon. Members—that it is not all about how much we spend, but about how we spend. It is crucial also that we modernise our approach for today. A more volatile and uncertain world demands a new development model. With less money, we must make choices and focus on the greatest impact. Every pound must deliver for the UK taxpayer and the people we support.
I note the comments about corruption and misappropriation, and I will say that from the conversations I have had with Baroness Chapman, I know that ensuring that we are spending wisely and have value for money—this has been identified as a strength of the UK by the International Development Committee—are top of her list. It is important that we keep that focus.
It is worth spending a little time on our strategy and what is at the heart of our new approach and fundamental shift. First, we are moving from donor to investor, partnering with countries to unlock growth, jobs and trade through innovative finance and private sector investment. Secondly, we are moving from service delivery to system support, helping countries build their own education, health and economic systems, so that they can thrive without aid. Thirdly, we are moving from grants to expertise, leveraging UK strengths such as our world-class universities, the City of London, the Met Office, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the education, health and tech sectors. Fourthly, we are moving from international intervention to local leadership, working increasingly in partnership with local actors, rather than through internationally driven interventions. That does speak to the point that a number of Members made about partnership rather than paternalism.
Several hon. Members rose—
Seema Malhotra
I have a number of points to make, but I will come back once I have made them. On changing from donor to investor, a number of comments were made about British International Investment and other development finance institutions. These are central to the UK’s shifts. BII deploys patient capital to stimulate private-sector growth in developing countries, balancing financial returns with development impact. Indeed, we have seen our partnerships grow, such as with the Gates Foundation. Our co-investments with the Gates Foundation in breeding wheat with higher zinc and climate resilience have benefited more than 97 million people in Pakistan, positively impacting their health and quality of life. In Ghana, the UK is using its development relationship to support Ghana’s goal to move beyond aid. A Ghanaian textile factory financed by British International Investment has grown into one of west Africa’s largest, providing 6,000 jobs, mainly for women, and exporting garments globally.
Sarah Champion
It is of course the Government’s right to make whatever policy decisions and budget cuts they feel appropriate, but how are they planning to do the four priorities with a 25% cut in staffing and a £6 billion cut in the available money?
Seema Malhotra
I will go through how we will take some of the priorities forward and some of the changes that we are seeing through our strategy. I hope that helps answer my hon. Friend’s question. I want to make a point about our investment in Gavi, of which we were a founding member under the last Labour Government. It has generated £250 billion in economic benefits through reduced death and disability. It is a partnership based on the UK’s world-leading expertise in not just funding but research.
From grants to expertise, that partnership comes up in conversations that I have with countries that I work with as Minister with responsibility for the Indo-Pacific. It is important in terms of how we are working to increase the expertise of partners, including the Bank of England, the City of London and the University of Cambridge. We are helping to train financial regulators across countries, and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ partnership with the Ghana Revenue Authority used the UK’s expertise to increase Ghana’s tax revenue collection by £100 million last year—revenues that will help fund Ghana’s transition from aid.
I am conscious of time, but I will make a few further remarks. Reducing the overall size of our ODA budget will necessarily have an impact on the scale and shape of the work that we do. But we are sharpening our focus on three priorities, which match partner needs and the long-term needs of people in the UK, and are also in areas where we can drive real change. These priorities have been highlighted in this debate—humanitarian, health, and climate and nature—and they are underpinned by economic development. They will help maximise our impact and focus our efforts where they matter most.
I reassure the House that the UK will continue to play a key humanitarian role, including responding to the most significant conflicts of our era, in Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan. We will not let Sudan be forgotten. We are the third-largest bilateral humanitarian donor to Sudan, and in April we announced £120 million to deliver lifesaving services to over 650,000 people affected by the conflict.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
On that point, will the Minister give way?
Seema Malhotra
I am sorry, but due to time I will be wrapping up. At the weekend, the Foreign Secretary announced a further £5 million of support to the crisis in el-Fasher. While we have seen cuts, we have avoided disproportionate negative impacts on women and girls and people living with disabilities in this year’s ODA allocations, as confirmed by the equalities impact assessment that we published. We will continue to strengthen actions to help mitigate some of the negative impacts on equalities, including by putting women and girls at the heart of everything we do.
I will make a final point in relation to the ODA budget for supporting refugees in the UK. The Government are focused on reducing asylum costs and ending the use of migrant hotels by the end of the Parliament, and we have already made progress on that. The UK remains committed to international development. We are working with our partners to shape the next stage of global development, and at the same time, we are strengthening the UK’s safety, security and prosperity—and global safety, security and prosperity—which is essential for delivering all the missions of this Government.
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
Edward Morello, you have less than a minute.
Edward Morello
In that case, I will not thank everyone individually for their contributions. Thank you, Sir Desmond, for so wisely chairing the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for her continuing leadership in this area. I will use my one remaining minute to make the point to the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), that the 0.1% that her party envisages will leave literally no money, once in-country costs are accounted for.
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for stepping in to respond. She made the point that the UK is a leader on the partnership model, but she failed to mention that when we withdraw from that leadership role, others step in. It will be China and Russia. Every Member in the Chamber made the same point about the importance of British leadership in this space, so I very much hope she will take the message back to her Department that we want to see the ODA budget restored.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of planned reductions in Official Development Assistance on international development.
Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation
(1 day, 6 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 Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
I will call only Sir Ashley Fox and the Minister to make speeches. There will not be an opportunity for Sir Ashley to sum up after the debate.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Royal Mail and the universal service obligation.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. It is also a pleasure to move the motion and introduce this debate on Royal Mail and the universal service obligation. This issue affects every household and small business in the country. The postal service is a vital part of our communities. Its future and the changes to the universal service obligation, or USO, particularly affect my constituents.
Our postmen and women are among the most remarkable workers in the country. Out on their routes, come rain or shine, they are often well loved in their communities. The pandemic showed us at first hand the impact that a good postie has—especially for elderly or vulnerable people who were shielding or who had little other human interaction in that period. People in rural areas rely on the service to stay connected.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I also respect the men and women of Royal Mail but, in my office, one major issue has been delay. For those who are elderly, with sometimes complex and severe health problems, the mail is not arriving in time. They miss their appointments and the follow-up. The fines from Government are not working. What else does the hon. Member think the Government should do to ensure that Royal Mail is accountable to our constituents for the delivery of mail?
Sir Ashley Fox
If the hon. Gentleman stays, he will find that I answer most of those points in the remainder of my speech. Since 1840, the principle of the USO has been simple: everyone in the United Kingdom, no matter where they live, should have access to a reliable and affordable postal service. It is a promise of fairness. If I post a letter in Bridgwater, it costs the same to deliver to an address in Inverness as it does to one down the road in Taunton.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
I fully agree with the USO, but in some postcodes in my constituency 20% of first-class mail is delivered late. In Buckland, there is no mail service at all when the postlady is on holiday. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government must work with Royal Mail to improve service?
Sir Ashley Fox
Indeed. The hon. Gentleman will find that if only 20% do not get next-day delivery, they are doing better than average; that does not speak highly of Royal Mail. Since I was elected last year, many of my constituents have told me that Royal Mail is not working as it should. After hearing those concerns first hand, I visited the sorting office in Bridgwater.
In January, I ran a sample survey to ascertain the scale of the problem in my constituency. I ensured that each town and village was sampled, as I wanted to ensure that every area was covered. I had hundreds of responses. Only one in three got a delivery every day; 15% said they received post once a week or less frequently.
In North Petherton, a constituent repeatedly received a bundle of letters delivered once a week, with no Royal Mail van spotted during the rest of the week. I had a report of no deliveries in Othery for more than a fortnight. My constituents had to travel to the sorting office in Bridgwater to collect post personally. In Cossington, a constituent’s weekend magazine subscription went missing for seven weeks in a row. No one area had a wholly good or wholly bad service. In Burnham-on-Sea, 48% of respondents gave Royal Mail 10 out of 10 for reliability of service, and 30% gave it zero out of 10.
It seems that if a household is on a route with a good postie, it gets a great service, but if that route is not allocated, the letters sit in the rack for days on end with nothing happening. That is simply bad management.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. That situation has occurred at Bexleyheath sorting office in my constituency, and Royal Mail asked whether I could help advertise its vacancies. Should Royal Mail do more to try to fill vacancies on routes that are not filled?
Sir Ashley Fox
Indeed it should. We have evidence of poor management and, dare I say, occasionally unco-operative unions.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I have found that local post workers are really keen to innovate where they can to try to deal with the issues. One thing they pioneered was putting the NHS barcode on healthcare-related letters. Does the hon. Member agree that the Minister should liaise with his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to make sure that every NHS organisation puts that barcode on so that those letters can get to the people who need them?
Sir Ashley Fox
I agree entirely with the right hon. Lady.
I know that there are plenty of local problems, but I also want to look at the national picture. In the first quarter of this financial year, Royal Mail’s performance under the existing USO targets fell well short of expectations. The target for first-class deliveries is 93%, meaning that 93% of first-class post should arrive the next working day. In practice, Royal Mail managed only 75.9%. For second-class deliveries, the target is 98.5% delivered within three working days, yet only 89.3% were delivered on time. That is millions of items delayed across the country. When we look at daily deliveries, the story is even more concerning.
In 2024-25, the proportion of daily routes that were delivered was 87.8%. That is against a target of 99.9%. On any given day, more than one in 10 routes were simply not delivered at all. That explains why locally, even within a small village, some people appear to get a good service while others get next to no post at all. A constituent in Spaxton wrote to me to let me know that his postie had complained of severe staffing shortages and that the new contracts being offered were making the jobs unattractive to new starters.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
I wrote to the Post Office in July, three and a half months ago, and it emailed a response this week—I think three and a half months might be a record. The posties in the west highlands, a very rural area, get paid an amount of money that is not attractive to them. We have areas in Wester Ross and Skye that are getting no post at all and have not for some weeks. Does the hon. Member not agree that the Post Office should use the flexibility that it has to pay a reasonable sum to attract postal staff?
Sir Ashley Fox
Yes, I agree. We can all agree that Royal Mail faces real challenges. Many people now communicate primarily online and fewer letters are sent, which impacts revenue.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the unions earlier. We could perhaps acknowledge that the Communication Workers Union has called out the clear mismanagement of the senior leadership and the need for Royal Mail to fix its recruitment retention crisis.
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree with me that the issue is much wider across the sector in that it is vastly unregulated, creating an advantageous environment for parcel couriers such as Amazon? That has an impact on Royal Mail’s ability to deliver its services when it is being fined by Ofcom. Some see that as a very punitive measure, given that Amazon and other parcel couriers carry on unregulated and make no contribution to the universal network itself. They hive off profits and pay workers a pittance.
Sir Ashley Fox
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for reading out the Communication Workers Union press release. I did refer earlier to bad management and occasionally militant unions. I think good management will overcome the problems, but I do not think the solution lies in more regulation of other private operators. I want to make a little progress now.
The national figures that we see represent a consistent decline in performance over several years, despite the clear legal and moral obligations that come with being the nation’s postal service. Ofcom has noticed. In 2022-23, Royal Mail was fined £5.6 million for failing to meet its delivery targets. The following year, 2023-24, the fine almost doubled to £10.5 million. In 2024-25, it more than doubled again—a staggering £21 million penalty for failing to deliver the service that the public expects and deserves.
In the face of mounting pressures, changes to the USO have been adopted. I must admit that I am sympathetic to some of the arguments that have been made. If I asked many of my constituents whether they would rather have post delivered consistently every other day, they would gladly accept, but I worry that that will not happen.
Under the changes being discussed, the number of delivery days would be reduced, meaning fewer days on which post must actually be delivered. But that is not all. The performance targets have been watered down. On first-class mail, the target is set to drop from 93% to 90%. For second-class post, the target drops from 98.5% to 95%. The post will now come less frequently and Royal Mail expects to deliver even less of it on time.
In my local survey, residents scored reliability at an average of only five out of 10—some, of course, scored as much as 10, and others, zero. They already experience an unreliable service. These changes will not improve either the perception or the reality.
Let us be clear about what the situation means. This is not just a few percentage points on a chart; it is millions of people waiting longer for vital letters—legal documents, hospital appointments, prescriptions and personal correspondence. It is small businesses waiting an extra day or two to deliver goods. It is rural communities, already struggling with connectivity and transport, being pushed further to the margins. It also sets a dangerous precedent: instead of holding Royal Mail to the standards it has committed to, we simply move the goalposts to make failure acceptable.
A constituent in Bridgwater complained that his letters were being delivered in bundles of 16, 18 and, once, 23 at a time, and up to four weeks late. Does the Minister think these changes will reassure that constituent?
The Government and Ofcom need to remember that the universal service obligation is not just a technical regulation; it is a public promise. It is what makes Royal Mail more than just another delivery company and gives it a unique place in British life. Reducing delivery days, reducing targets and accepting lower standards risks eroding that promise. Once lost, it will be incredibly difficult to restore.
It is important to ask ourselves what message is sent when a national institution misses its targets so widely, is repeatedly fined, and instead of being required to improve, is allowed to relax the very standards it is meant to meet. If the argument is that letter volumes are falling, which they are, let us have an honest conversation about how that service can adapt. Right now, targets are being missed and the answer should not be, “Water down the targets until they are met.”
Royal Mail’s decline in performance is not inevitable. It is the result of choices about investment, priorities and accountability. The choice before us now is whether we accept decline or demand better. I urge Ofcom, the Government and Royal Mail to consider whether the changes, in the long term, will really improve services. Or do they, in fact, represent another step backwards?
The last time this matter was debated in Westminster Hall, in 2023, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), who was then the shadow Minister for business and consumers and is now a Minister in the Foreign Office, said that
“Labour is committed to the universal service obligation as the company’s central mission. The next Labour Government will want to ensure that the USO is secure for the future and continues to be provided by Royal Mail in a way that is affordable and accessible to all users…We will also strongly oppose any attempts, whether by the Conservatives in the future or by the leadership of Royal Mail Group, to weaken or abandon the USO.”—[Official Report, 12 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 324WH.]
Does the Minister agree with his hon. Friend? What do the Government think of these changes? Has Labour forgotten the promises it made only two short years ago?
I conclude by referring once more to my local survey. Of those who did not use the postal service regularly, over a third said that was because it was too slow or too unreliable. My residents already consider the cost of posting a letter to be too expensive. The new system risks being slower, more expensive and less reliable. That is not a way to attract new custom. In April 2025, Royal Mail was acquired by the EP group, a Czech-based company owned by Daniel Křetínský. I wish the new owners well, and hope that the acquisition leads to improved levels of service and efficiency so that we have a postal service that serves everybody, everywhere. Mr Křetínský can be assured that we will watch him very carefully.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) on securing this important debate on Royal Mail and the USO, an issue that matters deeply to households and to businesses across the country. Royal Mail is an iconic part of the UK’s infrastructure. The postie remains a familiar part of every city, town and village, providing a vital service to communities around the country. As other hon. Members have done, I pay tribute to the dedication of posties. I know, from spending time out on delivery with posties from the Barrhead sorting office in my constituency, the care that they have for their customers, and particularly their vulnerable customers. The USO underpins the network, guaranteeing that letters and parcels can be sent anywhere in the UK at a uniform price, six days a week. That principle ensures that businesses can reach customers nationwide and that families can stay connected.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
I represent a partly rural constituency, Morecambe and Lunesdale, so my constituents rely on the universal service obligation. They also rely on regular mail deliveries for vital information such as hospital appointments. But my constituents, particularly in villages like Endmoor, are suffering with irregular and delayed deliveries. Does the Minister agree that my rural constituents deserve a good postal service, and that Royal Mail should focus on delivering one? What steps is the Minister taking to secure that service?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend makes an essential point about the importance of the postal service in rural areas. The hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) made that point as well. I know from my relatives in highland areas how essential that connection is. My hon. Friend raises the issue of NHS appointment letters—that point was also raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) and the hon. Member for Bridgwater. The trials of barcodes on those letters have been very successful, and I am happy to continue discussions with the Health Secretary to make sure that those barcodes are rolled out as widely as possible.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) for raising the issue of the barcodes. Royal Mail representatives came before the Scottish Affairs Committee when we wanted to discuss with them the problem of deliveries in rural and highland areas. They were particularly proud to talk about the barcode idea, but seemed to be concerned that perhaps in Scotland there was not the same alacrity in adopting that sensible suggestion. Given the Minister’s knowledge of the geography of Scotland, which is at least as good as mine, is that a point he might want to take up with colleagues in the Scottish Government?
Blair McDougall
I certainly will. As I mentioned a moment ago, the more dispersed geography of Scotland means that the postal service is often even more of a lifeline in our part of the world. I will certainly follow up that point with Scottish Ministers, and with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care. On the future of the universal postal service, I reassure the hon. Member for Bridgwater that we remain committed to a comprehensive USO that is financially sustainable and efficient, and that meets user needs within the open and competitive market. That is why the six-days-a-week, one-price-goes-anywhere universal service remains at the heart of the regulatory regime that is overseen by Ofcom, but of course the universal postal service faces challenges, as many Members have said.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
It is also important to get letters into the postal service in the first place. In Bidwell West, which is in my constituency, residents face a 30-minute walk to the nearest post box. That is because Royal Mail refuses to put in new post boxes on unadopted roads, despite the fact that the developer is perfectly happy for there to be a new post box. Would the Minister consider raising that with Royal Mail?
Blair McDougall
I can certainly do that. Through Ofcom, Royal Mail has obligations in terms of the accessibility of post boxes, and I will raise my hon. Friend’s point with the chief executive of Royal Mail when I meet with him next week.
The challenges faced by Royal Mail are shared in most European countries, which are taking steps to reform their USOs. On 10 July, Ofcom announced reforms to put the USO on a more sustainable footing, and to push Royal Mail to improve reliability. However, changing those obligations alone will not be enough to guarantee a better service, so today, Ofcom has launched a call for input as part of its ongoing review of affordability, which will inform its consultation early next year. Reform of the USO is an ongoing process, which is being undertaken by Ofcom, the independent regulator, so I will not directly insert myself into that. However, I will certainly make sure that the voices of hon. Members are heard, widely and clearly.
Many Members raised issues relating to the quality of service. Experiencing delays is so frustrating, as many Members said. That is why, when EP took over Royal Mail, we secured the commitment through our golden share that before its new owners take value out of Royal Mail, quality of service must improve. Ofcom has powers to investigate and take enforcement action when failures in quality of service are identified, as it did recently when it fined Royal Mail £21 million for contravening its service conditions in 2024-25. Ofcom has told Royal Mail that it must urgently publish a credible plan that delivers significant and continuous improvement.
The changes to the USO that I referenced earlier include changes to Royal Mail’s quality of service targets, as the hon. Member for Bridgwater mentioned. They are intended to enable the business to more predictably deliver mail without delays, but I share his view that flexibility must ensure reliability, rather than lowering ambitions. Ofcom has committed to closely monitoring Royal Mail’s performance, and to ensuring that it meets the business regularly to have those conversations. It is evident from the contributions of hon. Members across the Chamber that Royal Mail’s quality of service has not been good enough. The Government have discussed that with the chief executive of Royal Mail, and I will do so again on behalf of the hon. Members who have raised issues today.
I will return briefly to the subject of the constituency of the hon. Member for Bridgwater. I know that there have been service issues because of resourcing difficulties in the Bridgwater, Burnham-on-Sea and Taunton delivery offices. I understand that Royal Mail is now actively recruiting staff to deal with that. Again, I will discuss that with the chief executive of Royal Mail next week. Royal Mail has publicly committed to delivering improvements to its quality of service, and is taking action to recruit additional frontline staff, improving delivery office efficiency and simplifying the network to make it more reliable and resilient. I am encouraged to see that Royal Mail is recruiting 20,000 temporary workers across the country to help deliver the Christmas items that we all expect during that peak period.
As I have set out, the Government remain committed to ensuring the provision of a financially sustainable and efficient universal postal service, one that is accessible and affordable for customers, and that works for workers and businesses. I fully recognise that delays in postal deliveries can have serious consequences for those, including small businesses, who rely on the post for important information. Now that Ofcom has made changes to the USO specification to ensure a modernised service, we need Royal Mail to work with its workforce and unions to deliver the service that we expect.
I hope that hon. Members will see Royal Mail’s service quality improve in the months and years ahead, but rest assured, I will continue to work with Royal Mail and Ofcom to make sure that that is the case. I emphasise that whatever criticisms we might have of Royal Mail, and whatever concerns we might have about the quality of service, we, across the House, are so grateful for the quality of service and the commitment of individual posties, who are an absolute lifeline to communities up and down the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Cross-border Healthcare
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered cross-border healthcare.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Last year, hopes were raised that two Labour Governments working together would put an end to conflict between Cardiff Bay and Westminster, yet few issues trouble my constituents more than the daily reality of cross-border healthcare between England and Wales. Powys is a beautiful county, but it is also the largest in Wales, with no district general hospital of its own. Nearly 40% of the health board’s budget is spent commissioning services across the border in Herefordshire and Shropshire, because that is where the nearest hospitals are. When co-ordination between the Welsh and UK Government fails, it is Powys patients who feel it first and hardest.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making a point about the border between England and Wales, but I represent a constituent who lives in a spot equidistant between two hospitals in Exeter and Taunton. Only one hospital could provide the treatment she needed, but the consultant there recommended rehabilitation at a third hospital across the border in Tiverton. After a lengthy back and forth, she was allowed treatment on the grounds of extenuating circumstances. Will my hon. Friend join me in pressing for a clear, binding system to allow seamless cross-border referrals where clinically appropriate?
David Chadwick
My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and I am sure her constituents will be pleased to hear her make it. The 2018 cross-border statement of values and principles promised that no patient would face delay or disadvantage because of which side of the border they live on, but my constituents know that those principles are not being applied in practice.
The clearest recent example of what has gone wrong is the new waiting list policy introduced by Powys teaching health board this summer. From 1 July, the board instructed English hospitals treating Powys residents to deliberately and artificially extend their waiting times, bringing them into line with the longer averages elsewhere in Wales. Until now, Powys patients had been treated in hospitals, such as Hereford and Shrewsbury, in exactly the same way as English patients, but from this summer they have been asked to wait up to twice as long.
We are told that hospitals in Herefordshire and Shropshire are treating Welsh patients “too quickly” and that Powys’s budget does not allow for the current number of people being treated each year, so patients have to be spread out over more years. How appalling it is to say that a patient can be treated “too quickly”. Swift treatment should be an objective, not a problem.
Worse still, this supposed cost-cutting exercise may not save a penny, because both the Wye Valley NHS trust and the Shrewsbury and Telford hospital trust believe that it could cost Powys more, because they will have to bill Powys teaching health board for the administrative cost of running two parallel waiting list systems. That is before we consider the hidden costs: the human and financial price of patients deteriorating while they wait longer, needing emergency admissions, extended rehabilitation and, in some cases, never recovering the quality of life they once had.
My constituents are not just numbers on a spreadsheet; their lives are on hold. Those months are months of agony, of lost work, of isolation, and of watching opportunities and life slip away while waiting for operations that should already have happened. Agnes is a patient from Llandrindod with Parkinson’s disease. She has been told that she must wait another 52 weeks for a knee replacement after already waiting a full year. That means a total of two years waiting for surgery. The delay has made it increasingly difficult for her to stay active, even though regular exercise is vital to managing Parkinson’s symptoms. The prolonged wait is worsening her mobility and pain, and it is undermining her ability to live independently.
Hazel, from Builth Wells, is awaiting spinal surgery in Hereford. Her expected waiting time has doubled to 104 weeks. She has been unable to work during this period due to numbness in her legs and feet, and she now fears losing her job. Once financially independent, she now relies on family support—an experience she describes as “degrading and unfair”—through no fault of her own.
Kelly was diagnosed with serious spinal disc problems in September 2024. She was given a surgery date for December, then March, but both were cancelled. Even though her pre-operative assessment had been completed, she later discovered—on her own—that her operation had been postponed by at least another year under the new policy. This is despite her being classed as an urgent P3 case and being told that existing bookings would not be affected. The delay has left Kelly in constant pain, which has taken a serious toll on her mental health and has contributed to her losing her job.
Those stories are not isolated; they speak for hundreds of others who are being quietly told to wait, not because of capacity or clinical need but because of budgetary decisions. Behind every statistic is a person whose life is being diminished while they wait for care that should already have been delivered.
What makes this even worse is that patients are sometimes not being told that their treatment has been delayed. Many have found out only through news reports or by doing their own investigations. Labour Governments at both ends of the M4 talk about driving down waiting lists and getting people back into work, yet this policy, which Ministers could stop tomorrow, does the exact opposite. The health board and senior Welsh Labour politicians call it “fairness” that Powys residents should wait no less than anyone else in Wales. However, fairness and ambition should mean lifting standards everywhere, not dragging Powys down to the lowest common denominator.
It is not equality; it is equal punishment for the Welsh Government’s failure to fix the NHS after 25 years in power. The response from Ministers thus far, particularly in Cardiff Bay, has been nothing short of disgraceful. The Health Minister, Jeremy Miles, could not appear more uninterested if he tried—no action, no intervention and no urgency from the one man who has the power to stop the policy and to get people out of pain and back to their lives. Several constituents have told me that they have written personally to him and have received no response at all. That is despite the fact that it is his Government who are forcing Powys teaching health board to make significant cuts to its budget.
As for the First Minister—who, I remind the House, represents Powys in the Senedd, as well as being a Member of the House of Lords—she brushed off my constituents’ concerns, saying that she thinks it is just “smoke and mirrors”. I invite her to say that directly to Kelly, Agnes and Hazel, because months or even years of their lives have been stolen and spent living in pain.
The decision institutionalises inequality between Wales and England. If the waiting list policy exposes a failure of funding, the digital infrastructure of cross-border healthcare exposes a long-term failure of systems. Despite 25 years of devolution, we still have national health services across our four nations that cannot share data efficiently. Both NHS England and NHS Wales still operate separate digital systems that do not talk to each other. When a Powys GP refers a patient to Hereford or Shrewsbury, information often travels by post, fax or unsecured email. Discharge summaries arrive late or not at all. Test results are duplicated because clinicians cannot see each other’s records, wasting time and often causing distress for patients.
Even in emergencies, A&E doctors in England cannot automatically view a Welsh GP’s records, and vice versa. To paint the picture more vividly, one Powys resident told me that he was admitted to Shrewsbury hospital with a serious heart condition, yet staff could not access his medical records. Because it was a Sunday, they could not even reach his GP by phone.
That should not be happening in 2025. It puts lives at risk across our border regions. The lack of interoperability affects anyone moving between the four nations of the United Kingdom, as their health records tend not to move with them. The Welsh Affairs Committee has been calling for change since 2015, yet a decade later, nothing has happened. The Welsh Government alone do not have the funding to overhaul their systems, which is why we have called on Westminster to step in, as obviously this is a consequence of devolution. For a fraction of the cost of other Government digital projects, modernising NHS IT across the UK would directly improve patient safety, continuity of care and confidence in the system. Every week that remains unresolved, more patients are put at risk, which is a failure of politics, not just technology.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I can bring a Scottish context to the subject. A doctor in my constituency had a cataract problem and was told that the waiting list was ages. In the end, because she knew how to do it, she found out about an operation that was available in the north of England. She paid for the travel and paid to go private. The point is that if the database that my hon. Friend is talking about could show patients where to look in other parts of the UK, saying, “This is on offer, if you are willing to travel”, it could make such a difference to health services across the four nations.
David Chadwick
My hon. Friend is right to say that these system failures are putting extra responsibility, extra stress and often extra cost on individuals, which is why the system needs to be improved. Beyond the funding and IT problems, our systemic weaknesses make cross-border care even harder. Many Powys residents are registered with GPs in England simply because of geography—they might be closer—while others just across the border stay with Welsh practices. GPs who want to work in both nations must register twice, fill out the same forms twice and follow two sets of rules, which wastes time and discourages flexibility.
A constituent of mine in mid-Wales with a rare artery condition needed ongoing treatment from Hereford hospital. Because the two NHS systems do not share results, they had to collect their own blood tests and email them to their consultant each month. Prescriptions issued in England were not approved in Wales, causing months of delay. That is the daily reality of an unco-ordinated system.
At the governance level, the 2018 cross-border statement of values and principles remains voluntary and unenforceable. Each Welsh health board negotiates its own arrangements with English trusts. There is no single tariff, no unified billing system and no consistent data reporting. Audit Wales has warned for years that this patchwork leaves patients in limbo, between two systems that both claim to care for them, but neither fully owns responsibility when things go wrong.
Those problems did not appear by accident. Powys residents do not mind which NHS logo is printed on their appointment letter; they care that their care arrives on time, that their doctors can speak to one another, and that they are treated fairly. The border should not be a barrier to treatment, data or fairness. I say to the Minister that although several of these issues fall within devolved areas, they are of direct concern to the UK Government because they are also directly influenced by NHS England and by decisions taken here in Westminster.
My asks are simple. First, convene a meeting with counterparts in the devolved nations to finally address these cross-border challenges, and invite border MPs to that discussion. Those of us who represent border communities see these failures at first hand and know where the solutions are needed. Secondly, provide the funding required to make NHS IT systems interoperable across the United Kingdom, so that clinicians can share patient information safely and instantly wherever care is delivered. Thirdly, work with devolved Governments to give the cross-border statement of values and principles legal force, turning it from a voluntary pledge into a real, accountable framework that protects people in border communities like Powys.
We owe it to the people of Powys, and to every border community, to end this quiet injustice and to build a system that treats them not as second-class citizens but as equals who are entitled to the same care, dignity and chance to live free from pain. Labour Governments at both ends of the M4 talk about driving down waiting lists and getting people back into work. However, this policy, which Ministers could stop tomorrow, does the exact opposite. I look forward to the Minister’s response and the contributions from other Members.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on securing this important debate—one that is very important to my constituents in North Northumberland.
A constituent of mine recently visited friends in the north of the county, near the border with Scotland, and sadly suddenly collapsed with a brain tumour. He was taken across the border to a Scottish hospital. But this hospital, as we have heard, could not diagnose him because it could not access English medical records. Imagine the scene: this constituent’s wife is now filling in her husband’s records from scratch, over the phone, while he waits and waits for an MRI that he cannot get in Scotland because he is under the care of Northumberland healthcare trust.
I am alarmed to realise that our country seems to have several invisible lines running through it. If someone has a stroke, heart failure or even a nasty cold on the wrong side of those lines, their illness and treatment come with strings attached. That is bad for my constituents and bad for our country. My constituents, like so many, live cross-border lives—that is just their reality. They move across the border all the time to see friends, to go shopping and to seek medical treatment. But as we have seen, if they take ill on the wrong side of the border, they will receive substandard treatment at times. That is not because there is anything wrong with the service of Scottish nurses or doctors—they are superb—but because they have no access to English medical records. There is no joined-up thinking.
Northumbria NHS foundation trust recently tried to offer the services of a new infirmary in Berwick to patients on the Scottish side of the invisible line, but up to now there has been a lack of take-up or interest from NHS Borders—something I hope to see change. The primary-secondary care link is in a bit of a black box. Patients have no idea where they will be referred by their GP. Will it be Melrose, Cramlington or Newcastle? Who arranges the appointment determines which organisation provides the referral.
It does not have to be this way. The technical solutions clearly exist, as we heard from the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe, but the SNP Government in Edinburgh frankly have no incentive to make cross-border care work. I am sad to see no SNP Members here today. They are ideologically opposed to the choices that could lead to a cross-border, British healthcare system that serves all British people equally.
It is worse than that. I was recently contacted by a young constituent who lives in North Northumberland, in the north of England, and works in the Scottish Ambulance Service. They hope to take up further training in Scotland so that they can continue employment, but the Scottish funding support will not cover them because they are not Scottish, and the English support will not cover them because they want to study in Scotland. A British student who wants to study at a British university in order to save British lives cannot do so. That is a farcical situation.
This is the reality for many of my constituents. We must get better at joining the dots and realising that real people live holistically in the geography of where they are, which should not be determined by what are, in British terms, invisible lines on the map. If that is the situation now, imagine the mess for healthcare if the SNP were successful in its policy of independence. Because of bad cross-border healthcare my constituents are suffering, and the Union that so many of us cherish is suffering too.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on securing the debate. I am going to give a Scottish perspective, similar to that of the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) but from the Scottish side of the border.
My constituency runs along the border between Scotland and England, touching both northern English counties of Northumberland and Cumbria. To the east of my constituency, many of the people living in the southern Berwickshire towns and villages of Eyemouth, Hutton, Paxton, Burnmouth, Chirnside, Foulden and Lamberton look to Berwick-upon-Tweed as their economic centre for shopping, work and other services—I am pleased that the hon. Member for North Northumberland is taking part in the debate. To the far south of my constituency, residents of Newcastleton and Hermitage are drawn to Carlisle—similarly, I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) in her place.
For generations before devolution, and certainly long before the SNP took control of the Scottish Government, patients from those areas were able to obtain NHS treatment in Northumberland and Cumbria without any difficulty—not because it was necessarily any better or different, but because it was more convenient. It was a reflection of the transport links that cross the border between those communities: the bus links, shorter car journeys and community ties. The border between Scotland and England is, for those communities, simply a line on the map.
This is absolutely not a criticism of the quality of care provided by NHS Borders—quite the opposite. We have first-class NHS provision at Borders general hospital and across the Scottish Borders, provided by hard-working and dedicated health professionals, to whom I pay tribute. It is not about tearing up the devolution settlement. The NHS in the Borders is absolutely the responsibility of the Scottish Government, and no one is suggesting a retreat from the Scotland Act 1998 or taking powers away from the Scottish Parliament. But it is about recognising the day-to-day challenges that people face in terms of public transport links and fitting medical appointments around work and family life.
It is also about highlighting the fact that since the SNP came to power in Holyrood, the real-life experience of many people in the Borders is that the option of cross-border healthcare has been diminished. It is about reaffirming that we are still part of one United Kingdom, and that the NHS is rightly an institution that we should be able to use regardless of which side of the border we live on.
The easiest way to describe the challenges that people face in my constituency is to share some of the stories that have been told to me in recent weeks. Margaret Merry said:
“I live in Eyemouth. Once I had to take a full day off work and 4 buses to travel to the Borders General Hospital for an x-ray, when I was working in Berwick, a 5 minute walk from where I could have had it done and only taken maybe 15 minutes out of my working day. It is ridiculous.”
Pauline Hutton said:
“I am currently under the care of BGH for cancer treatment and have to travel from Ladykirk to BGH daily for chemo. The treatment is excellent and I can’t praise the staff enough…but a simple thing like giving a blood sample means a 40 mile journey as I can’t give blood at our local surgery in Norham (1/2 mile away) because it’s in England and Borders General Hospital can’t access my results cross border. In this day of technology I can’t fathom out why medical records are all computerised yet one NHS trust can’t have access to patients medical records from another trust.”
Dennis McKeen said:
“Some patients in Newcastleton would also prefer to go to Carlisle rather than a 90 mile plus round trip to the Borders General Hospital...it’s ridiculous”.
Brenda Walker said:
“I am currently travelling from the east coast 3 times per week for dialysis at Borders General Hospital thanks to their transport system getting picked up at 6.40 am. The nurses do a brilliant job looking after us”.
Trixie Collin said:
“Currently I live in Scotland but was told that if I moved to England I would no longer be able to be seen by the consultant at Western General who had been treating me for 10 years.”
The Brucegate dental practice in Berwick-upon-Tweed said:
“As a healthcare provider in England it’s a daily problem on both sides of the border. I get rejections of referrals from both England and Scotland based on postcodes. Thanks for standing up for common sense.”
Kirsty Jamieson from Berwick-upon-Tweed said:
“We campaigned hard for reciprocal care between people living in the Borders and North Northumberland, during the 2018 A Better Hospital for Berwick campaign. No joined up thinking whatsoever.”
Lastly, Kate Tulloch highlighted the fact that this is not just a Scotland-England problem. Kate lives in Cockburnspath, which is Berwickshire in Scotland. Her GP is in Dunbar, which is also in Scotland, but Kate cannot get NHS Borders results because the two health boards, despite both being in Scotland, do not communicate. So this is not just a cross-border issue for Scotland and England; it is an issue of different health boards in Scotland not communicating properly.
All these stories clearly demonstrate the difficulties that my constituents face in accessing treatment across the border. I appreciate that this is not the Minister’s direct responsibility, but I would be grateful if she could relay my asks to her colleagues. First, will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can address the challenges that some of my constituents face when it comes to cross-border healthcare? Secondly, does the Minister recognise that we need to find a solution, and can she commit to working with the Scottish Government to overcome the perceived challenges that they are putting in place?
This is not just about extra money or funding; it is about putting in place common-sense solutions. NHS Northumberland has indicated that it is more than willing to accept patients from the Scottish Borders and other parts of Scotland, and NHS Cumbria has indicated similarly and is, I think, currently doing that for some patients. We must break through the ideological barrier that many of us believe the Scottish National party Government have put in place to stop what has happened for many years—people accessing NHS treatment on either side of the border.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on securing this important debate.
As the Member of Parliament for Carlisle and north Cumbria, I represent a region where the realities of geography often challenge the neat lines that we find on maps, and those drawn by policy and practice. For example, earlier this year, during a prolonged power cut that affected the village of Kershopefoot, to the north-east of Carlisle, staff at ScottishPower Energy Networks were somewhat surprised to discover, after I contacted them, that they served customers in England who had a Scottish postcode.
When it comes to health, my constituents quite often face more serious issues. For some, their nearest GP might be in Scotland, but the nearest hospital is in England—in my case, the Cumberland infirmary. This can and does lead to issues.
I acknowledge the Government’s excellent work to improve healthcare access across the UK and in my constituency. In Carlisle and north Cumbria we have seen real progress: waiting lists have been cut and the urgent dental centre that opened last year is beginning to address many of the challenges we experience with NHS dental care. Those meaningful steps forward were made possible by this Government, but progress must be matched by policy that works for everyone, and especially those who live on the edge of systems, maps and borders.
One of my constituents, who lives in the northernmost part of the constituency, found himself facing a deeply troubling situation when he became very ill. He is geographically closer to Scotland and therefore registered with a Scottish GP. However, when he needed hospital care he was told he could not be treated at his local hospital in England—in Carlisle—because he was registered with a Scottish GP. Instead, he was advised to travel to Glasgow, a round trip of over 200 miles, rather than take the 40-mile trip to Carlisle.
This is a man who lives in England, pays his taxes here and has his bins collected by an English local authority, and whose nearest hospital is in England, but he was told to travel to Glasgow for care—not because of clinical need or even capacity, but because of outdated guidance. Thankfully, after the intervention of his GP and other dedicated health professionals, he was able to receive the treatment that he needed locally, but his case should not have required such extraordinary effort. It should never have required the negotiation it took and should not have required escalation. It should have been common sense.
The English guidance does not adequately cover cross-border scenarios, and I am told the Scottish guidance predates the creation of the integrated care boards altogether. I am very grateful to the Minister for Care for giving me his time a few weeks ago to discuss this issue. I know he recognises that this needs to be urgently resolved. I would welcome any update that I can share from the Minister today on whether the guidance is now to be reviewed and improvements are under way. We must ensure that all relevant healthcare providers are equipped with clear, up-to-date information, because we all want the same thing: a system that works for patients, wherever they live.
This is not a question of politics, as we can see from the cross-party presence at this debate—although the absence of the SNP is notable. I am pleased to see my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), in his place. This is a question of practicality, compassion and, as the hon. Gentleman said, common sense. We must ensure that our healthcare system reflects the lived realities of our constituents, and not the lines on a map. I urge the Minister to take this issue forward with urgency. I stand ready to support any efforts to improve cross-border healthcare.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on securing a debate on cross-border healthcare, because we in Northern Ireland know only too well that health outcomes are not, and should not be, defined by borders—whether an internal UK border or one with an entirely separate sovereign jurisdiction. Sickness does not discriminate.
In fact, as the only part of the United Kingdom to share a land boundary with another nation, the issue of cross-border healthcare is something on which every Northern Irish MP, I am sure, will have an opinion. Despite our constitutional sensitivities, I for one have absolutely no hesitation in saying that I am deeply proud of the progress we have made in cross-border healthcare in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The progress in recent decades has shown what can be achieved when we actually work together with a shared purpose.
I take note of what other hon. Members have said about the challenges across an internal UK border, which I believe we should not have in healthcare. Despite that, in Northern Ireland we need only to look at the success of the radiotherapy unit at our hospital in Altnagelvin, and more widely the north-west cancer centre based in Londonderry. Those services demonstrate the tangible benefits of co-operation for patients and communities from both sides of the border.
When I was Health Minister in 2021, I was pleased to come together with the Governments of Ireland and the United States of America to sign a new memorandum of understanding to reinvigorate the Ireland-Northern Ireland-US National Cancer Institute cancer consortium, which is an often forgotten and unsung part of the negotiations of the ’98 Belfast agreement. When it comes to cancer, we should leave no stone unturned. There are undoubtedly people on both sides of the border who are alive today because of that practical and sensible co-operation. By continuing to refine that service level agreement, expanding areas such as skin cancer treatment, and deepening our joint research in clinical trials, Northern Ireland will once again be strengthening cancer services and helping to advance the fight against rare and specialist cancers across the island.
The same collaborative spirit is exemplified in paediatric cardiac care. Our all-island congenital heart disease network—an issue to which my family is as close as we can be—has ensured that children with complex needs can access world-class treatment without unnecessary delay or travel. I have seen at first hand that such cross-border co-operation works. Our youngest son was eight months old when he needed his first open-heart surgery, and that was conducted at Birmingham children’s hospital. He was 10 years old when he needed his pacemaker replaced, but that was done in the children’s hospital in Dublin because of that cross-border work. We in Northern Ireland know all too well about our reliance on the working relationships that we have across borders, should that be across the UK or with our partners in the Republic of Ireland.
Jamie Stone
The hon. Gentleman may know that I have family living in the north, in Armagh and Antrim, and a daughter living in Donegal. What he says is absolutely correct—I can vouch for that, and it is an example for us all. When somebody is sick and we are worried about what will happen next, we do not care about lines on maps. The point I want to make is this: it strikes me that this is an easy issue for the present Government, because it need not cost lots of money. Often, we ask for stuff and there is a huge bill attached, but just knocking heads together and saying, “Get real. Get the computer system online. Talk to each other,” is doable, and it would make such a difference for people even up as far north as where I represent.
Robin Swann
I thank the hon. Member for raising a valid point that comes to the crux of this debate and of what has been said by every Member so far. It is about putting the “national” back in our national health service, and doing so across borders without the unnecessary bureaucracy that often comes with how we look after our patients.
There is still more to do on this issue, and no system is perfect. I know from engaging with our current Health Minister in Northern Ireland, my party colleague, that there is potential for further north-south co-operation in other specialist paediatric services that lend themselves to an all-island approach, including the hugely emotive and sensitive issue of perinatal and paediatric pathology. Northern Ireland has been without a paediatric pathologist for some time, so an all-island solution should be looked at.
As the hon. Member said, ambulances in Northern Ireland regularly cross the border in both directions to save lives. Our two ambulance services have an agreement in place to provide mutual aid, with personnel from either service able to cross the border to assist in emergencies.
I believe that the future of healthcare will be defined by the digital innovation that has been referred to, and it will be a great step forward when we can get the national health services talking to each other—it is only recently that we have been able to get our five trusts in Northern Ireland sharing digital information. The will is there if the finance and support are there on genomic medicine, workforce planning and the interoperability of electronic health records. By collaborating on the genomics of rare disease and planning jointly for a workforce that can identify and close future gaps in work, we can ensure that the entire island—and islands—benefit from technological and medical advances.
Our co-operation should not just be practical; it should actually improve outcomes. It is proof that where health is concerned, cross-border partnerships really work. I encourage the Minister to take forward the recommendations made in this debate today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Order. Although there is no time limit, four more Back Benchers wish to speak and we are going to move on to the Front Benchers at half-past 3, so I ask Members to bear that in mind.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on securing this important debate.
Cross-border healthcare affects us in Shropshire because our Shrewsbury and Telford hospital NHS trust serves not just 353,000 residents across Shropshire but a further 70,000 residents just over the border in Wales, including the hon. Member’s constituents in Powys. He will be aware that, for many years, the trust languished at the bottom of the national league tables. We had the worst waiting times for both elective care and emergency treatment, as well as for ambulance pick-ups. Worse still, when we finally got an ambulance, it would then spend many hours waiting outside A&E because there were not enough beds to treat urgent patients. Much of that was documented in the TV programme “Dispatches” two years ago, which was a blow to the morale of our hard-working NHS staff.
Since then, I am delighted to report, there have been radical changes at the Royal Shrewsbury hospital in my constituency. Thanks to a significant capital investment project of more than £320 million, we have been the recipient of a hospital transformation programme to improve health and care services across the piece for Shropshire, Telford and mid-Wales. We are now one year into that construction project, with more than half the structure completed—a four-storey building at the front entrance. I visited last week, and the whole area is unrecognisable from when I gave birth to my daughter there in a very old, outdated ward. The new infrastructure will provide much-needed modern facilities and clinical space to improve care for everyone, and it will interconnect with the refurbished existing hospital.
In September we opened the next phase of majors and resus as part of refurbishing the emergency department. This has seen the space in the old A&E transformed; we have doubled the number of bays, improved and upgraded “fit to sit” space and created a new ambulance assessment area. We will be opening two new wards this winter, providing new facilities for gastroenterology and colorectal services, and providing more joined-up and improved services between surgical and rehabilitation teams, often out in community hospitals. Following the delivery of a modular ward unit by the treatment centre entrance, on 8 December we will celebrate a new acute ward with 56 additional beds, which will have a major impact on flow out of the emergency department. That will be felt in shorter waiting times.
Since the first phase of improvements took place, the impact on our hospital has already been significant. Waiting times are down, and we have moved up more than 20 places from the bottom of the league tables. Staff morale is climbing and recruitment is buoyant. I am so proud of our hard-working NHS staff and, in particular, the hospital transformation programme led by Matt Neal and our new chief executive, Jo Williams.
I am incredibly grateful for the support of the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England, whose investment is not just saving lives but improving lives across my constituency and beyond into Wales. I hope the Minister will visit the hospital to see it for herself when the project is completed. I have every confidence that the work to improve the Royal Shrewsbury will continue to transform the hospital, our community and health outcomes for all our residents. It is right that a major hospital serving cross-border communities be prioritised for investment in this way.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd, as always. On behalf of us all, I look forward to your deliberations. I thank the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick)—I think I pronounced that right—for securing this debate. [Interruption.] Did I get it wrong? My apologies; the Northern Ireland accent gives it away nearly every time. While we are one United Kingdom, it is always important to remember the differences that we have in devolved matters, and in healthcare specifically—especially in Northern Ireland, where we have witnessed major disparities. It is a pleasure to make a contribution on that.
I want to talk about a cross-border health scheme that was used in Northern Ireland some years ago before our official exit from the European Union—although it appears that we never exited—and when we were all in the United Kingdom. The scheme meant that patients in Northern Ireland who had been on health and social care waiting lists for two years or more could apply to receive private treatment in the Republic of Ireland and claim reimbursement from the Northern Ireland Department of Health. When I was a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and in my early years here at Westminster, I saw numerous examples of hip replacements, knee replacements and cataract operations being done down south because the patients had waited two years. The payment for the scheme then came from us in Northern Ireland. There are systems that work.
I thank the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) for his contribution. He will probably be embarrassed by this, but I want to put on record that he was a great Health Minister when he was in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I thank him for that. I never heard anyone say a bad word about him—and I talk to plenty of people, by the way—so I would say that he is an example of a Minister who really worked hard.
I know of a couple of constituents who availed themselves of the scheme and to say that their surgery was life-changing is an understatement. The hon. Member for South Antrim referred to his son. One of my constituents had a hip replacement and one had knee surgery. They could have been waiting up to 10 years for that surgery in Northern Ireland if they had not been able to avail themselves of the scheme with the Republic of Ireland. Those are some examples of how strategies like these work; I listened to hon. Members’ examples of similar processes in their constituencies.
I want to talk briefly about the importance of medical records. I spoke to the Minister about that beforehand, and others have referred to it. Through working closely with universities, I have witnessed a few examples where a young person lives in Northern Ireland and goes to Scotland or England for university. When they come back to Northern Ireland three or four years later, healthcare professionals cannot access their information as there is no shared provision for medical records. I hope that the Minister will forgive me, but it seems illogical not to have a system that takes that on board.
One of my staff members who went to Chester to study was in that exact scenario around 10 years ago. She had to travel back to England and pay £50 for a printout of her records to take to her GP back home. We must not forget that £50 was a lot of money for a student 10 years ago. It might be expected that the cost has now gone way beyond that.
This debate is really important, so I want to make sure that other hon. Members get their five minutes as well. There are clear examples of where cross-border health initiatives work and are beneficial to supporting people who are faced with extensive waiting lists and serious conditions that alter their day-to-day life. I look to the Minister—as I always do, because she answers us and listens to our requests—for a commitment to ensuring that our constituents have access to the care that they need, whether it be cross-border or within our healthcare systems in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Furthermore, hon. Members have shared experiences of the medical records issue within our constituencies. When so many people travel to different parts of this nation to study, more must be done to ensure that their records can flow smoothly and without hassle. My goodness, Mr Dowd, a life without hassle—it would be a miracle.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), with whom I share a health board, for securing this important debate.
Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr is served by two of the three Welsh local health boards that directly border England—65% by Powys teaching health board in mid-Wales and 35% by Betsi Cadwaladr university health board in the north. Powys is unique: it is the largest county in Wales by area, yet it has no full-service hospital. As a result, many of my constituents in the Montgomeryshire area rely on hospitals in England for their secondary and specialist care.
Recently, Powys teaching health board asked NHS England to delay care for Welsh residents in order to meet its savings targets. English hospitals have pushed back, arguing that such measures increase clinical risk and undermine the trust on which the system depends. We cannot allow a two-tier system to develop, whereby Welsh patients become second-class citizens. Patient data is delayed or simply fails to cross the border, leading to unnecessary delays and confusion. To reduce cost or manage a scarce resource, services are centralised in one location, causing either significantly more travel in an already huge geographical area with poor public transport, or significant delays in an emergency, with ambulances commissioned to serve Wales being diverted to calls in Staffordshire.
Let me give two examples from my constituency that demonstrate how the system can fail those it is supposed to serve. First, one resident from Powys was for many years referred to the dermatology clinic in Shrewsbury. Following a reorganisation by the local integrated care board, diagnostic services were moved to Telford while treatment remained in Shrewsbury. The result was a 120-mile round trip for a single course of care. That is a heavy burden for any patient, especially those managing long-term conditions.
Secondly, a woman living close to the border, who was registered with a Shropshire GP, was diagnosed in September with breast cancer. She was told she would need to wait to be seen by the north Wales genetics clinic. Because of delays, she was advised to begin chemotherapy before surgery—a course that carries more side effects and lengthens recovery. A private consultant later questioned whether the chemotherapy had even been necessary. In the end she felt forced to pay privately, to receive timely treatment. That is simply unacceptable in a publicly funded health service.
We all know that we need effective care as close to home as possible, and a crucial part of co-operation must be data sharing. The solution is openness, communication and shared standards. I meet regularly with the NHS trusts and integrated care board that provide health care for my constituents. I have been impressed by their openness and frankness, and their desire to tackle the issues they face with practical enthusiasm. I am currently organising a meeting to understand the issues from their point of view and address cross-border issues.
I know that both Powys teaching health board and the English trusts ultimately want the same thing: to provide the best possible care for those who need it. I want patients to receive the best possible care as close to home as possible. I want clinicians to have the information, resources and support they need to treat people swiftly and safely. Finally, after years of austerity and underfunding, it is vital that we keep PFI and private interests out of our NHS. We must defend it as a truly public service, just as Nye Bevan, our great Welsh hero, intended.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on securing this important debate.
In January, the Welsh mental health charity Llais reported to the Welsh Affairs Committee that
“15-20% of people living in Wales use NHS services in England. In the border counties, this percentage is far higher and can be nearer 50%.”
Existing provisions aim to ensure that no patient’s treatment is denied or delayed due to differing rules or funding responsibilities across health systems on either side of the Wales-England border. None the less, the British Medical Association reports significant issues in how these provisions are offered. These systems can be complicated for patients, who are not always clear about who is responsible when their care and treatment cross the border. People living in Wales continue to face a range of challenges if they need care and treatment in England. Llais’s evidence referred to issues around announcements made by the UK media covering England-only stories. It is not clear whether the announcements apply for the people who live in Wales.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
My constituent Michael Riordan has asked his GP to refer him to a facility available to armed forces veterans located in Shropshire but, due to an issue with cross-border funding, the Welsh NHS will not fund that facility, despite his residence not being an issue when he volunteered for service to his country. This excellent facility is now unavailable to Michael. Does my hon. Friend agree that current issues in cross-border funding must be addressed for the sake of our constituents?
Llinos Medi
That is another example of what we have already heard, where cross-border work is not working for a timely patient outcome. I agree with my hon. Friend.
Ensuring that cross-border health is as seamless as possible means developing strong partnership, introducing effective ways of sharing information and learning, communicating well, and making advice and information easily available and accessible. Solving these issues needs co-operation between Governments on both sides of the border.
It is just over a year since Eluned Morgan, the First Minister of Wales, announced a cross-border health plan. The Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Cardiff East (Jo Stevens), vowed to deliver “additional surgical procedures”. When asked to provide an update on that programme in the Senedd last month, and on how many more patients in Wales have been treated in England over the past 12 months, the First Minister’s answer was vague and non-committal. It is obvious that the bureaucratic problem in making cross-border referrals, as evidenced by the British Medical Association and by Powys health board, which has asked to reduce the number of patients sent for treatment due to financial constraints, is completely at odds with the promise made by the First Minister and the Secretary of State. It seems increasingly clear that this announcement has not led to the changes that we all, and our constituents, would like to see on our waiting lists. Those remain stubbornly high in Wales, with figures showing 794,500 to 796,000 patient pathways as of mid-2025.
We are all aware of the huge pressures being placed on the NHS in Wales by social care. In April, the Welsh Local Government Association warned that plans to reduce NHS waiting lists in Wales will fall short unless we see targeted investment in social care. This week, my Plaid Cymru colleagues in the Senedd will follow that advice by calling for the establishment of a national care service for Wales. That would be a serious step in the right direction.
The people of Wales deserve better than poorly planned announcements leading nowhere. I encourage the Minister to impress upon her Welsh Government colleagues to throw their support behind our plan to get to grips with the high waiting list blighting our health service. Diolch.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) for securing a debate that is really important along both the Welsh and Scottish borders.
It is always a pleasure to respond for the Liberal Democrats. This is an issue that my own constituents deal with daily, because North Shropshire has a very long and winding border with Wales. My office, as a result, has dealt with many upsetting pieces of healthcare casework that stem directly from the broken and disjointed system that serves our border counties and, critically, the lack of information that flows between them, as we have heard.
Take for example many of my constituents whose GP will be in Wales because that will be their closest GP, and who usually attend Wrexham Maelor hospital for investigations and procedures, because if they live in north-west Shropshire that is almost as close as the hospitals in Shrewsbury and Telford. It is certainly closer than Telford. In an emergency, because their address is in England, the ambulance that they are sent comes from the West Midlands ambulance service and it is most likely that they will be taken to Shrewsbury or Telford hospitals as a result. When they get there, those hospitals are unable to access their medical records, including any recent blood reports or clinical history. I think the Minister will agree that that is inherently dangerous for those patients, whose only “fault” is to live close to the border.
The 2018 cross-border statement promised that no patient would face delay or disadvantage because of which side of the border they lived on, but in reality that promise has not been kept. Another constituent of mine who is registered with a GP in Wales was unfortunately diagnosed with breast cancer about 18 months ago. Her GP in Wales was very good; her initial care was excellent, and she was set to have a mastectomy and reconstructive surgery in Telford, but a couple of days before the surgery she was told that the Welsh health board would not be paying for the reconstructive element of the surgery. Obviously she was distressed and very scared about her future, and worried about having to wait longer to have that vital surgery because the funding issue needed to be sorted out. Although my office resolved the issue fairly quickly, it should not be necessary for an MP to get involved in a funding flow across the border. That is not acceptable, and not how we should be dealing with cross-border care.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) have described, Powys teaching health board has set waiting times for elective surgery that are arbitrarily long and without reference to clinical need. That means that Shrewsbury and Telford hospital NHS trust, which treats my constituents, and the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt orthopaedic hospital, which is in my constituency and provides the veterans centre that the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) mentioned, are being asked to prioritise waiting lists based not on need, but on nationality.
I am an accountant, not a medical expert, but how can clinicians at those trusts be expected to manage their lists if they must take into account nationality before clinical need? The teams in both trusts are working incredibly hard to bring down their own long waiting lists. They have ambitious targets to meet, but they are being instructed to leave some patients longer, for no obvious reason. It is clearly an untenable situation for those hospital trusts. The patients, who may be living with chronic pain, are being told to wait longer than necessary because they live in Wales. That is not fairness; it is failure. I ask the Minister to ensure that the Labour-led Welsh Government are working hand in hand with our English integrated care boards and hospital trusts to ensure that residents on the border—on the Welsh side and the English side—are provided with the care that they need and deserve.
Behind the problem with funding flows lies another problem—the data-sharing chaos. After 25 years of devolution, NHS England and NHS Wales still cannot share patient records properly. Although England uses the NHS e-RS, or e-referral service, Wales uses the Welsh clinical portal, I am reliably informed. Clinicians often need multiple logins to access cross-border data, and GP-to-GP digital record transfers do not work between nations, with referrals, test results and discharge letters still moving by post or fax, which is an absurd situation in 2025. As we have heard from our Scottish colleagues in today’s debate, there is a similar situation on the Scottish border.
A fundamental difference in national strategies has left those on the border torn between two healthcare systems and two sets of priorities. The pilot project between Powys and the Wye Valley is a glimmer of hope, but progress on that is too slow. This is leading to a situation in which it is harder to recruit GPs, referrals take longer and patients fall through the cracks, because the two systems do not talk to each other. Treatment pathways can be confusing and fragmented, as we heard from my constituent’s example. Patients are facing delays and disputes not because of medical need, but because of bureaucracy.
The 2018 “Statement of values and principles” has no legal force; it is a voluntary agreement that leaves patients powerless when things go wrong. What we really need is proper accountability, shared data and transparent funding, so that the border does not become a barrier to care. It should not decide how long people wait, what care they get and whether their doctor can access their records.
One of the communities hit hardest by these challenges is St Martin’s—the largest village in Shropshire and, of course, in North Shropshire. Its GP surgery was a branch of the medical practice over the border in Chirk and it was overseen by Betsi Cadwaladr university health board. In 2022 it was closed, despite strong opposition from me and the village residents.
The Betsi Cadwaladr university health board has no official responsibility for my constituents over the border in North Shropshire, but it does get funding from the Welsh NHS for each individual registered in Chirk. Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin ICB presumably cannot afford a new surgery for the village, despite its being Shropshire’s largest village—it is also rapidly expanding—which means that residents must travel into Wales to see their nearest GP, with all the complications that entails. The best interests of English patients were disregarded by Betsi Cadwaladr health board because it was not responsible for those patients’ outcomes. It is essential for the health and wellbeing of residents on both sides of the border that we move to a system that focuses on a smooth flow of information between the nations and, crucially, that prioritises patient outcomes.
Improvements should be built on existing systems and border projects, rather than attempting some kind of long-winded, full national integration. As a party, the Liberal Democrats believe that the best way to do it is by, for example: extending England’s secure nhs.net to Welsh GP practices to allow safe patient data exchange; expanding English clinicians’ access to the Welsh clinical portal, which is currently available just in Wye Valley, to improve safety and efficiency; implementing any further sensible measures integrating English, Welsh and Scottish secure email systems; broadening the Welsh clinical portal, including expanding the Powys teaching health board and Wye Valley trust data-sharing model to other border trusts; and investigating interoperability of the NHS app between countries to support patient communications.
In 2025, we should be in a place where the flow of information is smooth and patients in the UK need not worry where they are located or what nationality they are if they need healthcare. I call on the Minister to work with her colleagues in the Welsh Government to ensure that their health system works in harmony with ours. Devolution should not mean having a dysfunctional border region. It should help deliver the localised care that residents need. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
May I take a moment to say how pleased and honoured I am to respond to this important debate—we have heard why it is important—on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, as the shadow Secretary of State for Wales? It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.
I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) for securing this incredibly timely debate examining cross-border health services, constituents’ experiences of them and the wider challenges across the health service in Wales and Scotland. Some formal points have been put on the record about Wales in particular. There have been passionate and concerned approaches from Members this afternoon, particularly the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden).
Today, the Chamber has heard pertinent and passionate contributions from across the political divide regarding disappointing healthcare affecting people, despite the best efforts of staff members, as has been drawn out in the comments today. These first-class, dedicated and hard-working teams are in essence grappling with the challenges of devolution. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) rightly highlighted that before devolution, services were connected to people’s communities, places of convenience or connection and shorter car journeys. It led to services that actually worked for them, and that matters. The challenges of the reality facing our constituents and those we care for have been highlighted in today’s debate.
The hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe rightly mentioned the ridiculousness of “too quickly” and how some constituents looking for hospital care were asked to give slower responses. How on earth can someone receive that message and be able to manage it? That affects not only the staff on the ground.
Lack of access and issues around medical records were raised today. The hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) rightly talked about joined-up thinking. It is not clear where people will be sent and referred to, whether in Scotland or around the English border. We need a British healthcare system that works in the situations that people or their loved ones may find themselves in. Staff on the ground are putting in their very best efforts. It is simply not good enough to be still looking at this issue.
Since taking up this role, one of the things that has been front and centre when meeting and listening to people is their experiences across the NHS in Wales as a whole: how they worry about their families and their care, the disjointed nature of the process and, frankly, what feels like a lack of interest and joined-up approach from Ministers. I ask that the Secretary of State for Wales takes note of what is said in this Chamber this afternoon—and indeed the Secretary of State for Scotland. Similarly, I hope that the Minister for Care, the hon. Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock) will take a similar interest, given that it is the Welsh NHS that delivers for his constituents.
We know too many people, whether our family or friends, who are waiting in pain and in vain. Given the changes in the NHS in England, they want this Government to be interested in what happens in Wales and Scotland, and that they are using the fabled two Governments. I know the need for this debate, which in parts has been strident. We are here to make sure that this challenge is taken up and pursued in the places where it exists, by both Labour Governments in Cardiff Bay and in Westminster.
Since I have taken on this role, I have continually pointed out that since 1999—yes, since Tony Blair was Prime Minister—the Labour Welsh Government have controlled the health service in Wales. Despite some pleasant colleagues from Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats, it is important to remember that parties there have been backing the Labour Government in Wales, and there has been far too little change. I was particularly pleased to hear the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) taking the opportunity, rightly, to point out that for her constituents, change needs to happen. The people of Wales and those using cross-border health services will not accept it if this debate does not lead to change. The answer is simple. People should not be holding their breath to see a change in their experiences; they should be seeing different outcomes.
The Conservatives tried to take up this task, but as we heard today, the challenge around devolution has left it in a difficult state. During the last Parliament, the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), reached out to the Health Minister in Wales—the now First Minister, Baroness Eluned Morgan —recognising the disparities. He asked that they bring officials together—as has been asked for again today—to see how all our UK nations could work together to reduce NHS waiting lists and support the people of Wales. It was bitterly disappointing to see that opportunity to engage not taken up. It was a vital and genuine offer, based on all the reasons that we have heard in the Chamber this afternoon. I would love to hear the Minister tell the House whether that decision is regretful. It seems short-sighted, especially given the ongoing messages in today’s debate.
Can the Minister reveal whether she would like to do the same thing and reach out and offer to assist Welsh Government Ministers, as my party did? We would all be assured by that, and we would all assist in any way to make this change. We also committed in last year’s general election to accelerate investment into new hospitals in Llandrindod Wells, Flint and Newtown to improve cross-border services. Can the Minister commit to an update on that, as it will make a real difference in people’s lives?
I was fascinated to hear from the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann), that where technology, co-operation and partnership is focused, it can change lives. That is the outcome we are looking for here. Despite the feeling that this issue is about funding, it feels more about delivering and making sure that cross-border services work, no matter what party someone belongs to or what part of the country they live in. Wales desperately needs more nurses and doctors, not more politicians in Cardiff Bay. My colleagues, the Welsh Conservatives, led a debate on this topic in July, making it clear that they felt some of the funding could and should have been redirected at cross-border waiting times.
I will conclude by asking the Minister—given the cross-border experiences discussed and what hon. Members have pleaded for on behalf of their constituents—whether she will work with the Wales Office to deliver an inquiry into the preventable deaths, particularly those under the Betsi Cadwaladr university health board. David Jones from Flintshire and many others want that inquiry to be delivered under the Inquiries Act 2005. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on how, by delivering on our commitment and listening to what has been said in this debate, she can take forward people’s experiences so that they are at the heart of what Parliament discussed this afternoon, and real change can be delivered.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) for securing this important debate. I knew that hon. Members from across the United Kingdom would come here for it, and so it has proved. There are no end of technicalities that devolution has brought us, but we respect devolution and difference while recognising that we are all citizens of the United Kingdom. On the initial point made by the hon. Member, I gently remind him that an extra £1.5 billion has been allocated by the Welsh Government to public services in Wales, to put Wales on a path back to growth, undoing the damage of the last 14 years. That money includes an extra £600 million for health and care, which was voted against by the Welsh Conservatives and by Plaid Cymru. That is the difference made by having a Labour Government at one end of the M4 and a Labour Senedd at the other. Let us hope that arrangement can continue into next year so that we can get on with resolving those issues for the people of Wales.
I am very proud of my Irish heritage, with family on both sides of the Irish border, and I represent a city just across the Severn from Wales, so I am no stranger to the issues that arise from sharing a border. I spent many years in the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly and on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, looking at constitutional issues across the United Kingdom. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) said, given the reality of people’s lives across our borders, we need to be better at joining those dots, and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) said—at remembering those people who live at the edge of some people’s maps.
To assure everybody, with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock) as the Minister for Care and with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) as the Minister for Health Innovation and Safety, on whose behalf I am speaking, we in the Department of Health and Social Care are well served by all voices in the United Kingdom. I reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that all patients on both sides of borders can access timely, high-quality care. Healthcare is devolved but patients cannot be left to navigate a fragmented system or face delays just because of where they live.
I assure hon. Members, in response to points made by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), that officials meet regularly. That co-operation is happening, and they will continue to meet. My colleagues and I also meet members of those Governments. However, I will come on to that at the end when discussing the requests for my colleague, the Minister for Health Innovation and Safety, to meet with hon. Members.
The spiritual home of the NHS is Tredegar. This Government will not leave anyone behind, not least patients in Welsh border communities who rely on services in England—the point of the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) raised problems with data sharing and patient record transfer, confusing and inconsistent referral pathways and some of the disputes across borders. However, as we have heard, such disputes sometimes happen within countries and over more local borders. As we heard from the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), they happen internally as well, so let us not underestimate how hard it is to resolve such disputes.
Around 30,000 people who live in England have a GP in Wales, and vice versa. That is why the statement of values and principles for cross-border healthcare was published in 2018. That statement remains the foundation for our approach. It sets out clear expectations that patients living in defined border areas, whether they are registered with a GP in England or in Wales, should receive care without delay or administrative burden. Emergency care is available to all patients, regardless of residency or GP registration. We expect both integrated care boards in England and local health boards in Wales to consider the impact of commissioning decisions on cross-border communities.
The hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe raised the issue of waiting times for residents in Powys who seek treatment in England. Waiting times on both sides of the border are falling. Whenever I appear in the media or speak in a debate, I hear people still saying, even to their television, “Well, where’s my appointment?” Nevertheless, it is the case that waiting times are falling, which is helped by the allocation of money from the Welsh Government to reduce waiting lists.
Karin Smyth
I will get through all the points, if I can, because I know there are lots of issues to address.
As I was about to say, too many people are still waiting, but we are committed to working with the Welsh Government to keep the cross-border arrangements fair, transparent and patient-centred.
Patients also face challenges in accessing specialist services. NHS England commissions a number of these services on behalf of the devolved nations and we are willing to explore further contract arrangements with NHS Wales to improve access to them.
As we have heard this afternoon, travel to appointments can be a barrier. In England, patients referred for specialist NHS treatment may be eligible to claim a refund of reasonable travel costs under the healthcare travel costs scheme, and a similar scheme exists in Wales. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) in welcoming the tremendous changes that we are seeing at Shrewsbury and Telford hospital, which are starting to benefit not only her constituents but people travelling from Wales. That is really good to see. It is a long way for people from Wales to travel, but we are still very pleased to see those changes being made.
The hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe also raised the issue of digital interoperability. Again, I wish I could say that that was only a problem for hospitals on the border between England and Wales, but I am afraid that it is an issue for trusts across the country and across each country. It does not help that, after 14 years of under-investment, IT in the NHS lags behind IT in the private sector by at least a decade. That is why this Government are investing £10 billion into improving how patients access services through technology. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Science, Innovation, Research and Nuclear, Lord Vallance, is currently giving the NHS the biggest digital makeover in its history as part of our 10-year plan.
I can also tell the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe that NHS England is working with NHS Wales to improve interoperability, especially through the shared care record and technical collaboration on the so-called fast healthcare interoperability resources, or FHIR for short, which allows systems from different manufacturers to exchange messages and data, regardless of the setting that care is delivered in. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr on meeting leaders in the local cross-border system to understand that issue better. However, I gently say to him that we cannot get very far without the private sector working with us, not only across genomics and future healthcare but in IT and the way that we develop some of these services.
In October, the chief information officers across all four nations agreed to start looking at digital architecture and standards. They are exploring what we can do to improve how we use shared systems, common standards for better communication, which was raised by nearly everyone this afternoon, and the potential of future alignment. This work should lead to some progress in the short term, ahead of our long-term ambition of building a single patient record.
We are also making cross-border billing arrangements easier. Although the NHS payment scheme applies only to services in England, we sat down with the Welsh Government and agreed that Welsh commissioners will pay English tariff prices for Welsh patients who are treated in England. For English patients who are treated in Wales, local agreements are in place and we are open to making those agreements more efficient through the provision of clearer guidance.
As for our constructive co-operation with devolved Governments, the Government were elected on a manifesto to reset our relationship with the devolved Governments, and from day one that is what we have been doing. In that spirit, and without downplaying many of the issues that the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe and others, including the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), have raised today, I will highlight some of the positive examples of collaboration between our healthcare systems.
In many areas along the border, NHS staff in England and Wales are showing the rest of the UK how joined-up care is done. For example, patients in south Wales regularly access paediatric intensive care services in my home city of Bristol, and there are long-standing arrangements for cancer care, renal services and mental health support that cross the border seamlessly. Such partnerships are a testament to the professionalism and dedication of our NHS workforce, but cross-border healthcare is just one part of our partnership.
First, we have seen immense progress through the Interministerial Group for Health and Social Care, which met last September. Such meetings are really important. They bring together all four nations to find common ground on key priorities, such as elective recovery for those on waiting lists, innovation and health reform, and we look forward to continuing these discussions at the next meeting in December.
Secondly, all four nations are working to protect our kids through the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which is UK-wide in scope but tailored to the specific needs of each nation. If the representative of the Opposition, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield, could indeed talk to her colleagues in the House of Lords, who are battling very hard to get some of this legislation through, we could start making this generation the first smoke-free generation and support kids with this public health measure.
Thirdly, the Mental Health Bill that applies to England and Wales has been a masterclass in constructive engagement between compatriots who want to put their differences aside and get stuff done. May I echo the words of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and add my support to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) in his efforts to ensure progress on that often forgotten part of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement that deals with healthcare? It is not easy. If they can do it over there, it is not beyond the rest of us to do it in Scotland, Wales and England. I was so grateful when my own mother was being cared for at Altnagelvin hospital during the covid crisis in 2021 to see the co-operation across the border and staff just getting on with treating the patients wherever they came from. We have a lot to learn from our colleagues in Northern Ireland.
In conclusion, I want to assure colleagues that the UK Government remain committed to supporting cross-border healthcare arrangements that work for patients. I will not offer hon. Members lots of individual meetings, but what I have heard today is that there is a lot of good work going on among officials. People here have issues to raise, including things from the past. I will take that up and share that more widely. I will also endeavour to write to the hon. Member for Strangford on the issue he raised to do with university students.
We are building bridges with Wales to work through our issues in the national interest, but I am afraid to say that although waiting lists are falling in England and Wales, in Scotland they are rising, which is a great shame. My friend Anas Sarwar, a former NHS dentist, is committed to resolving that. The NHS is in his DNA, given his own professional work. Getting waiting lists down will be his No. 1 priority, should Labour be successful in Scotland next year. It is a shame for Scottish people to see waiting lists rising while we make progress in England and Wales.
The greatest Welshman in history, Nye Bevan, founded our national health service. The hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe might want to dispute that and give the title to Lloyd George—we will politely disagree on that one. But the serious point is that Bevan’s vision was for a health service where no one was left behind, not least in his own country of birth. Working in partnership, we will fix the NHS across the United Kingdom and make it fit for the future.
David Chadwick
First, NHS waiting lists in Wales are not falling; Wales has the highest waiting list in the United Kingdom. Nearly a third of our population are stuck on waiting lists. I wanted to intervene to make the Minister aware that I agree that extra funding is required to tackle the waiting list that we face in Wales. But when extra funding was announced for the Welsh NHS in June by the Welsh Government, it later transpired that none of that money could be spent on this issue because none of it could be spent on English commissioned services, which meant that the problem we are here today to discuss could not be solved. That is why it is so important to bake in a sort of border by design when designing national healthcare systems, because, as we have heard today from so many Members, it is often very typical and much easier for our constituents to cross borders to access their nearest hospital or their nearest GP practice; and it is important for our Union to facilitate that practice by making it easier and faster.
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) talked of the progress being made in her constituency to bring down waiting times. Clearly, that is good news and shows what can be done—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) has campaigned very hard for that. That is why it is so frustrating for my residents and constituents in Powys to know that access to faster healthcare is available just on the other side of the border, but their own Government and health board are preventing them accessing that treatment. Today we are calling on that to end.
What this debate has shown is that for too long, Powys residents have lived with a system that treats them as an afterthought. The waiting list policy introduced this summer has made that painfully clear. People are waiting longer not because of medical need or capacity, but because the funding simply is not there to pay for it. We have heard today that the problems run deeper than just funding alone. They are about systems that cannot talk to one another, Governments that will not work together, and patients who are left to navigate the gaps.
These are man-made problems, and they can be solved if there is political will. My message to Ministers in both Cardiff Bay and Westminster is simple: sit down together, bring in those of us who represent border areas, and fix this. Every week that passes without action means more people living in pain, more lives on hold and more families watching their loved ones deteriorate while they wait. This debate is about more than party politics; it is about people who simply want to be treated with the same respect and urgency as everyone else. We owe it to them to get this right. Diolch yn fawr.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered cross-border healthcare.
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
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 Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. It is 2025, and we find ourselves discussing whether the United Kingdom will continue supporting an organisation that has saved millions of lives. This is an important and timely debate, and it should remind us how much progress we have made, and how much we stand to lose if we step back now.
When I spoke earlier this year about the US cutting funding to the World Health Organisation, I said then, and will repeat today, that global health is not charity; it is security and self-interest. Supporting international health systems does not just save lives overseas; it keeps us safer here at home. Stronger systems abroad mean fewer outbreaks reaching our shores, more stable trading partners and a healthier global economy, which Britain depends on. Investing in the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is not only the right thing to do morally but the smart thing to do economically and strategically.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am very much informed by my constituents in Strangford, where local church groups undertake fantastic work to support those in other countries plagued with the likes of malaria, tuberculosis and AIDS. I think specifically of the Ards Elim church in Newtownards in Strangford, which sends groups out every year to support those facing the devastating impact of those diseases. Does the hon. Member agree that more must be done, either by helping to fund their work or working in partnership with them, to ensure that we are doing everything necessary to help them do their bit to help others?
Dr Chambers
The hon. Member is completely right about the work that voluntary and church groups do on global public health.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He mentioned the importance of investing in funds to protect our security. He will know better than anyone that malign-influence powers such as Russia and China are eager to step into the void that we leave when we withdraw our aid. Does he agree that if we do not fund the Global Fund properly, malign powers such as those will step in and shape global health policy in their own image?
Dr Chambers
I totally agree with my hon. Friend, who sits on the Foreign Affairs Committee; that is an insightful point.
Many of us will remember “It’s a Sin”, Channel 4’s extraordinary drama about the HIV/AIDS crisis in the 1980s. It was joyful and heartbreaking, and it reminded us that behind every statistic was a real person—sons, daughters, friends and partners, all with lives full of love and potential. But HIV today is not a death sentence. Science has done its job. Because of one pill a day, or even a single injection every few months, people can live long and healthy lives. The UN’s 95-95-95 target—that 95% of people living with HIV know their status, that 95% of those are on treatment, and that 95% of those are achieving viral suppression—is within reach, but it will not happen by accident. It requires commitment, funding and global co-operation.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I am delighted that the Prime Minister has chosen to co-host the eighth replenishment of the Global Fund, alongside the Republic of South Africa. I put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Michael Payne) for working hard over the last year to corral myself and other colleagues to work with the Government to make the case for the Global Fund. Does the hon. Member agree with me that by co-hosting the summit, which is a good thing in itself, we are showing that the UK remains at the forefront of global development, and that doing so in partnership with South Africa exemplifies our commitment to working with other nations to achieve our shared ambitions?
Dr Chambers
Yes, these are really important summits, and it is important to show international co-operation.
The Global Fund has been central to the progress I have spoken about. It has helped to save millions of lives and allowed millions of babies to be born HIV-free. Yet progress is fragile and without the sustained investment mentioned by the hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race), the gains made will unravel and history will repeat itself.
The United States AIDS programme—the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief—launched more than 20 years ago, has saved around 25 million lives. It supports testing, treatment and prevention in more than 50 countries. To show the impact of cuts on these programmes, following funding cuts to that initiative earlier this year, an estimated 120,000 people have died—more than the population of a constituency.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this vital debate and powerfully laying out the success of the Global Fund. Stepping back now and cutting our contribution to the fund, just as the United States is abandoning vaccination programmes altogether, would be devastating for some of the world’s most vulnerable people, and a step back in the progress made. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Government do not commit to replenishing the Global Fund sufficiently this year, that not only betrays our extraordinary progress and leadership but, as co-hosts, gives a signal that it is okay for others to do the same?
Dr Chambers
I completely agree about the importance of demonstrating international leadership on this issue. If international support declines, from us and other countries, an additional 10 million new HIV infections, including up to 880,000 in children, could occur by 2030. Those are preventable deaths—people who could be alive this time next year if we choose differently and maintain funding.
Tuberculosis, often called a Victorian superbug, is on the rise again, with cases in England up 13% last year. Globally, it remains one of the leading infectious killers. It is largely preventable, treatable, and curable in the vast majority of cases, yet is too often neglected. Malaria is a microscopic parasite, spread by something as small as a mosquito, that continues to kill half a million people a year. There is a saying, “If you think you are too small to make a difference, you have never spent the night in a tent with a mosquito.” We know what works: mosquito nets, repellents, rapid tests and education. The challenge is not the science but the access. The tools exist but too many communities cannot afford or reach them.
When it comes to global public health,
“Nobody wins unless everybody wins.”
Those are not my words but Bruce Springsteen’s. They apply just as much to global health as they do to any other struggle. If we allow international health systems to weaken and turn our backs on collaboration, we are failing not only others but ourselves. Every time we strengthen a health system abroad, we strengthen Britain’s safety at home. We reduce the risk of the next pandemic reaching our shores, protect supply chains, stabilise economies and open new opportunities for trade and innovation.
If we invest now, we can cement the UK’s reputation as a global leader in health innovation, not just through our laboratories and universities, but through partnerships such as the Global Fund that translate research into real-world impact. British expertise in vaccine development, diagnostics and data science already help to shape programmes that have saved lives across the world. Continued investment allows us to share knowledge, strengthen health systems and, in doing so, build influence and resilience that benefit the UK and our global partners.
We also need to be honest about the wider picture. The UK’s official development assistance budget has already been reduced from 0.7% to 0.5% of national income. The Government are now reducing it further, to around 0.3% by 2027. The Fleming Fund, which monitors and helps to tackle antimicrobial resistance, has been scaled back, and the UK’s contribution to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance has fallen from about £1.65 billion to £1.25 billion for the next funding cycle, which is a real-terms reduction of roughly 40%.
Taken together, those decisions risk sending a message that Britain is retreating from its proud record of global health leadership. If we are serious about being a world leader in science, public health and international development, maintaining our commitment to the Global Fund is one of the clearest and most effective ways to show it. A rushed transition from global aid to self-financing, forced by rapid funding reductions, will result in direct harm through reduced healthcare, stock-outs of essential medicines and untimely deaths. When this is done in the context of infectious disease, the long-term cost will rise in exchange for short-term savings.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
My hon. Friend talks about infectious disease. The cost of the malaria vaccine is now thought to be just under $5 a dose, which is amazing purchasing power. By contrast, the UK, under the last Government, who are not represented here today, was spending 29% of UK aid on in-country donor costs—that is, on hotel accommodation. Does he think this money could be better spent?
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Order. Just before the hon. Gentleman responds, I remind Members that the Minister will speak at quarter past 4. The Minister is entitled to 15 minutes. I know other Members wish to speak; however, that is the way we must operate. I remind the hon. Member of that.
Dr Chambers
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I am finishing up now, Mr Dowd.
Britain has always punched above its weight when it comes to science, health and compassion. We helped to eradicate smallpox. We led on vaccine distribution. We have the knowledge, compassion and credibility to lead again, if we choose to. During the covid-19 pandemic, we all waited for the science to catch up—for a vaccine and for hope. When it finally arrived, the world changed overnight. With HIV, TB and malaria, we do not have to wait. The science is already there. The treatments already exist. What is missing is the political will and the funding.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I will be brief, as I appreciate there is not much time left.
I wanted to speak in today’s debate because, as a public health consultant who has worked in international development for 20 years, I have watched the Global Fund and have not always been its greatest fan, I have to say. It has employed funding through vertical programmes for AIDS, TB and malaria.
However, I stand corrected—politicians do not say that very often, but I do. I have seen the great work that the Global Fund has done. I have understood how it has taken a large amount of donor funding and put it to excellent use, resulting in serious reductions in three major infectious disease scourges of our time, including malaria, which 21 countries are now free of, thanks in major part to the Global Fund.
It is not just about the three major diseases that the Global Fund works on; it is about health systems strengthening, which is where it has won my heart. It now understands that we cannot just have vertical health programmes to address those three major scourges; we have to invest in systems strengthening.
I thank my friend who secured this debate, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers). He talked about the Fleming Fund. As it comes to a close, we can address antimicrobial resistance through the Global Fund’s work on systems strengthening.
I will conclude by talking about the UK pledge coming up imminently. In 2022, we pledged £1 billion. I am incredibly proud of the leadership the United Kingdom has shown in global health, and I very much hope—as has been alluded to, with regard to our co-hosting in South Africa—that we continue to show that leadership.
I put on record that a potential 15% cut to that £1 billion would result in 220,000 fewer lives saved; 270,000 fewer people provided with antiretroviral treatment; 240,000 fewer people provided with tuberculosis treatment and care; and 20 million fewer people having access to mosquito nets, which provide much needed protection to children and families from this absolutely terrible disease.
We have led the way in global health and we have been a systems leader. Do not get me wrong: this is not simply about funding—but a strong pledge by the UK at this eighth replenishment will absolutely signal that the UK remains dedicated to global health, and how important it is to our health systems as well as to the rest of the world.
Imogen Walker (Hamilton and Clyde Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) for securing this debate. I pay tribute to his work on global health as secretary to the all-party parliamentary group on antimicrobial resistance and as a member of the APPG on maternity. I am also grateful for the efforts of so many here who have dedicated themselves to the fight against HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria for years. I am thankful for the contribution of every hon. Member, including the thoughtful and passionate speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper). I will do my best to address the points that have been raised in the time I have.
I know that hon. Members will be aware of this Government’s commitment to the mission of the Global Fund. Indeed, we can all be proud that the United Kingdom helped to establish the Global Fund back in 2002. The UK is the fund’s third largest investor, contributing £5.5 billion so far. Members should be in no doubt that this Government value our ongoing partnership with the Global Fund; it is essential to maintaining and accelerating progress in global health.
It is hard to overstate the importance of the Global Fund in transforming the fight against these diseases. Since 2002, with support from the UK and many others, the Global Fund partnership has helped to save 70 million lives and reduce deaths from AIDS, TB and malaria by 63%—that is remarkable. Importantly, the Global Fund has helped to build more resilient and sustainable health systems that help us to fight AIDS, TB and malaria, and it helps countries to support and improve the health of their populations more broadly, from addressing the threat of antimicrobial resistance to making progress on preventing new diseases from becoming epidemics, or even pandemics.
Yet our work is far from done. Tragically, every passing minute, a child under the age of five dies of malaria. Notwithstanding all the progress that we have made, tuberculosis remains the world’s deadliest infectious disease. Nearly 14 million children are growing up without one or both of their parents—lost to AIDS-related causes, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa. Sibu Sibaca from South Africa spent her childhood caring for her parents, until AIDS took them from her when she was just 16. Her adult life is devoted to making the case for action to ensure that others do not have to go through this, and she spoke so powerfully alongside my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, and at a reception co-hosted with South Africa’s Foreign Minister in London a few weeks ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race) has spoken about the importance of co-operation, and of course he is right.
Wherever we can, we are making the case for how the Global Fund can continue to be a powerful solution multiplier—pooling investments, making economies of scale and maximising our collective impact. Let me take this opportunity to shine a light on how cutting-edge advancements are changing what is possible now. Take Lenacapavir, a twice-yearly injectable that could be a game changer in the fight against HIV. Thanks to partners, including Unitaid, a recent landmark deal will bring it to market at $40 per person. That is a staggering drop from the original price of over $28,000. Thanks to the Global Fund, 2 million doses will be distributed to people in low and middle-income countries over the next two years, saving lives and giving people a chance at a better future.
The final replenishment summit in Johannesburg on 21 November matters immensely, and we are proud to be working in partnership with the Government of South Africa to make it happen. We celebrate all that we have achieved through the Global Fund in its 23 years so far, and we focus on what comes next: raising billions for the fight against AIDS, TB and malaria, with public and private investors working together; backing countries’ ambitions to invest more in health; harnessing private sector expertise, including world-class UK science to make the most of the latest innovations and improve access to medicines; and committing to work together in new ways to support countries on their path to self-reliance, and to reshape the global health architecture for the future. That is how we make sure our efforts add up to more than the sum of their parts so that the Global Fund can continue its lifesaving, life-changing work around the world.
I want to build on what other hon. Members have said by underlining what we stand to gain if we continue to make progress in the months and years ahead. As the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Winchester said, there will be more children growing up with their parents, more parents spared the heartbreak of burying a child, more families spared from devastating loss, more communities able to thrive and more economies able to prosper. That is what people everywhere want to see. I am not foolish enough to attempt to match the poetry of Bruce Springsteen, but we will keep working until people everywhere feel the benefits of better health in our lives.
Question put and agreed to.
Houses in Multiple Occupation: Planning Consent
(1 day, 6 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
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered planning consent for houses in multiple occupation.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I speak today about an issue that is deeply personal for people across my constituency: the rapid spread of houses in multiple occupation, or HMOs, and the growing frustration local communities feel at being powerless to manage their impact.
Let me be clear at the outset that HMOs have a place. They can provide flexible, affordable housing for students, young workers and those getting started in the housing market. For example, a constituent recently told me that, after moving out of her parents’ home, she found an affordable room in a well-kept, clean and safe HMO, which enabled her to save a deposit to buy her own property. It is important to recognise that HMOs have a place.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. In September, it was alleged that more than 20 HMOs in Northern Ireland did not have appropriate consent. Does he agree that, whether the HMOs are student accommodation, private housing or Home Office housing, there must be planning consent, and planning enforcement must be swift to act on any breach, even if the party breaching planning rules is a Government body? Planning regulations apply to us all equally, without favour.
Steve Yemm
I agree that whoever falls foul of planning regulations should be held to account.
Although HMOs have a place, in Mansfield, as in so many proud towns across the country, we have seen what happens when the balance tips too far—when too many family homes are converted too quickly without proper local control or consideration. My constituents know the streets I am talking about in Mansfield Woodhouse, Forest Town, Warsop and parts of my town centre, where once-stable family homes are being turned into short-term lets or high-density HMOs almost overnight. The result is more noise, parking pressures, more rubbish and fly-tipping, higher turnover of residents, less community cohesion, and a growing feeling among residents that they have lost their say on what happens on their own street.
I have spoken to lifelong residents—people like myself who have raised their children and grandchildren in Mansfield—who remember when every family on their street knew every other family by name. In some areas, they now see bins overflowing, cars blocking their pavements and transient visitors who stay for a short while and are not invested in the area.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
We also have the phenomenon of HMO properties in my constituency. If someone were to apply to build a block of six apartments, they would have to go through a proper planning process, with things such as parking being considered. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the licensing regime needs to be significantly tightened to give local authorities the power to think about things such as parking and bin storage prior to an HMO licence being issued?
Steve Yemm
I agree, and I will turn to that later in my remarks.
Mansfield is built on community, and people look out for one another, but when planning makes it easier to convert family homes than to build them, the fabric of community life starts to fall apart a little. This is not an anti-HMO message; it is a pro-community message. Good landlords—I meet many of them—should be recognised and supported, but those who ignore rules should face real consequences, which speaks to the point the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) made.
Mansfield district council is doing all it can. It is using selective licensing powers to help address antisocial behaviour and poor housing in the private rented sector in certain designated areas, and I fully support it in doing so. It has also looked at using an article 4 direction to bring HMO conversions back under local planning control. I would also support that, but the process is relatively complex and costly, and feels a little stacked against local authorities.
Mansfield council would first have to gather extensive evidence to prove that uncontrolled HMO growth is genuinely harming the local area, whether that is parking pressures, waste issues or the erosion of family housing and so forth. That process alone involves months of costly data collection and consultation, and it puts more pressure on planning teams at a time when councils are recovering from years of cuts under the previous Government. We cannot expect them to do more with less while trying to respond to these real concerns from the community. Even with clear evidence—and Mansfield has plenty—councils have to jump through many hoops to justify what should be a straightforward decision giving local people a voice in what happens on their own streets.
So today I am asking the Minister to consider three things. First, we should simplify and strengthen the process for councils to use article 4 directions when there is a clear local need. Councils such as Mansfield should be trusted more and given the ability to protect their neighbourhoods. We should reinstate the principle that local authorities know their communities best.
Secondly, we should think about introducing a national framework that prevents over-concentration of HMOs in defined areas. Part of that could include the creation of a national register for HMOs, linking planning, licensing and council tax data so that local teams can more easily identify areas and locate unregistered properties.
Thirdly and finally, we should properly resource local authorities to enforce the rules they already have. Powers on paper mean nothing if councils do not have the people or funding to use them. We might consider, for example, the provision of ringfenced funding or allowing councils to use planning fees or licensing income to support enforcement.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for securing this important debate. As he said, the frustration among communities is felt deeply. Does he agree that whether it is HMOs, buy-to-lets, which are often problematic, or hostels, if there are breaches within them, or if landlords are not keeping to the rules, action should be taken swiftly by the authorities?
Steve Yemm
I agree with the hon. Member, but we need to get the balance right between the failing landlords and the very many good landlords we see.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward this debate and for the recommendations he has made. In the London borough of Bexley, we have an article 4 direction, but we are beginning to see landlords setting up charities and housing associations that do not appear to comply with the ethos of such organisations, simply to get around the rules. They do not then require planning permission, as we have recently seen in Highfield Avenue in Northumberland Heath. Does my hon. Friend agree that we also need to look at landlords setting up those organisations to get around the rules?
Steve Yemm
As my hon. Friend would expect, I am sympathetic to that suggestion. However, that is not an experience I share, because I have a local authority that makes virtually no use of article 4. Certainly, if people are circumventing it, there is clearly a case for reform there as well.
To conclude, my overall message is that we need to think about how we reform article 4 to make it easier to justify, quicker to implement and fairer to landlords and residents. It should also be anchored in local decision making, rather than just about top-down approval. And we must ensure that our councils are funded properly to undertake compliance.
All we are really asking for are the tools to protect our towns and make sure that every street remains a place where people can live, grow and thrive together. Let us act now, trust councils and residents and make sure that planning policy works for our people, not against them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Things have moved on since I made my announcement during the suspension a few minutes ago, so I am going to put a formal two-minute limit on speeches. Regrettably, I still cannot guarantee that everybody will get to speak, and I will have to intervene as soon as your two minutes are up.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
As a university city, Bath has an increasing number of HMOs, not only but mainly because of increasing numbers of students. As we have heard, constituents living around HMOs face increasing pressure on parking, noise issues and waste collection issues. Meanwhile, more and more valuable family homes are snapped up by developers to squeeze more profit from single dwellings.
Bath council has started to control the mass conversion of properties into HMOs by imposing a 10% cap in certain areas on the number of homes that can be converted, and it is also protecting some families from being sandwiched between two HMOs. However, we still lose too many homes to HMOs, and the shortage of affordable family homes—especially two and three-bedroom homes—is particularly stark in the city centre. Bath is currently consulting on a new policy to ban turning three-bedroom family homes into HMOs where there could be family homes, and I urge all Bath residents to take part in that public consultation. Bath council is also ambitious about building 1,000 more social homes for rent to ease the desperate need for affordable homes. It is still waiting to hear from the new Government how they can support it, and I would also be happy to hear a response from the Government on that.
I am asking the Government to create a new planning class for short-term rentals such as Airbnbs. We need a planning system that can help reverse the loss of family homes from the housing market, and we must be serious about the current housing crisis. HMOs are not the only cause of that, but they are part of it.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. If I had to choose three letters to sum up my inbox when it comes to planning matters, it would be HMO. Nowhere in my constituency illustrates that more starkly than Windsor Street. I first saw the challenges there when I served the area as a local councillor, and they have not gone away. On a street of around 40 Victorian terraces, as many as seven are now HMOs. For the 20 years that I have been involved in Hartlepool politics, HMOs have been a perennial source of concern for local people.
As we have heard, there are good HMOs, but there are also far too many bad ones—ones that are poorly managed, in a state of disrepair, magnets for crime and antisocial behaviour and a blight on communities, and that erode social cohesion.
There are two things I want to raise in my brief time. First, Hartlepool effectively has two planning authorities. The first is the council, which is democratically elected, with officers who understand the streets, our history and our needs. The second is the mayoral development corporation, which covers a large part of the town centre and outsources most of its decisions to a private company based in Manchester.
My first plea to the Minister is that she please review these development corporations and not allow local authorities to have their planning powers stripped and exercised by a private company. My second plea is around article 4. One of the perverse aspects of applying for an article 4 direction is the 12-month notice period. We are applying, but in those 12 months developers rush to get as many HMOs through as they possibly can before the direction comes into force. My second plea to the Minister is therefore to review that timescale and reduce it to a matter of weeks, so that democratically elected people in Hartlepool can protect their communities from bad HMOs.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
We are seeing more and more HMOs across Walsall borough and in my constituency, and it is leaving my local residents feeling that they have very little say on what is happening in their streets. Walsall council has worked on this. I welcome its new article 4 direction, which came into effect in October 2025 and is a much-needed step in restoring local accountability. However, the issue does concern me. The conversion of family homes into HMOs reduces the availability of affordable family homes and risks changing the nature of settled communities. There is also a growing fear and concern about the use of HMOs to accommodate illegal migrants or newly arrived asylum seekers, so once again I seek reassurance from the Government that, as those people are decanted from hotels, we will not see an automatic rise in the number of HMOs. The Government need to get a grip on this issue; a starting point would be a national assessment of the impact that HMO concentrations are having on community cohesion.
Underpinning all this is the fact that our communities need to feel that they are being listened to. I urge the Government to take note and take action.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and a pleasure to join this important debate, called by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm), which gives me a chance to raise an issue that really matters to my constituents in Halesowen—the rising number of houses in multiple occupation.
We all recognise the need for more housing, especially during a cost of living crisis, but it must be provided in an appropriate manner, and not in a way that undermines safety or community cohesion. In Halesowen, the biggest concerns that I hear regarding HMOs are parking, road safety and antisocial behaviour. Parking is already a challenge in our town; when HMOs are approved without adequate spaces, cars spill on to residential streets, causing frustration, congestion and preventable accidents. I am pleased that recent applications in relation to Nimmings Road and Olive Lane have been rejected for failing to meet those standards and for compromising safety.
Road safety is also an important concern. More cars on already narrow roads mean greater risk, especially where speeding is already an issue. Main routes such as Stourbridge Road and Long Lane are already gridlocked at peak times, and poorly planned HMOs cause further strain and risk making our roads less safe for local residents.
There is also the issue of antisocial behaviour. When HMOs are rushed through without proper consultation, they can change the character of our neighbourhoods. West Midlands police has found links between HMOs and increased reports of crime and drug offences, so these are genuine concerns that deserve to be taken seriously.
I will ask my hon. Friend the Minister two things. First, will the Government review planning guidelines for HMOs, to ensure that local authorities have the flexibility to consider parking, infrastructure and community impact before granting permission? Secondly, will the Minister consider introducing stronger licensing frameworks to prevent over-concentration of HMOs in particular streets or wards, so that growth is genuinely sustainable and in keeping with local needs?
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. It was in the Runcorn and Helsby by-election that I became aware of the issue of HMOs in our communities, and now I speak endlessly on this topic to highlight their impact on often deprived and forgotten communities that are bearing the brunt of the problem of housing people who are often asylum seekers.
In my Runcorn and Helsby constituency, there are 200 HMOs in the Halton borough council area; 127 of them are licensed, which means that they have more than five tenants. These are statistics that I can evidence. I also know, because the Home Office statistics tell me, that more than 600 asylum seekers are dispersed across the same area. It is not student accommodation in my local HMOs—that is not an issue in my constituency —it is an issue of asylum seekers. The impact on the community locally is illegal working; it is gangs; it is drugs; it is crime; it is the limiting of housing possibilities for local people; it is increases in rent prices because of the agreements that housing suppliers such as Serco have with the private landlords; it is antisocial behaviour. I have endless stories of criminal activity, sexual assaults and rape.
I urge that, under article 4, no new planning consent is given or granted in my constituency for HMOs. I urge the Home Office to give local authorities full power to act under article 4. Finally, I urge the Home Office not to send any more asylum seekers to my constituency.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for securing this important debate on HMOs. Concerns around access to safe, good-quality and genuinely affordable housing have consistently been raised with me throughout my time representing my constituency. It is the No. 1 casework issue in my inbox. As a consequence of rising demand for affordable housing, alongside a cost of living crisis and regulatory changes, it is more profitable for landlords to operate houses in multiple occupation, and we have seen a year-on-year increase of HMOs in many regions across the country.
As we have heard from many other Members today, HMOs present difficult issues for tenants and wider communities if they are not properly licensed or managed. For some tenants, that may mean substandard housing facilities, without adequate access to toilet, bathroom or cooking facilities, or appropriate fire safety precautions. There is also the wider community impact: parking shortages, increasing levels of rubbish due to poor waste disposal and, sadly, the demise of family homes, just when the demand for good-quality family homes is rising.
Many of these issues go under the radar of local authorities if they are not reported, although many authorities recognise these issues and have taken action under article 4 directions, which relate to the removal of permitted development rights for HMOs and require planning permission to be sought. These can be targeted, but they are often challenged by landlords. Can the Minister provide an update on how the Government might be able to support councils to invoke article 4 directions despite challenges, so that they can effectively monitor and manage the number of HMOs in their areas? Is there any further update on how to tackle unlicensed HMOs, ensuring that tenants are not being taken advantage of?
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
The Government are rightly increasing regulation on social housing landlords, but we know that we have dodgy landlords in the private sector who are flouting the rules. As things stand in my constituency and across east London, we know there are huge problems with unlicensed HMOs, which are causing people to live in unsanitary and unsafe conditions. Does my hon. Friend agree that we also need to give councils more powers to tackle the scourge of unlicensed HMOs?
Rachel Hopkins
I thank my hon. Friend for making that really important point about unlicensed HMOs, and I thoroughly agree.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for securing this debate.
HMOs can work for some people, such as students. With the average house price now more than 7.5 times the average salary, compared with the ’80s when it was three times, HMOs are increasingly becoming the default living arrangement for young professionals. After university or college, the last thing young people want is another year—or many years—sharing a space with others they do not know very well. It also does not mean that these people have significantly lower housing costs because, while cheaper than a full home, many of these places are still exorbitant. While HMOs have their place, their proliferation points to a bad housing market, one in which people are forced to share with strangers because other options are too expensive.
As we know, by default, a family home can be converted to a small HMO without needing an application for planning permission, meaning that an awful lot of HMOs, which put an awful lot of pressure on local services, are being created without planning oversight. Peterborough city council’s article 4 directions mandate developers to apply for full permission in parts of Fletton, Woodston and Hampton in my constituency, which is welcome, but that varies by council and area, meaning that HMOs can still build up in one place. That inevitably strains public services; it means difficulties for waste collection, oversubscription to local GPs and—this is one of the most visible issues—not having anywhere to park.
I join others today in calling for a simpler, stronger process for councils to issue article 4 directions. We need stronger regulation alongside a drive to build more appropriate housing, to increase supply and counter demand. We also need to have a real conversation about the housing mix that we are building. There are more and more single-person households now, who have nowhere to go other than the most expensive types of housing. Let us provide for them and slash the need for HMOs.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) has said, we should be looking to create streets in which our residents can live, work and thrive together. However, it is indeed the case that the in-boxes of Members in this Chamber are full of messages about HMOs. There are 1,018 HMOs in the Medway council area, 658 of them in the most socially deprived wards, and one in five of those 658 HMOs has issues relating to at least one serious hazard, including mould, fire safety and electrical problems. We know that many HMOs are well run, but a significant number are not.
It is welcome news that in my local area, Medway council is looking at the article 4 direction and considering selective licensing as a solution. We need to promote that as a policy to ensure that all our residents can live in safe and secure homes. I look forward to seeing that report from my council shortly.
I would like the Minister to answer some questions. How can we strengthen and streamline the article 4 process to allow councils to engage in it? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) has said, at the moment the process is onerous and can take many months. Can we look at introducing a national framework? Can we also look at unlicensed HMOs and ensure that our planning teams are resourced, so that we can ringfence money and support residents, and get the most appropriate type of housing for our communities?
Lastly, the process of completing an article 4 direction is cumbersome, as I know from experience. What more can we do to give statutory guidance to authorities to ensure that they engage with landlords to prevent bogus charities and other types of bogus operators, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield mentioned, from trying to get through the process?
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and I welcome the Minister to her new role.
In this debate, I have found myself feeling slightly envious, listening to hon. Members around the Chamber talk about the work their councils are undertaking to achieve better regulation of HMOs. Sadly, in Stoke-on-Trent we are far behind others in that process. My residents in Hartshill and Basford, in Penkhull, in Fenton and in Birches Head are seeing many three-bedroom family homes being converted to six-bedroom HMOs. Then, rather naughtily, those six-bedroom HMOs become eight-bedroom HMOs with a retrospective application, at which point the council says, “Well, we only really have to consider the additional two bedrooms, because they had the right to do the six in the first place.”
That puts unimaginable strain on communities, such as the community in Claridge Road who now have exactly that—an eight-bedroom HMO sitting within a residential family area. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) said, HMOs have a really important part to play in the housing mix in towns and cities, but they have to be in the right place and controlled.
I have asked my council how many HMOs we have, but it cannot tell me; it does not keep a register, because it has never had to. I also asked my council how many six-bedroom HMOs we have and how many are licensed. Again, the council cannot tell me because it has never had to keep such a record.
I am working with Councillor Daniela Santoro in Hartshill Park & Stoke, and with Councillor Shaun Pender in Basford & Hartshill, to try to launch a pilot to cover those two wards and the Penkhull ward and to demonstrate that, if we could map even some of that housing stock, it would show a huge proliferation of out-of-family homes. We are pushing Stoke-on-Trent city council to introduce a saturation limit and to say that, although permissions might still be granted, certain streets would have a certain threshold over which the number of HMOs could not go.
Unfortunately, we are getting nowhere. I ask the Minister this: where councils are reticent to undertake such work themselves, could there be a mechanism whereby local communities could trigger a process so that, where people know there is a problem, it can be addressed from a grassroots level?
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for securing this debate.
In my constituency, the rise of HMOs has been nothing short of dramatic. In particular, streets in Gillingham that were once lined with family homes are now dominated by houses in multiple occupancy, which have often been converted at speed and without proper oversight. Permitted development rights have enabled this trend, coupled with relatively low-cost housing and a limited licensing regime. In fact, my town was rather scrupulously promoted by one website as being among
“the four hottest HMO investment areas.”
I understand that behind each of those conversions lies a simple market logic. However, I also fear a quiet erosion of the social balance, which will change the shape of our communities.
Like other Members, I do not oppose in principle the existence of shared housing, or HMOs—we need them. The demand for HMOs exists among students, key workers and professionals, who are often priced out of traditional tenures. However, the problem is that when such conversions happen en masse in one area, and when the planning system is unable to manage that pace or even to track the number of HMOs, the cumulative impact is the fury that we all see at our surgeries and in our inboxes.
Members will be aware that the root of this issue is structural. Conversions can take place under permitted development rights and therefore they can bypass planning consent altogether. Once councils such as mine, Medway council, have a mountain of evidence to support them, they can issue an article 4 direction, a licensing scheme and supplementary planning documents. However, by that time half the street has already been converted.
We all know that saturating an area with one housing tenure type is never a good idea; it can create not only social challenges, but problems in the local housing market. That is why now is the time for a strategic approach. We must empower our councils to act.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for securing this important debate.
In my constituency, the rise of HMOs is a growing concern. As other Members have said, HMOs provide vital accommodation for key workers, students and single people; however, we must confront the reality on the ground. In Leigh town centre alone, there are over 30 registered HMOs that we know of. Residents are rightly worried about overcrowding, noise, waste issues and pressures on public services, which is why I joined local councillors to campaign for a borough-wide article 4 direction. That is now in effect, giving communities a voice, and some applications have rightly been refused.
We also need national action. Councils are asking how they hold the landlords of smaller HMOs accountable. What powers do they have to intervene? How can they get a sense of the scale of the issue when, currently, smaller HMOs can escape scrutiny? This must change. Will the Minister consider giving councils the power to retrospectively require all HMOs to join a register, and support comprehensive licensing for HMOs, regardless of their size?
A full register would improve oversight, uphold safety standards and help to reduce antisocial behaviour. It would also allow planning departments and residents to understand the true cumulative impact, especially in areas that are at risk of oversaturation. But this will require resources. Councils need support from the Government to implement and enforce changes.
Ultimately, HMOs must be safe, respectful and properly regulated. They must not erode our communities or compromise the wellbeing of residents. People in Leigh, Atherton, Tyldesley, Lowton and Golborne deserve a say in shaping their neighbourhoods.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd.
On roads where people have raised families for decades, homes are being bought up, divided and converted into HMOs, often in what feels like a matter of days, and often by scalpers from out of town who are looking to turn a quick profit. My constituents tell me that they wake up one morning to find a skip outside, walls being knocked down and new tenants moving in next door—with no consultation and no conversation. That is what happens when planning rules overlook communities.
It should be about balance, respect and the right of communities to have a voice in the places they call home. People are worried about noise, parking, waste and antisocial behaviour, but they are also worried about something deeper: the fabric of their streets and communities. A new mum told me that she can no longer open her baby’s window at night because of the constant comings and goings next door. Another resident said they felt powerless, like they were watching their community disappear before their eyes.
At the same time, young families are being priced out of the very homes that once offered their parents a start in life. These are not isolated frustrations; they are warning signs that planning rules have not kept pace with reality. Right now, a family home can be turned into a small HMO without the need for planning permission, and that loophole has left councils and residents powerless to manage overconcentration without entering a laborious process.
I welcome the steps that Warrington borough council is taking, with an article 4 direction for the central six wards, but that still leaves the rest of my constituency without the additional layer of protection. Local councils need the power to plan with purpose, not just to react after damage is done. A national framework and a change to the rules that respects local communities would give residents faith that development is something done with them and not to them.
Yes, we need affordable rooms, but not at the cost of affordable homes. Fair rules, good homes and tidy streets— that is the foundation of trust that local communities deserve. Until planning rules catch up with the reality on our streets, communities like mine will keep paying the price. It is time the system worked for the people who call these streets home.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd.
I previously served as a councillor in the New Bilton ward on Rugby borough council, and I campaigned partly on a petition on HMOs. I called for an article 4 direction, and other councillors, including Councillor Richard Harrington, have since taken up the baton. Residents raised massive concerns with me about litter, antisocial behaviour, parking, the impact on house prices and the fundamental change in the nature of the community when family homes for two adults and two children are transformed into homes that house four, five, six, seven or more adults, each with a car.
I was a councillor on the planning committee, and although residents came before the committee to express their concerns, it did not count for anything because those concerns were not material planning concerns. I concluded that HMOs are a flawed, market-based solution to a flawed market, despite them being, in some cases, a good form of housing for some people. People feel powerless as their community is transformed. An article 4 direction does not prevent conversions; it just ensures that the applications come before the planning committee, which then has to apply the law, and that often means the application is approved.
The problem in Rugby was that the previous Conservative administration did not refer to HMOs in the local plan, which meant that everything defaulted to the national planning policy framework. The current Labour-led council has introduced an article 4 direction and has a radius-based approach in the current draft plan. That should help, but it will take time to be implemented.
Will Ministers take another look at the guidance and the powers that may be available to local authorities in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, in other legislation and in the national planning policy framework? This is about empowering local communities and enabling them to have pride in place, by controlling the over-concentration of HMOs in the urban areas of our communities.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I commend and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for securing this important debate.
Reading constituents are concerned about this issue. We are lucky to live in a beautiful Victorian town, but sadly many historical streets and local communities are blighted by HMOs. I support more housing, but HMOs are not necessarily the most effective way to provide it. Issues include antisocial behaviour, bins overflowing and parking problems on very narrow Victorian streets. I have heard dreadful reports of noise from student parties linked to HMOs. The noise often carries, particularly in the summer when windows are open at night, and it can cause disruption to many residents over a wide area.
I support and commend Reading borough council for introducing article 4 directions. I should declare an interest: I was a councillor in Reading, and I was consulted on implementing HMO article 4 directions. Might it be possible for the Minister to look again at the process for implementing the directives and the way that they work in practice? My experience is that they can be very helpful—councils are often brave to take on HMOs, and I thank Reading borough council for its work on them—but there is still the possibility of HMOs being created within an article 4 direction area.
Is it possible to tighten up the article 4 regime to make it even harder for HMOs to operate in such areas? I appreciate that there is a need for them in certain parts of towns, but the clustering effect, particularly on certain streets where there are serious parking and bin issues, among other issues, can be overwhelming for residents. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield quite rightly said, HMOs can change the nature of a settled community. Residents often know all their neighbours by their first name and have wonderful relationships on a street, and to have transient residents can cause real challenges.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) on securing this important debate on a matter that clearly resonates, as we can see from the number of Members present. I recognise entirely the concerns that he and other hon. Members raised about the impact of high concentrations of houses in multiple occupation and their effect on local housing and local housing markets. When family homes rapidly convert into houses in multiple occupation, it can fundamentally alter the character of a neighbourhood and put genuine pressure on affordability for families who want to put down roots in an area. Those concerns are legitimate, and they need to be taken seriously.
Antisocial behaviour can also have devastating impacts on individuals and neighbourhoods. That is not and should not be regarded as a low-level issue. Whether it is excessive noise, discarded rubbish, parking difficulties from overcrowded properties or more serious issues of intimidation and disorder, these real issues affect people’s daily lives and their sense of safety in and around their own homes. No one should have to live with that. I know the frustration of residents who see neighbourhoods change in ways that make them feel less secure and less able, as other Members have said, to affect the future of their neighbourhoods.
The loss of family housing stock is a particular concern for local communities. When properties that once housed families, with the children attending schools and people contributing to the fabric of the community, are converted into transient accommodation, it erodes the stability that makes neighbourhoods thrive. That is why many councils and residents are looking for solutions.
The issue is far greater than just HMOs themselves. Often people living in HMOs are those on the lowest incomes, who simply cannot afford to live elsewhere. They do not always choose HMOs as their preferred housing; they are there because they cannot access affordable housing and because the housing market fails them. Statistics on social housing tell the story starkly. There are 1.3 million households—many of them families —on the social housing waiting list who need affordable, stable homes and cannot access them.
We are deeply concerned that the Government’s target of 20,000 social homes a year is not sufficient and is nowhere near enough. The Liberal Democrats have pledged a target of 150,000 council and social rent homes a year, because a massive public house building programme is exactly what is required to address this crisis. A fundamental lack of social housing to support those on lower incomes is driving people into HMOs in the first place. I am sure that many HMO occupants and residents would far rather be in secure, affordable housing.
We support and respect the use of article 4 directions by local communities to require planning permission for HMOs in certain areas, where necessary, to preserve the character of neighbourhoods or to protect a dwindling stock of family housing. We agree with the hon. Member for Mansfield that streamlining those processes would be worth while. Will the Minister consider removing the requirement for the Secretary of State to approve article 4 directions, so that councils can put them through more easily and quickly? After all, local authorities know their areas best, and they should have the tools to manage development in a way that reflects their priorities and concerns.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) so eloquently pointed out, in areas with high levels of second homes and holiday lets, such as Cornwall and the Lake district, councils lack the powers to control housing stock. The last Government promised to legislate to make planning permission a requirement for change of use to holiday lets, as is already the case in Wales. Will this Government deliver on that issue, which is vital to particular communities around the country?
On controlling the proliferation of HMOs, article 4 directions are ultimately a blunt, short-term instrument. They may prevent conversions in one area, but they can shift the problem elsewhere. Vulnerable people must not be pushed into even more precarious housing situations. The only way to genuinely relieve pressure on family homes is to increase the supply of social housing. If sufficient social homes were available, those on the lowest income would not be forced into the private rented sector and HMOs. Family homes would remain available to families and the housing market would function more effectively. That is the fundamental solution.
Where there are genuine problems with antisocial behaviour, waste or parking, councils should use the powers at their disposal. Acceptable behaviour contracts, pioneered in 2003, can be effective in that regard. Additional licensing for HMOs for three or more tenants, which many councils have introduced, sets standards for management and gives authorities real teeth against rogue landlords, but the processes should be simplified for that avenue of action, too.
A comprehensive approach is needed. That means building far more social housing to meet demand, properly licensing and regulating HMOs, and using article 4 directions as part of a wider housing strategy. We must not lose sight of the fundamental need for more social housing.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Dowd, and to speak in this debate called by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm). He gave a clear exposition of the issues facing his constituents, which mirror the experiences of mine. I was out at the weekend talking to people in Lovett Road and Ash Grove in Harefield who told pretty much the same story that hon. Members on both sides of the House have set out. I have huge sympathy for the Minister and the Government because that story encapsulates the housing challenge: everybody is generally in favour of providing more housing, but they are not very keen on this specific form of more housing when it has an impact on their constituency.
The Opposition recognise that HMOs have always been a helpful source of additional housing. They have provided for temporary workers over the years and are a key plank of our student housing market. They are extremely important, especially for people who may be trying to put their lives back together and make the first step into social housing. Their numbers have grown in a housing market where, although private rented homes have the highest level of occupier satisfaction of any type of housing, there is none the less an acute need to ensure that people are found homes and are off the streets. There is a high degree of commonality and agreement, but I am sure we all recognise that that need will remain a significant challenge in the context of a collapsing housing market, especially here in London where the mayor is on track to deliver less than 4% of the housing target set by the previous Government.
The Opposition support the Government in bringing forward new provisions to improve the licensing process for HMOs, which several hon. Members on both sides of the House have called for. Historically, we have always sought to make that process as straightforward as possible to swiftly meet rising local demand for housing. However, we recognise that there has been growing pressure, particularly because of the unneighbourly behaviour that we have seen from some landlords, that needs to be swiftly and robustly tackled.
We also support a more straightforward implementation of article 4 directions. We recognise that where they have been implemented, their operation was restricted to ensure that the supply of this type of accommodation was not choked off by blanket application. When I was a councillor, my local authority applied one in very restricted areas where it was seeking to protect the student housing market, rather than using a whole-borough approach, but it is now considering implementing that more widely to address the kinds of concerns that hon. Members have highlighted.
The Government have just gained Royal Assent for the Renters’ Rights Act. As they look at leasehold legislation, as well as the devolution Bill, which contains housing elements, and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, about which I think the Commons is due to receive Lords messages next week, I encourage them to look at the opportunity for further amendments to those pieces of legislation that would enable local authorities to more effectively address these concerns through different routes.
It is very clear that there is a degree of community concern, particularly given the backdrop. We have heard the Government say that they are committed to shifting the asylum accommodation estate away from hotels, the use of which has grown very rapidly in the last 12 months, towards other types of accommodation. We have heard a lot about houses in multiple occupation and former military bases being put to use for that purpose.
I therefore encourage the Government to consider the Opposition’s proposals for a specific use class for asylum accommodation so that there is an effective public consultation, and so that residents understand the purpose of the HMO change. That would help to allay concerns and allow time for the local authority to consider in advance the impact of having families with children who need education provision and the impact on the NHS of providing support for people who may have war injuries or have suffered other circumstances that brought them to our shores as asylum seekers, for example. It would also enable representations to be made to the provider if it was clear that a locality was not able to provide the support needed by a household or class of users. Introducing an additional use class would bring about a higher degree of transparency and ensure that many of the genuine community concerns that hon. Members on both sides of the House have outlined could be effectively addressed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) on securing today’s debate. I appreciate his speaking about this important issue with force and passion on behalf of those he represents. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to the debate.
I acknowledge the concerns that my hon. Friend raises on behalf of the residents of Mansfield about the concentration of houses in multiple occupation in some parts of his constituency. As he mentioned, houses in multiple occupation provide relatively low-cost accommodation for rent and can play an important part in the housing market, as hon. Members from both sides of the House acknowledged. However, it is right that local authorities should be able to take action where necessary to minimise any negative impacts that concentrations of such accommodation might have on local areas.
As we have heard, national permitted development rights allow existing homes to change use to a house in multiple occupation for up to six people without the need for a planning application. Such smaller HMOs are also able to change to a standard family home under similar rights, but we acknowledge that those nationally set permitted development rights are not necessarily suitable in all areas. Therefore, local authorities can remove permitted development rights in a specific area by introducing an article 4 direction after consultation with the local community and an assessment of the local evidence that such a direction is required.
The introduction of an article 4 direction would mean that any change of use to large or small houses in multiple occupation would require an application to the local planning authority for planning permission. All applications for planning permission are considered by the local planning authority, in line with the development plan for the area and in consultation with the local community. A clear policy for HMOs can support the assessment of future applications. Indeed, when I served as a ward councillor on Cheshire West and Chester council, we took through an article 4 direction relatively smoothly and with the support of the local community, and it is still in force in that area.
Whether or not Mansfield district council chooses to consult on introducing an article 4 direction to remove the permitted development right that enables existing homes to change use to a smaller HMO will be a decision for the council to take locally. It is not something the Government should seek to influence. Having experienced it myself, I can say that the process is not costly or burdensome. Approximately 75 other councils have put in place article 4s for HMOs in parts of their boroughs. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield to continue to discuss this issue with the council if he believes that such a direction would be appropriate.
None the less, if the existing powers are not working—we have heard evidence of that today from hon. Members on both sides of the House—we want to engage and find out why. It is important that HMOs are managed well, which is why all HMOs are subject to management regulations. Those regulations set out duties for managers to take safety measures, maintain the supply of gas, electricity and water, and maintain common parts and living accommodation.
In addition, all local authorities are required to license HMOs with five or more people from two or more separate households who share facilities such as a kitchen or bathroom. Through additional licensing, local authorities also have the power to license HMOs with three or more people from two or more separate households who share facilities. That means that most HMOs can be licensed, providing local authorities with the means to address concerns around how they are being managed.
I note that Mansfield district council recently introduced selective licensing in designated areas, and since 12 June this year landlords have been able to apply. I hope that that begins to improve the issues that we have heard about today. Local authorities have strong powers where landlords breach HMO regulations. These include powers to prosecute, to impose penalties of up to £30,000 as an alternative to prosecution, and to seek banning orders for the worst offenders.
I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield for a useful and constructive debate. I hope that I have set out the measures that we have in place to enable local authorities to control HMOs in their areas, and that I have made it clear that the Government are keen to engage to see how the existing powers are being exercised and how they can be improved.
Steve Yemm
I thank everyone who has participated in today’s debate. I think it comes down to something quite simple about fairness and local control. No one is saying that HMOs do not have a place—they do—but in many parts of my community people think that they deserve the right to shape their own street and protect their own community. I want to fix this issue, whether that means giving councils the right tools or getting them to utilise the tools they have, together with giving them the funding and the trust to act. Our planning should be about people and communities. Mansfield, like all our communities, deserves nothing less than that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered planning consent for houses in multiple occupation.
Northern Ireland
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
As we approach Remembrance Sunday, many of those who served in Operation Banner will reflect on comrades whom they lost, comrades who were injured and comrades who still suffer mentally as a result of their deployment in that operation—the British Army’s longest continuous deployment. The Secretary of State has said from the Dispatch Box that his Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will bring strong protections for veterans. It does not; it brings the same protections for everyone under that Bill, including those who possibly perpetrated murderous acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland. So what can he actually provide regarding continuous support for veterans—something set out on the face of the Bill, rather than something that is not in the legislation but is promised by Government?
Hilary Benn
The protections were put in place for veterans after consulting veterans, and they are not unimportant: the ability to stay at home and give evidence; the protection from repeated investigations; and the right to seek immunity in a hearing of the commission —people already have the right to seek that in a coroner’s court…
[Official Report, 3 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 632.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn):
Hilary Benn
The protections were put in place for veterans after consulting veterans, and they are not unimportant: the ability to stay at home and give evidence; the protection from repeated investigations; and the right to seek anonymity in a hearing of the commission —people already have the right to seek that in a coroner’s court…
Defence Housing Strategy
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
Our brave service personnel and their families make extraordinary sacrifices to keep us all safe. In this new era of threat, we rely on them more every day. The least they deserve in return is a decent home.
Years of chronic under-investment and the failed 1996 privatisation of military housing have driven down forces’ morale and driven too many personnel out of our armed forces altogether, contributing to a long-term decline in numbers. The very least they deserve is a warm, secure, decent home. And yet, over the past decade and a half, military housing has been steadily getting worse, with families forced to live in damp, mouldy, poorly maintained accommodation. Satisfaction with forces housing fell to its lowest level on record in 2023.
High-quality service family accommodation, with rents set at a significant discount to the open market, should be an active driver of people into our armed forces. But for the past 14 years, it has too often been the opposite.
Many of the problems we inherited derive from the Conservatives’ sell-off of our nation’s military homes to private company Annington Homes Ltd in 1996. Under the terms of this botched deal, the taxpayer picked up the bill for maintenance and rent. But any benefits from development opportunities or increase in the value of the homes were surrendered to a private equity fund. By the time Labour came to Government last year, that deal was costing the British taxpayer £600,000 a day in rental payments, with all maintenance costs also falling on the Government. This deal left our nation nearly £8 billion worse off and crucially, left a generation of dedicated service personnel and their families in substandard homes.
Six months after being elected to Government, we transferred more than 36,000 military homes back into public hands. This decisive action unlocked a historic opportunity to fix forces housing and supercharge housebuilding on defence land. Over the past six months, we have been making rapid improvements to ensure that our people feel swift benefits from this deal. In April, we launched a new consumer charter for forces families giving each family a named housing officer, introducing higher move-in standards, making quicker repairs and accelerating a renovation programme to modernise the worst homes.
This summer, we updated the charter to remove absurd rules that should never have been imposed, so forces families can now decorate how they wish and keep pets without seeking permission. And in May, we pledged an additional £1.5 billion of investment into service family accommodation this Parliament.
We are building on the progress of the past year by publishing our defence housing strategy, the most significant change for armed forces housing in more than 50 years. A copy of the strategy has been placed in the Library of the House. This strategy starts one of Britain’s most ambitious building programmes in decades, delivering new homes for military and civilian families and driving economic growth. This Government will deliver on all their recommendations.
Recommendations include:
Committing to a generational renewal of military housing.
Nine in 10 military homes to be modernised or upgraded to new, higher standards, with 14,000 homes rebuilt or substantially refurbished, backed by a 10-year investment programme totalling £9.2 billion.
Establishing a new ‘forces first’ approach, underpinned by a new, stand-alone defence housing service, to better manage military homes. This will ensure that defence is putting the voices of forces families at the forefront, while delivering new home ownership opportunities for veterans and serving military personnel.
Delivering for the nation by kickstarting a historic programme of house building on surplus defence land, with the potential for over 100,000 new homes for civilian and military families, delivering billions of pounds in economic output and supporting thousands of jobs.
There are two fundamental objectives: first, to fix the homes that we have, and secondly, to build more homes for our forces and for families across Britain.
On the first of those points, we are making a clean break after 14 years of under-investment and decline. This Government have kickstarted a decade of renewal and a historic level of investment to bring forces homes up to a standard befitting our armed forces. Thousands of military homes will receive a complete makeover, with new kitchens, bathrooms and heating systems, to ensure military families have the homes that they deserve. Work on 1,000 of the worst homes is already under way. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to right the wrongs of the past and set a higher bar for forces’ accommodation, so that it matches the levels accepted as the norm by the very best civilian housing organisations.
Delivering more homes, in the right places, also means that after years of uncertainty, we can widen access to service housing to better reflect modern life. This means forces personnel who share responsibility for their child’s upbringing and couples in long-term relationships will, in future, be able to access defence family housing for the first time.
As well as renewing the homes we have, we will supercharge surplus defence land to build the new homes that Britain needs. The Ministry of Defence owns a lot of land and, through the defence housing strategy, we will convert this opportunity to an advantage. Using surplus defence land not needed for current operational use, we have the capacity to build over 100,000 homes for both military and civilian families, creating jobs and growth up and down the country. Under the ‘forces first’ policy, military families and veterans have the chance to go to the front of the queue for home ownership on these sites. This programme will not only prioritise those who serve and have served our nation, but also support the national house building target and help drive economic growth.
A ‘forces first’ pilot is already under way in Feltham, south-west London, and is expected to generate hundreds of homes and jobs. The MOD has now undertaken a fresh land release exercise that could unlock thousands more homes. When surplus land is identified, it will no longer be sold off in a fire sale of assets that yields next to nothing for our armed forces or economy. From now on, defence land will be used as a stimulus to build the homes that Britain needs, create jobs and drive growth.
This Government recognise that we cannot transform our warfighting capability without also improving the welfare of our people. These two concepts are not in competition; they are inseparable. Last year, our armed forces were awarded the biggest pay rise in two decades and we expanded wraparound childcare support to families deployed overseas. Today, we are promising safe and decent housing for every single forces family, backed by the necessary funding.
The Government thank all those who worked so hard on the strategy, particularly the chair, Natalie Elphicke Ross, and her small, dedicated team for their expertise and rigour. Also, the forces’ families federations and thousands in our service community, who contributed vital insight and candour.
[HCWS1016]
UK COP30 Priorities
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
Britain is going to COP30 to fight for our national interest and protect our way of life by working with other countries.
In the UK, we have put clean energy at the heart of our Government’s agenda, because it is the route to energy security, lower bills and good jobs for our country today. At COP30, we will be working with others to drive global action on the climate and nature crises to protect our home for future generations.
Communities are already paying the price of these crises—from wildfires in Scotland and flooding in Sussex to the devastation of Hurricane Melissa and repeated flooding in Brazil. Britain is just 1% of global emissions, which is why we must work with others to avoid disaster.
We are making progress as a world—and British leadership has made a difference. Before the Paris agreement, the world was on track for 4°C of warming. Now 2030 national commitments put us on course for 2.6°C, and 80% of global GDP is covered by net zero commitments. Globally, twice as much is invested in clean energy as fossil fuels. More is invested in solar each year than in all other power sources combined, and renewables have overtaken coal as the largest global electricity source.
We must go further and faster, but we must not overlook the progress made, or the role of British leadership in making it happen. From the world-leading Climate Change Act in 2008 to the success of COP26 in Glasgow to being the first major economy to legislate for net zero, Britain has helped change the course of global action. This leadership is more important than ever, because the world remains on a dangerous course, and we need to accelerate action. At COP30, Britain will be working with the Brazilian presidency and others to push for progress in five key areas:
1. Accelerating the global clean energy transition
Building on our clean energy mission at home, we will work with others abroad to drive progress towards the goal of tripling renewables and doubling energy efficiency improvement rates globally by 2030—including through the Global Clean Power Alliance. We will also drive forward progress in tackling super-pollutants such as methane, in order to deliver climate action and cleaner air. By speeding up the roll-out of clean energy internationally, we will unlock new investment and export opportunities for our country.
2. Driving ambition and accelerating implementation
The UK has led the way with an ambitious 2035 nationally determined contribution that is economy-wide, covers all greenhouses gases and is 1.5°C-aligned. It was announced by the Prime Minister at COP29 last year. We will continue to build on this to encourage others to act. We will call for COP30 to respond to the 2035 NDCs brought forward so far, and say how we will close the gap to keep 1.5°C within reach. To accelerate implementation, we will work with Brazil and others on reform of the global climate action agenda.
3. Protecting forests and nature
As countries gather for a COP in the Amazon, the UK will continue championing the commitment to halting and reversing forest loss by 2030, including through our role as co-chair of the Forest and Climate Leaders’ Partnership. We will support Brazil and other forest nations in scaling investment in forest-positive economies, including through high-integrity carbon markets. That will help Brazil to develop the tropical forest forever facility and support indigenous peoples and local communities.
4. Building global resilience to climate impacts
We will push for COP30 to finalise a robust and practical set of global indicators for measuring global progress on adaptation through the global goal on adaptation, and to accelerate the development and implementation of national adaptation plans.
5. Scaling up finance for the transition
Building on the Baku to Belém road map, we will work with others to chart a pathway towards the at least $1.3 trillion by 2035 called for at COP29. We will continue to push for reform of the financial system. We will harness the UK’s position as the green finance capital of the world to unlock investment in clean energy, nature and resilience.
We will continue to deploy our own international climate finance initiative to accelerate the transition and support others, and we will meet our commitment to provide £11.6 billion by April 2026 and to triple our spending on adaptation by 2025 from 2019 levels.
COP30 will be judged on whether the world can work together on the greatest long-term challenge we face. I will join the Prime Minister and the Prince of Wales at the world leaders summit in Belém, and lead the UK’s delegation during the negotiations, supported by the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Katie White), and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh). We will provide an update to the House once negotiations conclude.
[HCWS1018]
Hurricane Melissa: UK Response
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
I am writing to update the House on the impact of Hurricane Melissa in the Caribbean and the action the Government are taking in response.
Hurricane Melissa has caused severe flooding, landslides and infrastructure damage across Jamaica, Haiti and Cuba, and also impacted parts of Dominican Republic and the Bahamas. The UK overseas territories of the Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands and Bermuda reported low to minimal damage. Over 5.5 million people have been affected across the region. At least 65 deaths have been reported—actual numbers may well be higher.
Hurricane Melissa is the strongest ever storm to make landfall in Jamaica, where it hit the southwestern part of the country on 28 October as a category 5 hurricane.
At least 32 deaths are now reported, and the number may yet rise. Some 25,000 people have been displaced. All western parishes have suffered significant damage, and over half the country remains without power, internet or mobile connectivity, with many roads blocked and water systems affected. All British high commission staff and dependants on platform remain safe and accounted for, and I pay tribute to the dedicated work they have done in recent days in the most difficult circumstances. In Haiti, assessments and relief efforts continue to be frustrated by damaged or impassable roads and bridges. Priority needs include shelter materials, food, water and hygiene supplies, medical support, and fuel. In Cuba, infrastructure and services are likely to be impacted for some time, including the national power grid, which is already under severe pressure.
The Foreign Secretary has kept in close contact with the Jamaican Foreign Minister throughout this crisis to offer UK support and solidarity. The Foreign Secretary, Minister Doughty and I have also kept in close touch with the Governments of Haiti, Dominican Republic, Cuba, the Bahamas, Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, and Bermuda.
Our efforts have involved close co-ordination between the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, Home Office, Met Office and Department for Transport.
On 26 October, a UK military team pre-deployed to the Turks and Caicos Islands to support disaster management preparations and response. After Melissa passed, HMS Trent also deployed to the Turks and Caicos Islands to provide additional support and assist with local recovery efforts. As always, the UK stands ready to assist the UK overseas territories as required.
Given the UK’s strong links with Jamaica, many thousands of British nationals and UK residents were there during the storm.
Our consular operation organised an evacuation flight that arrived in the UK on Sunday 2 November with just over 100 passengers. These British nationals and their close family had been unable to make arrangements to leave Jamaica through commercial means. We estimate that around 1,600 British nationals have returned to the UK through commercial airlines and tour operators. Our consular services have been available on a round-the-clock basis and have answered over 700 phone or email inquiries to date. We are updating travel advice regularly to reflect the situation as it evolves. We created a portal—Register Your Presence—where British nationals in Jamaica have been able to provide their details and receive the latest updates. We will continue to provide consular support to British nationals still in-country and direct those wanting to get home to the available commercial flights.
The UK is a long-standing champion of prearranged finance and our support has been instrumental in helping Jamaica set up a sophisticated prearranged finance framework with a reported maximum of $1.6 billion available to respond to disasters through various financial instruments, including anticipatory and contingent finance, insurance, and a catastrophe bond. We were a founding donor to the Caribbean regional risk pool CCRIF in 2007. As publicly announced by the CCRIF, Jamaica will receive around $71 million from hurricane insurance within 14 days.
In anticipation of Hurricane Melissa, UK-funded financing mechanisms such as the Red Cross Disaster Risk Emergency Fund and UN Central Emergency Response Fund have provided around $8 million to help vulnerable communities in Jamaica, Cuba and Haiti. The World Food Programme in Haiti also provided anticipatory cash transfers to 9,400 households in high-risk areas ahead of Hurricane Melissa’s landfall. Some $4 million in Central Emergency Response Fund allocations, to which the UK contributes, were made to each of Haiti, Cuba and Jamaica.
The UK Government have themselves mobilised £7.5 million in emergency funding, in addition to expert deployments to support the response. This includes £1 million to the Red Cross appeal and £1 million to the UN World Food Programme. The UK overseas territories are also sending support, for example the Cayman Islands Government have publicly pledged $1.2 million to Jamaica.
These efforts aim to meet urgent needs, reinforce national co-ordination, and support recovery across Jamaica and the wider Caribbean.
To date, 2,800 emergency shelter kits and 1,728 solar lanterns have been delivered, supporting 14,000 people. A consignment of 1,104 hygiene kits is due to arrive in Montego Bay on 4 November. UK supply chain teams are continuing to scope further items, in co-ordination with the Government of Jamaica and regional partners.
Seven UK humanitarian experts are currently in Jamaica to assess needs and speed up delivery of aid. These include a humanitarian adviser, logistician, and humanitarian affairs officer, who are working to support the Office of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management and UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs. The UK stands ready to support further deployment of humanitarian experts into UN agencies via the stand-by partnerships mechanism In addition, we are responding to a request from the Government of Jamaica to deploy HMS Trent to assist with the relief effort. HMS Trent arrived off the coast of Jamaica today, having been pre-positioned in the region as part of the UK’s permanent/ongoing presence in the region. Royal Engineers will be going ashore to help assess and repair key infrastructure, in co-ordination with Jamaican authorities. Should any Members’ constituents wish to assist, the most effective way to help is by donating cash through trusted organisations. There are several trusted charities and organisations providing humanitarian relief on the ground in Jamaica. Here are links to two options for donations. The UK Government will match public donations to the Red Cross appeal with up to £1 million.
Donate to the Government of Jamaica’s emergency appeal: https://supportjamaica.gov.jm/
Donate to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent (IFRC) Societies appeal in support of Jamaica: https://donate.redcross.org.uk/appeal/hurricane-melissa-emergency
The UK shares a deep and enduring relationship with communities across the Caribbean, and that bond has become even more important in this time of crisis. We are committed to standing alongside Jamaica and the region as it recovers and rebuilds. We will keep the House updated.
[HCWS1017]
Pandemic Preparedness: Exercise PEGASUS
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
Exercise Pegasus, the Tier T pandemic preparedness exercise led by the Department of Health and Social Care with the UK Health Security Agency, will conclude live participation on 5 November 2025.
Exercise Pegasus has been the largest simulation of a pandemic in UK history, involving every Government Department, the devolved governments, representation from arm’s length bodies, local resilience fora, and the engagement of businesses, academics, and external stakeholders.
Across three core exercise days, held on 18 September, 9 October and 30 October, participants were challenged to respond across the key phases of a pandemic—emergence, containment and mitigation.
Exercise Pegasus was based on a novel enterovirus originating from a fictional island. Enteroviruses are a group of viruses that usually cause mild illnesses but can lead to serious conditions such as meningitis or acute flaccid paralysis. While the exercise used a single disease to drive the scenario, learning will be applicable across a range of diseases and modes of transmission. The Government continue to plan and prepare for a range of pandemic and emerging infectious disease scenarios.
Although live participation in Exercise Pegasus has now concluded, critical work continues. A fourth phase—recovery—is planned to be exercised in 2026. Findings will be published as part of the Government’s commitment to transparency.
[HCWS1015]
Think Work First: The Transition from Education to Work for Young Disabled People (Public Services Committee Report)
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Morris of Yardley
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Public Services Committee Think Work First: The Transition from Education to Work for Young Disabled People (1st Report, HL Paper 12).
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak to this report from the Public Services Committee. In doing so, I will offer some thanks—first, to the team of officials who supported us. I do not want people to think that we have more officials than anyone else, but I have a particularly long list, because it was Sam Kenny’s last inquiry as clerk, it was Dan Hepworth’s first inquiry as our new clerk, and we had Nick Boorer in the interregnum. We also had Tom Burke, Claire Coast-Smith and Clayton Gurney, as well as a special adviser, Professor Charlotte Pearson. In a difficult time, with a general election in between and a new Parliament, that team of officials served us very well, and I am grateful for their expertise.
I thank the officials of the many departments that contributed to this, but I have to say to the Minister— I realise that this was not due to her or her department—that we waited 10 months for a reply to our committee’s report. It was particularly annoying that this was during a period when this issue was at the top of the Government’s agenda. An excuse that, “We can’t reply to your report because we’re discussing the policy” did not go well with us. Could the Minister therefore kindly pass back that 10 months is too long, when the expectation is two months? Apart from that, we are very grateful to the officials who gave of their expertise.
I thank my committee members who, as ever, worked hard to bring their knowledge and skills. They helped to make it a happy committee that has brought about a good report. Most of all, I thank our witnesses—there were many over the year or more that we took evidence. I do not want to single them out, but I will single out two groups. One is the young people with disabilities who, in round-table discussions, talked to us about their lives. We probably learned more from them than from anybody else.
This is really—to use a football phrase—a report of two parts. The statistics paint a story of things not going right: of failure and of us not being successful in this area. It is still the case that, at 19, 43% of students with disabilities get level 2 in English and maths, compared to 84% of students overall. Look at the university drop-out rate and the drop-out rate from apprenticeships: you are more likely to drop out if you are a young person with disabilities than if you are not. The employment gap of 30% has barely moved in decades, and the pay gap shows that people with disabilities do not get paid as much as those who do not have disabilities. All that is true, and it is all one picture or view of how we are doing in this area, but it is not the only picture we found. There were many evidence sessions where we finished listening to examples of good practice that left us inspired, encouraged and knowing that we could get this right if only we made the best available to everybody. Overall, the system is not a success story, but overall there is hope and expectation that it could be.
I looked at presenting this in two ways. There is the universal provision—the institutions and the bits of the system that are designed to meet the needs of all people, whatever their background or ability—but, too often, this does not meet the needs of people with disabilities. These things affect every single one of us, whether you are talking about schools, colleges or workplaces; about how we assess the qualifications we give; about careers education and guidance; or about vocational pathways, apprenticeships or recruitment practices. They are part of the universal provision in this society, and they work less well on the whole for people with disabilities than they do for anyone else.
When you look at the specialist provision specifically designed to support young people with disabilities transitioning from education to work, you find some excellent examples, and we have lots of them in our report. But, on the whole, the summary is that they lack the continuity, with Governments of all parties changing names, changing focus, scrapping one thing and introducing another, and they lack the consistent funding at the necessary rate that is absolutely essential if they are to succeed. We often get isolated examples or pilot schemes at risk of being scrapped. That was one of the most frustrating things. When you sat and listened to somebody giving evidence about something that worked, you just wondered why, as a Government and as a society, we did not seem to have the capacity to roll that out to everybody else.
If this problem is to be solved, the transition from education to work has three elements that need to work. First, what goes on in our educational institutions needs to work; secondly, that process of moving from one to the other needs to work; and thirdly, it needs to work when people get into employment. We all know that, whatever our background or ability, those transitions from one set of institutions or one set of support services to the other is the place where you most often fall off the bus; that is where it most often goes wrong. That is even more so if you are a young person with a disability. I just want to look at each of those areas and examine some of the evidence we took.
On the educational institutions, we made a number of SEND recommendations. I shall not touch on those, because I know that the Government are producing a report that I hope will be launched shortly. I just hope that the Minister and the Government have looked at our recommendations. It would be great to see them reflected in the recommendations in the SEND review to be published in the new year, but I do not think it is particularly a priority for me to go over that now. When we look at these institutions, there are no doubt lots of individual lecturers, teachers, tutors and classroom assistants who do a great job. There are lots of people who make a successful transition from school to work and can name particular individuals without whom that would not have been possible. But we also heard that there are individuals who still have low expectations of what might be possible for somebody who has a disability. Both those things are true, which means that how well you get on is as likely to depend on who happens to teach you as anything else.
However, I really wanted to talk about the system in those educational institutions. I know that the Minister is particularly interested in this and I want to spend a bit of time on it in the hope that we might get somewhere with it. I know that the Government have produced a White Paper on 16-plus qualifications and vocational routes and I know that it is a priority. I also understand well that we are a high-skilled nation and that we have to push people to levels 3, 4, 5, 6 and wherever you want to go. What we heard was missing was anything substantial at levels 1 and 2. We are not saying for a minute that all young people with disabilities are at level 1 and 2; they are all levels, including master’s and PhD—the highest levels in the land. But some are at level 1 and 2 and working towards level 3 but may never get there.
We heard from a particularly impressive principal of a college in the East Midlands,
“we find ourselves scrimping around for qualifications”.
He is working with young people who are learning skills and working towards targets, but they are not recognised by any formal qualification because they never reach level 3 or anything like that. What was lacking was a robust qualification at levels 1 and 2 that can be used, first, to record the achievement and, secondly, as a stepping stone, perhaps over a number of years, to something at a higher level. Young people may be learning skills and working towards targets, but they may never be recognised in any formal qualification because we have not incorporated that in our schools framework.
One of the things that rang a bell with me, because it was familiar from when I taught all those years ago—it was sad to think it had not improved—was young people with disabilities, who were not at level 3, being put on one college course after another. These claimed to prepare them for employment and a job, but they did not. It was six weeks on this and six weeks on that—“Take another course. You’ve finished a year; sign up for something else”—but none of these were vocational pathways. When that young person started that course, they and their parents believed: they had the same enthusiasm, aspiration and hope as somebody starting a university degree or a professional qualification. It is no different; it is where they are at. They are as ambitious as anyone else, but there are too many courses that do not lead to a meaningful qualification and a route into employment.
So I ask the Minister to reflect, in the work she is doing on post-16 qualifications, to check what the vocational route is for young people with disabilities. As I say all the time, I am not putting all young people with disabilities into the level 1 or level 2 qualification framework as I know that is not true, but it is where we found a lot of work still to be done. The same is true for apprenticeships. It must be possible for somebody to go on an apprenticeship scheme below level 3. They have a role to play and a contribution to make. Some of the most heartening things we heard were from young people in work in level 1 or level 2 jobs feeling as proud as possible. When you spoke to their employer, they said they were useful members of that company. If we do not get that right, we are all losers.
The last thing that I want to mention about these education institutions is that this group does not get work experience. It is difficult to sort it out and they are not a priority. Can the Government make sure—especially when they are rolling out the work experience entitlement in years 10 and 11—that this group does not get left behind?
Then there is the transition into work. Low expectations in school move into low expectations in the workplace. I want to mention a few things we found problems with. First, careers advisers are great, but we heard time and again from young people with disabilities that the advisers had no specialist training and there was no continuity. That is not a criticism of careers advisers; it is a criticism of the system. Every young person, whether they have a EHCP or not, should have careers advice from a careers officer who has some sort of specialism in their needs.
Secondly, we had good reports about disability employment advisers, but there are only just over 700 of them, which means one or two for each Jobcentre Plus. That does not work. There are good schemes, such as Access to Work. When it works at its best, it really helps, but the shortest waiting time to get it in place is 90 days. By that time, we would all have lost enthusiasm, let alone somebody who has probably had to fight hard right the way through the education system to get to that point.
We spent a lot of time hearing about things that work, so what does work? Supported internships work. I know from chatting to the Minister that she has a historic connection with Whipps Cross Hospital. We left our day there absolutely enthused, chattering all the way back about what we had seen. It was out of this world. It should be recognised far and wide because it works.
Supported employment schemes, such as Connect to Work, work. We met young people on supported employment schemes. They told us different stories from the people whose opportunities I described previously.
I met employers and people who run vocational profiling projects in Essex and Kent and they explained how they were an integral part of careers guidance. Vocational profiling works and makes a difference.
What all those things have in common is that they manage to join the joins. They are not disjointed; they have some continuity. They are examples of schemes where work takes place between a young person and a specialist to identify the young person’s strengths, skills and aspirations and then match them to an appropriate job or career.
It took me some time to grasp what the difference was. What we usually do is give someone a job and then, once they are in employment, try to fit them in or find something they can do—or compromise, or spend six months preparing for what they can do. What this does, in conjunction with the employer, is work out with the young person what their strengths are, so that, when they do go into work, a job match has taken place, the employer understands the young person’s need, and there is continuity.
Those are the underpinning things that happen: supported internships, supported employment and vocational pathways. That is why 60% to 70% of children on supported internships that are part of the education system go into full-time work, and those who are on supported employment are more likely to go into full-time work than if they have not been in a supported-employment system. So what we found there was a successful route into work. The frustration is that that is taking place at the same time as this merry- go-round of college courses, six months at a time, which are not a vocational route into work.
I will say just one thing here. Some of those courses are available only to people with EHCPs. So I say to the Minister that, when the Government are looking at the SEND review in general, if they decide to have a more inclusive framework, it would be awful if access to EHCPs was lost: I would like to see that access go to anybody who has a need, not anybody who has managed to fight to get an EHCP.
I will finish by looking at the employment bit. It is the same story. We heard stories about where it works. I think the difference here was in culture and aspiration. Changing culture is more difficult than changing policy. But, where it has been changed, it is a success story. We found a lot of employers who were honestly nervous about taking on people with disabilities. They worried that they would say the wrong thing and it would not go down well with their employees, and they worried that there would be an economic cost. We also heard from the Chambers of Commerce, the Humber Learning Consortium, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Business Disability Forum that it can work. So, again, it is an example of people paddling like mad below the water to get some bits of it working, and they can give us evidence about what works.
I will finish by referring to the title of our report. The first bit—the strapline Think Work First—was something one of our witnesses said to us. She was running a very successful project getting young people with disabilities into work. She said that, so often, when you are working with young people with disabilities, you do not “think work first”; you think of lots of other things. She said, “It’s tough. If you want to get people into work, you think work first. That’s what the young people want”. I believe that is what we all want, and we have to have it higher up the agenda than we do at the moment. I beg to move.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, and I commend her and her committee members on producing such an important and well-considered report. I will pick up on the point that the noble Baroness ended on, which is the title of the report. For me, it implicitly recognises that, for too long, work has been the very last thing that policymakers and politicians have instinctively associated with disabled people. The preconception that disabled people cannot contribute or realise their potential at work and, on merit, reach the top of their professions goes to the heart of our professional psyche. Indeed, its roots go deep in our societal culture. It is a culture which spawned the term “invalid”, a term still experienced today, in practice, in so many aspects of their life by disabled people.
So I thank the committee not only for recognising the scale of the challenge and for proposing a joined-up package of solutions, but for the title of its report, Think Work First. It is not just absolutely appropriate; it is instructive of the scale of the change in mindset that is required. For that is exactly the change we must make, and quickly—not just as policymakers but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, implied, all of us.
I will give two figures. The UK’s £2.9 trillion national debt and the £100 billion that we spent in the last year servicing that debt surely underline the fact that we are all paying the consequences and the costs of the 30% disability pay gap highlighted in the report and the unsustainable disability benefits bill for those who are out of work. It is therefore in all our interests to think work first. I am glad that, as the noble Baroness said, in several respects the Government have indicated that they intend to do so and to think work first, whether on vocational profiling, supported internships, in-principle support in education, including through EHCPs, and mandatory reporting of the disability pay gap, the efficacy of which, I argue, depends on disability employment reporting as well—this is a theme to which I will return. The fact that the Government are engaging with some of the committee report’s recommendations is surely a fitting tribute to its deliberations and its 36 common-sense recommendations.
I shall highlight the recommendations that I particularly welcome as a disabled Member of the House. These include increasing the number of supported internships; developing a transition information hub, co-produced with disabled people, as in Scotland; improving the support that young disabled people receive in the education system; the collection and publication of data on the number of careers advisers, especially those who have received specialist training relating to pupils with SEN; increasing work experience opportunities, including through supporting and incentivising local bodies, such as chambers of commerce, which I think is an excellent idea; improving the quality of accessibility information provided to students by universities; ensuring that work coaches and disability employment advisers fully understand the specific barriers that young disabled people face, including in the commissioning and use of assistive technologies; crucially, coming back to the committee and updating it on government action to reduce the access to work application backlog and delays; and the introduction of a four-week deadline by when employers must respond to an employee’s request for reasonable adjustments.
I could go on but I shall just highlight one other recommendation, which is making the Disability Confident scheme fit for purpose and credible by introducing rigour and transparency, so that employers are no longer marking their own homework and are instead subject to external, independent audit of the evidence as to whether they are hitting the thresholds for the percentage of their workforce that is disabled.
There is one other recommendation that I particularly highlight because, as a disabled person, I believe that it is crucial to the transition, indeed to the transformation, that we must all make to our cultural attitudes if we are truly to benefit, as a society, from extending equality of opportunity to disabled people and enabling them to realise, on merit, their potential at work. The recommendation that I am referring to is that the Government should ensure disability pay gap reporting, to which I would add disability employment reporting—that is, the percentage of an employer’s workforce that is disabled—being made mandatory for employers with 250 employees or more and for all Disability Confident leaders.
Page 43 of the report refers to the Disability Employment Charter, the brainchild of Professor Kim Hoque, who gave evidence to the committee and with whom I have been privileged to work for a number of years. Disability employment and pay gap reporting is the number one demand of the charter, which in practice has already been adopted, as the report comments, by employers such as EY, Capita and Clifford Chance. Mandatory reporting has also been supported as a recommendation by two commissions that I have chaired: first, the Centre for Social Justice’s Disability Commission, in its “Now Is The Time” report of March 2021; and, secondly, in the report produced in October 2022 by the Institute of Directors’ commission, “The Future of Business: Harnessing Diverse Talent for Success”. I pay tribute to Jon Geldart, the IoD’s director general, for his continuing commitment, and to Alexandra Hall-Chen, its principal policy adviser for employment, skills and sustainability, for building earlier this year on the commission’s work through the publication, in partnership with Disability@Work, of “Progress through Transparency: the Case for Mandatory Disability Employment and Pay Gap Reporting”.
As Professor Hoque made clear in his submission to the committee, mandatory pay gap reporting would be relatively straightforward if introduced in tandem with disability employment reporting. Establishing which employees are disabled will depend on the creation of a supportive work environment, using the Labour Force Survey definition of disability, so that disabled employees feel confident that they will not be penalised for their disability and that the data that they provide on their disability status will be treated as confidential. This is surely to the mutual benefit of any decent employer, keen to get the best from its workforce. Professor Hoque has also proposed a hybrid metric that accounts for both the employer’s disability employment levels and its disability pay gap in a way that does not unfairly represent those employers that, to their credit, are taking positive steps to hire more disabled people. I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on when we might expect the Government to respond to the consultation on mandatory reporting in line with the Labour Party manifesto and the Government’s King’s Speech commitments.
I finish on a rather despondent note, but one which underlines the urgency of moving ahead on the report’s recommendations. The CBI submitted what, to my mind, was a deeply discriminatory response to the consultation that I have just mentioned. I have told it so and I have asked that the response be withdrawn. It is completely unacceptable for an organisation like the CBI, or indeed any member organisation with a vested interest in the status quo, to perpetuate prejudice. I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government will treat responses that are based on outdated and costly attitudes, whereby disabled people are only ever regarded as a burden, with the contempt that they deserve.
In conclusion, the truth is that prejudice against disabled people is rife in Britain in 2025. In fact, I have never known it to be worse. The extent to which we have gone backwards since the demise of the Disability Rights Commission is disturbing, soul-destroying and, above all, disorienting. I never thought that we could be back in this place. That is why this report and its recommendations are so important. I urge the Government to show that they are responding to those recommendations with the urgency that they deserve.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough (LD)
My Lords, as ever, I feel quite embarrassed to follow that particular contribution. I begin my contribution by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, for leading this inquiry so effectively, as indeed she has led every other inquiry since we worked together in the House of Commons 15 years ago, or whenever it was.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough (LD)
Was it longer? I am sorry; I try to think I am younger than I am.
This was a very challenging report. As ever, I thank the committee clerks for their excellent preparation of material and witnesses, particularly young people and their parents. Sometimes, when you do an inquiry of this sort and you meet real people who are involved with their youngsters in an issue that is really life-threatening, you go away thinking that you have to write reports that are fundamental to government support. That is really what has happened.
For me, this was an extremely moving inquiry, as it reflected quite dramatically my own involvement in the education of young people with highly complex educational and physical challenges during the whole of my career. In 1978—I am not going to do it year by year—I was given my first headship, of Ormesby School in Cleveland, at the same time that the late Baroness Warnock produced her ground-breaking report on the future education of children with special educational needs and physical impairments. For a variety of reasons, partly due to an on-site specialist primary school for children with complex physical challenges, the local authority and the governors agreed to adopt the Warnock recommendations and include, at secondary level, all pupils in south Cleveland with severe physical difficulties, including a key number of pupils who were severely disabled due to thalidomide. With the support of the Department for Education, we became the first state school in the UK to make such a fundamental decision.
The teaching challenge was significant but highly rewarding. However, post-16 education and employment were even more challenging, and I constantly receive letters from my former pupils and their parents who, despite their excellent educational skills, could not get appropriate employment. That challenge remained with me for the rest of my career. When I moved to Leeds, with the support of the former Labour MP, George Mudie, who I think all your Lordships will know, we expanded the inclusion of pupils with special educational needs and physical needs to include pupils with impaired sight and hearing, and Down syndrome. However, the task of moving pupils on to skill training or employment, even in a highly progressive city such as Leeds, became even more challenging, despite our attempts to include external and internal career staff.
Of course, there have been a number of initiatives by successive Governments to address these issues since: the Education Act 1981, the Children and Families Act 2014 and the Commons Select Committee report of 2019 all sought changes to the landscape and tried to address the issue of education and skills for employment training. Indeed, the current EHC plans and access to work are positive initiatives to address the issues, but so much more needs to be done.
The Government’s response to the committee’s report is, frankly, outstanding. Nineteen of the 36 recommendations have been accepted in full; a further 12 have been partially accepted; four have been noted for action; and only one has been partially rejected.
Incidentally, I say to the committee that, two years after the production of the Warnock report in 1978, the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, said, “On all the main conclusions and recommendations, we were in complete agreement”. I would like the Minister to agree with Baroness Thatcher that that is the case here as well.
The current legislation is not sufficiently strong or appropriate to reduce the 30% disability employment gap that has existed for the past 50 years. Further legislation, which will require action, is probably necessary. There may be criticism, or indeed ridicule, by some that the current Government’s mission, expressed in response to our report, saying that
“economic growth is at the heart of the policy to improve access to work”,
is unrealistic. But the recommendations in this report provide, time after time, opportunities to carry out the promised mission and I fully support them.
The title Think Work First: the Transition from Education to Work for Young Disabled People is the philosophy that needs to be in line from nursery to employment. But, frankly, that is not and never has been the case. I understand just how challenging it is to link employers in both the public and private sectors with appropriate levels of support for SEN and disabled students. But that must be the Government’s objective because, if it does not happen, changes to the education system to improve links to employers will quite frankly be very difficult. How the agreed recommendations will be initiated and, crucially, how they will be financed and when they will be introduced are what we need to hear in the Minister’s response today.
For me, the following are priorities. Too often in the past, SEN was regarded as the sole area for guiding pupils from education to employment. Thankfully, the committee, and indeed the Government, embraced as the key challenge that the Government must include in future policies all young people with disabilities, long-term health conditions and special educational needs, and their families. I say “their families” because what is constantly missing from successive Governments in support of young disabled students moving to employment or further education is including parents or carers in research and decision-making. We heard that from our witnesses and it is something we should emphasise.
Committee members were deeply moved by the description by both parents and students of the mediocre level of support that often exists in schools. Two fundamental challenges emerged, as they have over many years: the need for better careers education and the need for more appropriate internships. The previous Government’s commitment to double the number of supported internships should be continued and indeed combined with the proposal to develop an English version of Scotland’s Compass tool, to assist the transfer from education to employment. This would certainly help the transfer and support system, but schools will need to radically increase their existing careers education system, which frankly has rarely been successful, particularly for pupils with SEN and disabilities. Education, health and care plans are extremely useful, but the continued failure to adequately fund them must be addressed to prevent the constant delays that simply undermine support and lead to people leaving their employment.
Crucially, too, the Government must totally review the careers service in schools. To be honest, it hardly exists in many schools. This affects most students but can be devastating for SEN and disabled students. The committee wanted to see this issue seriously reviewed, with an analysis of the number of existing careers advisers, their training and their qualifications. It would be useful if the Minister could say whether this has happened or will happen and whether the introduction of improved qualifications is being considered.
The final points that I wish to make concern employment opportunities for young disabled people. Unless there is a change to current policy, which will be radically affected by the use of artificial intelligence, et cetera, the situation examined by Baroness Warnock, which has not really changed in 50 years, will simply continue for decades to come.
We can radically increase the quality of education and skills in our schools, colleges and universities for disabled and SEN young people, but unless as a nation we can increase the level of employment for young people—and, indeed, more mature people—in both public and private environments, little will change. The committee discussed how this would be possible, but without a bold recruitment policy to include a wider range of employers, it simply will not happen. I was disappointed when the Minister did not fully accept the committee’s proposal to seriously improve the availability of ready-to-work programmes such as that provided by Think Forward, which would have engaged local authorities with employers much more readily. I hope that the Minister agrees that without a legal framework to expand links between schools, colleges and universities, as well as local authorities, the increased links will not happen.
Interestingly, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Austria and Denmark all have legal employment requirements, which benefit companies as well as individuals, while Luxembourg is recognised as having one of the most successful arrangements for engaging employers with disabled young and elderly people, not only in Europe but throughout the world. There, companies with 25 employees or more are required by law to include a quota of disabled young people, and are compensated by removing social security payments and receiving benefits for an excess of basic requirements. Frankly, we have to give something to employers that will encourage them to do it, rather than simply saying that they must do it ad hoc.
Surely if, as the Minister stated in reply to the committee’s report, the Government
“was elected to deliver change”
and, crucially,
“is committed to tackling economic inactivity, particularly where it is driven by ill health”
which I totally agree with, taking a bold set of actions, including legislation, before the next general election, will help silence the critics and reward the significant population of disabled and SEN young people.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, at the outset, I once again emphasise how greatly the committee was helped by hearing from children with a disability and their parents. They very generously helped us to have an insight and to understand something of their experiences. That was so valuable.
It is worth while constantly reminding ourselves that childhood is a time of very great change and individual growth. It is the foundation of personal development. That being so, I am sure we all agree that, as a society, our aim should be for each and every child to have every opportunity to reach their full potential. Of course, change brings with it uncertainty, so it is not possible to predict what the outcome for each child may be. That said, sadly, there is often the temptation in some areas to make an assumption about the future prospects of each child. This especially applies to a child with a disability. Indeed, for children with a disability, sad to say, it is not unusual for a catalogue to be created from a very early age of things that they will never be able to do or skills that they will never possess. That is tragic.
This is why we should put in place, at a very early stage in a child’s life, both a personal development plan and a programme of support, for the child and their parents. The parents of a child with a disability often face very real challenges, so they deserve our support and encouragement. Alas, the evidence from the committee shows that, at best, the services provided for children with a disability and their parents are, to put it mildly, very patchy. Indeed, it is right to record that in some places, the services offered to children with a disability and their parents were seriously inadequate.
The movement from education to employment is a milestone in the life of every child. In the case of a child with a disability, it is a key stage in their development. In too many places, however, the arrangements are unpredictable, unreliable and negative. The good news, though, is that the committee heard of some heartwarming and outstanding work with children with a disability at this important stage in their lives. In each case, the good work was based on a vision and the determination to ensure that each child matters. In some areas, there was a well-developed plan of preparation for the transition from school to work in place for each child. In other areas, there was nothing.
Sadly, in other places, parents described the transition when their child left school as being like facing a frightening cliff edge. Too often, no preparation had been made, no plan had been created and no discussions with the adult services had taken place, as if they occupied a different place in the world. Due to this, parents described it as being like starting from scratch all over again. Although children’s services and adult services are provided by the same local authority, incredibly, that did not mean that these services were interested in communicating with each other or able to do so.
Children with a disability and their parents deserve better, especially at this critical time of transition. It seemed that in some places it was assumed that a child with a disability would simply be regarded as unemployable for the rest of their life on leaving school. This approach must be unacceptable, and I hope the Minister will take this point very seriously. The reality is that across the country, the number of children with a disability who are helped into employment is remarkably small. That being so, we should all set ourselves a challenge to demonstrate that there is an increase in the number of these children with a disability moving into employment each year. I am afraid this is a rather neglected field.
We need to be altogether much more ambitious. However, we can take encouragement because, despite all I have said, there is good news. The committee heard some evidence that was both inspiring and instructive of what can be done. I will refer to just one example, which is simple but telling. We heard that in one local authority area, the children’s services and the adult services worked together to organise a hub meeting, in which local employers and young people soon to leave school could meet in semi-social circumstances. The employers described their work and the employment possibilities, and then the children set out their skills and hopes for the future.
In one such meeting, an employer described the work of his recently created business. In doing so, he acknowledged that, because he was mainly concentrating on securing more customers and making the organisation grow, he sometimes failed to carefully manage the details of things such as ordering stock, cost control, staff hours worked et cetera. A pupil responded by saying that, despite his limitations because of his disability, he loved working on spreadsheets. The employer indicated that he had no experience in designing or working with spreadsheets and did not know how to engage in that area of work. The employer invited the young man to visit the workplace and explore together what might be possible. It was good to hear that the young man was offered a job but even better to hear that it completely transformed the lives of both the employer and the young man. The lesson from this and from a great deal of what we heard is that it can be done because it is being done in some places. The challenge, and the challenge for the Minister, is that each of us should do all we can to make sure that this is working everywhere in our society. As a nation we must rise to the challenge for the good of everyone.
I commend the important messages in this report—sadly, some are negative and things need to be rectified, but some are very hopeful. We can do it because it is being done. Let us just get on and do it. I hope that the Minister and others will take from this meeting that there is, with great ambition, great hope ahead.
As I will shortly be stepping down from the Public Services Committee, so ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, I pay special tribute to the work of the administrative staff who are so competent and conscientious and such a pleasure to work with. I offer them my warmest thanks.
Lord Mott (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, who has been incredibly kind and generous to me since I first joined the Public Services Select Committee. I am sorry that he will be leaving us very shortly. I also pay tribute to and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, for excellently chairing the committee, leading to the report today. I echo the comments of many noble Lords in thanking the excellent team who provide the support that we require.
The gap in employment between disabled and non-disabled people had been narrowing for a number of years, at least until the Covid-19 pandemic. But since then, progress has stalled. According to the latest estimates, just over half of working-age disabled people are employed, compared to more than four in five non-disabled people. Tackling this gap is, of course, important from a financial standpoint, not least given the significant increase in the costs of working-age welfare and the broad consensus across the political divide of the need to reduce this. Crucially, tackling this gap for those who can work and want to work is far more important on a human level.
There will always be some people unable to work due to disability and they must get the full support that they require. As disabled people transition from education, we must do everything we can to help them find suitable and fulfilling jobs. Making use of all the talent we have in this country means more people with the security of work and with the independence, improved well-being and social inclusion that it brings.
It is timely for the Public Services Committee, of which I am a member, to have undertaken this inquiry: Think Work First: the Transition from Education to Work for Young Disabled People. The committee’s extensive report makes over 30 recommendations, ranging from education and employment services to workplace rights and support to employers. I hope that these will provide much food for thought for the department.
In my contribution today, I want to focus on how we can improve the bridge that links education and employment. This is where there are clear examples of things working well and where progress should be sustained. Getting real, hands-on experience is vital for anyone getting into the workplace, disabled or not. I saw this not only as an apprentice myself but during my time as chief executive of the Conservative Party, where I was delighted to help establish a paid internship scheme with the Patchwork Foundation, for which I remain a mentor, to help young people from disadvantaged and minority communities get experience working in politics.
We know that this type of experience is particularly valuable for disabled people moving into the workplace. If a young disabled person can get a supported internship, an accessible apprenticeship or quality work experience, they are more likely to go on to fulfilling work. Supported internships provide a structured, work-based study programme for 16 to 24 year-olds with special educational needs and disabilities who have an education, health and care plan.
I was delighted that the previous Government made a commitment to double the number of supported internships. We saw evidence of their particular success in the NHS, with 68 hospitals hosting supported internships and strong evidence that these often end with the NHS employer offering the interns full-time, permanent contracts. I urge the Minister to commit today to building on the previous Government’s commitments here and to take the committee’s recommendation to
“increase the number of supported internships, and … introduce ambitious, time-bound rolling targets for this”.
I agree that there are many opportunities in the public sector for such an increase, but the Government should also seek suitable and willing private sector partners.
Moving on, I support the efforts being made to help more disabled young people into suitable apprenticeships and I would be keen to hear from the Minister what plans the Government have to communicate the new criteria, promote apprenticeships to employers and training providers and incentivise employers to take on disabled apprentices, in line with the committee’s recommendations.
Finally, the committee is right to highlight the value of supported employment. The universal support programme, announced by the last Conservative Government, was allocated an initial £53 million to help 25,000 out of work, long-term sick and disabled people who face barriers to employment, with an ambition to go much further, with larger numbers of people helped, by providing sustained, wraparound help for up to 12 months for both the participant and their employer to help them stay in work.
The programme was welcomed and praised. Scope called it “good news” and said that it was something that it had been “calling for over many years”. But, as the report notes, there have been concerns within the sector that the current Government are not committed to the programme. Will the Minister today take the opportunity to allay these concerns and confirm that the Government remain fully committed to rolling out the programme? Specifically, I hope they will take forward the recommendations to
“set out clear timelines and targets for improving the regional and national availability of Universal Support, as well as metrics focused on employment outcomes for the disabled people who participate in supported employment programmes”.
Will more be done to link the universal support offer to the supported internships that I spoke to earlier?
Helping more people to find the security and fulfilment of work has always been at the heart of my politics. This should apply to everyone but, sadly, too many disabled people are still written off. We need to build on the progress already made, reverse the post-pandemic decline in progress and, in doing so, remember the sentiment of this report: Think Work First.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)
My Lords, I am very pleased to contribute to this debate on an important and extremely thoughtful report from the House of Lords Public Services Committee. I thank the committee members and their chair for this great publication.
I read it through both a personal and professional lens. After my accident nearly 30 years ago, I was lucky: I had access to resources, mental and physical support, and people in business who believed I could still contribute. Many young disabled people do not have that combination today. That is what this report challenges us to change.
The scale of the issue is sobering, as we have already heard today: the figures have barely moved in a decade. If we halve that gap, the Government estimate an economic benefit of £50 billion a year through higher tax receipts and reduced welfare spending. This is not just a social challenge—it is a national economic priority, particularly at this time of growth focus.
The committee identifies several structural problems: low expectations in schools, careers advice that is too generic, weak co-ordination between education, employment and health, and employers who want to help but do not know how. It also spotlights what works: internships, vocational profiling and integrated services. I agree wholeheartedly with all these points; the evidence base is strong. But I want to go further in three areas where we can act faster or think differently: co-design, partnership through business networks and entrepreneurship.
Too often, systems are built for young disabled people, not with them. One in four told the committee that they received no careers advice relevant to their disability. Too many described leaving education as “falling off a cliff.” That is a design failure, not a resource one. Co-design means embedding lived experience from the start: shaping programmes, testing ideas and feeding back on what works.
I want to expand the report’s framing. The committee highlights physical and learning disabilities, but we must also confront the mental health dimension. Around 60% of young disabled people experience a diagnosable mental health condition. Support too often ends when they leave school, and there is a well-documented cliff edge between CAMHS and adult services.
If you are trying to find work while managing anxiety or depression as a result of disability, you need joined-up help, not fragmented systems that treat “health” and “work” separately. Expanding individual placement and support models, which integrate mental health and employment services, is right; these programmes deliver employment rates up to 30% higher than conventional job search. I would go one step further: embed mental health co-design panels within local employment and skills partnerships so that young people help shape the services meant for them.
Sara Weller, a disabled entrepreneur and one of the very few disabled FTSE non-execs, who runs ActionAble, shows that co-design is not a “nice to have”—it is the biggest predictor of sustained success in changing services. Evaluations of co-produced programmes show 25% to 30% higher sustained-employment outcomes than standard models.
The committee is also right that local co-ordination is often missing. It calls for stronger partnerships between education, employers and local authorities. We already have a ready-made structure that could deliver this alignment—here I declare an interest as the president of the British Chambers of Commerce; its local skills improvement plans have already been touched on today. There is now one in every region, bringing together employers, FE colleges and local authorities to match training with job demand. Yet few LSIPs currently address disability inclusion, and that is a missed opportunity. Imagine if every LSIP identified inclusive employers ready to host supported internships, mapped FE colleges and linked SMEs to the Access to Work scheme. The infrastructure exists: 400,000 businesses have engaged through the chambers and more than 200 FE colleges are involved in LSIPs.
Research for the DWP shows that when local business networks engage, young disabled employment rates rise by around nine percentage points within three years. Making disability inclusion a mandatory strand in every LSIP, with measurable targets, would turn a general skills plan into a genuine inclusion plan—owned by business, informed by evidence, and aligned with “Think work first”.
The committee focuses on employment and supported internships. I fully endorse that but I want to add, perhaps unsurprisingly, entrepreneurship. For many disabled people, self-employment is not a fallback but a natural path. According to the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, 19% of working-age disabled adults in the UK are engaged in early-stage entrepreneurial activity, compared with 11% of non-disabled adults. Disabled people are nearly twice as likely to start a business, yet the system does not even meet them half way.
Only 3% of government start-up loans go to disabled founders, fewer than one in 20 accelerator or incubator programmes have accessibility designed in, and only 5% per cent of venture capital firms report collecting any data at all on disabled young founders. The barriers are practical and structural: inaccessible workspaces, inflexible benefit rules, opaque funding routes and low representation in networks.
Yet the potential is extraordinary. The Disabled Entrepreneurs Network found that 72% of disabled founders say their experience directly informed the product or service they created. They saw the problem and they tried to fix it. You can see it in adaptive technology, accessible fashion, inclusive design and health innovation, sectors where experience drives commercial and social value. Scope’s Future Innovators pilot, for example, supported 60 disabled founders and generated £3 million in revenue and 120 jobs in just two years.
We are seeing a new wave of organisations also backing entrepreneurs in disability. CREO, launched by Founders Forum, is building a national ecosystem to support disabled and neurodiverse entrepreneurs, connecting them with investors, mentors and accessible resources. It is a brilliant example of private-sector energy being matched with societal change. CREO’s early work shows that when disabled founders have access to mainstream networks and capital, their ventures grow 30% faster. Alongside CREO, initiatives such as the Disabled Entrepreneurs Network, the Disability Rights UK’s Leadership Academy, and UnLtd are proving that targeted mentoring, modest seed funding and inclusive design can unlock extraordinary innovation.
These efforts need to be scaled and connected, joined up with national policy and local delivery—with the LSIPs perhaps—linking local business networks with inclusive investment and mentorship. Let us make entrepreneurship a formal third route in every education-to-work strategy; that means embedding enterprise education in further education across the board, supporting internship and growth hubs and prompting the British Business Bank to report annually on participation rates. We could even pilot regional inclusive innovation funds—small-scale capital pots designed with disabled entrepreneurs to test what works. That is not just an inclusion policy, it is an innovation policy. If we removed half the barriers facing disabled founders, the Federation of Small Businesses estimates that up to 250,000 new disabled-owned businesses, which would add billions to GDP and transform representation in the UK’s innovation ecosystem. This is not charity—it is economic sense.
I am patron of Day One Trauma, a charity helping people at the point when they face massive physical trauma. It works in hospitals providing invaluable support to patients and families. One of the first and most requested pieces of advice is always about work: “What will happen now that I am disabled? How will I go back to work? What future will I have?” When I became disabled, I had resources: I had networks and opportunities, which meant that I could dare to believe that I would be able to embark on one of my crazy ideas for a new business—most of them terrible. I thought “work first” because, before it was clear that I was even going to leave hospital, I knew that was what would help me to carry on. But the combination of factors that enabled that mindset for me should not be luck—it should be policy. I urge the Government to turn Think Work First from a report into reality.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, report was, for me, slightly depressing but also reassuring. It was slightly depressing because I have either said or agreed with everything said in this report over the past 20 or 30 years. A series of themes here have dominated government ever since it has looked at this area, particularly in the education field. It comes down to the fact that you have X number of people who do not fit the education system that well who are still going through it.
Then we come to a series of roadblocks, such as level 2 English language. The president of the British Dyslexia Association, who is dyslexic, of course would say this, would he not? But you suddenly bump into things that get in the way. The one battle that I won partially was thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Nash— I give him eternal credit for taking on his own department—who turned round and said that a recognised dyslexic should not be made to pass functional skills English at GCSE level with a C, as it was at the time, to get their apprenticeship. It was inspired by meeting people like carpenters and hairdressers, who could not get a job that would allow them to be employed properly because they had a disability that meant they could not do something. That took a long time—and that degree of rigidity in standards is something that we must resist. To go through all the dys’s, a dyspraxic just will not fill out the form in time. For a dyscalculic, it is often even worse. I recently met somebody who had failed maths 14 times in trying to get an apprenticeship. The degree of black humour builds, does it not? We get around it; we do not address it. The Government have to interject here, to remove the traps on the way through.
I hope we are about to hear—the Minister is being threatened by a piece of paper from her officials—that we will try to remove this with a little common sense. It is just one of the things I think we have to do. We have to adapt the education and training programme to get through. I hope this will come forward. I was ignorant before I started this that Scotland has the Compass tool; apparently it works. I hope the Government will tell us how they will integrate this, or something very like it, into our own system, guiding people through.
Then it goes on about the fact that, as anyone who has dealt with the system knows, you are in education, then you are employed, then you are an adult and then you fall off the cliff. The one thing the Children and Families Act got right was that if you are identified as needing an EHCP it goes on until 25. That is the best thing about it. Maybe it should go on for longer, and maybe there should be more structural change. If you think about it for two seconds, it is obvious that you will need support and guidance to get through in a system where you do not fit. It has been designed for the 75% of the population that it does fit so you will have to make some adaptations or some ways through to make it relevant to everybody else. It is no-brainer, really. But you hit bureaucratic walls, structures and stereotypes all the time and you are hitting them damned hard. You have to try and make a place where the Government take action and actively overcome.
It is time for another declaration of interest that is relevant under the rules. I am chairman of Microlink PC which puts together packages for people going into employment. Assistive technology is usually part of this but sometimes it is just organisation. We find when dealing with employers, often big employers, that they just want to get the best out of their people. Big employers sometimes feel confident and structured. They need PR. They decide, “Yes, we’ll do this. We’ll get in early and deal with the problem. We don’t need a definition”—and it makes sense. The problem is that most small employers, as this report makes quite clear, do not know this. They think they can avoid it. Someone has a condition: if they cannot do this, what happens?
There can be small changes and small structures. In my case, I have to talk to a computer as opposed to tapping a keyboard. I have never met anybody who objected to me word processing by talking to a computer—if someone did, I think they probably have bigger psychological problems than the person talking to the computer. How are you going to encourage not only the support systems but the knowledge that these things are easily dealt with if you have the willingness to go forward?
When the Minister comes to reply to this debate, I am sure she will agree in principle with all these points. It is about driving things forward and saying that you have to do things slightly differently. As has been pointed out by virtually everybody here, the employment gap and the economic benefits are self-evident. If you are employed, then you are not claiming benefits and are an economic benefit to everybody else, so pure selfishness comes into it. Dyslexics have a stereotype that we are all entrepreneurs. I think quite a lot of us are but often that is through necessity and not through choice. You have to do something different or you will sit and rot. We have to embrace these things, and if we do not start to address the basic thrust of this report we will simply carry on as we are at the moment.
Also, I would hope that the Minister will say what the Government thought was good about the work done by the previous Government. What has worked and how will they carry it on? We all know what has not worked because we talked about it for a long time. But how are we going to continue the good work and get that drive? How will we say, “This has worked”? Where is the continuity?
If people need support and structure, how will that work? Access to Work is often talked about, but it is slow and linked to certain jobs. How do we take that through if we decide that we need that support and structure? Let us face it, people do not usually radically change the type of jobs they do; they are usually in a pattern, at least for long periods of time. How are we going to make sure the support is always there? It would be a very good thing if the employer did not have to go through the hassle of saying an employee must wait to get their new support system. It is about support, structure and information. I go back to the beginning of this, in schools. If a school’s careers adviser does not know that people from various disability groups can have careers in X number of lines, they cannot help. Where is the expertise coming in?
As the noble Baroness will undoubtedly be finding out when she deals with the special educational needs report, these are not easy things to do. We all look forward to that report; only one delay in that report will be quite good by governmental standards, but I hope it is just the one delay.
Extra knowledge is needed across a variety of structures. There are three disabled people in this room—that I can recognise, although I am probably missing someone—and they all have different problems. How will the Government make sure that people can get that expertise? Are we making sure that the professional involved can go and ask for help? They need to know that if they need to ask for extra help, it is not a negative but a positive. If we are doing this in teaching, we should be doing it for careers advice—it should be the same thing. If you have not met a certain condition before, you need to have knowledge. Having a central pool of support, having access to it, and saying that it is okay to get something through—and doing it reasonably fast—would make life immeasurably easier for everyone involved in the system.
What we really need is a change of tone; we need to say, “We are supportive and we will inform you”. The employer’s fear about employing somebody who works differently in their office must be overcome. That is very important, and the report is wise to draw attention to it. The fact that people are frightened about extra costs and the structures will always be there until we get a hold of it, shake somebody pretty hard and tell them not to worry. After that, we can show them how it is done. The Government need to say that they are taking these steps and that they will work on the other stages.
On getting special educational needs right, unless we are getting to another cliff edge—I think the noble Lord, Lord Laming, was the first one to say this—the Government are still just pushing the cliff edge slightly further down the road. They have got to go out there and say how they will address the whole problem. It is a big challenge, and the Government will not get it right in one Session. But, if they embrace it and get the tone right, future Governments of whatever colour will probably find it easier to go forward. It is a big challenge. I wish the Government well, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have made such valuable contributions to this discussion. At a time when provisions for disabled students are further stretched and needed more than ever, this debate is incredibly important.
His Majesty’s loyal Opposition welcome that the Government appear to be following the committee’s advice and that they have prioritised vocational qualifications in their recent reforms. The previous Government understood the importance of a vocational pathway that aimed to provide opportunities to every schoolchild in this country and, as such, were committed to achieving parity between vocational and academic qualifications. The devil is always in the detail, so we await further clarification on the Government’s newly announced V-levels but, if they prove to be a continuation of the previous Government’s commitment, they would be a welcome step in the right direction.
However, simply offering a more streamlined qualifications system is not enough: particularly with young disabled people, it is incredibly important that sufficient guidance is offered. The committee’s recommendation of vocational profiling would provide this and we hope that, when the Government lay out their V-level plans in detail, they will follow the advice and wise counsel of the committee that was so ably chaired by the former Secretary of State for Education, the noble Baroness, Lady Morris.
His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are also grateful for the Government’s honouring of our commitment to double the number of supported internships. Allow me to repeat the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris: “supported internships work”—and work and work. My noble friend Lord Mott highlighted his personal experience as chief executive of the Conservative Party. It remains our firm belief that supported internships are one of the best pathways into work for the people furthest away from the job market. It follows that continuing to scale them up should be a priority for any Government, regardless of their political persuasion, whose aim is to get young disabled people into work, give them the opportunities that they both need and deserve and watch them flourish in an inclusive and team-orientated environment. I hope that the Minister will assure noble Lords that the Government will continue to proactively update your Lordships’ House on this issue.
A key element of providing these very opportunities, however, is the successful co-ordination between the Government and local authorities. We understand that the Minister for School Standards in the other place confirmed that the Connect to Work programme has begun in a quarter of areas, but please let us not have a postcode lottery. If initiatives are not rolled out countrywide, we risk perpetuating inequalities based purely on peoples’ addresses. Capacity for delivery varies dramatically across local authorities and it must be the Government’s responsibility to ensure that different needs are equally met. We trust that the Connect to Work programme will continue to be rolled out, but it must be done regularly and equitably. We would welcome a watertight guarantee from the Minister that this Government are committed to ensuring that that will be the case.
The more worrying issue is the co-ordination of education, health and care plans. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, highlighted a cliff edge or the need to start again after leaving school, as did the noble Lord, Lord Addington. The completion rate of EHCPs ranges from below 10% in some authorities to over 90% in others. The changes introduced by the Children and Families Act 2014, coupled with a surge in applications post Covid, mean that there are now over 600,000 children on plans. That is one in 20 pupils, with a further 150,000 awaiting assessment. With such a disparity in delivery already evident, a potential 25% increase in that number could mark a tipping point that is, indeed, a serious cliff edge.
Reflecting on this critical issue, the committee was clear that reforms are urgently needed to reduce application and delivery times and improve the provision of EHCPs. We understand that these are within the scope of the wider reforms to be announced in the department’s upcoming White Paper and, therefore, it may not be possible to comment on any changes right now. But, despite this, perhaps a reflection on another recommendation of clear timelines would provide much-needed clarity to both students and teachers.
We have been told that the White Paper is to be delayed, but, in the meantime, local authorities and schools are left guessing about what the future of EHCP provision will look like. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is entirely correct when he says that prevention is better than cure. We know that early intervention is among the most effective ways of assisting disabled children into the workforce, but drastic changes will need to be made to ensure that this is available to all schoolchildren, regardless of where they live, and we look forward to hearing the Government’s proposed solutions.
This should be a non-partisan subject—a common goal, echoed by many noble Lords, to do everything possible for those who have found, and may still find, themselves in challenging circumstances. The Government appear to be taking many of the committee’s recommendations on board, but regular updates on reasonable adjustments, vocational schemes and equal provisions are most welcome. An evidence-based approach is being taken and the successes of the previous Government are being built upon. We very much hope that the pathway from education to work for young disabled people will remain on an upward trajectory into the future. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, so eloquently put it, if we do not get this right, we all lose out.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, for securing this important debate on this report. We are grateful to the committee for its work and its report, which found that young disabled people, as we have heard during a good debate today, face systemic barriers that prevent progress.
I am sorry about the delay that the committee experienced before the Government’s response. I will not identify a particular department because this is a cross-government responsibility, and it is a cross-government responsibility to respond to the committee in a timely manner. The tardiness of that response does not reflect the work that the Government are doing, and I will say something about that in responding to the debate.
We know that the SEND system in this country is broken, which is why we are taking time to review the system and to get our reforms right. We agree that there needs to be a cultural shift in how we support young disabled people, and that success is dependent upon raising aspirations, challenging discrimination and ensuring co-ordinated support from school through to sustained employment.
The recently published Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper sets out our vision for a world-leading skills system that breaks down barriers to opportunity for all; meets learners’ and employers’ needs; widens access to high-quality education and training; supports innovation, research and development; and improves people’s lives. The Government are committed to helping young disabled people to access and stay in work when they leave education, with a focus on early support and intervention. The Government have considered the committee’s recommendations and changes are already taking place.
The report made valuable recommendations regarding education and careers support, including improving careers adviser training, which we have done, first by embedding vocational profiling for young people with SEND into the careers leader and online training modules aimed at special educational needs co-ordinators and the wider education workforce to support careers conversations. This will help individuals identify their skills, interests, aspirations and support needs for employment.
On the important point about careers advice being appropriate and supportive for young people with disabilities, the government-funded careers support for young people is inclusive, with an emphasis on working with our delivery partner, the Careers and Enterprise Company, and with key partners, including special educational needs organisations and local government, to ensure that careers provision is tailored to the needs of young people. Careers hubs across the country receive SEND training as standard, which informs their work with schools and colleges. There are now SEND-specific co-ordinators in the network. All new enterprise co-ordinators have SEND induction training by default through CEC’s strategic partnership with Talentino. Among them, there are 38 SEND-specific enterprise co-ordinators across the hub network. Training is also available for employers, to make sure that their outreach programmes are as inclusive as possible, because those programmes, and of course work experience, need to be available for all young people, particularly for the young people we are talking about today.
CEC’s employer standards framework embeds inclusion as a key measure of quality in business outreach work. We are aligning adult skills provision and careers advice with the Jobcentre Plus network, building a new unified public jobs and careers service. We will review the vital role that adult essential skills provision plays in supporting people with learning difficulties and disabilities into work. Recognising the report’s recommendation to improve the post-16 qualifications framework, which my noble friend Lady Morris focused on at the beginning of her contribution, we will simplify and strengthen vocational pathways, introducing new rigorous qualifications so that all learners, including those with special educational needs and disabilities, will have access to high-quality study pathways and a clear line of sight to employment or further study.
My noble friend makes an important point about the focus at level 1 and level 2, not just at level 3. That is why our reforms will include two new pathways at level 2, including a further study pathway for students aiming to progress to level 3 but needing a period of time for extra preparation, and of course new English and maths qualifications at level 1, which will provide a gradual route for learners, helping them build knowledge and confidence before resitting full GCSEs where appropriate. My noble friend also makes an important point about broader consideration of qualifications at entry level and at level 1. I accept her challenge that more work needs to be done there.
On vocational courses, I think there is now a clearer route for students. On the point about apprenticeships, the Government’s introduction of foundation apprenticeships in August this year provides another route into apprenticeships that is more inclusive and available.
The soon to be published curriculum and assessment review led by Professor Becky Francis will set out plans to ensure that every learner, including those with SEND, receives a high-quality education supported by a curriculum that gives them the knowledge and skills they need to thrive. Improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream education settings is a key part of the Government’s ambition to ensure that all children and young people receive the support they need. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, emphasised this and talked about his important experience, during his time in education, in developing that. We know that good schools are already able to develop that type of inclusive education. We need, as the challenge has rightly been put, to make sure that that happens everywhere.
On our reforms, we are working closely with experts, including appointing a strategic adviser for SEND who is playing a key role in convening and engaging with the sector, including leaders, practitioners, children and families, as we consider the next steps for the future of SEND reform. The proposals that result from this co-production will be set out as part of a schools White Paper early next year and aim to restore confidence in the SEND system and deliver improvement so that every child can achieve.
However, we are not sitting and waiting for that to happen. We have already taken important steps, including the creation of 10,000 new school places for children with SEND as part of a £740 million capital investment to expand specialist units and adapt mainstream settings. Multimillion-pound programmes, such as the partnership for inclusion of neurodiversity in schools and early language support for every child, are being delivered in collaboration with central and local government schools and parents to test and learn new approaches, and inspection frameworks have also been updated to ensure that Ofsted holds school leaders to account for inclusion, with a new explicit focus on inclusion embedded in the framework.
The report also rightly called for more work experience opportunities and activities which prepare young people for employment. It identified the fantastic experience offered by supported internships and work placements and recommended that these are expanded to a larger non-EHCP cohort. At this point, perhaps I can go back 15 months to the point at which I chaired Barts Health, where the committee was able to go and see the fantastic work being done by Project SEARCH. It always inspired me when I was able to see that in the hospitals and across the trust, and the young people who then became important and productive members of the NHS staff in that trust.
The Department for Education is continuing to invest in building the capacity and quality of supported internships by providing up to £12 million to March 2026. Through this funding, the department is also expanding our pilot—to take up the point that my noble friend made—that is testing supported internships with young people who have SEND but do not have education, health and care plans, and who are furthest from the labour market, to support hundreds more young people with SEND to transition into sustained paid employment.
Through the youth guarantee, we are addressing the issue of young people not in employment, education or training by bringing together adult skills training, support to find work, and apprenticeships. The youth guarantee trailblazers are still in their first year of delivery, but already interesting examples are emerging of local approaches, focused specifically on young people with SEND. The trailblazer in the west of England, for example, has designed a programme to support young people with SEND to move into paid employment through tailored eight-week placements and structured support. By focusing on individual strengths, career coaching and inclusive employer engagement, the programme aims to build confidence, support transitions and enable sustained progression into the workplace.
The report also focused, as did the debate today, on the workplace, recommending steps which would promote workplace rights and inclusion, including measures to improve transparency, provide guidance and build awareness of disabled employees’ rights and employers’ obligations. At this point, I want to strongly support the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, about the contribution that disabled people make to the workforce and therefore to the economy, and to agree with him that, where people are short-sighted enough to see disabled people as a burden, they are doing not only disabled people but themselves and their businesses a disservice as well. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, through his excellent example, made that very clear.
There is an enormous win-win here for employers who are able to provide the working environment for young people with disabilities to shine in the way in which the noble Lord outlined. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, also made clear, to have opportunities for entrepreneurship and innovation is a further opportunity. Her points were important, and I will undertake to make sure that they are shared with my colleagues in the Department for Business and more broadly in relation to the points about entrepreneurship.
The Government agree that it is vital for both employers and employees to understand their rights and responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010, particularly around disability and reasonable adjustments. Existing measures already support this goal. The Equality Act 2006 established the Equality and Human Rights Commission and gave it the responsibility to promote and encourage awareness and understanding of equality and human rights across society. The commission also provides guidance and publishes the employment statutory code of practice, which serves as a key resource for employers and employees alike.
On the particular point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, about the disability confident scheme, which is a UK Government-backed voluntary initiative designed to help employers to recruit, retain and develop disabled people and those with health conditions by aiming to challenge negative attitudes, promote inclusive practices and close the disability employment gap by providing free guidance, resources and a structured framework for organisations, we are exploring how to make the scheme more robust, as the noble Lord argued for. We are working with employers, disabled people and disabled people’s organisations to realise the full potential of the scheme.
However, the Government are not complacent. We are taking steps to strengthen equality in the workplace through initiatives such as the Employment Rights Bill, which will require employers to produce equality action plans outlining actions on equality. We are also committed to build on the success of gender pay gap reporting and legislate to make it mandatory that all large employers publish their disability pay gap.
As the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, outlined, the disability pay gap has remained stubbornly high for many years and shows that disabled people too often face additional barriers to getting into work and thriving in the workplace. This pay gap sits in the context of disabled people in general earning less than non-disabled people and being twice as likely to be unemployed. That is why the Government are taking action to improve employment support for disabled people and supporting British businesses to make workplaces more inclusive of disabled people. We are committed to building on the success of gender pay gap reporting and legislate to make it mandatory that all large employers publish their disability pay gap.
I understand that reasons for the disability pay gap can be complex, and I am grateful to the many disabled people, representative organisations and businesses that shared their views in our recent consultation on the topic. I do not suggest that publishing pay gap data alone will resolve this gap, but it will provide large employers with a clear and measurable indicator to help to identify where issues might sit and take action accordingly. These measures will help to create a fairer and more inclusive workforce.
In response to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mott, about the universal support scheme, this Government’s £1 billion connect to work programme uses the funding originally planned for universal support and keeps the same important principles of high-fidelity supported employment provision for around 300,000 disabled people, people with health conditions and those with complex barriers to support by the end of the decade. Importantly, we worked with local authorities and mayors to increase flexibility in how this can be delivered. It is being rolled out across England and Wales and is already seeing people being supported into work, being as it is the largest supported employment programme in Europe.
I repeat my gratitude to the committee for bringing forward this debate, which has highlighted how essential it is that we provide the right support and training for young disabled people. Whether through high-quality apprenticeships, colleges or universities, skills give people the power to seize opportunity and gain the work that will make such a difference to them, our economy and our society. By working together across government, education settings and employers, we will provide a system whereby all young people will be able to follow the pathway that is right for them. As I suggested earlier—it has been a key theme for today’s debate—that will be good for those disabled young people, but it will also be good for our economy and society.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I will briefly reply to the debate and thank the speakers for their contributions. There has been a lot of unanimity and there is no need to go over the points again, but there was a good balance between optimism and concern. I think that, for somebody listening in, the optimism won out. This is a moment, because the opportunity for really fundamental change does not come around often. If you miss it when it is there, you sometimes do not get another chance for a decade or longer. With the SEND review, with the vocational qualifications framework being changed, with further education becoming a priority for government, with the skills White Paper and with the evidence of what works, quite honestly if we do not grasp this now, we should not be in the job. It is that important.
I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, who were not members of our committee. They brought different perspectives, and we had not looked at the angles that certainly the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, guided us to, in terms of entrepreneurship. If there is another iteration of that, I would be pleased to hear the Minister say that she would take that back. The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, always brings, with his connections, a lot of information that we miss. If we can gather that information and add it to what we have done, we will have something helpful for the Government.
I thank the Minister for her positive, thorough, thoughtful and optimistic reply to our debate. I am encouraged by some of the things she said, particularly on supported internships, where there has been a degree of concern in the sector. That can build and build unless something is said, so I very much welcome the comments made on that. I finish by saying that the wish of our committee would be to see our recommendations embedded in the documents and policy frameworks to be published by the Government in the weeks and months to come. Then it really will have been a report that was worth its while.
Power Struggle: Delivering Great Britain’s Electricity Grid Infrastructure (Industry and Regulators Committee Report)
Baroness Taylor of Bolton
To move that the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Industry and Regulators Committee Power Struggle: Delivering Great Britain’s Electricity Grid Infrastructure (1st Report, HL Paper 132).
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
I am very pleased to move that the committee takes note of our report and thank all those who have been involved in the writing of it, especially committee members—and especially those who have done a double shift today, because we had a very significant committee meeting this morning. I also thank our researchers and the whole committee team, who have worked hard on this, as well as our witnesses and those who wrote in with evidence, because it is a complex subject.
I think we can all agree that energy and energy policy is a fast-moving area. Our report was concluded five months ago, and I know that is a normal time it can take for a debate of this kind, but a lot has happened in the interim. Some of it is relevant to our report, and other parts are bigger parts of the Government’s overall policy. The report is very specific, however; it is about the electricity grid and its role in meeting government targets. That is a large enough topic, but it does not take on board energy policy as a whole.
The obvious starting point is to say that the electricity grid is obviously an essential part of modern life. During our inquiry, there were outages in Spain, in Portugal and at Heathrow, which showed just how central the grid is to modern life, how dependent we are on it and the levels of disruption that can be caused when things go wrong. The Government’s growth agenda, which is very clear, focuses on building more infrastructure and supporting energy-intensive industries, such as AI. That will only deepen our reliance on the grid.
We can all agree that the Government have set very ambitious clean power targets; the aim to decarbonise 95% of our electricity system by 2030 is certainly ambitious. The grid will play a crucial part in meeting that target by connecting more new low carbon sources of power to the grid and transporting that power around the country. Meeting the target will involve building new electricity generation and network capacity at a much faster pace than we have managed in recent years. Therefore, our inquiry set out to discover the main barriers to delivering the grid expansion that will be needed to meet that target.
Ofgem, which is the energy regulator, plays a central role in determining the future of the grid to prevent network companies from abusing their monopoly position. Ofgem controls the projects networks can build, the investments they make and the costs they can charge consumers through its price control. In doing this, Ofgem must balance its responsibilities to ensure that affordable energy bills, secure energy supplies and a decarbonised energy system—which can be in conflict—are decided in a proper way. Ofgem also decides how costs are spread between current and future generations, and how they are recouped through energy bills.
These are fundamentally political and distributional choices. For instance, Ofgem is currently trying to wrestle with whether those who are struggling to pay should receive greater support, potentially paid for by other customers. It can be legitimate for regulators to implement these political choices; it happens with a whole range of regulators and their responsibilities. However, there needs to be clear political direction on what the priorities should be. Ofgem’s statutory objectives provide no such sense of priority.
The Government have the ability to provide Ofgem with guidance on these matters, through the strategic policy statement for energy, which was published last February. But it is often the case that the Government give regulators extra instructions without providing the full level of priority that is often needed. We have found with many regulators that Governments give instructions but there is not always transparency on what exactly the instructions mean, and some regulators across the board are concerned about that.
The current Government have indicated that they will provide clearer priorities as part of their review of Ofgem. Can the Minister commit that, as part of the implementation of this review, the Government will provide clarity on how Ofgem should balance the affordability of energy bills with the need for greater investment in the grid? Will the Government change the statutory objectives for Ofgem and provide more detail on what should be the priority? Will the Government provide their own view on how those struggling with energy bills should be supported and how the costs should be met, rather than leaving it to Ofgem to resolve?
I want to say a word about zonal pricing, which the committee spent quite some time discussing. As part of building any new grid infrastructure, it will cost consumers and we believe therefore that there needs to be greater price incentive for major sources of energy generation and a demand for them to locate closer to one another, thus reducing the need for additional grid as far as possible. On balance, after taking considerable evidence on this, the committee decided that it was supportive of the idea to move towards zonal pricing of electricity, which we thought could have enabled better use of existing grid capacity.
One of our members, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, who unfortunately cannot be here today, illustrated this to us very clearly by pointing out what could happen in his former constituency of Caithness, where there is abundant power, abundant land and a workforce. If there was zonal pricing, because of the potential for cheap electricity there, that might be a very good place for data centres.
On zonal pricing, though, we recognised and acknowledged that such a move had the potential to impact on investor certainty. We felt that that could be managed but clearly the Government felt otherwise and have decided to retain the existing national pricing system. I understand that the Government and Ofgem plan changes to network charges to try to improve those incentives, but we were doubtful about whether that would have the same impact as zonal pricing. I hope the Minister will consider what the impact will be of retaining national pricing and whether it will limit our ability to make our existing grid more efficient and decrease the amount of grid that would have to be extended going forward.
On connections—another area where we took a great deal of evidence—we heard repeated complaints during our inquiry that new energy-generation projects and businesses seeking connections to the grid face a slow, opaque and unpredictable service from the networks, with many being quoted connection dates of over a decade away. This was because the queue to connect to the grid previously made no judgments at all on whether projects were ready or necessary and simply went on a first-come, first-served basis. This led to enormous queues that theoretically contain more energy generation than we would need even to reach the clean power target. It is generally agreed that many of those applications were, in fact, speculative and very early-stage applications.
Since we were taking that evidence the Government, Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator—NESO—decided to take action to reorder the queue. Networks will be required to offer connections only to projects that have planning permission and are judged to be necessary based on the new projections from the Government and NESO on the types of generation we will need to meet these targets.
These changes are to be welcomed. They are necessary and should enable generation to be conducted to the grid more quickly. NESO and the networks must act quickly to provide these updated connection offers to those hoping to connect to the grid, but we are hearing—even yesterday—from those involved in the sector that this is not happening quickly enough and there is insufficient consultation to make sure that we get the fast-tracking of the connections that are pretty vital to what we need in order to go forward quickly.
Our inquiry also heard some concerns, particularly from the solar and battery sectors, that the current criteria for prioritisation in this queue could cause problems for those who want to have projects that will be needed and will be key to what we do going forward after 2030. We can understand the need to push things forward quickly but I think we need to think of the medium to long term as well as the short term. So before publishing, next year, the strategic spatial energy plan, which will guide these decisions, we believe that NESO must make sure that it is consulting very closely with all forms of generation suppliers to ensure that we get the kind of future investment that we really need.
The reordering of the queue should allow networks to provide a better, clearer and more consistent service to connection customers. We have heard that networks have sometimes provided unsatisfactory levels of service, including significant delays and charges for connections, so we welcome that Ofgem is reviewing the regulatory framework there for connections, and we support its proposals to strengthen the incentives and penalties networks face for their performance. But this does happen. These connection changes have to happen at speed, and they have to happen with a proper amount of consultation with those involved in the sector.
On planning, as in any area of infrastructure delivery it is a key challenge. Certainly it is in terms of delivering new grid projects in the planning system. We support the Government’s plans in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to allow local authorities to recover the full costs of planning processes and to ring-fence these important pressures on local authorities at the moment. That will be one way of making sure that we get the kind of service that is needed. But we are very concerned that planning authorities do not have the skills and resources—but particularly the skills—that are needed to process these at the speed that is necessary. Skills shortages are a problem not just for planning authorities but across the whole of this area, and it is probably one of the major challenges facing the country as a whole at the moment.
The Government, Ofgem and NESO are all doing very many positive and necessary things—or have committed to do so in the future. But all these elements need to be decided and implemented at pace. It is important that we get the momentum for getting these changes if we are going to meet our clean power target. We believe it is still unclear whether the energy system is capable of moving at the huge scale and pace that is necessary to do so many things in such a short time. We were told repeatedly by many witnesses that the Government’s target for 2030 was possible, but everybody agreed it was very difficult. We were told repeatedly that it is possible, but the key is that failure in any one element of these issues could cause real difficulties in terms of the Government meeting their target.
We have called on the Government to make sure that we are all informed of what is going on. The Government are saying that they are publishing various key indicators, but very often these are hidden in government figures that not only the public but certainly parliamentarians do not always follow with great care. Things on the website are not always the way to find out what is going on. So we would like the Government to commit to clear public statements to Parliament—a drumbeat of information coming forward—so that every six months or so we can just assess how clear it is that the Government and the industry are going in the right direction, and we are moving towards hitting our targets.
The objectives that the Government have set are clear, but so are the potential pitfalls. Time is running out and we cannot have any complacency. It really is time for everybody involved in this industry and in government to pull out all the stops to make sure we can go forward, and it is important that the Government make information available to Parliament and to the public.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Select Committee on picking this topic: it is vital for the country. It is important to local communities, which is a theme of part of what I want to explore today. I am conscious that the committee identified a number of issues. As an aside, when one looks towards the end of the summary, all of a sudden the paragraph numbers go out of sync, which makes me wonder what the committee removed from the report. However, there is enough in here for us to consider in detail.
One of the first things would be that so much relies on the strategic spatial strategy, although Nick Winser was right to point out that we did not have one before, so how much change will it make? A lot of eggs are in the basket of having this strategic strategy and I want to get clarity from the Government that it will definitely be ready next year. If there is an opportunity, will the Government say whether we are talking about quarter one or quarter two, or are we talking 31 December 2026? I am conscious that clean power 2030 is a specific choice by this Government to accelerate and decarbonise the electricity network to zero, which is one reason a lot of communities around the country are somewhat frustrated right now, because a lot of the planning and the work being done on this will not make much difference to the projects being considered.
The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, mentioned something that I found very interesting. I had not picked this up, but I am glad she raised the fact that, in terms of the prioritising of connections, one of the criteria is now that they have to have planning consent. That is not what is happening right now, certainly not in the east of England. There is no doubt that there are current live planning applications—connections are being given, and indeed ASTI money has been granted by Ofgem. I raised this on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, suggesting that this sort of ASTI framework funding should not be available until planning consent has been given, because the underlying concern of a lot of communities around this country is that, for everything else, it does not matter what the planning process really does; the decision has already been made, in effect, by the Minister, by the actions of Ofgem or by the other organisations, such as NESO and others involved in this.
One reason I am grateful to the noble Baroness who chaired the committee so well is that I went on 4 March 2025 deliberately to question Nick Winser. The noble Baroness was gracious enough to let me ask a question, and it was about this transparency—this frustration that exists that we are almost going through the Emperor’s new clothes on some of these things.
I was struck by what the noble Baroness just said and I will be very interested to hear how that impacts on current planning applications. By the way, I do not expect the Minister to refer to this, but I will be attending various hearings in the next few days regarding Sea Link, and I encourage her to think carefully about transparency. I believe that Nick Winser talked about complete transparency being important for confidence, but when I asked the Government a while ago about the estimated cost of the Sea Link project, I was told it would probably be around £1.1 billion. When I asked that question again more recently, I was told we were not allowed to know the answer to that because of commercial considerations.
To come back to what the committee talked about, it is vital to get this openness and this publication. Actually, the very first recommendation that the committee made is about publishing key metrics on meeting the target every six months. That is why I was disappointed by the Government’s response, which talked about intending to publish statistics regularly. That is not the same. One thing that often happens with statistics—as I know as a Minister, frustratingly, but also as a Back Bencher trying to get information—is that quite often the statistics are from the previous calendar year and are published about 10 months later. You would probably not get the information for 2024-25 until sometime in March 2026, and so it goes on.
I think it does matter to recognise the amount of levies and carbon taxes and the amount of cost on consumer bills both for households but also for businesses. It is right and important, with these changes that the Government are continuing, from a process initiated by the previous Administration, that we can see more regularly how progress is happening and to hold to account both the Government and the different parts of the architecture that are critical in trying to make sure that we get on with aspects of this connection right around the country.
One thing about which I had a minor frustration was that I never really accepted the then National Grid’s assertion that it had to offer a connection to everybody, regardless. When it was asked about who those connections were, it said that it could not reveal that either, so we are in this forever black box situation. Again, transparency would help—it would help communities to understand what is happening in their area, especially when we see the connections now starting to involve much bigger substations. I appreciate that the National Infrastructure Commission seems to be in favour of this, but this is at the same time that there is no trust in whether a particular construction is needed, or whether it is just a case of lots of this infrastructure being dumped in certain parts of the country.
A lot is happening in East Suffolk. I have no doubt that the whole issue of energy projects is one of the reasons I lost my election last year and have ended up here, much to the chagrin of some people in this Chamber, I am sure, rather than perhaps the other. Nevertheless, it is still something that is deeply concerning to people, that lack of transparency, and I fear we are not getting any further with the new set-up.
As to why there is no confidence, some of it goes back about a decade to when a developer said that they would do a direct connection—a DC link—from its offshore wind farm right through to the substation at Bramford. At the time, with regard to the local council, I appreciate that the committee is suggesting that lack of resources may be one of the barriers, but that has not been my experience locally. My experience has been that the council has been very willing to work with developers to try to minimise the impact on local communities and come up with innovative solutions on how to do that. But by doing that, and expanding the tunnel that would be used for the trenches, all of a sudden, on a commercial basis, the developer decided to reduce the amount of electricity that it was going to generate in that way, and it was going to do it through AC, not DC. One key thing about the transmission of electricity is that it dissipates over time and distance and, as a consequence, if you have AC instead of DC, in a way you are underusing the substation, but you are generating a lot more infrastructure and having an impact on lots of agricultural fields, nature reserves and ancient woodlands right around the country. That lack of density, in effect, is problematic in terms of what we are trying to do on other aspects of government policy and improving our natural environment.
So it continues: by refusing to consider brownfield sites for connection and insisting on greenfield sites, we are seeing what local communities often perceive to be attacks on their green spaces and their pleasant natural environment. That, again, is frustrating. By the way, this has nothing to do with pylons. Not a single extra pylon would have been erected in East Suffolk in all this time, so I am not getting dragged down in that particular debate.
Nevertheless, one thing I think Ofgem should do in terms of prioritisation is be very clear and public about which connections it has given and which it is considering, and there should be healthy competition in getting what is a valuable resource. But, at the same time, what I would prefer to see from the Government and the various bodies involved, instead of creating many more links unnecessarily, is doing more to enhance, for example, the existing connections, from the Isle of Grain into Tilbury. There has already been some expansion of that; why not do more? We are talking about connecting two significant brownfield sites, not two areas where there are already significant environmental protections, although thanks to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill—it has not passed yet—all that will be, frankly, set aside and disregarded anyway. But that is not an ideal outcome given where we should have been.
On the recommendations in paragraph 5 of the report, the Government have basically said that the transmission networks already publish that. But actually it is the second half that really matters in order to hold the Government to account. The progress on the transmission network projects that NESO has identified as necessary is vital. The Government providing a clear steer on how Ofgem should balance the competing effects of energy bills is key. We need to continue to try to make sure that bills are affordable, rather than have some of the challenges that industry and householders face. I will not get into energy bills, as that is a completely separate debate and we have had some of that debate already when discussing things like the warm home discount.
On paragraph 18, I raised this on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, so I will not do so again. Paragraph 24 talks about the connections that are prioritised, and it would be useful to know which ones have been dropped. Who has already been dropped from this list, and when will Ofgem, NESO or indeed the Government publish that?
On the 10-year infrastructure strategy, it is good that the committee has focused on making sure we get the electricity to where it is needed. One of the main issues with a variety of developments affecting interconnectors is that a lot of this is focused on getting energy to London and parts of the south-east. But, candidly, significant other parts of the country desperately need electricity connections, and it feels to me that that is not being properly considered. But I am sure the Minister will explain how they are prioritising the different aspects of connections.
There is one aspect where it is also difficult to hold Ofgem and ESO to account: the application of its duty on the consideration of biodiversity. It is impossible to get a proper answer on that. I can see that I have reached 13 minutes, and I have come to the end, so all I will say is that I will continue to fight the fight for transparency and openness. It is what our communities in this country deserve, and it is what Parliament deserves too.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interests: I chair a battery storage company called Aldustria Ltd and I am a trustee of Regen, a not for profit that promotes renewable energy. I will concentrate on grid connections within this report, and I will not go into the other areas much.
I want to go through a bit of history. In the area of grid connections, the previous Government absolutely sleepwalked into a crisis—and Parliament as a whole did, as well. Parliamentarians became aware of it a bit before the Government did. In terms of Ofgem being driven by keeping costs low for consumers, as opposed to investment in the future, that really stayed there until ASTI—I had to look up again what it was: accelerated strategic transmission investment—came in in December 2022, not very long ago. Even then, it took time to implement.
Then we had the Energy Act 2023, which tried to solve a lot of those other things to do with connections, and wider things as well. That piece of legislation was introduced in July 2022 and did not come out at the other end—I was Front-Bench spokesperson at the time for the Lib Dems—until October 2023. It was seen as an important and urgent strategic bit of business, yet it took one and a quarter years to get through Parliament after a long pause in the middle.
The irony is, of course, that, although we had many years of Ofgem promoting low bills, as opposed to investment for the future, we still ended up with lousy grid connections, a grid that is not fit for purpose and the highest energy prices in Europe. So something is certainly wrong.
There is one thing I would like the Minister to explain to me, because nobody has ever managed to explain it to me. Why do we need to pay extra money to transmission networks for investing in their own business? I do not understand. If any other private sector business invests, it does not charge for that investment in terms of pricing. In fact, we expect it to take advantage of economies of scale, with rising demand, as we have with electricity, and efficiencies. Take something like EasyJet. If, with rising demand, it invests in new planes, does that mean we see on its website that it is going to raise prices by 10% for its new aeroplanes? Of course not. It is around efficiency and economies of scale: the price goes down, not up. If the Minister can explain that to me in five seconds, that would be great, because there is something fundamentally wrong here in the way that Ofgem works.
It is not just grid connections to generators. I remember very much one of the pieces of witness that we had. I asked, “Isn’t there a problem? Housebuilding in west London has come partly to a halt because of lack of connections”. The witness actually denied that, but I have spoken to the sector since, and if you google it or whatever, you will find that it is the case. This is an issue not just around generation but also in terms of housebuilding targets.
So grid reform is absolutely needed and is being done quickly at the moment. As our chair rightly said, we have moved on from first come, first served, with a hugely long list of projects, some of which have been identified as “zombie projects” that did not exist and that we want to take out. What we are moving to is those that are shovel-ready and conform with CP30. I did actually check what CP30 was. I was sure it was clean power 2030, but I googled it to make sure and it came up with C-3PO or whatever it was from “Star Wars”. Anyway, it was around the future. But that is to the side.
Anyway, we have changed that, and that is absolutely right. The difficulty has not been the fault of NESO at all: it was only established almost exactly a year ago, in October last year, and it immediately had, among its other responsibilities, re-queueing this huge tail in terms of grid connections. Quite frankly, it strained in that task, and I will come back later to a number of questions for the Minister to see how we can get round that.
There is no doubt that NESO has been working hard and wants to do this. There were problems over the portal that put back its programme by a couple of months, but the timetable has been extended and there is genuinely a lack of investor confidence in the way that that is now rolling out and a lot of uncertainty in terms of those timetables. So that lack of confidence is a crisis there at the moment, and that will affect the investment that makes it so important, as our chair said, to be able to reach those CP30 targets. So, at the moment, those delays in connections with regard to the reform process are leading to a slowdown in clean energy projects being developed.
I have some specific questions to the Minister about that, around the future of making it work. They are not detailed but are substrategic, so I will be very happy if he wants to come back later on. My questions are: how will the Government, together with Ofgem and NESO, give enough confidence to the developers’ projects that are due to connect in 2026-27, so that they can actually place firm orders with their supply chains and start building those projects out? That is the only way they can meet their connection deadlines, because, if you miss deadlines, you go back to start again, which means a loss of time and more uncertainty. It is absolutely right to put those gateways down there in terms of planning permission, your supply chain and land acquisition or whatever, but if you do not meet them, you go back to the beginning.
Will the Government ensure that developers have the opportunity to agree viable gate 2 milestones with networks pre offer to take account of the impact of delay on project timetables in the connections reform process? Lastly—this is key in terms of the future, exactly as our chair said, looking forward not just to the next couple of years but to 2030—when will the next gate 2 connections application window be opened? This is really important, so that there is a path for projects that do not meet gate 2 in this first window. We seriously risk developers having no development route and just walking away. So it is all around making that really important reform that is being made work—dare I say work at pace—but making sure that we know, for those that have not got to gateway 2 now, that they are able to do that for the future, so that we can achieve the net-zero grid that is so important.
Viscount Chandos (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to be able to speak in this debate and have been privileged to be a member of the Industry and Regulators Committee that produced the report. My noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton has introduced this afternoon’s debate with the same incisiveness and wisdom as she showed in chairing the committee and leading the consideration of this vitally important subject. I join her in thanking the committee team for their indefatigable work in the inquiry and those who gave generously of their time in providing both oral and written evidence.
I declare my interests as disclosed in the register, in particular as a shareholder in Greencoat UK Wind plc, and, since the publication of the report, a director of Digbeth Loc. Studios, a film and television studio in Birmingham whose operations require significant and increasing amounts of electricity.
As the committee considered at the turn of the year possible topics for the next inquiry, a theme emerged of the cost of energy and the implications for the competitiveness of UK business in particular, all in the context of what had been at that point a cross-party commitment to a fully decarbonised electricity system by 2035 at the latest. The Labour Government have advanced the target to 2030. We could identify on the one hand new and growing sources of electricity—wind, solar and a revived nuclear programme—and on the other hand, new or hugely increased users of electricity such as power-hungry, AI-focused data centres, which are so important for achieving faster economic growth.
The new users of electricity may account for only a proportion of future demand, albeit a large part of future growth, with domestic and traditional business still dominant. In contrast, however, renewable energy is essential to achieving the decarbonised target and, ultimately, net zero, and will represent the majority of future supply.
We realise that what linked, both physically and metaphorically, the new sources and both the old and new demand was the network infrastructure and that the changes in train presented immense challenges to the system. I believe that the report which has resulted is a powerful but fair analysis of these challenges— 1,000 kilometres of new onshore infrastructure and over 4,500 kilometres of offshore infrastructure needed with a price tag of at least £60 billion. This will need to be built over the next five years, as my noble friend Lady Taylor said, at four times the annual rate achieved in the previous 10 years.
Our witnesses were uniformly confident that these targets could be met but it was hard, without disrespect to the capable and committed people responsible for delivering this, not to hear echoes of an EFL League One football manager’s bravado when drawn to play a top Premier League club in the FA Cup. My noble friend is better placed than me to say what the odds are in those circumstances.
The committee identified a number of key changes which would help these targets to be met and made recommendations accordingly—reform of the connections queue, changes to the planning system which, as has already been said, is vital to other areas of investment and growth such as housing and transport infrastructure, and an increased role for the National Infrastructure Commission. The Government’s response would indicate that they have identified and/or accepted these points even if they are not immediately able to find the silver bullet which would ensure that the necessary changes are made.
As I have just said, the committee was generally impressed with the witnesses at the centre of delivering these targets; in particular, the National Energy System Operator, NESO, seemed to have hit the ground running. Without being churlish though, it would have been disappointing if that had not been the case given that it is based around ESO, the Electricity System Operator, acquired in September last year from National Grid Group for a reported £630 million. Although the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, referred to it as an organisation that had started last October, it had long roots.
Negotiations for this transaction had commenced under the previous Government but were completed only in the early months of the new Labour Government. I ask my noble friend the Minister: what was the basis of the valuation for the acquisition? Is the funding of NESO essentially the same as that which applied to ESO, a levy paid ultimately by consumers? What is the surplus expected to be in NESO’s first 12 months, which have now ended?
I will use my remaining time to probe the Government on what was generally seen as the single biggest policy issue for the electricity market: zonal pricing, to which my noble friend Lady Taylor has already spoken so cogently. The committee recognised the complexity of, and the issues raised by, zonal pricing but, as my noble friend said, concluded that, on balance, it should be introduced.
The scale of building and investment needed to meet the network requirement is massive and it is not just a matter of cost—with network costs being over 20% of prices ultimately paid—but more importantly the risk that the grid becomes the weak link in the chain. We could achieve all the targets for building new wind, solar and nuclear power plants, but if the network does not have the necessary capacity and connectivity, much of this investment—as is already the case with some wind farms in Scotland—may deliver poor returns economically and in service delivery.
Coal was bulky and heavy to transport and required road or rail infrastructure that made it totally logical, from the Victorian era onwards, for the steel industry, for instance, to be located close to the coal fields and mines. Electricity may be lighter than coal to transport, but it still requires increased network infrastructure that carries not just a high cost but imposes massive logistical challenges in building it to the necessary timetable. If zonal pricing could reduce even marginally the amount of additional infrastructure that is needed, it could have a disproportionate impact on the likelihood of the network having the capacity for the needs of the late 2020s and into the 2030s.
I was therefore disappointed that the Government announced in July that they would not introduce zonal pricing but rather have
“concluded that reforming the system while retaining a single national wholesale price is the right way to deliver a fair, affordable, secure, and efficient electricity system”.
As I have already said, I recognise that this is not an easy judgment to make. Professor Sir Dieter Helm, my go-to guru on energy regulation, published a penetrating and nuanced analysis soon after the publication of our report, which was sceptical about the practical effectiveness of zonal pricing. Could my noble friend the Minister give any more details of the reforms the Government have in mind to the existing wholesale price system to enhance the security and efficiency of the network, equivalent to what might have been achieved by zonal pricing?
I recognise the importance of stability and predictability in fostering investor confidence, which is critical to mobilising the levels of investment needed. I therefore reluctantly accept that zonal pricing should probably now be off the table. However, this places all the more responsibility on the Government to introduce effective reforms to the national pricing system instead.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in this debate without having the benefit of being on the committee or without any of the great expertise that others have shown. However, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, on her committee’s work; it is a very granular analysis of the problems we face. I also hope the questions that my noble friend Lord Chandos asked of the Minister will be given a satisfactory answer. It seems to me that these issues are of fundamental importance to Britain’s future.
One of the reasons I wanted to listen to this debate was that it is of fundamental importance to whether we can achieve our climate change objectives, but it is also of fundamental importance if we are to be competitive in the industries of the future. That is a very vital concern. I was looking, for instance, at Mario Draghi’s report on European competitiveness. Item one on his list is electricity grids and the cost of energy. We are in a similar position to Europe in that it is absolutely fundamental to our future. That is point one.
I also reflect on the question of the electricity grid. Fifty years ago, I have to confess, I worked in the electricity industry. I was in the industrial relations department, literally trying to keep the lights on as there was always the risk of serious industrial action. Actually, there was not much risk when you had people like Les Cannon around, but it was a vital role. One of the things about the electricity industry in the 1970s was that it had been through the kind of radical transformation that it has to go through again now. When generation first came, it was all very localised. It was not really until the post-war era and nationalisation under Walter Citrine that the grid was put in place—one of the little remarked achievements of the post-war Labour Government—and then the whole thing had to be completely modernised in the 1960s and 1970s because of technological change that allowed these vast mainly coal-fired power stations to be built in Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire, which were transformative then of our electricity system. That meant the whole grid was designed on the basis of meeting the requirements of a coal-based electricity supply, and that now has to be changed completely to deal with what will be primarily a nuclear and renewables-based electricity supply, so it is a huge challenge.
In the 1970s—here I am going to sound very old-fashioned—the reason this great transformation occurred was because there was a body called the Central Electricity Generating Board, a dominant body, very dominant, which managed to drive this transformation through its important position and its powers. We went through privatisation in the 1980s. I thought at the time that privatisation, properly regulated, was not a bad idea, and there is no doubt that operating efficiencies were achieved, but the trouble with it was that it led to a business culture of sweating assets and not of building them. This culture is completely unsuited to the challenge we face now, which is of how we reconfigure our grid and our electricity system, and we have to do that in short order, as people have said—by 2030 or 2035.
It seems to me, as an outsider in this debate, that when we look at what is going on, the fundamental problem is that unlike the CEGB in the 1970s, there is no one clearly in charge. There are far too many people with fingers in the pie who have the ability to obstruct but not to make happen. What is particularly important is the triangle between the Government and Ed Miliband’s department on one hand, the regulator and the system operator. I congratulate the last Conservative Government: taking the system operator into public ownership was a very important move if we are going to carry out this job of modernising the grid properly. But it is in its infancy. Yes, there was an organisation before, but the organisation before was run in the commercial interests of the National Grid not the public interests of how this transformation should happen.
The fundamental problem is sorting out who is in charge and how we get drive and efficiency into the modernisation we face. At the moment, it seems to me that we have a target but we completely lack a plan. The plan is absolutely crucial, and it is very costly— £60 billion, as my noble friend Lord Chandos said. There was an interesting article in last week’s Economist about what is happening on the continent. In other countries, the amount of money being spent is vast. In France, the estimate is €100 billion. In the Netherlands and Germany, it is €200 billion. It is estimated by the EU that, within Europe, €800 billion will have to be spent by 2050 for the energy transformation and the grid that changes that go with it. So these are huge investments—huge things that have to be got right. The fundamental problem that our Government have to face up to is that we need a proper plan, and it needs a guiding mind.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for delaying the Committee for another four minutes, but my own Select Committee was cancelled at short notice at 4 pm, so I was able to come here and listen to the considerable wisdom on an issue with enormous implications for the future. In the four minutes, I have time to comment on only one factor—one omission, if I may call it that—in the otherwise excellent and very thorough report.
The omission relates to the transmission and grid system. We have all read in the newspapers about the long queues of would-be applicants to transform from fossil fuels to electricity, and maybe the intention of getting them reduced will be achieved. But there is one obstacle. Although we can get the electricity to switching stations on the coast—from the growth of sea pylons in great numbers, where most of our electricity will come from on fine days—we know that the problem is then the transmission: getting it from the switching stations to the city gates and the markets where it is needed. We know that the problem there is the pylons, which the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and others mentioned. Obviously, this is a huge difficulty and problem. Why? It is expensive and there are all sorts of planning problems and delay in getting these pylons built, because there is a general hostility from environmentalists to this sort of thing.
Therefore, one needs to ask: are we on the right track at all in thinking about the pylon problem? Are there alternatives? Yes, there are: hydrogen tanks, tankers and other vehicles can of course transmit hydrogen just as they transmit petrol now. We do not need pylons to get petrol and diesel to every garage in the United Kingdom. People say, “That’s all very well, but it’s much too costly”. But I wonder. Think about the alternative cost: the £1 billion or more that we pay each year not to produce electricity, despite the increased demand for electricity and the shortage of it—an absurd situation. Think about the enormous delays that will result from trying to put up 1,000 kilometres of new pylons, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Chandos, and others. Think of the years of planning that lie ahead while every single pylon is disputed. Think that the likelihood is that hydrogen technology costs will come down and we will be able to transmit hydrogen by pipeline or tanker easily, and a great deal of these pylons will be completely redundant in five to 10 years’ time. Are we on the right track at all?
That is all I have to ask in my four minutes. I fear that we are not on the right track. I fear that the costs of alternatives—the electrolysis for transforming north Atlantic electricity, clean, to the vast new demands of the electric economy that lies ahead—have not been calculated or set against the enormous cost of trying to build 1,000 kilometres of new pylons, which is said to be £60 billion; I will believe it when I see it. This is really a great gap in the whole argument and strategy which NESO has not addressed properly. Previous Governments probably have not, and the present Government do not seem to be doing so. Therefore we have a case, as the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, said, for another report to look at the real facts of the overall transmission situation in the coming decades. That is all I have to add to an otherwise excellent document and much wisdom around on the enormous problems of trying to get adequate clean electricity 24/7, not intermittent, to our industry in the future. Unless we do, we will fall even further behind in competition in world markets.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to have the opportunity to speak in the gap. I declare an interest as a member of Energy Local Totnes. I wanted to speak because of an electricity market regulatory change called P441, currently out for consultation, which would make local energy supply schemes considerably more viable across the UK, with many of the advantages that I believe the committee is seeking.
Currently, setting up local energy schemes involves navigating unclear regulations and exceptions, but P441 would create a standardised process, making it much easier for communities to buy and sell locally generated renewable electricity. It would also give licensed energy suppliers the confidence to support community schemes, knowing that the rules are clear and consistent. This really would be a very welcome change, which would also be much better at attracting investment because of the certainty.
Why are local energy schemes very important? I belong to one, and in the short time available to me I will give your Lordships some of the win-win wins—I counted at least eight of them. They reduce fuel poverty by selling energy affordably, at considerably lower prices than otherwise. They allow locally owned generators more control over pricing. They keep profits in the local economy, reduce reliance on fossil fuels and enhance local reliance by providing protection from fluctuating energy prices—that is particularly important when talking about fuel poverty. They balance local supply with demand, which helps the national grid reduce the need for costly network upgrades, which noble Lords have mentioned this afternoon—and, as was also mentioned this afternoon, less electricity is wasted through transmission losses, as the distance from the supplier to the customer is much shorter. So there are many wins, and I hope that the Government will encourage this change with P441. Can the Minister also say whether the Government are encouraging Ofgem to do all it can to support local energy schemes?
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I thank the members of the committee for the quality of their report. This is indeed a very important and timely work, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for her very good introduction. As the noble Baroness stated herself, this is a very fast-moving field, and the world has moved quite a lot since the publication of the report itself. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, put it very well in combining the important granular nature of the report with the fundamental importance of Britain’s future, related to our grid development in these areas.
Against this report, we have to understand the background of decarbonising our electricity system by 95% by 2030—clean power. This is a key foundation of our energy and climate commitments. In the report, the committee found this to be a significant challenge, but achievable, and it talked about a once-in-a-generation upgrade to our grid to make this happen. The committee really looked at this huge challenge before us and what can be done to make sure that we deliver on these targets.
I have said this before, but in energy terms I think this is the biggest energy change since the industrial revolution—and it all needs to be delivered in the next five years. This is a vast, co-ordinated and complex dance between systems, regulators, government and big infrastructure projects. It is all immensely complicated stuff, and I am very grateful that this report has been done. As the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, said, this is mobilising £60 billion into the network, 1,000 kilometres onshore and more than 4,500 kilometres offshore. It is a six-fold increase in wind development and a three-fold increase in solar. The grid is not just the backbone. I like to think of it as the central nervous system: if it is not working, the country does not work, and we do not go to work—we have no transport, and the country makes no money. So the grid is absolutely essential to what we do.
We have this massive scale, pace and challenge ahead of us. The committee was really concerned about that trajectory, whether the targets can be met, what the blockages are ahead and what more can be done between government, the regulators and investors to make sure that we can all work together. The one thing that is clear from this report today is that everybody wants us to be able to get towards these targets and recognises how fundamentally important they are to the energy transition.
I want to turn to planning. We have had the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and the Government have brought forward changes. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, talked a lot about the need to bring communities with us through that transition, and I welcome that. There is more to do on that front; there is more to do in planning change terms. The report recommended hypothecating funds to planning officers and making sure that the granular nature of the planning system worked, so there is more to do on that. I tabled some amendments to the planning Bill in relation to the low-voltage grid, which is equally important. Small blockages in the system all add up and will cause considerable problems over time—so I think that there is a need for further planning reforms.
The committee also looked at the grid connection queues and the problems there. I recognise the work that the Government have done already to move to the system needed for 2030. That is welcome—but there is more to do around it, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, in particular, asked questions about post 2030. There are some questions for government about not getting too hung up on a hard target, because some of the real challenges that lie ahead for government and our grid transition actually sit in the 2030-35 timeframe. There is a need to get to clean power, and we welcome that —but there is a need to be not absolutely rigid and to look further afield to make sure that we are not taking decisions that fundamentally cause greater problems down the road, as we continue that transition post 2030 —because 2030 is the start, not the end. We need to get to 2050 and beyond. That is concern for me as well.
There were some concerns about the Government’s position on the role of Ofgem, the energy regulator, and the duties that it has to protect consumers and ensure affordability—and the need to balance that against ramping up investment in infrastructure. These tensions can have impacts, and there is a need for the Government to take political leadership in this field and move things forward.
Obviously, the committee came out in favour, on balance, of regional zonal pricing. Since the report was published in July, the Energy Secretary came out and took a decision not to support that as a way forward and to keep the national pricing strategy. Personally, I welcome that commitment. The trouble with zonal pricing was that, while it had upsides, it seemed to have equal downsides for every upside it presented. Fundamentally, the challenge was putting that much change into a system that was already under so much strain and needed so much investment. Ultimately, the worry with it was that it would fundamentally undermine investor confidence just at the period of transition.
I am not against that decision. The question for the Government now is: they ruled out zonal pricing in July, so how will they use price structures and mechanisms to help with the energy transition, outside zonal pricing? What comes next in terms of the reformed national pricing system? Are the Government still on track to report by the end of the year, as they said they want to do? Can the Minister say anything about what that will look like? We all need to move this stuff forward. Those are the kinds of questions I have around that. We need to provide investor certainty, to review network charges and to provide stronger locational signals. Is there still the opportunity to take up some bits of that work?
The committee also talked about the Government taking a clearer political strategy and guiding Ofgem in its work, making sure that there are clear political decisions and pathways and that they are not leaving too many of these issues to the regulator. That is an issue that I think is important, going forward.
The committee was concerned about the proliferation and number of new strategic plans. This is a complicated space. We have the strategic spatial energy plan and all sorts of other plans. Could the Minister say a word about the conflicts between them, when they are being delivered, how the Government will make sure they work together and co-ordinate across different bodies, and assure us that the proliferating plans will not get in the way of the key thing we want to do, which is delivering this change?
The committee also called for the Government to publish key matrices every six months, in terms of 80 critical transmission network projects identified by NESO. The Government in their response committed to publishing statistics on the clean power share, but not to give that real detail. Could I push the Minister and ask the Government to reconsider that? The committee argued quite strongly that that detail is fundamental and important. That level of scrutiny of this period of rapid change is really important. This is about Parliament and parliamentarians trying to work with and support the Government. It is about trying to co-operate and work together on these issues. So I call on the Government to consider that again. This transparency is really open and important in these matters.
Can I also ask the Minister about connections and connection queues? What work is NESO doing with AI and AI tools to help with that? I understand that there is some work around that. These really complicated problems could benefit more from AI and AI tools, and I understand that there is some use of them.
Finally, I will ask the Minister about the update to the energy code, which has not been mentioned to date but which was a key recommendation in the report. I know that work is going on with this and, again, it is a very complicated area. I am concerned that the date for updating the energy code is smack up against the 2030 deadline and I am worried about the Government’s ability to deliver this transition.
To conclude, I had a lot more I could have said. We really welcome this report. I think it is an important and fundamental look at where we are in this transition. A very complicated dance needs to happen between investment, government and the regulators and needs to happen at pace and at scale. The Government need to be a bit more open. There is a need to fill the policy vacuum left after zonal pricing has been ruled out. The Government need to bring forward ideas, be open and give clarity about the direction of travel—where they are going and what their thinking is—so that we as politicians and the general public know where we are going. I think this a timely and important report and I am very grateful to the members of the committee.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the members of the committee for taking part in today’s debate and pay tribute to the committee for its report. As noble Lords across the committee know, the Government’s unilateral clean power 2030 target is putting extreme pressure on the electricity system. Let us remind ourselves that it currently draws two-thirds from hydrocarbons and one-third from renewables. The objective within five years is to make that 95% renewables and 5% hydrocarbons. That is a very ambitious target and will require huge investment, as we have heard today, and will inevitably result in higher energy prices for consumers and businesses.
The Government admitted in a Written Statement published yesterday in relation to the network charging compensation scheme that they were requiring to put an uplift through because:
“Some of these businesses currently pay the highest industrial electricity prices in the G7, making it harder to stay competitive on the international stage”.
Those are the Government’s own words. That is the challenge we face and a source of the imperative for the cheap energy we urgently need to deliver policies that cut energy prices in the UK.
Cheap energy, as the Government rightly say, is essential to competitiveness and ultimately the key to growth. What households and businesses need from this Government is a commitment to bring down the cost of energy. Yet, despite that need, the sector has been clear that energy bills are likely to rise by 20% in the next four years. Typical household energy prices under the price cap are now £1,755 a year for the average dual-fuel consumer.
Turning to the committee’s report, it is right to highlight that the Government’s current approach will require a huge investment in our grid capacity. Quite simply, can the Minister please clarify what the Government’s forecast is of what these costs will be? How will this impact consumer bills? What impact will this investment have on the cost of doing business in the UK? Can the Minister please confirm what assessment the Government have made of other approaches which could deliver plainer, cheaper and more reliable energy where we need it, without it needing to be transported long distances across the country?
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their participation in this debate, which is obviously a very important one. We are dealing with issues here that are going to transform the way we deliver energy for this country. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, for tabling a debate that recognises the urgency of our transformation of the GB electricity network. I thank noble Lords for their welcome contributions to the debate, which touches so many salient issues. I think it is fair to say that we are more or less in the same space. We have questions, we wonder how we will get to where we need to be, but, on the whole, we are more or less on the same path.
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, was on about the energy industry back in the 1970s. I grew up in the great northern coalfield and represented a constituency there. It was that coalfield which basically powered the industrial revolution. When I think back to the research I did when I was an MP, I remember that 3,500 miners were killed in accidents in my constituency over the decades. Thousands were injured, including thousands who got compensation for pneumoconiosis, for example. Although it was exciting in one way for the Industrial Revolution to drive growth, I think we can be really proud of the fact that we are going to achieve what we need to do, not just to decarbonise the grid in this country but to help save the planet as well, by moving away from that and looking at industries that are not going to bring in the problems in the human way we had to suffer back in those years.
The electricity grid we have today has suffered from decades of underinvestment. That legacy means that it is outdated, constrained and unable to meet the demands of a clean energy system. Because of this, upgrading and expanding the electricity network has never been more critical. Our current network, largely built in the 1960s, was not designed to handle the scale of home-grown, low-carbon energy generation we are now deploying. Upgrading our network infrastructure not only enables the Government’s clean energy superpower mission but brings forward significant opportunities for investment in our economy.
As outlined in the Government’s response to the committee’s recommendations, the clean power 2030 action plan sets a clear path towards delivering a modernised electricity system. These reforms will transform the GB electricity system, and actions by industry, government, Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator, or NESO, are already delivering results. Chief among these is the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, currently progressing through Parliament. The Bill aims to accelerate the delivery of clean energy projects by reforming planning processes. The reform of the grid connection process will address the long delays that projects currently face to connect and ensure that strategically important ready-to-go projects can connect quickly. This will enable clean power 2030 and put in place a process that is fit for purpose in the long term.
We are also going further and are making major improvements to better support strategically important demand-side connections to boost growth and unlock investment. We will launch a connections accelerator service later this year to prioritise support for projects that guarantee high-quality jobs and bring the greatest economic value. We plan to use new powers in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to create measures that will allow network companies to prioritise capacity for government-designated strategic demand projects. Through the National Energy System Operator, we are taking a strategic approach to planning the electricity network. The centralised strategic network plan, due in 2027, will build on the strategic spatial energy plan, expected in 2026, and guide the future siting of infra- structure, balancing energy needs with environmental and community considerations.
The transformation of our electricity network must, as colleagues have made clear, ensure that communities have a say. I assure noble Lords that this remains fundamental to the approach we are taking. The independent planning process will ensure that communities continue to have a say, through statutory consultations and often through additional voluntary consultations by network companies.
We recognise that the communities most affected must benefit directly from this nationally beneficial infrastructure. The Government have announced a scheme of bill discounts and published guidance for local community funds which will be received by communities and individuals living near new transmission network infrastructure. Delivering energy bill savings is a priority for this Government and the actions to transform our electricity network are a major contributor to ensuring that the cost of living is brought down. Delivering an expanded and transformed electricity network for 2030 will prevent an escalation in the constraints caused when grid capacity is insufficient to transport renewable generation. In the longer term, the decarbonised energy system will deliver lower energy costs to consumers, as we remove ourselves from the risk of the volatile price of fossil fuels. If gas prices today were at pre-crisis levels, bills for families would be £200 a year lower than they are at the moment.
I now want to answer some of the questions I was asked. If I do not answer them all, I will make sure that we scour Hansard and get back to noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said that if I could answer his question in five seconds, that would be great. I am afraid that I am not going to be able to do that, but if I do not answer the questions, we will get back to noble Lords with the answers in writing. I shall just go through the questions noble Lords asked, one by one.
To respond to some of the points made in the debate, starting with those raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, network infrastructure is not very expensive but brings a lot of value. Network infrastructure costs have historically been 12% of the average bill. To pay for this current transformation, network costs are currently 13% of the bill. Reducing delays in construction and reforming connections could bring forward £90 billion of wider investment over the next 10 years and avoid between £4 billion and £5 billion of constrained costs in 2030. Investment in networks and the generation it connects could amount to £200 billion by 2030.
On zonal pricing, first, there is a fairness principal. We looked hard at whether a zonal system could be introduced without passing the impact on to consumers. The conclusion was that it could be possible to protect domestic consumers, although it would be very difficult, but some businesses would be left exposed to unfair energy prices. Secondly, we looked at affordability. The transition into zonal pricing would have created at least seven years of uncertainty, putting a risk premium on new investment that could have caused bills to rise in the short term. The Government recognise the pressures facing local planning authorities and are investing £46 million in 2025-26 to strengthen their capacity and capability to deliver planning reform.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, raised the strategic spatial energy plan and its publication date. The plan is expected in 2026 and will be published independent of government by the National Energy Systems Operator. On the point raised by the noble Baroness about the wider network, the Government do not plan to develop the electricity network; this is undertaken by network companies based on the strategic planning of the National Energy Systems Operator. The Government set the rules for a robust and independent planning process, and all projects are required to progress through a thorough consultation which communities can participate in.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, also raised a point about projects dropped in the process. Those that are not initially offered a confirmed connection date will be able to reapply when they are ready and may benefit from capacity freed up through these reforms. Viable generation projects above the 2030 capacity ranges may still be able to connect in 2030 if there is spare capacity after pre-2030 projects have been assessed. If no capacity is available before 2030, these projects will be offered connection dates in the 2031 to 2035 period. If a viable project extends the 2035 capacity range, they will receive an indicative offer with opportunities to join the queue in future through twice yearly application windows where gaps emerge.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made a point about grid connections, gate 2 connection processes, and asked specific questions about providing confidence to projects to enable them to engage with the supply chain. I will write to him in detail on the issues he raised.
On the wider point about cost, the vast majority of the bill is for the wholesale cost of energy. Network companies are closely regulated to ensure that their rate of return delivers value for money to bill payers. The scale and pace of this transformation is unprecedented in terms of investment.
To the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, I add my appreciation for the work of the National Energy Systems Operator. On his questions about zonal pricing, as I said earlier in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, the Government looked closely at zonal pricing and felt there were principles around fairness and affordability that made us decide to not go down that route.
Reforming the national market will combine the collaboration of appropriate planning and pricing to support the building of new energy sources in the best locations. The power grid can grow to provide the energy we need. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, made an insightful point about the history of the electrification of the UK. The network was last transformed in the 1960s and has been underinvested in since privatisation. Now, as new generation sources are increasingly far from centres of demand, the network is being expanded and upgraded to meet our changing generation profile and the anticipated increase in electricity demand. We are changing our entire energy system to benefit the whole country: some change will be inevitable.
The last energy system, dominated by coal, changed certain parts of the country and communities enormously in ways still felt today. In this transition, we are working with communities in recognising the impact on network infrastructure through community benefits and bill discount funds. Across the entire transition, the department’s clean energy jobs plan outlined efforts to double the number of jobs in clean energy by 2030 from 400,000 to 800,000 jobs. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, draws an interesting line between the Central Electricity Board and what we are now asking of NESO. We once again have a strong, central, single-minded and independently operated system, as the noble Lord mentioned.
The National Energy System Operator in its new role, following our acquisition of it from National Grid plc, will be and already is an indispensable asset, in our drive not only to ensure the planning, operation and rollout of the network but to be critical, as seen through the complex work of connections reform, to the whole clean power 2030 target, ensuring value for bill payers. This can be done only though the establishment of an independent expert system operator, which, as my noble friend Lord Chandos noted, has already made a significant impact in the short number of months that it has had its new, wide-ranging brief. We will write with further details of the specifications of its acquisitions.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, made a point about pylons. System design is and will remain based on raw carbon-generated electricity. Hydrogen may well have a role in the wider energy transmission. However, the demands of the economy require a clean, efficient and fast network for electricity transmission to ensure that homes and businesses and therefore growth have the power that they need at all times. It is clear that electricity is the system that can enable this. Not all projects being built on the network are pylons; many are upgrades to existing infrastructure, while several enormous projects will run offshore.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, raises an important point on local energy. The Government recognise that local energy will be of great importance to this work. Great British Energy is already looking at how it can be more closely supportive of local schemes, including the recent work to install solar panels on the estates of schools and hospitals. We will look to take forward its local energy schemes.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised planning—grid connections and the need for forward looking—which the Government are doing in partnership with the National Energy System Operator and Ofgem. On his views on zonal pricing, I welcome his support for the decision and the reformed national pricing system, which will look to strike the right balance for the country, with the delivery plan on the reformed national pricing due before the new year. The noble Earl also asked about AI tools as well as the energy code in this space, and I shall write to him on those issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Offord, pointed out the assessment of other approaches driving net-zero ambition. I would point to the cost of not doing this. We need to get off wholesale prices and volatile fossil fuels to protect consumers, but also future generations. This transformed grid and energy system will let us connect and transport our own homegrown clean energy and get us off the rollercoaster of global gas prices, create good jobs, support economic growth and bring down bills, tackling the climate crisis.
The Government are determined to increase the share of renewables on the system so that the electricity price is set by cheaper clean power sources, rather than gas. Every wind turbine that we switch on and solar panel that we deploy helps to push gas off as the price setter. Government support, such as the contracts for difference scheme, has been highly successful in driving investment and renewable electricity, and our clean power 2030 mission is focusing on accelerating the transition to a renewable power system. This will help to reduce reliance on gas and protect consumers from volatile fossil fuel prices.
The Government are determined to increase the share of renewables on the system, so that the electricity price is set by cheaper clean power sources rather than by gas. Every wind turbine we switch on is well worth it to help to keep down bills. Government support, such as the contracts for difference scheme, has also been very successful.
In conclusion, this Government are committed to the biggest transformation of our electricity infrastructure in a generation. We must confront the tough and responsible decisions that need to be taken without delay. While the challenges are significant, we are already meeting them. We can secure clean power, protect households from price shocks and harness these opportunities to deliver growth. I wish to thank committee members for their thorough and dedicated attention to this most critical matter and reiterate the Government’s dedication to transforming this country’s electricity network.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking everyone for their contributions, and for the fact that the report has had a generally very good reception. The debate has been quite wide-ranging, and we have gone into very granular detail on some occasions, but we have not lost sight of the big picture, which is extremely important. The electricity grid is of fundamental importance to so much of what the Government want to achieve in future, and to so much of what this country actually needs.
As the Minister said, there have been decades of underinvestment, and we need to give urgent attention to this, partly for the resilience of what we have at the moment, because we know we could be vulnerable to outages. We need to meet our net-zero target, and we know that the growth agenda is very much dependent on getting this right, so far as the grid and energy supply is concerned. The grid, the connections and the investment that is needed really have to go right before we can meet all the objectives of resilience, net zero and growth. Part of that, as we have touched on today, is giving confidence to the industry and investors that they can have clarity and stability in the guidance that is coming out from government. That is one reason why we pressed for the Government to be clear about the guidance that they are giving to Ofgem.
I think we are all agreed that the direction of travel is the correct one. I know that the Minister welcomed much that was in our report, apart from zonal pricing. I understand why the Government are reluctant to have change upon change, because there are many moving factors here, all at work at the same time. But we will have to look forward to what Ministers are going to say on pricing and reforming the system, because that is going to be quite important. Mention was made of the Statement yesterday, and I think it is important that we get a comprehensive approach, rather than one where the Government come along every so often and bail out industries that have particular problems with energy. I know that my noble friend Lady Anderson very much appreciates what was done for the Potteries, but I do not think we can go from one lurch of bailing people out to another: we need a comprehensive change.
We have talked about big changes, but actually there have been some small changes that have been very significant, such as having deemed consent when a substation wants to increase capacity. There are many minor things like that, which could be done to help the situation. In fact, we are saying that all these things—connections, planning, skills—are important, but we have to maintain the pace of this change and we have to make sure that we keep industry consulted and on board to have everybody working in the same direction and at the necessary speed. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and commend the report.
Elon Musk
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dubs
To ask His Majesty’s Government how they intend to respond to the comments made by Elon Musk during his speech to a demonstration in London on Saturday 13 September.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
Freedom of speech is a vital democratic right, but it is not without its limits. Elon Musk’s remarks, particularly those which appeared to suggest that the public resort to violence, were wholly inappropriate. We will always defend free expression but never tolerate language that incites disorder.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, while I fully support my noble friend’s comments about freedom of expression, sometimes people go a bit too far. Is it not a fact that Elon Musk has posted that civil war is inevitable in this country and that the USA should liberate the people of Britain from their tyrannical Government?
Lord Dubs (Lab)
I wondered how that would go down. What action can we take about the use of social media that abuses freedom of expression? Perhaps we should declare Elon Musk persona non grata if he ever wanted to come to this country.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend; personally, I just ignore Elon Musk. We had an election, and we had 400-plus Labour Members of Parliament elected. I stand here because the people of Great Britain have chosen a Labour Government. We have a duty to deliver what we can. The people of Great Britain, and not some billionaire foreigner, will choose the next Government in perhaps three and a half or four years’ time, so I suggest that he buys a book on the British constitution out of his money, reads it, understands how we work and minds his own business.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I declare that I am CEO of Muslim Women’s Network, which has just set up the Muslim Safety Net helpline. What are the Government doing to protect the safety of Muslim women, who are very vulnerable to hate crime? So far, they have announced protection for mosques, which is welcome, but what about the safety of Muslim women? Why do the Government not care about the safety of Muslim women?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. The Government care about the safety of all women, and that is why we are putting in place a strategy to tackle violence against women and girls over the next 10 years. That strategy will be produced very shortly. I know that the noble Baroness has made representations to me and others about what it should contain. It is important that we defend people’s right to live their life in peace without interference, and I include interference in this case from Elon Musk, who has no mandate in this country and no interest in this country’s future, and who should, quite frankly, stay in the States and count his cash.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I am no lawyer, but I am told that calling the left “the party of murder” and saying, “Violence is coming” and
“You either fight back or you die”
is not enough to prosecute this odious man, but we do not have to do business with him, do we? Ed Davey says that we should rule out any further contracts with Tesla and stop Musk being granted a licence to supply energy to British homes. Will the Government at least agree with me and not make him even richer at the expense of the people whom he is maligning?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government can look at any time at contract issues, but I would not wish to equate Mr Musk and his comments, which I also find reprehensible, with doing business—that is an important point to make. We have relations with the American Government and American business, but I think he overstepped the mark and this House probably thinks he overstepped the mark. Perhaps he should reflect and look at what we are, which is, in this Parliament, an active democracy representing the people, challenging each other on fair and open decisions, criticising when necessary, but not inciting the mob to violence.
Lord Ranger (Con)
My Lords, in the run-up to 13 September, numerous messages were sent around on WhatsApp groups to people in the Asian community warning them not to go into London on the day of the march. I felt desperately sad seeing those messages. It reminded me of days in the 1980s when communities would not go out at night, and I would not be allowed out in the evenings, because we were worried. That all came back on that day. I admire the businesses of Elon Musk but not what he did on that day, aligning himself to the far-right racist platform of an individual he was sharing the platform with. Will the Government look at what can be done on an individual basis to say to Elon Musk that this was not the right thing to do, not just in itself but in the damage done to the community cohesion of this country—which is not the Britain that we are?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Absolutely. The Britain I know is tolerant, understands different religions and different cultures, respects and celebrates those different cultures, and supports a multicultural society. There were people on that demonstration who do not share that value or that objective. That is not about people wanting to raise flags or express their patriotism. True patriotism is about celebrating this United Kingdom. Elon Musk’s remarks were wrong. The people who stepped over the line in that demonstration and injured police officers were wrong. The incitement to that, which I think Mr Musk was on the border of doing, is absolutely wrong. However, ultimately, it is for the police independently to make a judgment on any action taken against him in the event that he visits this country.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, would not a period of silence from Mr Musk be most welcome, particularly when he seeks to give an opinion on our domestic affairs? Why give him the dignity of a response?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I would certainly welcome much silence from Mr Musk, but, again, I would defend his right to have his opinion; I just do not agree with it. It is not for somebody in his position to ally himself with individuals who are trying to destroy much of the fabric of British society by their comments, nor is it appropriate for him to express his views via some new-fangled machinery down the line to the United Kingdom. We are a democracy; we know what we are doing. Members opposite disagree with us, but all people in this society have a chance to judge the Government, and they voted for the Government less than 15 or 16 months ago.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Could the Minister arrange for a copy of this part of Hansard to be sent to Elon Musk?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I fear that I will be a star of Twitter, or X, before the evening is finished; I will probably be retweeted to thousands of people who will take a different view from me. I stand here not because I am me but because I am a representative of an elected Government who have won a clear majority and who ultimately will have to defend their record to the same people who elected them.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, for the last month or so, members of the Sikh community in the West Midlands have been experiencing deeply distressing incidents. Two Sikh girls were reportedly victims of racially motivated sexual assault, and two Sikh taxi drivers were violently attacked at Wolverhampton railway station. Understandably, many Sikh women are now fearful of going about their daily lives, and the community as a whole is living in fear. What assurance can the Minister give to the Sikh community in the West Midlands that their safety and security are a priority for this Government? Can he outline what specific steps are being taken to protect them and bring the perpetrators of these hate crimes to justice?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his question. As with the noble Baroness’s question on Muslim women earlier, it is absolutely important that people are not attacked for a characteristic that they cannot change. Part of the problem with the approach of Mr Musk is that he plays to people who wish to generate activity against special-characteristic individuals—who have a view politically or who have characteristics such as being Muslim or being from the Sikh community. My noble friend will know that the Policing Minister is meeting Sikh MPs this afternoon to learn about the challenges they are facing and to provide reassurance and will, no doubt, report back to my noble friend as well.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, we have just had 10 minutes of people on the Government Benches saying why they disagree with Elon Musk. Do not basic fairness and reciprocity imply that he has an equivalent right to say what he thinks about this Government, including that free speech is in retreat in this country, which is a view shared by a great many people in the United Kingdom?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Let me find the actual comment, if I may. Does the noble Lord then agree with the following comment from Elon Musk, which he portrayed down the television line to the rally?
“You’re in a fundamental situation here. Whether you choose violence or not, violence is coming to you. You either fight back or you die”.
That might be free speech, but I regard it as borderline incitement to violence. I do not think it is the part of Elon Musk or anybody else to incite violence in America or, indeed, in the United Kingdom. I will defend having that free speech, but I hope that the noble Lord recognises that free speech brings responsibilities and Elon Musk did not have that responsibility on that day.
Energy Market Reforms
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Russell
To ask His Majesty’s Government what further consideration they have given to the case for energy market reforms following their decision not to implement zonal pricing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the review of electricity markets arrangements has concluded. This Government have decided to retain a national electricity market pricing regime and have established a programme called reformed national pricing. The purpose of the new programme is to deliver a cohesive package of reforms to improve the efficiency of our future power system. We will publish further detail on the reformed national pricing later this year, which will give market participants and investors clarity on our approach.
Earl Russell (LD)
We still have some of the highest energy prices in Europe. Does the Minister agree with me that reducing the costs of energy for everyone has to be an absolute priority? What progress is being made on producing a clear programme to redistribute energy levies, and will the Government examine in detail the Greenpeace policy proposals to remove gas plants into a regulated asset base, which it is claimed could save £5.1 billion a year by 2028?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Delivering lower bills and a secure energy supply for families and businesses is absolutely at the heart of what we are trying to achieve through these reforms, particularly with moving towards renewables—that homegrown renewable energy sprint, as we are calling it—in order to get where we can as quickly as we can. The quicker we reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, the more quickly we can reduce bills and do more about getting off the gas grid, which I think is at the heart of the noble Earl’s second question. Of course, the Government are always happy to look at contributions from different groups and NGOs, but the important thing is that we focus on that transition to renewable energies to bring those bills down.
Lord Naseby (Con)
On energy market reforms, should His Majesty’s Government not take advantage of the news that the North Sea oil reserves are now considerably higher than anticipated, and of a better quality and cheaper than imports of gas and oil, and therefore help to bring down energy prices?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I have just said, the Government’s focus to bring down energy prices is moving away from reliance on fossil fuels, and I am sure the noble Lord is aware that oil is a fossil fuel. Our focus is on moving to a more renewable energy market, to take away that reliance and bring down energy bills through that route.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, I hope my noble friend the Minister can assure me that the Government are still very focused on helping with the development of small modular nuclear reactors and that she will ensure that they are built in this country —for example, in places such as Sheffield Forgemasters.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the question. Nuclear energy is part of the Government’s strategy in order to have sufficient energy for this country and to move away from gas power stations, for example. Personally, I am keen on small modular reactors: they are very important as part of our nuclear energy mix. I know that colleagues of mine in Cumbria have been pressing that we should have them there, as well as in Sheffield.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my interest as honorary president of National Energy Action. The warm home discount—for those households in greatest fuel poverty—has remained at £300 for the last few years. What plans do the Government have to increase that figure so that the poorest, most fuel-impoverished households will receive more money off their bills?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, it is absolutely critical that we support families who struggle to pay their electricity bills. We do not want people to be cold in the winter. I am not aware of any plans to increase that payment at the moment; I will get back to the noble Baroness if I am wrong. It is important to bring down bills but also to work with energy companies on their support for vulnerable customers, because there is a role for energy companies to play in that aspect.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of Peers for the Planet. In response to the Government’s Carbon Budget and Growth Delivery Plan published last week, Nigel Topping, the chair of the Government’s statutory Climate Change Committee, said:
“Our number one recommendation remains to make electricity cheaper. This means taking policy costs off electricity bills”.
Does the Minister agree?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I have said, one of our key priorities is to reduce bills for consumers, particularly for vulnerable customers. We will look at all aspects of how best to do that.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, energy companies made £30 billion profit last year, which is over £500 per household. This fuels inflation and poverty. Some 128,000 people die in fuel poverty each year. There is an urgent need to end profiteering by excluding gas-generated electricity from Ofgem’s marginal pricing formula. Can the Minister explain why, after 35 years, Ofgem’s pricing formula has not been reformed?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend asks about marginal pricing and refers to gas, because gas and electricity prices have been coupled together for many years. The market currently operates on the principle of marginal pricing, and the cost of electricity often tracks the cost of gas because gas generation frequently sets the wholesale price. It is a complex area. There are good reasons why the electricity market operates on that basis. Comparable countries tend to operate in this way as well. Over time, we need to rely less on gas, which means that electricity prices will become increasingly detached from the price of gas and be more frequently set by other generation, such as renewables. We see that as the way to bring prices down to support vulnerable people and to enable them to pay their bills. That is why our focus is on increasing renewable energy.
Lord Swire (Con)
Increasing the capacity of the grid —particularly bringing more offshore power onshore—will see a dramatic escalation in the number of overhead power lines to distribute the power, as well as more onshore substations. Given the huge profits made by some of the energy companies, what are the Government doing to mitigate the visual impact of this increase in energy distribution? Can these energy companies not be invited to contribute towards a fund that will see, where possible, the burial of overhead power lines?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
There are two aspects to this. There is the National Grid, and in Scotland there is ScottishPower. We also have the district network operators, so we have different levels of pylons. It is not quite as straightforward as having a simple pot. The important thing is that we build the renewable energy that we need. We also need to look at battery storage. Not all electricity generation needs to be connected up through power lines. The last figures I saw on burying power lines showed it to be about 11 times more expensive. It depends where they are—through a national park, for example—and what the current situation is. It is important that we have the renewable energy connection, and we want to bring down prices, but we must build the connections in the right place. Connections are not just built in a straight line. Electricity companies spend a long time ensuring that the route chosen is the best one: they talk to people. This is part of creating the renewable energy future that we need.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, alongside decarbonisation, one way to reduce prices for many people would be to encourage them to use flexible electricity? In other words, through battery storage and other modern techniques, consumers can be encouraged to use electricity at a time of abundance and thereby reduce their bills. The Government set up a task force this summer. Does my noble friend the Minister believe that it can spearhead reform in this area?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I just mentioned battery storage, so that is a very appropriate question from my noble friend. As I said, over the summer we announced our decision not to introduce zonal pricing and, instead, to implement this ambitious package of reforms to improve the effectiveness of our current national pricing model. We will publish more detail later this year—including on the role of flexible assets such as storage and consumer-led flexibility in addressing constraints, because flexibility will be a critical part of lowering costs and achieving our clean power ambitions. We recently published the Clean Flexibility Roadmap, which contains a comprehensive, actionable plan for unlocking the kind of greater flexibility to which my noble friend refers.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, the decision not to implement zonal pricing will mean the continuation of payments to turn off wind farms when they produce excess power, which are projected to reach £8 billion by 2030. Given the scale of this, and following on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton, asked, do His Majesty’s Government agree that they should focus their efforts on securing a baseload of energy by investing in nuclear power in order to offset the strain placed on wind farms?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We need both. We need renewable energy—I have talked about including wind farms and solar, for example—but that baseload of nuclear power is also important. That is why we are also investing in nuclear and making commitments to nuclear power. It is about finding a balance and getting both, because we need to make sure that we have sustainable, secure energy for the future.
Official Development Assistance
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they intend to announce the Official Development Assistance programme allocations for 2026–27.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, noting my registration in the Register of Lords’ Interests, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government will publish the multiyear official development assistance programme allocations for 2026-27 and 2028-29 in the coming months. These allocations will be informed by consultation and impact assessments, and will provide greater predictability for delivery partners as we transition to spending 0.3% of GNI on ODA by 2027. The UK remains committed to international development and is modernising its approach in order to deliver greater impact, value for money and transparency.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer and her engagement on this difficult set of decisions over recent months. There are those who are already suggesting that the drastic cuts announced earlier this year should be supplemented by further cuts in the Chancellor’s Budget, which will be announced at the end of this month. Can the Minister provide any reassurance that this will not, in fact, be the case and that, although we will still have a challenge, we will at least be working within the budget that was announced previously? Do the Minister and the Government recognise that those who are most affected by conflict, violence and instability are those who suffer from the least development and the worst circumstances? In the new, reduced budget, will there be priority for conflict-affected and fragile states, a focus on those states, and a specific budget for conflict prevention and peace- building, which can help us ensure that peace leads to development?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I completely agree with my noble friend about the impact of conflict on populations. We see this in Gaza, Yemen, Sudan and Myanmar. He is absolutely right to draw our attention to that. We focus a great deal on our work in fragile states and speak with our friends in the World Bank to keep them engaged in fragile contexts to make sure that they—who have far more money than we will ever have through an ODA programme—invest in these countries, as that really matters. However, I am going to disappoint my noble friend, in that I will not comment on the forthcoming Budget. I do not know what is in it; I am not expecting any further decisions to reduce our development assistance, but I do not think it would be wise for me to speculate at this stage.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, we all know that women and girls are disproportionately affected by conflict. There are, I think, about 116 conflicts raging around the world. The UK is a penholder for the women, peace and security agenda at the UN Security Council. We talk about leading the world on this agenda. Can the Minister reassure the House that we will continue to support women in conflict and not cut support to them at this time?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is vital, particularly at the moment, when many of our ideas and values regarding women are being challenged internationally, but we are determined that our work to support women will continue. We want to see this reflected through everything we do, and we are working on the detail of how we responsibly mainstream our work on gender throughout our programming. That is part of the story, but the other thing we need to do is to use our voice and influence internationally to make it clear that our position on these issues remains constant, even though others may change.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, given the impact of cuts in aid and the advance of Russia and China as funders in developing countries, will the Government seek an urgent initiative to promote public and private debt relief to ease the burden in those countries? Will they also do more aid matching to engage the British public, and work with the private sector to encourage development-led partnerships between the public and private sectors?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The private sector has an enormous role to play, and we have a responsibility to enable that to happen in a far larger way than it has in the past. I am leading an emerging markets and developing economies task force with the City of London; we have big players around the table, including the ratings agencies, HSBC and Aviva. We are seeing real success in breaking down the barriers to get that investment into developing economies.
The noble Lord is right to raise the issue of debt. Some countries spend far more on debt repayment than they do on health and education public services. That is not sustainable and we need a solution. Various options are available, and we support all of them to find which are most appropriate for the different nature of debt, to which the noble Lord alluded, in 2025.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, when the noble Baroness publishes the ODA allocations in the coming months, will she tell us how much of that money, instead of being spent to help the poorest people in the world, is in fact being used to fund tax cuts in Mauritius under the Chagos surrender deal?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think the Chamber speaks for me on that. Our development assistance is all about supporting the poorest people in the world and empowering them to enable them to develop and support themselves, alongside our life-saving humanitarian assistance.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, talked about supporting nations and communities in conflict. I hope that the Minister will also focus on challenging areas, such as access to education for women and girls, particularly in the most challenging parts of the world—for example, Afghanistan and Pakistan. We have to continue to support those women because the men who govern Afghanistan, in particular, do their best to stop girls getting access to education.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that in Afghanistan in particular—but not only Afghanistan—there are real problems in accessing education for girls. We will continue to support work on that in those places. More widely on education, especially for girls, the best thing we can do is support countries to strengthen their own education system so that they are able to educate their children and that girls get the protection that access to education provides. We look not only at access but at quality and standards so that, when a girl has completed her education, she has a good standard of literacy and is able to move on, support herself, and contribute to her community and country in the way that so many women want.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the previous Government established women mediator networks; I gave evidence recently to the IDC on this. In agreeing with my noble friend Lady Hodgson, I offer a suggestion in a practical and positive way. We really need to empower those women mediator networks because, as the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, who raised this Question, said, avoiding conflict at its beginning is crucial. When women are involved, conflicts are resolved quicker and peace lasts longer. Can we please make sure that those mediator networks are working to their fullest capacity?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for raising that point and in a constructive way, as he always does on these occasions, and for the experience which he brings. The initiative he describes has a lot of merit and I will look into it. He is absolutely right to point to the pivotal role of women in these situations.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, while we are on the theme of supporting women, as I travel around I find that one of the greatest impairments to young girls completing their education is that they are forced into pregnancy—sometimes by their families—at a very young age, pre leaving school. What can His Majesty’s Government do to help prevent young girls being made pregnant, usually by older men and in very difficult circumstances?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We know that the single most significant protective factor against that is education and being in school. We work with countries to try to enable that. Separately, I think that we are now the largest contributor to the UNFPA, which distributes contraceptive devices and products. Those do not always reach the people that the right reverend Prelate talks about, of course, so the work that we do on education is incredibly significant when it comes to preventing what none of us wants to see: very young girls starting their families sometimes years before they would have finished their education.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much for her warm words about education, which I am sure all of us in this Chamber would echo and welcome. Can she also please bear in mind the absolute centrality and importance of education when the replenishment conferences roll around next year for the Global Campaign for Education and Education Cannot Wait?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think my noble friend means the Global Partnership for Education. They are both incredibly effective and we have to think how we best support our work on education. I think that the best thing we can do is work with other Governments, strengthening systems and enabling them to take the lead themselves. That is the most sustainable approach. Education Cannot Wait works in disaster situations, where a more standardised approach to education is just not feasible. That is very different and it is vital that that work continues.
Artificial Intelligence: Safeguarding
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berger
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following recent reports by Open AI that many people have exhibited signs of suicidal ideation or other mental health emergencies while messaging a generative artificial intelligence chatbot, whether they have plans to safeguard such individuals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, safeguarding people experiencing suicidal ideation or a mental health crisis is a priority. We recognise the growing use of generative AI chatbots and the potential risks that they can pose, particularly when people seek support during moments of acute distress. Whether content is created by AI or humans, the Online Safety Act places robust duties on all in-scope services, including those deploying chatbots, to prevent users encountering illegal suicide and self-harm content.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, ChatGPT is giving British teens dangerous advice on suicide, eating disorders and substance abuse. A report from the Center for Countering Digital Hate found that, within two minutes, the AI platform would advise a 13 year-old how to safely cut themselves; within 40 minutes, it would list the required pills for an overdose; and, after 72 minutes, it would generate suicide notes. Can my noble friend confirm that Ofcom will treat ChatGPT and other chatbots as search engines under the Online Safety Act, and assure the House that the regulator has both the powers and the will to enforce the protection of children code when it comes to generative AI platforms such as ChatGPT?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend describes a disturbing situation. The independent regulator, Ofcom, has made it quite clear that if an AI service searches the live internet and returns results, it will be regulated under the Online Safety Act as a search service. Ofcom can take robust enforcement action, including issuing fines of up to £18 million or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is higher.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Team Domenica. The people who most need safeguarding from these AI chatbots are those with learning disabilities. In Brighton and Hove, we work closely with the police, who train our candidates how to be safe online. Will the Minister consider special training for police and social workers to protect this highly vulnerable and suggestible cohort?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I understand the need for training, as the noble Baroness rightly outlines, but I would emphasise that AI chatbots are in scope of the Act, as I mentioned just now to my noble friend. What matters is the fact that they actually search the live internet. The point the noble Baroness raises is very important, and it is also about literacy in terms of using the internet, equipping individuals to try to stay safe, and safeguarding those who are more vulnerable, as she describes; training is certainly part of that.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I have consulted ChatGPT on this. It calls me “dear Ruth”, and it says that when people write to it about suicide, it responds with empathy and compassion. It does not encourage suicide, and it sends a guide to human support. I do not want to make light of this or condemn it outright. On the contrary, there may be something to be said, certainly at a light level, for unhappy people consulting ChatGPT. I do not want to discourage or limit freedom of speech any further than it is already limited. There may be some help for people in ChatGPT.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a helpful challenge about how to regard AI services. Generative AI can indeed offer opportunities to enhance mental health support, and the National Health Service is looking at how we can, particularly through the NHS app, assist and support people. But such technologies must not replace trained professionals, including in crisis situations. It is about getting the right support, at the right place, at the right time—that is a delicate balance, but we should use AI for its great benefits.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, following on from the previous question and drawing on international best practice, will the Government look at what they can do to mandate that all general-purpose AI providers implement a prominent, context-sensitive hard stop and clear immediate signposting to UK mental health services when a user’s input suggests a high-risk mental health keyword or suicidal intent?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very useful suggestion, and I will certainly raise that with my ministerial colleague at DSIT. I note that companies—admittedly, they are doing this when under pressure—are looking at introducing, for example, age assurance functionalities to ensure that users get the right experience for their age. But we should not be leaving that to chance, and we should not be leaving that to the fact that this is arising following legal challenge. I certainly look forward to looking into the point the noble Lord makes.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, is there an analogy with drugs here—a potent technology which has great and positive uses in healthcare, but that can also be abused? Therefore, it must be properly regulated. Some uses must not be allowed without prior approval; some should be banned.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend is right that this can be used for good or for ill. Of course, there are other comparisons to draw. My noble friend has not said this, but I want to make sure we keep away from the idea that AI services are escaping regulation. Many AI chatbots are certainly in scope of the Act. I also take the view that AI can actually assist us greatly in supporting those at risk and in improving health. We seek to harness that as we move from analogue to digital, as per our 10-year plan.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, for bringing up this issue and for making noble Lords aware of it. With evidence that people with mental health issues are increasingly turning to AI chatbots rather than to health providers, and rather than simply relying on the stick of the Online Safety Act, can the Minister explain what conversations her department, perhaps in conjunction with DSIT, is having with AI companies and with UKAI, the trade body, so they can come together to find a solution for safeguarding? As the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, have said, perhaps they could suggest how to deal with individuals in distress who go to these chatbots, to make sure they are signposted to appropriate services, rather than offered content that encourages them to take their own life.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I certainly agree that this is the way we need to go, and discussions happen regularly with companies, as the noble Lord says. It is probably also worth saying that we have already seen some early signs of improvement in terms of protection for users from online harms, and over 6,000 services are implementing what we would regard as highly effective age assurance, which brings protection to millions of children. Of course, DSIT is monitoring and evaluating the Online Safety Act. Where evidence shows that further intervention is needed to protect children, we will not hesitate to act.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, digital mental health technologies with clinical purposes are classified by MHRA as medical devices. Therefore, what action can the Government take, working with MHRA and Ofcom, to ensure that these chatbots actually promote suicide prevention policies and do not act as suicide promotion sites?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The first thing is to ensure the application of the Online Safety Act, and we look to Ofcom in that regard. We will increase access to evidence-based digital interventions, to help patients access treatment in a variety of ways but also potentially to reduce unnecessary GP appointments and A&E attendances, as well as assisting people who are waiting for treatment to wait well.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, is there not a wider lesson here that many young people are turning to ChatGPT instead of calling their GP for health advice? Have the Government reviewed how they communicate different health information, particularly to the younger generation? Are they talking to the younger generation through the channels that they are using?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Sadly, I cannot say I am young myself, so I cannot testify to this, but the answer to that is yes, the department does that. I refer to the point that the noble Baroness has emphasised: over a third of five to seven year-olds are using social media in 2025, and that proportion rises as young children get older. We ignore this at our peril. I assure the noble Baroness that the Online Safety Act is providing support, as are the digital interventions that we are providing through the NHS, in particular, the improved NHS app.
Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Sudan: Protection of Civilians
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the massacre at the El Fasher hospital and the surrounding city was deeply shocking. I know that the British embassy in Khartoum is temporarily closed, but can the Minister confirm what consular support, if any, the department can provide in Sudan? Can she confirm whether any British nationals have been affected in any of these attacks?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
We are not aware that any British nationals have been affected in these attacks.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, Tom Fletcher, the head of UN OCHA, told the United Nations Security Council that there was indifference and resignation among the UN Security Council members. As the UK is the penholder for this crisis, we must take our share of the responsibility. Some 90% of children in Sudan are out of education, and 24 million people—40% of the population—lack sufficient food. We have been horrified by the scenes, most recently in El Fasher, that are in brazen defiance of Security Council Resolution 2736, passed in 2024, for the protection of civilians. In July, I asked the Minister what steps were being made by the UK for enforcing that resolution. She said she wondered what the point is of having these resolutions if they are not enforced. That resolution gave the Security Council authority for enforcement measures. What tangible steps is the UK, as penholder, taking to mobilise the protection of civilians, which is authorised in the UN charter and, specifically, in this resolution?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I stand by what I said. These resolutions and statements are helpful in many ways, but, unless they change things on the ground, I believe that we are failing. I wonder sometimes where the liberal outrage is for Sudan that we see for other places. There are many reasons why that might be the case, but a lack of attention and focus from this Government at the UN or anywhere else is not one of them. I led an event at the UN General Assembly just last month. We have been able to get the fact-finding mission off the ground and we are spending £120 million in ODA. On Saturday, I spoke to the Chadian Government about ensuring that the crossings remain open for refugees. We will continue to work with our partners and allies to get the focus on this conflict, where it really needs to be.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, I am one of those parliamentarians who had the chance of visiting Sudan and El Fasher some nine years ago as part of the parliamentary group led by the late Lord Sheikh. One of the things which inspired me to go there and find out more was that the information that we were getting in the Chamber in those days was that Omar Bashir’s air force was regularly killing so many people every week in that region. Once we got to Khartoum, we made a special request to go to El Fasher, in Darfur, and find out exactly what was going on. We spoke to the UN mission in Darfur, and what was surprising was that the information that we received there did not tally with the information that we were getting here. We raised it with our high commissioner there at the time and with the Government there. When we came back, the visiting group wrote a big report and submitted it to the Foreign Office, asking where the disparity in the information was coming from. With that backdrop, all I am asking today is whether we are making sure that the information we are getting is correct.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is a very good question. Information is very difficult to obtain. There are few, if any, journalists in Sudan now, and the information that we do get is difficult to verify. The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise that. What we do have is the first-hand accounts of those who have managed to escape, and their testimonies are harrowing to hear. As the truth emerges, I think the world will be horrified at what it is. We are hearing reports already, which we have confidence in, of what has happened in El Fasher, particularly at the hospital, and these are by far the most disturbing accounts that I have ever had to consider.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, it is very welcome that we are discussing Sudan in this Chamber. However, I have to say, following the reference to Tom Fletcher, that he is hardly a reliable source. He is the UN official who said that 14,000 babies were going to die of famine in Gaza within days, and he had to retract that. One cannot help but contrast the constructive and calm atmosphere to genocide, as I suppose it is, in Sudan with the hysteria on the streets when it comes to Gaza and Israel. There are no marching students, there are no protests in universities, and there is no hot-tempered exchange in either Chamber. We need to be even-handed. The casualties and dispossessed people in Sudan greatly outnumber those of Gaza.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am slightly surprised to hear the noble Baroness pronounce genocide, when she knows, and has supported our position, that we do not do that. That is for a competent court to do. Tom Fletcher is an outstanding leader of OCHA. He clarified what he said, as he needed to, on the occasion that she alludes to. He did the right thing, and I think that speaks well of him. The way that he is leading his organisation and drawing attention to what is happening in Sudan, and putting the resources at his disposal in the right place, speak very highly of him. He has our complete support.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, following my noble friend’s question, after the massacre in Rwanda the United Nations adopted the responsibility to protect resolution. It does not seem to have had any meaningful impact. I understand the Minister’s position, but the question is this: what on earth is the practical measure that can happen? People are desperate and trapped—we do not know how many tens of thousands of people—hoping that somebody is going to come and relieve them, but there is no sign of international action. What can we do to get forces actually on the ground to ease the siege and release the suffering before it becomes a total disaster?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The politics at the UN have evolved in an unhelpful way, I think, since the genocide in Rwanda and the initiatives that followed. I do not think that that is where we will see what the noble Lord wants, which is troops on the ground keeping the peace. We do not have peace. We need everybody who has any kind of influence over either warring party to get those leaders in a room and get them to negotiate. We support all current efforts being taken to bring that about, not least through the United States and the Qataris, but they have so far been unsuccessful. Given what has happened in recent days, the prospects for that seem dimmer, not brighter, but we keep going. All I can say is that this Government will get behind any initiatives designed to bring about a ceasefire.
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)
We all know that part of the problem in Sudan is that what is going on is being funded by outside actors who have their own skin in the game and their own political and economic motivations. Can the Minister assure me that we are using our position to put pressure on those who are funding this outrageous war on the people of Sudan by these generals, and that we are doing everything possible to diminish that funding?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is the people of Sudan who are paying the price for this. I can assure the noble Baroness that we use every lever we can to put pressure where it is needed. Anybody who has any influence over either side has a duty and responsibility to use it to bring about a negotiated solution.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I watch the news every day. Sudan is almost never on the news, particularly yesterday and the day before, despite what is happening in El Fasher. Would it do any use to try to get better publicity in this country?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It very much would. This conflict needs to be much higher up the agenda, both here and internationally. There are several problems with bringing that about, one of which is the absence of sufficient numbers of journalists who can do their job. It would be enormously helpful if they could. I believe that there were some reports on Sky this morning, although I have not seen them yet. I absolutely agree that this issue has not had the profile that it needs and that we should try to get it at the forefront of the agenda.
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, the report of the Infected Blood Inquiry described this tragedy as
“the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS”.
Noble Lords across the House and Members in the other place have spoken time and again of the unimaginable suffering endured by those affected. There can be no doubt that this scandal represents a profound and repeated failure by the state, medical professionals and national institutions.
We should never lose sight of the fact that what we call the scandal was, in truth, the infliction, collectively, of grievous harm upon thousands of people by the state. It is now our solemn duty to ensure that such mistakes are never repeated, and that justice is delivered swiftly, fairly and fully to all who were affected. In that spirit, I thank the Minister for her continued time and engagement across the House.
I pay tribute to the work of Sir Brian Langstaff, the chair of the Infected Blood Inquiry. Earlier this year, that inquiry warned that there has been
“a repetition of the mistakes of the past”,
and that people have been “harmed yet further” since the establishment of the compensation scheme. Sir Brian concluded that the number of people compensated to date is “profoundly unsatisfactory” and has called for faster and fairer delivery of redress. The campaign group Tainted Blood estimates that at least 100 people have died while waiting for compensation since the inquiry’s final report last year, and Sir Brian has warned:
“Delay creates an injustice all of its own”.
We welcome the measures announced to implement some of Sir Brian’s recommendations, such as the HIV eligibility start dates and bereaved partner support scheme payments. The Minister confirmed that, as of 21 October, 2,476 people have received an offer of compensation and over £1.35 billion has been paid. However, as the BBC has reported, as many as 140,000 bereaved parents, children and siblings of victims may also be able to claim compensation, and the Government have set aside £11.8 billion to pay compensation to victims.
There is evidently still a great deal of work to be done to ensure that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority—IBCA—can scale up quickly and make payments to affected people, who will clearly be far larger in number for IBCA to deal with.
In recent weeks, further concerns have emerged that delays in paying compensation risk undermining one of the core principles of the scheme: how it is, or rather is not, taxed. Under the present arrangements, compensation received by a victim can be passed to their children free from inheritance tax. But for the thousands who have died before receiving payment, those sums will now pass through their estates to bereaved relatives, many of whom are themselves elderly. If they, too, die before receiving the funds, their families could face handing back almost 40% of that compensation to the state in inheritance tax.
A statement from the Association of Lifetime Lawyers says
“it is an outrage that a technical flaw will allow the Government to claw back up to 40 per cent of the compensation that was specifically intended to provide some redress”.
The Government have said that they are committed to making the system as fair and compassionate as possible and will continue to engage with victims and their families. I therefore urge the Minister to assure the House that the Government are aware of this problem and that they are looking into possible solutions.
As was noted in the other place, £140 million has now been spent on this inquiry after six years, and that figure will be greater once the accounts for this year have been released. The Minister in the other place said that he thinks we are now in an “exponential phase” where the scale of payments being made through IBCA is increasing. However, the concern is that we are stuck in this test-and-learn phase of delivery.
The mechanism for scaling up payments has been too slow and the reliance on repeated rounds of inquiries and tranches of recommendations has prevented swift action and compensation being delivered. It is right that we proceed with care and consideration, but we must not lose sight of the pressing need to deliver this process swiftly. The Government must strike a balance between acting responsibly and acting quickly. My right honourable friend John Glen made the point that we now need to
“focus on the delivery of IBCA, rather than have more iterations of recommendations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/10/25; col. 520.]
He is absolutely right. I therefore ask the Minister to ensure that the scaling-up process proceeds with the urgency that this situation so clearly demands.
Before I conclude my remarks, I have some further questions for the Minister. First, can the Minister confirm the Government’s current timetable for making full compensation payments to victims and families yet to receive them and whether that timetable remains consistent with Sir Brian Langstaff’s call for faster and fairer redress?
Secondly, what steps are IBCA and the Government taking to identify those individuals who are potentially recipients of compensation under the scheme and who may also be sick or elderly and are, as such, deserving of prioritisation in the processing of their claims?
Thirdly, will the Government commit to taking, as a matter of urgency, immediate steps to ensure that all infected blood compensation payments, whether made directly to victims or through estates, are entirely exempt from inheritance tax, regardless of the circumstances or timing of payment? In that vein, can the Minister confirm whether the Treasury has undertaken any assessment of the number of families likely to be affected by this tax anomaly and of the potential sums at stake if it is not corrected?
Fourthly, what action is the Minister taking with IBCA to ensure that the pace of payments, which has seen some welcome progress, continues to accelerate and is not jeopardised by changes to rules and processes? Can she confirm that IBCA has the right capability to scale up and that the staff are receiving the right training to deliver?
Fifthly and finally, can the Minister confirm when the recommendations from the proposed changes to the infected blood compensation scheme consultation will be implemented? I am aware that the consultation period ends in January, so when can we expect the practical implementation of these recommendations to be forthcoming?
The victims and their families have already been failed profoundly by the state. It is now our duty and our responsibility to make sure that there is no further injustice. Addressing the questions we have raised around delays, taxation, and the scalability of the system is imperative. I hope that the Minister can assure us that the Government are taking immediate steps to resolve these issues.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank all the infected and affected victims who have been in touch with me and other noble Lords in the last few weeks, not least since the consultation started and the independent review of the workings of IBCA was published. They are living the consequences of the scandal that the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, outlined at the beginning of her contribution, and the problem is that any delays or problems in the scheme retraumatise and revictimise them. Although I am grateful that the Government have been tackling some of the issues, there are still many outstanding; and while the numbers of those registering claims and receiving offers have begun to improve since we last met, there remain real concerns about the slowness of the deceased claims.
The phrase used is “to start by December 2025”, but that is a somewhat woolly timescale; it should not just be about starting. When is it expected that the claims process will be up and running at pace—a favourite phase of the Cabinet Office? Also, understanding that one has to use, test and learn in each different part of the compensation process, can the Minister say when things will be speeded up? It may be too early to ask if there is an end date in sight, but even an end year in sight for deceased claims would be very welcome.
Victims and groups have referred IBCA and the processes to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the House of Commons, so will both IBCA and the Cabinet Office co-operate fully with any requests for evidence that that Committee might seek?
I want to thank the Government for increasing transparency. We have over many years in your Lordships’ House been concerned about some of the secrecy about arrangements. A lot of this goes back 50 years, to when doctors were not very clear about their own arrangements and there certainly was no paperwork. But it is good that the names of the expert group and the minutes of its meetings are now published, and I hope there will continue to be more transparency about the arrangements.
I have a specific query about the arrangements for the assessment of severe mental health continuous treatment. Apparently, the Government are insisting on six months of continuous treatment as the benchmark, to justify the supplementary routes for mental health, but the NHS offers continuous treatment for only 20-week periods because there just are not enough counsellors and psychiatrists available to go round. As a result, there are inevitably gaps in treatment in order that other people can also be treated. To the victims, this feels like a barrier that none of them can get past. I wonder if the Minister could look at that problem.
There are concerns about the processing of deceased claims. I see that there is a proposal to have the first claim started. The victims continue to be very concerned about the Treasury and HMRC’s stance on inheritance tax, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, outlined. The Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners and the Association of Lifetime Lawyers have written a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, copied to the Paymaster-General, to point out that in their discussions with HMRC over the additional report on compensation, which Sir Brian Langstaff published earlier this year, they remain particularly concerned about this payment. The issue is that the Government have confirmed that compensation payments should be free from income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax, but, unfortunately, because of the way IHT operates, this principle is not being upheld consistently.
Here, there are three points. Where the infected or affected persons are alive when compensation is paid, they get a tax credit to ensure the sums are not later taxed in their estate. But where the victims or their loved ones have sadly died before receiving compensation, the payments flow through their estates without the benefits of such a credit. Their beneficiaries can therefore face IHT charges—in some cases at 40%—on compensation specifically designed to provide redress for a heinous act by many Governments over many years.
This so-called secondary transfer problem is particularly acute where compensation first passes to a surviving spouse or civil partner and then on to children or other relatives. In such cases, significant proportions of compensation are lost to tax. Throughout the inquiry, the last Government, and indeed this Government, made it clear that past benefits would not be called back out of settlement money. Surely the same must be true for the Treasury and HMRC. It would be iniquitous for an infected person to die, their settlement passing to their widow, who dies, say, within a month, but then anything passed on to their children is severely taxed. What is different about infected blood to a general principle on IHT is that entire families are badly affected by the experience of their loved one. This is not just in medical terms; we have to remember that they were also shunned in their communities, particularly those who had AIDS, losing homes and jobs because of ill health. It would be awful to punish them through that taxation.
Will the Minister agree to a meeting with Treasury to discuss this issue? It is not a good look for Treasury to give billions with one hand and then claw back with the other. I thank the Minister for the Statement and hope she will continue to keep your Lordships’ House informed of the progress and issues in the weeks to come, including the regulations that we will look at very shortly.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, I am, as ever, very grateful to the noble Baronesses for the thoughtful and productive points raised on this issue. It is very easy for Members of your Lordships’ House to get caught up in the politics of many issues, but on the issue of infected blood this has genuinely been a cross-party and cross-House approach, and I hope we will continue to adopt that theme. At the heart of everything that we are trying to do is to support the victims of one of the most heinous experiences the state has ever undertaken. We need to fix it, not only for them but also, as a Member of your Lordships’ House reminded us last time, to ensure that wider society can have faith that the state can be a force for good. I truly believe that it can.
I truly believe that, since I last updated the House in July, significant progress has been made. This demonstrates that we are committed to moving forward swiftly, and with the community at the front and centre of what we are doing. In other contexts, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and I have interesting discussions about the concept of test and learn. But truly, if we think about what we are trying to do, it is to compensate many thousands of people with up to £11.8 billion—although that is not a target or a goal, but the amount allocated currently. We are trying to get money out the door as quickly as possible to the people who need it. Test and learn has been an appropriate way to do that, to make sure that taxpayers’ money gets out to the people who need it as quickly as possible and at the appropriate speed.
I would like to respond to the points raised by the noble Baronesses. As ever, if I have missed something—and I and pretty sure I will have—I will write. First, both noble Baronesses raised the issue of inheritance tax, which was obviously a theme of discussions in the other place. It may be helpful to clarify exactly where we are. Anyone in direct receipt of compensation from IBCA or who is a beneficiary of an estate of a deceased infected person does not need to pay inheritance tax. Inheritance tax relief is applied, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, to the estate of the person who received the compensation, whether they received it as an infected person or an affected person. Under HMRC regulations, the inheritance tax on that person’s estate is reduced so that the amount of compensation received is effectively free of any inheritance tax when it passes to the estate beneficiaries.
However, once the compensation has passed to the beneficiaries, it is treated the same for inheritance tax purposes as any other money or property they own; the relief does not apply again—for example, when the beneficiaries themselves die. Where compensation is paid to a person who has been affected or infected and that person then dies, the inheritance tax which would otherwise be payable in respect of their estate is relieved. It does not matter who the beneficiary of that estate is, the inheritance tax relief applies. However, once the money is received by that beneficiary, inheritance tax applies as normal. To put it as simply as possible, the relief will apply to the estate of the person who is being directly compensated, whether that person is infected, affected, living or, sadly, passed away.
Having said that, I appreciate the strength of feeling in your Lordships’ House, and having reflected on Hansard, we are listening. I will seek to arrange the meeting with Treasury officials—I am about to make myself very popular with the Treasury—to discuss this issue. We will see if my noble friend Lord Livermore is still speaking to me by the end of the day. There is also the Budget coming, so we may have to wait a little bit, but I will endeavour to answer noble Lords.
On the consultation and timing, the consultation will run for 12 weeks, to 26 January. We will publish a response to the consultation on GOV.UK within 12 weeks of its closing. Regulations to make changes to the scheme as a result of the consultation will be brought forward next year.
This is a genuine consultation, not a tick-box exercise. Many recommendations have been made by our technical experts that offer us a range of options within the tariff-based system that we will seek to apply. We should always listen to those people who are affected, but we especially need to make sure that we get this right for the infected blood community. This is truly about making sure that we get the answers needed.
Both noble Baronesses raised points about the effectiveness of IBCA. Noble Lords may be aware that on Thursday last week we published a review by Sir Tyrone Urch that we had commissioned in August, reviewing the effectiveness of IBCA to make sure that it was able to take us forward to the next stages as quickly as possible. He has made a series of recommendations, which we published only last week, and now we are looking, with IBCA, to see who is appropriate to take them forward—noble Lords will be aware that they focus on three issues: stability, resources and digital systems—to make sure that we have the opportunity to move forward.
A matter of weeks ago, I visited IBCA to make sure that I was confident in its ability to take steps forward. That option is available to all Members of your Lordships’ House, and for those who are interested I highly recommend taking a trip to Newcastle to meet IBCA. It was an extraordinary experience, on which I am sure I will reflect more during these questions.
I would like to reassure noble Lords about the ability of the staff at IBCA to move forward. IBCA now employs 329 dedicated claim managers who support people with their claims from start to finish. All claim managers are fully trained and complete a three-week training programme, which includes working with a clinical psychologist to undertake trauma-informed training to ensure that claim managers work compassionately with the community. They are extraordinary people; when I met one of them, he said: “Other than the National Lottery, I get to make someone a millionaire every day by working at IBCA”. By the time he has ensured that the payment is in their bank account, he knows the family well. If any part of this can be joyful, that part is.
On delivery, all registered infected have been contacted to claim by October; for the unregistered infected, the first claims begin in November; and affected and infected estates will begin by the end of the year. I appreciate that the noble Baroness is concerned about when we will pay, and for the overwhelming majority the answer is by the end of 2027.
I have an answer, although time is short, about the issue of severe psychological harm and the six months of support. I will write to noble Baroness, but I assure her that this is about not counselling but psychiatric treatment. A day as an in-patient qualifies you, not six months, but there is a severity, and currently part of the consultation is about how we will pay that. I will reflect on everything else that has been said.
Not only was I overwhelmed by the expertise and professionalism of the people I met when I visited IBCA earlier this year but I want to give special mention to IBCA’s three user consultants, as they are called, who are members of the infected blood community themselves. Jason Evans, Clair Walton and Susan Harris advise IBCA on how its processes and plans can be focused on the needs of those who will be applying for compensation. Given their personal experiences and how easy it would have been for them to walk away, the fact that they are helping us to fix it is extraordinary, and I put on record my huge admiration for them. I will reflect on any points that I have missed and write to the noble Baronesses.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for having met me, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, with whom I discussed the Statement yesterday.
The Minister has spoken about claim managers now being trained and directly employed. I wonder if she has evidence that trust has increased and of how the claim managers are managing when there is difficulty accessing medical records, particularly if the microfiched records cannot be found easily or if there are gaps in the whole medical history.
A separate question, but equally important, is how claim managers and others are able to provide advice to recipients who may wish to be protected from it being known that they have compensation because they need advice on how to manage the payments they receive. Sadly, they may be fearful of pressures put on them, either within their own families or within the community, when it is known that they have received a large sum of money in compensation, because there is sometimes inadequate understanding of what the compensation has actually been for.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I put on record my thanks to the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and—I think I can call her a noble friend, even though she is not on my Benches—Lady Campbell, who is much missed; I am pleased that she will be returning to us in the new year. As ever, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, raises very important points. I think trust has increased, but that is difficult to tell in an environment where misinformation is rife; making sure that people have access to genuine information is truly one of the most challenging parts of this. We have discussed in your Lordships’ House many times the ability of IBCA to communicate and the need to make sure that it is providing relevant information.
That said, the claim managers have played an incredibly important role. We are seeing that when claims are finished—obviously this is a small community, relatively speaking—people are asking the claim managers who have just finished with them if they will be the claim manager for their friends, or for other members of the community, by name. This suggests that trust in the claim managers, at least, is clear, which is an important part of this.
The noble Baroness makes two incredibly important points. One is about access to medical records. Our claim managers are not investigators but, where there is clearly paperwork missing, they are working with the recipients to help them find the paperwork; so the onus is not just on the members of the infected blood community—there is someone helping them get the paperwork. We still have challenges in making sure that we can access some of the medical records. Noble Lords will appreciate that, as we move forward away from registered infected cases and towards estates and other areas, that may well be challenging, but we are working on what new technologies we can use to harness some of that material.
As regards advice to recipients who want to be protected, we are offering paid financial advice to make sure that it is easily accessed. We have to appreciate that these are very vulnerable people who have had horrendous experiences and could be targeted again, so making sure that we can work to protect them will be an incredibly important part of what we do going forward.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I feel that I am a veteran of this issue, like many other Members of your Lordships’ House. Indeed, I was a Health Minister in 2009 and 2010, and I think that might have been the first time I had a huge row with civil servants because they would not let me say sorry. That is something that featured through many Administrations, with great shame. I was on the Opposition Benches when we came to agreeing the amendments, and thus finally agreed the scheme that we see before us today. I congratulate my Government on finding the funding to be as generous as possible in this compensation scheme.
I want to ask my noble friend the Minister about transparency, how that has been built into what happens next and, indeed, the wider lessons that need to be learned from the way in which the scheme has been constructed, as well as other issues that might arise in the future and that will need this kind of attention.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her work in getting us to this point. We put on record our thanks to her, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, as the leading negotiators making sure we got to this point. My noble friend was not allowed to say sorry, but I can say sorry to those people who have been affected by this. I get to do that because of the fights that she had. For that, I am grateful; I do not have to have so many fights with my civil servants.
With regard to transparency, noble Lords will appreciate that we are talking about a cohort of people who have been affected by infected blood and who have no trust. Rightly, there is no reservoir of good will. We have to be as transparent and open as we possibly can to make sure that they know what is happening, why it is happening, at what speed and in what process. While the speed may be a challenge, we have to make sure that it is in place.
One thing that I have not said yet but wanted to put on record is that, as of 1 October, staff at IBCA are now directly employed and are no longer seconded civil servants. They are now public servants who work for IBCA. I think that helps lead to transparency of and trust in IBCA. In addition to the fact that we publish everything—the reviews are making sure that we are able to do that, including transparent publication in relation to the technical meeting group—everything we are doing is trying to rebuild trust with that community.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I listened to the Minister carefully with regard to inheritance tax. I am sure that she will agree that for those who are affected by this scandal, it will be generational rather than just stop at the end of the life of the person who was infected. Let me give an example of the generational issues: a child of somebody who was infected has been affected, and that may pass down to their children in terms of them not having a full education or not being able to work fully in light of the issue they were dealing with in respect of their parents. What would the Minister say to citizens and individuals who have been affected, where it goes to their children’s children, and they may have to pay inheritance tax? What can the Government do in terms of speaking to the Treasury to ensure generational fairness as well as fairness for those who have been infected when it comes to inheritance tax?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I truly appreciate the strength of feeling in your Lordships’ House about this issue. I have said as much as I can without getting myself into even more trouble, but what I will say is that it is a fair point. Noble Lords will be aware that I also talk about issues pertaining to Northern Ireland and legacy, intergenerational trauma and making sure that we have the right support structures in place and the right answers for people so that they can perhaps turn the page—I do not know if they can ever shut the book—on what happened to them and move forward. While I appreciate noble Lords and I have probably already got myself in trouble with my colleagues in the Treasury, I have heard and will continue to listen to noble Lords’ contributions on this issue.
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Baroness Chapman of Darlington
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the Bill that we are to discuss today is vital for the security of our nation. It enables the ratification and entry into force of the treaty between the UK and Mauritius concerning the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia, and thus protects the operation of an essential UK military base in the Indian Ocean. The consequences of not ratifying this treaty should not be underestimated. The inevitable effect would be to expose the UK to an unacceptable level of risk and legal uncertainty, which could deny us key military and security capabilities, dramatically reducing the effectiveness of our Armed Forces and security services. A binding judgment against the UK from an international court or tribunal would undermine our ability to operate globally to protect UK influence and counter the threats we face in an increasingly dangerous world, and it would put at risk security at home.
I understand that the treaty has divided opinion. We have had good debates in both this House and the other place on its substance, and I, of course, welcome this scrutiny. Since the Government signed the treaty, there have been Statements and debates across both Houses, hundreds of Questions raised and answered, and the completion of several committee inquiries by learned colleagues.
The necessity of the Diego Garcia treaty and of this Bill has been amply demonstrated. It has been tested in detail by the International Agreements Committee and the International Relations and Defence Committee. Both agreed that protection of the strategic value of Diego Garcia—a vital national asset—was necessary. The IAC clearly set out the path to significant risks to the base if the treaty were not ratified.
The Diego Garcia treaty has the support of our international allies. The United States has been engaged throughout the negotiations and supports it, as do the rest of our Five Eyes partners; Japan, South Korea and India support it as well. The UN, the Commonwealth and the African Union all welcomed it. Our overseas territories family supports it. The list goes on.
I welcome the opportunity to test this further today. The treaty is an important matter that the Government considered with great care. We bore the full weight of responsibility for not only the security of the British people but the integrity of the UK’s position on the global stage, and for respect for the experiences of those who had lived on the islands.
This treaty is critical to our national security. The base holds a range of vital capabilities, some of which are highly secret. I know that those with experience in this House will understand the military advantage of being able to deploy forces rapidly across the Middle East, east Africa and south Asia, and will appreciate the political and security importance of operating such a prized asset jointly with our closest partner, the United States.
The deal preserves this vital security footprint. With it, we will retain full operational control over Diego Garcia, with robust provisions to keep adversaries out. These include: unrestricted access to and use of the base for the UK and the US; a buffer zone around Diego Garcia; a UK veto to ensure that no development or construction on the outer islands threatens base operations; and a ban on the presence of any foreign security forces. The protections were designed, tested and endorsed at the highest level of the US political and security establishment.
The Government acted to protect this vital asset because it faced an existential threat. This was well understood by the previous Government, which is why they started negotiations more than three years ago—negotiations that they entered in good faith, despite what we heard in the other place, and continued for 11 rounds, including detailed text-based negotiations in the weeks and months before the general election.
It was under the previous Government that Mauritius secured its string of legal and political victories against the UK. Noble Lords will be aware of the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion in 2019 and the loss of votes at the UN General Assembly. This was followed in 2021 by a ruling by a special chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea on a maritime delimitation dispute between Mauritius and the Maldives. The special chamber, in a decision that was binding on the parties to the dispute, ruled that Mauritius’s sovereignty was inferred from the ICJ’s determinations. This gave a clear indication of how this tribunal—and, quite possibly, other international courts and tribunals—would approach the ICJ’s advisory opinion and the sovereignty dispute between the UK and Mauritius.
I urge noble Lords to reflect on the sound conclusions of the International Agreements Committee and the International Relations and Defence Committee. The learned members of both committees took evidence from eminent legal scholars, including a former member of the ICJ. The IAC concluded that, if the treaty is not ratified,
“Mauritius is likely to resume its campaign against the UK through international courts”
and stated that it heard evidence that
“any international court looking at this issue would be unlikely to find in favour of the UK”,
putting the base at risk.
The Government have been clear about the legal position. Had a long-term deal not been reached, it was highly likely that wide-ranging litigation would have been brought quickly against the UK. There were several potential routes for this, which included further arbitral proceedings against the UK under Annex VII of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. A judgment from such a tribunal would be legally binding on the UK. The United Kingdom’s long-standing legal view has been that we would not have a realistic prospect of successfully defending our legal position on sovereignty in such litigation. Even if we had chosen to ignore legally binding judgments against the UK, their legal effect on third countries and international organisations would have given rise to real impacts on the operation of the base and the delivery of all its national security functions. We have all heard the counter- positions—that the Government are bowing to an opinion that is merely advisory and that there was no viable route to a binding judgment—but I am afraid those simply do not reflect the reality of this situation.
It is clear that securing a deal was essential. The agreement that the Government have signed protects the base for generations and is firmly in the national interest. The Government did not secure the base at any cost; we negotiated a deal that is good value for money for the British people. The full financial details were published alongside the treaty on the day of signature. The average cost per year in today’s money is £101 million, and the net present value of payments under the treaty is £3.4 billion. These figures have been verified by the Government Actuary’s Department. These figures draw on long-established methodology, used under this Government and previous Governments, to account for long-term projects. We have all heard, and I suspect we will hear again today, the Opposition claim that the cost is higher. This is grossly misleading. Accounting norms and processes set out in the Green Book are there for a reason: so we can understand the true value of things. Let us debate those values with transparency, not exaggeration or manipulation for political point-scoring.
I suspect that some in this House will have heard concerns regarding undue influence on Mauritius from hostile forces. The Opposition were quite vocal on the subject in the other place—although, interestingly, we heard barely a peep before 4 July last year, when they were in negotiations. The treaty is the only way to ensure the base continues to operate as it has done, with all the protections that I listed earlier, including threats from our adversaries; whereas, had Mauritius secured a binding judgment against the UK, there would have been nothing to stop it leasing different islands to different countries, dramatically undermining the utility of this prized military asset.
As with any government policy, it is crucial that we discuss the people who are at the heart of it. I know there is a deep strength of feeling, genuinely held, in this House and the other place about Chagossians. Let me be clear: this Government deeply regret the way the Chagossians were removed from the islands. We are committed to building a relationship with the Chagossian community that is built on respect and acknowledgement of the wrongs of the past. The negotiations on the treaty were necessarily state-to-state between Mauritius and the UK, and it is true that our priority was to secure the base, but that does not mean that the interests of the Chagossian community were set aside. Indeed, the treaty has the support of many in the Chagossian community. Olivier Bancoult, chair of the Chagos Refugee Group, which is the largest Chagossian group, has said
“we remain convinced that this agreement provides the only way forward”,
and in a recent communiqué urged all Members of the UK Parliament to support the Bill.
The treaty provides that Mauritius may develop a programme of resettlement on the Chagos Archipelago, other than Diego Garcia, and noble Lords will also be aware of the £40 million trust fund for Mauritius to use in support of Chagossians. I know many in this House are interested in the operation of these commitments. My noble friend Lord Collins noted in this place that, ahead of ratification, the Government would make a ministerial Statement in both Houses providing a factual update on eligibility for resettlement and the modalities of the trust fund.
I know that many noble Lords are also interested in the environmental consequences of the treaty. It is crucial that one of the world’s most pristine marine environments is protected, and this Government and Mauritius are committed to that. Mauritian Prime Minister Ramgoolam has publicly stated his commitment to the marine protected area and confirmed it directly to the former Environment Secretary at the UN Ocean Conference in June.
Just yesterday, the Mauritian Government announced plans for the establishment of the Chagos Archipelago marine protected area. This will be based on the robust International Union for the Conservation of Nature categories for marine protected areas. Critically, it makes it clear that there will be no commercial fishing across the entire 640,000 square kilometre area. The Great Chagos Bank will be given one of the highest levels of protection, with the rest of the MPA categorised as a highly protected conservation zone. There will be limited provision for controlled levels of artisanal fishing in confined zones intended for resettlement to allow for sustenance of the Chagossian community, while maintaining the commitment to nature conservation. This development should assuage the concerns we have heard in this House and the other place about Mauritian commitments to environmental protections.
Despite this progress, and the passage of the Bill in the other place, there are still those here who want to relitigate the debate that we had in July. There are Motions intended to probe and amend at Committee and Report. They are welcome, but Motions that are designed to wreck are not about the welfare of a community; they are a cynical tactic of delay and disruption. The Opposition Front Bench has tried blocking ratification, yet seems unable to accept the will of this House. I am disappointed, but unsurprised, that we all now look likely to have to witness an unedifying spectacle of it having another go.
Noble Lords will notice that we are not considering a committal Motion to commit the Bill to Committee today. As noble Lords know, it is extremely unusual to table a Motion to seek to divide the House to delay the passage of government legislation passed by the House of Commons. It is even more unusual for the Opposition to press such a Motion to a vote on the Floor of the House, as they have indicated they would. We know that His Majesty’s Opposition take their responsibilities seriously. They have said on multiple occasions to my noble friend the Leader of the House of Lords that their motivation is to properly challenge and scrutinise government legislation. That is their job; it is not to block legislation or stop the Government getting their programme through.
Let me share the truth of this matter. The amendment to the committal Motion favoured by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is, in effect, a fatal Motion. I will explain why: it makes committal conditional on consultation. It is not credible to undertake meaningful consultation in the 30-day period set out in the Motion. It would therefore risk progress towards ratification becoming bogged down in litigation. The Front Bench opposite should know that; I would be surprised if they do not.
The Motion would wreck the Bill and mean a delay not of 30 days but of months, maybe years. In these circumstances, the Bill and the treaty that it is intended to implement could not move ahead. This is both reckless and deeply cynical. It is reckless because it threatens the continued operation of the base on Diego Garcia and, with that, the national security of the British people. It is cynical because the Opposition now seek to use, for their own ends, a community they systematically disregarded when in government. We all know their record: the decision not to consult Chagossians when meaningful consultation was possible at the start of negotiations; the decision in 2016 not to permit any resettlement by Chagossians across the archipelago; and the dramatic failure to spend 96% of the £40 million commitment to support Chagossians.
It is worth contrasting that record with the record of this Government. We are financing a new trust fund for Mauritius to use in support of the Chagossian community. We are working with Mauritius to start a new programme of visits for Chagossians to the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia. The treaty we have entered allows Mauritius to develop a programme of resettlement on the islands other than Diego Garcia. This Government are also increasing our support to Chagossians living in the UK through new and existing projects. These are initiatives that actually deliver for Chagossians; they are not empty promises or hollow words.
The Bill is relatively short. It preserves the current laws of the British Indian Ocean Territory as laws that will continue to apply to Diego Garcia once the treaty is in force, allowing for the base’s continued, effective operation with minimal disruption. The Bill also grants a new power to make the domestic legal changes needed to implement the treaty and to manage responsibly the base’s future operation.
There will be no change to the British nationality status that any Chagossian currently holds, whether it is a British citizenship or a British Overseas Territory citizenship, and current pathways for Chagossians to acquire British citizenship are also maintained. Most of the provisions in the Bill will commence only when the treaty enters into force. I trust that we will have a lively and thorough debate on this subject matter, and I look forward to debating the Bill’s contents. I beg to move.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill, and I will come to some of her points shortly. This is now the second opportunity that we have had to debate the UK-Mauritius agreement concerning the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia, but it is of course the first time that your Lordships’ House has been asked to approve the agreement in law.
When we debated the Motion to approve the treaty under the CRaG process, I lamented the fact that the other place was denied the opportunity to have a substantive debate on the treaty at that point. If the Government are so confident in their arguments, why did they deny the other House the opportunity to debate this properly? As I said then, the Government played fast and loose with the conventions on treaty approval, despite promises that had been given by their own Ministers when the CRaG process was first introduced. The Government were elected on the back of pledges to put public service and integrity first; refusing to adhere to the conventions in this case hardly lived up to those promises.
That said, as a responsible Official Opposition—and recognising the primacy of the other place, which approved the Bill at Third Reading—we will not seek to deny the Bill a Second Reading today. We already know that the other place did not have the opportunity to debate the treaty when it was laid before the House, and the Bill subsequently received minimal scrutiny. In fact, Committee and Third Reading were both taken on the same day, and a total of just 17 hours of debate were allocated to a Bill that fundamentally changes our strategic security role in the Indian Ocean and puts £35 billion-worth of taxpayers’ money in the hands of politicians thousands of miles away from the UK.
Not only was there no mention of the Bill in the Labour manifesto; there was a specific promise to protect our overseas territories. For the election, the Minister’s party’s manifesto said:
“Defending our security also means protecting the British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies … Labour will always defend their sovereignty and right to self-determination”.
It seems that tax is not the only manifesto commitment being binned today.
Crucially, the views of the Chagossian people have not been heard. We feel it is only right that the Government should be required to consult the Chagossian community on the implementation of this treaty, including on the establishment of the Chagossian trust fund, which the Minister discussed. The UK taxpayer will fund it, but the Mauritian Government will have sole responsibility to distribute it however they see fit.
That is why I tabled the amendment to the original committal Motion that would have required the Government to consult the Chagossian community over a period of 30 days. If the Minister is concerned that 30 days is not long enough, I note that we talked about making it longer, but we did not do so because we wanted the Government to have the opportunity to get their Bill through this Session. If I had set the Motion at three months, the Minister would have told us that there is no time to have a Committee debate before the end of this Session because the Opposition are trying to deny them the Bill. We deliberately selected a short period so that the Minister could not argue that we were trying to wreck the Bill—that was not our intention. It was a measured, reasonable approach which we felt would have made up completely for the Government’s failure to consult the Chagossians to date and would help us in our work to give the Bill the proper scrutiny it deserves, informed by the outcome of that consultation. It was not a wrecking amendment, and the Minister knows that in her heart of hearts. Without that additional consultation—
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
If the noble Lord was so concerned to do this, first, why did he not consult earlier? Secondly, he can achieve his aims—which would not be wrecking but would be perfectly legitimate —by amendment to the Bill, delaying implementation, perhaps. Those things are standard. He could make his case, or perhaps even win his vote, and achieve his aims, should they be genuine and not a wrecking amendment.
Lord Callanan (Con)
This treaty is due to last 100 years. How is it a wrecking amendment to take 30 days to consult the people who will be affected by it? The Minister is talking nonsense, and she knows it.
Without that additional consultation of the Chagossian people, we fear that the Bill, which received so little scrutiny in the other place, will go on to become law without the affected Chagossians having their views heard, as they rightly should. I know that a number of them have turned up to the Public Gallery to hear this debate today.
I hope that the Government’s decision to withdraw the committal Motion at the last moment is an indication that they are listening to us and want to think about this more deeply. It is clear to us that we need that consultation, so I call upon the Minister to bring it forward as part of the committal Motion when the Government eventually bring it back to the House. As I said, the Government intend this treaty to last 100 years; surely, we can take one month to consult the people most affected by it.
To call the Bill a surrender Bill is an understatement. This is a strategic capitulation that will see us give away sovereign territory that has been British for two centuries. To add insult to injury, taxpayers are paying tens of billions to Mauritius for the privilege of doing so. We know the important, strategic role that the British Indian Ocean Territory has played internationally as a staging post for forward operations in both the Indian Ocean and the Middle East. Handing over sovereignty, even with a lease agreement in respect of Diego Garcia military base, puts, in our view, that strategic role in jeopardy.
In particular, the requirement in the agreement that Mauritius must be informed of armed attacks on third states directly emanating from the base on Diego Garcia is an astounding failure of diplomacy. Could the Government tell us how this would actually work in practice, in a rapidly changing armed conflict? Has the US, which actually runs this base, agreed to do that? How would it work in practice? How would we inform them in an emergency situation, with proper notice to enable us to take strategic action, as required?
My noble friend Lady Goldie will expand on some of the security implications of this agreement, but we are clear that it is a capitulation that weakens our influence on the international stage. It is a surrender orchestrated by international lawyers and implemented by a Prime Minister who is either unwilling or unable to stand up for the UK national interest.
The Bill does not just relate to the UK’s affairs in the Indian Ocean; the sheer cost of the treaty with Mauritius makes the Bill a domestic issue, too. By pressing ahead with this legislation, the Government are facilitating an agreement that will see the UK pay almost £35 billion to Mauritius. I notice that the Minister spent quite a bit of her time disagreeing with those figures, yet only one hour ago, when I asked her how much of the ODA budget is being dedicated to this agreement, she got a cheap laugh, and avoided the question once again, as she has now done four times. However, she knows, as I know, that some of that ODA budget is being used to fund this agreement. If she wishes to be so transparent and disagree with our figures, why does she not tell us how much of it is going to be spent from the ODA budget? She can stand up and do it now, if she wishes.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
All of our ODA spending is published. It is probably one of the most transparent bits of government funding. I will send the noble Lord the website address so he can have a look and satisfy himself on this point.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am grateful for that; that is a concession, of sorts. I have only asked her the question four times during Questions so far. Now that she is willing to be more transparent, that is progress, at least.
Against that backdrop, hard-working Britons will be furious that Ministers have somehow found £35 billion to send 6,000 miles away when we face such financial challenges here at home. The fact is that the treaty facilitated by the Bill will fund tax cuts for Mauritius while taxes are being hiked here at home. We put this deal on hold when we were in Government, when it was in its infancy. We saw its flaws, and we paused it. Alas, Ministers no longer have the clarity of mind needed to deliver for the British people and are—
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am sorry, but that is factually incorrect and I would like to give the noble Lord the opportunity to correct it. It was paused, but when the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, was appointed Foreign Secretary, he restarted those negotiations.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am happy to tell the Minister that I have spoken to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, about that. He agreed that it was paused, which I think she has just confirmed.
Alas, Ministers no longer have the clarity of mind needed to deliver for the British people and, as so often with this Government, they have allowed themselves to be taken in by their international lawyer friends and donors. This all begs the question: why? Why did Ministers feel the need to pursue this agreement that puts Britain’s interests last? Why have the Government seen fit to saddle taxpayers with an additional financial burden, at a time when we are all being softened up for massive tax rises from the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Ministers have told us, as the noble Baroness did again today, that this agreement is a legal necessity, but, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar when we debated the Motion to approve the treaty—I commend his speech to noble Lords who have not had the chance to see it yet—there is a range of views among very senior lawyers on this matter. The Government cannot hide behind legal advice, unless they want to publish it for us all to see. This was a political decision for which Ministers must take the political responsibility.
The almost single-minded obsession with international law has blinded the Government to the real threat from a country that itself pays absolutely no heed whatever to that same international law. We know that China has said that it wants to deepen its strategic partnership with Mauritius. As recently as 15 May this year, China’s ambassador to Mauritius said that the People’s Republic of China wanted to strengthen ties with Mauritius, noting the country’s “strategic advantages”, and expressed a commitment to elevating the bilateral strategic partnership. The Chinese ambassador to Mauritius is on the record as offering, unsurprisingly, massive congratulations on the deal and stating that China fully supports Mauritius’s attempt to “safeguard national sovereignty”. It is a shame that China does not show that same regard to the national sovereignty of other nations.
That is who the Government have appeased with this agreement. When the Government took office, they claimed that they would protect our national security. Can the Minister please explain how ceding national sovereignty to a country that is known to be deepening its ties with a nation that we know to be a threat to the UK will help them achieve that manifesto commitment?
As the Official Opposition, we will seek to amend the Bill in your Lordships’ House to ensure that the Chagossian community is properly consulted and that the agreement facilitated by the Bill does not put the desires of international lawyers before the interests of the British people, who have paid the taxes which are now to be transferred with careless abandon to Mauritius.
Speaking of the rights of the Chagossians, I find myself on this occasion in the unusual position of agreeing with noble Lords to my left when I say that the Government have not handled this well. In the other place, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, Dr Al Pinkerton, said that,
“this Bill fails the Chagossian people”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/25; col. 756.].”
On this, we agree. Ministers have failed to properly consult the Chagossians to the point that the community is now furious with this Government, as we have all seen from our email inboxes.
However, there was another way. In the other place, the shadow Foreign Secretary, Dame Priti Patel, tabled a presentation Bill which included specific requirements
“to consult and engage with British Chagossians in relation to any proposed changes to the sovereignty and constitutional arrangements of the British Indian Ocean Territory”.
That is what should happen. The Chagossian community should be heard and not ignored.
In conclusion, the questions at the core of all our debates will remain these. Is this treaty a good deal for Britain? Does the Bill put us in the service of the British people? I do not think that it does—
Lord Callanan (Con)
We will set out our reasons in detail, if the Bill ever returns to your Lordships’ House. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I have listened carefully to all the noble Lord’s contributions. I fear that he has missed something out, and I want to help him. First, can he explain briefly whether international law advice which was given to the previous Administration over the status of British sovereignty, and which has not changed for this Administration, has changed? Secondly, why did James Cleverly, on 3 November 2022, make a Statement to Parliament that that Government had decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the BIOT Chagos Archipelago? If everything that he said was a point of principle, why did the previous Government accept that negotiations had to start on ceding sovereignty?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am always suspicious when the Liberal Democrats say that they want to be helpful. We have debated all these points at length.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Noble Lords should listen to the answer.
It is a matter of public record that discussions took place. I have spoken to both James Cleverly and to my noble friend Lord Cameron about this, and we are very clear that no agreement was possible along the terms that had been outlined. That is why the negotiations were paused and why we did not reach any agreement at the time. That is why we believe the process is flawed and why we will oppose the Bill.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I have been advised that it is not obligatory for me to declare an interest in this matter but, on the basis that it is better to be safe than sorry, I will do so. During a period in 1979, I was the head of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office department responsible for the British Indian Ocean Territory.
The Bill to which we are giving a Second Reading—and I hope that is what we are doing—is by no means the first time the House has debated the UK-Mauritius treaty on the Chagos Islands. Ratification under the CRaG procedure took place on 30 June on the basis of a report from your Lordships’ International Agreements Committee, on which I have the honour to serve but not to represent. The House was divided by the Opposition on that occasion but the report was endorsed by a majority, and the CRaG process was thus completed in the sense recommended by the committee. Today’s Bill is simply needed to bring our domestic legislation into line with that decision. I hope that that can now be done speedily and without further controversy. It is with some regret that I hear signs that that may not happen.
The legal testimony the International Agreements Committee was given before it reached its conclusion that the agreement should be ratified was not unanimous, but the committee’s view was that the most compelling evidence was that of Sir Christopher Greenwood, a former British judge of the International Court of Justice. His view was that if the UK were not to ratify the agreement, Mauritius could be expected to pursue actively the matter through international courts and, in the light of the opinion handed down by the International Court of Justice, to win such cases with damaging consequences for our security interests in the base at Diego Garcia and for those of our closest security ally, the United States. In addition, Sir Christopher pointed out that it was not correct to assert that the UK agreement with Mauritius amounted to the seceding of sovereignty since the International Court of Justice opinion already established that that step had been taken when the UK granted independence to Mauritius. That view was accepted by the international community.
It is relevant too to recall that Governments of both main parties have frequently stood at the Dispatch Box and stated, without ambiguity, that the British Government upheld the rules-based international order. It cannot seriously be disputed that a finding of the International Court of Justice, whether advisory or mandatory, is an integral part of that rules-based order. To suggest now that the International Court of Justice opinion could be ignored or set aside would surely be incompatible with those statements of policy so frequently repeated. At a time when the rules-based order is under such widespread attack, that course could hardly be in our national interest. Nor can we afford to ignore the fact that the 99-year lease on the base at Diego Garcia, with the possibility of extension, is sufficient to meet the security requirements of our closest ally, the United States, which is backing the agreement. To put those interests at risk by frustrating their implementation would seem to be an act of singular folly.
All this is to ignore the fact—as has been made clear in the debate already—that the previous Government held 11 rounds of negotiations on a similar basis to what has now been concluded in a negotiated agreement. If last year’s election had had a different result, can it be seriously doubted that the present Opposition would have been defending an agreement similar to the one that this House cleared on 30 June? None of these considerations invalidates the judgment that successive British Governments behaved in a lamentable way towards the Chagossian inhabitants of the islands, many of whom are now British citizens. The provisions agreed to mitigate these past failings are part of the Bill before us today, and rightly so. They are not, however, a reason to reject the agreement, or to delay it. To do that would in reality bring no satisfaction or benefit to anyone—quite the contrary.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of Friends of the British Overseas Territories, and as an adviser. It is with great sadness that I rise to speak to the Bill. Earlier today I spent some time with my friends from the Chagos Islands, and they have often felt ignored by many Governments of different hues but never have they felt as badly treated as by this Government. They have taken court cases to deal with their lack of agency with this Government, as they were left with no other option; indeed, there is a case still before the courts today.
Even at this late stage, if the Government do deign to consult with the Chagos community living here in the UK, it will be a start, at least, to listening to their needs and aspirations, as opposed to them being told what is happening to their homeland through government statements. I was shocked when I was told today by Chagossians living here in the UK—who are British citizens—that, despite repeated requests to meet their Members of Parliament in person, they have been told there is no time. I think that is absolutely wrong, and I hope the Minister will agree that it is wrong. It is anti-democratic, and if we are going to support a government policy, the Government must at least have the wherewithal to meet those affected by that government policy and defend it to them.
Chagossians, I am very pleased to say, have come along today to hear the debate. They are accompanied by colleagues from other overseas territories, because they too are concerned about what is happening. No doubt, as we have already heard, the Bill is all to do with national security and therefore should not be challenged. I was told as much in this House when I had the temerity to ask about the details of the trust fund being set up in Mauritius with British taxpayers’ money.
I contend that treating people with dignity and addressing their needs does not mean you are challenging national security needs. The two issues can and should exist together, and it saddens me greatly that this Government have chosen a different course. In January 2015, a report commissioned on behalf of the British Indian Ocean Territory—BIOT—and carried out by KPMG undertook a feasibility study for the resettlement of BIOT. Unlike our present Government, that study took the views of a range of stakeholders, including the Chagossian communities in Mauritius, the Seychelles, Manchester, Crawley and London. The study looked in depth at the environmental issues as well. This public document concluded:
“There are no fundamental legal obstacles that would prevent a resettlement of BIOT to go ahead”.
That was in 2015.
The Government of the day decided not to proceed with resettlement because of costs, but, crucially, the costs identified in the report for resettlement at that time are nowhere near the costs associated with this deal. How have the Government arrived at a place where we are now handing BIOT to Mauritius and paying for the privilege? By the way, we have already paid Mauritius, because in 1965, when it agreed to BIOT being created, we paid it £3 million, so this is us paying again for the privilege.
The Government have also told us that they had no option but to conduct and conclude. We have heard a lot about these 11 rounds of negotiations, but none was ever concluded. As someone who has experienced many negotiations throughout the years, the deal is not done until the deal is done. That is the critical issue here. We have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that there is a lack of clarity on the basis for proceeding with this deal, so it is imperative that the legal opinion is shared to bring transparency to what is very murky water. We are also advised by the Government that investment by the US has paused after the advisory judgment due to the lack of certainty. Surely such certainty could have been provided in another way. We could have asserted sovereignty over our territory instead of colluding in handing it away. That surely would have brought certainty for our American allies as well.
The Government also claim that we have to do this deal to protect the joint US-UK exclusive access to the electromagnetic spectrum on Diego Garcia, but the International Telecommunication Union, which supervises global communications technology, has no enforcement mechanisms to either terminate or interrupt our satellite operations on the Chagos Islands. I thank Policy Exchange for its work in this area; in particular, its publication The Chagos Debacle, A Critique of the British Government’s Shifting Rationales. Former NATO commander and Royal Navy Rear Admiral Chris Parry said recently that handing away the Chagos Islands is
“the biggest strategic mistake I have seen in my lifetime”.
Moving to the specifics in the Bill, or rather the lack of specifics, there is very little detail. We are told that there will be secondary legislation and there will be ministerial Statements to deal with a lot of the issues. That means that there will be less scrutiny. It is a matter of record that the Chagossian people were forcibly removed from their homes in the late 1960s. The Government are now telling us that by doing so, they do not have the right to self-determination. I find this very skewed thinking. You remove the Chagos Islanders from their homes by force and now they do not have self-determination. I think it is morally wrong.
At the very least what should be happening is a referendum of those of Chagossian heritage here in the UK, because despite what previous Mauritian Administrations have had to say, the Chagos people are a distinct people on the basis of ethnicity and religion and should be afforded the respect they deserve, not forced into a country that they have no affinity with and which is 1,300 miles away. Let me be clear. Even if Mauritius was the closest country, geography is not political destiny, especially when you have a distinct people, and I want to make that clear for a whole variety of reasons. KPMG, on behalf of BIOT, consulted in a meaningful way with the citizens back in 2014-15, and the Government should do so again. This is an historic decision we are making here and we need to listen to what the Chagossians have to say.
The Bill has nothing to say about the welfare of British Chagossians. Not one clause is drafted to deal with their needs. There is nothing in the Bill about the £40 million which has been sent to set up a trust fund in Mauritius for Chagossians who live there, but we have been told that British Chagossians will not benefit from that trust fund. Many Chagossians have left Mauritius in the past few months as they choose to be British and not live under the authority of Mauritius. Of course, those Chagossians who choose to remain in Mauritius are content with what is happening and are supporters of the Mauritian regime. That is why we should not be surprised that there are statements coming out of Mauritius in support of this deal.
As regards visiting the atoll, that, we understand, will be at the discretion of the Mauritian Government, who denied the very existence of the Chagos people until very recently, telling them that they were Mauritian instead. Having listened to many Chagossians talk about their identity, I can tell the House that the last thing they are is Mauritian.
Finally, there is nothing in this Bill about the very fragile and internationally important ecostructure of the many little islands and their marine area. I recognise that the Minister referenced the environment in her opening speech, and I am pleased to hear that there has been some movement in relation to that. I know that very many are concerned about the stewardship of the environment in the future, given that we are giving away all this to the Mauritian Government without any sanctions if the ecosystem is damaged.
I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to consult the Chagossian people. They deserve to be listened to, even at this late stage.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the powerful speech by my noble friend Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee. I am tempted just to say “ditto” and sit down, but that is not the practice in this place, so I will focus on some aspects that differ from the focus that she gave. The importance she attached to the Chagossians enables me to be a bit briefer than I would otherwise have been.
I want to return to a powerful assertion that was made the first time this House considered a Statement on this subject, which was diluted a bit today in the defence put forward by the noble Minister. The original Statement by the Defence Secretary said
“without this deal—within weeks we could face losing legal rulings, and within just a few years the base would become inoperable”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/5/25; col. 1284.]
What is the likelihood of us facing a legally binding ruling? If so, I ask the Minister, from which court is it likely to come?
First, as even the Foreign Office recognises, the opinion of the International Court of Justice was purely advisory, not binding. Secondly, it was based on UN General Assembly resolutions. Such resolutions are not legally binding, especially as they have not been endorsed by the Security Council. Thirdly, when the UK signed up to the International Court of Justice, our declaration specifically said that the Government of the UK excluded the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice on
“any dispute with the government of any other country which is or has been a Member of the Commonwealth”,
as is Mauritius. Hence, the opinion of the ICJ was triply non-binding, and no future ruling of the ICJ on this dispute could be binding on us.
Ministers never mention these facts; either they are unaware of them, or they do not want us to know. Instead, they segue on to discussing the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, as the noble Baroness did today, since that also has a tribunal. However, Article 298 of that treaty provides that states may “at any time” exclude “disputes concerning military activities”. Therefore, it is hard to see how the UNCLOS tribunal could reach a binding ruling which would impede our use of the base, still less do so in ways that the Defence Minister originally spelled out when he said:
“Rulings against us would mean we could not prevent hostile nations from setting up installations … on the outer islands … we could not guarantee the safe berth of our subs, patrol the waters around the base, control the airspace directly above or protect the integrity of our communications systems”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/5/25; col. 1284.]
All that seems impossible to come from a tribunal which excludes, or where we can exclude, military matters.
These are not the only issues which the Government refuse to address. They never mention—even the Explanatory Memorandum on the agreement ignores it—the Pelindaba treaty, to which Mauritius is a signatory. It is signed by all countries counted as in the African region—and Mauritius is one—making Africa a nuclear-free zone. The treaty allows no reservations, at the time or subsequently, so it will apply to Diego Garcia, and it cannot be overridden by our treaty unless Mauritius resiles from the Pelindaba treaty. Do the Americans accept that that will mean that no nuclear weapons-carrying vessels or planes can use the base?
The agreement with Mauritius purportedly relates to completing the decolonisation of Mauritius. There are two relevant principles that have a bearing on the process of decolonisation. The first is the right to self-determination, and the second is the principle of territorial integrity. This agreement elevates the principle of territorial integrity above that of the right to self-determination.
It is bizarre that boundaries laid, and former administrative arrangements imposed on an area, by the colonial power should be treated as so sacrosanct, whereas the rights of the people who were displaced—many of whom would like to return or have the right to return—are to be ignored. It is even more bizarre given, as my noble friend Lord Callanan pointed out, the promise in the Labour Party manifesto that it would support the sovereignty, integrity and right to self-determination of peoples in the British Overseas Territories. I wait in the summing up to hear how the Government reconcile their promise made to the British people, and to the peoples of those territories, with what they are doing today.
Why are the Government ploughing ahead? Of course, they refer to the fact that negotiations began under the previous Government, although they were paused by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. At the time they were paused, I found myself discussing this with a Foreign Office official, who I heard mention the agreement. I said, “Isn’t it good that these negotiations have been paused?” He obviously did not approve of the negotiations. He said, “Oh, it’ll make no difference; they’ll continue. It is the settled policy of the Foreign Office, whichever Government are in power, that we shall continue with this process to give away the sovereignty of them”.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
All the legal considerations that the noble Lord has outlined to the House, including those in the latter part of his remarks, pre-date November 2022, when the previous Government started negotiations to cede sovereignty. They took all his remarks into consideration, so why did they start negotiations to cede sovereignty?
Lord Lilley (Con)
The noble Lord is making a party-political point, as the Lib Dems always do. I am accepting that both parties are allowing themselves to be driven by the settled policy of the Foreign Office. We have to recognise that.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Whenever it started, the settled policy of the Foreign Office will probably continue for another 22 years. Anyone who has been a Minister knows that every department has a settled policy that continues unless Ministers come along and determine to overthrow it.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Earlier in 2022, the then Government’s view was that there would be no change to the sovereignty of Chagos. That was a Statement given to Parliament in early 2022. The policy changed under Liz Truss as Prime Minister and James Cleverly as Foreign Secretary to start negotiations to cede sovereignty. If there had been a settled will, it had been the one before the Government changed policy. It was the noble Lord’s Government who changed the policy.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Of course it was, but they allowed it to be changed from pressure from the Foreign Office. We can go into the archaeology of when this surfaced in the form of government policy and when it was internal, but I have no doubt that it was. Whenever I have spoken to Foreign Office officials, they have acknowledged that we are not bound by rulings of the court, nor are we likely to be, and nor are we bound by the obligations of any treaty, but they argue that Britain must none the less abide by even non-binding advisory opinions, since if we do not, how can we tell other countries that they must abide by international law? That is precisely the argument that was forwarded just now by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay.
It is touching that our diplomats believe that countries that might otherwise flout international obligations and rulings will change their ways and become law-abiding if they see us obeying rulings that we do not have to abide by and being purer than pure. I believe that the policy of the Foreign Office, and, above all, the policy of elected officials in charge of the Foreign Office, should be to pursue British interests and not to set about setting examples to other countries and virtue signalling. That is what this is doing, and it is weak for that reason. I hope that the House will in the weeks to come persuade the Government to abandon it.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, in my comments today I wish to give your Lordships a short break from the tangle of treaties and policies and who did what in diplomatic circles. In my contribution, I shall talk about the protection of the ocean surrounding the Chagos Archipelago. In doing so, I thank the Library and others for their assistance. I was encouraged by the Minister’s opening comments regarding the environment.
By way of background, a marine protection area was established around Chagos following a determined and successful campaign by the British charity Blue Marine and others, which persuaded the then Labour Administration to designate an MPA in the closing weeks of the Brown Administration. They created what was then the largest no-take fishing zone in the world—an extraordinary achievement. Blue Marine, together with other NGOs, seeks to protect and restore ocean health worldwide by securing MPAs like this. It has successfully established protection over some 4.3 million square kilometres of ocean—an outstanding achievement—and the Chagos MPA is a significant part of that success. It works.
For those unfamiliar with MPAs, they are precisely that: the designation protects the marine area from overfishing and destructive fishing techniques, and they work to restore marine habitats and support coastal communities with sustainable fishing practices. These large-scale marine reserves enjoy the critical mass to allow the restoration of vital marine ecosystems. They enjoy international acceptance and, critically, they need policing to enforce that protection.
The present arrangement enables the UK to police the Chagos MPA against illegal fishing activity, but what of future protection? The Chagos agreement that we are discussing today refers to a “separate written instrument” that will outline how the management of the MPA and its policing will be managed. Why the simple matter of managing the Chagos MPA cannot be dealt with in the Bill, I fail to understand. Reference to a separate written instrument sounds like a response from an instalment of “Yes, Minister”—a slow process of obfuscation and delay until following the next election, when it all falls apart. I hope not. Will the Minister please explain more of the detail relating to the separate written instrument in her closing remarks? For many, the lack of clarity about how policing and management will be paid for is a worry.
The agreement that we are discussing refers to an annual payment of £35 million, £40 million or £45 million per annum over 20 years, to be gifted as development capital to Mauritius. How much of that will be allocated to managing the marine protected area? Where is the detail? Are we really committing hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ money over 20 years to an agreement with little detail?
The Bill transfers sovereignty of the islands to Mauritius while retaining control over Diego Garcia for 99 years. This dual authority could complicate the enforcement of the environmental protections. While Mauritius has pledged to maintain the MPA—and yesterday’s news is welcome—economic pressures, such as fishing licences and development deals, could lead to relaxed regulations. Experts warn that even slight deregulation could unravel decades of ecological resilience.
We must protect our oceans, just as we seek to protect the rest of our planet from the climate crisis. We are more familiar with the land-based effects of the crisis: the destruction of the rainforest, the growing red list of endangered species and the melting ice. Above all, there is an interdependence between the health of oceans and survival on land. Protecting the health of these oceans seems to me to enjoy fewer column inches in the media, notwithstanding the remarkable television series narrated by Sir David Attenborough, which has been eye-opening and persuasive.
It is worth pointing out that the Chagos Islands are some 2,000 kilometres away from Mauritius. Its maritime enforcement assets include two small planes, which cannot reach Chagos, and two ocean-going vessels. Can we really expect it to invest the sums of money and resources that are required to administer protection and to maintain and enhance this vital MPA? There must be serious doubts about this and about the effectiveness of our agreement with Mauritius, which includes hands-on involvement in the management of this MPA.
With the current awareness of the climate crisis, I do not think that it is appropriate to leave the details of administering this ocean area to a separate written instrument. The agreement risks leaving Mauritius with an overwhelming conservation burden. It is worth noting that the International Agreements Committee of this House considers it vital that an appropriate portion of the annual grant funding be allocated specifically to supporting the marine protected area.
I look forward to the Minister’s responses to these concerns. I would specifically like an indication of how much of the proposed annual payments will be directed towards policing the Chagos MPA.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a friend of the British Overseas Territories. Can I say how delighted I am to hear the excellent speech from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, because I, too, shall focus on MPAs at the end of my remarks?
We have to ask ourselves how we are now in the position of giving away a vital British Overseas Territory to a nation that has no legitimate claim to it—and paying it a fortune in the process. It simply comes down to the traditional role of our Foreign Office: always selling out British interests as we kowtow to hostile foreign states such as China while abandoning our friends and allies. Of course, the Foreign Office has a long history of this.
Last week, the Telegraph contained an obituary for Vice Admiral Sir Jonathan Tod, who flew more than 2,000 hours in 25 types of aircraft and commanded the aircraft carrier “Illustrious”. His talent was soon recognised and, in 1980, he was promoted early to captain and sent to the Cabinet Office. There, he headed the assessments team in analysing intelligence from central and South America.
In July 1981, Tod told the Joint Intelligence Committee that, if the Argentines were to conclude that there was no peaceful solution to the Malvinas question, they would be capable of mounting an invasion swiftly and with little warning. The Foreign Office absolutely rubbished that as scaremongering and the intelligence watch on the Argentines was scaled down, giving Argentina the signal that we did not care about the Falkland Islands. However, Tod stuck to his guns. In the October, he warned that the threats emanating from Argentina were not disinformation. Six months later, Argentina invaded; the rest is history.
Then we have Gibraltar. Again, the FCO tried to sell it out to Spain, with secret negotiations on shared sovereignty in 2001 and 2002. There was no reason for sharing sovereignty with Spain apart from the FCO wanting to kowtow to a foreign EU Government. Once the plan was in the open, of course, the Gibraltar Government organised a poll. Some 98.97% voted against the UK Government’s plan and wanted to stay with the UK—another FCO plan scuppered.
Now I come on to the Chagos Islands. These islands have been British since the end of the Napoleonic wars, long before Mauritius existed as an independent country. Nobody had ever lived in Mauritius until the Dutch brought in slaves, and then the French took over. No Mauritians ever landed on the Chagos Islands, some 2,000 kilometres away, to inhabit or claim them. Thus, Mauritius has never owned or controlled the islands; the Mauritian sovereignty claim is totally bogus and nothing more than a rewriting of history. France and the UK administered the Chagos Islands and Mauritius from Mauritius, but they were never owned by Mauritius.
Its false claim was strengthened by the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, the judicial arm of the thoroughly discredited United Nations in its usual anti-colonialism stance. I do not mean to offend noble Lords, but I say discredited because there has never been any UN condemnation of the genocide being perpetuated by Russia in Ukraine, nor in China with the Uyghurs, nor in Myanmar. When we come to the current genocide in new Sudan, which was debated about an hour ago in this Chamber, while US officials have explicitly declared that the RSF and associated militias have committed genocide, the UN as an organisation has generally used terms such as “risk of genocide” or “genocide could be occurring”. It is typical UN cop-out speech. The UN cannot denounce genocide, but it can denounce UK ownership of the Chagos Islands as colonialism. The ICJ’s so-called ruling was merely an advisory opinion from a political court, which in 2017 was involved in a grubby episode to remove the Security Council nominee judge who was British, the renowned Sir Christopher Greenwood, stack the court with more Asia-Pacific judges and reduce western influence.
If it is the Government’s case that we have to obey the ICJ in this case, will we have to obey it when it gives an advisory opinion on giving the Falklands to Argentina or on giving Gibraltar to Spain? The previous Government, of course, were negotiating and negotiating, but they had no intention to sell out. It is one thing starting negotiations but another to conclude them in a bare three months as Mr Lammy did.
We first need to look at why Labour did it. I think we need to look at the past behaviour of the Prime Minister. Before entering politics, Sir Keir Starmer was invited to a high-profile legal conference in 2013 hosted by the Mauritius Bar Association at the InterContinental hotel on the intriguingly named Balaclava beach. It was a gathering of international lawyers. While there, Sir Keir delivered a keynote speech. More notably, he used the visit as an opportunity to engage in discussions on the Chagos issue with Mauritian legal and political figures. He met the then Prime Minister, Navin Ramgoolam, who is now leading Mauritius’s negotiations over the islands and is back as Prime Minister. Ramgoolam later recalled their 2013 meeting as a moment of shared values and mutual understanding. Another prominent Mauritian lawyer and friend of Sir Keir Starmer, Satyajit Boolell, has stated that he “cleared things up” for him regarding the Chagos issue.
Thus, we have our new Prime Minister already keen to sell out to Mauritius, and then came along the new Foreign Secretary, David Lammy MP, not known to be the sharpest knife in the drawer and ripe for the FCO to con him into a sell-out. I can imagine what the FCO said to him at their first meeting: “Welcome, Minister. You have a unique opportunity to settle a long-running issue, which the last Government failed to do. We have an International Court of Justice ruling, and we must hand back the Chagos Islands to their rightful owner, Mauritius. You can get the credit where the last Government failed. They started negotiations, but they were unable to conclude them. Naturally, we will have to pay them a small amount to keep our lease on the military base at Diego Garcia, and that will keep the Americans happy. It is a win-win for you, Minister. We avoid condemnation from the UN, the Americans are content, and you will get the credit for a diplomatic success”. I challenge anyone to say that that description of what happened is not reasonably accurate in all probability.
The previous Government had started negotiations in November 2022 and were nowhere near an agreement after 11 rounds of negotiations by the general election in 2024. That is 18 months of negotiations, including six months led by my very able noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton. I have to hand it to Mr Lammy: he was a mere three months into the job and a new Foreign Secretary with no experience whatever, and yet he concluded the deal in a mere three months. No wonder the deal is so diabolically bad for the UK and the Chagossians.
We have surrendered a UK strategic asset to China, which is already talking to Mauritius about doing deals there. Which country will fund development in the Chagos Islands? It will be China, of course—possibly India too, but certainly China. If Mauritius wishes to exploit the archipelago economically, it will need to establish infrastructure on the islands, and the most likely investor for that is China. China will most likely build a huge military base on one of the other 70 islands, some of which have very shallow water around them. We have seen how China has illegally built massive military bases on sandbanks in the South China Sea. It would be a piece of cake to do likewise on one of the Chagos Islands.
I leave it to others to try to get to the bottom of the cost: £5 billion, £9 billion, £18 billion or £35 billion. Even £1 million is an outrageous sum to give to a foreign power with no rights whatever to the islands, along with our giving away our own territory.
I conclude on the environmental crime that we will soon see there when the marine protected area is destroyed, as it surely will be. Mauritius ranks very low globally in overall ecosystem vitality and biodiversity protection metrics, with fish stocks showing a decline. The Chagos Islands boast some of the world’s most pristine coral reefs and marine biodiversity, making their preservation critical not only for ecological reasons but for future scientific research on climate change adaptation and marine conservation.
In 2010, the UK Government established an MPA of approximately 640,000 square kilometres around the islands. This no-take zone is one of the world’s largest marine reserves and protects the Chagos Archipelago’s coral reefs, deep-sea habitats and wildlife. However, China’s distant ocean fishing fleet is ravaging and destroying our oceans, invading the Galápagos MPA. It is a constant battle to keep it out of our gigantic Pitcairn Islands MPA, the second largest in the world at 841,000 square kilometres. So when China does a deal with the Mauritius Government, now mired in corruption scandals, the MPA will be the first target for Chinese exploitation and destruction as China fishes it dry and destroys the coral reefs with bottom trawling. Four of the top 10 MPAs in the world are UK overseas territories, and we will have destroyed one of them.
I ask the Government: is there nothing you will not sell out in this grubby deal—the Chagossian people, our defence and security, the costs to our economy, the perception that we may sell out other overseas territories and now even our pristine marine environment? I pray that this appallingly bad Bill can be amended or stopped before it does more damage to our country.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I think we all agree that what a Labour Government did 60 years ago in displacing the Chagossians was disgraceful and that there has been a tangled web of deception ever since under Governments of all parties. The Chagossians have been treated with shameful contempt and disdain. This treaty, and hence this Bill, while not perfect, open the way to some sort of justice after 60 years; that is a good advance.
This is a remarkable week of anniversaries concerning Chagos. Yesterday marked no fewer than three of them: 3 November was the 25th anniversary of the High Court judgment in 2000 allowing the Chagossians to return to the outer islands. In Mauritius, 3 November is Chagossian National Day when the Prime Minister lays a wreath at the Chagos monument on the port side in Port Louis, accompanied by the chairman of the Chagos Refugees Group, Olivier Bancoult. As my noble friend Lord Purvis noted, 3 November was also the third anniversary of the UK announcement to Parliament in 2022 by the then Conservative Foreign Secretary that constructive negotiations on sovereignty, the protection of the base, the Chagossians and the marine protected area would begin with Mauritius, with a view to reaching agreement in early 2023.
We can now add a fourth notable 3 November event: the creation by Mauritius, announced yesterday, of the Chagos MPA, as the Minister noted. To cap it all, 8 November, Saturday, is the 60th anniversary—a sad one—of the detachment of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius and the creation of BIOT by Order in Council in 1965 with, of course, the beginning of the disgraceful expulsion of Chagossians from their home.
I have supported the Chagossians for several decades and declare my long-standing membership of the Chagos All-Party Parliamentary Group, founded 20 years ago, which has shaped my desire for a resolution of this long-open wound.
The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has used a lot of extravagant terms at different times to deplore this treaty, calling it variously in the last few months a “strategic capitulation”, a “surrender”, “obscene” and “dangerous”. He did not disappoint today—he was very entertaining—but the Opposition are being utterly disingenuous, dishonest and hypocritical, as this treaty is pretty much what they would have concluded in the two years from the launch of negotiations in autumn 2022 to their loss of power in July 2024.
My noble friend Lord Purvis has said in his interventions today and when we debated the treaty in June:
“The treaty is a consequence of now completing the previous Conservative Government’s policy. Some who agreed with it then disagree with it now, but that does not change the fact that the Conservatives made a major policy choice to cede sovereignty and to do it under the context of the International Court of Justice decisions”.—[Official Report, 30/6/25; col. 475.]
After hearing Sir Christopher Greenwood, a former judge of the International Court of Justice, our International Agreements Committee concluded that the future of the base on Diego Garcia would be at greater risk in the likely event of a future binding legal judgment in favour of Mauritius. Sir Christopher recognised that the ICJ opinion was advisory and not binding, but that it is
“a very authoritative guide to the legal position. In reality, it would be very difficult for any state just to ignore an almost unanimous opinion of the international court”.
Liberal Democrats want to be assured that the UK would not permit the United States to breach international law at Diego Garcia, as the then UK Government did in colluding in the use of the base for extraordinary rendition after 9/11. As my colleague in the other place, James MacCleary, said in a debate in May:
“Having now confirmed this deal on a shared UK-US asset, how confident is the Secretary of State that Diego Garcia will not be used by this White House to advance foreign policy objectives that we deem contrary to our principles and interests?”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/5/25; col. 1289.]
I would welcome an answer to that from the Minister today, if she is able to provide one.
The treaty does not bring Mauritius closer to China; rather, it strengthens Mauritius’s relationship with the West. Mauritius has not joined China’s belt and road initiative and has no intention of doing so. A long-term agreement between the UK and Mauritius reinforces not only UK but Commonwealth ties, especially with India, which is a close ally of Mauritius. Mauritius also has close ties with the EU, France and Australia. The treaty strengthens NATO’s position and potential operations in the Indian Ocean, and India recently participated in military exercises with the US out of Diego Garcia. The Bill and treaty will bring BIOT to an end, allow Chagossians to return to their native outer islands under Mauritian sovereignty and provide for visits to Diego Garcia. I realise that the treaty does not provide for a right to self-determination, but the House needs to recognise that the majority of Chagossians none the less support it.
The Chagos Refugees Group is the largest and longest-standing group of its kind. It is led by Olivier Bancoult, whom I have met several times, including earlier this year. The CRG, the members of which are all dual citizens of the UK and Mauritius, has campaigned for the rights of Chagossians to return, including through pursuing litigation in our Supreme Court, the European Court of Human Rights and other international courts. The CRG believes that the UK-Mauritius treaty is the only way Chagossians will be able to return for visits and resettlement. In a statement made three weeks ago, Olivier Bancoult said on behalf of the group:
“For the last 55 years since our exile began we have implored the UK government to permit us to resettle in our homeland. After repeated rejection of our demands we remain convinced that this agreement provides the only way forward, in which our compatriots will be allowed to restore the ancestral connection to our islands … Unless, therefore, the Agreement is approved and implemented our exile will continue with no hope of restoring our fundamental human right to return”.
He added:
“This resolution has come about after comprehensive consultation of Chagossians worldwide”.
However, he warned that,
“if Mauritius will not fulfil its responsibilities to us of course we will raise our voices”.
In fact, not only has Olivier Bancoult been consulted over 30 times by the Mauritian Government but Stephen Doughty, the UK Minister responsible, has met Chagossians throughout the process and briefed them ahead of the agreement. There was also mention earlier, I think, of a government-commissioned study conducted by KPMG in 2015, which involved considerable consultation with the Chagossians.
Sir Christopher Greenwood, in his evidence to the International Agreements Committee, said:
“Britain’s standing to argue that Mauritius should be required to resettle Chagossians on the other islands, frankly, is somewhat undermined by the fact that the United Kingdom has consistently refused any suggestion of resettlement on the other islands. That is a position that the UK Government have reaffirmed relatively recently”.
He cited a reply by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, in 2022, to a Written Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, in which the noble Lord confirmed that, in November 2016, which was also under a Conservative Government,
“the UK Government announced that resettlement of Chagossians could not be supported on the grounds of feasibility, defence and security interests, and cost to the British taxpayer. There remains no right of abode in BIOT”.
That was the position under the Conservative Government—no resettlement in the Chagos Islands. It is an improvement on the situation under previous Governments that resettlement is now to be possible, even if not assured.
It is true that the provision in the treaty on resettlement is permissive, saying that Mauritius is free to arrange for resettlement on all the islands except Diego Garcia, rather than obligatory. As my noble friends here and friends in the other place have consistently argued, more clarity is needed about the implementation of the agreement and the impact on Chagossians, including on funding from the trust fund and on resettlement. It would be good to hear more detail from the Minister today.
Finally, other provisions of the treaty or Bill which merit a mention are citizenship and environmental matters. While the Bill removes the ability of people to acquire British Overseas Territories citizenship on the basis of connection to BIOT, it preserves a route to full British citizenship for Chagossian descendants. The treaty includes provisions for the UK to support Mauritius in establishing and managing marine protected areas. We have noted that, yesterday, Mauritius created one called CAMPA: the Chagos Archipelago MPA. The treaty commits the parties to co-operate on environmental protection, maritime security and illegal fishing. My friend in the other place, Dr Al Pinkerton, understandably put forward the need for accountability, with an annual report on progress on the MPAs so that environmental protection does not fade from view. My last request would be to hear from the Minister a commitment to such regular reporting on environmental protection.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, the people of Northern Ireland have a particular interest in the Chagos islands, because the United Kingdom took on responsibility for the islands and, crucially, a duty of care for the Chagossian people in 1814, when the UK was represented by one of the most successful Foreign Secretaries, Viscount Castlereagh. He went on to play a pivotal role in laying the foundation for peace in Europe for nearly 100 years through the Congress of Vienna the following year, the success of which stands in sharp contrast to the shortcomings of Versailles, 160 years later. His family home, Mount Stewart, in Northern Ireland, is now owned by the National Trust and contains the state chairs from the Congress of Vienna, which were donated to Castlereagh after the conclusion of the congress, in recognition of the crucial contribution that he made to proceedings.
In my comments today, I want to reflect on the serious human rights failures attending the Bill before us and the treaty to which it relates. The argument for the Bill and treaty is that, on 8 November 1965, the UK Government, with the consent of the Mauritian Council of Ministers, removed the Chagos Islands and made them into a separate colony, the British Indian Overseas Territory, in order to meet the American request for a military base on the islands. This means that Mauritius gained independence in 1968 without the Chagos Islands
The argument is that this was contrary to UN Resolution 1514 on decolonisation, because it involved the colonial power, the UK, changing the territorial integrity of the colony before decolonisation. In this context it is said that, notwithstanding that the Mauritian Council of Ministers consented to the separation of the Chagos Islands in 1965, this decision was not valid because the United Kingdom acted contrary to international law in seeking this separation, and therefore since 1968, the decolonisation of Mauritius has been only partially secured and will not be fully secured until the islands are returned to Mauritius. This argument, however, depends on abstracting a concern for the territorial integrity of the 1965 colony, frozen in time, apart from all other considerations of international law.
The distance from the island of Mauritius to the Chagos Islands is a huge 1,339 miles—the distance from here to north Africa. Not surprisingly, the people are of a different ethnic group and religion. Thus, in international law regarding decolonisation, rather than self-determination being subject to territorial integrity, territorial integrity is very much subject to self-determination.
In the second instance, turning to the events of 1968 to 1973, the delivery of self-determination was undermined from 1968 because, after creating the British Indian Ocean Territory, the UK Government embarked on one of the most shameful episodes in our history, as has already been mentioned in your Lordships’ House today. We would like to think that the events of 1968 to 1973 took place in an earlier age—between 1768 and 1773, or perhaps between 1868 and 1873—but they did not. They happened within my lifetime and those of many noble Lords, and involved the forced removal of the Chagossian people not just from their homes but from their islands.
In this context, the Government’s argument is that we can somehow forget about the self-determination of the people of the islands and just revert to the pre-8 November 1965 territorial integrity, and so effectively reassert the validity of what happened between 1968 and 1973. Rather than alleviating our national shame and moral responsibility, the Government’s decision to use the fact that we forcibly removed the Chagossians from their homeland as an excuse for denying them self-determination makes our moral failure much worse. It involves our acting as if the Chagossians do not exist.
The Government might seek to argue that their position is not that the Chagossians do not exist but that they are properly conceived of as Mauritians for two reasons. First, because pre-8 November 1965 they lived in the colony of Mauritius, the boundaries of which the Government are seeking to restore; and secondly, because some Chagossians live in Mauritius.
This argument, however, is completely unsustainable. First, most Chagossians do not live in Mauritius and those who do have been leaving in large numbers. Secondly, those who remain in Mauritius are there only because they were forcibly removed to Mauritius, not because they wanted to go there. We need to give some thought to that. Thirdly, the relationship between the Chagossians and Mauritians is such that it is plainly very difficult, if not impossible, for Chagossians to place themselves in the identity of Mauritian, because the Mauritians played a crucial role in facilitating what amounted to an existential attack on the Chagossians: their forced removal from the Chagos Islands in agreeing they would be moved to the island of Mauritius, 1,339 miles away.
The 1965 decision of the Mauritian Council of Ministers was not valid because it took place while Mauritius was a UK colony. How much more valid is any attempt to pretend that the decision of the Republic of Mauritius in 2025 can be regarded as a valid decision on the part of the Chagossians, who, unlike the Mauritian Council of Ministers in 1965, were not consulted?
Going forward, two things are absolutely clear. First, having taken advice, it would be perfectly possible to facilitate a robust and secure referendum of the Chagossians, who live principally in the UK, the Seychelles and Mauritius, to find out whether they self-determine that their islands—which, from this Saturday, will have been functionally separate from what has become the Republic of Mauritius for 60 years—should rejoin Mauritius or not. This is critically important because the informal referendum, facilitated by a BIOT citizens group which has engaged around 40% of Chagossians, has demonstrated that over 99% of them do not wish their islands to be given to the Mauritians. Secondly, according to the crucial KPMG report already mentioned in your Lordships’ House today, the resettlement of the Chagos Islands would be significantly cheaper than leasing just one of the islands, Diego Garcia, from Mauritius.
It was unconscionable that we should have taken the people of the Chagos Islands from their own lands, but now the UK Government’s Mauritius treaty and Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill are about to make things much worse. First, the Bill—the concluded passage of which facilitates the coming into force of the Mauritius treaty—seeks to give the Chagossians’ lands to what many of them regard as a foreign country, without their consent and without even requiring the Mauritians to resettle the Chagos Islands with the Chagossians. Secondly, the Government propose paying the Republic of Mauritius—which many Chagossians regard not only as a foreign country but a foreign country that has a history of discriminating against Chagossians—an extravagant amount of money for the use of just one island when that would pay for the resettlement of the Chagossians in their islands right now. Thirdly, the Government then hoist themselves by their own petard by engaging directly with the Chagossians, as distinct from the Mauritians, through Article 11 of the treaty, but then make no attempt to facilitate their self-determination.
There is more we would all like to say, but if the Government decide to proceed they will unwittingly make provision for an even more disturbing TV drama than “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”. I urge them to think about that. The British public expect more from their Government in 2025. I strongly advise them to step back from the brink.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, the International Relations and Defence Committee, which I have the honour to chair, decided, on the announcement of the deal with Mauritius, to have a look at the proposed handover of sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory. As a result, the committee raised a number of issues. In view of the fact that we are a cross-party committee, we did not get into an argument about the Government’s detailed reasons for doing the deal. We simply observed that the decision to proceed was ultimately political. That statement itself acknowledges the fact that several members of the committee, including me, were very doubtful about the Government’s stated legal and other reasons. My noble friend Lord Lilley eloquently set out the basis for some of those doubts.
Our witnesses were unanimous in their view that Diego Garcia holds a pivotal strategic role for the United Kingdom and the United States, and that it is critical for broader western security strategy in the Indo-Pacific—on that much at least, we can agree with the Government. The Government argue that the deal secures Diego Garcia as a UK base. As an article from RUSI issued since our inquiry points out, however, the base was already secure prior to the ceding of sovereignty. We heard arguments that I find persuasive that the deal could, in fact, make the base less secure in absolute terms. I will come to some of those in a moment.
The committee focused on four key areas: the future of defence and security arrangements on Diego Garcia; the rights of the Chagossian people; the environmental protection of the archipelago; and the costs arising from the agreement.
As regards defence and security, witnesses alerted us to a number of potential risks. Most of these revolved around increased vulnerability to Chinese political warfare tactics. Our attention was drawn to the fact that there remains a risk, particularly in the context of expanding Chinese influence on the African continent, that the base may need to be used in a way that is perceived as contentious in Africa—for example, arising from the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty—and could cause diplomatic difficulties, to say the least, for the UK in the future.
As regards the long term, we heard evidence that the Government’s confidence in the strength of the UK’s right of first refusal to an extension after 99 years was unconvincing. This was because, among other things, it lacks the mechanism for enforcement and would be difficult to assert in practice. This is a significant potential source of future vulnerability that the Government must address now as part of their long-term strategic planning.
Being in Hong Kong at the time of its handover to the Chinese in 1997—and look what a success that has been—brought home to me that 99 years today is little more than a single lifespan. We noted that the agreement has introduced a risk that Mauritius—as the sovereign power, if the treaty is ratified—could object to a specific military operation from Diego Garcia, due to differing views on whether it meets the requirements of international humanitarian law. While the Government were categorical that this would not limit UK-US freedom of action, we were warned that such objections could lead to lawfare and create diplomatic difficulties for the UK, bringing the risk that they affect military operations.
I turn to the rights of Chagossians. We met a cross- section of members of the community in UK and Mauritius. While we acknowledge that their views cannot be representative of the entire community, those we met expressed unanimous dissatisfaction with the consultation processes conducted by both the UK and Mauritian Governments. Concerns revolved principally around, first, the vague language relating to resettlement and, secondly, the inadequacy of arrangements to ensure that Chagossians benefit from the financial package being given to Mauritius by the UK. It is notable that under Article 10 of the agreement, the UK is required to give preference to suitably qualified Mauritian nationals, to the maximum extent practical when employing contractors, but no reference is made to prioritising employment for those of Chagossian heritage.
To date, the Government have not provided a clear or convincing rationale for excluding Chagossians from employment on Diego Garcia. The lack of attention to the interests of Chagossians is even more stark in the context of the financial package. Concerns were raised to us about the £40 million trust fund that the UK will set up under Article 11 of the agreement, dedicated to the Chagossian community, with Mauritius establishing the fund under its financial regulations, in consultation with the UK.
A key theme during our discussion with the Chagossians was the lack of clarity on how the trust fund would be managed, with participants highlighting the Mauritian Government’s poor record in supporting their community. For example, in 2016 the UK provided £40 million to the Mauritian authorities to improve Chagossian lives, yet only £1.3 million was disbursed, and even those funds came with restrictive conditions. Given this, it is surprising that the Government have surrendered the right to manage this fund to Mauritius, when the UK is itself well equipped to manage funds on behalf of others.
The Government have committed to providing a factual update to Parliament on the modalities of the trust fund, and on eligibility for resettlement. I ask the Minister when that update will be forthcoming. Alongside the trust fund, a £45 million annual development grant will be provided by the UK for a period of 25 years, to support development projects aimed at improving the economic welfare of Mauritius and its citizens. Why has a proportion of the grant, at least, not been earmarked for the benefit of Chagossians? I find it extraordinary that it was a Labour Government, in the 1960s, who evicted the population of the Chagos Islands callously from their island homes, and it is a Labour Government, in 2025, who have so blatantly failed to give adequate attention to the rights of the Chagossians.
I turn to the environmental implications. The committee heard the archipelago described by a credible environmental expert as
“the most important reef wilderness on the planet”.
Concern arises partly because there is uncertainty about the future of the marine protected area established around the BIOT in 2010 by the UK, as the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, said, given that it has not been recognised by Mauritius. We were told in particular that the Mauritian Government’s track record in marine governance is poor. Furthermore, assuming that Mauritius acts in good faith in the matter of the environment, its enforcement capabilities are currently limited, as again the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, said, to just two ocean-going vessels and two aircraft that are incapable of reaching Chagos directly.
I turn finally to the cost of the agreement. For each of the first three years, the UK will pay Mauritius £165 million. It will then pay £120 million per year for the following 10 years. Thereafter, it will continue to pay the equivalent of £120 million annually, increasing in line with inflation. In addition, the UK will fund the £40 million trust fund and the £45 million annual development grant that I referred to earlier. The Government calculate the total cost of all this at approximately £3.4 billion. However, critics have questioned the methodology used and argued that the total cost of the agreement could be very considerably greater.
Attempting to justify the cost of the agreement, the Minister asserted to us that the payments to Mauritius compare favourably with payments made by others for overseas bases. For example, he indicated that France had recently arranged an €85 million per year deal with Djibouti on its basing arrangements for a military base 15 times smaller than Diego Garcia. We noted, however, that the Government’s emphasis on the size of the Djibouti base draws a false equivalence between size and cost; it therefore calls into doubt any such comparison. We called on the Government to provide the committee with further information on how the overall leasing costs for Diego Garcia were determined and how these may affect the allocations in the defence budget. No such data has yet been produced.
As I hope I have outlined, the Government still have some very serious questions to answer on the future defence and security arrangements, the rights of the Chagossians, the environmental protection of the archipelago, and the costs arising from the arrangement.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, as a former Defence Minister and current chair of the ISC, I recognise the vital importance of the base on Diego Garcia. It is significant because of its strategic location. It has been vital in combating some of the most serious threats against us and our allies, including from terrorism and hostile states. It has a unique capability of collecting data, which has been used to counter terrorism both abroad and at home. It has made our security, not only ours but that of our allies, greater. It is also a strategically vital logistics hub and protects some strategic shipping lanes. On national security, we usually have consensus across the House, both here and in the other place. Therefore, I am saddened and disappointed that the Official Opposition are using this as a political football on such a vital interest, not just to us but to our allies.
There have been four main issues put forward against the Bill. One is the legal issue around sovereignty; the second is cost; the third is the threat from China; and the fourth is the way in which the Chagossian people have been treated. In opening, my noble friend Lady Chapman outlined the issues around the legal uncertainty surrounding the Diego Garcia base. The excellent report of the International Agreements Committee— I congratulate Members who were involved in it—covers those in good detail but, like all legal questions, there are different opinions. Clearly, the committee took evidence from different opinions in its work and Professor Richard Ekins KC was of the opinion that the ICJ opinion was not legally binding.
As has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, Sir Christopher Greenwood said that he could envisage at least two possible routes to make that agreement binding. Clearly, there is a division; there is uncertainty, and that is what the Bill is about, as was said by the Minister in opening the debate, and that is why the last Government entered into negotiations on this.
On the issue around sovereignty, what I find difficult is this. James Cleverly, the Foreign Secretary at the time, said on 3 November, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that negotiations would begin
“on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory”
and that it was the Government’s
“intention to secure an agreement on the basis of international law”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/22; col. 27WS.]
The then Government were clear about discussing sovereignty, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said. The rhetoric from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is that this is the sovereignty surrender Bill; I challenge the Conservative party to say what has changed in that time, when it was quite clear that the last Government were going to discuss the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands.
The noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Blencathra, said that it was all those nasty people at the Foreign Office who have basically bamboozled Ministers of both Governments, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that the Conservatives would have come to a similar conclusion: if they had been returned to office, this Bill would have been put forward.
Secondly, on the issue around costs, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, did the usual trick of adding up all this money to get to £35 billion to give the impression that this money will be paid out tomorrow, when it will be over 100 years. This investment underpins the already huge investment that not only we have put into the Diego Garcia base but, more importantly, the Americans, and will continue to do for years to come. The committee report mentioned Djibouti, as did the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and possible issues around size, but this is not an unusual arrangement. However, the joint agreement gives certainty to ourselves and our American allies to invest in the future of that vital capability.
Thirdly, on China, there is a lot of hyperbole spoken on this issue—and not just on this Bill. A lot of ill- informed comment is often portrayed as fact. I urge noble Lords to look at our ISC report of 2023 on China. Yes, China is a threat. Is it a threat to Diego Garcia now? Yes, it is. Will it be in the future? Yes, it will be. But the Bill does nothing to make that more likely. On the issue of China, who is Mauritius’s main interlocutor? It is India. Our Five Eyes partners have all agreed this and think it is a good way forward. It has been suggested that Mauritius will have a veto over military operations; no, it will not, if we look at the Bill—it will have the same rights as the Republic of Cyprus in terms of the sovereign base areas. If military action takes place, people will be informed afterwards. That is not giving it a veto. The idea that China will somehow get close to our very valuable assets there is not the case, because for the first time the outer islands, which are vulnerable, will be secured; that is something we should welcome. It also underpins the strategy of working with our Pacific partners to ensure that we face down China in that part of the world.
Fourthly, on the Chagossian people, I think everyone agrees that the way they have been treated over decades has been completely shameful. This agreement makes a movement forward—as my noble friend said, the funding coming forward allows some limited resettlement —but I urge those Chagossians listening not to be fooled by the Conservative Front Bench. I spent 23 years in the House of Commons, and the only person who consistently raised this issue was the Member for Islington North, Jeremy Corbyn. I never heard a single Member on the Conservative Benches, so it is clearly political opportunism to say now that, somehow, they care about the Chagossian people; they do not at all. I would be very wary about that being put forward.
This is an important Bill. The agreement has the support of our Five Eyes partners and of regional players. Please, if we are talking about national security, this is too vitally important to be kicked around, as it is being, as a political football. We need this Bill. It gives a secure future for our continued occupation of Diego Garcia and, more importantly, the facilities that it brings to keep us all safe.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Beamish. He deployed a lot of knowledge and insight, and I have great respect for him. He mentioned the former leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, who has been consistent in his interest in this subject; I would also add Andrew Rosindell, who, from the day I joined Parliament, has been consistent in his challenging of Governments of all colours and standing up for the Chagossians.
My noble friend Lord Callanan mentioned his amendment, and the Minister was pretty impolite about that amendment. If the Government were serious about challenging our amendment, why did they not put it to a vote? Incidentally, where are the Labour Peers this evening? If they did not like our amendment, they could have voted it down and allowed the Bill to be committed to a Committee of the whole House. Surely, that would have been the sensible thing to have done.
In 2010, I was appointed Minister for the Overseas Territories. Some 31 years on from when the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, was the director of the overseas territories directorate, I was taking a great interest in this subject; whether that makes him very old or me very young, I do not know, but we both care passionately about this subject. I remember at the time looking at the whole issue of the Chagossian people, and we agreed at the time, in 2010, to set up a feasibility study, which then eventually reported in 2014. It is a great shame that the then Government, which, I think, was in transition from David Cameron to Theresa May, did not pick up the recommendations of that feasibility study, take action and look at different schemes to allow the Chagossians to return.
The Chagossians have been treated quite appallingly. There is no doubt about that. Under a Labour Government, decisions were made that were egregious, on a par probably with the Highland clearances and the appalling evictions during the famine in Ireland. These people were forcibly removed from their territory, from their land, and we should be ashamed—my Government as well, over successive decades, but all Governments.
There has been talk about consultation with the Chagossians, involvement with them and engaging with them, but I agree 100% with the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow: we should have a referendum of the Chagossian people. If it is possible to have a referendum for the position of chancellor of the University of Oxford and poll all the alumni around the world, surely it would be perfectly feasible and possible to have a referendum of Chagossians, who are living in this country, in Mauritius and in the Seychelles, with some in different parts of Europe. I believe very strongly that we should do that. One of the observations I have come away with, having had many conversations with Chagossians, is that they are a very proud group of people. What is extraordinary, beyond belief, is that they are still incredibly loyal to the Crown. We do not deserve that. We owe them a duty.
On the deal itself, we have heard many different legal opinions. We heard my noble friend Lord Lilley, who I thought made an excellent speech in which he dealt with this subject, so I will not go over that ground again. I do know Sir Christopher Greenwood extremely well—we were immediate contemporaries, reading law at Cambridge and then at the Inns of Court—and I respect his opinions enormously. During my time as the Minister for the UN, I used to go and visit him at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, where he was our resident judge. He has not once said that these decisions—there is more than one decision—and potential decisions could be totally binding. Other legal experts have said that they are always going to be advisory.
We are where we are. I personally think that the Truss Government, who did not last very long, were quite wrong to launch these negotiations, but the negotiations were launched. Eleven rounds of negotiations took place. A number of Labour Peers who are not here today have said that after 11 rounds we were bound to reach a decision, and it was only a matter of time when the new Government came in that they would decide this. Well, I have spoken to James Cleverly and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and they had red lines beyond which they were not prepared to go under any circumstances.
I will not go into them all, but there were two key red lines. The first was a properly managed MPA, preferably with joint sovereignty, and the other, more important red line was negotiating with Mauritius for a sovereign base area, and I think Mauritius would have agreed this. A sovereign base area is very different from a lease; it is a sovereign base in perpetuity. The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, made the point about us being obliged to notify Cyprus that the two Cyprus sovereign bases are our sovereign territory. In this case we have no obligation to do that; this will be not our sovereign territory but Mauritius’s, and we will be in a very different position as a lessee.
If one looks back at the Cyprus negotiations under a Tory Government in 1960, Cyprus was a country fighting for its independence after a very bloody, unpleasant conflict between the British occupying forces and EOKA. After painful negotiations, we got to the stage at which Cyprus was going to reach its independence, but we stood firm and insisted on those two sovereign base areas. The Cypriot Government were not happy, but I suggest to your Lordships that they had a much stronger bargaining position than the Mauritian Government had over the Chagos Islands and Diego Garcia. In fact, if we had negotiated a 99-year lease on those sovereign base areas in 1960, we would now be looking at 34 years to go.
If one looks at Hong Kong, would it not have been better if the Government in 1897 had secured a sovereign grant of the New Territories? Obviously, we had outright sovereignty on Hong Kong and Kowloon, but it was decided after the war that it was not feasible to maintain sovereignty over Hong Kong and Kowloon without the New Territories. If the Government then had insisted on an outright grant of sovereignty, which may well have been quite possible—I have read all the debates at the time—we would have been in a very different position. If one looks at what happened with Hong Kong, there was enormous pressure on leases and discussion, debate and uncertainty running up to 1997, and that started about 30 years out. I suggest to the Minister that, probably in about 70 years, those discussions will start taking place about the future of Diego Garcia. We may well get a very warm reception from the Mauritian Government in terms of extending the lease by those 40 years, but we may not. A lot of things can change.
The bottom line is that we have lost control. If this treaty goes through, we will have completely lost control of the future of that base. Yes, it will be secure in the short term, subject to all sorts of caveats that have been mentioned. That is why I am very disappointed and sad that that red line was crossed. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, would have allowed that red line to be crossed. Furthermore, had he tried to cross it, he would never have got it through the House of Commons anyway.
On the marine protection area, one of the first things I dealt with when I became Overseas Territories Minister was to look at the biodiversity within the territories—92% of our total biodiversity is in the OTs, of which 20% is in the Chagos Archipelago. It may well be that the commitments of Navin Ramgoolam—whom I know well—will be honoured by future Governments. His Excellency is an honourable, decent man, but he could be replaced by someone completely different. As the noble Lords, Lord Thurlow and Lord Blencathra, have pointed out, the agreements that have been made around the MPA could easily be rescinded or changed, and that MPA, which is one of the jewels in the crown of the overseas territories, could be put at very severe risk indeed.
I will not go into details about the costs, except to say that I think the Minister was wrong in her figures. If one includes the 40 years at £101 million, that comes to £14 billion, not the £3 billion that she mentioned. This decision by the Government not to commit has given us a pause to reflect on what we do now. I urge the House to remember that we have a duty to consult the Chagossian people and improve the Bill, and we absolutely must do that.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, and particularly his very thoughtful speech today. I say at the outset that I support the Bill as a necessary consequence of the Chagos Islands agreement, which I also support.
I will not deal with the future of the Chagossians or environmental issues today, important though they both are. I will focus on security, but I think that both the British and Mauritian Governments will need to work hard to meet the justified demands of the Chagossian people.
I will not go over all the ground covered by the Minister in her opening speech, but I want to emphasise the importance of the base on Diego Garcia for our security and, more generally, for western security. A simple look at the map shows why it matters so much for our security, and for western security, in Asia, Africa and the Middle East, and why security of the base in the years ahead is so important.
For that reason, I continue to think—and, as I have said before in this House, I thought at the time—that it was absolutely right for the previous Government to start intensive negotiations with Mauritius, with the aim of ensuring
“the continued effective operation of the joint UK/US military base on Diego Garcia”;—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/22; col. 27WS.]
that it was absolutely right for the then Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to decide, after examining the issue, to continue with the negotiations; and that it is absolutely right for the present Government to conclude them.
As I understand it—and I have listened carefully to the Minister—the agreement will provide us and the United States with the certainty we both need over the future of the military base on Diego Garcia for 99 years, plus another 40 years if we exercise our rights under the treaty. It does not surprise me that our Five Eyes partners—the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand—have welcomed the deal, recognising its importance for their and our security, nor that India, South Korea and the African Union have welcomed it too.
It would, of course, have been nice to have secured the deal without the cost. Some £101 million a year in today’s money is not cheap, and it would build a lot of hospitals. But surely the question is whether paying 0.2% of the defence budget is a price worth paying for the security it brings. I believe that it is.
Finally, it is worth considering the implications of our not agreeing a deal, of continuing with a contested relationship with Mauritius, the UN and the ICJ, and of ditching an agreement that we have reached with, and that has the support of, our Five Eyes partners. I know it is always risky to peer into the future, particularly given today’s uncertain world, but we can be pretty certain that the ICJ and UN General Assembly resolutions condemning us would continue. It is likely that they will be legally binding on us in the future. Could we just ignore that? Yes, we could, but in doing so, in these circumstances, we would be flouting international law. I believe—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is listening—that the United Kingdom should be supporting and respecting international law, not flouting it. That has been, and should remain, our tradition, whether under a Conservative or a Labour Government.
May I also say to the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Blencathra—
Lord Lilley (Con)
The noble Lord said that we should pursue international law. Does he accept that we have, under the International Court of Justice, an opt-out for disputes between ourselves and Commonwealth countries—or was he going to mention that anyway?
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
I was not going to mention that; I was making the simple point that respect for international law has been, and should remain, an extremely important part of British foreign policy.
I say this to the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Blencathra. When I was in the Foreign Office, serving under the late Lord Carrington and Lord Hurd, I was not conscious that there was a Foreign Office policy and not a government foreign policy. I have to say, I did not have the privilege of serving under the noble Lord, Lord Cameron.
The agreement with Mauritius and the treaty we are now considering respect international law, protect British and western security, have the support of our Five Eyes partners, India and others, and, in my view, unquestionably deserve our support.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, there is pretty stiff competition for the accolade “worst Bill of this Session”, but this Bill is right up there in contention.
The Chagos Islands are linked to Mauritius only by virtue of the fact that they were both once administered as part of one colony. There is no historical, geographical or cultural basis for Mauritius claiming ownership. I have no idea why, in 1965, the Labour Government decided to pay Mauritius £3 million for agreeing to detach the Chagos Islands, but that is what they did. That £3 million is something like £70 million in today’s money. Labour has form on chucking taxpayers’ money at Mauritius. The cost of this Bill is what I want to focus on today.
The Bill itself contains no financial provisions, but it is important because, if it passes, it will pave the way for ratification of the treaty, which will trigger the payments described in the treaty. This is where the smoke and mirrors start to come in. As has already been mentioned today, the Explanatory Memorandum to the treaty says:
“The average annual cost to the UK … is £101 million in 2025/2026 prices”.
That is technically correct, but we will be spending taxpayers’ money in cash, not as expressed notionally in this year’s prices.
The biggest element of the package runs for the whole of the 99 years. It starts at £165 million for the first three years, then it is £120 million for the next 10 years. After that, it is indexed for the whole of the remaining period using the GDP deflator. This means that, by the end of the 99 years, we will be paying more than £650 million a year—assuming that the deflator comes in at 2%, which is a fairly heroic assumption given the Bank of England’s current performance on controlling inflation. That is what compounding does, even when using the very low rate of 2%. As say, if inflation goes above that, the figure could be very much more. In cash terms, the average is not £101 million; it is at least three times that.
That is not all. The payment structure is front-end loaded, which means that using an average of 99 years understates the short-term fiscal impact. If we look just at the first 10 years, the average payment in 2025-26 prices is not £110 million; it is about £150 million. In cash terms, it is around £170 million. The Secretary of State for Defence told the other place that the treaty would cost the UK less than 0.2% of the defence budget. That is about £120 million, using the 2025-26 budget numbers. In cash terms, we will never, never pay less than £120 million a year. At current prices, we do not pay less than £120 million until about year 30 of the deal. Did the Secretary of State for Defence not understand the deal—or had he concocted this description in a deliberate attempt to confuse?
The Explanatory Memorandum goes on to say that the total expected cost of the finance package, using a net present value methodology, is £3.4 billion, as we have already heard. The total cash cost to taxpayers via the Exchequer is nearer 10 times that. The figure of £3.4 billion not only knocks off future inflation to get to 2025-26 prices; it then knocks off very much more by using a social time preference rate in accordance with the Treasury’s Green Book, and that rate starts at 3.5% and drops down to 2.5%. I will spare noble Lords a discourse on the social time preference rate. It is a fact that the Government use a lower figure when it suits them. Indeed, when the noble Lord, Lord Stern, was asked to analyse the economics of climate change, he used a discount rate of 0.1%. The Government did not even challenge that. Far from it: they used the report to justify the completely crazy costs of net-zero policies.
It is clearly convenient for the Government to use a high discount rate when they are calculating what they claim to be the cost of this policy. I am not going to argue about the discount rate. Instead, I am going to argue that it is simply not relevant. The Treasury’s Green Book draws a clear distinction between what it calls the economic dimension, and the financial dimension. Discounting is relevant to the economic dimension but not to the financial dimension. The Green Book describes discounting in the following terms. The reason for social discounting is to allow proposals of different lengths and with different options, and with different profiles of net costs and benefits over time, to be compared on a common basis. That is not what we are doing here. There is no question of comparing differing proposals in the Bill we have before us. The Government are using discounting to try to pull the wool over our eyes, but we are not deceived. The financial cost of this Bill is not £3.4 billion. It is £35 billion at best.
This is a bad Bill, for the many reasons that have been given by my noble friends and other noble Lords today. For me, it is another example of the reason why the Labour Government cannot be trusted with taxpayers’ money. This morning, the Chancellor of the Exchequer as good as announced that she is going to raise taxes in this month’s Budget. In the first five years alone, hugely important to the Budget arithmetic, nearly £900 million will be given to the Mauritian Government. How can the Government look British taxpayers in the eye and say that they will make us pay more tax so they can give it away to a foreign Government?
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I first mentioned the Chagos Islands back in 2008 in the other place, when we had set up an all-party group on Chagos. I have to say that over the years, when I was at those meetings in the other place, I never once heard a Chagossian say that they were asking to be put under Mauritian rule; they were asking for the British Government to allow them back home. To me, a basic underlying problem with the Bill is that, despite how we behaved to the Chagos Islanders—in our lifetime, let us remember, not in some far-off time in colonial history—when we arbitrarily evicted them out of their homes, which was a gross abuse that we undertook and, let us be clear, would these days be called ethnic cleansing, this Labour Government are repeating the mistakes of the past, with no involvement of the Chagossians and no attempt to get their views by way of a referendum.
I know it would be difficult to organise a referendum right across the world for Chagossians, but it could be done if there was the will to do it. Instead of rushing to announce this deal with Mauritius, the Government could have started a process of real engagement with Chagossians all over the world. That would have shown all the various bodies passing judgment on us that we were serious about looking after the interests of those whose islands were being discussed. The entire basis for this surrender of sovereignty seems to be the principle in international law that territories generally ought not to be divided at independence, but there are countless examples of that having occurred and having been right at the time—India, for example.
The Government say it is important that we ensure the future of the Diego Garcia base, and that without this treaty its future would be uncertain. Why should it be uncertain? There is no one in this House who disagrees about the importance of the base for our security. The uncertainty they mean is based on three international judgments. The International Court of Justice advisory opinion of 2019 was just that—advisory. The UN General Assembly resolution of 2019 is only a recommendation. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea judgment of 2021 followed a process that did not even involve the UK and is therefore not binding.
I am afraid this is just another example of our Government refusing to stand up for our own country and our own national interest. Can anyone imagine China or the United States giving up territory because of some international legal opinion? Of course they would not, because they put their own country first, and it is about time that we did that too. What if this advisory council suddenly said, “We think the Falklands should be given back to Argentina”? Would the Government then say that perhaps that might be something we should do?
We are now going to pay out millions of pounds to give away our own territory, and no amount of fine words from lawyers, liberal ideas and international law will convince the public that this deal is anything other than a shameful act of betrayal of Chagossians. As it stands, not a single Chagossian has the right to return to the islands. It is all down to the Mauritian Government —a Government who are getting closer and closer to China and will face any direction if the money is there. They will decide how the money that we give will get to the Chagossians, if it ever does. Whatever assurances there are on paper are likely, in a short time, to become of little value. Guarantees will be worthless, and where then will be all these pillars of international law? I doubt they will be anywhere to be seen.
This Bill was not in the Labour Party’s manifesto. It was announced very soon after the election and I think that it came out of the blue to all of us. Yes, the Conservatives had started to negotiate, but I am not really interested in blaming who started what. The reality is that the Conservatives did not actually sign up to anything; it is the Labour Government who are signing up to it now. That is their decision that they took quickly just after they were elected.
Why are the Government surrendering a vital geopolitical asset, a matchless environmental protection order, vast reserves of increasingly precious seabed resources and the right of self-determination of the Chagossian people, to say nothing of the massive price tag that the people of the UK will pay for generations to come to rent something that we presently own? Why the rush?
This whole deal and the Bill make no sense to me morally for the British Chagossians, legally, economically or from a security perspective. I genuinely do not understand where it has come from, and that makes me wonder if the only way to understand it—I know noble Lords will not like me saying this—is to look at the role of the Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer. For it is the Attorney-General who, as a barrister, moved from Doughty Street Chambers, which he had shared with his friend, the current Prime Minister, to join the chambers jointly founded by their mutual friend, a certain Philippe Sands, the lawyer who has represented Mauritius’s interests over those of the British Chagossians throughout this sorry saga. The noble and learned Lord became a member of Matrix Chambers and I can only assume that he assumed his friendship with Sands presented no conflict of interest when he became Attorney-General. Nor, indeed, did he suggest a conflict of interest when, in 2023, before he was Attorney-General, he represented a group of Sri Lankan asylum seekers in Chagos and then decided a few years later, as Attorney-General, to allow their case and let them resettle in the UK. Surely this was a conflict of interest.
I am raising this because this is what people out there are asking. If I cannot raise it here in this Chamber, where can we get these answers? Some people may say that this is all above board and it is not for me to say it is not, but it is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, observed in an interview with the New Statesman recently on the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer—he actually said, “He’s got to go”; I will not quote what he said about the noble and learned Lord, because it was pretty harsh—that
“They talk about the rule of law but what they want is a rule of lawyers”.
The Attorney-General said in his 2024 Bingham lecture on the rule of law:
“Since taking office, this Government has already taken steps to uphold those obligations and demonstrate our deep commitment to international law. We have reached agreement with Mauritius to settle the historic sovereignty claims over BIOT/Chagos Archipelago in a manner that successfully marries our international law obligations with vital national security requirements”.
There was not a single mention in that speech of the Chagossian people—shameful. Surely he should recuse himself from anything to do with the Chagos Islands. We should get a statement from him on his position and we should get the legal opinion.
I am deeply ashamed of the Government’s position on this. It is probably the most shameful act of their one-year tenure. I am pleased—people will not like this either—that Reform has said quite clearly and unequivocally that if it gets into power it will tear this treaty up. I will back that, whatever lawyers and international bodies say, because this deal is wrong for our country. It is outrageous that a Government are getting away with giving away our sovereignty in this very short time.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I would prefer the noble Baroness to be consistent. If she is criticising the Attorney-General under this Government for giving advice on continuing negotiations to cede sovereignty, why is she not as critical of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis, who was Attorney-General in November 2022, when, presumably, she gave advice to the previous Government to commence negotiations to seek sovereignty?
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
The noble Lord has obviously seen some of these legal agreements. I have not. I would like to see all this legal advice. I see no reason why this House should not see the legal advice.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, we have an opportunity to right an old wrong and prevent a new injustice. We have an opportunity to stop the handover of tens of millions of pounds a year—billions in total—to fund tax cuts somewhere else while taxes are rising here. We have an opportunity to prevent the handover of strategic territory to a state that may come under the influence of unfriendly powers. Above all, we have the ability to stand up belatedly for the injured party here: the Chagossian people.
Sitting silently in the Gallery throughout your Lordships’ debate has been a contingent of our friends from the British Indian Ocean Territory. Their role as silent spectators has been eerily symbolic of the role they have played these past 50 years, and especially these past five years, as decisions about them have been made without them. But we have an opportunity to go in a different direction. Article 18 of the treaty makes it clear that it cannot enter into force until both parties have informed each other that they have concluded all the national ratificatory procedures.
I remind noble Lords one more time of what the Labour manifesto said about this. As my noble friend Lord Callanan quoted, it said:
“Defending our security also means protecting the British Overseas Territories … Labour will always defend their sovereignty and right to self-determination”.
I would argue that, under the Salisbury convention, it works both ways. You could at least make the claim that this Chamber has not just the opportunity but the duty to enforce the manifesto on which Labour was elected, and that means recognising the self-determination of the Chagossian people.
Why are we doing this? I will not repeat my noble friend Lord Lilley’s speech. There is no legal obligation. For one thing, military facilities are excluded from the purview of these courts, but even if you set that aside, it was expressly drawn up in the clearest language that our lawyers could devise that there was no purview for a court such as this in a dispute between two present or former members of the Commonwealth. That was expressly put in to prevent challenges of this kind.
I think we all know the answer—we heard it from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, a second ago. I cannot help noticing from the sparse Benches opposite that there is no great enthusiasm from the governing party for this measure, but there is a clique of people for whom “Decolonise” is everything. It is painful for them to see little union jacks in the upper corners of flags. They approach these questions impressionistically, based on vibes and emotions, almost regardless of the legal rights and wrongs or the interests of the people concerned.
It is very clear from Philippe Sands’ book, in which he wrote about the whole process, how he, the Attorney-General and, I suspect, the Prime Minister, have come at this. You must always back the ex-colony against the ex-coloniser, always back the poorer state against the western one, always back the non-white population against the white one, regardless of the rights and wrongs. This is even though the people being injured here are, of course, the dispossessed Chagossians. Even as a decolonising exercise, it totally fails on its own terms, because here is a territory now being handed to a genuinely colonial power that has no interest in it and no connection except a pecuniary one.
I will not get into the ecological arguments, which were so well stated by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, or indeed the strategic ones that we have heard from other people. To emphasise the wrong done to the Chagossian population, I just want to canter very briefly through some of the history.
The archipelago was uninhabited until 1783. The French then populated it with enslaved people taken from the African mainland. It was seized during the Napoleonic Wars—or rather, it was not seized, but the Indian Ocean French-speaking territories were seized—by the Royal Navy, as dramatically rendered in one of the Patrick O’Brian novels.
At the end of that war, in 1814, Mauritius and the Chagos Islands were ceded—separately—to the British Crown. The Chagos Islands were never part of Mauritius. They were administered from Mauritius because there was no suitable administrative seat in the archipelago.
I invite noble Lords to entertain seriously for a moment the argument that, because somewhere was once administered from somewhere else, that creates a sovereignty claim. By that logic, Anguilla would be part of St Kitts; the Turks and Caicos Islands would be part of Jamaica; indeed, come to that, Burma would be part of India. It is a ludicrous argument, an incredibly dangerous precedent that we are setting, not only for our fellow subjects in other overseas territories such as Gibraltar and the Falklands, but for any other country that was ever administered from somewhere else, which is a great many places on the planet.
Let us fast-forward to 1965. As we have heard, the Mauritian Government accepted and gladly pocketed the then huge sum of £3 million in return for renouncing in perpetuity any claim to the Chagos Archipelago. They were far from unhappy about that; this was a territory to which they were unconnected, and they saw this as an extremely good deal. I will quote what the then Prime Minister, Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, said shortly afterwards. He said this was a territory
“of which very few people knew, which is very far from here, and which we had never visited”.
As far as he was concerned, that was that. The deal was done.
Mauritius then pocketed some further funds that were handed over by this country, supposedly for the betterment of the Chagossian diaspora, although a lot of that money somehow never quite trickled through to the people that it was supposed to help. Indeed, a lot of the bad feeling of the diaspora population towards Mauritius stems from the way in which those funds have been disbursed down the decades.
It was really only 15 or so years ago, as China began to become interested in Mauritius, that the claim was pressed again in earnest. There was a state visit from the Chinese Head of State, an unusual thing for a country the size of Mauritius. The first free trade agreement, I think, between China and an African state was with Mauritius. At that point, suddenly, Mauritius became very interested in exercising sovereignty over this territory, and can you blame it? It has been referred to aptly as the Malta of the Indian Ocean. Of the seven great naval choke points in the world, it is within reach of four of them: the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, the Strait of Hormuz, the Malacca Strait and the Cape of Good Hope. It was from the Diego Garcia base in 1991 that the waves of B52 bombers took off to topple Saddam Hussein’s regime. It was from there that a brave part of the campaign against the Taliban was waged.
It is worth noting, if we are playing the game of decolonise, that for a diaspora Chagossian to dispute Mauritian sovereignty is an imprisonable offence under a law passed in 2021. Simply to say what I am saying would get me a spell in chokey if I were in Mauritius. However, there is an alternative solution, and it was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster. I want to put this forward because it is not just that we are stopping this; we have to have an alternative. It was one that was initially looked at when Tony Blair was Prime Minister. He commissioned a feasibility study by KPMG into resettling the Chagossian population on the outer atolls. The feasibility study came back much later and said that it could be done for the cost of £3 billion over a century, which, in a rather short-sighted move, the subsequent Conservative Government decided was too big an outlay during the time of austerity. But even if we accept the Minister’s figures on the liability to British taxpayers—and I suspect that my noble friend Lady Noakes is much closer to the actual sum—that is still a lot more expensive than putting in the infrastructure and resettling the Chagossian population as British subjects in a British overseas territory. Then, because it would be an inhabited territory, that would put the sovereignty claim for ever beyond doubt. It would then be up to the people there, and them alone, if they wanted to change their sovereignty.
When this Government took office, they promised growth. What we are seeing is that they are delivering shrinkage in every sense: economically, morally and geographically. If this Bill goes through and we compound the injustice to our fellow subjects of Chagossian descent, we will be in every sense diminished as a country.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I shallow narrow down the grand anti-colonial views of my noble friend Lord Hannan—it was a splendid piece of radical demography, if I may say so, and really well done—to the point made very clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and my good and noble friend Lord Bellingham, which is the position of the Chagossians.
I should declare an interest straight away in that I am vice-chairman of the All-Party Group on the Chagos Islands; this is because I took part in a parliamentary delegation to Mauritius many years ago and have maintained contact with the island since. I have been there once. It is a splendid place to go, by the way—thoroughly enjoyable, rather different from a November day in the House of Lords. There is no doubt that Mauritius is a very pro-British colony, so pro-British that it follows our Premier League football avidly. There is even, I found to my surprise, in the middle of Mauritius, a village called Arsenal, with a football team called Arsenal Wanderers. I tried to find out whether there was a Manchester United, reflecting my own interest, but no luck, I am afraid.
None the less, I reiterate the point that the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, made: Mauritius is a significant player and is in a vital part of the world. It is currently very pro-British and successful, and we should be careful in how we handle this diplomatically. It could easily go very wrong if we do not take their point of view into account.
More importantly, there is the position of the Chagossians. There is no doubt that we did a terrible thing to them in 1965. My noble friend Lord Bellingham compared it to the clearances in northern Scotland; what happened in 1965 is similar in that we took their hereditary land and banished them from it. Forget the law—we have a moral debt to these people, which we must fulfil. I am glad some of them are in the Public Gallery. There is no doubt that opinions are mixed: I know that many of the UK Chagossians are against the Bill, but, equally, many of the Chagossians in Mauritius and the Seychelles are in favour of it. Indeed, the chairman of the Chagos Refugees Group, Olivier Bancoult—parts of whose statement was read out by my good friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford; I will not repeat it—makes it clear that there has been good consultation, with which he is satisfied, and that he supports the Bill.
What really worries me is a point that has not yet been made in today’s debate; it was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, the chair of the International Agreements Committee, in earlier debates on this subject. The Bill and the treaty are notably deficient in dealing with the Chagossians’ rights. Only one sentence in the whole treaty deals with the position of the Chagossians, saying that the Mauritian Government are now in a position to do something for the Chagossian people. That is all it says: in effect, that the Mauritian Government are able to do something.
I have a suggestion for the Minister, whom I am glad to see back in her place. My noble friend Lord Callanan homed in on an important point: there is a big gap on the treatment of the Chagossians in the treaty and in the Bill; they are incredibly insufficient in that regard. I am sorry that we are not discussing the amendment he proposed, because the idea of having four or five weeks in which we could discuss all this properly—in a measured way, without relying on what people outside the Chamber are saying, and perhaps through a Select Committee—is entirely sensible. If we cannot have that, could we none the less do something else to meet the problem by a different method?
I understand that, normally, in treaties of this kind, we do not want to get into how a partner to the treaty should handle people who are, after all, its own citizens—namely, in this case, the many Chagossians in Mauritius. We would not normally do that in diplomatic circles; that is not the way it is handled. However, the Government could have attached to the treaty an exchange of letters that drew on any views that may have been expressed by the Chagossian people. There could have been a referendum or some other means to find out opinions on exactly how this should be handled and what they want.
To go forward on this, frankly, sketchy basis is not sufficient. It is a shame that we appear to be so far advanced down the line, but have not fully addressed this in the way we should. I seriously suggest to the Minister, who has admirably put forward her position, that we should attach to this treaty an exchange of diplomatic letters which, at the very least, take into account any views expressed, while we have the further discussions my noble friend Lord Callanan wishes us to have.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I first declare an interest as a friend of British Overseas Territories.
The Bill is labelled the Diego Garcia Bill, but we all know it goes much further than that and deals with the full implementation of the Chagos Islands deal. The Government have told us that the previous Government started negotiations on sovereignty. The Opposition have told us that they would not have signed that Bill. I suspect that both those assertions are true.
Our task is to dissect whether the Bill is an appropriate one. In my view, this is a poor deal for the United Kingdom as a whole, but above all, a shameful deal for the Chagossian people. The Chagos Islands have been British since 1814. That was before the final defeat of Napoleon, and indeed before the Falkland Islands, for example, were British. It is before the vast bulk of countries across the world were in their current form—certainly before their current boundaries. It is before even the UK’s current boundaries themselves existed. Yet, we are handing over sovereignty to a country which is over 1,000 miles away from the Chagos Islands and has never ruled over or had control of them. It is akin to us handing over the Isle of Wight to Belarus, so limited are the geographical connections between the two. As the Government have indicated, we are doing so in part because of the advisory ruling of the ICJ and the threat legally of what is to come. I will not reiterate the very wise points, from a legal perspective, made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley; suffice it to say that I am not convinced by the Government’s legal case.
Let me go further—and I appreciate this will appear as heresy to some in the House. When it comes to British sovereignty and the self-determination of those under British sovereignty, while international opinion is always something to which we should have regard, we cannot simply give carte blanche to international opinion. Those who would treat international opinion as sacrosanct in these matters will have to answer at some future stage, when the ICJ, no doubt prompted by some feeling of anti-colonialism, declares that the Falkland Islands should be part of Argentina, or that Gibraltar should be part of Spain. That is the logical conclusion of saying that we cannot at any stage challenge what is ruled by an international court, and it is why I believe that British sovereignty and regard to the self-determination of the people within that must be paramount.
It is not simply a question, as others have said, of giving away sovereignty. We are not simply giving it to Mauritius; we are actually paying them a substantial fee to take it off our hands. Whether we regard that as the £3.4 billion the Government are talking about, the £35 billion the main opposition party is talking about, or somewhere in between, we are paying a vast sum—a cash cow—to Mauritius to ensure that the Chagos Islands become theirs. Not only are we giving a feather in the cap—a big financial gain—to Mauritius, but we are also giving them an asset.
We know already of the deep involvement of China, which sees Mauritius as part of its sphere of influence. There is no doubt that in the days to come, we will see parts of the Chagos Islands being built on by the Chinese, who will encroach more and more in that area. Then, the Government will ultimately be left with no real response, because they have already surrendered the sovereignty of the islands to Mauritius.
The other motivation is, perhaps, a feeling of colonial debt or guilt. But if we take at face value the premise that there is colonial debt, to whom do we owe that debt? Surely it is to those who we colonised in the first place—namely, the Chagossians. They have been treated shamefully. That is no different from what I suspect has happened over the last 60 years—we have a very poor record in the Chagos Islands.
The Chagossians, throughout these negotiations, have not had a veto, have not been directly involved in negotiations, and when it comes to consultation have effectively been consulted after deals have been done. That is not the way to reflect self-determination. In the deal itself, as well as giving over sovereignty to Mauritius we have a trust fund supposedly for Chagossians which will be entirely controlled by the Mauritius Government—not a penny will go directly to the Chagossians themselves. We did not even, within this deal, get a right of return; we have ceded that entirely to Mauritius. I have no doubt that, if there is any form of right of return, it will be for those Chagossians who have shown subservience to the Mauritian Government. Anybody deemed to take a different view from the Mauritius Government will not be able to return to their homeland.
This is a shameful deal. I welcome, at least, that the committal Motion has not gone ahead. I urge the Government, even at this belated hour, to take advantage of that time and genuinely consult and reach a view on the self-determination of the Chagossian people. We have been told by the Minister and others that Chagossians are content to be with Mauritius. Let the Government put that to the test and show proper self-determination to the people of the Chagos Islands. Let us use this pause to abandon this appalling deal and this rotten Bill.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
I thank the Minister for her patience in hosting this debate and welcome the Chagossians who have joined us this evening—they are very welcome in our House.
I start by noting that some matters are not obvious because they are not obvious, and this one is really quite a complicated story to explain. It was interesting to hear how the Minister was able to explain it, in a sense tactfully, because it involves at least three countries, the rights of individuals, a wide-ranging view on legal matters and interpretations, and environmental issues. And only then do we get to the defence issues and, finally, to a very large amount of money.
To understand why we are paying out so much money, we need to understand why the agreement is in the form it is. That always goes back to the claim on sovereignty and the Government’s anxiety over the legal risks. The Minister in the Commons, just like the Minister this evening, referenced once again the International Agreements Committee report from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the statement in that report—the report is very carefully written—that if agreement was not reached then there would be some risk to the base. We always hear this. The Government do not like to quote the other statements made in the conclusion of that report, where it says that the findings in 2019 were non-binding. It also notes that the treaty does not make appropriate provisions for the Chagossians and concludes with an observation that the treaty is a compromise. That is a good word to describe the situation the Government are in: it is some kind of compromise.
Indeed, our colleagues on the International Relations and Defence Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, struggled with the legal position here. They heard lots of legal opinions and they were not able to reach any conclusion. They said there is a wide range of opinions, and came up with the language that it was a political decision. Again, that is a fair way of describing it: we have a compromise for political reasons in the judgment of the Government.
We would expect the financial part to reflect the spirit of that—a spirit of compromise and of a rather complicated story. However, when you get to the financial part of this agreement, you find that, in fact, it is a great deal of money. My noble friend explained the initial payments, but the Government like to talk about an amount of £101 million, in this discounted, not-real-money way. The initial payments, incidentally, are over £200 million a year. The Government always go back to try to justify why we are paying this rental fee. They say, with great triumph, that there is precedent —we heard this in the House of Commons—in the example of France paying €85 million a year for a military base in Djibouti.
Of course, it is extremely unlucky to justify British public spending with reference to French public spending, but, putting that aside, the Minister in the House of Commons was probably not aware that the whole idea of introducing Djibouti came from the Mauritians. They introduced it because they wanted to introduce the concept of an open market rent—this had to be on an open market basis. But this situation is not even beginning to be on an open market basis. As we have just discussed, it is a very complex compromise. We should never have accepted the comparison to the Djibouti example at all and should never have started from that position. With a moment’s reflection—just a moment’s reflection—we find that the UK is in no position to seek an open market rent for an American military base. It is preposterous. It is not even beginning to be an open market situation.
Then we get to the overall economics of the situation. The Government love talking about this number of £3.4 billion. It is a great deal of money for those who do not really wish to pay any money for this. Unluckily for the Government, they do not seem to understand the financial risk of the contract, which could be for a great deal more. The reason for that, as we have heard, is that in the contract there is an inflation ratchet from year 14 to 99. It is not a question of how we account for it today; it will be real money that flows out. The ratchet starts in year 14, so quite soon.
The reason that matters is that a future Government will almost certainly need to retrade this situation, for reasons that we do not know today. What they will find is that the Mauritians do not see the contract the same way—they do not account for it the same way. They will see an extremely valuable exposure to UK inflation. The Government do not seem to understand the risk in their own contract. Could the Minister report to the House whether the value of this contract is actually £3.4 billion—that is, the capped value—with no further exposure above £3.4 billion? It is extremely important that the Government find a way to cap this exposure, because if it rolls any longer then it will be locked in as being uncapped. That will create a frightful row in the future between the UK and the Republic of Mauritius, but we are trying to settle rows between the two countries. We do not want a misunderstanding of the value of the contract.
Finally, I add one other important thought, because we are deficit financing the Government at the moment. It is very burdensome for the Government to pay money out of the country to another country. The Government like to point out that some public expenditure creates domestic stimulus. That itself will always be argued over, because some people will say there is too much waste and that the spending is inefficient. When the Government waste money domestically, there probably is some level of domestic stimulus, but when the money is sent to the Republic of Mauritius, there is not any. It is worse than that because, in addition, the money is not being spent on the military base and the treaty provides for priority to Mauritian contractors and Mauritian workers—there are no jobs for people from the UK in this. It is a straight loss out of the UK. It is particularly burdensome.
The treaty amounts to a shakedown of UK taxpayers by the Republic of Mauritius. In addition, it points to weakness in financial controls at His Majesty’s Treasury and by the Government. It may in due course create great misunderstanding if the Government have not properly appreciated the inflation exposure that they have in the contract. A future Government will meet that exposure with dismay, and future taxpayers will be taking the cost of it.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, there is general agreement about the importance to the UK’s defence security, and to the USA’s, that a stable and legal arrangement should be agreed. The 100-year and more period of this treaty makes some valiant assumptions about the longevity of the relationships between the countries involved. Governments rise and fall, and relationships shift—sometimes dramatically, sometimes on a generational rather than a centenary timeframe. Although this is far from being a well-received arrangement and treaty, it may now be increasingly difficult to change course completely. However, in following from what the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, was saying, I have one question about the arrangements covering the payments to the Government of Mauritius.
Article 11 of the treaty says that in consideration of the agreement, which applies to the whole of the Chagos Archipelago, certain sums will be paid to Mauritius. The exchange of letters dealing with the details of these arrangements also forms part of the agreement, but the British and American interest is confined to the island and surrounding seas of Diego Garcia. In 100 years and more, there must surely be a possibility of some natural catastrophe—an earthquake or tsunami, or even a rise in ocean levels due to global warming. The runway at Diego Garcia is only a metre above today’s sea level. Any of these might make the base and/or the airfield no longer functional. Has the UK any automatic right to cease payments to Mauritius if the base is no longer usable nor capable of recovery at any reasonable cost?
Maybe the Minister will point to some section of the agreement that covers this eventuality. If it is not explicitly covered, will Mauritius still be lawfully entitled to the annual payments even if Diego Garcia is unusable? Were the UK to stop payments, would it have to be settled along the lines outlined in this agreement by arbitration and, ultimately, agreement between the respective Prime Ministers? It would not be in the UK’s national interest to be devoting scarce defence funds to a useless white elephant, but a clash over interpretation could also be damaging to our national interest.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, raised this point on my behalf in the debate on 30 June. In reply, the Minister suggested:
“Like all small atoll islands, it is naturally dynamic”.
He would not speculate about future erosion but was confident that surveys overall concluded that the natural land area
“has decreased by less than a single percent over the last 50 years”.—[Official Report, 30/6/25; col. 535.]
Is that a sufficient reassurance about a natural disaster or sea levels not rising by less than a metre for the next 100 years-plus? Considerable sums might be at stake. If this eventuality is not satisfactorily covered, should it be corrected before the treaty is finally approved?
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, as I look at the empty Benches opposite, I wonder whether some Labour Peers are just realising how unnecessary and reckless the Bill is.
First, the people of the Chagos Islands were not even consulted about the future of their homeland. Having already suffered the injustices of forced removal half a century ago, they have now been denied a voice in deciding its fate. For a Government who claim to uphold human rights, this is an extraordinary moral failure. The treaty claims to allow a programme of resettlement on some of the outer islands but not on Diego Garcia itself, the very heart of their former homeland. It provides no detail on where, when or how such a return might occur. The Government concede that settlement remains “necessarily uncertain”. In reality, the Chagossians’ right of return depends entirely on the discretion of the Government of Mauritius, who have shown little interest in their welfare. So those who were exiled more than 50 years ago will once again be denied any guarantee of justice or a true homecoming.
Secondly, this Government have chosen to give away British territory to Mauritius, even though there was no legally binding obligation on the United Kingdom to do so. In February 2019, the International Court of Justice issued only an advisory opinion—a political statement that carries no legal force, not a judgment. I will not go on about all the legal bases for why there was no need for us to sign any legal agreement, which the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, pointed out earlier.
In short, the Government are acting not out of legal necessity but by choice, while jeopardising one of the most important axes in the defence of the free world. The Government insist that this is about the long-term security of the base, but under Article 13 the lease expires in 99 years. What happens if Mauritius decides not to renew the lease? Only last month, its Prime Minister publicly questioned the duration and terms of the lease, suggesting that it may not guarantee long-term British or American access. A poor country will always be tempted by Chinese money. What if Beijing simply outbids us? Without a right to extend, this deal does not secure Diego Garcia, safeguard the marine protected area or protect the rights of the Chagossian people.
This is not an investment; it is an expensive and humiliating surrender made at a time when British taxpayers are already struggling. The Prime Minister has admitted that it will cost around £3.4 billion but, as my noble friend Lady Noakes so clearly set out, it will be at least £35 billion. Why are we giving away billions of pounds for territory that we already administer while the Americans keep the base? In other words, Britain pays, America stays and China watches.
Thirdly, the freehold now rests with a non-nuclear power. What if Mauritius objects to nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed vessels using the port or airstrips, or imposes restrictions on operations vital to our defence? What if Chinese trawlers, granted fishing rights close to Diego Garcia, begin gathering intelligence under the cover of commerce? China, Russia and North Korea all have an interest in this vital region. This is not only a very expensive concession but a very dangerous one.
We have weakened our position, undermined our allies, burdened our taxpayers and silenced the Chagossians. This is quite simply the worst deal for Britain in living memory—a moral outrage, a legal folly and a strategic danger.
Does the Minister not agree that it is time to pause, admit that the Government have got it wrong and stand up for what is truly in our national interest? Will the Minister not agree that, before relinquishing sovereignty over any British territory, the Government have a duty to ensure the consent of its people? Can the Minister explain why the Government are proceeding with this Bill without first consulting the Chagossian people—those most directly affected by it? Will the Government commit to rectifying this omission—maybe, as suggested earlier, by a referendum? Will the Minister also confirm whether the Government recognise the Chagossian right to self-determination under international law, and if so, why their right of return has been made dependent on the discretion of Mauritius rather than on a clear guarantee within the treaty itself? Lastly, I remind the Minister that the trust fund is controlled by Mauritius and will not necessarily go to the British Chagossians.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer—despite not agreeing with a word she said. I am pleased because I have waited a long time to make this relatively short speech in this debate.
I concluded my contribution to the debate on 30 June on the Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, with the following sentence:
“I will offer this agreement my full support in these and any other proceedings in your Lordships’ House”.—[Official Report, 30/6/25; col. 524.]
That is still my position in relation to both the agreement and the Bill, the more so because, as my noble friend Lady Liddell remarked in the earlier debate in June, and as the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, reminded us today:
“Our allies, not just the Five Eyes communities of the US, Australia, Canada and New Zealand—along with ourselves—but India, Japan and South Korea—
and the African Union
“—strongly support the deal”.—[Official Report, 30/6/25; col. 501.]
I congratulate my noble friend Lady Chapman of Darlington on her comprehensive opening remarks. I thank her and my noble friend Lord Coaker for their openness and engagement with noble Lords on the many issues and complications that are raised by this treaty. I thank my noble friends in particular for arranging an all-Peers drop-in session on the Bill on 29 October, and even more for ensuring that the key FCDO officials, including the UK chief negotiator, Harriet Matthews, were present to share their knowledge and respond to noble Lords’ remarks or questions, which they did candidly and, in my view, credibly. I am only sorry that the representatives of the Official Opposition who were in the room at the beginning of that conversation mostly left without taking advantage of the opportunity to question those who negotiated this and to ask the questions that they clearly have.
In as few minutes as I can possibly do, I will focus my speech on what was the main purpose of my speech on 30 June: to examine, in so far as I am able to, the principles that appear to underlie opposition to this treaty and, consequently, to the Bill.
The strategic importance of Diego Garcia and its base to the United Kingdom and the United States, and to all our allies globally, is well known. Interestingly, I found in my research, despite the fact that much of the commentary about this base refers to it as a secret base, that it is very easy to find out the detail of quite a substantial amount of its capability in open source. It is available in some detail. I proceed on the basis that no one engaged in this debate needs to be reminded of the specific or strategical operational support that it offers. My own experience of its importance to UK security and to that of our allies was the support that it gave our operations both in Iraq and in Afghanistan when I was the Secretary of State for Defence. I have no intention of going into the detail of that, but it is well known and, for those who do not know, a lot of this can be found in open source.
As a consequence of our agreement with Mauritius, we will have access to this capability, enhanced by more investment by the United States. It is not a case of saying that if we pay, the United States stays. The United States invests many multiples of its cash in this base in order to give it the extraordinary capability that it has. Nobody can do anything to change its position on the global map, but the Americans can continue to invest for a period and they have plans to invest further in the long term. We will get value for our money from what the Americans do to help support us and the way in which we work with them to make sure that capability improves all the time.
However, the fact of the matter is that in 2019, when the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion concluding that the UK’s administration of the Chagos Archipelago was unlawful and that Mauritius has sovereignty over the territory, it immediately imperilled continuing new and planned investment in Diego Garcia. I worry if this is not known to those on the opposite Benches. I understand, from an open source comment, that the US suspended that investment until the issue of sovereignty had been resolved. One of the advantages of having the negotiators in the meeting of 29 October was that I was able to ask them openly if the information, which is available for people to see and read, was known to the FCDO: was the fact this link existed known to the Government at the time when the negotiations started?
The uncertainty that justified the United States position is to be found in the evidence given by Sir Christopher Greenwood to the International Agreements Committee, which has also been referred to earlier by other speakers. Sir Christopher Greenwood is one of the UK’s pre-eminent practitioners of international law and a former judge in the International Court of Justice. In his opinion, any international court examining the sovereignty dispute would likely find in favour of Mauritius. Such an outcome would clearly represent a risk to the future of the military base, and thus to the UK’s national interests and security. That is not something we can just dismiss. Had the issue of sovereignty not being resolved by a negotiation, the suspension of US investment would also have represented a risk to the future of the military base, and thus to the UK’s national interests and security. That is the environment in which these decisions to enter negotiations were made back in November 2022.
I practised law for the best part of 20 years before I was elected. A substantial proportion of my practice was in negotiation. There are many lawyers in this House and I am sure that they realise that lawyers spend more time in negotiation than in almost anything else. On some occasions, my clients wanted me to enter negotiations in order to protect a status quo— I think we have called that a red line in this debate. It appears to me, from the many speeches that I have listened to, that this was the latter objective of the negotiations that the Conservative Government started: to get back to the status quo.
I always told my clients that I would argue for the status quo in negotiation but, if there was a judicial assessment that made the status quo unattainable, it would be a failure in the negotiations to try to achieve that. That is the situation that the Government were in in 2022.
The whole process, of course, started with the Written Statement made on 3 November. There has been toing and froing about what was said in the Statement in order to try to water it down, but let me read the first paragraph of that Statement, because it is extraordinarily revealing as to what the then Government were seeking to do. It reads:
“Following the meeting between the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk … and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly, the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)/Chagos archipelago”.
Next comes the important sentence:
“Through negotiations, taking into account relevant legal proceedings, it is our intention to secure an agreement on the basis of international law to resolve all outstanding issues”?—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/22; col. 27WS.]
In other words, we were beginning to negotiate with the only people we could negotiate with—Mauritius, which was holding this particular card—to transfer the sovereignty to them in a way that would give stability, allow our major ally to get back into the relationship that we had, and continue to build this mother of all bases in the world. It is as simple as that.
I do not understand why everyone is looking for explanations for this by suggesting that, in these 11 exercises of negotiation, we were seeking to do something else. It is perfectly clear what the Conservative Government was setting out to do. They were pushed into this position by the fact that the United States was unwilling to continue to invest in this until that uncertainty was resolved.
On 29 October, I took the opportunity to ask the negotiators if that was what they understood to be happening; that is exactly what they understood to be happening. I understand why now, for political reasons, the Opposition wish to rewrite this, but that is what they were doing and what we continued.
Secondly—
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
I am happy to stop there because I have made my point. The nonsense about the Chinese has already been dealt with.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, to pick up on a theme identified by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and as identified by my honourable friend Tom Tugendhat on 9 September, when he noted in his speech at Second Reading of this Bill in the other place, yes, negotiations were commenced under the last Government. As Ministers, both he and I wrote to the Prime Minister—both Prime Ministers—to complain about the decision to institute those negotiations. We were right: the treaty was not one that should have been considered then, and it is not one that should be considered now; the whole principle was wrong then, and it is wrong now.
Why do I say that? The main rationale for handing over the islands is that an international tribunal—the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea—may abuse its jurisdiction in treating the ICJ’s advisory opinion as if it had established, as a matter of binding international law, that Mauritius was sovereign over the British Indian Ocean Territory. As I said when the House debated the treaty on 30 June, the risk of an adverse judgment and the real risk to the operation of the UK-US airfield at Diego Garcia are very significantly overplayed by those who favour this treaty. The ICJ had no such power and did not, in fact, reach the conclusion that Chagos should be transferred to Mauritius. Its advisory opinion left open other courses of action on the UK’s part other than surrender of the islands to Mauritius.
Mauritius cannot, as a matter of international law, secure a binding judgment before an international tribunal establishing that it is sovereign over the Chagos Islands, because the United Kingdom is not required to consent to a dispute of this nature being adjudicated by the International Court of Justice. Accordingly, if I might expand on the point made by my noble friend Lord Lilley, the Government explained their position by saying that they anticipated that another tribunal—as I said, specifically the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, which, I may add, has no jurisdiction over questions of sovereignty over territory—will presuppose that the ICJ’s 2019 advisory opinion has settled that Mauritius is sovereign, and will thus proceed to exercise its jurisdiction in relation to disputes about the law of the sea on the premise that Mauritius, rather than the United Kingdom, is sovereign. Yet how can this be, since there is not a word about sovereignty over the Chagos Islands in that advisory opinion of the ICJ?
We must be in no doubt that the Government, on their own account, are handing over a priceless strategic asset and trampling over the Chagossian people as they do so, because they want to avoid being on the wrong end of a potential future abuse of adjudication. However, this is a premature and wholly unnecessary surrender that blazes a trail for other abuses of the ICJ’s advisory jurisdiction to be leveraged into future United Kingdom defeats and compromise of our vital interests. We need to resist now, not only for our national security and that of our global allies but also to refute this abuse of law.
Furthermore, the deal is a terrible one, for the reasons ably outlined by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. Some of the examples are that the terms of the treaty provide very little in the way of leverage or protection for the UK. We cannot, for example, withhold payments for a breach of the terms that nominally protect our interests, and there is no machinery to enforce Mauritius’s commitments. Instead, Mauritius will be well placed to take our money and to reach accommodations with other states in relation to the archipelago that are injurious to our interests.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
I am following the noble Lord very closely, and I do not disagree with some of the points is making. Could he, however, clarify why it was that James Cleverly on 3 November said that the Government were to
“begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory”?—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/22; col. 27WS.]
Clearly, the Government then were talking about the sovereignty of the actual islands.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As I said earlier in my remarks, that was a decision with which I strongly disagreed then, and I strongly disagree now. He was plainly wrong in so saying.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Forgive me: I have given way once, and time is limited.
Professor Ekins, professor of law and constitutional government at Oxford, set out in detail, when he gave evidence to the House of Lords International Agreements Committee, the failings in the treaty. In particular, he set it out in even more detail in his Policy Exchange paper published at that time. I strongly urge the Minister to consider those two items in detail during the pause in proceedings brought about by the decision not to proceed with the committal Motion tonight.
There can be little doubt, contrary to the Government’s expostulations about saving the base, so ably outlined by my noble friend Lord Altringham, that this in fact weakens the strategic interests of our country. It does so without any sound legal or geopolitical basis, and, as many noble Lords have noted, without any reference to the wishes of those who lived in the archipelago, shamefully removed on the orders of a Labour Government —a shame that, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, noted, is about to be repeated and amplified by this present Labour Government.
Finally, the Minister said that the previous Government had entirely overlooked the Chagossian people, a calumny that was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Beamish. Not so. Section 3 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 —a Conservative piece of legislation—was the first legislation to make provision for Chagos Islanders and their direct descendants to obtain British nationality, something successive Labour Governments had failed to provide.
Lord Biggar (Con)
My Lords, the treaty that the Bill before us would ratify vaunts its righting of the historic wrong done to the Chagossians, while doing little for them. It signals its virtue, without much exercising it. That has been made plain several times over the past few hours, so I will not labour it.
As my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere has rightly urged, the treaty’s real concern is not the Chagossians but completing the decolonisation of Mauritius. The Government accept the ICJ’s 2019 advisory opinion that, in effect, the detachment of the Chagos Islands from Mauritius in 1965 was unlawful because it defied UN General Assembly resolutions in 1960 and 1966. These declared that:
“Any attempt aimed at … disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with … the Charter of the United Nations”.
The 1966 one urged that the UK take no action that would dismember the territory of Mauritius and violate its territorial integrity.
However, this principle of non-partition is nonsense. Supporting the 1960 resolution, the president of the General Assembly, Irish diplomat Frederick Boland, invoked Ireland’s loss of its historic integrity to illustrate the injustice of partition. He thereby expressed the Irish nationalist’s typical historical blindness. The island of Ireland had never been a political unit, apart from its union with Great Britain; and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee, has already well said, there is no natural law prescribing that a geographical integrity has to be a political one. On the contrary, there can be good reasons for dividing it. Ireland was divided in 1922 because Irish republicans wanted home rule so much that they were prepared to use violence to attain it, while Irish unionists disliked it so much that they were prepared to take up arms to oppose it. Ireland was petitioned to prevent civil war—a justified act of political prudence. What is more, if the principle of non-partition were applied impartially, applicants to the ICJ would be clamouring for the restoration of the territorial integrity of British India and the return of the Gulf states and Burma to rule by Delhi. Oddly, we hear no such clamour.
The 1966 resolution is no less absurd than the 1960 one. It appeals to the national unity of Mauritius—as if the Chagos Islands were not separated by more than 1,000 miles of Indian Ocean, and as if the islanders were an integral part of the Mauritian people; but many Chagossians feel as Mauritian as Irish republicans feel British. The only connection between Mauritius and the Chagos Islands is an accident of colonial administrative convenience. Talk of some national unity that was ruptured in 1965 is an opportunistic fiction.
Notwithstanding its opportunistic absurdity, the principle of non-partition was invoked and confirmed by the ICJ in its advisory opinion. What is more, the court used that principle to adjudicate a crucial point of contention between Mauritius and the UK, notwithstanding the fact that, when originally submitting itself to the court, the UK explicitly excluded its jurisdiction over such a dispute.
Among the Government’s several, shifting justifications for signing the treaty is said to be the fear that a subsequent international tribunal—such as the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea—would use the ICJ’s opinion to make a binding judgment against the UK. Therefore, to avoid that embarrassment, the Government prefer to give up the fight now, conceding sovereignty and negotiating an expensive lease.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, that international law deserves respect. However, I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, that respect requires much more than blind, slavish compliance. When international law embodies an absurd principle that is opportunistically and partially applied outside of its agreed jurisdiction, it brings the international order into disrepute and corrodes the law’s authority.
For the sake of upholding confidence in international law, the UK should stand its ground, argue the strong, rational case for its sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, expose the imprudence and partiality of the General Assembly’s resolutions, and remind the international community that the ICJ has no jurisdiction. If some international tribunal were irresponsible enough to issue a binding judgment against the UK on the basis of the ICJ’s opinion, the UK should, with respect, not comply with it.
I have no doubt that that would cost us diplomatic good will in progressive circles that are entranced by an idealised view of international law, but we have no good will to lose with ideologically hostile states such as China, Russia and Iran. The rest of the so-called global South is not a politically uniform bloc; it embraces nations ranging from India to Nigeria and Peru, which have divergent—sometimes opposing—interests and views. They would not all react with equal disapproval to our principled non-compliance. Some might even be impressed by a self-confident Britain’s refusal to yield to opportunistic lawfare, in bold defence of the law’s integrity.
This treaty is disingenuous in championing the Chagossians and slavish in its blind compliance with absurd and partial law. For those reasons, we should not ratify it.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, over breakfast I read the views of the noble Lord, Lord Biggar, and can confirm that they have not changed over the course of the day.
I begin with an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. He, the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and I spent 10 years in the Permanent Secretary’s office in the Foreign Office, and I certainly never discovered the secret plan to cede sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago that officials were apparently sitting on. I saw a number of changes of Foreign Secretary, and I cannot remember ever seeing the huddle of officials saying, “Is this the soft one we can manage to persuade that it’s time to cede the Chagos Archipelago?” I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, may have been watching too much “Yes, Minister”. It is sad that he has never been Foreign Secretary, because he has far too high an opinion of officials in the Foreign Office.
I have only three small points to make; I will be very brief, because I spoke at enormous length when we debated the treaty in July. At that time, the Opposition suggested that the treaty should not be ratified, but the House voted that it should be ratified. It cannot be ratified without this Bill; therefore, we should now pass it. That is my first point.
My second point is about the China syndrome. We heard then, and we are hearing again today, even from the Opposition Front Bench, the theory that recognising Mauritian sovereignty somehow opens the door to Chinese influence in the Chagos Archipelago and to a Chinese threat to the base. I have never understood this theory. If the risk were real, why did the Indians warmly welcome the treaty? Why did Secretary of State Rubio in Washington call the treaty a “monumental achievement”? Mr Rubio, like President Trump, is hardly soft on China. Mauritius is one of the only two African countries that have not signed up to the belt and road initiative. Why would the Mauritians enrage the Indians, to whom they are close, by helping the Chinese, whom they seriously distrust? Why would they forgo the payments we would be making? The theory makes no sense, and I strongly suspect that some of those who advance it know that perfectly well.
That brings me to my third point, which is, of course, the emollient one. The pernicious doctrine that the duty of opposition is to oppose, regardless of principle, merit or consistency, is perhaps particularly irresponsible in the sphere of foreign affairs. Mr Cleverly announced in 2022 that we would open negotiations to
“ensure the continued effective operation of the joint UK/US military base on Diego Garcia, which plays a vital role in regional and global security”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/22; col. 27WS.]
We agreed; I heard no dissent. I did not know about the approaches of the noble Lord, Lord Murray. There was no public dissent from what the Government were going to do.
Under Foreign Secretary Cameron, negotiations continued—11 rounds, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, reminded us. I am rather sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is not here tonight. It would have been very good to have his verdict on the Bill which results from the work he supervised. The legal issues and the China risk explored by Conservative Back-Benchers today will have been thoroughly explained to him at the time. Indeed, we now know that the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, no less, advised against the course that he was pursuing. There is nothing new in these arguments. They were known to the Conservative Ministers who proceeded with the negotiations.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said that it is one thing to start a negotiation about transferring sovereignty and quite another to conclude one. That is very true, but if I were absolutely determined not to cede sovereignty, I do not think I would start a negotiation about ceding sovereignty. I do not think, if I was strongly convinced that it was a bad idea, that I would have let it run on for 11 negotiating rounds.
We are shortly to hear from the Front Benches. I look forward to hearing from the Liberal Democrats; their concerns about the Chagossians do them credit. Their reservations about the treaty are ones I understand —they are honourable, although I believe they are unjustified.
We will also be hearing from the Conservative Front Bench—the heirs of Cameron and Cleverly. I have the greatest respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, not least because she hails from my part of the world. So my hopes are high that, unlike some of her colleagues, including those on the Front Bench, she will contrive to steer clear of the twin rocks of hypocrisy and irresponsibility.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Chagos Islands APPG. I give its secretary, David Snoxell, credit for persevering with the cause over the years. Unfortunately, having reflected carefully on the issue and the treaty, I have come to disagree on the conclusions formed by many of the group. I now feel that Mauritius will unfairly benefit more from the treaty than the Chagossians will. Indeed, I now feel that this agreement is bad for our national security and financially a disaster.
Until recently, I was under several misapprehensions. First, I was led to believe that the International Court of Justice—ICJ—verdict that the island should be handed back to Mauritius was legally binding on the UK. Secondly, I had not realised that the UK had already paid Mauritius £3 million in 1965 to retain ownership of the Chagos Islands after Mauritian independence. Thirdly, I believed that the UK was bound by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea—UNCLOS. Fourthly, I believed that we had to obey the diktat of the International Telecommunication Union—ITU—concerning the threat to the electromagnetic spectrum. Fifthly, I had underestimated the threat to the islands on the defence front from future restrictions on nuclear weapons and from encroachment by China, Russia and Iran. Sixthly, I am not sure that the guarantees and financial promises to the Chagossians will be honoured.
I will now deal with each of the above issues in turn. First, on the ICJ verdict, I have since discovered that, while from February 2017 the UK has accepted in declarations all judgments of the ICJ, it does not accept that they apply to any dispute with the Government of any country which is or has been a member of the Commonwealth.
Secondly, the payment of £3 million in 1965—over £80 million in today’s money—means that we should not be paying Mauritius again.
Thirdly, the UK is not legally bound by the decisions of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. According to Dr Luke Evans, at Second Reading in the other place on 9 September,
“back in 2015, under annex VII, the tribunal agreed with the UK that sovereignty could not be determined by UNCLOS. This was a marine protection issue”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/9/25; col. 818.]
Fourthly, as forensically examined by colleagues in the other place—Sir Jeremy Wright, Sir John Whittingdale and Mark Francois—it is clear that the ITU has no jurisdiction over the UK’s electromagnetic spectrum. The ITU treaty, to which we and others are a party, states specifically that the ITU has no authority over the allocation of military spectrum. Individual countries, not the ITU, make their own sovereign spectrum assignments in accordance with the radio regulations. The ITU has no legal authority over these assignments regardless of the country’s civilian or military classification of spectrum. Will the Minister please confirm this, in light of the fact that any judgment by the ICJ against us is not legally binding?
Fifthly, I want to focus on the defence threat to the West from this deal. The Pelindaba treaty, as already mentioned, to which Mauritius is a signatory, prohibits the stationing and storage of nuclear weapons, yet Ministers have failed to explain what that will mean in practice once sovereignty is transferred. Also, an element of the agreement involves a requirement for us to expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third state directly emanating from the base. Can the Minister tell us whether this means that it must be done before the armed attack?
The defence threat also comes from hostile powers in the region. The risk to Britain’s security is great. Diego Garcia is our most strategic and important base in the Indian Ocean, critical to our partnership with the United States, and vital to project influence in the Indo-Pacific. Yet the Bill leaves huge questions unanswered. What safeguards will prevent hostile powers such as China, Russia and Iran seeking a foothold in the archipelago once Britain steps back? Beijing already describes Mauritius as a partner with strategic advantages, and Mauritius could well join its belt and road initiative. Port Louis boasts of advancing co-operation with Russia. Iran, since the first Iran-Mauritius Economic Forum in 2022, has explored export and import opportunities and joint ventures in agriculture, fisheries, pharmaceutical industries and nanotechnology.
Sixthly, I want to focus on the situation for the Chagossians themselves after this treaty. The speeches at Second Reading by the Labour MP Peter Lamb and the Conservative MP Aphra Brandreth are very relevant on the subject. Peter Lamb, MP for Crawley, where many Chagossian exiles live, makes very relevant points, from which I shall quote directly:
“Although mention of the Chagossians is made in the wording of the deal, I remain concerned … that there are gaps that leave the Chagossian people at risk. While there is the option for Chagossians to be allowed by the Mauritian Government to return to the islands, there is no requirement in the deal that that happens. There is no guarantee that any Chagossian who does return to the archipelago will not face restrictions that prevent permanent habitation, even at a subsistence level of economic activity. There is no guarantee at this time that the trust fund that is being created will be in the control of the Chagossians and used exclusively to address the consequences of their forcible removal from the islands. There is no guarantee that returning Chagossians will not face a 10-year prison sentence for questioning Mauritian territorial integrity through taking on British citizenship”.
Aphra Brandreth adds another key point on the issue, saying:
“The Government must … take the opportunity to implement a recommendation put forward by the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee and International Agreements Committee … that looked at the treaty. They urged the Government to ‘Enhance Chagossian engagement by establishing a formal consultation mechanism with the Chagossian community to monitor the Agreement’s implementation and ensure their meaningful inclusion in decision-making.’ Will the Minister confirm whether that recommendation will be implemented?”
Further, she states that
“the … trust fund, established as part of the UK-Mauritius treaty and financed by the UK, is to be distributed solely under the control of Mauritius, yet the Bill contains no provisions to monitor whether the rights of British Chagossians are upheld or to create any statutory oversight of the trust fund. Have Ministers secured from the Government of Mauritius any firm commitment that British Chagossians will have a formal role in the oversight and decision making regarding the fund? Indeed, why was a model of joint governance not agreed, ensuring that British Chagossians themselves have a voice in how the fund is governed and can benefit directly from it?”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/9/25; cols. 773, 812.]
In conclusion, this is a terrible deal for the UK, giving away full ownership of a vital defence asset and paying the Mauritian Government an extraordinary sum of £34 billion in cash terms to lease it back. I have shown how the key pillars of the Government’s argument for the necessity of doing this do not stand up. These are, namely, the ICJ judgment, the ITLOS argument and the electromagnetic spectrum. I reiterate that the Chagossians have certainly not been looked after in this deal, hence I would have strongly supported the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, in his amendment.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I wish to acknowledge those of the Chagossian community who are here observing this debate, those following it at home and those who will read it. My noble friend Lady Ludford, in her powerful contribution to the debate, informed by decades of work on behalf of the Chagossians, told us of the remarkable sequence of November anniversaries, including some which are a dark stain on this country with regards to how we have treated the Chagossian community. We should all share blame for this generational mistreatment.
I start by stressing in clear terms that we still need more clarity on the rights given, potentially, to the Chagossians of a permissive nature, but by virtue of us providing those rights to the Mauritian Government, not directly to the Chagossians themselves. I hope the House will recognise that this has been a consistent and constant concern of these Benches, and it continues. We pursued it in the debate on the treaty and I am glad that the Minister acknowledged it in her opening remarks. My colleagues in the House of Commons pursued it when the Bill was in Committee there and I reiterate it today.
A test for us now is how, finally, we give rights back to Chagossians, including the right of self-determination for their future, which should be in their hands. If we negotiate an agreement on Gibraltar with the statement, “Nothing for Gibraltar without the Gibraltarians”, that should apply in this context too. Indeed, we divided the House of Commons in Committee on the right to self-determination. It is worth placing on the record in this debate, which I point out to the noble Baronesses, Lady Foster and Lady Meyer, that the Conservative Official Opposition did not support us in that. It is fine to call for self-determination and a referendum in this debate, but it is worth recalling that, just a couple of weeks ago, that party opposed it in the House of Commons.
We touched a little on history today. I went through a lot of the history in the debate on the treaty, so I do not need to rehearse it. Today, there was a slight new edge to this. It was interesting that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, criticised the Labour Government for concluding an agreement in 1965. That may well have had cross-party support, but the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, called it a shame on our country. With interesting parallels, it should be recognised that negotiations to detach the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius commenced on 29 June 1964, under the Conservative Government. The Conservative Party has form, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, might say.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Forgive me, but the shame, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree, comes from the removal of the Chagossian people from the Chagos Islands, not from the agreement itself.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Yes, and as the noble Lord will recall from the debate that we had on the treaty, that was accelerated under the Heath Administration in 1970 and concluded under the Conservative Government. The denial of repatriation was then subsequently under another Conservative Government. My point is that all of us in this country have a dark record when it comes to Chagossian rights. Our task now should be how we at least restore some of those.
The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, started his remarks by saying that the House of Commons was denied the opportunity of debating the treaty during the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act period of scrutiny. He knows, because he will remember the debate we had on the treaty, that, as Erskine May makes perfectly clear, one of the mechanisms for the House of Commons to deny ratification of a treaty would be through an Opposition day debate. During the scrutiny period of this treaty in the House of Commons, the Conservative Party chose a different subject for its Opposition day debate. It had the chance, if it chose to take it, of debating and moving an amendment in the House of Commons during the scrutiny period.
We are here today debating this Bill for one reason and one reason alone: the previous Administration made a political decision to cede sovereignty and to enter into negotiations to conclude this. I hear noble Lords saying no, and I will come on to that, when they may wish to change their minds. Not one Conservative colleague today said why the previous Government opened negotiations to cede sovereignty in 2022. The then Government did not open negotiations to improve relations or co-operation with Mauritius. They made the principal decision to cede sovereignty, but they still have not said why. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, will outline clearly today why that was the case.
All legal considerations on this issue, which have been debated quite a lot during this debate, predate 2022. The complaints received in this debate predate James Cleverly and that Government’s decision. We have had complaints in this debate from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, of the current Attorney-General and the advice given to this Administration. As my intervention on the noble Baroness suggested, the same would have been the case under the previous Government. I assume that when the previous Government made the policy decision in November 2022 to open negotiations which would conclude with the ceding of sovereignty, they were also advised by Attorneys-General. I have a hunch that it might have been the Attorney-General at the time of November 2022, but it could have been any of the three Attorneys-General that the Government had in 2022. No doubt, history will tell us which one of those it was.
A new argument has been presented today by the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Blencathra, that the Conservative Government were powerless and feeble and that their Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries were forced against their will by officialdom to make that statement in 2022. This is the argument of being in office but not in power. It was our suspicion at the time that the Conservatives were in office but not in power, and I am glad noble Lords have confirmed that.
I understand the argument that might say that this is a bad deal or that it has been handled badly. I think that many parts of it remain problematic, and I would have liked the Government to have handled it differently. But that is different from the Conservative Opposition in the Commons, who said in their amendment that they were “implacably” opposed to “ceding sovereignty”. They were not implacably opposed to ceding sovereignty in November 2022, so what changed?
Lord Bellingham (Con)
The noble Lord is actually putting a very strong case. What I said in my speech was that there was a red line about a sovereign base area—the concession of sovereignty across all the rest of the territory, but keeping the sovereignty of the base.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the noble Lord; I listened carefully to his speech, which he made in his characteristically sincere way. I will try to address that point in a moment.
I asked: what changed? In the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, explaining when she winds up on behalf of her party what policy changes were being made, I might assume that the only relevant change is the fact that the Conservatives were in government and are now in opposition. Without there being a clear policy change, we can only make that assumption.
This is quite important because the Statement in 2022 said,
“on the exercise of sovereignty”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/22; col. 27WS.]
I have wondered why the same party that was implacably opposed then can be in favour of it now, especially because that Statement by the Government said that they were doing this to “resolve all outstanding issues” of international law. They knew that they had to resolve those outstanding issues of international law, but now they are denying the very virtue of the fact that they had any issues at all to address. That is quite hard to understand, and they have not made it any clearer today.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. The 2022 Statement, which was the policy choice of the previous Government, was a mistake—as the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, indicated; I respect his honesty —or was, according to some of his colleagues, the result of deep state. Nevertheless, if that had raised serious defence concerns, the Minister of State in the Ministry of Defence at the time would presumably have raised concerns about it. That Minister was the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, so she has ample opportunity to address the noble Lords’ points in her speech today.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
We have heard a lot about what has gone on in the past and whether the Conservatives did this or that. What I want to know is: are the Liberal Democrats implacably opposed to this treaty? Do they want to see the Chagossians be given full democracy and have their rights listened to?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am sure that the noble Baroness heard me—I am sure she was paying attention to the early part of my contribution—when I said that we moved that very Motion in the House of Commons just a few days ago but did not get support from the Official Opposition. So I appeal to the noble Baroness to wait until the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, makes her contribution and then to intervene on her with the same question.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray, made an interesting contribution. It was a post hoc breach of collective responsibility when he referred to his letter of opposition to that policy choice of his Government. I was going to intervene on him to ask politely whether he would place that letter in the Library for us all to see; I am very curious about it. I would be interested to know how many of his colleagues made the same complaints. I have mentioned the fact that one of those colleagues was the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie; of course, another of his ministerial colleagues at the time was the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. He did not intervene on the noble Lord, Lord Murray, so I assume that he did not write a letter of complaint at the time; I am sure that we will find out in due course.
Ultimately, we have to recognise, to be fair to the previous Government, that they entered into negotiations in good faith. I do not think a British Government would likely enter into negotiations on the ceding of sovereignty if they knew that the conclusion of that was not the ceding of sovereignty, so I give credit to the previous Government for acting in good faith about that. The question now is how we seek to raise our concerns on those very aspects of the Chagossians’ right to self-determination and on the scrutiny and operation of the trust fund. I hope we can continue to raise these concerns during the passage of the Bill in good faith.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I will try to get this debate back on track and deal with the issues that I think have been confronting us. The debate was ably introduced by the Minister and it has been predictably interesting, presenting some sharply contrasting views. It has also demonstrated a dichotomy between sincerely held views of former and venerable public servants and political views. There has been a further dichotomy within the political classes as to what constitutes responsible decision-making. As my noble friend Lord Murray indicated, even within the same party you can sometimes find a dichotomy of view—it happens, I say to the Minister. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that when it comes to a party having differences of view, I would think the Liberal Democrats could give master classes.
The position of these Benches was laid out clearly by my noble friend Lord Callanan. He also addressed the precipitate and surprising decision of the Government to delay their own Bill by, unusually, not proceeding with a committal Motion. The Minister, with admirable verbal gymnastics, sought heroically, if perhaps not completely convincingly, to explain that decision, but I think the reason is simple: the Government had concerns that the sensible amendment to the committal Motion that my noble friend had tabled was drawing support, and it may well have been that the Government were fearful that support for the amendment or a version of it would prevail and the Government would lose. But that was a judgment for the Government to make. I observe that the amendment was not prescriptive and would have left matters entirely under the control of the Government. What has now emerged is a welcome breathing space for the Government to consider and answer some serious questions about the agreement on which the Bill is predicated. Some of these questions have already been asked, but it will be my pleasure in a moment to add to them.
My noble friend Lord Callanan raised some of the most serious issues arising from the agreement, and it is interesting that the concerns he expressed were mirrored during the debate by a number of contributors. If we look at the agreement and at the trust fund, we find that there is an absence of knowing in detail what the views of the Chagossian people are on these issues. That was raised by a number of contributors, including my noble friend Lord Lilley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, has concerns about that.
The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and my noble friends Lord De Mauley and Lord Bellingham spoke movingly about the treatment to which the Chagossian people have been subjected over decades. I found that moving— I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that I am not being hypocritical in expressing that sentiment—and it was very much echoed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hoey and Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee, who graphically described the lack of engagement in relation to current matters.
Then there is the issue of money—in today’s economic climate, a hot potato if ever there was one. The Chancellor is scratching around looking for every penny she can find, defence urgently needs upfront cash and taxes are almost certainly going up, yet the British taxpayer is going to be asked to pay almost £35 billion to Mauritius, a point that was raised by a number of contributors. My noble friend Lady Noakes gave a devastatingly forensic analysis of the costs and the Government’s disparate approach, and I will leave that to the Minister to respond to. Those concerns were echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee, and the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme.
Then there was the position of China, and the not imagined but avowed objective of China to strengthen ties with Mauritius because of its strategic advantages, and China’s commitment to elevating the bilateral strategic partnership. These clearly cause concern to many of your Lordships, notably my noble friend Lord De Mauley. Even the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, nobly supporting his Government, said, “China is a threat”. I agree. That was again referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that I was a Defence Minister for nearly four and a half years, and one of my areas of responsibility was south-east Asia. China is a resolute prosecutor of its own interests, with an overt desire to exercise influence globally. At our peril do we waver in our vigilance.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I am so grateful to the noble Baroness. I just want to say that I am quite sure that the Mauritians would agree with that.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
That is an unexpected source of encouragement, for which I thank the noble Lord.
Finally, and very importantly, the defence and security implications of this arrangement are clearly ringing alarm bells, as noted in the contributions from my noble friends Lord Lilley, Lord Blencathra, Lord De Mauley and Lord Bellingham. My noble friend Lord Bellingham helpfully distinguished between this agreement and the sovereign base areas in Cyprus, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, referred. The whole point is that we have sovereignty in Cyprus and can control these arrangements, but we cannot under this arrangement: we are in the hands of the agreement and Mauritius’s disposition to us.
The Minister described the base as a prized military asset. I was very glad to hear that and, of course, I agree. It was also emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Jay. But it is this aspect of defence and security to which I wish to devote my final remarks. The Minister already has a lot of questions to which a response is required, and the observations from my noble friend Lord Lilley certainly require comment, but here is my addendum.
With the help of the Bill, I have been endeavouring to knit together the components of the agreement with the text of the Bill. Seeking clarification from the Government on a number of vital points is part of a necessary scrutiny process, but His Majesty’s Opposition reserve their overall position on the Bill and will determine their approach at a subsequent stage in the procedure. In the meantime, let me set a general perspective.
We reach the ninth introductory paragraph to the agreement before there is any mention of
“protecting international peace and security”,
with specific reference to
“the long-term, secure and effective operation of the Base on Diego Garcia”.
Although I might have hoped for earlier recognition of the primacy of defence and security, this is where we are. But the drafting confirms that this is a pivotal part of the agreement, which then promotes defence and security to Article 3 of the agreement and enhances that status by including Annex 1, so progress has been made. I mention this because it goes to the heart of what the agreement stands for, what it is about, and the need for absolute clarity.
There is the further question of the extent to which material text in the agreement should be replicated in the Bill. I propose to raise a number of factual questions, which I appreciate may require the Minister to go back to her officials. I am content that she does that and can respond by letter, a copy of which could perhaps be laid in the Library. At least the Government have now helpfully provided some time within which to do that.
Going back to the agreement, under Article 3,
“the Parties shall not undermine, prejudice or otherwise interfere with the long-term, secure and effective operation of the Base, and shall cooperate to that end”.
That is an undertaking of fundamental importance by Mauritius to the UK. It explicitly implies that Mauritius should not enter into any arrangements, either on its own account or with any third party, which could be in breach of that undertaking. That, by implication, logically confers upon the UK a right to respond to such arrangements by taking whatever action is necessary to safeguard the base, and our interests and those of our allies on the base. Can the Minister confirm that that is the Government’s understanding?
An important protection is granted to the UK by Annex 1, paragraph—
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
Forgive me for interrupting, but the noble Baroness said a few minutes ago that the sovereign base area in Cyprus was not the subject of a treaty. It was the subject of three treaties: the Treaty of Guarantee, the Treaty of Alliance and the treaty of establishment.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I hesitate to correct the noble Lord. I think what I said in response to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, was that the sovereign base areas in Cyprus and this arrangement are not the same. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, made was, in fact, about expeditiously communicating with Cyprus if we are going to do something. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I thank him for his intervention but I think we are slightly on different planes.
I had got to the UK’s position under Annex 1, paragraph 1A, which says that the UK shall have
“unrestricted access, basing and overflight for United Kingdom and United States of America aircraft and vessels to enter into the sea and airspace of Diego Garcia”.
That is good. Annex 1, paragraph 1B(i), says the UK shall have “unrestricted ability” to
“control the conduct and deployment of armed operations and lethal capabilities”
on Diego Garcia. That is strong; it is a clear reassurance and there should be no ambiguity as to what it means. But less clear is Annex 1, paragraph 1B(viii), which says the UK shall have “unrestricted ability” to
“permit access, basing and overflight for non-United Kingdom and non-United States of America aircraft and vessels, upon notification to Mauritius”.
If that is merely a courtesy intimation then it does not compromise the UK controlling the conduct and deployment of armed operations and lethal capabilities on Diego Garcia. If that notification requires the consent of Mauritius then it most assuredly does, so can the Minister confirm that such intimation is purely a courtesy and that consent to the proposed action is not required from Mauritius?
Under Annex 1, paragraph 2, the UK
“agrees to expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third State directly emanating from the Base on Diego Garcia”.
It is in the middle of the Indian Ocean, and a territorial armed attack on a third state could theoretically be mounted from the base, albeit that is perhaps unlikely. Can the Minister confirm whether that obligation to inform “expeditiously” extends to assets which, for example, merely called into the base to refuel and are once again at sea or airborne? Does that obligation also apply if UK forces disable hostile aircraft, drones, ships or other devices which present a threat to the base?
I ask these questions because in any live conflict, the environment is kinetic. The last thing on the minds of military commanders will be seeking consents. These questions which I have posed require clear, unambiguous answers.
I turn to how the agreement engages with the Bill. I would have thought that the issues I have already raised, plus the importance of the role of the joint commission under Article 12 and the mechanism for setting disputes under Article 14, all merit a specific mention in the Bill. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government are prepared to look at the drafting of the Bill with a view to incorporating some of these issues into it?
Specifically, there is in the Bill a reservation to His Majesty under his prerogative to make laws for Diego Garcia and to empower His Majesty to make Orders in Council. I raised this at the very helpful briefing meeting held by the Minister, for which I thank her, but I will add this point. His Majesty is commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces. What if a threat to the safety of our Armed Forces manifests in the base itself or in the assets operating from there? If there is a disagreement with Mauritius as to the character and gravity of that threat and how the UK proposes to respond, does the lawmaking power under Clause 3(3) prevail to do whatever is necessary to protect our military and civilian personnel and our assets?
This agreement raises two profound concerns. First, if the Government concede this area of British sovereignty, how safe are our other crown territories—the Falklands, Gibraltar and our sovereign bases in Cyprus? The moment that lawyers come sniffing around any of those, will this Government be resolute and stand up to that? Secondly, this agreement should not be seen as some tying up of loose legal ends with a box ticked. It has a significant impact on the British taxpayer, on the Chagossians themselves and on our defence and security interests.
Notwithstanding the acknowledged authority of the noble Lords, Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lord Beamish, and the respect in which they are held in this House, the lack of support from the Government’s own Back Benches is troubling. I look forward to the Minister’s response, because this debate has raised a series of profoundly concerning substantive issues, and this Chamber needs reassurance.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for her closing speech. It was exactly the kind of speech I would have expected from her. It was forensic and detailed, asking absolutely legitimate questions that any respectable Opposition should put to a Government proposing this kind of Bill. I will try to answer all her questions— I was writing as quickly as I could—but I may not get through them all. The idea of a letter in the Library, explaining the detail so that everybody can see what we have to say, is a very good one. I would be happy to do that.
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. It has been lively, as I suspected it might be. I might say that I agreed with some contributions more than others, and some were probably better informed than others, but that is the nature of these things. I will endeavour to respond to all the points raised by noble Lords, and we will, I hope, have further discussions in Committee on many of those.
I would like to remind the House why we are scrutinising and reviewing a Bill sent to us from the other place. The Bill is essential to ensure that the treaty with Mauritius can be ratified, a treaty that is fundamental to safeguarding the operations of a critical UK-US base on Diego Garcia and to the security of British people. As the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said, the Bill is also vital to protecting the British citizenship rights of Chagossians.
Noble Lords have questioned the legal rationale for this deal and asked what court could give a binding judgment. Let me set this out again: as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, explained well in his speech, if a long-term deal had not been reached, it is highly likely that further wide-ranging litigation would have been brought quickly against the UK. Both the International Agreements Committee and the International Relations and Defence Committee, in scrutinising the treaty, heard evidence of where these binding judgments could come from.
One possibility is that Mauritius would find a dispute under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea that it could bring before an arbitral tribunal under Annexe VII of the convention. That also raises the prospect that Mauritius would seek provisional measures from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Provisional measures of this type and the decision of an arbitral tribunal would each be legally binding on the UK. A further possibility is that a dispute under a multilateral treaty could be brought before the International Court of Justice. A judgment delivered in the manner by the ICJ in disputes between states may also be legally binding.
There are those—we have had this ever since we started debating this issue—who question where this binding judgment might arise, but they are fundamentally missing the point here. The risk was real. International courts were already reaching judgments on the basis that Mauritius had sovereignty, and this in turn, as my noble friend Lord Browne explained, put the base at real risk. The point is that the treaty with Mauritius prevents that happening in the future.
Noble Lords are perfectly entitled to take a different view on the extent of that risk; that is absolutely their right. The Government’s view is that that risk is real. Having that view, any responsible Government making that assessment has to seek to resolve it and to come to some lasting, legally enforceable arrangement with Mauritius. That is why we did the deal. Noble Lords are entitled to disagree with the Government, and I have absolutely no issue with that, but please do not impute some sort of bad intent or motive around political correctness, colonialism or any of those things. Our intention is to secure that base for the benefit of the security of our country. We did it so an agreement could be concluded on our terms, rather than it being forced upon us so that we would have to accept the imposition of an arrangement that would not have been in our favour.
I am interpreting the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, on the overseas territories as an invitation to the Government to restate their longstanding and clear commitment to all our overseas territories. The Conservatives, at some points in these debates, although not recently—the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, never did this, but others did—would raise the issue of the Falkland Islands. I thought that that was the height of irresponsibility, and I am very glad that they no longer attempt to bring that question into these discussions, because it was wrong that they did that.
This treaty has a complex resolution process attached to it because it needs to be long-lasting, and we are trying to cover every eventuality that might arise. That is a really good subject for us to get into in Committee, and we must test that to make sure that we have got that right. I have every confidence that the noble Baroness and her colleagues will bring to us situations that we need to hold up against that process, to make sure that we have got that right.
On the notification of activities of third countries with our consent, there is a notification there. I think that is right, but it is not in any way conditional. We do not need consent. It is not about permission or any of those things. I hope that that is helpful.
On the ability to make law, we had an interesting discussion at the briefing about royal prerogative and the ability of the King to make law in Diego Garcia. We need to get into that in Committee. There will be things in the Bill that, when I was sitting in the noble Baroness’s place, I would have been asking questions about, such as powers and flexibilities, the ability of Ministers to make decisions, and the various methodologies. I expect we will be having long discussions about negative and affirmative procedures, for example, and law-making power is one such issue.
I want to address some of the points that were made regarding the Chagossian community. As I stated in my opening speech, this Government deeply regret how the Chagossians were removed from the islands. This is a community that the Government are committed to working with and supporting in the months and years ahead. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. She made a compelling and genuine contribution on this important issue, as did the noble Lord, Lord Horam, and I commend those who have been working on this for very many years. She did her party proud, and I respect the longstanding commitment that she and others have had.
The Bill ensures that there will be no adverse impact on Chagossians’ nationality rights as a result of the treaty. Chagossians will not lose their current rights to hold or claim British citizenship, and no one will lose existing British Overseas Territory citizenship status. The Bill does, however, remove Chagossians’ ability to acquire British Overseas Territory citizenship in the future, because once the treaty comes into force, BIOT will not be an overseas territory.
On the trust fund, the noble Lord, Lord Horam, raised the possibility of an exchange of letters on the future treatment of Chagossians under this fund. This is, again, a genuine issue that we ought to explore. I appreciate that noble Lords will want more detail on how the trust fund will operate. I look forward to discussing this in Committee. Who knows? We might be able to reach some sort of agreement on that issue.
On the citizenship law, which was raised by one or two noble Lords opposite—it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Hannan—there have been mentions of section 76B of the Mauritian criminal code and concerns that Chagossians are leaving Mauritius for fear of being prosecuted for their affiliation with the UK. This is really important: no one has ever been prosecuted under this law; but just because no one has ever been subject to it, that does not make it right. Last week, the Mauritian Government repealed this section, and, as of April 2025, 94% of Chagossians with British nationality also had Mauritian citizenship.
On the right to self-determination, there have been questions during the debate, and leading up to it, about consultation with Chagossians. The negotiations on the treaty were necessarily between states—the UK and Mauritius—and it is true that we have prioritised the operation of the base on Diego Garcia. That has been our priority. There may be people here who disagree with that and who would have preferred us to prioritise other issues, and I respect their right to hold that view, but that is not the view of the Government. We wanted to protect the base.
There were some, including the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, who raised the right to self-determination for the Chagossians. I have followed the noble Baroness’s career for many years; I do not know why, but I have always been rather attached to following what she does and says, and I have a real long-standing respect for her. I completely understand why she wants to raise this issue, and why it matters so much to her. The fact is that the Chagos Archipelago has no permanent population and has never been self-governing. No question of self-determination for its population, therefore, legally arises.
The English courts, noting the conclusion of the ICJ in the 2019 advisory opinion, have proceeded on the basis that the relevant right to self-determination in the context of BIOT was that of Mauritians rather than Chagossians. Both the English courts and the European Court of Human Rights have considered, in a series of judgments since the 1970s, the related but distinct question of an alleged right of abode or other rights said to flow from that. On each occasion, the English courts and the European Court of Human Rights have ultimately dismissed these claims. The transfer of sovereignty, therefore, does not deprive Chagossians of any existing rights. This is a long-standing legal position that previous UK Governments have also adopted, including in claims brought as recently as 2020. That all sounds very legalistic and cold; nevertheless, that is the legal position as it stands.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for addressing this issue, because it has become a real touchpoint in the general populace. Does she agree that, while we might differ on the legality issue, there is a moral duty on the Government to engage with the Chagossians, who feel so let down, not just by this Government—I made that very clear—but by the whole political establishment in this country?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I agree, and I will say a little about engagement. It is an important point, and it deserves a proper response. If there is more that we can do, we would be very open to discussions about how it could be done in the right way that does not derail the process that we are trying to undertake about bringing the treaty into law.
Having said that, we recognise the importance of the islands to Chagossians, and have worked hard to reflect this in our wider policies. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has, as he said, a long-standing position on this which I understand and respect. His impressive command of the history of this subject was put to good use in his previous interventions. I completely agree with his point about the shameful treatment of the Chagossian population.
On engagement, in the past three years officials have met Chagossians and groups over 30 times to discuss the agreement and FCDO’s wider support to the community. The Minister for Overseas Territories, Stephen Doughty, has met with Chagossians four times since he has been in post since July last year and, on 2 September, the new Chagossian contact group met. It has wide representation from Chagossian communities in the UK, Mauritius, the Seychelles and elsewhere to give Chagossians a formal role that shapes decision-making in the UK Government’s support for their community. The group met for the first time on 2 September and will convene quarterly hereafter.
Claims that all Chagossians are opposed to the agreement fail to respect the differing views of this diverse and vibrant community. We have seen some of that reflected in our discussions this afternoon. Many voices support the outcome reached, and these include the Chagos Refugees Group, the Chagos Islanders Movement, the UK Natives Chagossian Council and the Seychelles Chagossian committee. However, I accept that there are many Chagossians who take a different view, which is their right.
On resettlement, points have been made that the treaty does not guarantee Chagossians the right of return to the archipelago and that it should have done. This has come up several times. In 2016, when in government, the Conservatives ruled out resettlement, acknowledging the acute challenges and costs of developing anything equivalent to modern public services on remote and low-lying islands. The KPMG report, which has been mentioned several times and was commissioned by that Government, concluded that resettling a civilian population permanently on BIOT would entail substantial and open-ended costs. This agreement gives Mauritius the opportunity to develop a programme of resettlement on its own terms without requiring the UK taxpayer to foot the bill.
There has been a range of views about Mauritius and its reliability. Some noble Lords have implied that Mauritius is somehow an unreliable partner that cannot be trusted. These claims are insulting to Mauritius, which is a member of the Commonwealth and a westward-facing country with shared democratic values. Mauritius ranks among the top African nations in governance, human development and innovation. It is a full democracy, a regional leader in human rights and a trusted partner in upholding the rules-based international order. It ranks second out of 54 African countries in the Mo Ibrahim index of African governance. It is also one of only two African countries not to have signed up to China’s belt and road initiative. As an act of good faith, Mauritius stopped its legal campaign against us while we negotiated.
Much has also been said about China. There has been a substantial amount of complete misinformation about China’s influence in the region and reported plans to develop a military base in the Chagos Archipelago. The Mauritian Attorney-General has stated publicly that these claims are a gross falsehood and calls them a political gimmick. I can confirm, unequivocally, that the treaty prevents any foreign security forces, civilian or military, from establishing themselves in the archipelago. Furthermore, if the UK believes, for whatever reason, that any activity taking place in the archipelago would jeopardise the security of the base, Mauritius is obliged under the treaty to co-operate with us to prevent that risk, and the UK can veto any construction or development across the archipelago which we consider to be a security threat to the base. As for claims that China supports the treaty because it grants it greater influence in the Indian Ocean, that is, frankly, nonsense.
This is why our closest allies and partners have welcomed the deal, especially the US and other Five Eyes partners. They are satisfied that the treaty protects the base against foreign influence and think that it is essential for our capabilities for generations to come.
Many of the points on the issue of the environment are really quite important, including on marine protected areas. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, made a thoughtful speech about this. There have been claims made, both during the debate today and in the other place, that the Mauritian Fisheries Minister wished to issue fishing licences in the area, which would risk, the argument goes, the protection of the unique marine environment of the archipelago. It must be noted that the point the Minister was making was more to do with sovereignty than with fisheries policy, but, as I said in my opening speech, the Mauritian Government confirmed only yesterday that they will establish a marine protected area that follows current bounds of the BIOT MPA and that they will not allow any commercial fishing in any section of the marine protected area.
Noble Lords have quite reasonably sought assurances on enforcement of the MPA, and I expect this is something we will get into detailed discussion about in Committee. For today, I point out that, if the UK at any point believes that Mauritius is in breach of its environmental obligations, we can seek to resolve that using the agreed dispute resolution mechanism in Article 14. In any case, the UK and Mauritius are working to finalise the arrangements on maritime security to ensure that there are patrolling capabilities and that these are maintained.
Lord Callanan (Con)
On the point about the marine protected area, I think the Minister said that Mauritius had duplicated the zone absolutely. Is it not the case that it is not a no-catch zone? Point B in the communiqué issued confirmed that fishing will still be permitted in over 600,000 square kilometres of the zone.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is right, and I said that in my opening speech. This is about artisanal fishing. In the event of some sort of resettlement on the outer islands, those communities would need to sustain themselves. They would fish using traditional artisanal methods, and that is what the permission relates to. It would not permit any other form of fishing, because that would clearly be detrimental to marine life.
The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, chair of the ISC, said—and this is about money—it is disappointing that there continues to be reference to artificially inflated figures of the cost of the treaty. It is misleading to ignore inflation and the changing value of money over time. The net present value of the treaty is what we have always said it will be: £3.4 billion over its lifetime. This is in line with long-standing practice in how the Government account for all long-term spend. The Office for Statistics Regulation and the OBR have verified these figures and confirmed that we have applied this methodology correctly.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, the point is that, in accounting for money, cash accounting is used in government. What she is talking about is economic analysis, which is not the same as financial analysis. If she had been in the Chamber she would have heard my speech on this subject. It is clear that, when we come to draw up accounts for the Government, cash goes into this in pounds expressed in the time expended.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I apologise to the noble Baroness for missing her speech, and I will read it in Hansard; the bladder is only so strong. What matters here is that there is consistency across government and over time in the way that we do these things. These things are done the same as they would be done for any other agreement.
I know that some people take a different view of the OBR from the one that this Government take. We take it seriously, and it has looked at our figures and verified them. The noble Baroness could by all means come back to this in Committee—I am sure that she will—but, for tonight, I will stick with what the OBR had to say on this issue. The way that we have done this ensures that the figures are realistic and comparable, not inflated by simply adding up future payments while ignoring the depreciation of value over time.
The noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, made quite a thoughtful speech. He is worried about the money. I should point out that we do not see this as an open market situation by any means. He seeks clarity about total cost. I can confirm that £3.4 billion is just that—it is the total cost.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, suggested that the US should be contributing to the cost of the treaty, given its joint use of the military base. We have to recognise that the US pays for the operating costs of the base, and these are several multiples greater than any payments by the UK. We benefit greatly from this arrangement. This allows us to access a valuable capability that keeps our country safe and the US is paying far more for it than we do.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
Does my noble friend agree that this agreement also allows the Americans to forward plan for their investment, which, as she quite rightly says, is substantial?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Absolutely. I thought the point made by the former Secretary of State for Defence, my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton, added to this very well when he talked about how future investment is jeopardised by the legal uncertainty that we are seeking to resolve.
Some have questioned the use of defence money in particular for this treaty. To be absolutely clear, the cost will be split between the FCDO and the MoD, as is appropriate given the shared interests of both departments in maintaining the future of the base. As set out by the Defence Secretary in his Oral Statement on the treaty in the other place, the costs represent a fraction of a percentage of the total defence budget—less than 0.2%. It is a bit far-fetched to suggest that the annual payments are in any way comparable to the biggest uplift in defence spending that we have seen since the end of the Cold War.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, raised sea level change. I do not know why I am dealing with this in the money section, but this is where I have written it down so we might as well get it on the record. As he said, it is true that sea level change has been less than 1% over the past 50 years, but it would be helpful for us to explore in Committee how a future sea level change, which he quite rightly alerts us to, would be treated by the dispute resolution process. I do not have a clear answer to that tonight but that is what Committee is for: getting to the bottom of exactly those sorts of questions.
I will give the last word to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. He made the very strong argument—it is not one that I had thought of, but I will definitely use it again—that this House voted in July to ratify the treaty. The Bill facilitates the enactment of this House’s wishes, because we voted in favour of the treaty. The Bill is necessary so that we can complete the ratification with Mauritius and therefore secure the critical military base on Diego Garcia. I thank noble Lords for their contributions and look forward to debating this in Committee.
Huntingdon Train Attack
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I express heartfelt sympathies from these Benches to all those injured in this horrifying attack, to their families and to everyone else affected. I also join others in paying tribute to the British Transport Police, Cambridgeshire Constabulary, Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service, and the East of England Ambulance Service. Their swift response, arriving within eight minutes of the first 999 call, brought an end to the violence and no doubt saved lives.
Above all, I acknowledge the astonishing bravery of the passengers and crew aboard the train. I pay particular tribute to Samir Zitouni, a man who, in an effort to protect others, ran towards the attacker and now remains critically injured in hospital. He went to work that day to serve the public. He has become a hero to the nation, and we wish him a full and speedy recovery.
It now appears that the individual charged, Anthony Williams, may have been connected to three prior knife incidents, including the stabbing of a 14 year-old in Peterborough. The Home Secretary rightly said that while investigations are ongoing she cannot comment on those events. When the case concludes, it is vital that a full account is given of what was known, when and by whom. Only through transparency can lessons be learned to prevent such atrocities occurring again.
The Home Secretary also noted that knife crime has fallen in recent years; that progress is very welcome. It is not my intention to politicise this tragedy, but I will make a couple of observations as more can and must be done. If the Government are to make good on their manifesto promise to halve knife crime by 2030, they must take a tougher stance against those who carry and use knives.
When the Crime and Policing Bill was before the other place, my colleagues tabled an amendment to raise the maximum sentence for the possession of a bladed weapon with intent to commit violence from four to 14 years. Disappointingly, the Government opposed that measure. As the Bill comes through this Chamber, I hope that noble Lords will reconsider. There can be no ambiguity: those who carry and use knives should face serious custodial sentences.
Equally, there is a widespread concern that the forthcoming Sentencing Bill risks moving in the opposite direction. The prospect of offenders being released earlier—or, in some cases, not serving their sentences in custody at all—sends the wrong message to dangerous criminals. The public are entitled to expect that those who commit violent crimes are punished proportionately and that justice is served.
On these Benches, we welcome the Home Secretary’s openness to using technology to innovate in how knife crime is tackled, such as through knife detection scanning and live facial recognition. Both have shown promise in identifying dangerous individuals and intercepting weapons. We hope that the Government can roll out live facial recognition technology at pace and that it will not be unduly delayed by further consultations. It is particularly needed in high-crime areas, many of which are centred around transport hubs.
The Government must also ramp up the use of stop and search. The former Metropolitan Police chief scientific officer found that increasing stop and search in London to 2011 levels would reduce knife homicides by around a third. I can personally vouch for the effectiveness of stop and search. When used intelligently and fairly, it saves lives. That is why the Conservatives sought to amend the Crime and Policing Bill to lower its threshold, but this was once again opposed by the Government. The police must have the powers to act decisively when intelligence suggests that lives are risk.
This country has witnessed too many tragedies of this kind. Each incident compels us to ask the same question: what more could have been done? When the investigation concludes, the Government must ensure that every department—whether it be the police, transport or probation—examines its role and translates the lessons into action, not just reports. We on these Benches welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to halving knife crime, but words alone are not enough. It will require robust sentencing, an expansion of policing powers, and investment in technology. It will require the political courage to act decisively in the interests of public safety.
In the aftermath of this horrific attack, we have seen both the worst and the best of humanity. So, in closing, I say to the Minister: we owe it to the Huntingdon victims and to every victim of knife crime to ensure that this tragedy is a turning point, so that the public can have faith that our law enforcement and justice systems are well equipped to protect our streets and deliver justice.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I want to put on record, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches, that our thoughts are with all those affected by this terrible incident: the staff, the victims, friends and families, and those who witnessed this attack—an attack that left 11 people in hospital, and many haunted by what they saw. I also thank the courageous work of the LNER staff, the Network Rail signallers and controllers, and the emergency services, and the heroic acts of some of the passengers that we have been hearing about.
Staff prepare for major incidents routinely, but they rarely have to put this into practice. The calmness and professionalism have shone through this gruesome attack, and the goodness of the public too. It would be very easy to jump to conclusions at this point, using this horrific incident to feed our own policy positions. I believe that is wrong. It is for the police and key partners to piece together what happened on the train and elsewhere, to review whether this could have been prevented and to learn from it. It is always easy from the outside to point the finger of blame, but we know how stretched all our emergency services are, including policing—and indeed mental health. The police and other services need time to establish all the facts and clearly there is an ongoing legal process.
I would therefore like to ask the Minister a few practical questions. For example, what measures have been taken to reassure rail passengers and staff across the network following this incident? Will the Department for Transport look to review security protocols on high-speed and intercity routes, particularly considering the confined environment in which this attack occurred? How will the Government ensure that any proposed measures to improve public transport security are proportionate? Finally, last autumn, when we debated the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, I flagged my concern about the future funding of the British Transport Police, resourced in large part by the train operating companies. The BTP does such a superb job working with our other police services across the country.
I ask the Minister to confirm that resources for the British Transport Police will now be reviewed and how the service will be funded fully going forward. I look forward to the Minister’s response with interest.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I endorse everything that has just been said by the noble Baroness from the Liberal Democrats—
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to His Majesty’s loyal Opposition and to the Liberal Democrat Benches for their contributions this evening. I give a broad welcome to their comments on the work of the emergency services, the British Transport Police, the Cambridgeshire Constabulary, the Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service and the East of England Ambulance Service. I would add to that the officials in the gold team in the Home Office and in the Department of Transport who also liaised on these matters.
I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Hendy is present in the Chamber, as some aspects of the responsibility fall within the Department for Transport, and he wished to be here this evening to hear contributions and comments.
It is also extremely important that we place on record the heroism that I have seen reported from passengers as well as the train driver, Andrew Johnson, and the member of LNER staff, Samir Zitouni, who is in hospital tonight. All our wishes are for his speedy recovery.
A number of points have been raised, and I want to try to deal with them as best I can. First, it is right that there have been—I use the word—allegations of issues prior to the incident on the train at Huntingdon that occurred within other areas of the United Kingdom, notably in Cambridgeshire. It is important to say that the police and crime commissioner and the chief constable of Cambridgeshire have initiated a review of those incidents. It is best to not comment on that until we hear what the facts are.
It is also important to note that British Transport Police has now taken overall responsibility for examining all incidents that took place, even those not strictly on transport policing areas. Again, I cannot comment too much in detail because there are outstanding potential charges to be made and investigations to be undertaken, but I am very clear—and I will give this assurance to both Front Benches—that when both British Transport Police and Cambridgeshire police produce reports, they will be subject to scrutiny in this House as a matter of course.
The noble Lord mentioned the question of knife crime, which is important. This is not a political point, but I hope it is reassuring in one way: in the year to June 2025, British Transport Police has reported a decline of 33% in knife and sharp instrument offences in its area of responsibility, which is positive. More widely, knife crime is falling: knife homicides are down by 18%; all knife crime is down 5%; knife assaults have dropped by 6%; and hospital admissions for under 25s have fallen by 10%.
It is worth putting on the record that there are further measures that we can take. The noble Lord will know that, in the Crime and Policing Bill before us now in this House, there are strong measures on a range of issues on knife crime, including sales, age verification and further measures on possession of knives. Those measures will come before the House, and we will have a debate on those issues. It is right that the Opposition table amendments and test government policy, but I hope there will be a consensus in part on some of those key issues. There is also the Sentencing Bill that will come before the House in about a week’s time. Again, there will be a discussion on sentencing issues then. But that is best left for another day, because today is about the immediate response.
My noble friend Lord Hendy has drawn to my attention the actions of the driver, Andrew Johnson, who took a decision when the first incident was reported to him without any visuals on that incident. He phoned and got in touch with the signallers and got into Huntingdon station. British Transport Police was notified, and an arrest was made by British Transport Police within eight minutes of the first violence occurring. It is remarkable, particularly given the strategic challenge of getting a fast-moving train off a main line into a non-mainline station; that takes great skill, and the staff involved deserve great praise.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, mentioned British Transport Police. I can tell her that British Transport Police had a 6% rise in funding in this recent financial year. I have the exact figures here somewhere. Obviously, that is a matter for discussion, and we will make assessments on that, but it is important to recognise that I do not think funding is an issue now—obviously, more funding is always available. I have found the figures: the British Transport Police funds were up 6% and were £415 million in the last financial year.
There have been allegations of mental health issues related to this, potentially—we will examine that in due course. Mental health funding is up £688 million this year as well. There are issues to be developed and looked at.
We will examine all the points that the noble Baroness raised. We are open to scrutiny from the House on that. However, we should recognise today that this was a very serious incident. There was immense bravery and skill on the part of individuals and a very good response by the police. There is now a criminal justice procedure to follow, and there will be an investigation into allegations that have occurred elsewhere. Ultimately, I wish those injured a speedy recovery. Whatever the criminal justice outcome of this case, we will examine any lessons to be learned both by my noble friend at the Department for Transport and by those of us at the Home Office.
It is also worth placing on record that this was initially assessed as a potential terrorist incident. That assessment lifted very quickly. We are looking at specific circumstances that are not political, or terrorist related or motivated. We can reflect on that and be thankful that, as of now, no lives have been lost.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I first apologise to my noble friend the Minister for jumping the gun earlier. I have been here long enough to know better, and I will see that it does not happen in future.
I endorse the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, representing the Liberal Democrats: we owe a great debt of gratitude to the railway staff concerned in this incident. I will come to the driver and the member of train crew in a moment, but my noble friend the Minister should acknowledge the prompt action of the signallers. As a former railway signalman, I know that it is a grade that is often overlooked. The fact that, once he was informed of the circumstances, this train was moved from the fast line on which it was booked to the slow line platform, ought to be commended.
My noble friend rightly paid tribute to driver Johnson. I point out to him that driver Johnson acted initially after being informed of the circumstances on the train by a member of the train crew. I also pay tribute to the gallantry of Mr Samir Zitouni, the member of train crew who acted in the highest traditions of the railway industry by placing himself in a position of considerable danger between the assailant and the passengers for whom he felt justly responsible. All too often, we forget the daily efforts of our railway staff to keep trains moving and to keep passengers safe. The fact that it is still, despite incidents like this, the safest form of transport in this country, is enormously commendable, so far as our railway workers are concerned.
I say to my noble friend the Minister, however, that if the assailant in this case had boarded a train from Liverpool Street to Stansted Airport, for example, he would have boarded a 12-coach train full of passengers with no staff on there at all, other than a driver locked in the cab. I say with respect to my noble friend—and I am glad that my noble friend the Minister of State at the Department for Transport is present—that there is still considerable concern, not just among railway staff but among passengers themselves, about the continuous destaffing of the railway industry. A combination of driver-only operation and unstaffed stations is not one that makes passengers—particularly women passengers, and particularly at night—feel any safer. I hope that, once Great British Railways is formed, the question of further destaffing is looked at by Ministers and that we take steps to ensure that passengers and the railway industry are properly protected.
Finally, I am always delighted to hear praise from the party opposite for railway staff. I hope they will feel just as well disposed towards them the next time they want to fight to protect their jobs, or, even worse, ask for a pay rise.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. I know that he spent time in a Stockport signal box in a previous life, and he is right to pay tribute to the signallers who helped with the safety measures that undoubtedly saved lives. Whatever the incident on the train, arriving at the station with police and ambulance services there saved lives. That speedy response was made by the driver, who made instant judgments and took steps that involved risks, which is something that the House should commend. I hear what my noble friend said on staffing. The Transport Minister, my noble friend Lord Hendy, is here, and this is an area for which he has responsibility, so I am sure he will reflect on that.
It is worth pointing out something that I have learned only in the last hour: Samir Zitouni, the LNER staff member who put his own life at risk to save the lives of others by standing in the way of the alleged assailant, is a customer service host. He is the person who would normally be serving tea or refreshments, but he stepped up to the plate and put his own life at risk by taking strong steps. We should recognise his act of tremendous bravery, and I wish him well for the future.
My noble friend made a number of points around the need for good, well-paid staff. I use the train every week. During one bored day, I worked out that, over 28 years, I have probably spent a year of my life on the train transporting myself back and forth to this House and the House of Commons. This Monday, I looked at the train guards and the train staff in a very different way from how I looked at them last Monday. I pay tribute to them for the service that they give.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, according to the Statement, the Government are committed to halving knife crime within a decade. However, recent research shows that last year there were 1,300 offences in schools. Does the Minister agree that a watertight, zero-tolerance policy should be taken in schools, so that if you bring a knife into school you will be expelled—end of story? Surely that would ensure a positive knock-on effect into adult life and help to reduce knife crime.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Earl for that contribution. It is slightly off the topic we are talking about today, but it is important that we focus on the issue of halving knife crime. The measures we have brought forward to date concern education, policing, new legislation on knife sales and tackling the culture of young people in particular carrying knives for defence. The noble Earl raises points that, with respect, are not directly for me, but I will make sure that my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern is apprised of his view. The point we can agree on is that, in the Crime and Policing Bill that will come before this House for Committee shortly, there are a number of measures that we believe will assist in continuing to reduce the level of knife crime. I will certainly reflect with my colleagues on the points that the noble Earl has made.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, these Benches pay tribute to the train crew and others who responded so heroically. Our thoughts and prayers remain with all those who have been impacted. The traumatic effects of being involved in an incident like that, in an enclosed space, do not just go away after a short period of time. I declare my unpaid role as co-chair of the national police ethics committee. I am grateful that information about the perpetrator was got out early, and not just the fact that it was not terrorism. Since Southport last year, we have known that releasing other information is vital to calming some of the public’s fears. That is something that my ethics committee has been discussing at length in recent times.
Like many noble Lords—I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, who may want to intervene shortly—I travel a lot on trains that do not stop for quite a long distance and which have many carriages. I could have made some of the points that have already been made about this. It is about having enough first responders, who are equipped to respond effectively, on those trains throughout the journey.
My trains have CCTV in every carriage—it usually works. That helps. I think facial recognition technology has been referred to. That needs to be managed very carefully. Many of the models that I have seen still have an in-built ethnic bias, inherited from the fact that the original training of their algorithms is often based on the faces of white men such as me. These models sometimes struggle to distinguish people from other groups within society, leading to too many false positives and causing people who are entirely innocent to have their lives interrupted by being stopped and accused of an offence. If we are to increase stop and search, there is no problem with that as long as we ensure that the officers involved are trained in unconscious bias so that they are not carrying it out in a way that is unfair.
Finally, does the Minister agree that deterrence for knife crime and other crime is driven much more by fear of detection and arrest than by the theoretical length of a maximum sentence?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. A number of us in this House spend lots of time on trains. He makes a very interesting point about the distance between stops. On the train I get every week, the last stop before London is normally Stafford, and there is a lot of time between those stops, a lot of carriages and a lot of individuals. I had a very brief conversation with my noble friend Lord Hendy, who said that the most important thing that he expects on a train is the ability to have contact with the driver, so that the driver can take immediate action, such as was taken in this instance by diverting the train to a non-mainline station, Huntingdon, where police and resources were made available. I know that my noble friend has heard what the right reverend Prelate has said on staffing issues and will reflect on that as part of his normal day-to-day duties.
The question of stop and search is an interesting one. I have some statistics, which I hope will help the noble Lord who raised this issue—I may not have given him as full an answer as I perhaps should have at the time. In the last year, 16,066 stop and searches led to an offensive weapon or firearm being found on the individual, but, interestingly, that was only 3% of all stop and searches. It is an interesting statistic. We can make of that what we will in slower time, but only 3% of stop and searches found a weapon on the individual who was stopped and searched.
The question of facial recognition is important. As a Government, we have invested in live facial recognition. We have 10 new vans in static location pilots. We have undertaken piloting of this, and it saves a lot of police time. We need to ensure that we trial it so that the right reverend Prelate’s points on facial recognition and characteristics are taken into account. The main thing it will do is this: in the case of convicted offenders who are known to the system, it will potentially help draw down the ability to identify them more quickly in a large crowd than would be the case otherwise. We are undertaking a public consultation on a new bespoke legal framework for law enforcement on the use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies, and that will be launched very soon. There is an opportunity for the right reverend Prelate and others to raise those issues of interest and concern so that they can form part of our final judgment on the benefits versus some of the challenges.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I agree with everything that has been said about the courage and skill of the staff and the efficiency of response in the emergency services and the police. I also take the point about the signallers. It would be fascinating and would make a good drama—sorry, it is in a tragic context, but the way in which the driver had to communicate with the signallers, and goodness knows who else, is above my pay grade and was all extremely impressive.
I want to ask about the last point on CCTV and facial recognition. I absolutely hear what my noble friend Lady Pidgeon said about how we cannot jump to conclusions about what the police should have done, should be doing or whatever. I have been somewhat intrigued to see it reported that the British Transport Police had the CCTV of an incident on a DLR station and apparently identified the person involved on the police national computer, but that did not go anywhere before the Huntington train incident. I put down a marker that I would be interested to know about that in future as one of the lessons learned. I share all the reservations about privacy issues, CCTV and facial recognition, including the point made by the right reverend Prelate about the accuracy of facial recognition and the way it has been used. It would be interesting to know what lessons we can learn about identification and sharing that data across the country. I am not saying anything could have been prevented, but I would be interested to know what lessons can be learned about what happened between knowledge of the DLR incident and what happened in Huntington.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
On what happened in Cambridgeshire and the DLR, that will be the subject of an internal inquiry by Cambridgeshire Constabulary. It will reflect on that, and I suspect it will produce a report that surfaces the issues. We use facial recognition in a number of ways. There is the opportunity, potentially, to look at a crowd and determine from a database of known individuals—or even, for example, missing people —whether they are in that crowd by identifying them. That is one way. Police can use operator-initiated facial recognition, which is an app that allows officers to take a picture of a person and compare it against any database we have of people who have been convicted of offences, and others. There are ways in which we can have live footage of people passing a camera, which we have been testing and monitoring.
British Transport Police, under my noble friend, will be piloting live facial recognition technology very shortly. That pilot will look for a short period—six months —to determine whether it is valuable and what lessons can be learned. However, as the right reverend Prelate said, it needs to be put into a legal context, and we will also look at that, potentially later this year. The issues about what happened, we need to examine. I do not know as yet what lessons are to be learned from the CCTV and how it was used, but that is what the investigation will lead to.
I want to go back to one point the right reverend Prelate mentioned, which is the early announcement of what happened and who, potentially, is the subject of the investigation. That is an important point, because we have learned from previous examples that putting information into the public domain—although not, in the first instance, the name of the individual, until any charge is made—takes away social media and other speculation that can lead to people having false information that leads them down alleyways that are not productive of public good and public order. I welcome the fact that in this instance, early information was given, and I would expect that in any situation. This individual was described in one way, others may be described in other ways; but the fact that further information was given about who the individual of interest is, is extremely important.