Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
If you will allow me, Mr Speaker, it seems fitting to begin by congratulating the Scottish men’s football team on qualifying for the world cup next year. For the first time since 1998—when I watched them in France alongside the tartan army—we will be back on the world’s largest stage. Steve Clarke and the team truly are history makers, and we are very proud of them.
Alas, today Scotland is being held back by the Scottish Government’s dogmatic opposition to nuclear power. New nuclear projects can deliver millions of pounds of investment and thousands of high-quality jobs and apprenticeships. Scotland is well-placed to benefit from the jobs, investment and energy security that nuclear can provide, but frankly we need a change at Holyrood.
Mr Bedford
What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the SNP Government in Scotland, whose luddite approach and ideological blinkers prevent Torness, Dounreay and Hunterston from being considered for future nuclear projects—and all the jobs and investment that go with them?
Mr Alexander
This at least seems to be an occasion for which there is genuine cross-party consensus. Not only have we urged a different approach from the Scottish Government—and I do so again—but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has already asked Great British Energy Nuclear to begin assessing Scotland’s capability for new build nuclear sites.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Would the Secretary of State not agree that connecting renewables to the grid requires considerable expense, and would not the former nuclear sites of Hunterston, Torness and Dounreay make very suitable sites for new nuclear power stations, from which the Scottish people have benefited hugely in the past?
Mr Alexander
I should declare an interest in that Torness is in my Lothian East constituency. It provides about 750 highly paid, unionised jobs. Of course, we would welcome the opportunity for advanced modular reactors, small modular reactors or new build nuclear at the Torness site, but the EDF management there says that the opposition from the Scottish Government is preventing equivalent investment of the kind that was recently announced for Torness’s sister plant in Hartlepool.
Alison Griffiths
A key plank of the SNP’s dogmatic argument against new nuclear is cost. Will the right hon. Gentleman find a quiet moment—perhaps when the winds fall light and the turbines stop—to point out to them to reduced costs of small modular reactors?
Mr Alexander
Of course, new technologies are emerging, as the hon. Lady recognises. We are delighted that Rolls-Royce is one company leading that new wave of nuclear technology. We do not even need to look to the future; we can look to the most recent past for occasions when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine in Scotland. That is why Torness provides significant base load capability. We see new build nuclear as an essential part of that energy mix going forward. Alas, the Scottish Government do not understand that.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that Scotland cannot meet its long-term energy security and net zero goals without new nuclear power, and that the University of Strathclyde’s internationally recognised power networks demonstration centre, whose expertise in grid integration and systems resilience is world leading, will be essential for the safe and effective deployment of next-gen nuclear technologies across Scotland?
Mr Alexander
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend: the expertise of our research centres in the United Kingdom, including the University of Strathclyde’s PNDC, is absolutely critical. The crucial research that they undertake will help to further the safe and effective deployment of new nuclear technology. We are watching a wave of nuclear technological innovation around the world. We must ensure that, as well as universities, communities across Scotland can benefit from it.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Last week, I spoke with trade unions in Scotland. They argue that the ideological ban on nuclear power is costing young people career opportunities for well-paid and long-term jobs. In my constituency, an SNP councillor is spreading misinformation and arguing against highly skilled nuclear jobs in the safe dismantlement of nuclear subs at Rosyth. Does the Secretary of State agree that that pervasive misinformed approach is holding our country back, and will he urge the First Minister to distance himself from the comments of that councillor and welcome those jobs in Rosyth?
Mr Alexander
Of course I condemn such misinformation. The reality is that the Government are investing £340 million in the Rosyth dockyard. I was in Fife on Monday and met with Fife College, Fife chamber of commerce, Babcock, and Navantia UK from down the coast. Huge investment is going in but, alas, the Scottish Government seem resistant to harnessing the potential of defence growth deals to secure new opportunities, not least for apprentices in Scotland.
Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)
Since my election I have met with many employers, both local and national, which have expressed—to put it in parliamentary terms—frustration at the SNP’s no-nuclear policy. This is stopping my constituents from getting access to high-quality jobs and it is preventing investment. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is a political choice that is actively stopping Scotland receiving good-quality jobs and investment?
Mr Alexander
I find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend. This is not just an anti-jobs measure by the Scottish Government; I would argue that it is an anti-science measure. Let us remember that nuclear power is carbon free. Given the climate change challenge we face, why would we want to resist a technology that can provide reliable, safe and cheap carbon-free energy for decades to come?
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I join the Secretary of State in congratulating Steve Clarke and Scotland football team for qualifying for their first world cup since I was 11 years old. I remember getting the afternoon off school, and when we have our first game next year I hope that Mr Speaker takes the same approach to the parliamentary day as my headteacher took to the school day.
Scotland has a long, proud history of nuclear power generation. We have the skills, the sites and the local support. But we also have, in the SNP Scottish Government, a luddite mentality, choking-off investment, preventing new jobs and going against the wishes of local communities, such as those in Dunbar, which the Secretary of State knows well, who want Torness secured for future generations. What does the Secretary of State think it will take for the SNP to join the growing list of countries around the world, and allow the global revolution in clean, safe nuclear power to reach Scotland?
Mr Alexander
I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman what I think it will take: it will take a change of Government next May. It is time for a new direction in Scotland.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
Over the last year, we have increased the national living wage—a pay rise for 200,000 of the lowest-paid Scots—delivered a generational upgrade to workers’ rights, had five interest rate cuts, and expanded the warm home discount scheme, meaning one in five Scottish households are getting £150 off their bills. But we need to go further and faster, and the Chancellor has pledged targeted action to bring down inflation further.
Liz Saville Roberts
The Government do indeed need to go further. This morning, the Scottish Government laid the regulations necessary to mitigate the two-child cap, brought in by Labour and carried on by Labour. Scotland is the only part of the UK where child poverty is falling, and it is the only part of Great Britain with a non-Labour Government. Does the Secretary of State recognise the huge role played by the Scottish child payment in tackling poverty head on? Does he agree that Labour in Cardiff Bay and in Westminster should follow the Scottish Government’s lead?
Mr Alexander
I was part of a Government that saw child poverty fall significantly. I believe that this Government will be true to that commitment. I hope there may be more for the Chancellor to say in the coming minutes, but be assured that we welcome all measures that reduce child poverty after many years in which, tragically, we have seen poverty rise.
Kirsty Blackman
In the 16 months since the King’s Speech, when Labour MPs were whipped to vote against scrapping the two-child cap, how many children have been pitched into poverty as a result of the Government’s refusal to scrap the cap?
Mr Alexander
We have always been clear that we wanted to take action on the basis of sound public finances. That is why it is a Labour Government that have been willing to take difficult and challenging steps. I am old enough to remember the criticism from those on the SNP Benches after 1997, and we went on to lift a record number of kids out of poverty. That is why I welcome our Chancellor’s approach.
Seamus Logan
It is just over 500 days since this Government came to power, and the policies of the Chancellor and the Government have been a disaster for the north-east of Scotland with cost of living problems, whether that is the impact of national insurance hikes on jobs and investment, the family farm tax on the agricultural sector, the energy profits levy, which is killing jobs in the offshore sector, or the raw deal offered to our fishing industry with the coastal growth fund. Can the Secretary of State tell me and the House whether we should expect the Chancellor to fix the mess that she has made, or will the Budget be another failure for the people of the north-east—
Mr Alexander
It will not surprise the House that I am not going to prejudge announcements that the Chancellor will be making from this Dispatch Box in just a few minutes, but I certainly do not recognise the characterisation that the hon. Gentleman has offered of the first 15 or so months of this Labour Government. It was always going to take more than 18 months to undo the damage of the last 18 years. We have already seen 200,000 Scots lifted out of poverty and record rises in the national minimum wage, and that work will continue.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
This Government are embarking on delivering the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation, working to provide income security for many in my constituency. I am not surprised that Conservative peers are blocking that in the other place, but will my right hon. Friend share the shock of my constituents that the Liberal Democrats and now Green Members are also doing that?
Mr Alexander
I would like to say that I am shocked and surprised, but very little that the Liberal Democrats do can shock or surprise me. The truth is that the Employment Rights Bill is expected to benefit people in the most deprived areas of the country by up to £600 in lost income from the hidden costs of insecure work. That is exactly the work that we as a Labour Government are called to tackle.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the impact on Scotland of the increase to the national living wage?
Mr Alexander
Only this morning there were discussions in the Cabinet involving me and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I pay tribute to the work that she and others in government have done to ensure both that upgrade to workers’ rights and that pay rise for the 200,000 poorest paid Scots.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
Will the Secretary of State tell the House by how much household energy bills have risen since Labour came to power?
Mr Alexander
I hope we will be hearing more about energy bills later this afternoon.
Stephen Gethins
The Secretary of State clearly does not know, so I will help him: energy bills have risen by £187 for the average household, with more rises due on the way. He might also want to know that today is National Energy Action’s Fuel Poverty Awareness Day. Scotland is one of the most energy-rich parts of Europe, with our renewables and hydrocarbons that the Treasury has benefited from over the years. Does he get the frustration at this Government when it comes to the cost of living on fuel poverty, food prices and child poverty, due to Tory policies that they have maintained?
Mr Alexander
This Government have taken action and will continue to take action. In his rather partial account, the hon. Member missed out around 530,000 households in Scotland that are already benefiting from £150 off their energy bills this winter, and I hope we will hear more today.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
Over the last year, this Government have taken action to fix the foundations of our economy, to put the public finances on a sustainable path and support growth. Despite the UK economy being forecast to be the second fastest growing G7 economy this year, and despite private companies such as Iberdrola investing £10 billion in Scotland’s energy sector alone, there is more to do. The recently published Muscatelli report shows that under the SNP, economic growth has been ignored, and the unique potential of communities across Scotland has been held back. That is why today the Chancellor will set out a Budget to boost economic growth in each and every part of the UK.
Jerome Mayhew
The latest growth figures in Scotland have been terrible—just 0.2%—and are even worse than Labour’s figures for England at 0.3%. What has been more damaging to the Scottish economy: SNP policies in Holyrood, or Labour policies here in Whitehall?
Kirsty McNeill
The SNP Government are clearly not doing what is required to drive growth in Scotland, but I say to the hon. Member that we are dealing with the legacy of 14 years of Conservative economic mismanagement, including their catastrophic policy of austerity, their mismanagement of the pandemic, and a failed Brexit deal. Members do not have to take my word for it: the current leader of the Conservative party has been clear that the Conservatives have no plan for growth.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my regret the Scottish Government have been content to keep £1 billion of underspend rather than building 39 new health centres or 30 new primary schools, employing 23,700 nurses in our NHS, or investing money in Scottish public services and having a consequential effect on Scotland’s economy?
Kirsty McNeill
I could not agree more. Since the election, this Government have delivered an extra £5.2 billion in funding for the Scottish Government, so they should be making life easier for Scots, but that money is being completely wasted by the SNP. What do we have to show for this record-breaking settlement? We simply cannot waste another decade with this failing SNP Government. It is long past time for a new direction.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
A key driver of growth in Scotland is the agricultural sector, but Scottish farmers feel utterly ignored and totally abandoned by this Labour Government. I have received a copy of a letter that was delivered to all Scottish Labour MPs urging them to call on their own Government to reconsider the family farm tax. One farmer who wrote to Labour Members said that these tax changes would destroy the family farms that feed Scotland and that he was delivering the letter as a plea for their future. Will the Minister tell the House if those pleas have fallen on deaf ears?
Kirsty McNeill
The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed this issue many times, and he is aware that we are striking a fair balance between supporting farmers and fixing the public services on which all our rural communities rely. We have taken a fair and balanced approach that protects family farms, while also fixing the public services that we all rely on, including our own constituents.
Andrew Bowie
Pleas from farmers to the Minister and the Secretary of State are being ignored, just as other pleas from other sectors that are key to driving growth in Scotland have been ignored. Scotland has the worst of both worlds: two socialist and economically illiterate Governments, and a Scotland Office that turns a deaf ear to the pleas of the sectors that could drive growth in our country. It is no surprise that the Scottish people are about to reject Labour in May’s election yet again. After today’s Budget, who does the Secretary of State think will feel most abandoned—Scottish famers, Scottish distillers, Scottish family businesses, Scottish oil and gas workers, or poor Anas Sarwar and the Scottish Labour party?
Kirsty McNeill
The hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware that the majority—three quarters—of those claiming agricultural property relief will be completely unaffected. However, what will affect every single person in Scotland is the Chancellor’s Budget that is set to help with living standards, to drive growth and to put the financial management at the heart of our public finances.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
Immigration is a reserved issue and the Home Secretary set out last week an asylum policy that will work for all parts of the United Kingdom. It contains the most sweeping asylum reforms in modern times, commensurate to the scale of the issues before us. These reforms will restore control, contribution and fairness to the system. I am proud that our country has always been fair, tolerant and compassionate, and this Government will always defend those values.
Pete Wishart
This Government’s new heinous asylum and immigration policy marks a dark moment for many who have chosen Scotland to be their home, even leaving children born in Scotland at risk of deportation. I do not know if the Minister has noticed that we are facing a population and demography crisis that the policy will only make 10 times worse, and if we do not address it, it will have a huge impact on our economy and social services. Why does Scottish Labour support an immigration policy that is contrary to the Scottish interest?
Kirsty McNeill
What Scottish Labour supports, like the rest of the Labour party, is a system that is both humane and restores control, and that is in the best interest of communities and those seeking asylum and to migrate. We are proud to support the policy, and we know that the rest of the country wants a system that has both control and fairness as its guiding principles.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
In Scotland, there are approximately four times as many people fleeing oppression from Ukraine and Hong Kong as there are asylum seekers. There has been no public outcry and they have been welcomed. That shows that Scotland is a generous country, willing to play our part if the system is fair and controlled. Moreover, 14 children this year have drowned in the channel coming here. Does the Minister agree with me that there is nothing progressive about not fixing a system where public support for refugees drains and children drown?
Kirsty McNeill
I am sure that the whole House will join me in remembering those children who have drowned in the channel, and I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. There is nothing progressive or humane about a system that incentivises people to take terrible risks. I commend my hon. Friend for all the work that he has done with those seeking asylum and refuge over very many years.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
The funding of Forth Valley college is a matter for the Scottish Government. Scottish colleges had their funding cut by 20% between 2021-22 and 2025-26. As the UK Government, we have delivered a record funding settlement to the Scottish Government. For as long as no final decision has been reached regarding the Alloa campus, I urge the Scottish Government, in the words of “Flower of Scotland”, to “think again”.
Chris Kane
Years of SNP underfunding have pushed Forth Valley college into financial crisis. Just when we needed to deliver skills for Stirling’s film studio, the Grangemouth transition, and shipbuilding and defence in the Forth and Clyde, the Alloa campus faces closure. Does the Secretary of State agree that the SNP is undermining Scotland’s future by neglecting the institutions that could drive growth? Does he also agree that Scotland needs a Labour Government, with Anas Sarwar, to rebuild our colleges and our skills base?
Mr Alexander
The facts are clear. The spending review was historic for Scotland and delivered the largest real-terms settlement for the Scottish Government in the 25 years of devolution, with an average of £50.9 billion per year between 2026-27 and 2028-29. It simply makes no sense to cut the further education college budget in Scotland by 20%, and it is definitely time for a new direction.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
After 18 years of an SNP Government in Scotland, the education system is failing and qualified Scottish pupils are being turned away from Scottish universities. Meanwhile, the private sector in the west of Scotland, such as at the energy technical academy in my constituency, is upskilling workers, who are paying so that they can install electric vehicle chargers and heat pumps. Will the Secretary of State explain to the Scottish Government that educating young people and further education training are good for Scotland?
Mr Alexander
I sincerely hope the Scottish Government are listening to the very powerful points made by the hon. Lady. Some 89,600 young people in Scotland are not in work, education or training. That is equivalent to about 16.1% or one in six of our young people in Scotland. Scotland deserves better than a Scottish Government who are failing one in six of their young people.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
The UK Government are transforming our defence sector into an even more powerful engine of growth, with skills and training being a central pillar of the strategy. If the SNP-led Scottish Government will not do the right thing, we will. That is why we stepped up with £2.5 million to fund a specialist welding centre in Glasgow, and we continue to work on exactly that agenda.
Richard Baker
The recruitment of 14 new apprentices at the Methil yard in my constituency, which was saved from bankruptcy by this Labour Government protecting 200 skilled apprenticeships, is in stark contrast to the failure of the SNP on apprenticeships in the defence sector. That means that many companies struggle to recruit skilled workers locally. Will my right hon. Friend work with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to promote Methil as a prime location for future defence contracts so that Navantia UK can create more new apprenticeships at the yard and work successfully with a Scottish Labour Government at Holyrood?
Mr Alexander
I met with Navantia management in Fife on Monday, and I met with the Minister responsible for defence procurement yesterday. There are huge opportunities thanks to my hon. Friend’s powerful advocacy of the workforce in Methil and the work that we can do together. The truth is that we have a Scottish Government who are dithering on defence, and we have a Labour Government determined to do right by the country on defence.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I was delighted when Eastriggs in my constituency was shortlisted for a new UK munitions factory. The Secretary of State will know about its long history in munitions and the fact that the Ministry of Defence already owns the site. Will the Scotland Office continue to promote the project and join me in facing down the Scottish Government’s anti-defence-industry stance?
Mr Alexander
I can offer the right hon. Gentleman the assurance he seeks in relation to facing down a Scottish Government who are dithering on defence. I pay tribute to him for his passionate advocacy of the site he speaks of in Dumfriesshire, and I assure him that we in the Scotland Office will continue to work with our colleagues in the MOD as we ensure that we have the factories we need to keep our country safe.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
Through the Pride in Place programme, we are investing almost £500 million to revitalise communities across Scotland. As part of that, the Scotland Office has recently completed the collection of evidence from MPs, MSPs, local authorities and community groups to inform the selection of 14 new neighbourhoods that will each benefit from £20 million over 10 years.
Elaine Stewart
Will the Minister give assurances on the timeline of the Pride in Place funding? It is crucial to get projects up and running as soon as possible. While it might be too early for her to wear a Santa hat, can she tell me whether successful local authorities can expect an early Christmas present?
Kirsty McNeill
I can confirm to my hon. Friend that she will not have long to wait. It is in all our interests to get things coming down the chimney as soon as possible.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Some 40% of children in Stenhouse in my constituency of Edinburgh West live in poverty. There are nine Pride in Place projects being considered across Edinburgh, but none include that area of deprivation. Are there plans to change the criteria so that such areas can be included, helping to attack problems such as child poverty?
Kirsty McNeill
There are no plans to change the criteria against which local authority areas will be selected, but I can confirm that we do not have long to wait before the areas will be confirmed.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I welcome His Excellency the honourable Stephen Francis Smith to the Gallery. As Stephen’s term as the Australian high commissioner to the UK comes to an end, we wish him all the best in retirement. We thank him for what he has done in the UK.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
May I begin by echoing your remarks, Mr Speaker, about Stephen, who is in the Gallery? He has been an incredible servant and a good friend to the United Kingdom, and we wish him well in everything he does in the future.
Today’s Budget will be a Labour Budget with Labour values to deliver for the British people’s priorities. I know what it feels like to sit around the kitchen table worried about bills that cannot be paid. That is why this Budget is for families who I know are equally worried about the cost of living today. That is why we are rolling out free breakfast clubs, free childcare and free school meals. Today, we will be going further to deliver the change that we were elected to bring about, cutting NHS waiting lists, cutting the national debt and cutting the cost of living.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Rachel Hopkins
For years and years, rail fares have gone up and up, but that is set to change next year. Can the Prime Minister confirm that commuters in my constituency will see a saving of around £400 on their annual season ticket as a result of this Government freezing rail fares? Can he confirm that it is only possible because we have a Labour Government?
The Prime Minister
I can confirm that next year we are freezing rail fares for the first time in 30 years, saving millions of commuters hundreds of pounds. That is only possible because we have a Labour Government investing in Great British Railways and putting more money in the pockets of passengers. We can contrast our approach with that of the Leader of the Opposition, who says that the minimum wage is a burden and wants to means-test the state pension.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
May I first pay tribute to the many farmers who have come to Westminster today to protest about the shameful attack on them in last year’s Budget? I want them to know that the Conservatives stand with them. [Interruption.]
This has been the most chaotic lead-up to a Budget in living memory, with resignations, hostile briefings—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I just say to a couple of Members, if you do not want the Budget, make your minds up now.
Mrs Badenoch
Nobody wants this Budget, Mr Speaker! We have had resignations, hostile briefings and leaks galore. Even in the past 10 minutes, there has been an unprecedented leak of the OBR analysis. These leaks have been so serious that even the former chief economist of the Bank of England has said that Labour’s “fiscal fandango” is
“the single biggest reason growth has flatlined”.
Does the Prime Minister agree with Andy Haldane, and does he have an explanation for this complete shambles?
The Prime Minister
We all know that the biggest shambles in living history was the Liz Truss Budget, and what did the Leader of the Opposition say at the time? Did she say, “I do not agree—this must be wrong”? No; she said, “I think Liz Truss is 100% right.” Not much room for flexibility there! Not one thing was wrong with it, in her view, so we will not be taking lectures from her. Matters for the OBR are for the OBR, and the Chancellor will set out the Budget in just a few minutes’ time.
Mrs Badenoch
We are talking about the leaks. The Prime Minister does not seem to appreciate the impact of these Budget leaks on the UK economy. Even the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has said this morning that the leaks were unacceptable, so will the Prime Minister launch an investigation into the Budget leaks and punish those responsible?
The Prime Minister
It is about 25 minutes before the Budget will be set out in full. In it we will take further decisions, and the Chancellor will set them out, but thanks to the decisions that she has already taken, we have 5 million extra NHS appointments, waiting lists are coming down, mortgages are cheaper, and we have expanded free school meals. That is 100,000 children lifted out of poverty—a moral mission for this Government. Compare that to the record of the party opposite any day of the week.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister talks about the decisions that the Chancellor has already taken. If they were that great, we would not have all the farmers protesting outside.
The Prime Minister does not want to talk about leaks, but we can see that the chaos in No. 10 is having real-world consequences. Instead of focusing on the economy, they have been fighting like rats. Several journalists reported that No. 10 sources had briefed against the Health Secretary and other senior Cabinet Ministers; the Prime Minister then told us that these briefings did not come from No. 10. Will he repeat, on the Floor of the House, the claim that none of his advisers has briefed against members of the Cabinet?
The Prime Minister
I have been really clear about this. No one in No. 10 has briefed against Cabinet Ministers, and the Health Secretary is doing a fantastic job. At the last election he stood before the electorate and said that we would deliver 2 million extra NHS appointments in the first year of a Labour Government. There he is. What did he do? He delivered not 2 million, 3 million or 4 million but 5 million extra appointments. The Opposition do not understand this language because they left everything absolutely broken.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister expects us to believe him, but no one does. We all know that he did not have a serious leak inquiry. What he did was ask Morgan McSweeney to investigate Morgan McSweeney, and then Morgan McSweeney discovered that Morgan McSweeney was innocent. All this calls into question the Prime Minister’s judgment. We read this weekend that he wants the former Deputy Prime Minister back in his Cabinet; he must have forgotten that she had to resign only a few months ago for tax evasion. When did the Prime Minister decide that lawbreakers can be lawmakers?
The Prime Minister
While the right hon. Lady has been scrolling through Twitter, we have delivered rail fares—frozen; prescription charges—frozen; and the minimum wage—boosted. We are focusing on the cost of living, the single most important thing for this country, while she is focusing on tittle-tattle.
Mrs Badenoch
It is not tittle-tattle. We all know that the Prime Minister is only talking about welcoming the Deputy Prime Minister back because he is desperate to shore up his crumbling leadership, but if he does welcome her back, will he set a condition that she must pay back the £40,000 of property taxes she avoided—the same property taxes that the Government are very happy to put on everyone else—and return her £17,000 of severance pay?
The Prime Minister
The former Deputy Prime Minister is the biggest social mobility story that this country has ever told. She started from humble beginnings, and fought her way to the very top. I am very proud of what she has achieved in politics, and very proud of everything that she has done for this Labour Government.
Mrs Badenoch
That sounds like a no. I have never heard the Prime Minister speak so highly of people avoiding their taxes.
In summary, this just looks like a Government who are a slow-motion car crash. The Prime Minister’s Cabinet Ministers are briefing against each other, his MPs are planning for life after him, and the most chaotic run-up to a Budget in recent memory is happening on his watch. Even the Chief Whip is telling MPs that he wants out. The truth is simple: his MPs do not trust him, the markets do not trust him, and the public certainly do not trust him. When will he finally accept that the chaos starts and ends with him?
The Prime Minister
The most chaotic Budget was the Liz Truss Budget. It did huge damage to our country, and we are still suffering from that damage. What did the right hon. Lady say about Liz Truss? She obviously does still think it. When asked, “Was Liz Truss right?”, she said, “100% right”. It was the most chaotic, damaging Budget there has ever been, and she sticks by it. I am very interested to see her response to this Budget, if she thinks Liz Truss got it right.
What we are doing is focusing on cutting waiting lists, cutting the national debt and cutting the cost of living. We are renewing our country—a Labour Budget with Labour values, delivering for the British people.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I want to see our high streets thriving, and I encourage everyone to support local businesses this Christmas. Through our small business strategy, we have delivered a £3 billion boost to help small businesses expand, and we have introduced the most significant reforms in 25 years to tackle late payments. The Chancellor will have more to say about that in just a moment.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
We have just seen in the leaked OBR documents that taxes are going up to a historic record high. Will the Prime Minister explain why Labour is hiking people’s taxes, instead of fixing the £90 billion Brexit black hole in the public finances by growing our economy with a new, detailed, brilliant trade deal with our European partners?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman will only have to wait a few minutes for the full details of the Budget. Every week he comes here with the same problem: he always wants more spending, and he never wants to say how he is going to raise the money for it. The two things cannot go together.
Ed Davey
We want to grow the economy, not tax the economy.
Let me take the Prime Minister on to another issue. I hope everyone in the House shares my alarm that a former leader of a political party in Wales has been found guilty of betraying our country, and has now been sentenced to over 10 years in prison for his treachery. The Prime Minister said that Reform should hold an independent investigation and he is right, but we both know that that is not going to happen. Given that Reform will not do so, he must. Will he now launch a national investigation into Russian infiltration into our politics?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight this very serious case: a long sentence for pro-Russian bribery in the Reform party—at the highest level. You would think a leader of a political party would want to get to the bottom of that and ask the question, “How on earth did that happen in the Reform party, and what other links are there between Reform and Russia?” But no, the leader of Reform does not want to do it. We know he does not want to know the answer to the question, because Reform is riddled with pro-Putin propaganda.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
It is staggering that an important upgrade for drivers to improve their journeys has been delayed for eight long years, and I understand that the scheme is currently being held up by the Reform-led council—quelle surprise! Reform is proving as hopeless in local government as everybody anticipated. We have invested £24 billion in our roads, and I call on Staffordshire county council to end the delay, get on with the job and get this scheme started for my hon. Friend’s constituents.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Member knows, we are reforming social care. I have asked Baroness Casey to lead on that, and she has had the first of her cross-party meetings to build consensus, which is obviously what we need on this. As I have set out a number of times, the first phase will report in 2026; so that we can reform as we go on, there will obviously be a phase after that. I remind the House that we have already boosted social care funding by £3.7 billion, with record increases also to the carer’s allowance and £500 million for the first ever fair pay agreement to properly recognise and reward carers.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The more we see of Reform, the more we see their true colours—in this case, making people £170 worse off. We see their true colours also in relation to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). His explanation in recent days, in relation to the stories about what he may have said in the past, is unconvincing to say the least. He says he never engaged with racism “with intent”. What does that mean? I have no doubt that, if a young Jewish student was hissed at to mimic the sound of a gas chamber, they would find it upsetting. He may want to forget that; they will not. He clearly remembers some of what happened. He should seek those people out, and go and apologise to them.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The Prime Minister
Can I say to the hon. Member and to Lewis’s mum, who is with us today, that incidents like that should not be happening? I think he has met an Education Minister to discuss this matter. Every child should have tailored support, including on transport to school, and I can reassure him and Lewis’s mum that that principle will be central to our reforms.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank Roman for his letter, which I took time to read last night. I want to read a short sentence from it now:
“This accident wouldn’t have happened if there was a safe place to cross the road... I am concerned for other children’s safety and I don’t want another accident like mine to happen again to anyone else.”
What an incredible young boy, aged just 10. I totally agree with him, and I say this to him: Roman, this is what we’re going to do—I have asked Ministers to work with all the right people to look at your school and get a safe crossing in place. The Roads Minister will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the road safety strategy.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The Prime Minister
We have invested a record £11.8 billion in sustainable farming this Parliament, and we set out a 25-year farming road map focused on increasing year-on-year productivity and profitability in farms, and that is vitally important.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right; the report is a sombre moment. It is important to remember the scale of suffering and the scale of the loss of life, which is made clear in the testimonies of the families in the report, and to remember the incredible contribution of frontline workers and everyone who focused on protecting others. We are committed to learning the lessons we need to learn from the covid inquiry to protect and prepare us for the future. The pandemic still weighs heavily on our public finances and our NHS. That is why we have already conducted a pandemic exercise to test preparedness, and agreed a historic global pandemic agreement to improve our ability to prevent global disease threats, alongside our partners.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to those in Somerset and the hon. Gentleman’s constituency in the defence sector, which is hugely important to our country and our security. I can confirm that we are continuing with the established procurement process for the new medium helicopter programme to deliver modern equipment for our armed forces. That is part of the biggest sustained boost to our defence since the cold war. I am determined to see a defence dividend of investment in British jobs and apprentices, including in his constituency. That builds on the £8 billion Typhoon deal that we have secured, the £4 billion maritime deal with Indonesia, and the £10 billion frigate deal with Norway.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
It is so important that men have the space and support from their peers to discuss their mental health. I thank Men Walking and Talking for the work they do, which makes such a difference. We were proud to launch our men’s health strategy last week to get more men the support they need.
Mr Speaker, I want to take a moment to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for his honesty and bravery on International Men’s Day. I say it again: men speaking so truthfully about their experiences is so powerful and inspires more to do the same. He is a credit to this House.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contributions to this important debate, including the contribution he made yesterday. It is the first duty of the Prime Minister to keep this country safe; that duty is paramount and above all else, and I take it extremely seriously and treat it as my No. 1 priority. We review our security and defence arrangements all the time, and we are, particularly, a leading member of NATO, which is the single most effective military alliance the world has ever seen.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The deal we struck with the EU will deliver on what the British public voted for last year, which is, as my hon. Friend says, boosting economic growth and restoring positive relations. The deal we have struck, which is worth £9 billion to our economy by 2040, includes a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement to cut supermarket prices and boost export opportunities. The Tories and Reform would rip up that deal and leave us all paying more at the checkout.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Under this Government, growth was the highest in the G7 for the first half of this year. The last Government crashed the economy.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Yesterday was the UN International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, known as White Ribbon Day in Milton Keynes and many other places. I wonder whether the Prime Minister will join me in congratulating you, Mr Speaker, on your commitment to make this House the first national White Ribbon Parliament in the world. Will he join you, me and many Members across this House in making the White Ribbon promise to never use, excuse or remain silent about men’s violence against women?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this really important issue. Mr Speaker, I am really proud of what you have done with this Parliament on the White Ribbon campaign. We must turn that from a ribbon into action. I am really proud that this Government are fully committed to tackling violence against women and girls; it is a political commitment, and a personal commitment from me. We will do everything we can to reduce violence against women and girls, which is pernicious and far more widespread than people appreciate. We absolutely have to stop talking and start doing on this.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Prime Minister
We do need to bear down on foreign interference in our democracy, but the responsibility for investigating what happened within Reform lies with the leader of the Reform party. The hon. Member for Clacton usually has plenty to say, but now he is totally silent on one of the most important issues. He needs to speak up and answer those questions.
Point of Order
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This morning we have seen an unprecedented leak of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” report before the Budget. The report contains market-sensitive information. It is utterly outrageous that this has happened, and the leak may indeed constitute a criminal act. In Prime Minister’s questions, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister about this leak, but he refused to answer her question. Please can you advise this House on the steps at its disposal to force a leak inquiry into this matter? Would it be possible to ask the Table Office to distribute copies of the report to the House, given that everybody outside the House has already had the opportunity to read it?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That is not a matter for the Chair. The Chancellor is about to make her Budget statement, and I expect that Members and their constituents wish to hear from the Chancellor directly. However, before I call the Chancellor to speak, I will make a short statement.
Financial Statement and Budget Report
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before I call the Chancellor, I will make a short statement. For a number of weeks, and yet again yesterday, there have been extensive briefings to the media on the Government’s fiscal policy and public finances. This disappointing trend in relation to Budget briefings has been growing for a number of years under successive Governments, but it appears to have reached an unprecedented high.
Weeks ago, we saw the Chancellor delivering a speech in Downing Street setting the scene for the Budget, and specific policy announcements have been briefed out to the media in advance of today’s financial statement. [Interruption.] I do not need any help from Members. It seems that just a moment ago, the Office for Budget Responsibility’s analysis appeared online. This all falls short of the standards that the House expects. The premature disclosure of the contents of the Budget has always been regarded as a supreme discourtesy to this House and to all the democratically elected Members, not to mention to Mr Speaker, and to me, the Chairman of Ways and Means.
The Government’s own “Ministerial Code” cannot be clearer. Paragraph 9.1 states:
“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament.”
I have always upheld the right of this House and its Members to be treated with respect, and to be the first to hear major Government policy announcements on behalf of their constituents. As Chairman of Ways and Means, I have responsibility for overseeing the House’s consideration of the Budget statement and the ensuing resolutions; that is described in paragraph 36.33 of “Erskine May” as
“the most important business of Ways and Means.”
I want hon. Members on both sides of the House to have adequate opportunity to hold the Chancellor to account, rather than their hearing and reading about new policies daily in the media. Like many, I expected better.
Before I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I remind hon. Members that copies of the Budget resolutions will be available to them in the Vote Office in Members’ Lobby at the end of the statement, and online. I also remind hon. Members that interventions are not taken during the Chancellor’s statement, nor during replies from the Leader of the Opposition or the Leader of the Liberal Democrats. I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
It is my understanding that the Office for Budget Responsibility’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” was released on its website before this statement. This is deeply disappointing and a serious error on its part. It has already made a statement taking full responsibility for its breach.
We are rebuilding our economy. Over the last 16 months, we have overhauled our planning system to get Britain building; forged new trade deals with the United States, India and the European Union; reformed our visa system to bring the brightest and the best to Britain; changed the fiscal rules that we inherited from the Conservatives; and raised public investment to its highest level in four decades. In last year’s Budget, I raised taxes on business and the wealthiest to close the £22 billion black hole in the public finances left by the Conservative party. We used that money to fund the biggest ever settlement for our national health service.
Those were the fair and necessary choices. We faced opposition to them—from opponents to planning reform who will always demand that the future is built somewhere else, not in their backyard; opponents to trade who want to take us down the path of isolation and division; opponents to investment who believe that the only good thing a Government can do is get out of the way; opponents who insist that the only way to balance the books is to cut public spending; and opponents who say that we do not need to balance the books at all. But we made these choices for a reason: because after 14 years of Conservative Government, working people demanded—and deserved—change, with investment, not cuts, to our public services; stability for our public finances, which is the single most important factor in getting the cost of living down; and economic growth, which is the best means of improving wages, creating jobs and supporting public services. That is what our plan, this Government and our Prime Minister are all about.
Today’s Budget builds on the choices that we have made since July last year to cut NHS waiting lists, to cut the cost of living, and to cut debt and borrowing. No doubt, we will face opposition again, but I have yet to see a credible or a fairer alternative plan for working people. [Interruption.] These are my choices: the right choices for a fairer, a stronger and a more secure Britain.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. There is far too much noise. I expected so much better from you, Dr Luke Evans; you are meant to be a leader in your community. Simmer down.
Rachel Reeves
I am happy for them to shout as much as they like, Madam Deputy Speaker, as long as they do it from the Opposition Benches, where they cannot cause any more damage.
I said that there would be no return to austerity, and I meant it. This Budget will maintain investment in our economy and in our national health service. I said that I would cut the cost of living, and I meant it. This Budget will bring down inflation and provide immediate relief for families. I said that I would cut debt and borrowing, and I meant it. Because of this Budget, borrowing will fall as a share of GDP in every year of this forecast. Our net financial debt will be lower at the end of the forecast than it is today, and I will more than double the headroom against our stability rule to £21.7 billion, meeting our stability rule, and meeting it a year early. These are my choices—not austerity, not borrowing, not turning a blind eye to unfairness. My choices are a Budget for fair taxes, strong public services and a stable economy. That is the Labour choice.
Growth is the engine that carries every one of our ambitions forward, through stability, investment and reform. It is the platform from which British ambition can finally get moving again. Growth does not just appear out of thin air; it is built, patiently and stubbornly, by people who take risks; by founders who bet their savings on an idea; by firms breaking into new markets, developing new technologies and creating new jobs and new opportunities; and by the men and the women who work hard every day, in all parts of our country. Our job is not to watch from the sidelines, but to partner with them, backing them every step of the way, and to match private enterprise with public ambition.
I thank my team of officials at the Treasury for their hard work in preparing this Budget. In the spring, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast that our economy would grow by 1% this year. I said then that Britain would defy the forecasts, and defy them we have. The OBR has upgraded Britain’s growth for this year from 1% to 1.5%, reaching the same conclusions as the International Monetary Fund, the OECD and the Bank of England, which have already upgraded their forecasts.
Today, the OBR has published the result of its review of the supply side of the economy. It is clear that this is not about the last 14 months; it is about the previous 14 years, the legacy of Brexit and the pandemic, and the damaging decisions by the Conservative party, which cut public spending, leaving communities and entire regions behind, starved our economy of investment, and weakened our public services.
As a result of its review, the OBR is reducing its expectations for productivity growth by 0.3 percentage points to 1% by the end of the forecast. It says today:
“Real GDP is forecast to grow by 1.5% on average over the forecast period…due to lower underlying productivity growth.”
There is an impact on our public finances too. The OBR says that its productivity forecast will mean £16 billion less in tax receipts by 2030. Those forecasts are the Tories’ legacy, not Britain’s destiny. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. It is very hard to hear the Chancellor over all the shouting. Mr Holmes, you promised me yesterday that you would be on your top behaviour in the first few minutes. I call the Chancellor.
Rachel Reeves
We beat the forecasts this year, and we will beat them again by boosting trade, not blocking it; by increasing investment, not cutting it; by championing innovation, not stifling it; and by backing working people, not making them poorer. Brick by brick, we have been building our economy—building roads, building homes, and getting spades in the ground and cranes in the sky.
Growth begins with a spark from an entrepreneur. Half of new jobs in Britain are created by scale-up businesses, and we want those jobs created here, not somewhere else. Our job is to make Britain the best place in the world to start up, to scale up and to stay. We are widening eligibility for our enterprise incentives, so that scale-ups can attract the talent and capital that they need; expanding the enterprise management incentive, so that more companies can offer tax-relieved share options; re-engineering our enterprise investment and venture capital trust schemes, so that they do not just back early-stage ideas, but stay with companies as they grow; and introducing UK listings relief, with a three-year exemption from stamp duty reserve tax for companies that choose to list here in Britain. To continue this work, I am launching a call for evidence on how our tax system can better back entrepreneurs, and a targeted review with founders and investors at its heart, to make the UK an even more attractive place to grow a business. We are sending a simple message to the world: “If you build here, Britain will back you.”
Our retail investment system should do the same. The UK has some of the lowest levels of retail investment in the G7, and that is not only bad for businesses, which need that investment to grow; it is bad for savers, too. Someone who had invested £1,000 a year in an average stocks and shares individual savings account every year since 1999 would be £50,000 better off today than if they had put the same money into a cash ISA. So from April 2027, I will reform our ISA system, keeping the full £20,000 allowance while designating £8,000 of it exclusively for investment, with over-65s retaining the full cash allowance. Thanks to our changes to financial advice and guidance, banks will be able to guide savers to better choices for their hard-earned money. Over 50% of the ISA market, including Hargreaves Lansdown, HSBC, Lloyds, Vanguard and Barclays, have signed up to launch new online hubs to help people invest here in Britain.
At this Budget, consistent with the commitments in our corporate tax road map, I will retain our competitive corporation tax rate, the lowest in the G7, and retain our generous full expensing offer for business investment. I will also introduce a new 40% first year allowance, so that businesses can write off more of the cost of their investment up front, while reducing main rate writing-down allowances in line with fiscal constraints.
Private investment is the lifeblood of economic growth, but growth needs public investment too. When faced with challenges, previous Chancellors have chosen to decrease, delay or cancel capital spending, but low investment is the cause of our productivity problems, not the solution. So my choice is not cuts, not stagnation, but to maintain the additional £120 billion of investment that I provided at the spending review: in transport to link our towns and cities; in energy infrastructure to power our businesses; and in housing, so that people can live near good jobs and growing businesses that pay decent wages. That is the Labour choice.
I am grateful to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for his work in driving our growth agenda forward. As we allocate investment for the infrastructure that is the backbone of economic growth across our country, today I will commit investment for the lower Thames crossing, and we are continuing to drive investment in city region transport, in the midlands rail hub and the trans-Pennine route upgrade, along with our commitment to the northern growth corridor, including Northern Powerhouse Rail.
It this Labour Government that have overhauled our planning system, and I will today provide further funding to increase planning capacity through a new skills offer, as has been called for by the British Chambers of Commerce and the Confederation of British Industry. It is this Labour Government that have invested in nuclear power: in Sizewell C and in Culham. We are taking forward our commitment to slash electricity prices for thousands of manufacturing businesses, as Make UK and many others have called for. Today, I am pleased to welcome John Fingleton’s report—an ambitious plan to cut the red tape that has tied our nuclear industry in knots for decades—and within three months we will set out our plan for delivering his recommendations.
We are proud of our industrial heritage and we are determined to build the industry of the future so that we buy, make and sell more here in Britain. That is why, as we increase defence spending, we are investing in Portsmouth, in Barrow and in Plymouth, and I am pleased to be supporting Team Derby, an initiative to drive growth in one of our defence industry hubs. It is why we stepped in to save British Steel in Scunthorpe and invested in Sheffield Forgemasters. It is why we have changed Government procurement so we can buy British when it is crucial to our national security. For steel, for shipbuilding and today for AI, we are driving innovation and building that great industry here in Britain.
But it is not just what we invest in that matters; it is how we invest—putting money and power back in the hands of local and regional leaders. Today, we are devolving £13 billion of flexible funding for seven mayors to invest in skills, business support and infrastructure. I am extending the business rates retention pilots in the west of England, Liverpool city region and Cornwall until 2029, and providing £30 million for the Kernow industrial growth fund for sectors like critical minerals and marine innovation. I am establishing the Leeds city fund, a long-term agreement to retain business rates to fund local regeneration projects like the development of Leeds south bank, and I am allocating £20 million for the new Peterborough sports quarter and £16 million for a science centre in Darlington from the growth mission fund.
The benefits of investment and growth must be built and felt in every part of our United Kingdom, so we are providing an additional £370 million for the Northern Ireland Executive, £505 million for the Welsh Government and £820 million for the Scottish Government over the spending review period through the Barnett formula. Sorry, I didn’t quite catch that from the SNP. Did they not show up? Perhaps they didn’t hear us: £820 million for the Scottish Government over the spending review period because Anas Sarwar asked us to. I am making targeted investments in our industrial strategy sectors across the UK.
In Northern Ireland, I am providing £17 million to support businesses and strengthen the UK internal market, and backing advanced manufacturing through the Northern Ireland enhanced investment zone. Wales will be the host for two AI growth zones, creating more than 8,000 jobs supported by a £10 million investment in the semiconductors critical for that industry. We are building the UK’s first small modular nuclear reactors with Rolls-Royce at Wylfa in Anglesey—two Labour Governments working together in Wales to deliver for the people of Wales.
In Scotland, I am committing over £14 million for low-carbon technologies in Grangemouth, £20 million to renew infrastructure at Inchgreen in Inverclyde and £20 million to redevelop Kirkcaldy town centre and seafront with construction starting next year. That is on top of the UK’s biggest ever warship export deal with the Norwegian Government to build frigates in Glasgow, supporting 4,000 jobs. Investment opposed by the SNP, jobs opposed by the SNP, defence opposed by the SNP, but secured by this Labour Government.
A growing economy needs strong foundations of economic stability, with borrowing and inflation down and investment up. That is good for business, and it is good for working people so they have more money in their pockets. Economic stability, safeguarded by iron-clad fiscal rules, is our best defence against rising prices and the best way to improve living standards.
We have all seen the alternative. Three years ago, in their clamour to cut taxes for the richest, the Tories under Liz Truss crashed the economy, sent mortgage rates spiralling and brought pensions to the brink. [Interruption.] They are being so loud, and yet I can’t even hear them now. I know that the leader of the Green party is a keen hypnotherapist, and believes that he can achieve remarkable things using only the power of his mind. Unfortunately, the only things getting bigger under his approach would be the deficit and the rate of inflation.
For all the damage that the Conservative cuts did to our schools and hospitals, they also doubled the national debt. Our net financial debt this year will be £2.6 trillion, 83% of GDP, meaning that today £1 in every £10 the Government spend is on debt interest—not on paying down that debt, but just on paying the interest on the debt we inherited from the Conservatives.
My fiscal rules will get borrowing down while supporting investment: the stability rule—that day-to-day expenditure must be met through tax receipts—and the investment rule, which allows me to increase investment while getting debt on a downward path. Those fiscal rules are non-negotiable. I met them at the Budget last year, I met them in the spring and I have met them today.
While the current Budget balance is in deficit by £28.8 billion in ’26-27 and £4.6 billion in ’27-28, it moves into a surplus of £3.9 billion in ’28-29, £21.7 billion in ’29-30 and £24.6 billion in ’30-31—more than doubling our headroom against the stability rule and meeting that rule a year early, too. Our net financial debt is 83.3% in ’26-27, 83.6% in ’27-28, 83.7% in ’28-29, falling to 83.0% in ’29-30 and 82.2% in ’30-31. I said we would cut the debt and we are, with debt down by the end of the forecast. Going forward, to support our commitment to a single fiscal event and to further strengthen our economic stability, I will follow the recommendations of the International Monetary Fund by assessing the fiscal rules just once a year at the Budget.
Despite the challenges we face on productivity, the path of our deficit reduction remains broadly the same as in the spring. Public sector net borrowing is due to be £112.1 billion or 3.5% of GDP in ’26-27, 3.0% in ’27-28, 2.6% in ’28-29, 1.9% in ’29-30 and 1.9% in ’30-31, ending at £67.2 billion, translating into an increase in the net cash requirement next year of £4.2 billion, taking the total to £133.3 billion. According to the IMF, we are due to reduce borrowing more over the rest of this Parliament than any other G7 economy.
The Conservatives crashed the economy; we are protecting it. The Conservatives lost control of debt; we are getting debt down. The Conservatives let inflation and interest rates go through the roof, but since Labour took office the Bank of England has cut interest rates five times. I have made my choices: not reckless borrowing, not dangerous cuts, but stability for our economy, security for our public finances and security for family finances, too. Those are the Labour choices.
Tory austerity left classrooms crumbling and waiting lists sky high, weakened our productivity and choked our economic growth, and now the Conservatives propose a further £47 billion of cuts to our public services. That is the equivalent of cutting every police officer in our country twice over. Then there is Reform, which promises more than £100 billion of cuts with no detail on where those cuts will come from or who will pay for them—a recipe for devastating damage to our public services. People voted for Labour because they want roads that are not full of potholes, police on our streets, and an NHS that is there when they need it. We are delivering that. Waiting lists are down by 230,000, and we have already delivered not just the 2 million additional appointments that we promised, but an additional 5.2 million appointments since the general election.
I joined the Labour party almost 30 years ago because I could see that the Conservative Government I grew up under did not care much about schools like mine. Textbooks were rationed—[Interruption.] I know that many of you were not at schools like mine. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. There is far too much noise, far too much excitement. People need to calm down a little.
Rachel Reeves
The Tories do not want to hear what they did to schools like mine, but I will tell them. Textbooks were rationed, libraries closed and kids herded into portacabins in the playground. I came into politics to change that. The money that I allocated at the spending review will fix the crumbling classrooms that the Conservatives left behind, and build the schools they promised but never delivered.
Today, thanks to representations from my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) and for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards), I will provide £5 million for libraries in secondary schools, building on the £10 million commitment to ensure that every primary school has a school library within this Parliament. Thanks to representations from my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) and for Luton North (Sarah Owen), I am providing £18 million to improve and upgrade playgrounds across England. Let there be no doubt that this Government are on the side of our kids and will back their potential.
I will not allow the legacies of Conservative neglect to stain our society. Last year, I made changes to the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme to ensure that its members receive the fair pensions that they are owed. This year, with thanks to the Minister for Pensions for all his work on this subject, I can go further. I have heard representations from Labour coalfield MPs, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Jo White), for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) and for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), and I can today announce that I will transfer the investment reserve fund of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme to its members, so that the men and women who worked in our coal industry get a fair deal in their retirement, too. And there is more. Having heard representations from my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) and for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), I will index for inflation on pensions accrued before 1997 in the pension protection fund and the financial assurance scheme, so that people whose pension schemes became insolvent—no fault of their own—no longer lose out as a result of inflation.
Last year, I also provided funding to compensate the victims of the infected blood scandal, after the previous Government failed to budget for the costs of compensation. This year, I have listened to representations from my hon. Friends the Members for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) and for Edinburgh South West. I thank the Minister for Employment for her representations over many years on this subject. As a result, I will exempt all payments from the infected blood scheme from inheritance tax, regardless of the circumstances in which those payments are passed down. That is how we should be spending taxpayers’ money: on dealing with injustices and building strong public services, not on waste and inefficiency.
At the spending review, I set out an ambitious target for £14 billion of efficiencies per year by 2029. I am grateful to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for driving that work forward, realising savings through artificial intelligence and automation, and by scrapping NHS England and reducing back-office staff by 18,000. At this Budget, I will find a further £4.9 billion of efficiencies by 2031, by getting rid of police and crime commissioners, cutting the cost of politics and local government, and selling Government assets that we no longer have any use for.
These savings will be required across Government, but for our national health service, I will invest all those savings back into the care that people rely on—more nurses, more GPs and more appointments, restoring the services that faltered under years of Conservative decline and investing in the future of our national health service. Today, I am announcing £300 million of investment in technology to improve patient service, and 250 new neighbourhood health centres, expanding more services into communities so that people can receive treatment outside hospitals and get better, faster care where they live. More than 100 of those centres will be delivered by 2030, including in Birmingham, Truro and Southall. The Labour party founded our national health service, and we will renew our national health service.
I will take the same approach for defence spending that I take for NHS spending, reinvesting savings back into our national security. In our age of insecurity, Britain will continue to stand with our allies, working in collaboration to secure a sustainable ceasefire for Ukraine, and maintaining our commitment to NATO, with the UK set to spend 2.6% of GDP on defence by April 2027.
The public rightly expects that we stamp out fraud, error and waste, and put that money to good use in our schools, hospitals and other frontline services. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already announced that she will claw back excess profits from the use of hotels to house asylum seekers, as we phase out the use of those hotels entirely. And we will consult on reforms to indefinite leave to remain and access to taxpayer-funded benefits.
The introduction of digital ID will break the link between illegal migration and illegal working, and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the fair work agency will crack down on the illicit businesses that blight our high streets and undercut legitimate firms, enforcing the minimum wage, investigating dodgy businesses and increasing scrutiny of the gig economy, as well as tracking down fraudulent business owners who vanish without paying their taxes. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) and for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for their representations on this subject. I will take further steps to prevent and track down unpaid tax. Together, these reforms will raise nearly £10 billion a year by 2030, including through new powers for HMRC to pursue the promoters of tax avoidance schemes.
I am building on our successful use of targeted checks on welfare claims to root out fraud and error and to prevent public money from being paid to people who are not entitled to it. I thank Tom Hayhoe, the covid corruption commissioner, for his work in helping to chase down nearly £400 million from dodgy pandemic spending and contracts. Tory contracts handed out by Tory Ministers to Tory peers and Tory friends—[Interruption.] That money belongs in our schools, in our hospitals—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. It is so noisy in here we can barely hear the Chancellor. Everybody needs to calm down.
Rachel Reeves
I would not want any hon. Member to miss this. We are chasing down that money and have almost £400 million back from dodgy pandemic spending and contracts. Tory contracts handed out by Tory Ministers to Tory peers and Tory donors. That money belongs in our schools and in our hospitals, and we are getting it back.
Finally, we are ramping up sanctions on Russia and freezing known Russian assets. Let me be clear, I do not mean the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). Under the Conservatives —[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. We do not need commentary from the Back Benches. Mr Dewhirst, you are so loud; it is remarkable how far your voice carries.
Rachel Reeves
Under the Conservatives, the cost of our welfare system increased by nearly 1 percentage point of GDP—equivalent to £88 billion in just five years. The broken welfare system that we inherited wrote off millions of people as too sick to work. We will reform that system, so that it is a system that does not count the cost of failure, but rather one that protects people who cannot work and empowers those who can.
We have brought back face-to-face assessments for disability benefits—those are the face-to-face assessments that the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), got rid of when he was Work and Pensions Secretary. Our changes to universal credit will get 15,000 people back into work—a figure confirmed today.
The former Heath Secretary, Alan Milburn, will review the causes of rising youth inactivity, and we are already taking action. I am grateful to the Federation of Small Businesses and Small Business Britain for their representations on apprenticeships, and today I am announcing funding to make the training for under-25 apprenticeships completely free for small and medium-sized enterprises. I am funding our new youth guarantee, providing £820 million over the next three years to give the young people who were let down by the Conservatives the support and opportunity they deserve, guaranteeing every young person a place in college, an apprenticeship or personalised job support. After 18 months, 18 to 21-year-olds will be offered paid work, not benefits.
The Motability scheme was set up to protect the most vulnerable, not to subsidise the lease on a Mercedes-Benz, and so I am making reforms that will reduce generous taxpayer subsidies. Motability have confirmed that it will remove luxury vehicles from the scheme, getting the scheme back to its original purpose of offering cost-effective leases to disabled people.
Taxpayers’ money should not be spent on pensions for people abroad who only lived here for a couple of years and may never have paid a penny of tax. The Conservatives allowed thousands of people living abroad to buy their way into the state pension for as little as £3.50 a week, debasing the purpose of our pension system. I will abolish access to class 2 voluntary national insurance contributions for people living abroad, increasing the time that someone has to live or work in Britain to 10 years, and increasing the contributions they must pay. These reforms improve our welfare system: they support our young people; protect those who need it most; and put an end to Conservative waste and unfairness.
To break the cycle of austerity we need a fair and sustainable tax system, one that generates revenues to fund the public services we all use, and supports investment to grow our economy. That does mean that today I am asking everyone to make a contribution. The previous Conservative Government froze personal tax thresholds from 2021 until 2028. Today, I will maintain all income tax and equivalent national insurance thresholds at their current level for three further years from 2028—[Interruption.]
Rachel Reeves
The Leader of the Opposition supported these freezes when her party made them; she might want to forget about that, but the British people never will.
At the same time, we are ensuring that people only in receipt of the basic or new state pension do not have to pay small amounts of tax through simple assessment from April 2027. I will also keep the plan 2 student loan repayments threshold at its 2026-27 level for three years.
I know that maintaining the thresholds is a decision that will affect working people. I said that last year and I will not pretend otherwise now. I am asking everyone to make a contribution, but I can keep that contribution as low as possible because I will make further reforms to our tax system today to make it fairer, and to ensure the wealthiest contribute the most.
The Conservatives knew that our tax system did not work. Time and time again, they ducked the necessary reforms, leaving a system unfit for a changing economy, with unfairness that they refused to address. Currently, a landlord with an income of £25,000 will pay nearly £1,200 less in tax than their tenant with the same salary, because no national insurance is charged on property, dividend or savings income. It is not fair that the tax system treats different types of income so differently, and so I will increase the basic and higher rate of tax on property, savings and dividend income by 2 percentage points, and the additional rate of tax on property and savings income by 2 percentage points. Even after these reforms, 90% of taxpayers will still pay no tax at all on their savings.
I also believe that, as well as narrowing the gap between the tax on income from assets and income from work, a fair society is one where the wealthiest pay their fair share. The reforms I made last year will raise an additional £8 billion a year by 2030 from wealth. I increased taxes last year on private equity, private schools and private jets, and I abolished the non-dom tax regime. This year I will make two changes to cap trust charges and prevent avoidance. I reformed inheritance tax on agricultural and business assets and this year—[Interruption.] This year I am aligning those reforms with wider inheritance tax rules by allowing the transfer of the 100% relief allowance between spouses, balancing the taxation of these valuable assets with the realities of family life.
In this Budget, I will take further steps to deal with a long-standing source of wealth inequality in our country. A band D home in Darlington or Blackpool pays just under £2,400 in council tax, nearly £300 more than a £10 million mansion in Mayfair, and so from 2028, I am introducing the high value council tax surcharge in England, an annual £2,500 charge for properties worth more than £2 million, rising to £7,500 for properties worth more than £5 million. This will be collected alongside council tax, levied on owners, and we will consult on options for support or deferral. This new surcharge will raise over £400 million by 2031 and will be charged on less than the top 1% of properties.
Reliefs in our tax system cost the taxpayer billions of pounds a year, but many of them no longer serve their original purpose. The Government rightly provides generous tax relief for people paying into a pension, relieving income tax on all contributions and on the investment itself, as well as national insurance relief on employer contributions, at a cost of over £70 billion a year to the Exchequer. This Budget makes no changes to those reliefs or to the tax-free lump sum.
However, salary sacrifice for pensions, which was intended to be a small part of our pensions system, is forecast almost to treble in cost to other taxpayers, from £2.8 billion in 2017 to £8 billion by 2030, with the greatest benefit going to the highest earners, or to those in the financial services sector putting their bonuses into pensions tax-free, while those on the minimum wage or whose employers do not offer salary sacrifice do not benefit at all. That is not sustainable for our public finances, putting pressure on the tax that everyone else pays.
I am therefore introducing a £2,000 cap on salary sacrifice into a pension, with contributions above that taxed in the same way as other employee pension contributions. It is a pragmatic step so that people, especially on low and middle incomes, can continue to use salary sacrifice for their pension without paying any more tax than they do now. To give individuals and employers time to adjust to these new arrangements, these changes will come into effect in 2029.
The coalition Government introduced 100% relief from capital gains tax on business sales made to employee ownership trusts, creating a route for gains to go completely untaxed when businesses are sold. I will reduce that relief to 50%, retaining a strong incentive for employee-owned companies. As we work towards doubling the size of the co-operative economy, the Department for Business and Trade will launch a call for evidence on how we can better support co-ops to grow. As a result of the changes that I have made to capital gains tax this year and last year, receipts are forecast to increase from £14 billion this year to £30 billion by 2030.
To support our high streets, I am announcing a package of regulatory changes, as called for by UKHospitality and the British Retail Consortium. I will support the great British pub through our new national licensing framework, encouraging councils to back our pubs and to back late-night venues with greater freedoms. For business rates, I will introduce permanently lower tax rates for over 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties—the lowest rates since 1991, paid for through higher rates on properties worth more than £500,000, such as the warehouses used by online giants. Alongside this, I will introduce a package of support worth over £4.3 billion over the next three years for a property of any size seeing a large increase in their bill. To support a level playing field in retail, I will stop online firms from undercutting our high street businesses, by ensuring that customs duty applies on parcels of any value.
I will reform our motoring taxes, exempting search and rescue vehicles from vehicle excise duty, as called for by my hon. Friends the Members for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) and for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister). All cars contribute to wear and tear on our roads, so I will ensure that drivers are taxed according to how much they drive, not just by the type of car they own, by introducing the electric vehicle excise duty on electric cars. That will be payable each year alongside vehicle excise duty at 3p per mile for electric cars, and 1.5p for plug-in hybrids, helping us to double road maintenance funding in England over the course of this Parliament.
Alongside that, I am providing support to boost our British car industry: increasing the threshold for the expensive car supplement on electric vehicles to £50,000, saving over a million motorists £440 a year; providing £1.3 billion additional funding for the electric car grant, extending it to 2030, taking total funding to £2 billion; and delaying changes to the employee car ownership scheme. In addition, we are investing a further £200 million to accelerate the roll-out of EV charging, as well as 100% business rates relief for EV charge points for the next decade, with thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) for his representations on that policy.
I will improve competition in our taxi industry by ending ride-hailing companies’ use of a discount scheme intended for coach tours, as called for by Steve McNamara, general secretary of the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association: legislating to restrict access so that everyone pays fairly, and protecting £700 million of tax revenue each year.
I am responding to our consultation on landfill tax, and listening to representations particularly from our house building industry. I will not converge towards a single rate, but I will prevent the gap between the two rates from widening, to balance the need to address tax avoidance in the current structure. I will today publish Ray McCann’s report into the loan charge, along with the Government’s response, setting out a new settlement opportunity that will finally allow people to finalise their position and draw a line under this long-standing issue. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) for her representations on this subject.
I will continue with the planned uprating for tobacco duties that I set out last year, and uprate alcohol duties by inflation, alongside our plans to introduce a vaping products duty in 2026, and the changes to the soft drinks industry levy announced by my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary yesterday. I thank the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury for his work on all the tax measures in this Budget.
I will also reform gambling taxes in response to the rise in online gambling. Remote gaming is associated with the highest levels of harm, and so I am increasing remote gaming duty from 21% to 40%, with duty on online betting increasing from 15% to 25%. I am making no change to the taxes on in-person gambling or on horseracing, and I am abolishing bingo duty entirely from April next year. Taken together, my reforms to gambling tax will raise over £1 billion per year by 2031.
As a result of the tax reforms I have made today, I can confirm that I will not be increasing national insurance, the basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, or VAT. I have kept everyone’s contribution as low as possible, through reforms to make our tax system stronger, closing loopholes, ensuring that the wealthiest pay their share, and building a tax system that is fairer for the future as our economy changes.
On the day I became Chancellor, I said that I would judge my time in office a success if I knew that ordinary children from working-class backgrounds were living more fulfilling lives—their horizons expanded; their potential realised. I joined the Labour party, I came into politics, because I believe that every child has equal worth and deserves an equal chance to achieve their promise. The biggest barrier to equal opportunity is child poverty, because for every child that grows up in poverty, our society pays a triple cost.
The first and heaviest is to the child: going to school hungry; waking up in a cold home, or in another B&B. While other children enjoy the advantages of parents with time to help with homework, or a quiet space at home to work in, too many go without. There is also the cost of supporting a family in poverty, which ends up in the lap of overstretched councils that can do no more than shunt them into temporary accommodation, at huge cost to local taxpayers. Then there is the future cost to our economy and our society, of wasted talent, and a welfare system that bears the cost of failure for decades to come: young people with so much to contribute, but whose potential is suffocated early by limited life chances and missed opportunities, struggling to make their way in a society that did not look out for them.
I do not intend to preside over a status quo that punishes children for the circumstances of their birth and demands that we all pay three times over for it. Since last July, we have rolled out free breakfast clubs in schools, and we are expanding free school meals to half a million more kids, lifting 100,000 children out of poverty as we do it. We have passed the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, and we have extended the childcare offer.
I am proud of all that, but it is not enough, because there is one policy that pushes kids into poverty more than any other. It was introduced by the Conservatives. They said it would save money, and that it would bring about “behavioural change”, disincentivising poorer families from having more children. Even on its own terms the policy failed: the welfare bill has continued to rise, and there has been no difference in the size of families. What it has done since it was introduced is push hundreds of thousands of children into poverty. They said they were punishing parents’ choices, but it is the kids who have paid the price. They have paid the price for the policies of a party that opted for cynical gimmicks over real savings in our welfare system.
I understand that many families are finding times hard, and that many have had to make difficult choices when it comes to having kids. There are many reasons why people choose to have children and then find themselves in difficult times: the death of a partner, separation, ill health, a lost job. I do not believe that children should have to bear the brunt of that.
And neither can I in good conscience leave in place the vile policy known as the rape clause, which requires women to prove their child has been conceived non-consensually, to receive support. I am proud to be Britain’s first female Chancellor of the Exchequer and I take the responsibilities that come with that seriously. I will not tolerate the grotesque indignity to women of the rape clause any longer. It is dehumanising, it is cruel and I will remove it from the statute book.
So because I am tackling fraud and error in our welfare system, cracking down on tax avoidance and reforming gambling taxation, I can announce today, fully costed and fully funded, the removal of the two-child limit in full from April. [Interruption.] It is amazing what people get so angry about. We have seen the Conservatives’ true colours today—the thing they get angry about is lifting children out of poverty—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Our constituents want to hear the Chancellor.
Rachel Reeves
I think our constituents have heard all they need to from Conservative Members today. We on the Labour Benches do not believe that the solution to a broken welfare system is to punish the most vulnerable. We are lifting 450,000 children out of poverty with the end of the two-child limit. Combined with other actions that we are taking, this Labour Government are achieving the biggest reduction in child poverty over a Parliament since records began. That is the difference that this Labour Government are making.
I know how worried families are about the cost of everything. They are worried that their money will not stretch to the end of the month—
Rachel Reeves
I think if you have a house that is worth £5 million, then you can probably afford it, but Conservative Members get more exercised about reducing child poverty than they do about the richest paying more.
Under this Government, wages have risen by more since we were elected than in 10 years under the last Government, with lower interest rates already saving families £1,200 a year off a typical new mortgage. Compare that to when Liz Truss was Prime Minister. But I know that people still face pressure on their budgets, day to day and week to week, and where there is more we can do to provide relief, we are doing it: extending the bus fare cap, cracking down on rip-off price hikes, freezing prescription charges and freezing rail fares for the first time in 30 years.
I am increasing the basic and new state pension by 4.8%, an increase of £440 per year for the basic state pension and an increase of £575 per year for the new state pension, in line with our commitment to the triple lock. At the election, we promised a genuine living wage and we are delivering it. At the Budget last year, I increased the national minimum wage and the national living wage, and I am doing the same this year too. I am accepting the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission in full and increasing the minimum wage for 18 to 20-year-olds from £10 to £10.85 per hour, and increasing the living wage from £12.21 to £12.71 per hour.
Under current plans, the temporary 5p cut to fuel duty that was introduced during the pandemic will come to an end in April and fuel duty will be uprated in line with inflation. But I know that the cost of travelling to and from work is still too expensive, so I am extending the 5p cut until September 2026. Because I know that changes in wholesale prices are not always passed on to motorists, I am bringing in new rules to mandate petrol forecourts to share real-time prices through a new fuel finder, empowering drivers to find the cheapest fuel, calling out rip-offs and strengthening competition, saving the average household £40 a year.
One of the greatest drivers of the rising cost of living is energy prices. The cause of high energy bills must be tackled at source, and so we are investing in energy security—in nuclear and renewable energy—and in insulation through the warm homes plan, but that is not enough when people are struggling with energy bills today. The Conservatives’ energy company obligation scheme was presented as a plan to tackle fuel poverty. It costs households £1.7 billion a year on their bills, and for 97% of families in fuel poverty, the scheme—get this—has cost them more than it has saved. It is a failed scheme, and so I am scrapping it, along with taking other legacy costs off bills.
As a result, I can tell the House today that for every family we are keeping our promise to get energy bills and the cost of living down, with £150 cut from the average household bill from April next year—money off bills and in the pockets of working people. That is my choice, not to neglect Britain’s energy security, like the Tories did, and not to leave working families to bear the brunt of high prices, like the Tories did, but to get energy costs down now and in the future. That is the Labour choice.
And, Madam Deputy Speaker, one more thing: because of our action on bills and on prices, as a direct result of this Budget, the Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed today that inflation is coming down faster and will be a full 0.4 percentage points lower next year. That is the benefit of a Labour Government cutting the cost of living.
This Labour Government are changing our country. In the face of challenges on our productivity, I will grow our economy through stability, investment and reform. I have met my fiscal rules and built our economic resilience for the future. I have asked everyone to contribute—yes—for the security of our country and the brightness of its future, but I have kept that contribution as low as possible by reforming our tax system, making it fairer and stronger for the future.
I have protected our NHS, maintaining public investment and driving efficiency in government spending. I have taken action on our broken welfare system, rooting out waste and lifting children out of poverty. And I have cut the cost of living, with money off bills and prices frozen, all while keeping every single one of our manifesto commitments—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Mr Rankin and Ms Morton, your voices carry right across the Chamber—try to take a breath every so often.
Rachel Reeves
Those are my choices, not austerity and not reckless borrowing, but cutting the debt, cutting waiting lists and cutting the cost of living. Those are Labour choices, promised and delivered by this Budget—promised and delivered by this Labour Government. I commend this statement to the House.
Provisional collection of taxes
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 51(2)),
That, pursuant to section 5 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, provisional statutory effect shall be given to the following motions:—
(a) Stamp duty reserve tax (UK listing relief) (motion no. 60);
(b) Rates of tobacco products duty (motion no. 65).—(Rachel Reeves.)
Question agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We now come to the motion entitled “Income Tax (Charge)”. It is on this motion that the debate will take place today and on the succeeding days. The questions on this motion and on the remaining motions will be put at the end of the Budget debate on Tuesday 2 December. I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move the motion formally.
Budget Resolutions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Leader of the Opposition.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
May I congratulate the right hon. Lady on delivering her second Budget? I hope she enjoyed it, because it really should be her last. What a total humiliation—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Can colleagues who are exiting the Chamber do so swiftly and quietly, so that we can focus on the Leader of the Opposition?
Mrs Badenoch
It is a total humiliation. Last year, the Chancellor put up taxes by £40 billion—the biggest tax raid in British history. She promised that she would not be back for more. She swore that it was a one-off. She told everyone that from now on, there would be stability and she would pay for everything with growth. Today, she has broken every single one of those promises. If she had any decency, she would resign. At the last Budget, she said she was proud to be the country’s first-ever female Chancellor; after this Budget, she will go down as the country’s worst-ever Chancellor.
Today—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The Chief Whip in particular knows that we do not allow clapping in the Chamber.
Mrs Badenoch
Today the Chancellor has announced a new tax raid of £26 billion, and Labour Members were all cheering. Household income is down. Spending policies in this Budget increase borrowing in every year. That smorgasbord of misery we just heard from her can be summed up in one sentence: Labour is hiking taxes to pay for welfare. This is a Budget for “Benefits Street”, paid for by working people.
This Budget increases benefits for 560,000 families by an average of £5,000. The Government are hiking taxes on workers, pensioners and savers to pay for handouts to keep their Back Benchers quiet. These are the same—[Interruption.] They can chunter all they like. These are the same Back Benchers who cheered last year when the Chancellor taxed jobs and left more than 100,000 people without an income. They cheered because they did not understand the consequences of what they were doing, and they still do not.
It has not been an easy time for the Chancellor. No one liked seeing her sitting on the Government Benches as it dawned on her that her own Back Benchers were going to do to her political career what she has done to our economy. She could have chosen today to bring down welfare spending and get more people into work. Instead, she has chosen to put up tax after tax after tax—taxes on workers, taxes on savers, taxes on pensioners, taxes on investors and taxes on homes, holidays, cars and even milkshakes. There are taxes on anyone doing the right thing. She and this Government have lost what little credibility they had left, and no one will ever trust her again.
What is amazing is that the Chancellor has the nerve to come to this House and claim that this is all someone else’s fault. She has a laundry list of excuses. Labour Members blame the Conservatives as if we have been sneaking into the Treasury under the cover of darkness to give pay rises to the unions. The Chancellor inherited an economy with inflation at 2% and record-high employment. She has tanked it in just over a year. She has endless excuses—she blames Brexit and Donald Trump, but she needs to blame herself.
I have some news for the Chancellor—she did not seem to understand what the OBR was saying. Inflation is up, not down, and that inflation was stoked by her tax and spend decisions. The economic and fiscal outlook says that the OBR expects inflation to stay higher for longer. Everybody else has read the OBR analysis, but she still has not. She blames higher than expected borrowing costs. Where does she think they came from? [Hon. Members: “You!”] Those borrowing costs are driven by the Chancellor’s lack of grip. Labour Members are saying those costs came from us, but she is paying more to borrow than Greece. She is paying more to borrow than at any point under the 14 years of Conservative government—perhaps if Labour MPs read a book sometimes, they would know something—which included an energy crisis sparked by a war in Ukraine and a global pandemic. What is the Chancellor’s excuse? She is taking the public for fools, but they are under no illusions about whose fault this is.
The fact is that the bad choices the Chancellor is making today—choices to break promises, choices to put up taxes, choices to spend more of other people’s money—are because of the bad choices she made at the last disastrous Budget. If you want growth, you need to start with knowing what kind of country you want to be and make a plan to get there. You need to create certainty for the people and businesses who will drive growth. There is no growth and no plan, because Labour focused on settling scores and scratching the itches it had while in opposition.
The Chancellor promised stability. She delivered chaos. Just look at the circus around this Budget: first, the leaks—then more leaks to try to undo the damage; calling panicky press conferences and U-turning on her U-turns; rolling the pitch one day only to plough through it the next. She had the cheek to talk about stability, but she has become the first Chancellor in history to release the whole Budget ahead of time. This is extraordinary, and it tells us everything we need to know about her grip on the Treasury. She is making the UK a shambolic laughing stock to international investors, and if she does not resign for breaking her promises, she should sure as hell go for this.
What have we got for all this chaos and disorder? There are 1 million more people claiming universal credit than there were at the time of the last Budget. Government spending? Up. Welfare spending? Up. Universal credit claimants? Up. Unemployment? Up. Debt interest? Up. Inflation? Up. And what about the things that we want to go up? Growth? Down. Investment? Down. Business confidence? Down. The credibility of the Chancellor? [Hon. Members: “Down!”] Not just down, but through the floor.
These figures are shocking. Does the Chancellor really think that anyone will be confused by the sleight of hand in her speech? Her speech today was an exercise in self-delusion. Today she had an opportunity to apologise and show some humility; instead, we have been fed puff pieces in The Times and the FT showing a woman wallowing in self-pity and whining about mansplaining and misogyny. Let me explain to the Chancellor—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Colleagues need most definitely to simmer down: just breathe a little and allow the Leader of the Opposition to be heard.
Mrs Badenoch
All we have had is wallowing in self-pity and whining about misogyny and mansplaining, so let me explain to the Chancellor, woman to woman, that people out there are not complaining because she is female; they are complaining because she is utterly incompetent. Real equality means being held to the same standard as everyone else. It means being judged on results. Take the Chancellor’s bright idea: the Office for Value for Money. It has been closed down because it did not save a penny. In fact, it cost the taxpayer £1.6 million. You could not make this stuff up. I have identified a way to save taxpayers huge amounts of money, by sacking just one person: the woman sitting opposite me.
The ex-chief economist of the Bank of England was not mansplaining when he said that the uncertainty around today’s Budget is
“the single biggest reason growth has flatlined”.
What did the Chancellor think would happen when she went on breakfast telly to do an emergency public service announcement: “I interrupt your Cheerios to bring you this frightening message about income tax”? Then, unbelievably, she changed her mind three days later. No wonder people are in despair. She says she wants people to respect her—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Conservative colleagues are drowning out the Leader of the Opposition’s speech, so just be mindful that nobody at home will be able to hear her.
Mrs Badenoch
The Chancellor says that she wants people to respect her, but respect is earned. She apparently told Labour MPs this week, “I’ll show the media, I’ll show the Tories—I will not let them beat me.” Show us what? Making stuff up at the Dispatch Box, incompetent chaos and the highest tax burden in history? She said to them, “I’ll be there on Wednesday, I’ll be there next year, and I’ll be back the year after that.” God help us! She is spineless, shameless and completely aimless.
Talk to any business and or anyone looking for a job—unemployment is up every single month since Labour has been in office. [Interruption.] Labour MPs do not want to hear it, but it is true. They are shouting and complaining, but they cannot create jobs. It is the worst year for graduate recruitment on record. Are they proud of that? [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. If you are on the Front Bench, I can obviously see you, Mr Kyle. There is no need for you to be chuntering this loudly. Everyone else can see and hear you as well.
Mrs Badenoch
Labour MPs do not want to hear the truth, but I am speaking for all those people out there who are sick of this Government. Companies like Merck and Ineos are slashing investment plans. The construction sector has shrunk. How is that house building target going, by the way? I will tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker: the Government are miles behind and will not even come close to what we achieved. Business confidence is at record lows. No wonder that today future growth was revised down for every year of the scorecard. The papers are reporting that one in eight business leaders is planning to leave Britain. Even one of Labour’s biggest ever donors, Lakshmi Mittal, has fled the country.
What we have in front of us is a Budget littered with broken promises. The Chancellor stood on a manifesto that promised better returns for UK savers. Today she is putting up taxes on savings and on salary sacrifice even. She promised to give pensioners the security in retirement that they deserve. Today she slapped higher taxes on people saving for their pension. She promised to make Britain the best place in the world to invest and do business. Today she has raised the dividend tax rates. She and the Prime Minister had already broken their promise to freeze council tax, but today she has decided to go even further, introducing a new property tax clobbering family homes that will only raise small amounts. This is Labour’s Britain: people who work hard and save hard to buy their homes get taxed more, while those who do not work—those who, in some cases, refuse to work—get their accommodation paid for by taxpayers.
To top it all off—because taxing your home, your car, your savings and your pension was not enough—the Chancellor has, by her own admission, broken her manifesto promise on income tax. In the last Budget, she said:
“I am keeping every single promise on tax that I made in our manifesto, so there will be no extension of the freeze in income tax…thresholds”.
She also said that
“extending the threshold freeze would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.]
But today she has done exactly that. Why should anyone believe anything she has promised in this Budget?
Where is the money going? There are small changes to rail fares and prescriptions. Those are distractions while the Chancellor steals your wallet. The real story is that Labour has lost control of welfare spending. Not only will working people have their tax thresholds frozen while benefits go up in line with inflation, and not only has Labour abandoned reforms that would have saved the taxpayer £5 billion after pressure from its own Back Benchers, but today Labour has added another £3 billion to the bill by scrapping the two-child benefit cap. We introduced that cap, because it means that people on benefits have to make the same decisions about having children as everyone else. Even Labour voters know that it strikes the right balance between supporting people who are struggling and protecting taxpayers who are struggling themselves.
Just this summer, the Chancellor admitted that lifting the two-child benefit cap was not affordable, but that was before the Prime Minister accidentally fired the starting gun on the race to replace him. Now he and the Chancellor are buying the votes of their own MPs with taxpayers’ money. If she wants to reduce child poverty, she should stop taxing their parents and stop destroying their jobs. She congratulated herself on a new tax on landlords. Let me tell her this: hiking tax on landlords will only push up rents. It will push landlords out of the market, and the people who will suffer are the tenants. Then she talks about taxes on electric vehicles. Those changes will hit rural drivers the hardest, but we know that Labour does not care about rural people.
All this Budget delivers is higher taxes and out-of-control spending. Nobody voted for this. The Chancellor must take responsibility. She chose to impose the jobs tax, driving unemployment higher month after month. She chose to abandon welfare reform, meaning that the benefits bill is spiralling. She chose to spend more and more money she did not have, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill. She is out of money, out of ideas, out of her depth, and she has run out of road.
The country simply cannot afford a Chancellor who cannot keep her own promises. Her position is untenable, and she knows it. [Interruption.] She is talking to the Prime Minister. Is he mansplaining to you, by the way? Is he mansplaining? Would you like some help? The Prime Minister should grow a backbone and sack her, but he will not, because he knows that if she goes down, he goes down with her, so we are stuck with them both, Laurel and Foolhardy.
Does the Chancellor have any sympathy for the people facing Christmas without a salary because of her jobs tax, or for the retailers suffering sleepless nights because of their plummeting Christmas sales? People out there are crying. Last year, we had the horrors of the Halloween Budget. This year, it is the nightmare before Christmas. As for her, she is the unwelcome Christmas guest. Ten minutes through the door and she has eaten all the Quality Street.
Let me tell the Chancellor something she has forgotten. Behind every line in today’s Red Book is a family, a home, and a lifetime of work and sacrifice. People are frightened, and they have every reason to be—the Chancellor has spent the last year terrifying them. Every decision that she and the Prime Minister make puts more pressure on the people who keep this country going. If Labour is the party of working people, why is it that every day under this Government, thousands more people are signing off work and on to benefits? It is the Conservatives who are the party of work. The Labour party should be renamed the Welfare party.
The Government are making a mistake. The British public do not want higher welfare spending; they want people in work, providing for themselves. They want to live in a country where hard work pays—where what you put in reflects what you get out, and we agree with them. There is an alternative, and we Conservatives have set it out. This Budget could have saved £47 billion, including £23 billion from welfare. The Chancellor could have applied our golden economic rule, allocating half those savings to cutting the deficit and using the rest to cut taxes. [Interruption.] Oh, they are all pretending that they are not listening. It is the shame of the mess that they have made—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Mr Vince! And Mr Thompson, you are so enthusiastic that I was worried a moment ago that you would knock Mr Waugh off his seat. We need to calm down and breathe, and we need to ensure that we can hear the Leader of the Opposition.
Mrs Badenoch
Even the dog is laughing at the Chancellor, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Chancellor could have abolished stamp duty on homes to get the housing market moving, and she could have abolished business rates on shops to breathe life into our high streets. She could have introduced our cheap power plan, which would save a lot more money than what she announced, and would bring down energy costs for homes and businesses. That is what she should have done.
The Chancellor should be on the side of people who get up and go to work, people who take a risk to start a company, and people working all hours to keep their business afloat. She should be on the side of the farmer trying to hand something over to the next generation, and the investor deciding whether to spend their money in the UK or elsewhere. She should be on the side of the young person looking for their first job, the saver doing the right thing and putting money away for a rainy day, and the pensioner trying to enjoy a decent retirement. This country works when we make the country work for those people. Only the Conservatives are on their side, and our plan for them is simple: bring down energy costs, cut spending, cut tax, back business, and get Britain working again.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Members who are leaving the Chamber should do so quietly and quickly before we come to our first Back-Bench contribution. Other Members who are trying to catch my eye should resume their seat; I have noticed them bobbing. I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It seems, in some ways, a very long time since 2022. Do Members remember 2022? It was when we had a Prime Minister and a Chancellor who put the country in hock to the bond markets, made mortgages rise, and put the British public through a living hell. What a contrast that is with what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has done today. She has put money into the NHS, she is backing investment in our country, she is supporting start-ups, and she is supporting the British public in a difficult cost of living crisis caused by the Conservative party.
I want to go into what the Chancellor has said today, but I cannot do that without first making some comments about the Leader of the Opposition. Who was “shambolic”, Madam Deputy Speaker? The last Government. Under them, mortgages went up, and children entered poverty in greater numbers. Which party created child poverty? It was them, not us. Which party has consistently talked down the country since the election, been negative at every stage and downgraded people’s confidence in our country? Which is the party of zero hours contracts? The Conservative party. Which party failed consistently to invest in our schools, the NHS, our prisons and our justice system? The Conservative party.
Under the last Government, the country spiralled. Under the last Government, I spent a decade looking at public spending in the privileged role of Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. I saw those mistakes close up. I saw the big nasties that would be left, whichever Government was elected in July last year, and I commend my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for tackling those challenges. Productivity, on which we have seen challenges as a result of the decisions of the Office for Budget Responsibility, has been low since 2010, and who was in government from 2010 onwards? The Conservative party. The last Government left the legacy—they left the big nasties—and now it is this Government’s job to clear it up.
Amid all the noise, however, we must remember that the markets are listening and that we all need to be responsible: Government, Opposition, and every Member of this House. Of course, speculation always swirls around a Budget; that is inevitable because we are all lobbying, quite rightly, on behalf of our constituents, our local businesses and every other group that we represent. We are all seeking to persuade our Government to do the things that we want done, and we are all impatient to see those things happen yesterday, which is why we were elected to make change. However, the leaks about the Budget were very unfortunate, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will grapple with that and ensure that it does not happen again. The most recent leak of the OBR data, moments before her Budget, is undermining for us all, so we will raise the matter with the representatives of the OBR when they appear before the Treasury Committee next week.
The Committee has looked at a number of the issues on which there was speculation, including child poverty, gambling tax and cash individual savings accounts, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for tackling some of those. Let me deal first with cash ISAs. In a report, our Committee recommended that the Chancellor should not reduce the limit on cash ISAs from £20,000. She has reduced it not to the £10,000 that was being mooted, but to £12,000. For short-term savers, there could be a real issue. With targeted support coming next year, along with work on the advice guidance boundary review, there is an opportunity to bring the British public into a more investing environment, and to encourage them to invest, or invest more. However, for many years, we have all been warned that our capital is at risk—it has been rather like the warning on the cigarette packets that we might die if we smoke—and it takes a long time to turn that culture around.
I pay tribute to the financial literacy and inclusion campaign backed by the Financial Times, which is running a three-year programme at City of London Academy, Shoreditch Park, in my constituency with young people in years 7, 8 and 9 to teach them about financial literacy. They are the investors of the future, but it will take some time for them to reach the point when they can invest. I am pleased that the Chancellor exempted over-65s from the limit, because that short-term saving is important, particularly for an age group who are planning for retirement or, indeed, already in retirement.
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s support for start-ups, which are a huge issue in my constituency, and her widening of enterprise support, which will doubtless be considered by our sister Committee, the Business and Trade Committee. Encouraging companies to list in London is absolutely right, and the three-year stamp duty relief will hopefully be enough to encourage that. We have seen too many companies listing elsewhere, and we need them here in the UK to grow our economy and create jobs. There are many technical issues involving reviews of business tax that I am sure we will examine. We are putting our slide rule across all the measures in the Budget today.
My right hon. Friend referred to £4.9 billion of efficiency savings to be made by Government Departments by 2031. That is a potential challenge, and the Public Accounts Committee—another sister Committee—will probably consider that, alongside our Committee. However, I am pleased that my right hon. Friend will give His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs more powers to pursue promoters of tax avoidance schemes; we know what the problems have been in that regard. The Treasury Committee has the privilege and the responsibility of challenging HMRC regularly, and when its representatives appear before us in January, we will be able to ask them more about the matter.
I have been thinking about why we need a Labour Government, and one of the central planks for me, as a constituency MP, was the issue of child poverty. We need a Labour Government because of what the Conservative party did to children living in poverty. There are now 4.5 million such children, and the figure has risen by nearly 1 million since 2012. Two million of them are in deep poverty. One in three live below the poverty line, in 2025, in the United Kingdom. Children are sharing beds with their siblings or parents, and turning up to school tired. Every weekend, I visit people in my constituency and see this challenge. Just last weekend, a woman showed me the bedroom that she shares with her now disabled husband, who had a stroke three years ago. There was a curtain between their double bed and a narrow space so that her daughter could share their room. Luckily, they have a second bedroom, where her two sons sleep in a bunk bed. That is the reality for so many children, and the poverty has an impact on their learning and their ability to perform in the world. It is a shameful stain on this country that when the present Government came to power, the UK ranked 37th out of 39 advanced economies in respect of child poverty.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I agree with everything that the hon. Lady has said about child poverty, and I welcome the lifting of the cap, but is there a little bit of a blind spot in this Government when it comes to rural poverty? Their own figures show that by the end of next year, the average hill farmer will earn barely above half the national minimum wage. Is the hon. Lady as disappointed as I am that the Government have not tackled that in the Budget and, indeed, have not got rid of the family farm tax, which will tax many of those farmers out of existence altogether?
Dame Meg Hillier
The hon. Gentleman is a veritable champion of his constituency and of rural issues. There are very important changes to the minimum wage and the living wage, which will have an impact, and there is a lot that can be welcomed for rural areas, but I recognise that his constituency and mine sometimes have very different challenges, and I welcome the fact that he champions that here. Obviously, I have not had a chance to look through the Red Book and the Blue Book, but we on the Treasury Committee will bear that in mind.
Seventy per cent of children in poverty are in working families, so the chutzpah of the Leader of the Opposition talking about people making a lifestyle choice really makes my blood boil. In 60% of households hit by the two-child limit, the parents are in work, and 15% of affected families include mothers whose babies are too young for them to work.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said it better than any of us could: the Victorian rape clause means that women face humiliation. Notionally, it affects 3,600 women, but we on the Treasury Committee heard evidence that women will not put themselves or their children through the humiliation of using that policy. Any policy that required a workaround like that is outdated and long needed to be gone, and I commend my right hon. Friend for tackling the issue.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her forensic analysis of our Budget. Will she take an intervention from the Leader of the Opposition, so that she can apologise for that awful policy and its impact?
Dame Meg Hillier
It is interesting that the Opposition are doubling down on the policy, which is humiliating people.
Let us be clear: the birth rate in this country has fallen year on year for the last three years. It is well below where it needs to be. I think that only Luton is at 2.1, which is about where the rate needs to be. Actually, that is a bit lower than where it needs to be. This is a real crisis for the country in the long term, so it is absolutely right that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is investing in the future of Britain. Young people in my constituency may be poor, but there is no poverty of ambition. Children I met when I was elected 20 years ago are now doctors, barristers and enterprising businesspeople, in spite of the challenges they faced. Just think about the ones who did not get there because they could not overcome the challenges of deep-seated poverty. We should invest in our young people, and that is what this Government are doing, including through apprenticeships, the youth guarantee and the nine youth hubs in London, one of which is in my constituency.
I really welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend listened to the Treasury Committee on the gambling taxation regime. We are a cross-party Committee, but our report was unanimous that there was a real issue with the lower tax on online gambling because of the relative harm that it caused, compared with going to the races or popping along to a local betting shop. I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision to change the gambling taxation regime; that will contribute to taking children out of poverty.
On the ISA changes, I caution my right hon. Friend. I hope that the Treasury is watching very closely the impact on mortgages and lending by building societies, because that was a concern in the evidence we heard. If we want to get people into their own homes through the building that will be going on, we need to make sure that mortgages are available to them, so I hope that the Treasury is in ongoing dialogue on that issue, despite the change having been made.
We need to recognise some of the challenges with green taxes. I have not had a chance to go through the Red Book in the time since the Chancellor sat down, but I very much welcome her bold and necessary decision to take on the challenge of the reduction in fuel duty as people move to electric vehicles. This has been a point of debate for at least the last decade or so. In my time on the Public Accounts Committee, we kept challenging the Treasury on how it would fill the gap, and my right hon. Friend has been bold and right to address the challenge. It is a difficult one to grapple with, but it is great that she has done so. We look forward to hearing more about that. On supporting people with the cost of living, the freeze on rail fares, keeping the bus fare cap and the ongoing freeze on fuel duty will help people get to work.
The increase in the minimum wage and the living wage are vital. In my constituency, some people work four jobs over seven days, just to make ends meet. Even if they are lucky enough to have a council tenancy, it is hard to make ends meet on those salaries. Going into private sector housing is completely unaffordable for those on that kind of income. Contrast that with people who work four days a week because they can afford to do so. I am not criticising them for that life choice, but that is the challenge that we face.
There has been a lot of discussion about a high-value property tax. In my constituency, around 1% of properties are worth over £2 million, and that is in central London. The Opposition might scream foul on this, but in London’s zones 1 and 2—my constituency is right on the edge of the City and 10 minutes from Liverpool Street—around 1% of people will face the surcharge. That is a small price to pay when families next door are living in the deepest poverty, as I have described. It is also great to see some movement on energy bills, which is having a really big impact.
There is a lot more detail in the Budget, which the Treasury Committee will look at over the next couple of weeks. We look forward to welcoming the Chancellor to the Committee on 10 December, when we will ask her to explain, but also challenge her on, the detail of her Budget, as is our proper constitutional responsibility.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
We look forward to the Treasury Committee challenging the Government on the details of the Budget. This Government were elected on a promise to tackle the cost of living and grow the economy, and this is the second Budget in which they have failed to do either. For millions of people struggling with higher bills, all this Budget really offers is higher taxes.
The OBR sets it out in black and white: disposable income and living standards are down thanks to this Budget. Surely the Chancellor should have learned from her first failed Budget that we cannot tax our way to growth. Under the Conservatives, the UK’s tax burden reached its highest level since 1948 and it hit the economy, yet under this Budget the tax burden will hit an all-time high.
There is an alternative to all these Conservative and Labour taxes, and the shocking reality is that the Government know it: a new trade deal with Europe—a major new deal to cut the cost of living and grow our economy. The truth is that Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal has cost the Treasury £90 billion a year in lower tax revenue. Imagine if the Chancellor had adopted our plan to reverse those Brexit costs. Imagine how much more we could be helping families and pensioners across our country with the cost of living. Imagine how we could be ending the cost of living crisis today.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. You are a senior Member of the House, and I made it very clear earlier that no interventions should be made on party leaders.
Ed Davey
I am happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman in the Tea Room afterwards.
The Government know the damage that the Conservative-Reform Brexit deal has done to every family and business across our country, yet they choose to reject the single biggest policy for ending the cost of living crisis, turbocharging economic growth and boosting tax revenues without raising tax: a new trade deal with Europe. We need to properly fix our broken relationship with Europe, with a new customs union. We can grow our economy by freeing British businesses from the costs, barriers and red tape favoured by the Conservatives and Reform. Rather than trying to tax our way out of debt, as Labour is choosing to do, the Liberal Democrats would grow our way out of debt.
To be fair to the Chancellor, she has recently spoken about the terrible damage that the Conservatives’ Brexit deal has done to our economy—a deal that promised to save us £350 million a week, but which ended up costing the taxpayer £1.7 billion every week. But where is the Chancellor’s urgency and ambition to fix the problem that she rightly identifies? Today she did not even mention the huge hit to the Treasury from Brexit. She is like a doctor who has diagnosed the disease but refuses to administer the cure. She is refusing to take up our plan for a brand-new deal with the EU—a much better deal for Britain than anything the Government have pursued so far, with a new customs union at its heart.
Everyone but the most extreme Brexiteers now realises what a costly economic disaster the Brexit deal has been. Whether they are a young family struggling with ever higher food prices or a high street business just trying to survive the Chancellor’s latest new cost or tax, people are understandably looking for a credible economic policy to change their futures for the better, and it is crystal clear that only the Liberal Democrats are providing the leadership on our economy that people are crying out for.
There are some measures the Chancellor announced today that we do welcome. At last, she has decided to tax the big online gambling firms by raising remote gaming duty, as the Liberal Democrats have been calling for. Problem gambling is related to hundreds of suicides every year, so of course online casinos and the like should pay more tax on their huge profits. Her decision to scrap the rape clause is an excellent one. I may not have heard the Leader of the Opposition, but I was not sure if she welcomed that. I hope the Conservative party will welcome it. The Chancellor’s decision to scrap the two-child limit is excellent. It was in our general election manifesto, and I am glad that she is now enacting Liberal Democrat policy. It is clearly the most effective way of lifting children out of poverty, and it will save taxpayers money in the long term.
The biggest relief today for millions of families and pensioners is the action the Chancellor is taking to reduce energy bills, and we welcome it, but even after the Chancellor’s changes, the Budget will leave the typical household paying hundreds of pounds a year more on their energy bills than five years ago. More action will be needed, but we need action on energy bills that works.
Reform and the Conservative party pretend that the answer to rising energy bills is to scrap our climate commitments and stop investing in renewables. They could not be more wrong. The Conservative-Reform energy policy would put up bills and make the UK even more reliant on imported fossil fuels, with their volatile and high prices. That would be a disaster for our economy, a disaster for our environment, a disaster for jobs and a disaster for people struggling with energy bills. A major winner from Reform’s energy policies would be Vladimir Putin, which might explain why the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is so keen on them. I urge the Government not to listen to the Conservatives or Reform, but to be more ambitious in cutting people’s energy bills and to take up our plan to cut energy bills even more right now and cut them in half within a decade, finally giving families and pensioners the relief they need from this cost of living crisis.
While there are some things to welcome, as I have just done, there are quite a lot of measures in the Budget that will cause a lot of pain and unfairness, all of which could have been avoided if the Chancellor had gone for growth with Europe instead. Her plans to tax salary sacrifice will be hugely damaging to savings and pensions, and it looks like it is another NI hit on workers. Why, oh why, when the electricity vehicle market still needs a boost to get going, is she taxing electric vehicles? If she was not spending £1.8 billion on digital ID, many of these tax rises would not have been needed in the first place. Her failure to U-turn on the family farm tax is a huge error. If the Chancellor was really looking to tax those with the broadest shoulders, why not put a windfall tax on the big banks that are making billions at the taxpayer’s expense due to the side effects of quantitative easing?
The worst tax hike of this Budget by far—the biggest tax rise in this Budget—is the Chancellor’s decision to repeat the Conservative policy of freezing income tax thresholds. Freezing these thresholds reduces the amount that people can earn tax-free and hits the lowest-paid the hardest. I have to say that hearing the Conservative leader criticising it now rings incredibly hollow—and I think the “Member for Bark-shire” was objecting to her comments. The Leader of the Opposition cheered Conservative Budget after Conservative Budget that did exactly the same thing as the Chancellor has done—raising taxes on the low-paid. The Conservatives dragged an extra 4 million people on very low incomes into paying income tax, and an extra 3.5 million people into paying the 40p rate. The OBR says that this Government are now planning to drag a further three quarters of a million low-paid workers into tax and nearly 1 million people into the 40p rate. Someone on the average salary is paying an extra £582 this year because of the Conservatives’ policy, and under the Chancellor’s plans they will pay an extra £300 a year by 2031.
Contrast that with our record on income tax. We raised the personal allowance by £4,000. We cut income tax by £825 for millions of people, and took 3.4 million of the lowest-paid out of paying income tax altogether. It is clear that the Liberal Democrats are the only party that believes in cutting income tax for ordinary people; Labour and the Conservatives make them pay more.
As well as adding income tax pain to families struggling with the cost of living crisis, the Budget will add to the cost of doing business crisis facing Britain’s hospitality sector, on which the Chancellor went nowhere near far enough. Our high streets are suffering. Pubs, restaurants, cafés, caravan parks, zoos and even our beloved theme parks are struggling against higher business rates and the Government’s misguided jobs tax. The Liberal Democrats called on the Chancellor to help them with an emergency 5% VAT cut for hospitality for the next 18 months. That would have been a lifeline for some of our most beloved local businesses and for people’s jobs, boosting local economies across Britain, and it is very disappointing that the Chancellor has not listened to our calls.
Finally, can I say how disappointed I am at how little there was for carers in this Budget? As a carer myself for much of my life, I am determined to speak up for the millions of carers less fortunate than I am—the millions of family carers and care workers who make enormous sacrifices looking after loved ones, the carers who keep our NHS going and the carers who keep our society going. They deserve far more support from the Government, and I will keep pressing their case.
I do welcome the carer’s allowance review, but it confirms our argument that the carer’s allowance system is out of date and in need of urgent change, and we are yet to hear commitments to such changes. I welcome the decision to reassess cases where overpayment has caused huge hardship, but with those changes not coming into force for another year, the Government must instruct the Department for Work and Pensions to immediately suspend repayments during that delay and swiftly deliver compensation. More needs to be done to help family carers juggle their jobs with their caring responsibilities, and we urgently need the social care commission to actually start fixing the system on a cross-party basis and make sure that our loved ones get the care they need. The Chancellor cannot claim to be supporting our NHS properly, however much money she puts in, while she and Treasury officials keep blocking the social care reforms that alone can transform the health service across the country and boost our economy.
A caring society, a growing economy and a plan to drive down household bills, boost high streets and go for growth with Europe—that is the vision the Chancellor should have set out today. Instead we got a low-growth, high-tax Budget from a Government who I fear are just not listening.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), in this debate. Put very simply, this is a family-friendly Budget, and every family up and down the UK will be welcoming it. Gone is the vile rape clause, and an increase in family income is very welcome.
We have been through many traumatic times together in this House. We have been through the global financial crisis and its long tail. We have been through Brexit, and the right hon. Member was quite right to emphasise the vast difference between our economy while we were in the European Union and our economy now that we are not. I welcome the work being done at Cabinet level, and I ask the Cabinet to redouble its efforts to work on good trade arrangements under the EU-UK security pact to improve and enlarge our economy. And, of course, we have had covid. We heard about covid this week, with the publication of the UK covid-19 inquiry report. We all remember not just the impact on the economy, but the terrible impact on younger people in particular and the impact that that long tail is having on so many of our young people, who are still feeling too unwell to work or whose work opportunities have been severely reduced through anxiety, depression and all the other things that not just covid but that context of fiscal austerity brought down on them.
I represent a multi-faith, multi-ethnic constituency that works really hard on community cohesion. When all is said and done, we rub along well together in Hornsey and Friern Barnet. From recent rhetoric, it could be assumed that there is deep unhappiness and division. In fact, it is the opposite. I would like to put on record the contribution to our local economy from all parts of my constituency, regardless of skin colour, faith or school qualifications.
Of course, my community also faces challenges. We have unacceptably high numbers of children living in households where incomes do not cover the basics of heating, eating and rent. I really welcome today’s statement on heating, with help for households; on eating, with school meals, more breakfast clubs and help in particular for secondary school children with their nutrition; and on rent, quite rightly introducing a little more tax on some of the landlords who, in a wealthy place such as London, will be making quite a lot and can afford to pay a little more.
It is my first Budget as a member of the Treasury Committee. This Budget has rewarded those who fought to restore hope, stop the chaos of the 14 years of Conservative Governments and deliver change. Remember the election? We promised change. Today, we saw change. That change is an end to poverty-line family budgets. The hope is that we finally see food banks close for good.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. She is a colleague with me on the Treasury Committee. In terms of the Government delivering hope, a key part of the Government’s economic forecasting comes, of course, from the Office for Budget Responsibility. A lot of what has driven the Budget today is the £16 billion productivity downgrade by the OBR. We heard in the Treasury Committee that there was very little basis behind that productivity forecast in the first place and that it was based purely on UK productivity pre-2008 and not much real depth beyond that. Does she agree with me that the OBR has serious work to do to look at the robustness of its forecasts?
Catherine West
I thank my Treasury Committee colleague. There was quite a lot in today’s Budget on skills and nutrition for children so they can get their educational qualifications, and quite a lot that will help us to solve the productivity puzzle. I look forward to questioning, with him, the OBR on its data and how it got to that position, and how we can be helpful in pushing the Government towards even more investment in skills and apprenticeships, and in deepening our investment in young people so that our productivity can improve over time.
I know that so many of us in the House are in politics because we want every child and every family to have the chance to thrive in school, work and life. Let us look back at past Labour Governments. In 1945, despair and hunger stalked many communities. London was flattened in the blitz and rationing would continue for nine more years. Keynes famously said:
“Anything we can actually do, we can afford…we are immeasurably richer than our predecessors.”
What did Labour then do? Labour went on to build the NHS, build the country and build the welfare state. We can do this, we will make the UK fairer, and today is a really good start on that journey.
Very briefly, because I know so many Members wish to speak today, as a former borough leader, I introduced free schools meals for all primary schoolchildren. It was a great equaliser and social leveller, children were more focused and made better progress, families who were just about managing saved money, and there was no stigma—everyone sat together and talked with each other. Free school meals for all primary schoolchildren were subsequently rolled out across London, and we know that more secondary school children will benefit under the Government’s proposals today. We need to continue to restore hope and deliver change.
The two-child cap on universal credit is another pro-family measure, the most cost-effective quick measure to bring up to half a million children out of poverty ,and paid for by an increase in the tax on the most addictive forms of gambling. My personal view is that we could have gone even further, because remote gambling—people in their bedroom on their phone —is deeply damaging to society. I hope that it raises between £1 billion and £3 billion,.
The Trussell Trust’s September “Hunger in the UK 2025” report makes for sobering reading. In 2024, 16% of UK households were food-insecure. We know that that is not a food problem, but an income problem. We must continue to interrogate the issue, and I am very pleased to have secured a Backbench business debate on food inflation and poverty.
In conclusion, together with school meals, more breakfast club provision and a higher living wage since the general election, slowly the living standards of families will turn around. It is particularly positive to see the first woman Chancellor recognise the impact that the difficult financial climate has had on families. I hope that by this time next year, once these measures are really embedded, we will begin to see the closure of food banks. I have heard a lot about what we want to see by the end of this Parliament. Let us aim for the closure of food banks in this country by 2029. We hope that every child and every family will have the chance the thrive.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Colleagues are now permitted to make interventions, which a Back Bencher may accept or decline them.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
Budgets are not easy for Chancellors, because there are so many things beyond their control, but being forced to make trade-offs reveals priorities. I am afraid today’s priority was not economic growth, but political survival. That is because there was one central call the Chancellor had to make today: do we reform welfare, or do we raise tax?
Getting our welfare bill down to pre-pandemic levels would save about £47 billion a year within five years. It would not have been easy, but it would have meant no tax rises and plenty of headroom in public finances. Instead, welfare spend is going up, and jobs and growth are going down. In every single day of the Government’s first year, around 2,200 people have been signed off not just work, but from even having to look for work. That is 1 million more people on universal credit just in the last year. Most of those claimants cite mental ill health, but every doctor I spoke to as Health Secretary said that people with anxiety and depression need social contact. That means being at work, not being at home.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
On mental ill health, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out that it is one of the drivers of people going on universal credit and that does need to be tackled. Does he share my alarm that today in the Health Service Journal it has been reported that the Government are planning to water down the mental health investment standard, which will start to reverse the trend we saw over many years of achieving parity of esteem between physical and mental health?
Sir Jeremy Hunt
I absolutely share the hon. Lady’s concern. That standard was introduced when I was Health Secretary. This could have been the Budget in which the Chancellor announced we would speed up treatment for people with mental illness and not park them on welfare. This could have been the Budget that said that we will eliminate fraud by stopping completely benefit applications by phone. It could have been the Budget that said that instead of relying on migration to help firms expand, we will make sure that people at home are fit to join the workforce. Instead, the welfare bill is going up by around £14 billion, not least because of the totally unfair abolition of the two-child cap, which I fear will see more children, not fewer, living in the structural poverty caused when there are no adults in the household at work.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Given his background, the right hon. Gentleman must surely recognise that there is a direct link between social policy and economic policy—that this country needs a working-age population to fund future pensions and welfare bills for generations in the future. How on earth can you do that if you are not encouraging children to be brought up and raised in a household that can afford to feed them?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. How on earth can “you” do that? We cannot start off these four days of Budget debate with the words “you” and “your”. Come to your conclusion quickly and using the right language.
Sir Jeremy Hunt
I recognise that the hon. Gentleman’s concern about child poverty is sincere; I just have a totally different view as to how to reduce child poverty in this country. I think financing people to have ever larger families will mean more children growing up in poverty, not fewer. The evidence for that is that under the previous Conservative Government, we had a million fewer children growing up in workless households, and child poverty in absolute terms fell. The hon. Gentleman needs to look at that evidence.
The price we are paying for this mushrooming welfare bill is rising taxes which are already starting to destroy growth: 180,000 fewer payroll jobs in the last year; unemployment up, inflation up and interest rates higher than they would have been. The tragedy is that absolute poverty—which, as I said, fell under the previous Conservative Government—is now likely to rise under Labour as jobs vanish and welfare rolls soar.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I grew up in poverty. One in four children in Bournemouth, the town that I represent, is growing up in poverty. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that growing up in poverty is not a good thing. It is an awful thing for the life chances of the child, an awful thing for the family who care for them and an awful thing for the community that wrap their arms around the child. Does he acknowledge that he is ignoring the future costs of child poverty? I used to run mental health and domestic abuse services, and I can certainly tell him that when children grow up in poverty and then, later in life, cannot find the education, training and support that they need because of their trauma as a child, they cause extra costs for public services that we then have to meet. Does he not agree that we should be preventing those future costs?
Sir Jeremy Hunt
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I profoundly disagree on the way the Government are choosing to do that. By expanding the welfare bill and expanding the number of large families living in poverty, they are making the root causes of poverty worse and not better.
The Chancellor says that there is a growth plan, but it was very difficult to discern it at all in today’s Budget. We know, for example, that raising public sector productivity to private sector levels would add 0.4% to annual GDP growth. We know that proper planning reforms would add 0.4%, that proper welfare reform would add 0.3% and that getting energy bills down properly would add 0.3%. We know that AI could dwarf all that, according to Microsoft and Accenture, potentially adding 1% a year.
We got none of that today. Instead, we had a Government arriving in office saying that they wanted “Growth, growth, growth” without knowing how they were going to get there. Growth needs a plan, not a soundbite, and it is that lack of a plan—or even a guiding philosophy—that has resulted today in a Budget that damages growth, damages investment, damages jobs and, most tragically of all, damages opportunities for young people, of whom there will shortly be a million not in employment, education or training.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is a respected Member of the House, but I think it is really important that we reflect on the facts. Both the Chancellor and the OBR announced today that growth is up from 1% to 1.5% this year. The right hon. Gentleman talks about having a plan on planning reform—a subject I am very interested in. Why then did his party abstain and not back our planning reforms?
Sir Jeremy Hunt
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we should look at the facts, which are very clear: the OBR upgraded growth for this year, and then downgraded it for every single year of the forecast thereafter. The overall size of the economy is shrinking as a result of the measures taken by the Chancellor in the previous Budget—and, I am afraid, made much worse in this Budget.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to go further on planning reform, but I do not think we have had any plan from the Government for the really substantive changes that would align incentives between local communities and national Government when it gets to things like planning approval for big infrastructure projects. I would cheer from the rafters if we heard that from the Chancellor, because it is urgently needed.
Can the Government please not tell us that everything is going to be fine just because they are not the evil Tories? That is what I think is most disappointing of all, because those terrible Tories got inflation down from 11% to 2% and saw 4 million new jobs in the economy, as opposed to nearly 200,000 fewer. They grew the economy faster than France, Germany, Italy or Japan, and they attracted more greenfield foreign direct investment than anywhere in the world apart from China and the United States.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
Could the right hon. Gentleman remind us which Government led to that 11% inflation and which Government crashed the economy? Could he also speak to the estimated 1,970 children in Morecambe and Lunesdale who will benefit from the lifting of the two-child benefit cap and tell them why they should continue to live in poverty?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I will remind colleagues that interventions must be short and to the point, and must be an actual question, not a statement.
Sir Jeremy Hunt
I would be happy to tell the hon. Lady which Government were responsible for 11% inflation: the Russian Government were responsible for 11% inflation. I will happily look in the eye the 200,000 fewer children in absolute poverty after a succession of Conservative Governments because of the 4 million jobs created on our watch.
Let me say this. Those dreadful Tories also increased the number of doctors and nurses in the NHS by a third, and those posh Tories increased standards in state schools to have the highest reading standards in the western world. That, Madam Deputy Speaker, is because progressive instincts do not pay the bill for good public services—a strong economy does.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Could my right hon. Friend remind the House what happened during that period to the deficit, which was inherited at over 10%? Maybe we will just deal with that.
Sir Jeremy Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Chancellor makes a great play of fiscal responsibility—incidentally, I hope she will correct the record, because she said that she was reducing debt, when the OBR’s economic and financial outlook says that it is going up from 95% of GDP to 96% of GDP. On my hon. Friend’s point, yes: when the previous Conservative Government came into office, the Government were borrowing nearly £1 in every £4 that we were spending on public services, and we reduced that deficit from 10% to 2%, and Labour opposed us every single step of the way.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. As we are going down memory lane, I cannot resist reminding him that when we came to power in 2010, we had a youth unemployment crisis. Youth unemployment plunged when we were in office; now, with Labour back in office, the Government have imposed a national insurance contribution tax and youth unemployment is soaring again. Is that not a damning indictment of Labour?
Sir Jeremy Hunt
Labour Members might find that hard to hear from a former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister, but they might want to listen to the Resolution Foundation, which has been saying exactly the same thing on the airwaves today. No one disputes the progressive credentials of the Resolution Foundation. It has been warning against this rise in the minimum wage and all the extra workers’ rights, which it says could lead to a crisis in youth unemployment.
Sir Jeremy Hunt
I do not want to leave the hon. Lady out, but I promise that this will be my last intervention.
Yuan Yang
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he find it fiscally responsible that with his two Budgets, he left us with the lowest amount of fiscal headroom since the OBR was created at £8.9 billion in 2024? Is he proud of that? That left the current Chancellor and this Labour Government a mountain to climb to get us back to £22 billion of solid headroom.
Sir Jeremy Hunt
I am proud that I dealt with a real black hole of £72 billion, not a fake one of £22 billion, in my fiscal events, and I met the fiscal rules every time. If the hon. Lady is really concerned about that low headroom, why did the shadow Chancellor at the time—now the current Chancellor—not object once to the fact that headroom was reduced to that level? I will tell the House why she did not object: because if I had left headroom any higher, I would have had to cut spending more or increase taxes more, and that would have made the recession we were heading into deeper and worse, with more unemployment, fewer jobs and more poverty. That is why I am proud that I took the right decision.
Even now, it may not be too late, because a Government who try to do the right thing with the time they have left are more likely to earn the trust of the British people than a Government who have given up. Please do not treat government as an exercise in survival. That would be a betrayal of the Government’s mandate.
People with the broadest shoulders, as the Chancellor described them, will be rightly angry today. But it is the people who depend on public services, who are looking for a job and who are on the poverty line, who need a strong economy more than anyone else, and they will finish today feeling more scared than ever about their prospects.
Ms Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
I welcome the Chancellor’s Budget and its message of strong foundations and a secure future. It delivers on the priorities that matter most to my constituency: economic growth, lower cost of living, investment in families, and a stronger NHS.
I also fully welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to the docklands light railway extension to Thamesmead, set out on page 65 of the Budget document. It is a game-changing moment for residents who have waited decades for proper transport links.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I thank my constituency neighbour for giving way. Page 104 of the Budget document confirms capital investment to fix potholes and capital investment for the lower Thames crossing to the east of my constituency and the DLR extension to Thamesmead to the west of my constituency. Will she join me in thanking the Chancellor for that capital investment for our constituencies?
Ms Oppong-Asare
Our constituencies are both served by Bexley council, so we know how important it is to get those potholes fixed. I thank my hon. Friend for supporting the DLR extension to Thamesmead.
The DLR extension will unlock 25,000 to 30,000 homes and around 10,000 new jobs. It will mean an economic impact of about £11.6 billion, as estimated by Transport for London, as well as crowding in nearly £18 billion of private investment over 30 years. It will mean the transformation of one of London’s most underserved communities, and it will cut commutes by nearly half, benefiting over half a million people who live in the area and wider London.
It is not just a transport upgrade; it is key to unlocking opportunity and prosperity for generations. Behind this extension has been a community-led campaign that has had cross-community effort, and I am proud of the role that my residents have played in getting us here. It has also been a personal priority since I was first elected in December 2019, and I referenced it in my maiden speech from the Opposition Benches. It was also part of my 2019 general election pledge.
A constituent of mine, Peter, told me last week that he has lived in Thamesmead for over 45 years and has heard promise after promise of a transport link to London’s only postcode without a tube and train station. He and I know that many thousands more will be thrilled that this Labour Government are putting investment into their community so that they can thrive.
I pay tribute to the key supporters of this campaign, whose work has been vital: Greenwich council leader Anthony Okereke, the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser), my Thamesmead councillors, TfL, councils, assembly members and Members in this place, the developers Peabody and Lendlease, and, of course, my senior parliamentary researcher Patrick Brown. Most of all, I pay tribute to the local people and their brilliant campaigning. They never lost faith in the project. This is a collective achievement, and my constituency should be proud of the role it has played in this Budget.
I welcome the Labour Government’s announcement in September that Thamesmead is one of the 12 areas that has been selected by the new towns taskforce; it is further proof of the area’s potential and importance. Once the DLR extension is secured, schools, NHS services, jobs, communities and facilities must grow alongside new homes. This is a start of a new chapter in Thamesmead. I am proud to have played a part in it, and I am proud of my community, which has championed this project from the start.
I strongly support the Chancellor’s mission to reduce child poverty, which includes the nationwide roll-out of free school breakfast clubs. I have seen at first hand the benefits for Willow Bank and Jubilee primary schools in my constituency. The clubs mean a better start for pupils and real financial relief for families and schools. I was delighted to see on page 31 of the Budget document that from September 2026 around 12,000 more primary schools will offer free breakfast clubs, helping 200,000 more children. I believe that will save working families around £450 a year and ensure that over half a million more children do not start their school day hungry.
I welcome the confirmation of further investment to cut NHS waiting times, which is a vital issue for my constituents. I also welcome the announcement of the 250 new neighbourhood health centres—the “one-stop shops”—which will bring together GPs, nurses, dentists and pharmacists under one roof, starting in areas that need it the most.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
On health facilities, does the hon. Lady share my concern that the only thing with more leaks than the Budget run-up period is the roof of Musgrove Park hospital in my constituency? Does she agree that hospitals across the country in the second and third waves of the new hospital rebuild programme need interim funding to keep them going in the meantime?
Ms Oppong-Asare
I remind the hon. Member that this Government are delivering more than previous Governments delivered, and he may remember that his party was in a coalition Government that caused a lot of damage to this country.
To conclude, this Budget delivers for the country and my constituency of Erith and Thamesmead. After decades of waiting, residents will finally have the transport links that they deserve and the opportunities that will come with them. A new chapter begins today. I will continue to fight for investment, services and opportunity for people in my community, because they deserve it.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The benefit bill is now unsustainable in this country. Really, the main reason I will say what I want to say today is that I hope we can create some consensus in the House to try to deal with this problem, which is imposing a massive level of debt on families.
I am absolutely sure that the Government accept that this burden is unsustainable, and I am absolutely certain that if they came to the House with sensible proposals to try to get people off benefit, Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition would support them in that endeavour. The Government ducked the challenge earlier in the year to cut benefits and thereby encourage more people into work. We said at the time that we were prepared to support the Government to try to deliver those cuts, and I am sure that those on the Conservative Front Bench would repeat that promise.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
May I confirm that the right hon. Gentleman is then perfectly happy for children to continue to live in poverty while we try to reform the welfare benefit system?
Sir Edward Leigh
I was not actually making that point. What we were discussing earlier in the year was people seeking work, and trying to encourage people to get back into work. I can understand the political imperative of what the Chancellor has done today—to sustain her position with her Back Benchers—but the problem is that the Government will create a perverse incentive for people on benefit with larger families to stay out of work. I am not sure that is good for their morale or the economy. It is not good for anybody. It seems a very easy hit for the Chancellor today, but I think it will have perverse results.
As a Member representing a rural constituency, I want to say a word about the family farm tax. The Budget’s extension of inheritance tax for business assets over £1 million has, as we know, imposed a major new burden on long-established family farms in my constituency and elsewhere. Although I could understand the Government targeting larger estates and people who were acquiring estates to avoid inheritance tax, the new family farm tax affects not just large landed estates but ordinary farms worked by generations of the same families. I recently visited a tenant farmer in my constituency. He is affected because his tenancy—he does not own the and—is a capital asset, and he will be taxed perhaps as much as £300,000 on it, which affects the family’s ability to stay in farming.
As we know, many family farmers lack liquid assets, which forces them to hold cash back, restructure, borrow or consider selling part of their business. Because the dividends used to pay inheritance tax are themselves taxed, these family farms face an effective tax rate of about 33%. The measure affects a significant share of medium-sized, long-standing firms even though it raises less than £500 million annually. It achieves maximum social and economic destruction for minimal financial reward. The policy also discourages business growth, because expanding a family firm increases future tax liabilities on heirs.
Some advisers are recommending that owners sell businesses outright to avoid future tax complications. A climate of unpredictable tax changes creates fear among owners and undermines long-term planning. The uncertainty over succession planning is freezing investment and expansion across affected businesses. The arguments can be repeated, but I appeal to the Government to listen to the National Farmers Union, which has come up with sensible compromises that would keep family farms in business and achieve the Government’s objective.
Let me say a bit about the benefits bill. Four million universal credit claimants are now excused from even looking for a job. This is a disaster in terms of self-reliance, the economy and much else. We know that the numbers have grown sharply since the pandemic. A surge in reported illnesses—particularly mental health conditions—is the main driver. Two thirds of recent work capability assessments cite mental or behavioural disorders. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) has blamed the collapse in the assessment process for the rise in successful claims, with remote and paper-based assessments introduced during covid having weakened checks on eligibility. That, again, is something on which we could co-operate across the House. It is a question not just of cutting benefits but of summoning people in, helping them and giving them confidence to try to get back into the workplace. Unless we do that and tackle the perverse incentives in the whole benefits system that discourage people from working, we will fail as a nation.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I like drilling into the data and getting to the facts. You can see a correlation between the rise in people claiming social security and the rise in waiting lists in the NHS—they map identically through all Parliaments, whether Tory or Labour. Will the right hon. Member look at the data before making assumptions? Getting waiting lists down has got to be our objective.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The hon. Member used the term “you”. Perhaps focusing, and looking at the Chair, will stop colleagues from doing so.
Sir Edward Leigh
I am careful, actually, to look at the data and constantly refer to facts that are accepted by the OBR and the Government. These facts are not challenged. We have 300,000 people currently waiting to undergo a work capability assessment. We need emergency measures to clear the backlog. I am surprised that anybody could disagree with what I am saying.
The lack of in-person assessments has created a feedback loop where dependency grows and work expectations diminish. The longer that is allowed to continue, the harder it becomes for people to reintegrate into society. This is a system that writes people off rather than helping them back into employment. I would have thought we could all agree on that. We must not abandon these people; this is about human dignity.
Getting people off long-term benefits and into employment brings significant mental health benefits. It also helps our straitened finances. The cost of sickness and disability benefits is projected to reach £100 billion annually by the end of the decade. Some households receive more than £30,000 a year in universal credit alone, with disability benefit payments pushing support well above that. The current system financially incentivises individuals to demonstrate incapacity rather than engage with work. I agree that the Government have redeployed work coaches to re-engage long-term inactive claimants, but systematic incentives remain unchanged. Failure to tackle long-term benefit dependency impoverishes the nation by increasing fiscal burdens and reducing labour force participation.
The Office for Budget Responsibility reported that the working-age incapacity benefit caseload reached 7% in 2023-24 and is forecast to hit 7.9% by 2028-29. We must stop paying full benefits to young people who are neither working nor studying. Those young people should be working or studying.
Sir Edward Leigh
I will make some progress, if I may. The Centre for Social Justice estimates that by 2026 there will be a gap of over £2,500 between earnings and combined benefit income for under-25s. I could go on making those arguments, but I will proceed to the next part of my speech, on immigration.
I accept that the greatest failure of our last Government was immigration. I admit, and I apologise on behalf of my Government, that the 2021 to 2024 Boriswave allowed—[Interruption.] Why should I not apologise? Why should I not be honest? It allowed over 4 million non-UK migrants into the country. Many of them will soon qualify for indefinite leave to remain. ILR’s granting of access to benefits and public services on the same basis as citizens is destroying financial incentives. The scale of it is financially significant.
I agree that the Home Secretary has announced some sensible moves. I supported her when, for example, she came to the House to extend the standard qualifying period for ILR from five years to 10. As Karl Williams of the Centre for Policy Studies has noted, policymakers cannot say with confidence how many migrants currently hold ILR or what their economic circumstances are. Experimental DWP data shows that about 211,000 ILR holders receive universal credit—that is completely unsustainable. If Migration Observatory estimates are correct, between 27% and 37% of ILR holders receive universal credit. This is a worrying problem that needs resolution.
I turn next to increasing tax. I have long argued for a much simpler tax system where we close loopholes but keep taxes low, especially for married families. Corporate tax complexity creates an inherent bias towards huge multinationals who can hire departments of accountants to reduce their liabilities. A free market relies on everyone paying their fair share. We need creative ways of ensuring that companies like Amazon and Starbucks can operate freely—we all use them—while paying a fair contribution. Then we can help lighten the burden on family farms, working people and small firms. Increasing taxes on working people risks undermining growth by reducing take home-pay and incentives.
Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that direct taxes reduced income inequality by only 4.4 percentage points: limited redistribution for a heavy burden. Higher taxes on the wealthy simply encourage them to leave. Data from the Henley & Partners 2025 migration report suggests that the UK may lose 16,500 millionaires this year. What is the point of it? Why are we driving these wealth creators out of the country? [Interruption.] There is so much to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I know that I will weary the House if I go on too long.
May I end on one point? It is quite controversial and difficult to say. I know I am going to get into trouble for saying it, but I have got to say the truth as I believe it. We all know that the triple lock is unsustainable. We cannot have a situation where people of my generation are consuming an ever greater proportion of national wealth through the state pension. Frankly, our Government never dared tackle it, having brought it in, because they knew that the Labour party would crucify them at the ballot box. Now, the Labour party is caught in the same bind. The fact is that it is completely unfair on younger people if the burden of older people, through the triple lock, increases year by year.
We laugh at the French because of their failure to achieve sensible pension reform, but we ourselves have got to have the courage, frankly, to end the triple lock—and I think this will only be done with consensus between the two parties. I am absolutely sure that the Government could come to the Leader of the Opposition and say, “This is unsustainable. Will you share this burden with us?” That may seem very unpopular, but actually many older people—people of my generation—all have children and we all have grandchildren, and we all see our children struggling to get into the housing market. If the Government and the Opposition were prepared to have the courage to deal with the triple lock, I am not sure that it would be as unpopular with older people as is sometimes maintained. After all, we could always relieve the burden on those on pension credit and find ways of helping people who really could not afford to live. But the triple lock must go. That is not a popular policy, but in our hearts, I think we know that it is the right one.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Just shy of 60 Members wish to contribute, so there is a speaking limit of 10 minutes to begin with.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the Father of the House and his wide-ranging contribution. I think he is slightly more optimistic about the ability to achieve consensus across the Front Benches than, sadly, I might be, but his point about intergenerational unfairness is absolutely right.
Let me start by recognising the hard work that the Treasury team have put into this Budget against a challenging international backdrop, particularly around trade issues. I particularly welcome the long overdue measures around council tax on more valuable properties. No one wants to pay more tax, of course, but some of us appreciate that the public services and the public realm need to be properly funded. Frankly, what is extraordinary to me is the number of years that those invaluable properties have escaped proper taxation.
I am old enough to remember how that all came about, with the council tax being introduced as a quick fix after the debacle of the Tory poll tax. I am afraid that some people on the Conservative Benches never change: they are always hankering to find a way to escape paying their dues. They hanker after things like flat taxes or whatever, but after 30 years of certain properties not making their contribution, I am delighted that it is this Government who are finally cracking down on that unfairness.
There are many other aspects to this Budget that I strongly welcome. Many of my Cambridge constituents commute into London, and the freeze on regulated rail fares, including season tickets, will be widely welcomed.
I also wish to say a few things about what the money raised in the Budget is spent on. In my experience, both as an MP and a former Minister, it was not just the council tax system that the Tories broke in the 1990s; it went much wider. The fragmentation and privatisation of so much of our public realm have not only cost us financially but contributed to the gloom that has descended on what is still a rich and successful country. Private affluence alongside public decay does not make for a happy society. In the limited time I have, I will cite a few examples that I have come across over the previous few weeks.
The chaos in our prison and justice systems goes back in no small part to the disastrous policies pursued by Chris Grayling in his misguided attempts to privatise the Probation Service, from which it has never fully recovered. The fragmentation of services was made particularly clear recently, when residents in a modern development near Cambridge railway station complained to me about the problems they faced with both criminal behaviour and poor building standards. The housing associations turned out in force to meet me—it is amazing what a visit from an MP will do—and they told me about the labyrinth of organisations involved in those issues: at least two councils, the police, those responsible for developing the building, those responsible for maintaining the building, and those responsible for fire safety. In those circumstances, how could anyone come to a sensible solution? I came away very clear about one thing: no one seemed to take responsibility overall, and as a consequence, the residents have a very poor deal.
Another example is the rightful national outcry about the abuses that have resulted from too many neighbourhood shops selling vapes and smuggled cigarettes, exposed so well by BBC investigative reporters. I could not be the only one who wondered why it seemed so hard to enforce the law when it is being flouted in plain sight, so I asked the House of Commons Library for statistics on what has happened to trading standards officers over the years. Guess what? In 2010, local authorities spent just under £172 million per annum on them. By 2020, that had fallen to just over £103 million. That figure recovered only a little, to £117 million, by 2024. I understand that trading standards are not the only agencies involved, but it is no wonder that they struggle to respond. That is certainly not a criticism of trading standards officers; they do a remarkable job, given that they have been starved of resources.
My conclusion is that this Budget is a really good start in difficult circumstances, yet we have a huge way to go in rebuilding the public realm so that we have a country that feels safe and secure for everyone. Putting back together what has been broken apart is neither easy nor quick; it is much easier to break things than to put them back together again. We have had decades of disruption from the Conservative party, and things would only be made worse by the party that goes by the name of Reform. It, too, ought to go to trading standards, because that is a false prospectus. The party is not about reforming the country, but about breaking it. I am confident that people will increasingly recognise that, so I urge my Treasury colleagues to stand firm and rebuild not just our economy but the communities in which we all live, whatever our circumstances.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, including my position as chair of the United Arab Emirates all-party parliamentary group.
It did not have to be this way. The roots of this Budget and its failure are in the last one. It began with the unnecessary delay and scaremongering before that Budget, which frightened consumers and scared off businesses from investment. Then, when the Budget was announced, the Chancellor made three key errors. She chose to do probably the worst thing for jobs and growth: she put up national insurance contributions. She chose to drive human and financial capital away from the United Kingdom through the abolition of the non-dom tax status, and she chose a totally unrealistically low level of fiscal headroom. By the time the Chancellor sat down, markets were already preparing for the next round of tax rises, and the sense that there would be tax rises only grew with the U-turn on welfare reforms. The problem is that the Government are making exactly the same mistake all over again—and there was a litany of leaks, culminating, extraordinarily, in the OBR publishing the entire content of the Chancellor’s Budget before she even stood up, which rendered the entire speech meaningless.
This Budget makes a simple and clear choice: there will be higher welfare spending, paid for by higher taxes. For my constituents, that means higher income taxes, higher taxes on their savings, and higher taxes on their dividends. Further, in constituencies like mine, house prices have soared over the past 30-odd years to astronomical levels, and there is a real risk that older people in family homes that they bought for a very low price will have to scrimp and scrape to find several thousand pounds every year, just to stay in their family home, which they so love. That is a real problem that will emerge from this Budget, and I urge the Chancellor to look, at the very least, at ameliorating measures to stop older people having to sell their home to pay their council tax bills.
Behind this decision lies a strategic choice, and we all know exactly what has happened. The Labour leadership has watched in fear as its vote haemorrhages to the left, and this Budget is all about shoring up Labour’s tax base. The taxes of the residents of Bushey, Radlett, Potters Bar and Borehamwood are being hiked to pay for higher welfare costs, in order to appease Labour’s Back Benchers.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman mentions taxpayers in his Hertsmere communities, which I have visited and know. Does he accept that among his constituents, there will be families who receive benefits and have more than two children, and who will be positively impacted by today’s Budget? Could he at least nod in the direction of those of his constituents who will benefit from the measures that the Chancellor has set out?
Sir Oliver Dowden
The problem with that analysis is that many people on the same street will think to themselves, “I chose not to have another child because I could not afford to have another, but my neighbour is now able to have more children, paid for by the taxman through welfare.” That is the fundamental unfairness at the heart of this Budget announcement.
Worse than that, this failure to grasp welfare reform risks neglecting a whole generation. Already, young workers’ prospects are under threat from artificial intelligence, and employment prospects are being hit by Labour’s jobs tax and labour market regulation, which is discouraging hiring. Now the message seems to emerge from the Government: “Don’t worry: abandon ambition. There is ever-higher welfare spending under Labour. That is the reason why you should vote for us.”
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a characteristically excellent speech. Would he agree that we are at a tipping point at which the welfare state is ceasing to be what we have always wanted it to be—a safety net below which nobody can fall—and is instead becoming a cocoon that will trap a whole generation in dependency, and kill off aspiration and social mobility?
Sir Oliver Dowden
As ever, my hon. Friend is totally correct. Of course the welfare state should be there for those people in temporary difficulty, but it cannot be a lifestyle, which is what ends up happening.
Sir Oliver Dowden
I will give way to the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, then I must make some progress.
Dame Meg Hillier
The Committee has heard evidence on this. It is an absolute fallacy, which we need to nail, that people choose to have more children to get more benefits. That is not the case. People fall on hard times, and that safety net is there. The ambition of my young families in Hackney is immense, but they are held back. There are a lot more systemic issues about poverty, but this measure will tackle poverty for this generation, and we need to welcome it.
Sir Oliver Dowden
Of course there will be the occasional person who falls on hard times, but the hon. Lady should try saying what she did to the many of my constituents who are unable to have more children. They took the choice not to have them, but that option is now there. There is an imbalance between the situation that my constituents faced and the approach taken on welfare.
At a time when the United Kingdom is embracing higher taxes and an ever-greater role for the state, lower-tax dynamism abounds beyond Europe. We can see the US surging, with freer markets and a tech and energy bonanza. We need only look to the Gulf, where states like the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia embracing tech, finance and alternative energy. A generation ago, this would have mattered less, but labour and capital are now highly mobile, and more and more people are voting with their feet. They are leaving the United Kingdom in their tens of thousands. This tide is washing the very brightest and best away from our shores, and I fear that once those people leave, it will be very hard to get them to come back.
The sadness of all this is that the United Kingdom remains a wonderful country. It is a beacon of stability, and we have the rule of law, the English language, our time zone, great research universities and a highly talented workforce. Indeed, having criticised the Government a lot, I pay tribute to them for successfully concluding a number of free trade agreements, including with India and the United States, and I hope that others will follow, including with the Gulf Co-operation Council. At a time when other countries present challenges—whether we are talking about the security situation in China, the unpredictability of the United States or stagnation in Europe—the United Kingdom has a golden opportunity to be a magnet for investment from businesses and entrepreneurs around the world. However, we risk consigning ourselves to what a Scottish entrepreneur described to me a couple of days ago as a “why bother” economy. What he meant was that of course people are not going to disinvest, but they will not actively choose to invest in the United Kingdom, because we are not creating an environment that rewards risk-taking and entrepreneurship.
There are a few simple steps that we could take to seize this moment, and I urge the Chancellor to take them and light the fire of competitiveness. First, instead of trying to drive away the wealthiest and biggest global investors, as we have done with the abolition of the non-dom status, we should welcome them and gain more revenue at the same time. One need only look at the Italian model; they have imposed a relatively high fee, but have in return exempted wealthy mobile people from paying further taxation. As a result, investment in Italy is surging, as is the number of wealthy people choosing to locate there, with all the opportunities that brings for growth and investment.
Secondly, instead of obsessing about policing social media, we should be aggressively policing the sort of low-level crime that drives people away from locating in this country, whether it is phone snatching, shoplifting or the general sense that the streets of this country have become less safe than they were a few years ago. Thirdly, instead of clobbering entrepreneurs, wealth creators and hard-working Brits with ever-higher marginal rates, we should have confidence that lower marginal rates generate higher revenues in the long run and benefit absolutely everyone. Fourthly, and most importantly of all in relation to this Budget, instead of consigning a generation to welfare, we should aggressively reform the welfare state to create opportunities for all. It really is not too late for the Government to seize this opportunity, but sadly, I fear that only a change of Government, and a Conservative Government, will be able to deliver those things.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I do not know what Budget the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) was reading, but it was not the Budget that was put on the table this afternoon. I think the Chancellor got the judgment exactly right today. She had a difficult inheritance, a difficult hand and difficult decisions to take, but she got the calls absolutely right. Under the Budget, growth this year and business investment over the course of this Parliament are forecast to rise, and inflation is coming down. Forecast interest rates are coming down, energy bills for our constituents are coming down, and child poverty is set to collapse. That means that 8,900 people in my constituency will be better off because of this Budget—a Labour Budget delivered by a Labour Chancellor this afternoon.
I have been in this House for 21 years. I have sat on both Front Benches and on both sets of Back Benches, and over the years I have seen the selective amnesia that bedevils debate in this place, and the problem of unreliable narrators, but I have to say that I have never seen amnesia on as epic a scale as I did from the Leader of the Opposition today. It is quite well established that back in 2010, I thought the numbers were a little bit tight. I thought difficult decisions were going to be needed, which is why we left a judiciously balanced Budget—two thirds spending cuts, one third taxes rises—that would have halved the deficit in four years and brought debt borrowing down by 2016. That, of course, was not the strategy pursued by the last Government, and what difference did that make? The Conservatives saddled this country with an extraordinary £1 trillion of debt more than the situation we left. That is why we are paying £1 in every £10 in interest rates today—it is because they more than doubled the national debt.
Liam Byrne
Before we hear any nonsense about covid, let us remember that 80% to 90% of the increase in debt that the Conservatives saddled us with came before the covid lockdowns began.
Simon Hoare
Oh, it is nothing as contemporary as covid—don’t worry about that. I just wondered how much money the right hon. Member left in the coffers when he was Chief Secretary in 2010.
Liam Byrne
I can tell the hon. Member. I do not know what his facility with maths is like, or if he realises that a trillion has 12 noughts, but we left the national debt £1 trillion lower than it is today—£2.7 trillion. That is how much this country is now borrowing.
The great tragedy is that if the previous Government had borrowed money at low interest costs and invested it in something that enhanced productivity, we would be in a better position today and the Chancellor would not have had to deliver the Budget she had to deliver today. Don’t take my word for it; the International Monetary Fund was clear in its report on 25 July that our productivity growth under the Conservatives collapsed by a third compared with the good old new Labour years. Our productivity divergence with the United States is so serious. Our productivity growth has been half that of the United States, and the OBR is clear today that the downgrade on growth that it has baked into its numbers is entirely due to the productivity collapse because the Conservatives wasted the money during their 14 years in office.
I should just say, by the bye, that because the Conservatives are the Conservatives, they managed to put £1 trillion on the debt and to collapse the productivity numbers, and still to put inequality through the roof. That is why we have all had food bank queues in our constituencies that we will never forget. I will never forget for as long as I live the phenomenon of collecting food in inner-city Birmingham because our food banks had run out of food. I will never forget the children at Adderley school who were literally helping restock our food banks by taking Penguin bars out of their lunch boxes to put them in food collection crates so their classmates did not go hungry at lunch time. That is the reality of the child poverty legacy the Conservatives left us with, and that is the legacy that the Chancellor got to grips with today.
The Business and Trade Committee looks forward to scrutinising the proposals that have been laid out today. We have been travelling the country over the last couple of weeks talking to businesses about what they wanted out of this Budget, and three things were clear. These are isles of wonder. We now stand on the threshold of an extraordinary new era of innovation. This is an extraordinary and inventive country; we have been since the industrial revolution started in Birmingham back in 1761, but that will be nothing compared to what is about to unfold in this country. We are at the front of the grid in the race for the 21st century, but we need to mobilise capital on a completely new scale. That is why certainty, certainty, certainty for business was so important. I welcome the fact that the headroom has been put up to £22 billion today.
I welcome the fact that the Chancellor is ending the biannual circus of fiscal speculation by having one forecast a year. I have to say to the House that I seriously think that Mr Hughes needs to consider his position. The fact that we had a leak of the OBR forecast before this House got to debate the Budget is appalling, and this uncertainty has bedevilled us. Alongside that, we have to step up the mobilisation of capital on a completely different scale.
Liam Byrne
I will in a moment.
That is why I absolutely welcome the package that the Chancellor has set out today to mobilise investment capital in a radical new way: the expanding of enterprise management incentives, the boosting of the venture capital trusts, and UK listing relief. That is almost £3 billion of extra incentives for entrepreneurs in this country. That is a game changer not just for start-ups, but for scale-ups, so we can end the craziness of brilliant inventors in this country starting new businesses, growing them nicely and then them having snapped up and shifted out to the United States. We have to ensure that we are growing and fostering more big, global dominating companies here in this country, so I welcome the way the Chancellor leant in behind those firms today.
The third thing we have to do is to improve the return on investments made in this country. That means a couple of things. It means bringing down energy costs radically. We did not have a business energy cost scheme scored in the Budget today, but that is because I know the Government are out to consultation on it. Every single member of the Committee would implore the Government to do whatever it takes to ensure that business energy costs in this country are internationally competitive. It is wrong that firms like Nissan say to us that their energy costs up in Sunderland are the most expensive of any Nissan plant in the world. We must bring business energy costs down.
Alongside that, the message that we hear from small businesses in particular is that we must bring down business rates. From looking at the policy decisions in the scorecard, it looks like there is a £4.2 billion subsidy to help bring business rates down. That should mean that we have the lowest business rates this country has seen, which is a good thing, but I urge the Chancellor to go further by cutting the cost of red tape in a bold and radical way.
As the Committee travelled around the country, business after business told us that they want not just less red tape but better regulation. Crucially, they want Departments and regulators to co-ordinate with each other, so that we do not have one Department over here making one decision and another over there making a different one. Ensuring that the Whitehall machine moves at the speed of business in this new age of AI will be more and more important as a competitive advantage. This is one of the best places in the world to be an inventor or build a start-up business. We now need to ensure that we are one of the best places in the world to scale up a business. That will be the nature of the questions that the Committee will put to Ministers over the weeks to come.
One thing above all shone through in the Chancellor’s statement: ambition for, and confidence in, the future of this country. That is why one of the most important numbers we will read in the OBR forecast is that business investment is not flat or falling but is set to soar by £6 billion over the forecast period. That ambition for this country stands in stark contrast to the amnesia of the Conservative party. That is because we on the Labour Benches know how futures are really built.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The speaking limit is now eight minutes.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
I thank the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) for a fascinating lecture on amnesia—it was dripping with irony given his last role in government.
I wish to congratulate the Chancellor on delivering what is almost certainly her final Budget. There is no conceivable way—not politically and certainly not economically—she can remain in post for a further year. Businesses, workers, bill payers, farmers, hospices, industry and the public sector cannot endure another cycle of this Chancellor. It has been just over a year since she stood at the Dispatch Box, delivered her first Budget and boasted that she had made the “right choices”—if anyone outside the real economy believed that, we would not be in this situation right now. She promised to
“restore stability to our public finances”
and to
“drive growth right across our country.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 828.]
She told us that growth would be her central Budget mission.
However, last month the IMF forecast that the UK will have the lowest per-capita growth in the G7 next year at just 0.5%, compared with the 1.4% average for advanced economies. Labour promised to turn the page on high food prices, but households see food inflation running out of control—it hit 4.9% last month. The Chancellor promised more jobs to tackle poverty, but unemployment hit 5% this month—its highest level since the pandemic—while poverty is at record levels. Government borrowing stands at a five-year high—£17.4 billion for October alone—and Labour is spending double the defence budget every year just to service the UK’s chronic national debt. The OECD has downgraded the UK’s economic prospects, singling out the Chancellor’s policies as exposing the economy to “significant downside risk”.
That gloomy prognosis is not borne out only in the SNP’s analysis; just listen to the Chancellor. She has spent the past 18 months insisting that the economy is in a terrible state, while blaming everyone and everything except herself, and misunderstanding what negativity her musings signal to investor confidence. It is as if she forgets that she is the Chancellor, as yet another stream of consciousness resonates—invariably negatively—around the economy. She has blamed the black hole—yes, the one that the SNP told Labour about before the election, and which she pretended only to discover after getting into No. 11. She has blamed the markets for their focus on her fiscal rules—you could not make it up—and she has blamed Brexit, despite having herself voted to trigger article 50.
However, this is not just about the fundamental economic incompetence of the Chancellor, nor just about Labour’s inheritance, which, while bad, was not the cause of this malaise. This crisis remains a product the Chancellor’s catastrophic decisions, and she will own them, just as she will own Labour’s compound fiscal bonfire. She is the in the frame for one of the most chaotic preludes to any Budget in living memory. Andy Haldane, former chief economist of the Bank of England, called it a “circus” of speculation around the Budget. The endless leaks, U-turns and media trails created panic in the economy, which, according to Mr Haldane,
“without any shadow of a doubt”
contributed to weaker than expected economic growth in the UK.
There is nothing meaningful in the Budget on energy. The measures on energy bills are a start, but they do not fulfil Labour’s election promise to reduce bills by £300. Bills are set to rise in January and again in April; £150 off energy bills will still leave the Labour party in a debit of £87 a year on its commitment at the election.
Dave Doogan
I will give way in a second. The SNP did Labour’s job for it, with a Budget proposal that involved a surcharge on banks that would have created the £300 discount for bill payers, just like Labour promised. I am very happy to give way to the hon. Member, if he can tell me when Labour will come good on that promise.
Dr Arthur
Of course, if the hon. Gentleman takes the time to read our manifesto, which we were elected on in Scotland, he will see that that promise was to be met at the end of this Parliament, so we are actually ahead of schedule. I am sure he welcomes that, just like he welcomes the extra £500 million in cash and £300 million in capital going to Scotland, and the commitment to above-inflation budget rises up to 2029. It is fantastic, Madam Deputy Speaker, is it not?
Dave Doogan
I am sure the public will be delighted to hear Labour’s never-never promise on energy bills. Unlike the hon. Member, I do not exist on my knees, waiting to get patted on the head by Labour Ministers on the Front Bench. I am off my knees. The consequentials we get in Scotland are a consequence not of largesse by the Labour party but of the taxes that Scottish enterprise creates within this so-called United Kingdom.
There is nothing in the Budget on the energy profits levy, which is putting North sea oil and gas into an early grave. As things stand, 42% of the forecast revenue of firms in the North sea oil and gas sector for 2026 is expected to come from outside the UK continental shelf. Analysis earlier this month from the Fraser of Allander Institute showed that the industry is undergoing an accelerated decline. In my view, that is a direct result of this Labour Government, who do not understand energy or the economy. This is Scotland’s reality within the so-called Union: our future and our natural endowments decided on by Westminster Ministers rather than the people of Scotland.
It must really stick in the craw, especially for Scottish Labour MPs who have to come down here to toe the party line, to see the difference that Scotland has had under the SNP since 2007. Under the SNP, GDP in Scotland has grown by 10.2% per person compared with 6.8% in the UK. Productivity has grown in Scotland at a rate of 0.9% per year, compared to 0.3% per year in the UK, and Scotland attracted 135 foreign direct investment projects in 2024, maintaining our position as the top performing part of the UK in that regard. Labour MPs are not so keen on the facts. Scottish Labour MPs jump up and down about the new minimum wage, despite the fact that their constituents and mine are already on more than that as a result of the Scottish living wage being £13.45.
There was little today to suggest that Labour grasps the severity of the cost of living crisis, which for many people feels endless. Inflation has almost doubled under Labour, and food prices are up a staggering 37% over the last five years. People are rightly asking, “What is going to sort this?” I can assure them that it is not Labour. I am pleased to see that the two-child cap is gone, and with it the appalling rape clause. It is just a shame that all the Labour MPs who were cheering the Chancellor when she announced that today did not vote with the SNP in September 2024 when we had a motion to try to remove the cap. It is rank hypocrisy.
In the last year, businesses have been trying to survive this Labour Government, rather than trying to thrive and invest. Businesses know that this Chancellor does not understand business. Family-owned businesses feel that most acutely, and farm businesses know that the Labour party is out to get them. Today’s announcements will not repair the damage. The reality is that it is already too late for some.
Whisky duty is going up again. The Scotch Whisky Association said that hiking duty today, for the third time in two years, limits Scotch whisky’s ability to generate growth, and will have a direct consequence for investment and jobs. This Chancellor has run out of road with businesses across these isles. Last year, after £40 billion of tax rises, most of that on jobs, she said:
“I’m not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes.”
She said the Government had “taken the hard decisions”, and as a result:
“We won’t have to do a Budget like this again.”
Twelve months later, here we are again with another round of tax rises. Let me make a prediction: 12 months from now, we will be back here once more, albeit with a different Chancellor.
Today’s Budget supports the view that taxes are up, borrowing is up, the cost of living is up, the cost of energy is up, spending is up, but growth—the central aim of the Chancellor, I remind the House—is down. Scotland deserves better than this Westminster version of groundhog day, and fortunately, the people of Scotland will be in a position to choose that in May’s elections.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I would normally extend the courtesy of saying that it is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), but that speech was all a bit dreich.
I have reflected hard on this Budget, as it is the first since I left my role in the Government as Minister for School Standards. As the first Labour Minister for 14 years, I focused relentlessly on more teachers in classrooms, more support for struggling schools, pay rises that teachers deserve, an inclusive school system, and curriculum reform to transform the life chances of every child. Believe me, I would have given anything to have found a few million, or indeed a few billion, behind the Government sofa, had there been that chance when making some of those decisions, and I suspect the Chancellor has known exactly how that feels over the past few weeks.
To scrutinise public spending and to draw on those experiences of making tough decisions in government about how we spend the public’s money were among the reasons I joined the Public Accounts Committee. I have enjoyed our deep dives, examining how public services are delivered, where schemes fail, making sure that lessons are learned, and ensuring that we spend every pound in the best way possible. Just last week, we looked at clinical negligence—an area with a staggering £60 billion of accumulated liabilities. We have a golden opportunity to cut those costs and deliver better care at the same time, so I encourage the Chancellor to read our report when it lands, because it might come in handy for next year’s Budget.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the cost of clinical negligence claims in maternity services is now greater than the cost of maternity services?
Catherine McKinnell
I share those concerns, as I know does the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt). We have cross-party interest in making better use of those resources. I thank the Chancellor for her comments about the infected blood contamination scheme, which is proudly delivered from my constituency in Newcastle upon Tyne North. The team there are incredibly proud of the work they are doing, and they will be proud of the announcement that the Chancellor made today.
Working people in Newcastle are feeling worn down by the cost of living. We know that everybody is feeling the squeeze—it is relentless and it is grinding, and I know the Chancellor knows that too, and has sought in the Budget to deliver on that promise of a better life for a hard day’s work. Many measures in the Budget will deliver that, such as the freeze in rail fares, extending the bus fare cap, measures on fuel duty, frozen prescription charges, and the cut in household energy bills.
I also know that the Chancellor cares deeply about children trapped in poverty, too often in families that are working hard and doing their best. I saw those stories at first hand on the Government’s child poverty taskforce. The driving force behind the crisis is the two-child limit. In the north-east alone, tens of thousands of children living in poverty will be lifted out of that by today’s announcement. The limit is both economically foolish and morally wrong, which is why charities and businesses in the north-east have been calling for it to be scrapped. Poverty comes at a price—a price in NHS bills, educational failure, and wasted potential. I strongly welcome the Chancellor’s decision to scrap that limit today.
Catherine McKinnell
I am afraid that I cannot give way because the time will keep running down. Scrapping the limit is just the start and it has to happen in the context of wider welfare reforms that ensure that every child grows up in a home where work pays and where families can thrive.
The mention of home brings me to council tax. There are deep-rooted inequalities in Newcastle. Just yesterday, I looked up two properties that are for sale: there was a lovely 1,600 square feet, five-bedroom house in Newcastle Great Park for £420,000, and a grade II listed former church in Knightsbridge in London of over 12,000 square feet, with seven bedrooms and a swimming pool, selling for £35 million. If I asked my constituents, “Who should pay more council tax?”, it is pretty obvious what the answer would be, yet incredibly my constituents will pay £75 more in council tax than that household in Knightsbridge. While I welcome the Chancellor’s announcements about council tax, I urge the Exchequer Secretary to go further and to review council tax bands, especially how new properties in all the new estates that are growing around the country are assessed.
Turning briefly to the new powers for mayors on overnight stay levies, of course people flock to the north-east for good reason—our history, culture, stunning coastlines and the friendliest people they will ever meet. It is only fair that tourists help to fund the infrastructure that they use and enjoy when they stay, so I understand why mayors welcome this power and want to decide about it at a local level, so the amount is not just set in London but in every region, according to what works. However, that levy has to be proportionate and not have an unfair knock-on hit on small businesses, because if those businesses go under, we will lose jobs, vibrancy and what makes the north-east special.
Our hospitality sector is under incredible pressure. I know that it is busting a gut to turn a profit and that every cost could be the one that breaks them, so while I welcome the higher wages in this Budget, we have to listen to some of the concerns raised by the Resolution Foundation. We do not want to discourage businesses from hiring, and especially not young people who want to take their first step on the job ladder.
Finally, on electric vehicles, I appreciate the changes announced on pay per mile, but the affordability of electric vehicles remains a barrier to some who want to buy one and to do the right thing. Many workers have access to salary sacrifice schemes to help make the switch, but teachers in academy schools are still unable to access a scheme, because it was put on pause by the Treasury. I want to take the opportunity to make a plea that the Treasury sort out this impasse once and for all. It would be a win-win for teachers and the electric car scheme.
To conclude, the goal is clear: a country where hard work pays, the cost of living is brought back under control, public services thrive and child poverty is history. Every pound of public money matters, because we know that it has the potential to transform lives. That is what people rightly expect of this Government, and I know that is the future that the Chancellor is working to deliver and why she has announced this Budget.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). She caught my eye earlier when she was cheering the Chancellor with great enthusiasm, even more so than her colleagues who were making a pretty good fist of it. I recall cheering a Chancellor during a Budget speech—
Sir Desmond Swayne
Notwithstanding the misgivings that I had, I cheered with gusto. Somewhat later, I found myself on a train to Oxford to defend the Government in the annual Oxford Union debate of no confidence. While on the train, I received the news that the Chancellor who I had been cheering had been sacked—not a particularly good wicket to go out to bat on.
I am confident that those hon. Members who cheered today will fare no better, because the economy is still reeling from the last Budget that the Chancellor delivered, with her wholesale assault on enterprise, family undertakings, initiative and every employer in the land. In fact, business confidence had collapsed significantly before that Budget. It had collapsed in the summer, when the Government warned everyone that things were so bad that they were going to have to get very, very much worse. As a consequence, when the Budget was delivered, we discovered that things were even worse than we had imagined. The Government then announced after that Budget that they had stabilised the economy. It was over; they were not coming back for any more. They trumpeted throughout the past year the fact that we had the highest growth rate in the G7. That is what they inherited, but as their monstrous regiment has proceeded, that growth rate has become more and more anaemic. There is no getting away from the fact that last month the economy shrank.
This summer, the Government repeated the mistake. All we got throughout the summer was horror story after horror story and kites being flown about ghastly taxes that might be imposed on us. That was most unwelcome for businesses planning investment and for anyone planning to take on workers; these interventions move some markets and make others absolutely sclerotic. It is a disaster. When I challenged the Chief Secretary to the Treasury last week with the example of Hugh Dalton, who properly resigned over a Budget leak, I was astounded that he admitted at the Dispatch Box that he had no idea what I was talking about. That is extraordinary. Against that background, there is always the chilling presence of the huge increase in trade union power that is part of the Employment Rights Bill currently before Parliament.
However, the Government’s anti-growth agenda is only half the story. The other half of the problem was expounded excellently by the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). The Government’s bloated expenditure plans have overshot by 4%, and we have this enormous, growing benefits bill. The disaster was that the Government withdrew from their attempts to provide some mild or modest restraint to the growth of that bill, and as my right hon. Friend said, we now face a bill that is running annually at £300 billion—£212 billion of which is for the economic inactivity of 4.3 million people who are under no obligation to work. That number of people is growing at a rate of 130,000 per month. That is completely unsustainable, and it is to be paid for by increasing taxes that disproportionately attack those people who are already contributing the most—the entrepreneurs, the investors and the very people who can take their investment, vision, skills and employment to where the business environment is rather more friendly. They are doing that in droves and to such an extent that even the Business Secretary has remarked on and spotted it. We increasingly face a situation in which fewer and fewer people will be able to pay for the bills of the increasing burden of people who are economically inactive.
As we approach—
Sir Desmond Swayne
I do wish the hon. Gentleman would be quiet. He is insufferable.
As we approach Government activity accounting for 45% of the economy—
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Desmond Swayne
I will not give way; I have reached my peroration. I have always thought that the result of that would be the totalitarian hand clenched in anger. I have read “The Road to Serfdom”, and things have actually turned out very differently. It is not the totalitarian hand clenched in anger; it is the Minister’s hand, open, dishing out largesse. It has turned out to be not so much the road to serfdom as the road to penury.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
Follow that, I suppose! I cannot promise the same level of entertaining enthusiasm as the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) as I rise to speak on today’s Budget.
I want to start by talking about the cost of living, which is my constituents’ major concern. When I have been speaking to them ahead of this Budget, it is the thing they have most wanted me to raise. I therefore welcome the really good measures that cut the cost of living, including the £150 off energy bills, the freezing of NHS prescription charges, and, for the first time in 30 years, the freeze on rail fares alongside the cap on bus fares, which will make a huge difference to people’s commutes.
I welcome the fact that the national minimum wage and the national living wage will rise, giving full-time workers a gross annual earnings increase of £900. One of my biggest asks of this Budget was the alleviation of the two-child limit. Basically, I became involved in politics because I want to eradicate child poverty, so the measures in the Budget to lift these children out of poverty are hugely welcome. The decisions by the last Government, which pushed more than half a million children into poverty, were a disgrace. I am pleased that this Labour Government are reversing that damage.
Lizzi Collinge
I know that my hon. Friend is aware of the report from North Lancashire Citizens Advice about child poverty in our area. Its top recommendation to combat child poverty was to scrap the two-child limit. Will she join me in thanking North Lancashire Citizens Advice for its fantastic work to help local people? Will she continue to work with me, as she often so generously does, to tackle child poverty in our area?
Cat Smith
My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to put on record my thanks to North Lancashire Citizens Advice. We frequently end up referring constituents to Citizens Advice, and I thank its volunteers for all their work to support my constituents and those of my hon. Friend.
I do not buy into the idea that those who are in need of state support are in any way irresponsible or on the take. The real scandal in our country is the number of parents who are in work and in poverty. I do not believe it is ever morally right to punish a child for the decisions and choices of their parents, because that was the reality of the two-child benefit cap and its subsequent rape clause, which was abhorrent.
I am pleased that in my constituency of Lancaster and Wyre, the ending of the cap is expected to benefit around 1,550 children, who will be lifted out of poverty because of the measures in this Budget. That, alongside the expansion of breakfast clubs, such as the one at Grosvenor Park primary school, will go a long way towards transforming the life chances of children in my constituency.
One very small part of the Budget that is close to my heart is playgrounds. So far in this debate no one has mentioned the £18 million for playgrounds, but that money is incredibly important. The public space that we give to our children shows them how much we value them. If we value our youngest citizens, we should invest in playgrounds. I very much hope that Lancaster city council will receive some of this money. If it does, I will certainly be putting in a good pitch for the Ridge estate’s playground, which is in desperate need of refurbishment.
I have also been contacted ahead of the Budget by pensioners in my constituency who are understandably, like everybody, concerned about rising bills. I hope that they welcome today’s announcement of the 4.8% increase in the state pension.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Members across the House will be disappointed that my mother has not yet been mentioned in the Budget debate. She has just been on the phone to champion the 4.8% increase in the state pension, which she claims will mean that she will have an extra £39 a month. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is good news for our pensioners?
Cat Smith
I am absolutely delighted for my hon. Friend’s mother. Will he please pass on my best regards?
It is not just the state pension increase, but the decision to restore the winter fuel allowance, that ensures that pensioners get the support they need. Will our Treasury Front-Bench team look at other measures to support low-income pensioners in particular, such as a national social tariff for water or enhancing the warm home discount scheme?
I represent many farmers, and I was listening carefully to the announcements today. I really do welcome the agricultural property relief now allowing 100% of that rate relief to be transferable between spouses. I am keen to continue working with Treasury Ministers to ensure that we can protect local family farms, because I feel that the thresholds are not quite in the right place yet. While I welcome today’s announcements, I am sure that many other rural MPs will also continue the dialogue with Ministers on this issue. I ask the Government to commit themselves to looking into the CenTax proposals, which would return the burden to those with the broadest shoulders—the large passive investors and the non-farming landowners, rather than our small family farms in Lancaster and Wyre. That is very much in line with our Labour values.
I was very pleased to hear the announcements about infected blood, but as an MP who has been very active in respect of another medical scandal—as I know you have, Madam Deputy Speaker—I urge the Government not to forget those who have been harmed by sodium valproate. It is nearly two years since the Patient Safety Commissioner presented her report on redress, and the families are continuing to wait. It would be remiss of me not to mention them today, and I hope that in the next Budget we can hear some welcome news for those who have campaigned for justice for many decades, while supporting their disabled children. This scandal dates to the 1970s, and I hope it will be this Government who can put things right.
I must now declare my interest as someone who is quite partial to a milkshake—although I do acknowledge that they are packed full of sugar, so I am fine with the extension of the sugar tax to my much-loved milkshakes. However, I want to ask a question about a drink that kills tens of thousands of people every year. In 2023 there were 22,644 alcohol-related deaths in England alone; the rates are going up year on year, and have been spiking since covid. The Government could, of course, tax the industry in a way that would enable the money to be put back into supporting those with addiction and reducing alcohol harms—not just the health harms, but the societal impacts as well.
According to research findings published in the last few months by the Alcohol Health Alliance, the Government could generate £3.4 billion over five years by introducing an alcohol duty escalator—a mechanism that would automatically raise the price of non-draught alcohol by 2% above inflation every year. That would also help to narrow the price gap between pubs and other hospitality venues and the supermarkets, where more alcohol is now being bought. Given the widespread evidence that supermarket-bought alcohol is the primary cause of alcohol harms, narrowing the price gap could also reduce those.
I realise that the Government have had to put our public finances on a more sustainable footing owing to the global uncertainty and the irresponsible decisions made by the last Government, but I have had had many emails from and conversations with my constituents about the issue of wealth taxes. The measures that they have been advocating include a wealth tax of 2% on assets amounting to more than £10 million, reforms of existing taxes such as capital gains tax, and closing the tax gap by properly funding and resourcing HMRC to enable it to tackle tax abuse.
I want to allow time for other speakers, so I will just say this in conclusion. I became active in politics because I wanted to fight poverty in my community and in my country. I am really pleased to be able to support this Budget, because lifting the two-child cap and the subsequent rape clause will make a huge difference to my constituents, and to all our constituents. This is a Budget that is anti-poverty and pro-children, and that is surely something we can all get behind.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
This Budget has been a car crash—the third car crash over which this Chancellor has presided. The first was last year’s Budget, which was so damaging to business confidence, to jobs, and to the farmers who provide the food for this great nation. The second was the run-up to this Budget, with so many leaks. It was the hokey-cokey Budget—in, out, shake it all about—which, again, was damaging to business confidence. The third car crash has, I fear, written off the engine of the British economy, because once again all the data, all the incentives, are bad.
Let us just look at the simple data, shall we? Growth is down. It has been flatlining over the last quarter, and the OBR numbers show that the growth forecasts for the next four years have all been reduced. Jobs are down by nearly 200,000 people since the last Budget. Earlier this week I spoke to recruitment agents from up and down the country who told me that, essentially, businesses had stopped hiring particularly, and most damagingly, young workers. I fear this Budget will make that even worse.
Let us now look at the other data. Taxes will go up, over the next few years, to the highest level since the second world war. This Chancellor has achieved the extraordinary, unbelievable feat, after just two Budgets, of being the second highest tax raising Chancellor ever, raising taxes by some £70 billion.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
On putting up taxes, a household living in a band A property in Sunderland that is worth £50,000 currently pays more council tax than one living in a £50 million property in Westminster. Do the hon. Gentleman and his Reform UK colleagues agree that reforming the system to increase council tax for those in higher bands is a good tax change to make in order to reduce people’s energy bills and to take 2,000 kids in Sunderland Central out of poverty?
Richard Tice
The good news is that when Reform wins more and more elections next May, we will be able to get better value for council tax across the whole country.
I will keep going. Over the next five years, welfare spending will increase by £70 billion per annum. That shows that this is not a Budget for workers; it is a Budget for those on welfare. It reduces the incentive to work, and it reduces the incentive to be an entrepreneur or a small business owner.
Tom Tugendhat
I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman using the figure of £70 billion, and I agree with him. He knows that £30 billion of that results from the rise in the triple lock, so does he agree that the triple lock is simply not affordable?
Richard Tice
The truth is that if we carry on going this way, nothing will be affordable, because this Chancellor is heading us towards bankruptcy as a nation. The reality is that nothing becomes affordable if we go bust under the Minister’s and the Chancellor’s mismanagement of this economy, so we need to change course, because all the data is bad.
I cannot believe the borrowing numbers, Madam Deputy Speaker! The OBR is forecasting that borrowing in this year alone will be some £21 billion higher—
Richard Tice
The Minister clearly does not know the facts of the Budget that he is presiding over. The numbers in the Blue Book show that borrowing will be £21 billion more than the OBR forecast back in March. Over the next four years, borrowing will increase by over £60 billion. To help the Minister: mathematically, that is up.
All the data and the numbers are going in the wrong direction, but it did not need to be this way. The Government could have followed Reform’s fine recommendations. The Chancellor could have said to the Governor of the Bank of England, “Stop paying voluntary interest on the quantitative easing reserves.” She could have also said that we should stop quantitative tightening, which is why we have the highest QE programme in the western world. She could have said that we should reduce the foreign aid budget. She could have said that we should stop paying welfare to overseas nationals in order to protect British citizens. She failed to make those choices, and that is why we have had to increase taxes to the highest levels ever.
Richard Tice
I have been very generous with my time, but many others wish to speak.
It is time for change, because this Budget disincentives work and it disincentivises risk-taking, and some of the finest and brightest of our nation are seriously considering leaving the country.
There is, however, some good news: this is the last Budget that this Chancellor has given. Why? Because she has proven herself to be a learner driver with her multiple car crashes. Based on the parliamentary Labour party’s antics, it is probably also the last Budget that the Prime Minister will preside over. The final good news is that after the next general election, Reform will redesign and re-engineer the economy to make work pay, to make risk-taking pay and to get our economy growing again.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Context is everything, and the context for this Budget can be summed up in three letters: ABT. It stands for “anyone but the Tories”, or “austerity, Brexit and Truss”. Both explain the composition of the House of Commons; it is a result of the damage done by those things. Their combined impact is that households in this country are £11,000 worse off every year than they would have been had we continued on the trajectory we were on in 2010, when Labour last left office. Policy mistakes by Liz Truss led to a £1,200 hike in interest payments. Interestingly, the market reaction to what the Chancellor said today was very positive; the only downward spike was when the Leader of the Opposition stood up. That speaks volumes about what the markets have made of the Budget today.
The contrast between ABT and now is quite stark. The situation is completely different from what the deputy leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), has just tried to tell us it is. He of course supports all three of those Tory measures, although they had the disastrous results that I have outlined. By contrast, business investment is up over this Parliament. Public and private investment have jointly increased, under the partnership in the industrial strategy. That includes £14 billion of public money to secure the success of Sizewell C. We have had five successive interest rates cuts. We have had wage rises and the highest G7 growth forecast—upgraded by the OBR—and, of course, borrowing is down, which is not what the hon. Member claimed.
My constituency stands to benefit enormously. I will put in a bid to be one of the pioneers who gains a neighbourhood health centre. I am pleased that Southport was mentioned, but I want one in my constituency. In fact, I want more than one, but I will start with one: the Maghull health centre. We already have £1.3 million pledged from developer contributions, but Maghull stands ready to be a pioneer of the NHS neighbourhood health scheme. Could the Chancellor please get the integrated care board to play ball? High Pastures, my GP surgery, has already taken advantage of the modernisation fund, which is very welcome.
In the Liverpool city region, £1.6 billion has been announced for a new fleet of buses for the newly franchised network. Members will be familiar with the Manchester Bee Network, but the Liverpool A network will of course come along shortly—well, that is what Steve Rotheram says, anyway. It will link to John Lennon airport, and to Everton and Liverpool football clubs.
On energy, my Energy Security and Net Zero Committee asked the Government, in one of our recommendations, to consider moving the surplus in the investment reserve fund of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme to its members, and I am very pleased that the Chancellor has listened. A friend of mine—he and his wife are both pensioners—messaged me today to pass on their thanks to the Chancellor and the Treasury team. I know those thanks will be replicated by other Government Members—and, I hope, some Opposition Members—speaking on behalf of their constituents.
There is the very welcome decision to cut energy bills by £150, recognising the energy company obligation failure of the last Government, under which 97% of scheme participants were worse off as a result of the scheme. The price cap should fall significantly in April as a result of what the Government have announced today on energy bills. We also have an extra £1.5 billion for the warm homes plan, taking the total to £14.7 billion. I strongly recommend that the Treasury and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero make the most of the money, and ensure that it is used as widely as possible, so that we have proper insulation and reduced energy usage.
Chris Vince
My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the importance of insulating homes. As he will be aware, my constituency of Harlow is a new town, so many householders face the same challenges at the same time. The people who are in the most poverty are least able to insulate their home. This issue is really important to them, and this measure is another example of this Government supporting the most vulnerable.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend is right. The warm homes plan will help those who are in fuel poverty the most. We are talking about up to £500 for a combination of insulation and solar and battery installation. Closing the gap between electricity and gas prices, which is what the money off bills will partly do, will make it more attractive for people to switch to electric heating, be it heat pumps or other forms of electric heating. That will all help with our climate commitments and bring down bills at the same time.
The Budget books contain a section on energy security. There is recognition in the Budget that secure, clean and cheaper energy is central to sustainable economic growth, but it is also essential for our energy security. The threat from Putin is becoming increasingly clear; it will become greater than it is in Ukraine. Submarine drones will target tankers delivering oil and liquified natural gas. That is a very significant threat. We have already seen the threat to pipelines. Tankers come from all over the world, and they are very vulnerable. We see in the strait of Hormuz what the Houthis are able to do. Just imagine how much bigger the threat is from Russia. The answer to that must be to diversify as far as possible. That is why Ukraine is moving away from oil and gas as much as it can, and towards low-carbon alternatives.
Lizzi Collinge
On energy security and ensuring a diverse range of clean energy sources, does my hon. Friend welcome, as I do, the Government’s commitment to responding to the nuclear regulatory review within three months, so that we can change the way that nuclear is regulated and ensure that it is kept safe and up to date, and can get building new nuclear?
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend is right. The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee looks forward to hearing what John Fingleton has to say, and to the Government’s response to him. Regulatory reform is key. We have to speed up planning and grid connections, which are referred to in the Budget, in order to address the very serious shortfall in grid capacity, and the delays in grid connection. We could probably say the same about generating capacity, too.
This country has faced 60 years of lack of investment in our grid networks. The problem was exacerbated when the grid was privatised in 1989, despite the warnings of the then shadow Energy Secretary, Tony Blair, who predicted, entirely accurately, that although the grid was of strategic national importance, it was a natural monopoly and really would not attract the private investment that the Conservative Government claimed it would. We are left trying to catch up. That is one of the reasons—along with delays in renewing our gas fleet, let alone moving to new nuclear and renewables—why we have spent so much money on our energy system, and why bill payers are under so much pressure. It is important to say that we would have these cost pressures regardless of whether we looked to invest in fossil fuels or renewables.
I very much welcome the recommitment to the £14.2 billion from the public sector for Sizewell C. That will ensure its success. The Committee wants a fleet approach to large-scale nuclear. There has been very welcome news on a small modular reactor at Wylfa, which will deliver 3,000 jobs. Sizewell C ultimately means that 6 million homes will be powered by cheap, clean electricity.
The ongoing investment in the North sea, referred to in the Budget, has been confirmed by the North sea future plan, published this afternoon by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. There is strong recognition that we must support North sea oil and gas production, and a strong commitment to doing so. That will be crucial to our energy supply for decades to come, but also crucial to the energy transition, because the same companies who drill for and produce oil and gas provide the engineering expertise in the North sea for offshore wind. I was pleased to see the call for evidence on the fuel sector and refineries, too.
This Budget is no return to ABT. Instead, we have trade deals with the EU, India and the US. We have rejected the Truss approach, so fondly supported by Reform and the Conservatives, and instead we want to support reductions in the cost of living, investment in infrastructure, skills and business, and rebuilding the public sector. As the Chancellor said, we want strong foundations and a secure future. She did really well today.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
It is somewhat depressing to speak after this Budget, which has basically picked the pocket of anybody who is trying to earn any money in this country. It has sent a very clear message to everybody in our country—a message that many people are hearing—which is, “This Government are not on your side. This Government will do everything they can to keep you where you are. They will encourage you to leave the country, rather than invest in it.” We can see that in the numbers. There is £26 billion in extra taxes, and 800,000 people are paying more. This is a welfare Budget, not a work Budget.
Sadly, though, the issue is not just those bald figures; it is what they will do to so many citizens in our country. Among the most tragic bits of this Budget is the £7.5 billion extra tax on the young people who have got themselves a university degree—that is hidden nicely and quietly in the OBR report—but there are also the 1 million young people who will not end up in work. Let us just think about that. It is 1 million young people who will not end up in work for another year, or another year after that. Those 1 million young people, in a few years’ time, will not have a choice, because businesses will not hire them, and the world will not be one that they are adapted to. Worse than that, they will have become, quite literally, slaves of the state, waiting for the man or woman in Whitehall to decide what they get each month and year. They will have become totally dependent. It is a crime to leave our fellow citizens dependent on the state.
Several hon. Members rose—
Tom Tugendhat
Forgive me; I am going to make a little progress.
That is not all of it. This Budget looked hard at fixing the very real political problems faced by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister today, admittedly, but it also looked hard at how they can simply inflate the balloon today; there was nothing about tomorrow. We can see that in the way that farmers are being taxed; it is deliberately punishing investment. We can see it in the investment figures; despite the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) claiming that there has been investment in this country, the investment figures in the UK per capita show a 4% increase. Okay, that is an increase, but the figure is 22% in Canada and 79% in the United States. This is not real growth or serious investment. Sadly, we see the knock-on effects. The right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, said that there was investment in start-ups. Well, I wish there was, but all the decisions made by this Government have convinced anybody with any entrepreneurial spirit to go either to Abu Dhabi, where they are filming some new version of “Auf Wiedersehen, Pet” with British workers who have fled this country, or to the United States, which at least has the capital to invest in start-ups.
All we see is a continuation of the Blair-Brown model of increasing nationalisation of savings—that creeping control that we see spreading over pensions and the insurance market. It has left 60% of our savings in bonds, and only about 40% in equities, which contrasts remarkably with Australia, Canada and the United States, which have 20% in bonds and 80% in equities.
Bill Esterson
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for quoting me, but when backing Liz Truss to be leader of the Tory party he said:
“I have no doubt that we will move with determination to make this country safer and more secure.”
Does that not rather undermine any claim of credibility he makes?
Tom Tugendhat
I will tell the hon. Member the honest truth: Liz Truss was wrong, and I made a mistake. That is the reality; that is what happened. But here is the difference: it is true that what she did put pressure on the economy, but this Chancellor has increased debt to the highest-ever levels and the cost of borrowing to the highest in the G7.
Tom Tugendhat
There is no debate about that, so I will not give way on that point.
The reality is that we are looking at the politics of today and forgetting about tomorrow. We are seeing people left on welfare and not helped into work. We see a pretence at kindness that is actually long-term cruelty. We are failing to recognise that it is not the state, the Government or the civil servants, and certainly not the Minister, who employs people or creates any work, but free individuals freely associating and freely structuring their lives in order to create opportunity for themselves, their family and their community. But guess what? This Government do not believe in that. That is why we now see taxes at their highest-ever level at 38%—the highest since the second world war. This is a remarkable theft of liberty from the British people. Forget about digital ID, which is insane in its own right; this is a genuine theft of the liberty of free citizens to choose what to do with their resources. It is an appalling decision.
We need to look very hard at what the choices are. We can already see where the cost is going. Despite the Home Office estimates a few years ago that asylum seekers would cost £4.5 billion, this OBR report tells us that it will be £15.3 billion. That is a multiple of more than three. We are seeing any number of different areas where the costs are rising. All this would be bad enough in a normal situation where, with a bit of adjustment, we could get back to normal, but the truth is that this is not a normal situation. This is a situation that demands frank honesty.
Let me be honest and lay it on the line. The demographics of this country are going against us. We do not have enough young people for an ageing population. That means, I am afraid, that we do need to look at the triple lock. I know that those on my party’s Front Bench do not agree with me, but I have been clear that we simply cannot afford the level of welfare payments we are making. We need to be clear that health and pensions are now costing too much. We need to be clear that the security situation has changed.
I have heard that we are now raising more for defence—gosh, have I heard that?—but the reality is that it is all on the never-never. The Army is even now talking about cutting the number of soldiers, the Navy is talking about cutting the number of ships, and the Air Force is talking about cutting its numbers too. I have heard that from friends who are serving today, so I look forward to seeing what comes out of the Budget round for them. The reality is that while our enemies are arming, we are talking. It is simply not serious.
For all that I have said, there is one thing that is going so far against us that we are not even on the same field, and that is technology. Looking at the rise of AI across the world, there are only two countries that are serious players: the United States and China. The Unites States is heading for the exquisite, while China is heading for the quotidian. We are seeing a radical change in the way the economy is working, but here we are defending old jobs, punishing ideas and keeping back growth. We have a Government who simply do not understand that we have only a few years in which we can get back into the game. If we miss this chance, we will be like the old Chinese empire: we will have missed the boat, we will have burned our ships, and we will be replaced, as happened after European expansion to the Americas.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for her excellent Budget statement. I would take the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) and his colleagues more seriously on defence spending if the Conservatives had not wasted 14 years and cut back our defences to the bare minimum.
Gurinder Singh Josan
I will make my points.
I will focus on the benefits of the Budget and the choices made by the Chancellor for people in my constituency. It is worth first reminding ourselves of the disgraceful situation in which the Conservative party left the economy in July last year and the scale of the mess the Labour Government are having to deal with. The economy was broken, with high interest rates, high unemployment, borrowing and debt beyond our means, growth stagnating, and strikes across our public services in various sectors. The NHS was on its knees, with record waiting lists and a crisis in midwife services and mental health services—I could go on—and we had a debilitating cost of living crisis, with no plan to make things better for ordinary families in my constituency.
The Labour Government have already done so much to fix the mess, and the change is beginning to be felt in my constituency; I will go through some of those things. My constituents benefited from £20 million of plan for neighbourhoods funding in Smethwick. We have seen wage increases and growth upgraded to 1.5%. Rail fares and prescription charges have been frozen, the fuel duty freeze has been extended and pensions are increasing. We are seeing breakfast clubs and free school meals, along with more GPs and nurses. There is the 10-year NHS plan, and railways are coming back into public ownership—people said that could never be done, but it is happening. We are seeing local control over bus services, new protections for renters, and homes for heroes. We have launched the Border Security Command.
There is over £100 million in Government funding for five new research hubs, including one in Birmingham. We scrapped the ban on onshore wind and unblocked solar schemes—we have new solar schemes for schools in Smethwick. We are having lower business rates, along with the National Wealth Fund and the warm homes plan to deliver lower energy bills, with £150 off bills announced today. The child poverty taskforce was established, and 5,350 children in Smethwick will benefit from the lifting of the two-child limit. Change is happening, and my constituents are benefiting from it, but all that is in the face of a world that is changing around us.
Over the last year, global challenges have impacted the UK in an unprecedented way. We have seen the impact of President Trump’s tariffs, the Ukraine war, Russia and China, and the mess that the Tories made of Brexit. Many Labour Members have understood that the old way of doing things—leaving everything to free markets and global trade—is not working for families and workers in the UK. Essentially, we all want to buy things cheap, so they end up being made abroad, where labour costs and conditions are much lower. That in turn has meant that whole industries in the UK have shut down, with the loss of good quality jobs. Therefore, as well as the choices being made by the Chancellor and this Labour Government to cut NHS waiting lists, cut the debt and cut the cost of living, they are working to ensure that the UK becomes less reliant on other countries and more self-sufficient in defence, energy security and many other areas.
The recall of Parliament in April to save the Scunthorpe steelworks was a defining moment, with the realisation that we cannot be reliant on the US or China for steel and that we need to maintain our own capacity. I see the change delivered in last year’s Budget and this year’s Budget as being about a necessary reindustrialisation of our country to ensure that we are more self-sufficient. If we do that and get it right, we will bring good quality jobs back to our communities that allow people to buy a house and a car and to support their kids through university—the decent standard of living that people aspire to. If we get it right, we will also remove the opportunity for dog-whistle scaremongering by the nakedly populist opportunists in Reform and others who want to take advantage of economic uncertainty to peddle division.
A choice has been made by the Chancellor and this Labour Government to commit to increased defence spending, with an understanding that we will not just buy everything from America; we will make it here. There is also the investment in green energy, nuclear energy, the industrial strategy, semiconductors and AI. All those things will support and deliver growth in our economy.
It is interesting that Conservative Members have talked a lot about growth and business confidence. The Venture Capital Trust Association organised an open letter signed by 250 signatories, which included me and other Members of this and the other House, but the majority of signatories were from various start-ups and businesses, including the founders of Quantexa and Matillion, which are both billion-dollar-valued tech firms. They asked for changes to the VCT and EIS schemes, which have not been updated in more than 10 years. I would take the Opposition more seriously if they had not been asleep on their watch when in power.
The British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association has just said:
“We are delighted to see the Government signalling that the important EIS and VCT incentives will be reformed to support businesses as they scale, as well as early stage investments”.
Business confidence is there. People want to see the change that we are making, which will support growth in our economy. If we get that right, that future will deliver for my constituents and for the UK, and I am proud to stand with the Government on that.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
May I, on behalf of the whole nation, thank the Chancellor for advance sight of her statement over the last few weeks? I do not know what she hoped to gain by that—she may have hoped to make it more palatable—but I am afraid that the leaks have not made it any more attractive today than when they came out of the Treasury and, in fact, we are seeing a repeat of last year.
In last year’s Budget, we were told that there was a black hole, that it was all down to the Tories and that we would have to have all the tax increases that we have had over the last year to fill it. Well, like some kind of fiscal JCB, the Chancellor seems to have dug another one and now she is back again, looking for more tax increases. Labour Members might say, “Yes, there is pain to be taken, but at least we are now getting the target right and going after the wealthy.” I have heard that so many times today, but let us look at the facts: the real tax increase here is the freezing of the thresholds.
What does the OBR say? As a result of the freezing of the thresholds, we will not drag dead rich people into the tax brackets. Instead, we will drag into the tax bands three quarters of a million people who are currently not paying tax because their income is so low, along with people on modest incomes who will be dragged into the top tax bands. Let us not fool ourselves that this will be financed by rich people, because the only evidence we have been given about rich people is the council tax on big mansions, which will generate only £400 million of the extra tax that is required and will not do so until 2031. This Budget still hits those who are working.
Luke Akehurst
If the right hon. Gentleman were to look at the Budget book, he would see that the graph that shows the progressiveness of this Budget shows that, in every decile, it is redistributive. He might be correct about the impact of the specific measures he has spoken about, but the overall impact of the Budget is that the poorer people are, the better off it makes them, and the richer they are, the less well-off it makes them.
Sammy Wilson
Some of that redistributive impact is the result of taxes being taken off people who are on modest incomes for welfare increases. This is a figure that the Chancellor has quoted in the House time and again: one in seven under-25s is now fully reliant on benefits and is not in work. Where is that money coming from? It is coming from people who are working on a daily basis and, in many cases, for not a great deal of money, but who will be dragged into the tax system.
This is an unfair Budget, because it still relies on taking money from working people who are not mega-rich to pay for some of the Government’s grandiose schemes. Some people may argue that if it works, it is worth doing, but let us look at the record of the previous year. The OBR tells us that the outcome of the Chancellor trying the same tactic last year has been that investment is now predicted to fall as a percentage of GDP. Output growth is going to fall by a sixth, productivity is going to fall from 0.4% to -0.4%. Consumer expenditure is down by 0.5%. People are receiving less and profits for companies are going to fall from 12.5% to 10.75%, all of which will affect investment and economic growth, and undermine the very objective that the Chancellor says she is seeking to achieve.
Of course, many people will argue that that is fine, but we have levels of expenditure that we have to finance, so how do we pay for it? Let us look at some of the decisions that the Government have made over the last year. Welfare payments are going to go up quite substantially to £58 billion over the period of this Parliament. On net zero, environmental taxes are going up by 60%, affecting the profitability of companies, and the renewables obligation next year is going to cost us £3 billion. So net zero, the impact of which we are all experiencing on jobs, is going to lead to further costs. I think many people would question whether those are the kinds of things we should be spending money on at a time when we have an abundance of fossil energy in this country.
Tax avoidance has not been dealt with. I have heard tax avoidance being mentioned every time we have a Budget, including under the previous Government, but it is never dealt with. The Googles and Amazons of this world still sell goods here but do not pay taxes in this country. The budget for welfare in relation to immigration is now predicted to go up to £15 billion. Also, we have had debates in this House time and again about the bases in the Indian ocean that we had possession of. We gave them back to Mauritius and we are paying Mauritius for that. What is Mauritius going to do with the billions that we give them from taxpayers here? It is going to cut its own taxes. We are putting up our taxes in order to allow taxes to be reduced in another country when we did not even need to do it. So there are ways in which the money could have been achieved.
I welcome the announcement about the loan charge. As a vice-chairman of the loan charge and taxpayer fairness all-party parliamentary group, I trust that we will now see the Government treating the ordinary people who are affected by the loan charge in the way in which they treated big business. Businesses were given a concessionary payment of 15%, while some of the ordinary people who were affected were being charged nearly 100%. I hope that the McCann review leads to that being sorted out.
As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, I welcome the Barnett consequentials and I hope that the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Sinn Féin Finance Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly will spend the £370 million wisely—
Sammy Wilson
It may well be very unlikely, but I am expressing a wish that he does that.
Some £17 million has been set aside for the cost of the protocol. The protocol and the Windsor framework are costing the Northern Ireland economy dearly, and the money that has been allocated today does not replace the cuts in the trader support system and the movement assistance scheme. Without that support, Northern Ireland suppliers are increasingly finding themselves cut off from their main market of supplies here in Great Britain, and that is something that the Government need to address. I do not think that the £17 million is going to address it. It is a token, and an acceptance that there is a problem, but the problem has to be properly dealt with. Only when we have the same lawmaking arrangements as the rest of the United Kingdom, to which we belong, is that going to be dealt with.
The other issue—I noted the wording—is that while welfare changes will be funded by the Government in Westminster, because the annually managed expenditure is funded from here, when it comes to the concessions about reducing electricity bills, it simply says that the Government will work with the Executive. The Chancellor needs to give clarification. Will the Northern Ireland Executive be expected to fund the reductions in electricity bills while they are funded through Great British Energy in the rest of the United Kingdom?
Lastly, we have no vested interest in seeing the Government fail, because we will not be an alternative Government, but I do not believe that this Budget will deal with the issues that need to be dealt with. I believe we will find the Chancellor back with the same problems next year.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Here we are three years on from the Tory Truss kamikaze Budget. It is worth recalling just how bad that was—absolute carnage, with interest rates rocketing and mortgage market mayhem, and people and businesses left to pay for the Conservative chaos. That 49-day con trick was an ideological experiment that will scar this country for many years to come. It is worth remembering that their catastrophic failure was hailed by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) as
“the best Conservative budget since”
the 1980s. So much for economic illiteracy! There is clearly much to be done in our schools.
It remains for this Labour Government to clean up the mess of the last Conservative Government. It was not just the Truss Budget; successive Conservative Budgets failed the public, whether it was with the lowest investment levels in the G7 despite having historically low interest rates, or with stagnant wages and flatlining productivity.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
One of the things the Chancellor was clear about in her speech was the way we need to continue to build capital investment to improve the long-term growth rate of the economy. Does my hon. Friend agree that projects such as the lower Thames crossing, which will hugely reduce congestion and poor air quality in my constituency and create thousands of jobs and new opportunities for business, are great for our economy?
Matt Western
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That was one of the great failings of the last 14 or 15 years; when interest rates were at record lows, that was the time as a nation to invest in our infrastructure. Any business would have done that. Unfortunately, that did not happen.
Returning to productivity, if we had continued at the same rate as when the Labour Government left office, the average worker would be making £5,000 extra per year. That is the loss in productivity we face. This past 15 years we have seen national debt rocket—from 2010 to 2024, it increased by a third—leaving us paying more on debt interest than on defence. That is the reality.
I recognise what the Chancellor is doing, and I congratulate her on her determination in delivering for the British people. As she said, it is a Budget that addresses the most important and pressing issues for people up and down our country, so I am encouraged by the proposed changes in business rates, whether that is for the hospitality sector—our pubs, cafés and so on—or small retail, and also by the taxation on dividends. It cannot be right that unearned income pays considerably lower tax than earned income.
The Budget today has made some difficult choices, but we can tackle these problems and address the concerns of our constituents and the problems facing businesses. We need to recognise the deep structural problems that undermine our economy, and without a doubt the biggest worry for my constituents is the cost of living. Despite inflation having fallen, the price of goods is 28% higher now than in 2020. The weekly food shop, for example, is now 37% higher than just five years ago. Given that, I am pleased to see the announcements on the cost of living set out today: the £150 saving on energy bills, the train fares freeze, the freezing of fuel taxation, support for childcare and the increases in the living wage. It builds on the progress we have already made, with wages having risen more in 10 months under this Labour Government than in 10 years of the Conservatives.
Let me turn to the automotive sector, which is really important for my constituency of Warwick and Leamington, where thousands are employed either by companies such as Jaguar Land Rover and Aston Martin or in the supply chain. I am proud of the support that the Government have already set out. We have delivered £2.5 billion under DRIVE35—a bold industrial strategy that provides clarity and long-term direction for industry —as well as a £1.5 billion loan to protect the Jaguar Land Rover supply chain. In addition, the US trade deal is huge for this country, as is the India trade deal. The additional £1.3 billion for the electric car grant is very welcome, as is the additional £200 million for EV infrastructure.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary motor group, I have heard concerns from the industry about the 3p mileage tax on EVs. I hope that the additional support for vehicle purchase, along with the infrastructure grants, will help to offset that, but we must not allow a repeat of what happened in New Zealand, which saw a significant reduction in take-up and demand.
I welcome the fact that the Government’s plans to change the employee car ownership schemes have been put on hold. They would have cost the industry £1.5 billion and risked 5,000 jobs. I thank the Treasury team for listening to Members, given the important role that those programmes play in vehicle manufacture and in meeting manufacturers’ zero emission vehicle mandate targets over the coming years.
I will focus—perhaps unusually in this place—on the productivity problems facing the UK. Since 2009, productivity has flatlined. The previous Government failed people and businesses. How can UK productivity have fallen so far that it is now 20% lower than that of the United States and Germany, and 12% lower than that of France? I have never believed that productivity is a puzzle; for me it is about fair employment rights, addressing the casualisation of the workforce, incentivising investment and improving on skills delivery. I welcome the measures aimed at young people, including the free apprenticeship training for SMEs and the youth guarantee scheme.
If we are to improve productivity, we need people to be fit to work. That is why sorting the NHS workforce, ending the strikes and getting people back into work has been so important. The initiative providing 30 hours of free childcare has released young parents back into the workplace—again, improving productivity. All that, along with restored stability and international credibility, means that investment is flowing back into the British economy.
Since July of this year, the Government have secured over £250 billion of investment in high-growth sectors, supporting 45,000 high-quality jobs. That is in additional to the increased capital spending of £107 billion laid out by the Chancellor at the previous Budget, and a National Wealth Fund equipped with £28 billion to catalyse investment. That is all incredibly significant.
On exports, as a trade envoy, I am very aware of our opportunities abroad and of the confidence that other countries have in this country—they want to invest here. In fact, we know that Britain was the fastest-growing G7 economy in the first half of this year, and that it recorded the second highest growth year on year. That is now allowing us to rebuild our public services. The NHS has already delivered 5 million additional appointments, including an extra 23,000 in my local NHS trust.
The Chancellor talked about money for defence. I would like more clarity not just on defence but on security. As chair of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, I say that it is incumbent on us now to place more focus and resource in areas of resilience and wider security—and not just of our shores. We have seen cyber-attacks on Jaguar Land Rover and Marks and Spencer, for example. JLR took a £1.7 billion hit. That is what we are facing, and we must wake up to that reality and put more resource into it. That is a plea to those from the Treasury who are listening.
I have listened closely to Opposition Members, and I fear that there is a degree of naysaying. We have got growth back into the economy, and there is so much in the Budget to be positive about. We are making good progress, but we must be patient. It takes time to clear up the mess when rebuilding, but that is what we will do.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
It gives me a certain pleasure to share some agreement about the need for more resource in defence and resilience with the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western). For all the Government’s talk of increasing spending on defence, the vast bulk of the promise they have made is after this spending period, and the small increase that has been allowed for in these spending plans is not even sufficient to make up for the problems that the Ministry of Defence has managing its own programmes. There is now a huge row going on there about what it is going to have to cut in order to stay within the spending envelop set by the Treasury. It is not a new problem, but it is a significant one, and it is one that underlines the need for the Ministry of Defence to adapt to a very different climate—a much more warlike and adaptive system for acquiring military kit.
The great theme of this Budget and the last, to which the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington referred, is growth. I think we need to be realistic that the growth rate was flattened by the global financial crisis of 2008-09, and our productivity rate never recovered from that period. It is a puzzle. It is partly because our economy is more and more service orientated, which is labour intensive, but I think it is also because we have expanded the public sector so dramatically in recent years.
Public sector productivity is way below what it was before covid—it has not recovered. The productivity of the national health service is lamentable. These are issues of leadership, organisation and efficiency. The Government need to look at getting much better value for money for what we are spending, given that this country now has the highest ever peacetime levels of public expenditure.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Will the hon. Member accept that some of the blossoming of the public sector in this country is as a result of Brexit, for which he advocated over very many years?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am tempted not to be drawn into the rather silly Brexit debate that seems to go on. It was notable that the Government spoofed towards the idea that they would make Brexit the scapegoat for the economy, but actually very little has come out from them on that. The Liberal Democrats may think, “Oh, if only we had a customs union to deal with the European Union, we would be £90 billion better off,” but that is fantasy economics. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that the Treasury is not saying that? Because it is not true—it is complete rubbish.
The idea that we have lost 4% of GDP as a result of Brexit is based on a very flimsy piece of evidence: a report put together from 13 forecasts made in 2016 and 2017, all before the Brexit deal was completed and we had a free trade agreement. It has never come to pass. In fact, a respected commentator, Wolfgang Münchau, said that we were approximating along growth rates in line with France and Germany before we left the European Union, and that our leaving the European Union was the “economic non-event” of the century. We have been approximating along at about the same growth rates. The very dire forecasts were based on the idea that there was going to be a 25% decline in our trade—that has not happened. There has been a marginal decline in our trade with the EU—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Ministers on the Treasury Bench might be more interested in having their private conversations, but it is making it very difficult to hear the hon. Member.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am very sorry that those on the Front Bench do not like hearing this, but there is no “get out of jail free” card through realigning with the European Union. It looks as though the European Union wants to charge us money for the Brexit reset. In fact, the expenditure line—what we make in net contributions to the EU since we left—has absolutely crashed. We are now contributing very little, and that money is available to the Exchequer. If we rejoined the European Union, we would have to find another £20 billion for contributions to the European budget—no thank you very much.
The real point about a Budget is that it is when the country hears from the Government about their judgment. It is not about lots of little schemes—the £400 million extra being raised from council tax does not even cover the margin for error on annual public spending each year. It is almost irrelevant; it is a window dressing about punishing the rich. Incidentally, if we go on every Budget making sure that the top deciles contribute far more than the bottom deciles, we will finish up with a more and more punitive tax and benefit system that will be more and more damaging for economic growth.
The question is: did the Government get the judgment right last time? The answer was obviously no; they said that those tax increases would be a one-off but they have had to come back for much more, because the effect of their measures has damaged economic growth. What we are missing from this conversation is a real discussion about the long-term growth of public expenditure and what we can afford. The “Fiscal risks and sustainability” report, produced by the OBR in the summer, was a sort of two-day wonder in the public debate. We then went back to discussing the very narrow question of how much headroom we should have in just one year—as though aiming for that little hole is the answer for the long-term economic viability of this country. What a ludicrous way to run a country! It is about as un-strategic as you can get.
As a consequence, we are living in a fool’s paradise. The Government have repeated their errors. They are punishing wealth creators and padding out the welfare system, which is decreasing incentives for work. The tragedy of the nearly 1 million young people who are not in education, employment or training is getting bigger. The national minimum wage will reduce opportunities for young people, because it will no longer be worth pubs and hotels recruiting young people, given that there is no cost advantage to recruiting students as opposed to full-timers. Perhaps that is what the Government want, but it will not be good for employment for young people, nor good for growth and enterprise.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
As the mother of somebody in that age bracket who works in a pub, I just wanted to stand up on his behalf and say thank you to the Chancellor.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I will not be thanking the Chancellor and her Government on behalf of all the young people who thought they would be able to get jobs in the hospitality sector, but now will not get them. Students will not get those part-time jobs to help to pay off their student loans. These issues have to be balanced—[Interruption.] I am not going to give way again.
The point is that this Budget will prove, once again, that higher spending, higher borrowing—the debt is still going up, by the way—and higher taxes are not a route to growth, prosperity, employment, happiness and security. This is a Government proving, once again, that socialism does not work. We are heading for a terrible reckoning on the basis of the long-term fiscal forecasts produced by the OBR. There is going to be a crunch.
Last year the Government sent the gilt rates rising. This year the gilt rates are way above the level that was provoked by the Liz Truss Budget. These two Budgets are much worse than the Liz Truss episode, and they have raised—[Interruption.] The Liz Truss episode was short-lived; this is permanent. It is Government policy to inflict higher borrowing costs, higher debt, higher taxation and lower growth on our country—[Interruption.] I would be grateful if those on the Front Bench could contain themselves. This Government have made permanent a fiscal and growth crisis, and we will rue the day that we elected them, because once again they will prove that Labour Governments always trash the economy permanently.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her Budget, and the whole Treasury team for the conversations I have had with them about aid, our high streets and child poverty. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), although we absolutely do not agree on the significance of Brexit. Neither do we agree that the Truss fiasco was a short-lived little incident; its effects have been very long term on my constituents and on the country, and it has made this Budget a far harder one for the Chancellor to agree, but she has risen to the challenge. As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I look forward to looking at the changes in the aid and defence budgets, and I welcome the commitment in the Budget to return official development assistance to 0.7% of GNI in the future.
This Budget is good news for my constituents in Putney, Southfields, Roehampton and Wandsworth town. It has fair taxes that will mean investment in families, strong public services and a growing economy. There is an increase in the minimum wage and the state pension. Businesses will be supported with innovation. Small and medium-sized enterprises will be supported to provide free apprenticeships for under-25s. I have been looking into the impact of the transformation of the business rates system on my high street, and on high streets up and down the country. High streets will be protected through the introduction of permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties. That will benefit 3,790 properties in Wandsworth, which is very good news.
I welcome that we will be getting back £400 million from the dodgy covid contracts, and a cut to the cost of living with £150 off energy bills. I also welcome that £18 million will be spent on playgrounds, which are vital because they are places where so many children spend so much time. The increase in plastic packaging tax is good for the environment and for reducing our reliance on plastic, which is made from and uses fossil fuels. I also welcome that £29 million in fines taken from water companies will be spent on cleaning up rivers, lakes and seas—this is all really good news.
I note that the lower Thames crossing is being paid for, but my constituents will ask, “When will the reopening of Hammersmith bridge be paid for?” The bridge is a major London crossing that has been closed for six years. Across my constituency, we look forward to having more conversations about that with the Secretary of State for Transport and the Chancellor.
I will focus my remarks on welcoming the change to the two-child benefit cap. The change will lift 450,000 children out of severe hardship across the UK and will directly benefit 2,310 children in my own constituency. As the Chancellor said, the cost of leaving the cap in place is to the child, but it is also to the public services that they use and to our wider community, and there is a future cost to the economy. It has been eight long years since this cruel and unnecessary policy was brought in, and it has punished families and increased poverty ever since.
I have been on the child poverty taskforce for over a year, championing the work done by the Government to really drill down into what can make the most difference—and it is scrapping the two-child benefit cap. Children must be able to thrive no matter where they are born in the UK, and scrapping the cap will allow them to do so. The policy drove families into severe hardship, as I saw for myself in my constituency. Its removal is not only a moral imperative but an economic necessity. It makes sense in every way.
The Trussell Trust’s latest figures have exposed the scale of the crisis. In Putney alone, 5,991 emergency food parcels were distributed between April last year and March this year. That is a 7% rise on the previous year, so there is real need to scrap the two-child cap. It will make a huge difference and will result in the largest expected reduction in child poverty over a Parliament since comparable records began in 1997. That kind of dramatic change in our country is the reason I became a politician—this is what I want to see.
The change will be welcomed not only by the families who are directly affected, but across our whole community. It will mean that more children have a better start in life and that wealth will be more fairly distributed in communities. So many measures in the Budget mean that wealth distribution is going in the right direction, which is what our country needs after 14 long years of austerity. We are now seeing an end to that, and families will see the change and the benefit.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The hon. Lady is speaking about the measures that she supports in the Budget. I wonder about her views on the council tax surcharge. I had a quick look at the websites of estate agents in her constituency, and I can see that dozens—if not hundreds—of properties will be affected by the council tax surcharge. Does she support the measure and what is her message to her constituents who will have to pay that extra tax?
Fleur Anderson
It is estimated that about 4% of homes will be affected in my constituency. I have really looked into this matter, and the surcharge being added to their bills is a fair way of redistributing our tax. This surcharge applies to a very small number of people who are able to afford it. What do we get in return? A fairer society, better public services and the NHS, which people will be using. We get all those benefits in return for a minimal surcharge that will be fairly distributed. Doing this through council tax, instead of in the other ways that were talked about, is fairest.
Across the many changes in the Budget, we are looking for good things for our families, for businesses and for hard-working people. We are looking to make their lives better, bring down their bills and increase income. The increase in skills is such a necessary part of this Budget. This is a welcome Budget for Putney, for London, and for the country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I am letting Members know that I will drop the time limit to seven minutes after the next speaker.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
Today should have been an opportunity to offer some hope, and to deliver for Wales. Unfortunately, the Chancellor has failed to do that, and our communities will still feel vulnerable.
We have been promised action on the cost of living, but nothing has been said about the unfair standing charges that see communities like mine on Ynys Môn pay £58 a year more than the UK average. On the cost of energy, one way to offer families immediate relief is to cut VAT on energy bills and review unfair standing charges.
The Budget has not addressed a travesty: Wales is a net exporter of energy, yet 25% of all Welsh households are in fuel poverty. To change that, Wales should have powers over the Crown Estate, equivalent to those in Scotland, so that the millions generated in profit from our natural resources can be returned to our communities, rather than going to Whitehall. Money for the NHS in the Budget is always welcome, but this money must be put into context. The lowest day-to-day spending increases from recent Westminster Governments for Wales’s public services have come from Labour.
Today was another missed opportunity for this Government to deliver for Wales. Classifying High Speed 2 and Oxford-Cambridge rail as “England and Wales projects” is denying Wales £4 billion. Rail spending per capita in Wales stands at £307, while in England the figure is £432. That is a clear injustice that the Government have failed to address today.
The leaking and briefing in the run-up to the Budget, and today’s unprecedented early publication of the OBR’s “Economic and fiscal outlook”, has made a mockery of the process. The speculation has caused unhelpful volatility for businesses and the markets. Uncertainty about borrowing costs for business and Government, and delays to interest rate cuts, are undermining the growth that our public services need, and provide no stability for businesses to flourish. That comes at a time when businesses in Wales are already suffering from the incoming hit of inheritance tax, which, it is estimated, will cost more than 9,000 jobs in Wales, yet the Treasury still refuses to conduct an impact assessment specifically for Wales. Today’s announcement does not take away any of the financial burden that our family farms feel. Today, I have received a message saying that Welsh farmers facing the terrible consequences of the inheritance tax are actually considering taking their own lives. That is the reality of this Government’s attack on our family farms.
Measures on the cost of living are welcome. However, despite the Budget’s policies, living standards and real household disposable income are negatively impacted by this Budget, as shown by the OBR. A rise in the minimum wage is welcome for the workers who keep our public services and local economies running, but without action on national insurance, small businesses will struggle to afford the increase. That issue is especially relevant for us in Wales, as the latest job figures show that Wales has the steepest increase in unemployment of the UK nations. To avoid further losses, we needed the Budget to support both workers and our small businesses.
Ms Billington
I am interested to know whether the hon. Lady welcomes the fact that the youth guarantee will benefit hundreds of young people in the Ynys Môn constituency. It will give free support for apprenticeships for the under-25s. That will help small and medium-sized businesses that want to recruit and train young people in Ynys Môn.
Llinos Medi
I am grateful for the opportunity to answer that question. Small businesses are the majority of our economy in Wales. While it is extremely important that they can offer apprenticeships, they need to be able to afford to employ people, and we need a skilled workforce if we are to give apprentices training opportunities. If that skilled workforce is not in place, apprentices will not have the same training opportunities. We need the whole package. National insurance changes have had a detrimental impact on small businesses in Wales, and we need a more strategic vision if we are to support small businesses.
The Chancellor’s Budget statement will have only compounded the confusion in Welsh households and businesses about what the Government’s plan means for them. The truth is that Labour today has not offered any hope for the people of Wales.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I commend the Chancellor on her statement, which sets out that this Labour Government are committed to building a stronger, more secure economy, to protecting and investing in our NHS, to reducing the national debt, and to taking measures to drive down the cost of living. My constituents in Stratford and Bow will welcome so many of the measures that the Chancellor has announced today—not least the measures on investment in our energy security, which will bring bills down, and on free apprentice training for small businesses. Some 6,500 small and medium-sized enterprises in Stratford and Bow can take that up. We also have an increase in the minimum wage for 18 to 20-year-olds, an increase in the living wage, a renewed commitment to Ukraine, and the wealthiest paying their fair share.
I will speak in particular on the important decision to abolish the Tories’ two-child benefit cap. That delivers on our defining moral mission, which is to cut child poverty. The Chancellor today set that mission out in her statement with clarity and conviction, and with reference to Labour values. Appalling rates of child poverty in communities across our country are a moral stain that should shame every Member of this House. The British public want us to bring down child poverty, but they also want the return of a social contract, in which each of us asks what we can do for our country or state, not what our state can do for us.
Child poverty continues to blight our communities in Stratford and Bow. Whether we are talking about Labour’s breakfast clubs, the free school meals provided by the Labour Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, or the Chancellor’s extensive package today, it is Labour politicians who are leading the way, governing according to our values, and unpicking years of devastating Tory austerity.
In east London, our landscape has changed dramatically over the past two decades. The Olympic legacy has made east London the best part of the UK for social mobility and opportunities for young people. For the next generation of children growing up in Stratford and Bow, their background will not hinder their opportunity to succeed or excel. As a proud east Londoner by birth, I have seen that at first hand, and I know what the promise of London means to families like mine. There are more opportunities, but that does not negate the fact that we have some of the highest levels of children growing up in poverty.
Tragically, almost half of the children in Stratford and Bow are growing up in poverty. All the evidence shows that that experience produces poorer educational outcomes, physical and mental health challenges, shorter life expectancy, higher rates of infant mortality and childhood illness—the list goes on. Shamefully, that problem grew under the last Tory Government. The previous Parliament was the first on record during which living standards fell, and the Tories should be ashamed that that was their legacy. We will never forget that it was the working people in Britain who suffered the most from the Conservatives’ fiscal sabotage; they put their friends and profits before the British people. My constituents are still paying the price in their bills, their mortgages and their rents, all of which soared, while they worked harder than ever to battle the cost of living.
Let me put a human face to this damning failure. I received an email from a constituent, who said:
“I want to do right by my son and provide him the stability, care, and life he deserves. But right now I feel like I’m drowning, despite trying my hardest.”
I have read countless emails like that, and I have heard many more stories to that effect during my constituency surgeries. It bears repeating: the last Parliament was the first on record in which living standards fell. This is the legacy that we inherited. Families trying their very hardest are still floundering, still drowning.
Every child deserves safety and stability, which is why I am proud to see this Government act so decisively in abolishing the two-child benefit cap. It is a step that will make a huge difference to some of the most vulnerable families in my constituency. It will deliver security and stability to our very youngest citizens, regardless of the shape of their families, giving them the best start in life, and ensuring that they grow up in a Britain that cares for them, and to which, in time, they will contribute their talents.
When it comes to tackling insecurity, there is so much that this Government are already doing. There is so much that we have achieved in our first year in office—on employment rights, on renters’ rights, and in our schools—which is already transforming the lives of working people in Stratford and Bow. Now we are going further, following the evidence and introducing the single most cost-effective intervention for the benefit of our country’s most vulnerable children. No child should grow up in poverty. That is the resolve of this Labour Government, who are showing serious leadership. This is a decisive departure from the austerity and doom of Budgets past, and a rebuke to the seductive sophistry of populists on the right and the left—those who believe that we can balance the books on blame, and those who ignore the financial market, economists and experts at their peril. The populists’ false promises of hope are based on the Willy Wonka school of imagination, not rooted in financial reality or financial literacy. We have seen this before, in the disastrous Truss Budget. If it was left to Farage or the Greens, we would be right back there, and no amount of hypnosis can make the British public forget that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Lady should refer to colleagues not by name, but by constituency. She will, perhaps, think carefully when referring to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage).
Uma Kumaran
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Once more, the challenge of delivering for Britain falls to the party of working people, the Labour party. This Budget is a Labour Budget. It will cut waiting lists, tackle the national debt, prioritise cost of living pressures, and put working people first. On behalf of the 4,470 children and their families in my constituency who will be helped by the lifting of the two-child benefit cap, I thank the Chancellor for the measures she has announced today, and I am very proud to support this Budget.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Let me begin by drawing attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, not because I believe there is a conflict, but because it illustrates the fact that I am one of those sadly rare individuals in the House who have spent the last 30 years owning and building a business. Hopefully, it also illustrates that I know whereof I speak.
I sincerely wish, on behalf of my employees and my constituents, that I could welcome today’s Budget. Before I am a Conservative, I am a British citizen, and I want the country to win. All of us should hope that any Budget, delivered by any Chancellor of any party, will put the country on a sound footing for a prosperous future. Sadly, today’s Budget was, to me, most redolent of the omnishambles Budget of 2012. We have to admit, as a party, to mistakes that we have made in the past. That Budget attempted to be politically smart to satisfy the Government’s Back Benchers, but in the hours and days that followed, it quickly unravelled, and I must tell Labour Members that I think exactly the same will happen with this Budget, because it is full of contradictions and incoherences in seemingly small areas. Take electric vehicles. I declare an interest, as the driver of an electric vehicle. The Government are pumping money into subsidising the roll-out of charging—indeed, there are grants for take-up—but the pence per mile being charged will discriminate against particular groups who need their cars, such as the disabled and the elderly, and against those in rural constituencies, who will be seriously disincentivised. It will also have a psychologically damaging impact on people who are thinking about buying an electric vehicle.
Another of those areas is the housing market. We seem to think that an attack on landlords and the higher end of the market will not have an impact on the rest of the market. I am afraid that Labour Members will hear their constituents squealing, given the inflated prices in the capital, and I think that measures on housing, too, will unravel pretty quickly.
The Chancellor said that she wants to encourage co-operatives and employee ownership, yet she has dealt a hammer blow to employee ownership by reducing by 50% the tax incentives for owners to transfer businesses to their employees, so we will see less of it.
Much was made of the apprenticeship changes and the roll-out of nurseries. That is great, but hidden in the Blue Book is a £7.5 billion hit to students and an overall reduction in per pupil funding in education. All of these things will be revealed in the days to come.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend about the inherent contradictions. Would it be fair to characterise this Budget as the left hand not knowing what the further left hand is doing?
Kit Malthouse
That is a very good way of putting it. The other way of putting it is to say that there is a huge attempt to gaslight the country and, I am afraid, Labour Members about what is actually being proposed.
Let me give another example. We are told that the Government are trying to encourage business investment, yet the Blue Book contains a £1.5 billion reduction in incentives for business investment. The contradictions are clear, and I urge Members to read the Blue Book, because the Chancellor is relying on us not reading the leaked book. Sometimes it is quite impenetrable, and sometimes it is quite difficult to understand, but there are some key things that I want to point people to, if I may.
First, I ask Members to turn to paragraph 1.3 of the executive summary, which tells us that, contrary to what the Chancellor said, debt will rise over the next few years. Debt moves from being
“95 per cent of GDP this year and ends the decade at 96 per cent of GDP, which is 2 percentage points higher than projected in March”.
That was the first thing she said that was incorrect.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Obviously, the Labour briefing says how much the previous Conservative Government borrowed over their period in office, but given that we inherited a situation where £1 in every £4 of public spending was being borrowed, it took a considerable period of austerity to get annual borrowing down. During that borrowing, we accumulated a lot of extra debt.
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend is exactly right. It is worth remembering that if we had not gone through a period of austerity post the financial crash and the mess that we inherited, we would not have been able to rescue the economy during covid. We would not have had the headroom that allowed us to re-leverage the country in emergency circumstances. I wish that we now had the same foresight.
Paragraph 3.13 of the Blue Book points out that, in the OBR’s view, there is nothing in this Budget that will do anything for growth. The OBR has declined to revise its previous output predictions because the Budget does nothing for growth.
Finally, the fourth bullet point in paragraph 1.28 points out that the tax-to-GDP ratio will become the highest it has ever been in this country and will constrain business incentives for the future. I urge colleagues to read the Blue Book—the truth lies therein.
We find ourselves in a position where we have a Budget that is trumpeting itself as a triumph, but which is nevertheless producing the highest tax rate of all time, completely flat and anaemic growth, and inflation and interest rates—they are in the Blue Book—that will be higher for longer than they otherwise would have been. The outlook has worsened since March, to the extent that the OBR makes a point of it.
Yuan Yang
I, too, very much enjoy reading the Blue Book. While we are talking about our favourite passages, I wonder what the right hon. Gentleman makes of page 29, which says that
“persistent weakness in productivity growth relative to the pre-financial crisis period is more likely to reflect underlying structural trends.”
What was going on in the 2010s that meant that the structure of the UK economy was so bad?
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Lady raises a very good point, which I will come on to shortly.
All of this points to the fact that, let us be honest, this is not actually a Budget about growth. I only left the Chamber for half an hour to have a cup of tea, and all the speeches that I have heard from those on the other side of the House—the “far left” side, or whatever it might be—have been about redistribution. They have all been about how pleased Labour Members are at the redistribution that is going on. That is fine, but I wish their Front Benchers would be honest about what they are trying to do, because they are sacrificing the prospect of future growth for the economy in order to tick the box on Labour Members’ political demands about redistribution. That is fine, and we have been here before. As hon. Members have said, we have been through most of these scenarios before. I am only just old enough to remember, but it happened in the 1970s. That was when we last had an openly redistributive Government—forget Tony Blair, because he was not about that—and we saw what happened to growth as a result.
To me, four things were broadly missing from this Budget. First, there very obviously is no governing philosophy of the political economy that any of us can discern. There is no plan or strategy. There is maths, there are inputs and outputs, and there is political box-ticking, but there is no sense of what kind of economy we are trying to build. There was a nod towards it in the desire to review the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts, but that is really about trying to keep the lobby groups in the City happy. There is no plan to build an energetic economy.
Secondly, as has been said by a number of Opposition Members, there is no comprehension of how this Government—and I have to say, sadly, previous Governments—have damaged the return on risk. A number of Members have said that capitalism relies on risk. People go out there to invest, to risk their own money and to buy businesses, and they do that calculating the return they are going to get. If we continue to tax that return, to regulate that return and to make that return less attractive, fewer and fewer people will take that risk. If we want a scale-up economy that takes advantage of the scientific and technological inventions that we are so good at producing, we have to reduce the impositions we put on risk and make it worth while.
Thirdly, we did not have any talk about frictional taxes. The Chancellor was trumpeting growth this year, but the only reason we had a bump in growth this year was the closing of the stamp duty window, when people rushed—
Kit Malthouse
I will not give way, because I am running out of time. People rushed to fill the void, and we saw a bump in growth in the first half of the year, but since then it has been tailing off. We have to focus on the fact that frictional taxes do enormous damage.
Finally, we are at the bottom of an ellipse in human achievement, particularly in this country. If we do not get capitalism right in the UK to take advantage of that, as we did during the Victorian era, we will not build wealth for the centuries of the future, and we or our children will not live off the profits of this period.
Chris Evans (Caerphilly) (Lab/Co-op)
The two groups in society most affected by poverty are the young and the old. I think that that speaks to Labour party values. Harold Wilson once said that our party and our movement is
“a moral crusade or it is nothing.”
That is what separates us from the Opposition parties. The simple fact is that I do not buy the Liberal Democrats’ reinvention as the cuddly leaders of social mobility, especially when their leader sat in the coalition Government that oversaw austerity. Equally, I do not believe that the Tories yet understand what they did to the economy, and in particular to the people they plunged into poverty. That is the real legacy of the Tory Government.
I think the important thing is that we are supporting young people. It is amazing today that we are allowed to say that 450,000 children will be lifted out of poverty. That is an achievement in itself, but we are also with them on their journey. We are ensuring a youth placement for the long-term unemployed aged between 18 and 21, and ensuring that small businesses can give them apprenticeships. Those are important achievements. Furthermore, it is amazing that we have been able to raise the state pension limit for so many pensioners, who for so long froze under the Tory Government and had to make a choice between heating and eating. We are not talking about these things in the abstract; they are actually happening in constituencies such as mine.
However, I think this is our proudest achievement, and the one thing the Chancellor should be remembered for. Last September, I chaired a meeting in Caerphilly of all the pensioners affected by the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, and I wrote to the Chancellor to ask for the £2.3 billion in its investment fund to be transferred to them immediately. I am proud to be standing here today while a Labour Government are bringing about that legacy—for these people worked underground and kept the country moving; they knew intolerable suffering from the industrial diseases they had after they finished work. These are the people who made Britain great, and we should honour them.
We have heard all sorts of blame today for the problems we have, but it comes down to one thing: for 40 years, we have been in the grip of a failed economic theory, and we see it still today. We hear all the time that we can cut taxes and keep public services at the same level or improve them, and that there are no consequences of that, but there is only one outcome: more borrowing. That went on under previous Governments over and over again, but eventually we have to pay the piper. [Interruption.] I hear Opposition Members chuntering from a sedentary position, so I give way.
Lincoln Jopp
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. What is his message to the people who have been made unemployed since the Labour party came to power?
Chris Evans
If the hon. Gentleman asks me a specific question, I will answer it. What does he mean? This is what I am talking about—this is the reason we are where we are. We are sitting on a debt mountain and we have to pay the piper. [Interruption.] He says that unemployment is rising. In what specific sector? Give me a sector. No; so we are just talking in the abstract.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The number of jobs lost in hospitality since last year’s Budget, just over a year ago, exceeds 110,000 as a result of the Chancellor’s choices.
Chris Evans
To be honest, it is a bit rich for the Conservatives to talk about job losses. In the 1970s—[Interruption.] Let me give the hon. Gentleman a history lesson. In the 1970s, they said that unemployment would never reach 1 million. Under the Tories, in the golden years of Thatcher and Major, unemployment reached 3 million—3 million people unemployed. Let us not forget that they also moved most of those unemployed people on to incapacity benefit. If we are talking about the benefit bill, it actually rests at the door of the party opposite—that is the truth. More people claimed incapacity benefit under the Tory Government. They failed to bring about an economic plan. Those people lost their jobs because of heavy industry leaving. They did not plan for that or bring anything about; they just put people on the scrapheap. That is why we have the problems we have today.
The fact is—[Interruption.] Sorry, I did not catch what the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) said. Does want to make an intervention? I do not mind. It is the third one I have taken.
Lincoln Jopp
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way a second time. The Chancellor said on Sky News, “It’s on me now.” I would be grateful if he could set a date for when this Government are going to take responsibility for the country. I have plenty of things I could be doing in Spelthorne, so I will go away and come back when he is prepared to be accountable and take responsibility for the state of the nation under this Government.
Chris Evans
When I was elected in 2010, all I ever had whenever I spoke was people saying, “Apologise.” Why do the Tories not apologise for the mess we find ourselves in now? Let us be fair and start from there. We have had 14 months; the party opposite had 14 years.
Chris Evans
Yes, we are in charge and we are taking the action we need to take. I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman wants us to do. Does he expect us to stand there and do nothing, or to walk away? Is that what he wants? At the end of the day, this is going nowhere. What we need to talk about are the fundamental problems.
We have heard a lot of analysis from the Opposition Benches about what is wrong, but what are we to do? We have to grasp the nettle. The fact is that net zero is here. We hear a lot of Members on the Opposition Benches saying, “Net zero is causing us problems.” The simple fact is that it is here and there are countries that are way ahead of us. We have an opportunity to be a green superpower. We can invest in nuclear energy. We can invest in tidal power. We can invest in renewables and carbon capture technology. These are the waves of the future, along with AI. This is where the jobs will come from. This is where the growth will come from. We have to pick winners, but we have to have the political will as well.
I have visited a number of companies in my constituency and the issue they have is energy bills. Captiva is a very successful spa and Team Rees Gym is also very successful. Both have talked to me about energy bills. I welcome the reduction in energy bills of £150 on average and £300 for the most impoverished, but I would like to see some sort of deal on energy for businesses to ensure that their costs come down and they can carry on competing. I welcome the increase in the minimum wage, but I also ask the Chancellor for some help for small and medium-sized businesses, so that they can carry on employing people and producing apprenticeships.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I wholeheartedly agree about the appalling damage done by the Conservatives to our economy over 14 years. I wonder whether he would also mention the significant benefit to both employers and employees of the freezing of rail fares, which will make an enormous difference in my community. We have a net input of people commuting into Reading, but like Caerphilly we also have many people who commute to London and other destinations on the railway line. Many residents will benefit, and many employers will also benefit through the increased labour mobility.
Chris Evans
I absolutely agree, and I wish the Conservatives would apologise. It is quite simple: freezing rail fares mean that people can get work easier and can commute from places like Reading; it will bring money to the shops, restaurants and everywhere else. It is a really important move for social mobility, and will allow more people to travel from Reading to London, too.
I would say one thing in caution. I still do not understand why we have a Budget in November. I ask that the Treasury move the Budget to April, at the end of the financial year, so that businesses can plan from there and we do not have the speculation we have seen over the past couple of months.
In conclusion, I support the Budget and I support what we are doing. I am sure that in years to come, we will look back on this Budget as one of the more significant.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I have listened carefully to the Chancellor, and while the Budget contains many claims, it offers little reassurance to my constituents, who will continue to feel the impact of decisions announced today.
Epsom and Ewell is home to fantastic hospitality businesses, from independent cafés such as Charlie & Ginger to charming local pubs such as the Penny Black in Leatherhead. Only last week, I had the pleasure of pulling pints at the Jolly Coopers, a fantastic community venue in Epsom. Hospitality businesses are still reeling from the increase in employer national insurance contributions announced in the previous Budget—a rise that has placed real strain on already tight margins.
The Liberal Democrats want to see an emergency VAT cut of 5% for hospitality, accommodation and attraction businesses until April 2027, funded by a new windfall tax on big banks that would raise £30 billion. A transformative measure like that would have driven footfall, eased pressure on prices and given our high streets the breathing space they desperately need. Instead, bankers are celebrating today, as there was not a single new tax on bank profits despite those profits having doubled in the past five years.
Middle-income earners in my constituency are being squeezed from every direction, with mounting household costs, spiralling food prices and eye-watering rail fares just to get to work, and now this Government are piling on yet another burden with the freeze on income tax thresholds. Let us call it what it is: a stealth tax that drags more people into paying more when their wages are only just catching up.
If that was not enough, the Government’s cut to the pension salary sacrifice scheme shows no regard for the longer-term consequences on people’s future pensions. It is fundamentally wrong to disincentivise pension saving, especially when so many have already been forced to cut back during the cost of living crisis. How do this Government expect working people to save responsibly for retirement when they are effectively being taxed for planning ahead? It is hard to see how this measure will not affect ordinary people.
Then there is the question of household energy bills, which the Government can and should be doing more to bring down. The UK continues to pay some of the highest electricity and gas prices in Europe. It is welcome that this Government have partly implemented the Liberal Democrat proposal of removing the renewables obligation levy from bills, but we would like to see the Government go further and break for good the link between gas and electricity prices.
All this comes as the Chancellor herself has acknowledged the economic impact of Brexit on our public finances. Instead of squeezing families and savers even further, could the Government not finally commit to growing the economy by repairing the damage of the previous Conservative Government’s botched Brexit deal, starting with negotiating a new UK-EU customs union? That is the responsible way forward, not continuing to squeeze those who are already struggling to make ends meet.
St Helier hospital is literally crumbling. Large windows are held together by masking tape and corridor floors are sinking into the ground. This is simply unacceptable, and has been going on for years. NHS staff are left to treat patients in abysmal conditions. Today, the Government did not say anything about the delayed new hospitals programme promised to patients or pledge new investment so that we can go further and faster on tackling the patient backlog. What does that say to staff and patients who are already crying out for help?
Frontline NHS services urgently need support, and taking certain appointments and treatments out of hospitals could help to reduce waiting times and staff pressures. That is why a national eye health strategy is a necessity; not only would it take the heat off one of the busiest out-patient departments in NHS hospitals by identifying opportunities for eyecare in the community, but it would deliver a true partnership between qualified optometrists and ophthalmologists while setting out a clear, long-term plan for eyecare.
Community health services are always welcome, and so I look forward to the roll-out of the 250 new neighbourhood health centres announced today, but we cannot ignore the fact that GP wait times are through the roof. For those health centres to work, we urgently need proper investment to ensure that everyone can see a GP within seven days and that staff feel supported. The Government cannot pick and choose which parts of healthcare they invest in when the people the Chancellor wants to get back into work need to be fit and healthy to do so.
I am disappointed in the lack of support for hospitality businesses and that the Chancellor is punishing working people trying to save for retirement, and I am disappointed that our hospitals have been left in disarray.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor and her team for a very welcome Budget. This is our Government’s second successive Budget, and it is focused on addressing the cost of living. It will ensure that everyone pays their fair share towards public services, and it invests in communities up and down the country. I will focus mainly on the cost of living, defence and overseas development aid.
As Members will be aware, many people across our country are facing great challenges to meet the cost of essentials. Food banks should be a thing of the past. Through this Budget, the Government are working towards making them a thing of the past by focusing on getting children out of poverty and getting young people into work through apprenticeships, and by bringing down energy costs. I strongly believe that prevention is far better than cure. The Government know that that is so, which is why they are investing in and focusing on early family help and early intervention, and lifting the two-child benefit cap, which is a significant measure.
I would hope the whole House would agree that no child should go hungry or without basic necessities, but from what I have heard from Conservative Members, I am not so sure that is the case. To those Members I say: child poverty damages the UK economy in the long term and makes those children less likely to perform as well as their peers in education and employment. Lifting the two-child benefit cap is, therefore, better for the economy. It will break the cycle of disadvantage and deprivation, and improve the life chances of children nationwide, wherever they are experiencing child poverty.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I want to confirm my party’s support for the Government’s change to the two-child benefit cap. Child poverty levels in Northern Ireland are some of the highest in all of the United Kingdom; between 30% and 35% of children are in poverty. This change will bring them out of poverty and mean a better life for people. My party agreed with the amendment on the two-child benefit limit put forward by the SNP to the King’s Speech, so today is good news for us and for those children in poverty in Northern Ireland.
Janet Daby
I thank the hon. Member for his support for the Chancellor’s Budget and the lifting of the two-child benefit limit. I agree with what he said.
I remind Members what my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) said: 70% of children in poverty have parents who are in work. Children are not in poverty because their parents are not working. This Government are doing everything they can to lift children out of poverty. I also remind Members about the Children Act 1989, which states that the welfare of the child is paramount. If memory serves me correctly, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs refers to food. Getting children out of poverty means ensuring that no child goes hungry and that children have their basic needs met. This Government are very much committed to that, which is why I am delighted that the measure is in the Chancellor’s Budget.
Matt Rodda
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Is she ready to move on to the importance of breakfast clubs? Last week, I had the pleasure of welcoming the Prime Minister and the Education Secretary to Reading, where they visited a breakfast club providing excellent support to many children. The programme to expand them is really valuable, as it will invest in our young people and make huge differences to families. It will also help employers by helping mums and dads to get to work earlier.
Janet Daby
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I will indeed come to breakfast clubs—how could I miss them out?
The Resolution Foundation has estimated that scrapping the two-child limit would bring 330,000 children out of poverty and prevent a further 150,000 children from falling into poverty over the course of this Parliament. Children in my constituency will therefore have an improved standard of living, which is exactly what I want for them, just as Labour Members—and others, I am sure—want for their children. In fact, it is estimated that in Lewisham East, 3,530 children’s experience of relative child poverty will be reduced.
That builds on the vital work already begun by this Government, including on expanding access to free school meals, opening free breakfast clubs in every primary school and investing in historic amounts of affordable and social housing. Alongside that, we have the recently announced freeze of rail fares and prescription prices.
Every child deserves to be free from poverty and the effects of poverty. For far too long, successive Conservative Governments allowed child poverty to skyrocket; this Government will not. As a result of that failure, almost a fifth of children in my constituency grow up in poverty, but with the policies announced today, it is evident that the Labour Government are tackling child poverty as the moral imperative that it is.
Lincoln Jopp
Does the hon. Member acknowledge that whether parents get their money from income or from benefits, the Government, having inherited 2% inflation, have taken it up to 3.6%, which reduces the value of that pound in parents’ pockets?
Janet Daby
Parents want to provide for their children. Parents make choices, and the Government are making choices to support parents. We are doing that by lifting the two-child limit; Opposition Members should support that. We must not forget that these announcements have been made possible by making tough choices. Following the previous Government’s mismanagement, the nation was faced with an appalling fiscal situation.
I turn to defence. The Government are investing in capital investment over the course of the Parliament to kick-start the rebuilding of our armed forces, which is absolutely necessary when we consider how unrest in Europe is coming closer to our shores every day.
Since 2010, economic growth in my constituency of Lewisham East has lagged 30% behind the national average—that trend has been repeated in many other regions. The investment that will support councils and communities across the UK is therefore desperately needed.
Finally, as a member of the International Development Committee, I turn to international development. The UK has been at the forefront of global efforts in particular to prevent violence against women and girls, to promote peace and co-operation between different ethnic and religious groups, and to support the economic development of communities across the world. I am therefore pleased to see that paragraph 4.61 of the Red Book says:
“The government remains committed to restoring ODA spending to 0.7% of Gross National Income”
as their fiscal forecasts continue to improve. I am pleased that we are still focused on that, so that we can promote overseas the values and rights that we enjoy here in the UK.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Expectation management is normally deployed because something is not so great. The scene is set that things are going to be really bad, so that when the day arrives, people think, “Actually, that thing we thought wouldn’t be so good is actually quite good.” However, the expectation management around this Budget has been six months of doom, gloom and terror. My constituents and everyone I know has been dreading what would come out on 26 November. Worse than that, we have seen crashing business confidence and the floating of taxes of all different shapes and forms. I am surprised that we have not seen a tax on taxes themselves being floated by the Chancellor or her Department in recent months. We saw a U-turn on the Budget before it was announced, and then an announcement on the Budget half an hour before the Budget was even delivered.
Luke Akehurst
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it was not a U-turn, but that there were better economic statistics that meant that the hole the Chancellor was trying to fill was smaller? People on both sides of the House should welcome the numbers being better. I find it quite bizarre that anyone would attack the Chancellor for finding herself in a better situation. It would be worse for our economy and all of us, including our constituents, would be worse off if we had had to look down the barrel of any change to the headline rates of income tax, quite aside from our manifesto pledges.
Dr Spencer
I suggest the hon. Member looks at the OBR report, which, as I mentioned, was released half an hour before the Chancellor stood up and which goes into detail about why that statement is entirely false.
Surrey is one of the biggest contributors to taxation revenue. It is my constituents who will be particularly hit, if not targeted, by the Budget measures. I hear their frustrations all the time about the amount of money we contribute and the lack of reciprocity when it comes to investment in Surrey so we can continue to be an economic powerhouse. My constituents worry about the future, particularly about what the Budget means for opportunities for their kids and about the debt that we are laying on them because of decisions made today. Sadly, this Budget and the one before it show that Labour is totally unable to rein in spending. We have yet another Budget of higher welfare paid by tax.
There has been a lot of focus in this debate on poverty and childhood poverty. That is absolutely right; it is a really important subject to tackle. It is important that we help all families, and everyone, out of poverty in the best way, but we fix and work towards resolving child poverty by ensuring that people have jobs and by focusing on the tax—
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member therefore agree on the point in this Budget around investing £16 million in a cutting-edge science, technology, engineering and maths centre in my constituency to enable us to repair the post-Conservative scarring that we felt as a community, as we saw the hollowing out of our manufacturing sector?
Dr Spencer
If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I do not know the specific details regarding her constituency, but what I can say on the broader, macroeconomic details is that the reduction in employment as a consequence of national insurance contributions changes means that there are more children with parents who do not have jobs.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
Will the hon. Member address this point that in the case of the six in 10 children who are in families affected by the two-child benefit limit, those families have jobs? Will he address the situation of my constituent who lost her husband? She was working, he was working and they had three kids together. They were working and still they were affected by the two-child benefit limit. It is facile in the extreme to talk about just getting a job as the route out of poverty—it is not.
Dr Spencer
I am so pleased that the hon. Member raised the point about people who are in work but still poor. I will come on to that in relation to tackling child poverty, so if she waits a second, I will respond to her questions in full.
For the moment, I want to concentrate on the more macro costs point. Food inflation has gone up to 4.9%. Food costs are a big chunk of daily spending, especially for people who are poorer. That is a direct result of decisions to raise employer national insurance contributions. It turns out that taxes on businesses get passed on to working people.
Dr Spencer
Who knew, indeed.
Energy costs are a big chunk of everybody’s outgoings, and we are still waiting for them to come down. Property costs also are a big chunk of people’s outgoings, and this is reducing and putting more pressure on the private rented sector, particularly landlords. The measures in the Budget today around the increased taxation on property revenue will be passed on to the consumer—that is, people who are renting—adding yet another cost pressure. I wish Labour Members would think through what happens not just in step one of a Budget intervention but in steps two, three and four in relation to the impact on their constituents.
One way to deal with child poverty is to look at the cliff edges of the taxation system, including the wrapping down of universal credit when someone works for 28 hours. When the Work and Pensions Committee looked at in-work poverty costs—the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), who is in his place, was the Chair at the time—one of the things that really came out, through and through, was that lots of the families in difficulty were single-parent families and they struggled with the 28 hours’ provision because of childcare costs and the marginal benefit. We also need to look at cliff edges in relation to housing allowance and council tax. We need to get rid of the cliff edges to ensure that work always truly pays.
Also really important in helping child poverty is making sure that the child maintenance system works. There are plenty of families with a parent who should be supporting their child but is not doing so. That is absolutely scandalous and it needs to be fixed.
Lola McEvoy
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member that the child maintenance system needs reforming. Does he agree that, in 2010, it was wrong of the Conservative and Lib Dem coalition to introduce a £50 access fee for people who were trying to get the money that the absent parent of their child was refusing to pay? Was that a bad decision by his Government at the time?
Dr Spencer
I invite the hon. Member to look at the report that Parliament released on the reform of child maintenance, particularly on the barriers that were set up in the system, both in terms of direct and indirect payments. I think all of us across the House would agree that the child maintenance system needs reform.
The issue with the two-child benefit cap is that most, if not all, parents love their children and would like to have more children, should money, time and other things—[Interruption.] Okay, I stand corrected, but people make decisions when planning their families based on the resources they have, whether those are personal resources, time or money. It is fundamentally unfair to say to one group of people who are making difficult budgetary decisions in relation to having more children, “You’re going to be taxed more so that you can pay for other people who are not subject to those difficult budgetary decisions because they are not employed at the moment.” That is fundamentally not fair.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Dr Spencer
No, I am sorry. Other colleagues want to get in.
This Budget is unfair. Fairness is about honouring promises made and delivering on the Government’s responsibility to govern for all. Fairness is about making sure that opportunities are available to everyone, not just those who work hard, and that those who work hard to grasp them are not penalised for their efforts. Taxes should be used to improve security, services, growth and prosperity, not to garner political support. Fairness is not mortgaging away our children’s future on an ever-spiralling amount of debt.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Today we have heard from across the House where the divide in this debate really is. There is a train of thought on the Conservative Benches that if we continue to do what the Conservatives have done over the last 14 years, things will surely get better. Well, given the experience of the 14 years of the previous Government, that is madness. Things did not get better, and for working people in this country things got materially worse, so a different course is needed.
Given the range of difficult and competing interests that the Chancellor has had to face, which have been well rehearsed, I believe that this Budget provides balance and respite for working people. When taken in the round, the two-child benefit cap will help 6,000 children in my constituency. For all the talk of, “Well, if people just worked a bit harder, things would be better,” the fact is that 60% of those households have at least one person in work. These are people who are rolling up their sleeves and doing everything that has been asked of them, but they still cannot get on in life because of the wage levels in the jobs they occupy—many of which, by the way, are important and foundational for our economy.
The rail fare freeze, the bus fare cap and measures on energy bills, on prescription charges and on the minimum wage and national living wage will give people respite and ease things a bit.
What I want to talk about, though, is the thing that really made my heart sing as a co-operator in this House: the Chancellor of the Exchequer talking about co-operation and co-operative businesses at the Dispatch Box in the main Budget. Why is that important? It is important because for so long, even when the economy has grown, many working people have not been the beneficiaries of that growth. Many communities have been hollowed out and become more and more removed from the economies that they work to serve. We believe that co-operatives and mutuals provide that bridge. They are more sustainable and productive, and they treat their workers better. They have better pay differentials, and they invest in apprenticeships at a higher rate and so on. All the arguments are there, but we have been waiting for quite a long time for a Government who understand co-operatives, see the value of them and are willing to put something behind them.
The work being done to establish a co-operative development agency so that every region of the country can benefit is music to our ears. The work being done through the mutuals and co-operative business council—where those voices and interests around the country are being brought together with the support of the Department for Business and Trade and the Treasury—is essential for doubling the size of the co-operative economy in a way that can make a huge difference.
Of course, community ownership of local assets through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill will end those years of communities constantly fighting to at least keep what they have, and will mean that they can begin to look to the future and what they can build together. Co-operatives and mutuals, like every other business, rely on a thriving economy and a local community that has disposable income to spend in that local economy, so the business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure will be a big boon to our high streets, town centres and pubs and to many other parts of the economy.
It is no surprise that today the Co-operative Group has announced £1 billion of investment in the UK because it believes in the direction of the Government and the country—more importantly, it believes in the people of this country and wants to get behind them. I pay tribute to Shirine Khoury-Haq, the CEO of the Co-operative Group, for the work she does in driving that agenda. If anyone wanted to meet a business leader in this country who runs a tight ship financially from a business point of view, but also leads with her heart when it comes to social investment, they could do worse than looking at Shirine and her team at the headquarters in Manchester.
But we do need to go further. Our building society network and our credit unions have so much potential, but we can do much more with them. I say to every Member of this House that there are more members of building societies and credit unions than people who voted in the last general election, so they are quite an important constituency to look after and support. I know that the Minister is working hard on this issue. One very small change he could make would be to review the common bond, so that credit unions can grow, expand and offer a wider range of financial services to local communities.
There is a lot in the Budget on councils and support for them. I perceive this Budget almost as one that gives communities the right to survive, to get through what has been a difficult period and to have respite. The next challenge will be: how do these communities begin to thrive? How do working families stop worrying about every single paycheque because they are just about making ends meet and begin to think about a better future where they can thrive, really enjoy life and get the most from it? For many people, local neighbourhood services are the foundation of public services in their local area but, let’s be honest, for most parts of England, they have been eroded by pressures in adult social care, children’s services and temporary accommodation.
Whatever we think about our missions and ambitions as a Government—they are all important, of course—we also need to accept that if people open their front door and walk out on to the street and it does not feel and look better, we just will not get a hearing when we get to the ballot box the next time round. For many parts of our movement, the elections are coming pretty soon down the line, so I urge the Government to focus on that.
Let us celebrate the move to further devolution. Mayors will finally get the power to impose a visitor levy, which they have been asking for. We see even more capital investment going into our regions, further empowering mayors—that should be celebrated.
There is a lot in the Budget about investment in Britain plc, which is to be welcomed, but we need to be better at co-ordinating across Government. I have asked questions of a number of Departments, be it the Home Office about police vehicles purchased by local forces, the DWP about vehicles commissioned through the Motability scheme, or the Cabinet Office about the procurement of Government vehicles. There are no checks and balances to ensure that British vehicles are procured. Surely that is the simplest thing a Government can do—use the lever of procurement to ensure that we are supporting British jobs in our regions. On top of the good work that has been done, I urge the Chancellor to commission an urgent cross-Government review to ensure that we support British businesses across all procurement lines.
Lincoln Jopp
No one can doubt the hon. Member’s commitment to the people of Oldham. He is being very loyal to the Chancellor and her Budget. I have a simple question: if unemployment goes up in his constituency from today, before the local elections next year, will he resign?
Jim McMahon
Well, I think that would just make the unemployment situation worse, wouldn’t it? I am looking at the practical measures taken in the Budget. I am here to be helpful to the Government, not make matters worse.
I became an apprentice when I left school. I did not go to university; I went straight to work and earned a technical qualification. My two sons have followed the same route. That is a route for many working-class kids in the country. However, only 16% of apprenticeships are advertised in July and August, when kids are leaving school and looking for opportunities. The system is not geared towards helping young people to succeed. When we have a review of those not in employment, education or training and ask why so many people are out of work and not contributing to society, we will find that it is because the whole system is not geared towards supporting them in that endeavour. Today’s announcement of free apprenticeships up to the age of 25 could, if it includes a review of apprenticeships, be absolutely life-changing for tens of thousands of young people.
My final plea, in the seconds I have left, relates to HMRC mileage rates, which have not been reviewed for working people for 15 years. A social care worker who does home visits is on the minimum wage, but they are, in truth, subsidising HMRC for travelling between appointments. That is not right. The Department of Health and Social Care has already considered this, but will the Treasury take it on board, too?
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is important that we take account of the hard-working families who will be affected by Labour’s economic mismanagement, and that their voices are not drowned out by the political drama surrounding the Budget. To ensure that I heard directly from those I represent in South West Devon, I launched a survey ahead of the Budget to gather at first hand the views of as many constituents as possible. Almost 90% of those who responded told me that they were worried about Labour’s Budget, and it turns out that they had good reason. The 3,000-plus small businesses in South West Devon are suffering under the strain of Labour’s job-killing policies. The Resolution Foundation has warned that Labour’s hikes to national insurance contributions and the minimum wage will drive up the cost of employing a part-time, low-paid worker by 14%—the biggest jump on record. Increasing taxes without real spending cuts will undermine growth. I have heard in recent weeks that many people’s experience is that increased wages and national insurance, on top of higher costs, are choking SMEs in my constituency. That is why 75% of those I surveyed supported the Conservative policy of scrapping business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure. What a shame that policy did not feature in the Budget today. Indeed, 63.8% of my constituents want lower taxes, even if it means less Government spending—again, we did not see that today.
It is almost a year to the day since the Chancellor promised that she would not come back to the House with announcements of more borrowing or taxes, yet my constituents repeatedly expressed concerns that Labour would do exactly that. They did not believe the Chancellor’s hollow words, because they knew that Labour has never met a tax that it did not want to raise. Today, their concerns have been realised.
Let me be clear: the Chancellor’s fiscal mess is not a result of Brexit, covid, the Ukraine war, the fall of the Berlin wall or any other historical event; it stems from the Prime Minister and Chancellor’s inability to stand up to their Back Benchers. Spending on health and disability benefits alone is on track to hit £100 billion by 2030. My constituents know that the country cannot afford that. The Government have abandoned any meaningful reforms after a humiliating climbdown on their flagship welfare Bill.
The Chancellor’s decision to lift the two-child benefit cap is not a result of some newfound passion to tackle child poverty; plainly, it serves to throw some happy sweeteners to the Back Benchers who tore apart that flagship welfare Bill just a few short months ago. It has been clear from this debate—I have sat through almost the entire thing—that the policy is pretty much the only thing that Labour Members are excited about. My constituents do not want to lift the cap, nor does the country at large, but yet again it is party before country for Labour, and it is hard-working families who will pay. The Resolution Foundation has estimated that removing the cap in full will cost up to £3.5 billion in this Parliament. The country is in a fiscal black hole, and Labour keeps on digging, expecting hard-working families to fill that hole.
I will briefly comment on statistics on the two-child benefit cap. We have heard about its negatives, but there are a lot of statistics that those on the Government Benches have not mentioned. For example, the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that 70% of the poorest households subject to the two-child limit would see the gains from its reversal partially or fully wiped out by the household benefit cap. We have heard nothing about that. This flagship policy is not necessarily going to help the families who the Government seem to think it will.
The introduction of the two-child limit has had no significant effect on the proportion of third and subsequent children in England achieving a good level of development at age five, which is the cornerstone metric of the Government’s opportunity mission. Instead, the alternative side of that argument has been presented today. The IFS has also said that lifting the two-child limit is not a magic bullet, and other measures, such as supporting parents into quality jobs, are vital for reducing poverty in the long run. For half of those affected, the two-child limit significantly improves work incentives, so just removing the cap, as has been done today, does not actually help those whom we are seeking to support.
I represent a constituency in which defence is a really important part of the ecosystem. It is the future of our area, given what we are trying to do with Team Plymouth. However, we have still not seen the defence investment plan; it was due in the autumn, but we are rapidly approaching the winter. Big figures were announced, but I am waiting to see how amounts will be distributed. Plymouth was mentioned in the Chancellor’s speech today, but if one does a ctrl+f on the Budget document, it is not in there—except on something to do with place-based development.
On ISAs, I understand why the Government seek to push people towards stocks and shares, and there are compelling reasons to do with how much more money can be saved in that way. However, it is clear that this policy will result in a need for increased financial education. When the Opposition tried to get the Government to take financial education seriously during consideration of the Pension Schemes Bill, so that we can help people understand fully how to invest for their future, they were not interested in accepting our amendments.
I hope that the Government will not assume that it is down to banks to educate everybody on the difference between a stocks and shares ISA and a cash ISA. I like to think of myself as fairly financially literate, but even I struggled to put the effort into finding that out; as much as anything else, I struggled to find the time. I would love to make more money on my savings, but an advert on a bank website is not going to be good enough. I am interested to see what the Government will do to ensure that more people can benefit.
Chris Vince
I do not disagree with the hon. Member about the importance of financial education; I had a long rant about whether it should be in the maths curriculum. However, we have recently had a curriculum review that recognised the importance of financial education. This does not have to be a political point. Does she agree that financial education in schools is really important, and that it is one way that we could ensure financial literacy?
Rebecca Smith
Absolutely. Of course financial education in schools is important, as is a whole lot of education about life, budgeting and other things, but I am talking specifically about financial education for people in their professional years—in their 20s, 30s and 40s—who will be affected by changes to the ISA rules. They will potentially need help to make sure that they can still save effectively.
The last point I will talk about is the electric vehicle pay-per-mile policy, which will have a huge impact on rural communities, as has been said. It will also be a huge disincentive for any non-inner-city community. I represent an urban area on the outskirts of a city and the rural area around it, and a lot of my constituents—aside from the ones who have a drive and perhaps a detached house—are not able to have an electric vehicle. Pay-per-mile will disincentivise people to even aspire to have an electric vehicle in an area where it is a long drive to the supermarket, or to take their child to the swimming pool. I feel that pay-per-mile contradicts the Government’s obsession with electric vehicles. Perhaps they will speed up development of alternative fuels instead. I do not understand how they can dislike fossil fuels but at the same time disincentivise EV transition.
This Budget is completely out of step with the public. They wanted lower personal taxes and welfare spending cut. They wanted to see work pay. They wanted to see stamp duty scrapped, business rates abolished for retail, leisure and hospitality, and a £5,000 first job bonus—policies that would have meant tax cuts, and rewarded hard-working men and women—not the increase in welfare spending and the tax increases we have seen today to prop up some nice little pet projects of the Labour Government.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
This Labour Budget safeguards the priorities of the British people: protecting our NHS, reducing national debt, and easing the cost of living. There is no better lens through which to view them than the eyes of the younger generations, who will feel the greatest impact of the decisions that we make today. Of course people are concerned about their material lives, but they are also emotionally and philosophically worried about the long-term future of the country. In particular, there was the feeling, after 14 years of the Conservatives, that things were not getting better, and the worry that their children would not be as well off as them, and would not have the same, let alone more, opportunities. That is a primordial fear, as any parent will know, and we all agree that we should be taking action right here, right now, to build back up, so that this becomes a land fit for future generations. The Budget does that. It rebuilds this country in many ways, but I want to focus specifically on young people. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said that this Labour Government is on the side of kids and will back their potential.
Today I participated in an online assembly at Oakfield primary academy, just after the Chancellor’s speech. I am sure the children will be inspired to see this country’s first female Chancellor delivering such a brilliant Budget. As she said, she got involved in politics because the Conservatives under-invested in schools like hers, and she is, I am sure, someone with the long-term interests of young people at the forefront of her mind. It is excellent that the Chancellor is prioritising the youth guarantee, and the measures announced today are beginning to turn the tide against entrenched inter-generational unfairness.
This Government are unleashing the talent of all our young people, with £800 million over the next three years for the youth guarantee, guaranteeing every young person a place in college, an apprenticeship, or personalised job support; funding to make training for under-25 apprenticeships free for SMEs; increasing the minimum and national living wages; £5 million for libraries in secondary schools, on top of £10 million to ensure that every primary school in England has a library; and £18 million to upgrade playgrounds across the country. We are ending the two-child benefit cap, lifting 450,000 children out of poverty.
Lincoln Jopp
For the record, why did the hon. Member vote against lifting the two-child benefit cap when the SNP proposed it earlier?
John Slinger
I am a Labour MP and I vote with the Government—it is as simple as that.
Lifting 450,000 children out of poverty is the biggest reduction in child poverty over a Parliament since records began. That will positively affect 2,020 children in my constituency of Rugby. This investment is not just anti-poverty, but pro the prosperity and life chances of all our children. More broadly, the Budget has at its core investment in housing, infrastructure and skills. The Chancellor’s decisions ensure £120 billion in additional capital spending over this Parliament, with a 10-year infrastructure strategy, an NHS back on its feet after 14 years of the Conservatives in government, a benefits system that provides support for those who need it, and help into work for people who can work, as I saw on a recent visit to Rugby jobcentre. The Budget ensures a stable economy, with support for entrepreneurship, growth forecast to rise, and inflation and borrowing forecast to fall. We are transforming the business rates system to protect the high street, with permanently lower tax rates for eligible retail hospitality and leisure properties. That will affect around 1,090 properties in my constituency of Rugby alone. The Chancellor rightly asked everyone to contribute. We all share a responsibility—in this House, in boardrooms, in businesses of all sizes and in organisations —to invest in our young people, and I am glad that this Government are sending that clear message today.
Only on Monday, when one young person at Ashlawn school in my constituency asked about my views on the pension triple lock, I pointed out that while we must of course help pensioners—and we are doing so—when thinking about how to allocate resources most fairly, our young people have a very good claim for more support. So, if you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am calling for a youth triple lock: three measures beyond the youth guarantee that will focus attention on the needs and voices of young people. My suggestions would be free bus travel, inflation-beating maintenance loans for students and additional help for young people with housing, but that is for another day. We are going in the right direction, as this excellent Budget shows.
I am also pleased that the Budget stays true to what Government Members hold dear: our Labour values—values that put the priorities of the British people first.
Lincoln Jopp
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. I am a bit confused by his answer to my last intervention. Why was it a bad idea to lift the two-child benefit cap when the SNP suggested it, but a good idea now that his Chancellor suggests it?
John Slinger
The hon. Gentleman is a decent man and I like him a lot, but he seems a little fixated on this point. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken difficult economic and fiscal decisions so that she can lift the two-child cap, as well as doing many other things. We are getting child poverty down—I am proud of that and I will always support it.
We are protecting our NHS, reducing the national debt and borrowing, and improving the cost of living. To unleash the potential of our country, we must place the needs of young people ever higher up the political agenda, which I intend to do in this place. While some talk this great nation down, we get on with the job of building it back up and laying the foundations on which to grow in the long term, and, most importantly, enabling our citizens, especially our young people and future generations, to thrive and play their part in building a fairer and far more prosperous country for all.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
This Budget underlines the cost of a Labour Government who are making bad choices that are hurting working people. Once again, the Government talk about growth, but it is clear that the biggest growth that will come from the Budget is in people’s tax bills. This is a Budget that takes £12 billion from people who work or who have spent most of their adult lives working hard and doing the right thing, and gives it to people on benefits. It doubles down on the mistakes that the Chancellor made in last year’s Budget that have killed jobs, damaged our high streets and made our country poorer.
The proof is there for all to see in the OBR forecasts, which were helpfully published early. Unlike last year, when the Chancellor told the House that the OBR was going to back up her claims of a £22 billion black hole, but when we read the document it said nothing of the sort, today we could see the gaping chasm between the Chancellor’s claims and the reality contained in the report as she was delivering the Budget. The OBR is clear that it is downgrading growth forecasts not since Brexit or anything that happened under the last Government, but since March. These are downgrades under this Labour Chancellor, caused by this Labour Chancellor.
The Chancellor boasted that this year’s projections increase expected growth to 1.5%, which is still less than was being predicted at the time of last year’s Budget when she told us that 2025 would see 2% growth, but she was silent about the growth forecasts being slashed for every subsequent year of the forecasting period.
The OBR says that inflation will stay higher for longer. At a time when the cost of living is falling and inflation is at low levels in other countries, we are the outlier. That is the result of the Chancellor’s choices. It is clear that, despite the claims of the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) a few moments ago, debt will rise as a proportion of GDP, not fall. That is a direct result of the Chancellor’s extra borrowing.
It is also clear that the OBR expects the cost of that borrowing to be higher—to cost the public purse more money each year. While long-term borrowing rates have fallen for most major economies since July last year, the rate that we must pay on UK Government bonds has risen.
Mike Wood
I think the hon. Lady is extremely brave to come to that point so early, given the levels that bonds are still trading at.
The OBR report is clear that the extra cost of borrowing, which is not replicated in other major economies, amounts to an extra £3 billion a year by 2030—more than the OBR expected just in March. In short, we are paying what I understand the markets call a “moron premium” because of the Chancellor’s choices.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
While we are talking about bonds, does my hon. Friend agree that, given the fact that we have an unusually large amount of index-linked gilts in the market and inflation is running at a higher rate than it was when Labour came to power, the cost of paying off the debt is going up at a disproportionately fast rate, thanks to Labour’s policies?
Mike Wood
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. I would go slightly further and say that it is not about paying off the debt; it is purely about servicing additional borrowing. That has real consequences for working families.
Perhaps the most concerning part of the OBR’s report is in paragraph 1.9, which says:
“Growth in real household disposable income per person is projected to fall from 3 per cent”
last year. It is falling not to 2%, or even to 1%, but to one quarter of one per cent on average for the next five years.
Mike Wood
I will make a little progress; I can see the time.
The difference between 3% per year and 0.25% per year in growth in disposable income adds up to £2,700 less per family in disposable income because of the Chancellor’s choices.
We needed a Budget for jobs, but instead this was a Budget about saving the Prime Minister’s job by giving his mutinous Back Benchers the welfare rises that he forced them to vote against just last year. If the Government really wanted to support jobs, they would have undone some of the damage that the Chancellor did last year, particularly on hospitality.
A number of Members have raised the issue of hospitality and business rate reform. Before the election, the Chancellor was clear that business rates would be reformed, which meant that pubs, restaurants and cafés would have lower bills. Instead, the owners of cafés, pub landlords and restaurant owners saw their business rate bills more than double in April. We have heard today from the Chancellor that—because of the effects of revaluation and the fact that she has decided to go with a reduction of only 10p on the multiplier, instead of the 20p signalled when the Government introduced the legislation last year—when the new regime comes in, we will again see the bills for those pubs and cafés increasing, even though business rate bills have only just doubled.
This is a bad deal for hospitality. It will have a devastating impact on our high streets, and it is made only worse by the decision of the Chancellor to increase alcohol duties. That will hit pubs again, and make it more difficult for our pubs, our bars and our responsibly licensed venues to compete with supermarkets piling them high and selling them cheap.
Lincoln Jopp
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that we have lost, I believe, 90,000 jobs from the hospitality industry just since the last Budget? While I do my bit to try to save the British pub industry on my own, does he worry, as I do, that today’s Budget will just make it harder and harder for hospitality?
Mike Wood
I do not think such declarations are in my current entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but Members may wish to look at my historical declarations. I disclose that I have received some hospitality below the threshold from UKHospitality, the British Beer and Pub Association, the Campaign for Real Ale and the British Institute of Innkeeping. My hon. Friend is clearly right, although I think his figures are slightly out of date, because it is not 90,000 jobs that have been lost in hospitality; the latest figures from UKHospitality suggest that 111,000 jobs in hospitality have been lost since the Budget.
As the Safeguarding Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), indicated earlier, these jobs ought to be an opportunity for social mobility. Instead, the Chancellor’s choices have been destroying those opportunities. The Budget, the measures that have been announced today and the taxes she has been piling on businesses and working people across the country will continue to destroy other opportunities, making our communities weaker, our economy poorer, and our families less well off.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Indifference to poverty, as we have just heard, marks out the political divisions of our time. The task of restructuring our economy to ensure that those who serve and work hard are not exploited by profiteers and the powerful is our mission. Today, it is clear which side Labour is on. Leveraging resources from accumulated wealth, not simply income, must be the economic pivot that this Parliament determines to make. We should hold wealth accountable, not just the fruits of hard labour. That is why I welcome measures such as the surcharge on council tax.
As John Maynard Keynes said:
“The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones”,
such as the notion that the success of growth will trickle down to provide economic security. Generations have failed to receive that. Unlike the economic engineering we have seen today, economic neoliberalism has been a failed experiment that holds people back and holds people down in poverty. Some 14.5 million people now sit below the poverty line, and 4.5 million children sit in poverty. Tonight, 180,000 children will not sleep in their own bed, and 1 million children are in destitution and dependency, not given dignity or decency. We inherited that shameful legacy from those on the right.
Today is monumental: 450,000 children lifted out of poverty, 1,650 of them in my constituency. Scrapping the two-child limit is the right thing to do—it is the Labour thing to do—but we must go further. Another 80,000 are held back by the Tory benefit cap, and I trust that the child poverty strategy will ditch the cap and the ideology behind it. When a baby comes to York hospital with hypothermia, and when a mother begs me for formula because she has no milk, we must recognise the impact of pregnancy and baby poverty. It causes low birth weight, malnutrition and impeded development. From cold and damp homes, we get poor lung health. I therefore urge the Government to look specifically at women during pregnancy and at their babies, and to say that we will prioritise lifting them out of poverty, because it will make a difference to their life course.
As we seek to abolish child poverty here at home, I plead with the Government to recommit to 0.7% of GNI for overseas development aid. Every child’s life must be of equal worth, no matter where that child is born. Cutting aid will be catastrophic for infants, and we must not contemplate it. Instead, we must restore our commitment to 0.7%.
The moral injustice of the social determinants of poverty must be addressed. After a decade in this place, I have concluded that holding power and wealth in Westminster and Whitehall fails to realise the opportunities across the towns and cities of our country. A pound spent by a Government has a limited reach, but when infused with partnerships and people in localities, it stretches further and deeper into the solutions that can transform lives. The Government must trust our communities and invest to return better health, better education, better employment and opportunities for all. Today I challenge them to embark on a radical devolution of the nation’s resources to our communities, making finances work harder and reach further, restructuring services with transformational local partnerships and relationships.
I urge the Government to review the broad rental market area. Housing injustice is a major cause of poverty in York. The local housing allowance has fallen far below rental costs, to nearly 50%, and a review is essential, while more social housing is a priority. We must examine this issue. Enabling local revenue-raising is also critical, and after years of lobbying hard for it I welcome the tourism levy, which, at just the price of a cup of coffee, will raise £7 million for York.
I urge the Chancellor to look at cities such as York, because we are struggling. Our city may have an affluent core, but much is extracted, leaving it with a very high cost of living and a low-wage economy. Eight communities in York sit in the lowest quintile nationally, and the Government funding formulas are failing us across the board. We receive the lowest funding of any unitary authority but we are far from the most affluent, with one of the lowest settlements for health, schools, special educational needs and disability, police and fire. The cumulative impact has caused significant impediment. School heads who come to York cannot believe the inequity. We have far less than other areas for health and care, we need more police on our streets, and our brilliant Labour local authority is on its knees. Combined with decades of fiscal oversight, the cumulative impoverishment has driven a cultural change in York, and, sadly, the new fair funding formula is just not fair for our city. We are experiencing disadvantage, and I want the Government to look into this inequity in order to understand why the matrices are not working economically for our city and others like it and how the Treasury can rebalance them. I trust we can have a meeting to discuss that.
I believe that Labour can build a safe and secure economy, nationally and in my city, working for all. Addressing poverty, its causes and effects, must always be our driving force: keeping the elderly warm, giving disabled people dignity, and ensuring that child poverty is consigned to history. Today resets the moral purpose of politics, powerfully showing Labour on the side of families and communities, using our socialist roots to collectivise revenue to work for the common good. Poverty, in all its forms, destroys the hope that we long for and the opportunities that we need. Labour must always recognise that ending the injustice of poverty and inequality is our moral purpose, and the route to a strong economy.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
This Budget was dead on arrival. We were promised that the last autumn Budget was a once-in-a-generation event, but I suggest that the Chancellor may want to correct her record on that claim. Despite setting out to find growth, she has flatlined the economy and tanked employment. Indeed, we now know that Labour will raise taxes by more than any Parliament has raised them since the 1970s. All sectors are being impacted, not only those in hospitality but manufacturing and engineering—the sectors, and the organisations, that grow growth. Our hospitality sector and high streets are the backbone of my constituency, but the cost of doing business is spiralling out of control, not helped by the previous Budget, which hiked employer national insurance contributions and significantly reduced business rate relief, and by an energy policy that is crippling everyone from manufacturers to those in hospitality. Rather than helping businesses—for example, by axing business rates on our high streets, as those of us on the Conservative Benches are committed to doing—the Chancellor has offered them absolutely no ladder at all to get out of the hole that she has created for our small businesses.
A month or so ago, I held a roundtable at New Brook Street Deli in Ilkley in my constituency, when Ilkley Brewery, The Little Teahouse and many other businesses came along specifically to raise the challenges around increases in overheads, which they simply cannot pass on to their customers. This Budget does nothing at all to help them. Indeed, it almost seems like this Government look at those businesses as if they were separate from the families who work for them, but when we make it more expensive to employ someone, it is the workers who end up paying through lower wages, fewer hours or potentially having no job at all. Given that those in my area are subjected to council tax increasing by 10%, and that Labour-run Bradford council will increase it by a further 5% next year, there is less disposable income for people to spend.
This Budget has ignored the pleas of businesses to let them get on with the job that they want to do and achieve the growth that they aspire to achieve. The Chancellor has slashed investment allowances and pushed up fuel duty for every hard-working Brit in this country, and that is not the way forward for growth. Of course, the increase in fuel duty will negatively impact rural areas much more than others, because there are further distances to travel.
Then there is the challenge with inheritance tax, which has not really been addressed at all by the Chancellor today. Small family businesses, including family farms, got just one mention by the Chancellor today, despite the Government unleashing the most devastating tax changes in a generation on these businesses last year. The changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief are set to wreak havoc not only on big multinationals, but on small family businesses. Many farming businesses are going to be negatively impacted.
John Lamont
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about the flaws in this Labour Government’s Budget. Does he share my concerns about the many farmers who were outside Parliament today to express how strongly they are opposed to the impact of inheritance tax changes on their business? It is very telling. I know he was there as well, but I did not spot any Labour Members listening to the concerns that farmers expressed today. Does he also share my concerns about the ban that the Met police imposed on the rally, which had been planned for weeks? Last night they decided to cancel it.
Robbie Moore
I absolutely agree. The fact that the Met police cancelled today’s pre-organised Budget day protest and rally at the last minute is an absolute disgrace. I was proud to be out on Whitehall today with many of our farming community and my Conservative colleagues. We share their anxiety and concern that the changes to inheritance tax that this Labour Government are imposing will have a negative impact not only on our farming businesses, but on the wider supply chain. It is absolutely catastrophic.
However, it is not only our farming businesses that are being impacted but many family businesses, such as Fibreline in Keighley, which employs about 200 people. It has already worked out that its BPR liability will be in the hundreds of thousands of pounds. The options that many of these businesses have are to sell plants or machinery, or to lose control of the business for which they have worked for generations by selling shares. That is not progressive, and it does not give any hope to our family businesses. That is why it is absolutely devastating to see that the Chancellor could not even be bothered to engage with family businesses in the run-up to this Budget over the last year, so that they could get their viewpoints across. Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) that it was a disgrace that not one Labour MP was out in Whitehall today to stand side by side with the farming businesses that Labour Members claim to be representing. Many of them represent rural constituencies.
Today’s Budget is heartless. After a year of anxiety, uncertainty and desperate pleas, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have shown pure ignorance today, and this while the Government are yet set to spend £1.8 billion on a digital ID policy that nobody I have ever spoken to wants. When it comes to aspiration, why on earth would any young entrepreneur looking at this Budget want to stay in this country, and create the growth that the Chancellor is after and the local economic activity that we desperately need across areas such as Keighley and Ilkley?
The message we have heard loud and clear from this Labour Government today is, “Don’t save for your future or for your pension, because Labour will tax it; don’t bother working hard to get that pay rise, because Labour will tax it; don’t take the leap of setting up your own independent business, because Labour will tax it; and don’t you dare die holding assets, because Labour will tax them.” In fact, just about the only thing this Budget does positively is not incentivise anyone to work, but how does that deliver for the economy?
Given the crippling, tax-raising Budget that has been put before us, how on earth is the Chancellor aiming to create growth? She still has not addressed the key issues that many of our constituents have been raising with this Labour Government. Last year’s Budget, delivered by this Labour Chancellor, walked the country up the fiscal plank, which was cheered on by many Labour MPs on the Government Benches. I fear that today’s Budget, again cheered on by many Labour MPs, will leave the whole country sinking into the sea.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). I thank and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, on behalf of my fellow residents in Watford and Bushey North. The Chancellor has made the tough decisions needed to get Britain’s future back, just as we promised we would during the general election campaign last year. The scale of the task of dealing with the toxic legacy left to us by the Conservatives is truly enormous: from the black hole at the heart of the nation’s finances, running on fumes, to a decade and a half of failed productivity and pitiful investment in public services. Last year, my right hon. Friend put the country on a firmer footing by fixing the foundations and reversing our seemingly terminal decline.
In Watford, private enterprise and public sector employers are both significant for our local economy. People commute to Watford as well as to London and the surrounding areas. We all know that our efforts are paying off: a succession of interest rate cuts, the highest growth in the G7 earlier this year and wages up more in 10 months under her stewardship than in 10 years of the Tories, as well as massive investment in capital projects and huge investments in the NHS. This has directly benefited my constituency, and therefore my fellow residents and I are grateful for that. Watford’s population skews young compared with similar towns in the UK, so the Chancellor’s announcement that young people on the national minimum wage will receive an 8.1% pay rise is welcome indeed. It will make a big difference to people in Watford, especially on the back of the previous increase.
All of this has been achieved against a backdrop that has been phenomenally challenging, but let us not forget that modern economic history did not begin with the Conservative Government in 2015. Oh, no, no—it was in 2010, under the Conservative coalition Government with the Liberal Democrats that the rot truly set in with austerity, the bedroom tax, the slicing and dicing of the public services we all rely on, and the severing and casting aside of opportunity for almost everyone.
I welcome the Budget’s commitments to stand by the Government’s investment in the NHS and capital infrastructure, as it was under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition that Labour’s previous plans to rebuild Watford hospital were ripped up under the austerity programme. My home town has been waiting for that hospital ever since. Now we will finally get the change we were promised. I cannot tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, how ecstatic we are to have a proper commitment backed up by actual funding from a Labour Government to rebuild our hospital finally.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Chancellor—the first female Chancellor in our nation’s history—who has once again taken the tough decisions that will right our economy and put us on the path to prosperity once more.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Imogen Walker.)
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
Grove Park Railway Station
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I am grateful for this Adjournment debate on the merits of upgrading Grove Park train station, a historical station that has served the local community for 150 years. Originally opened in 1871 to serve rural communities and local farmers, the station helped to kickstart the development of the thriving neighbourhood that we know today. At the turn of the century, the area gained fame through its connection to Edith Nesbit’s beloved novel “The Railway Children”, which drew inspiration from the surrounding landscape. I remember watching the film adaptation as a child, as a teenager and as an adult. I am delighted that the film has this amazing link to my constituency.
Grove Park station has grown to meet the community’s changing needs. From its origins as a small rural station, it has become a vital transport hub with five platforms, connecting local residents to central London and the wider south-east. However, the station has been left to deteriorate and requires significant investment if it is to continue serving the community that has grown and developed around it. I am sorry to say that the station feels grubby and dirty. There is what appears to be a makeshift roof along most of the inside walkway. Weeds have been known to grow inside the walkway. There is no style, no pattern and no one colour to the walls of the station. Frankly, it is unpleasant, and I know that Southeastern can do much better.
My residents and local businesses deserve better. I have spoken to many of them, including a local hairdressers, the local nail salon, the café next door, the Harris chemist and the other café, the Filling Station Café. These are the people who, along with me, have been driving this campaign. I thank the over 100 constituents who signed the petition that I submitted to Parliament, calling for an upgrade to the station.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this issue forward. She is right to highlight the condition of the station. It was great when it was first built because it suited the times, but today’s times are different. I spoke to her beforehand about this issue. My concern is that many stations across the nation require passengers to climb stairs, or place unavoidable barriers in the way of disabled people, anyone with a mobility difficulty and parents with prams. I welcome the Government’s commitment to improving accessibility, but does she agree that the Minister and the Department for Transport must commit more time to reviewing this particular case, and all cases across the nation in which there are accessibility issues, and people cannot even get into a station?
Janet Daby
The hon. Gentleman is correct. I am just about to go into the additional accessibility options for Grove Park and many other stations. This is an issue that we need to keep raising, because we need improvements for our constituents.
Grove Park station needs additional accessibility options. It has three steep ramps to each set of platforms, which makes access difficult for people with a mobility impairment, such as those in a mobility chair or using an aid to walk with. It is also challenging for parents who have pushchairs and small children to navigate the ramps. There is a separate bridge connecting the platforms, but it is not served by lifts, and there is also only one set of toilets. Imagine a parent who has a child who needs to go to the toilet, and who happens to be on the wrong platform. They have to go up and down a ramp to get to the toilet, and then make the long journey back. I think we can all agree—Members and constituents—that further options need to be considered in a wider consultation.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Like Hither Green, Grove Park is a station that my constituents in Crayford need to change at to reach Bromley North, so they would welcome improvements. Will she join me in calling for a national rail accessibility app that people could use when planning their journey? It would show which stations were accessible, where lifts were working, and where there were accessible toilets.
Janet Daby
My hon. Friend makes a strong campaign argument for ensuring that stations are accessible to all.
Much of Grove Park is made of corrugated metal, which leaks and is cold. When it rains, the waiting room is often flooded because of the leaky roof; things are even more difficult for my constituents when the door is locked. As I have said, I know that change can happen. We have campaigned for years and years for improvements at Grove Park station, and I know that campaigning works, because earlier this year, work began on upgrading Hither Green station, which is also in my constituency. It is exciting to watch the upgrade, which includes a new footbridge connecting all six platforms, new lifts, new closed circuit television and public address systems and a host of other improvements. This is a great scheme that construction workers and railway station staff are rightly proud of. More importantly, my constituents—and me, as I use both Hither Green and Grove Park stations—will benefit from this work. I am looking forward to benefiting from the improvements that will hopefully come about at Grove Park.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
In Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, rail passengers tell me that it would make a massive difference, and help them to feel safe at stations like Hatfield, if there was improved lighting and security, and better shelters. Does my hon. Friend agree that when we make upgrades, we should think about things that make women and children feel safe?
Janet Daby
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct about better lighting. People need to feel safe using transport, especially women and girls, and anybody who feels vulnerable in those situations. We all need better lighting and accessibility, and other improvements, in our stations, so that we can all use them, and so that we have equal rights and choices when it comes to using stations and getting to where we need to go.
I need to hear about plans and timescales for improvements at Grove Park station, so I am looking forward to the Minister’s response. Grove Park station is the centre of the community, and I want to ensure that it gets the upgrade that my residents and local businesses so rightly deserve. I ask the Government to get behind me on this, and to work with Southeastern on these much-needed upgrades to a station that is frequently used by my constituents. These renovations will lift the local area.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) on securing this important debate. She has made a powerful case for accessibility improvements at Grove Park railway station. Before I turn to those improvements in detail, I will briefly pick up on two things she mentioned that I think are worthy of due consideration.
First, my hon. Friend made a point about the station not being aesthetically what her constituents deserve. This is not something we often get the opportunity to speak about in the House, but building beauty into our railways is incredibly important to me. It should factor to a greater extent in our thinking about how the travelling public can engage with our railways and enjoy the process.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend on her campaign. It was exciting to hear about the array of small businesses and community organisations that made her petition possible. It speaks to the fact that our railway stations sit at the heart of the local communities they serve—a point that was reflected powerfully in her speech. I know how deeply my hon. Friend cares about her local community and how tirelessly she campaigns for improved public transport that is safer and more accessible for everyone in it.
This debate, and indeed the petition that my hon. Friend presented to Parliament on 20 October, underline the very real concerns of passengers who rely on Grove Park station every day. For many residents, Grove Park is not simply a station; it is a gateway to work, education, healthcare and family life. As my hon. Friend clearly set out, though, for too many users, especially those with mobility challenges, parents with buggies, older passengers or anyone travelling with heavy luggage, this gateway does not offer the accessibility and, most importantly, the dignity that they expect. She is right to say that the public’s travelling experience must be safe, comfortable and inclusive. That is central to this Government’s commitment to a more accessible and passenger-focused rail network for all.
Across Britain, many stations were constructed long before modern accessibility standards existed. Although around 56% of stations are now step-free and around two thirds of journeys take place between such stations, we recognise that this is not enough. Everyone must have dignity as they travel across the United Kingdom. Accessibility is not an optional extra; it is a basic expectation of modern public transport. That is why we remain committed to delivering improvements through programmes such as Access for All, through our recently published rail accessibility road map and through our long-term reforms to create Great British Railways.
The rail accessibility road map sets out clear actions that will improve disabled passengers’ experience, from better-maintained lifts and clearer information to the quality of assistance provided at stations for every journey. These are an essential element to providing dignity and inclusion to all rail passengers. I regret that Grove Park station does not offer full step-free access to all platforms. For wheelchair users, people with mobility needs, parents with pushchairs and travellers with luggage, this is a real challenge and a hugely regrettable reality in 2025—a reality that I know my hon. Friend is working tirelessly to correct for the better on behalf of her constituents.
Lee Pitcher
I have Althorpe station in my constituency. We are trying to get more trains, which will mean more passengers using those trains. This is massively important to reduce carbon, and to get people to work and hospital appointments and so on. Access is really important, and there is no step-free access there. Does the Minister agree that improving access will increase the number of passengers who use our trains, and that it will benefit the environment too?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is a tireless champion for improved rail services for all in Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme. He makes an incredibly important point: if more people can access our railways and thereby the opportunities that access provides them—social lives, employment and the ability to give back to their local communities—good will create good. Improving accessibility for all is a virtuous circle.
In 2022, the previous Government sought nominations for stations across Britain to benefit from upgrades as part of the Access for All programme. A total of 310 nominations were received from train operators, strategic transport bodies and Transport for London stations. This did not include a nomination for Grove Park station. I recognise my hon. Friend’s frustration with the process that we inherited from the previous Government. The current limitations of the station and the benefits that step-free access would bring, which she set out clearly today, are exactly the sort of factors that I would expect to inform bids for future rounds of funding. When assessing potential projects, we look closely at station footfall, weighted by incidence of disability in the area, industry priorities, and the availability of third-party funding. Local factors—for example, proximity to hospitals or especially high numbers of interchange passengers—are also taken into consideration. I know that these factors are very important to my hon. Friend’s case as to why Grove Park station needs extra support.
I would like to highlight the significant investment we are putting in to make rail more accessible within my hon. Friend’s constituency to show where we are making progress. As she knows, significant upgrades to the nearby Hither Green station, which she has also campaigned on in her work to improve rail in her local area, are well into delivery and are progressing well. Those upgrades are due to come into passenger use in 2027, at which point Hither Green will provide a fully accessible rail hub for her constituents and the wider south-east London community.
I turn to other issues that my hon. Friend has highlighted in relation to Grove Park station. I reassure her that my Department takes the safety and security of passengers and rail staff incredibly seriously. British Transport police, which is responsible for policing the railway, works closely with train operating companies including Southeastern to create a safer network. I am pleased to say that Grove Park will benefit from an LED lighting update to the overbridge and platforms. The upgrade will improve lighting levels, security perception and CCTV-recorded images.
We have recently announced £17 million of funding to improve British Transport police’s access to railway CCTV. The Department expects that train operating companies will implement crime prevention methods where required, including by improving lighting and CCTV where necessary. The BTP’s designing out crime unit provides advice on crime prevention, including the type of CCTV technology to use and suitable placement at stations. I therefore reassure my hon. Friend that the safety and security of those who use our railways is a core priority for the Government.
Shelters and seating at train stations play a vital role in ensuring the comfort and wellbeing of passengers. The Department for Transport expects train operating companies to manage station amenities to ensure that they are safe, clean and fit for purpose. We monitor those standards through the service quality regime, which includes regular inspections of the condition and availability of assets such as seating and shelters to ensure compliance and to identify areas for improvement.
Southeastern is driving forward a multimillion pound station improvement programme, which has delivered benefits to over 100 stations since March 2024. This ambitious initiative includes deep cleaning, repairs, and enhancements that will refresh and modernise station amenities across the network. I am pleased to say that Southeastern has recently completed a deep clean at Grove Park, helping to improve the overall customer experience, but I am aware from my hon. Friend’s comments that there is much further to go.
Daniel Francis
Southeastern serves the stations in my constituency, like those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East, and those enhancements include a number of Changing Places toilets for people with disabilities who require them. I therefore reaffirm the point I made to my hon. Friend. The Changing Places consortium has a map that shows its toilets around the country, and Transport for London has an accessibility app that shows where lifts are working and which stations are accessible. Can the Minister look at how we can bring those two together in the Railways Bill so that stations can be truly accessible, with real-time information for passengers?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point on behalf of his constituents about improving accessibility for all in his constituency. Through the Railways Bill, and the creation of Great British Railways and the passenger watchdog, rail provision will need to have due regard to improving accessibility. Through the accessibility road map, the Government are also setting out the actions we are taking in the round to deliver a more accessible railway in the run-up to GBR becoming a reality. They will include a range of actions that I hope my hon. Friend will find productive, which will improve the experience of disabled passengers on existing lines, including the assistance they receive, their access to journey information, and improvements to how we maintain lifts, escalators and—as he so importantly mentioned—facilities such as toilets.
Let me close by again thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East and congratulating her on securing this important debate and on her tireless representation of her constituents’ needs. Upgrading Grove Park station is not just about infrastructure; it is about fairness, dignity and ensuring that every individual in Lewisham East can travel safely, independently and confidently. The concerns raised tonight of accessibility, safety, lighting, toilets, CCTV, seating and platform shelters are all fundamental to a modern and inclusive railway. This Government remain committed to improving accessibility across the network, supported by major investments in crime prevention, infrastructure upgrades and industry reform through the creation of Great British Railways. I encourage my hon. Friend to continue working with Southeastern, Network Rail, Transport for London and the British Transport police to ensure that Grove Park station is equipped to serve its community now and for many years to come.
Question put and agreed to.
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
Driving Test Availability: South-east
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the availability of driving tests in the South East.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mrs Harris. I extend my gratitude to all right hon. and hon. Members for participating in this important debate on a topic that occupies a large part of their email inboxes every week, if theirs are anything like mine.
I want to begin by thanking the hundreds of Surrey Heath residents who responded to my driving test survey, and the 165 people who completed the survey organised by the Chamber engagement team over recent days and weeks. Since becoming the Member of Parliament for Surrey Heath, the driving test has been one of the most persistent issues in my email inbox over the last 16 months. Across Surrey Heath, families describe a weekly ritual of setting alarms at 5.30 am, logging on to the Driving and Vehicle Standards Agency website, and joining a queue of thousands of people before the 6 am release of driving test slots. Even when local slots become available, they can vanish within seconds due to website glitches, failed payments or fierce automated competition from bots, similar to the scramble for Oasis or Taylor Swift tickets. Yet unlike those elusive one-off concerts, this frustrating and anxiety-ridden cycle repeats every Monday, often for weeks and months, before many are finally able to secure a test.
Young people who have worked hard to reach test readiness find themselves stuck in prolonged limbo. Their confidence declines, practical skills fade and their opportunities narrow. In Surrey Heath, which is, I am slightly ashamed to say, the second most car-dependent constituency in the entire country, that is especially damaging. With slow and infrequent buses, limited rail capacity and persistent congestion on arterial roads—most famously the A322 and junction 3 of the M3—public transport is simply not a realistic alternative. For many young people, being unable to drive directly restricts access to education, training and entry-level employment.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Constituents of mine, like those of my hon. Friend, are part of the 6 am scramble, with thousands of people ahead of them in the queue. Does he share my view that the inability of young people to access driving tests is harming their life chances? That is particularly true of those with special needs, or those who have caring responsibilities and are unable to live up to those responsibilities while also seeking the right to drive.
Dr Pinkerton
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. I also have constituents who have caring responsibilities and find themselves unable to fulfil those to the fullest capacity that they would like to because of those restrictions.
Of course, on Budget day we also think about economic growth and the curtailed economic opportunities that young people have. If we want to make our economy grow again, everybody needs to be able to work to the fullest extent that they can.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. It is not just a Surrey Heath issue; it is an issue across the whole of the United Kingdom. In my Strangford constituency in Northern Ireland there are populated areas where people have to wait for up to 12 weeks—not as long as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but the time slot is significant. I aways try to be constructive and helpful in my interventions. Does the hon. Member agree that more funding could be allocated to support the recruitment of more examiners, with sufficient pay and job benefits to discourage high turnover in the role that they play?
Dr Pinkerton
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observation. He is right to identify that rural and semi-rural communities are particularly badly affected, because of the very often skeletal public transport systems. I will come on to potential solutions to the challenge as I reach the conclusion of my contribution.
Parents described to me the practical and emotional toll of the crisis: driving teenagers to work or college several times a week, rearranging family routines and supporting young people who are increasingly demoralised. Others tell me that their children have delayed job applications or turned down work altogether because they cannot secure the driving tests they need to unlock those important employment opportunities.
One of my constituents, George, has been trying to acquire a driving test for two years after passing his theory test. He is autistic and unable to undertake long journeys to distant test centres, yet he receives no preferential consideration despite being registered for personal independence payments. He told me that he is losing heart over driving, and fears that without a licence he may be condemned to welfare dependency for life, as he is unable to reach his job in hospitality, which requires late-evening travel that public transport in Surrey Heath simply does not support. That is not an isolated case; it is emblematic of a system that is failing the people who rely on it most.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Unfortunately, it was right that Loveday Ryder, the previous chief executive of the DVSA, had to resign because of this terrible ongoing problem. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need new leadership at that organisation, to grip this problem with alacrity? We must particularly address the problem of bots sweeping up the tests, as there is not much point in increasing the number of tests if the bots capture them. We are then back to the 6 am problem of parents dialling in, which he has articulated so well.
Dr Pinkerton
I am incredibly grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that very important observation. The plight of bots stealing places from under people on a Government-registered system strikes me as utterly inappropriate. I have heard internal stories that the DVSA has been in a state of upendedness for some time. I am also grateful to him for his observation about Loveday Ryder.
As of June, the average waiting time for a practical driving test stood at about 22 weeks, although the nearest centres for my constituents, in Farnborough and Guildford, reported waits of 24 weeks. Many have told me that they have waited up to a year to secure a test slot.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I am one of those parents who scrambles for the driving test, and many of my constituents have written to me about this issue. For Martha in Molesey it took more than 15 months, and for Evan in Thames Ditton it took more than six months. Last week, one of the driving instructors in my constituency told me that a lack of tests affects every single one of their students In 2023, the DVSA temporarily moved a significant amount of its workforce into examiner roles, and that enabled 150,000 test slots over six months. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the way to go—
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions are meant to be just that: a short intervention, not a speech.
Dr Pinkerton
My hon. Friend’s constituents are clearly suffering from exactly the same challenges as mine in Surrey Heath. I will talk about some of the actions that have already been taken, and how they might be pushed further and faster.
The delays place immense pressure on learners, particularly those needing to make a second or third attempt at taking their practical test. Many face a further six-month wait for a resit, which forces them to take regular lessons simply to stay test ready. The national pass rate was 49.9% in October 2025, so almost half of all candidates taking their driving test must restart the cycle without any guarantee of a timely retest.
One of the most serious concerns that my constituents raise is the prevalence of bots and third-party reselling. Automated bots secure test slots the moment they are released and resell them at heavily inflated prices—often between £150 and £300.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
When my hon. Friend talked about a 23-week wait, my immediate thought was, “Oh, luxury!” A constituent in West Dorset contacted me to say that he faces a 24-month wait to find a single test within a 50-mile radius. That is one of the problems with being in a beautiful part of rural Britain. The only alternative is to pay more than £200 to one of the resellers. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is exploitation of the most vulnerable?
Dr Pinkerton
As an MP for a rural constituency, I know that my hon. Friend’s constituents will feel that pressure with particular force. They experience exactly the same kind of employment curtailment as my constituents in Surrey Heath.
My constituents have further highlighted that websites such as Pass Faster are advertising guaranteed tests anywhere in the UK within four to six weeks. They charge the £62 DVSA fee, plus an additional £88 finder’s fee. The distorted marketplace leaves many families with no choice but to engage with those services, despite their deep frustration at the cost. Those who cannot face that cycle often end up travelling extraordinary distances. Some Surrey Heath families are forced to book tests in Cornwall, Taunton, Kendal, Birmingham or Leeds—all examples from my own constituents. One family told me that they undertook a staggering 728-mile round trip to Berwick-upon-Tweed. Another, after spending more than £2,000, had to travel to the Isle of Wight because it was the nearest available test slot.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
I recognise what my hon. Friend is describing. Last week, I received an email from a constituent who travelled 200 miles from Amersham to Rochdale for the same reason. She felt she had been
“penalised for following the rules”
because she was forced to go down that route. Does my hon. Friend agree with her?
Dr Pinkerton
I absolutely agree. Rochdale undoubtedly has its charms and pleasures, but to be forced to go there to secure a driving test slot seems unfair to the individual involved.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
My hon. Friend mentioned Berwick-upon-Tweed. Might I tempt him further north to the most remote part of the British mainland—my constituency? We have exactly the same problem. When my hon. Friend looks for solutions, does he agree that some form of statistical analysis and a map showing where the problem and good areas are would not only be helpful but might concentrate the attention of Ministers?
Dr Pinkerton
My hon. Friend can always tempt me further north to his wonderful constituency. We have another example of a rural constituency where constituents feel this pressure acutely. That is neither fair nor sustainable. It undermines confidence in a Government-run system. It places young people in the south-east—if I might focus on them in particular—at a clear disadvantage, and risks eroding test availability for learners across the country.
The financial impact on young drivers and families is unaffordable. With lessons costing around £50 per hour and long gaps between tests, families must pay for repeated sessions simply to maintain proficiency. Some local households report spending more than £2,000 just to pass a driving test, while others exceed £5,000 as delays drag on. When parents are forced to travel to distant and unfamiliar test centres, the costs rise still further, from fuel and time taken off work to, in some cases, the price of overnight accommodation.
Although I welcome the Government’s seven-point plan, including the Department’s commitment to recruit 450 new examiners, the Secretary of State has confirmed that the net gain of new examiners will be only 40. More must be done to retain high-quality examiners and reduce turnover, which continues to drive capacity shortages. The Ministry of Defence’s deployment of 36 defence driving examiners is also a welcome step, but it risks stretching defence resources at a time of increasing geopolitical instability, and will do little to address the extent of the backlog. The Secretary of State confirmed to the Transport Committee on 12 November that the Government will not meet their target of returning waiting times to seven weeks by the summer of 2026. For families who have already spent months trying to secure a test, that is an unacceptably long timeframe for meaningful improvement.
Based on the testimony of my constituents, I urge the Minister to consider the following practical steps that may help to alleviate some of the challenges that we all experience in our constituencies. The Government should introduce a focused programme of enhanced examiner recruitment and retention, particularly in the south-east of England, where demand is demonstrably at its highest. They should expand the narrow 6 am Monday release window that fuels intense competition and unnecessary stress for those having to get up at that time. They should implement a genuinely fair geographical set of booking rules, with full transparency over how they are applied, and match them with sufficient test capacity in high-demand areas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) alluded to, that would require a greater geographical sense of where demand is at its peak. They should explore temporary test centres or extend testing hours to reduce backlogs. Finally, they should implement robust protections against bots and third-party reselling, to restore fairness, trust and integrity in the booking process.
My constituents understand that the pandemic created a significant backlog in driving tests, and they understand the challenges of examiner recruitment. What they cannot accept, nearly half a decade after the pandemic, is a system that forces them to wake at dawn every Monday, travel hundreds of miles for a test or pay inflated fees to third parties, just because the DVSA booking system cannot adequately meet demand. My Surrey Heath constituents need a driving test system that is fair, functional and fit for purpose, and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members from across the House will agree that the current system is not delivering for young people or, indeed, for older learners—I think we are going to hear a right hon. Member comment on that. I hope the Minister will take the concerns I have outlined seriously and help to restore the accessibility, trust and fairness that young people and families in the south-east deserve.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), who is my constituency neighbour, for securing the debate and opening the discussion so comprehensively.
Colleagues may remember that I led a debate on this very subject in this very Chamber just over a year ago. Accessing driving tests continues to be a source of frustration for constituents across Bracknell Forest. Wait times for a practical test in the south-east remain among the highest in the country, creating a barrier to opportunity for young people and all those who want the freedom that comes from passing their driving test.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has made it clear that the issue of delayed freedom is not limited to my constituents in East Worthing and Shoreham. My constituent Angela told me that last year the nearest test available for her daughter was in Liverpool, and local driving instructor Lawrence has many test-ready clients who are unable to take a test, which impacts his livelihood. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are right to ban bots from booking tests and to increase the number of tests available? They are tackling the touts so that our constituents can get off the waiting lists and get on with their lives.
Peter Swallow
Absolutely. I say gently that my hon. Friend’s contribution is slightly more up to date than some of those we heard from the Liberal Democrats earlier, because the Government have already taken action on banning bots. I will come to that in a moment.
I know that the Government take this issue seriously, and we are already seeing progress. Focused efforts, including on recruiting driving examiners and improving booking systems, have meant that the DVSA conducted an extra 56,336 tests between June and October 2025, compared with the same period in 2024. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for all the work he is doing on this vital issue.
It is clear to many, particularly in the south-east, that there is definitely more to do, so I fully welcome the Government’s recent announcement on further actions on driving test availability. I was particularly pleased to hear that action will be taken to ensure that only learners themselves will be able to book tests. That will prevent bots from block booking precious slots and selling them on at a substantially marked-up price. We have already heard about the frustration of well-meaning people who just want to get on and book their test, but feel that the only way to get a precious driving test is to use a dodgy site, which may leave them exposed to fraud or greatly increased fees, so it is fantastic to see action being taken. I called for it in my debate last year and am really pleased to see the Government delivering it. What timescale is expected for the implementation of this welcome change?
The use of defence driving examiners is a hugely welcome intervention, although I note that the specific test centres set to benefit have not yet been announced. I am sure that I speak for many colleagues from across the south-east when I urge the Minister to bear in mind the high need in our region when he makes the decisions. I also remind him that Bracknell is not served by its own test centre, with the two nearest being in Reading and Farnborough. I therefore press the Minister again for a test centre in Bracknell, which would also benefit constituents of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, who I am sure would support it. [Interruption.] I see him nodding.
There is always more that can be done, and I want to use my time in this debate to highlight the desperate need to improve the recruitment and retention of examiners. In 2024, the most common answer to the question, “What more can DVSA do to support you?” in the DVSA’s annual survey of driving instructors was, “Increase driving examiner recruitment and retention”. Although the use of defence driving examiners is welcome, it is not a permanent solution. If we are to meet the Government’s target of reducing test waiting times to an average of seven weeks by summer 2026, we must be more ambitious both in our actions and in how fast we work to implement them, and to prevent shortages from reoccurring we should ensure that driving test examining is an attractive, long-term career option. I would be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on what more we can do to end the current backlog and ensure that our driving test system remains efficient and sustainable long into the future.
The Government inherited a tremendous driving test backlog. Although progress has been made, there is still a lot more to do so that my constituents in Bracknell Forest are no longer being driven up the wall, but are instead back in the driver’s seat.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
It is always a welcome thing to be in the same room as you, Mrs Harris, let alone to be chaired by you.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) on securing this debate on a much bigger issue than people might think at first glance. I personally got into a bit of difficulty over this when I decided to take up motorcycling again a few years ago—the House of Commons just wasn’t risky enough. I got within about three days of being able to take my test, because the theory test was about to run out, and I would have had to repeat the whole thing because I was not able to book the test. So I understand at first hand the problems others have had. When I mentioned this debate, I was flooded by my constituents’ comments, which brought home to me the fact that this is an ever-present and timely debate. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman again on securing it.
The reality is that there has been a lot of talk about this issue under both Governments but, as yet, no great move to make changes. I want to read out a couple of the huge number of comments that came in from constituents. Mark simply calls the inability to get driving tests properly “shameful”. He also talks about the bots; I accept that the Government have said they are going to deal with them, but it is a complex issue. The sooner they deal with it, the better, because, as the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) said, the bots get the tests and then resell them at much higher prices, which makes it difficult for people who are on a low income to even afford a test. They then queue up and if they are too late on the telephone, it is hopeless.
The other comment is from Theresa, who said:
“For over a year, my son has been attempting to secure a practical driving test, but available dates are extremely limited, and any cancellations are immediately taken. This prolonged delay is causing significant disruption to his career. Driving is essential for his work, as he needs to travel between multiple job sites. The inability to obtain a test date is preventing him from taking on assignments, limiting his earning potential”
and causing him particular difficulty and professional and financial strain. It is, then, a human problem. The idea that getting a test is a good thing is not just a technical one; for lots of people, it is about their earnings and their ability to improve their lives, which is what we should all be concerned about.
When I put the matter to local driving instructors, I was completely overwhelmed by their fury and anger about what is going on. I will not quote everything they said, because some of it is not quotable here in the Chamber. I suppose I probably could among friends, but I do not think I will—I will restrict myself to spare myself your fury, Mrs Harris, and just talk about the generalities of what they said.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I will write to you all.
The main thing was that someone learning to be an instructor has two years after passing the part 1 test, which is the theory, to complete part 2, the extended driving test, and part 3, the teaching ability test. The limited availability of parts 2 and 3 causes massive problems and means that trainees abandon the course, losing thousands of pounds. We should make it easier for them to get through because we need more examiners —we need more people to train people to learn to drive. If we choke off that supply, there is no chance of anybody getting tests because there will be no people to carry them out.
There is also the misleading test availability. One pupil was sent a DVSA link to book a practical test after passing the theory test, but no available slots were shown in her area for two years, despite weekly test slot releases. I have already mentioned the bulk buying, and there is another issue. In April 2015, the average waiting time in Chingford and Woodford Green was 6.3 weeks—I think that is too long, but there it is. By September 2024, the average waiting time was 24 weeks and rising, and it has gone up since then. So this has become a massive issue. It is a massive issue in respect of people’s ability to earn a living and a massive issue for people who have a personal need to drive—perhaps because they look after somebody with disabilities or other problems. All this impacts hugely on their ability to live full and complete lives.
At the end of the day, why are driving test slots so limited across the UK right now? Why are we not training more people? Why are we not making more slots available? Why are we not acting now to get rid of the business of bulk buying and then resale? We should be tackling that straight away. I simply say, on behalf of my constituents and those who have been training to become instructors and testers, that their exasperation, which I am sure others here today have felt, is remarkable. This issue is affecting all of their lives, and we should make it a priority. Too often it has been shunted into the background by successive Governments, on both sides of the fence. Now is the time to act, and I urge the Minister to give us a clear timetable for when he will act and how the Government will sort out this problem.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for bringing forward this important topic. The severe lack of driving tests has a profound impact on people’s ability to work, study and participate fully in everyday life. Also, as a parent of teenagers, I really need them to be able to pass their test and not rely on me for lifts, so this is an important subject for me personally. [Laughter.]
I acknowledge, as many colleagues have done, the Government’s recent announcement to limit the use of bots that scrape and reserve driving test slots. That is certainly a step in the right direction, and I welcome any action that reduces unfair access to appointments, but evidence from my constituency makes it clear that the problems in the system run much deeper than automated bots alone.
I recently conducted a survey of learner drivers in Frome and East Somerset, and the results were stark. About 80% of respondents told us that they were learning to drive because public transport is unreliable or simply not available. I know all too well the problems that people have with buses locally: it is almost impossible to travel from east to west across the constituency. Others said that they work right across the UK and employers increasingly prefer, and in some cases require, staff who can drive. A significant number told us that employers simply will not hire someone who relies on public transport. When asked why they needed a licence, 23% said it was essential for accessing education and 54% said it was necessary for travel to work—more than half of respondents need to drive simply to be employed. Learning to drive is often an economic necessity.
However, the greatest concern that people raised was the severe shortage of driving tests. In our survey, the majority of learners waited four months or more for a test date, one in five waited more than six months, and nearly 29% waited between four and six months. When two thirds of candidates are waiting more than four months for a test, the system is not merely stretched—it is absolutely failing. Some constituents were forced to book their initial test in Liverpool, Nottingham, Swansea, Plymouth, Newport or even Aberdeen, and then spend months trying to swap to a local date. That is not a functioning national system.
Let me use the example of my constituent Poppy, a graduate who has come back to Frome after finishing university and is looking for a job. Poppy tells me that no driving tests are available to book, seemingly anywhere in the country, for the next 24 weeks. She says:
“The govt’s idea to ban bots and booking tests in other areas is a good start”,
but she goes on:
“Basically the solution is more examiners; there isn’t really a way around it.”
Poppy has already missed out on promising local job opportunities thanks to her lack of a licence, so will the Minister explain what the Government are doing to increase the availability of examiners?
The consequences of the lack of tests are severe. When we talk about NHS waiting lists, we often talk about how people’s lives are on hold while they wait for an appointment. The same is true of many young people in constituencies like mine, waiting for a test and feeling that their lives are on hold. Families face significant financial pressure from having to book additional lessons to remain test-ready, travelling to unfamiliar cities, paying for multiple apps and even retaking the theory test because their pass has expired during the wait. That burden falls hardest on low-income families, students and apprentices. There is then the emotional toll: the stress of trying to secure a booking, the anxiety of delaying work or education, and a sense of utter frustration. Constituents who took part in my survey described the system as “a nightmare”, “a joke” and the “bane of my life”.
Limiting bots is welcome, but it is only part of the solution. We urgently need a modernised booking platform, increased test capacity and targeted support for rural and semi-rural areas where public transport simply cannot meet people’s needs. When access to a driving test is delaying education, limiting employment and placing real financial strain on households, we cannot call this a minor, administrative issue: it is a barrier to opportunity and growth. My constituents, like so many across the county, deserve a system that supports them, rather than one they have to battle against.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Harris. I heartily congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) on securing this debate, which is particularly valuable because it primarily affects a cohort of people who are not directly represented in this place.
For the vast majority of MPs, including me, passing our driving tests is far in the rear-view mirror. With hindsight, many of us perhaps take for granted how easy it was to take our test or, in my case, take it for a second time, as I did when I passed at Brighton Marina test centre nearly 20 years ago. Not only has that test centre now shut down, but there is no practical test centre whatsoever in Brighton and Hove, a city and much wider area of over 250,000 people that includes my constituency of Lewes. This lack of availability across the country is made even more acute by the lack of local test centres, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow).
When I submitted a freedom of information request to the DVSA last year, I was told that the three open test centres nearest to my constituency in Sussex have a combined waiting list of 7,500 people—let that figure sink in for a moment. I simply booked my test, turned up and failed, and then booked another test, turned up and passed. There are 7,500 primarily young people waiting for tests in our corner of Sussex alone, trapped in an administrative limbo that is holding back their lives.
Like other colleagues, I will share a few examples of what this means in human terms for my constituents. One constituent, a mother, contacted me because she has found it utterly impossible to book a practical test for her son. She explained to me that slots are released on Monday mornings at 6 am, as many Members have mentioned. She sets her alarm, logs on, waits in the digital queue, and by the time she reaches the front, every single appointment has vanished. Week after week, it is the same story. Her son has passed his theory test, which is valid for only two years, and she now fears that he will have to sit it all over again through no fault of his own.
Another constituent told me that her daughter failed her practical test back in April. It is a disappointing moment that I have been through myself, but it should lead to another attempt within a reasonable timeframe. When I failed my first test, I remember the retake simply being taken for granted, “We’ll just book it for a few weeks’ time. When is convenient for you?” For this constituent, however, the earliest available slot she could find was six months later—in Scotland.
We live on the south coast of England, as far south as we could be—if we went any further south, we would be in the sea, and then we would be in France. Scotland is quite far from us. It is extraordinary to expect somebody to wait six months and then travel hundreds of miles to the north of this country—beautiful as it is—to take their test. Is it really acceptable that someone should have to travel that kind of distance simply to have a second attempt at their driving test?
A third case is perhaps the most dispiriting of all. A mother and daughter tried three times a day, day after day, to secure a booking, and still they could not get through. The daughter’s theory certificate expired, and she was forced to re-sit the entire examination, paying and studying again, all because the system had completely failed her.
As a number of Members have mentioned, what makes the situation even more troubling is that the shortage has created a market for exploitation. Unofficial booking websites have sprung up, hoovering up appointments and reselling them at inflated prices. The DVSA warns that such sites pose a risk to personal data and charge unnecessary fees. I welcome the Government’s announcement this month, but I would be grateful if the Minister could outline a timeframe in which he anticipates we will start to see results from the Government’s action to tackle the bots that are exploiting people all over the country.
Of course, the backlog has its roots in the pandemic, when testing was suspended entirely, but we are now four years on and the queue has not been cleared. People have been locked out of jobs that require them to drive, and they have been isolated from education and social opportunities, as well as from the independence that a driving licence represents—particularly in rural areas like mine, where public transport is sparse or non-existent. It is simply not good enough, and we need action.
We must keep vital test centres open, especially in rural communities. We must crack down on those predatory bots and third-party sites, and I welcome the news from the Government on those issues. We must expand the number of driving examiners, as has also been touched on, and offer more tests outside standard hours to eat into the backlog. We must require the DVSA to set out proper contingency plans so that bad weather or disruptions do not add further delays to an already failing system.
Learning to drive is a rite of passage for millions of young people across this country, and for many in my constituency of Lewes it is the key that unlocks employment, education and independence. The current state of affairs is failing them badly, and I urge the Government to act.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for ensuring that this important topic could be debated today. It of course affects people of all ages, but I wish to focus particularly on the impact it is having on young people in my constituency.
We currently face a 24-week waiting list for a practical driving test at the Guildford test centre. That is a six-month delay before a young person can even attempt to pass their test. As someone who, I confess, passed on my third attempt, being able to start that journey early is really important. For many young people, the ability to drive is a vital gateway to obtaining work or accessing education, particularly in those areas where public transport links are limited or non-existent. More than one in six job adverts in the UK explicitly require a driving licence, and that figure rises still further in key entry-level sectors. In trades, care work, delivery and property services, the ability to drive is not a luxury but a fundamental requirement.
Young people are ready and willing to work, but they are being excluded—not because they lack competence or enthusiasm, but purely because they are stuck waiting months for a test. That sits alongside a worrying regional picture. The south-east now has one of the highest rates of young people not in education, employment or training, recently rising to just over 13%. These are not disengaged young people. Many are actively seeking work but are prevented from doing so because they cannot drive. The driving test backlog is not simply a frustration; it is directly contributing to regional youth unemployment.
Beyond the delays themselves, the system has become dysfunctional and, in some cases, blatantly exploitative. One constituent had to book a test for her daughter in Erith, a place they have never visited and would never normally go, but she did it simply to get into the test system. I have heard from other constituents who have gone to Winchester, Cardiff and beyond. People should not have to travel miles from home to a place they have never visited, potentially staying overnight and incurring extra costs, simply to take a test.
To book a test, my constituent tried to find an alternative slot, as many families do, so she found herself in a digital queue at 6 am with 60,000 others doing the same. That forced her into joining an unofficial online group to exchange test slots, where she was scammed. She sent £10 by bank transfer to someone claiming to assist in securing a test, only for that individual to later demand £100. The bank later confirmed that more than two dozen similar fraudulent payments had been made on the same day to the same account.
Another family in my constituency spent two months waking at 5.30 am every Monday to attempt to book a test. Last week, they were number 7,561 in the queue at 6 am. By the time a slot appeared, it vanished before they could even complete the booking. I, too, faced this as we sought a test for my son. We eventually got a test, after many very frustrating and unsuccessful early mornings, but it was nine months later in Tolworth. On a personal note, I am delighted to share that my son passed his test last Friday.
Another constituent passed their theory test more than six months ago, yet still cannot find a practical test slot before their theory test expires. We are penalising young people for the failures of the system, not their own. Within this messy and frustrating system, we are also seeing third parties bulk-booking and reselling test slots at inflated prices. This is the exploitation of scarcity, and it is completely unacceptable. Although the Government have acknowledged the problem, enforcement has not yet met the scale of the issue. We currently have a system that prevents young people from accessing work, which is contributing to rising levels of young people who are not in education, employment or training, wasting time and money, and exposing families to scams and fraud.
I acknowledge and welcome that the Government have signalled corrective action, but it is not enough and, critically, it is not happening fast enough. Many of these changes are not expected to be fully implemented until 2026. Furthermore, I respectfully note that the changes to address bots are simply not working, based on what I hear from my constituents—too many are still in the 6 am scramble. In the meantime, waiting times remain extreme and young people continue to miss out on employment.
One additional change the Government have not yet committed to is extending the validity of theory test certificates in cases where the state cannot provide a timely practical test. It surely cannot be right that someone should lose their pass because the system has failed them. I urge the Minister to consider this seriously, and I hope he will go into detail on the Government’s thinking.
This is not simply a transport issue. Some may argue that driving is a privilege and not a right, but in reality it has become a precondition for employment, independence, accessing education and entering the economic world. When young people are prevented from getting a driving test, we are not just limiting their mobility; we are limiting their future. This is a barrier to social mobility, employment access and regional economic participation, and it needs to be urgently addressed.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) on securing this important debate. The availability of driving tests is a subject of growing concern for families, young people and businesses in every constituency across the south-east and beyond.
We have heard many fantastic interventions from Members representing areas ranging from the highlands of Scotland, down into the south-west and beyond. For many young people, learning to drive is not a luxury; as we have heard, it is a key to independence. It is the ability to reach a job, attend education or training, support family members and participate in society.
I know this myself, having passed my test just before I turned 18. Fortunately, I passed first time with only a few minors. However, I lived in an area surrounded on three sides by North Yorkshire, so I had to cross the boundary into a different county to get to college. Rural public transport is poor, so driving really was necessary. Today, across the south-east and the whole country, that independence has been put on hold, limiting people’s opportunities. Driving test waiting times are at some of the highest levels in memory, and the effects are being felt deeply.
I will reinforce some of the points made by my hon. Friend about the impact of long driving test waits on individuals across the country. Although this debate focuses on the south-east, it is undeniably a national problem that affects all corners of our United Kingdom. Learners and instructors—from my constituency of Harrogate and Knaresborough, down to Cornwall, up to Cumbria and beyond—are all reporting the same patterns of delay, frustration and rising costs.
I recognise that the Department for Transport is committed to tackling the issue and that steps have been taken over the past year to bring the system back under control. Progress is welcome, but there are still real concerns about the timelines for implementing these changes, as well as about the unforeseen challenges arising from some of these decisions.
We know the Government will not meet their commitment to return test waiting times to seven weeks by the end of this year, as originally promised. In fact, they have not been able to commit to meeting the target even by next summer. That is unacceptable, and it leaves those waiting for tests with little reassurance that there will be real, meaningful improvement in the short-to-medium term. We need clarity for learner drivers, so can the Minister tell us when the target will be met?
Last year’s seven-point plan promised the recruitment of 450 new examiners, but a year later, we have seen a net gain of only about 40 examiners. That is a remarkable shortfall, so I would appreciate reassurance from the Minister about what additional steps will be taken to recruit and retain examiners. Recent retention payments are welcome, but it is a late intervention that does not address the structural issues of high staff turnover for test centre workers and examiners. We need a credible workforce strategy, not simply an emergency patch.
The redeployment of MoD examiners is also welcome; every extra pair of hands makes a difference. However, it will only provide about 6,000 additional tests in a system that needs to deliver about 2 million tests in any given year. Frankly, it is a drop in the ocean. It will not meaningfully shift the national average waiting time, which is over 22 weeks, with many test centres already booked out to the maximum booking limit of 24 weeks.
We have already heard much about the deeply unfair use of bots and third-party selling sites, which push up the price of tests. Let us be clear—such behaviour is entirely exploitative, undermines trust in the DVSA, and blocks genuine learners from accessing the transport they need to get around and have more opportunities.
Recently, the Government have promised action and tried to beat bots in the ticketing industry. If we can combat profiteering for concerts and theatre bookings, we must ensure that we are doing the same for a core public service, such as the provision of driving tests. There must be a clear and enforceable ban on the resale of test slots, combined with tools strong enough to prevent bots from hoovering up appointments. Unless this issue is confronted head on, every other reform risks being undermined.
A driving instructor in my constituency recently wrote to me describing the very real impact on her livelihood of long waits for tests. She is not in the south-east, but her experience mirrors those across the country. Students wait for months on end, blocks of lessons continue for far longer than necessary, and the financial pressure mounts for both learners and instructors.
Driving instructors have also raised some serious concerns about recent proposals to prevent them from selecting test slots for their students. Although I understand the reasoning, namely to prevent manipulation of the booking system, the proposals risk having the opposite effect. Instructors play a vital gatekeeping role; they ensure that learners only book a test when they are ready to take one and an instructor is available to accompany them. Removing instructors from the process would risk making more learners book prematurely and consequently failing their test, which would add further pressure to an already strained system. It also increases the likelihood of cancellations when instructors are unavailable because they were not part of the booking process.
The removal of a test swap function is another area of concern. Instructors often use this tool to correct honest mistakes or to allocate unused slots to other suitable learners. Removing it while bots remain rampant would simply give profiteers more opportunities. Until bots are under control, the Department should proceed cautiously in this regard.
Peter Swallow
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that it is exactly that mechanism that bots rely on to operate and manipulate the system, which is exactly why the Government have announced closing it? They are doing so to stop the bots.
Tom Gordon
I recognise that that is part of the problem, but we need a comprehensive solution in the round that does not simply add to the backlog and the other pressures on the system, which I have outlined. I would be grateful to the hon. Gentleman if he could come up with any solutions: I am sure the Minister would be all ears.
I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what discussion he has had with instructors and professional bodies. Although the public consultations were rightly open to learners, there was concern that the voices of experienced instructors were overshadowed. Those professionals understand the system in a way that few others do. Their insight should be central to meaningful reform.
Rural areas also face additional pressures. Limiting learners to booking at only two test centres disproportionately affects learners in remote areas. For places such as north Yorkshire, where test centres are sparse and over- subscribed, those restrictions can make securing any driving test at all nearly impossible.
Rural test centres also experience greater disruption during severe weather. As we enter winter, the Department must now set out how it will prepare for and mitigate weather-related delays or cancellations, because otherwise the backlog will worsen further as we go into the depths of winter.
In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats are campaigning to ensure that, especially in rural areas, more test centres are allowed to close the black market for bots, so that they are rooted out. We also want to ensure that more tests are delivered by increasing the instructor workforce and offering greater flexibility in scheduling, including out-of-hours tests where appropriate. We also want to see a clear plan for how test centres will operate during bad weather, which is an issue of growing importance as our winters become more severe and unpredictable.
This issue is not just a procedural problem; it is a matter of fairness and opportunity. People’s lives have been held in suspension because of endless delays. Families are paying the price, rural communities are being left behind, and young people are being denied the independence they need to build their future. The Government must act with urgency, ambition and clarity. Learner drivers deserve nothing less.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) on securing this debate on an issue affecting families, young people and local businesses across the south-east, including in my constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire, and indeed across the whole of our United Kingdom.
The backdrop to this debate is a driving test system that is under unprecedented strain. Data obtained through a freedom of information request submitted by the AA Driving School shows a staggering deterioration since the start of this calendar year. There has been a 60% increase in the number of driving test centres with average waits of 24 weeks. In January 2025, 161 centres were at the maximum wait time of 24 weeks. By 5 May 2025, that figure had risen to 258 centres. Shockingly, more than 80% of all test centres are now operating with the longest possible delay. Those are astonishing figures that illustrate a system not merely struggling but spiralling. It is not a regional anomaly. It is a systemic failure and responsibility sits squarely with this Government.
When the Conservatives left government in July 2024 the average wait time was 17.1 weeks. That was unprecedentedly high as we were recovering from the backlog created by the pandemic. If anyone still doubts that this crisis has worsened after the election, the Government’s own data sets it out plainly. In the first two quarters of 2024, just over 1 million driving tests were conducted. In the same period this year, under this Government, that number fell to 914,000. At a time when the backlog should have been the priority, capacity has gone backwards. Learners, parents and instructors feel the consequences every single day.
Driving, particularly for young people, is not a luxury; it is essential. It is often the difference between securing an apprenticeship, a job or a place at college and missing out, or between being able to take an opportunity or left without options. It provides access to education, healthcare, caring responsibilities, family life and independence. Nearly 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training. Youth unemployment is now at 15.3%, the highest level since before the pandemic. At a moment when we should be opening doors for young people, the Government have instead allowed driving test delays to become yet another barrier in their way.
A genuinely pro-motorist Government would have grasped the urgency sooner. A genuinely pro-opportunity Government would recognise driving as a lifeline, particularly in areas where public transport is limited and where a licence is the gateway to employment. A Government serious about growth would not tolerate a system in which a young person must wait the best part of half a year or even longer simply to sit a driving test. The Government’s approach has not only failed learners. It has alienated the professionals who keep the system safe and functioning—our driving instructors.
In my constituency, I have heard directly from two established driving schools: Chiltern Learners and Alltime Driving. Both have always been able to book tests on behalf of their pupils responsibly and professionally. They have told me how disruptive, damaging and ill-considered the Government’s new measures are, introduced without genuine consultation with industry and without any understanding of how the booking system is used in practice. They feel as though they are being treated as the problem, as if they were the bots—we all want to see the bots stopped—rather than the driving instructors recognised as part of the solution. Their experiences are echoed by instructors across the country.
A colleague has shared similar correspondence from an instructor who described the shock felt across the profession when the reforms were announced without notice, transparency or any meaningful engagement. Instructors consistently say that preventing them booking tests or managing test slots sensibly will make the system less efficient, not more. They warn that stopping instructors swapping tests will result in more wasted appointments and unused examiner time. They are concerned about the future of intensive driving schools, many of which are already struggling due to a shortage of the availability of tests. And they highlight, rightly, that little thought has been given to vulnerable or neurodiverse pupils who might not be able to navigate the system alone. What they all say in different ways is the same thing: the Government have pushed ahead with a sledgehammer approach that punishes the wrong people, ignores expert advice and risks making a bad situation worse. We all welcome the action to stop the bots, but that needs rapid action with rapid, real enforcement, while at the same time leaning on those, like the instructors I have just mentioned, who can make a real difference.
We also see the Government grasping for headlines and distractions rather than solutions. The decision to bring in Ministry of Defence driving examiners has been presented as a major intervention. In reality, that means 36 military examiners will conduct public tests one day a week for a year, just 6,500 extra tests when hundreds of thousands are needed. As one instructor put it, that is little more than moving the deckchairs around. It is no substitute for a serious plan to recruit and retain examiners and fix the underlying issues.
The result is a system in chaos: record delays, shrinking capacity, frustrated instructors, disadvantaged pupils, and young people being held back at the very moment they need opportunity and support. Instead of leadership, we see press releases, gimmicks and a refusal to confront the scale of the problem. Driving should be a route to opportunity, not another obstacle created by Government. Learners deserve better, instructors deserve better and motorists across the south-east and the whole of our United Kingdom deserve far better than the declining service they face today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for the opportunity to respond to today’s debate on driving test availability in the south-east. I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken on behalf of their constituents.
We fully recognise the frustration felt by families and young people, especially in the south-east. We recognise the financial strain on families, from lesson costs to travel and accommodation for distant tests. No learner should have to travel hundreds of miles for a test. Reducing waiting times and making the system fairer will help to ease those pressures, especially in rural and semi-rural communities. The Government are committed to restoring fairness and functionality to the driving test system. The ability to drive is not a luxury; it is a necessity for many, opening doors to employment, education and independence, as has been mentioned.
Simon Lightwood
I will make some progress first because there is a lot to cover. When access to driving tests is delayed, those opportunities are put on hold and, frankly, that is unacceptable. Across the south-east and the country, driving test waiting times remain a significant concern. Across Great Britain, the average waiting time for car practical tests in October 2025 was 21.9 weeks. In England, it was slightly higher at 22.4 weeks. In some parts of the south-east, learners face waits of five to six months; in London the figure can reach 23 weeks.
Those are not just numbers; they represent real frustration for learners, families and businesses. The pandemic increased demand for provisional licences, and more learners passing theory tests and population growth have all contributed to unprecedented pressure on the driving test system. I need to be transparent: the approaches the DVSA has taken so far have not been sufficient to meet the aspiration of reducing waiting times to seven weeks.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I do not wish to delay the Minister, but there is a concurrent theme throughout, which is the sheer incompetence of the DVSA over a long period. Does the Minister think that it would be better to have an inquiry into what is wrong with the DVSA and its failure to deal with these issues? It should not be left just to politicians; it should have tackled those issues. Will he commit to having a serious look at the functionality—the bureaucratic dysfunctionality—of the DVSA?
Simon Lightwood
I hear what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I will leave no stone unturned when looking for solutions to drive down those test delays. Even with all the measures we have put in place—including the additional test allowance incentives for examiners, which resulted in 56,000 additional tests being conducted between June and October this year, when compared with the same period in 2024—we are still not able to keep up with the rising demand. Reducing waiting times remains our top priority and we will continue to do all we can.
I want to update right hon. and hon. Members on the measures announced by the Secretary of State for Transport to the Transport Committee on 12 November. They are based on the outcome of a major consultation—not rushed or knee-jerk as the Opposition said—that received more than 90,000 responses, and are designed to make the driving test booking system fairer and to stop learner drivers being exploited.
I acknowledge the stress experienced by those who feel the need to join the early morning website queues. There are more new booking slots available on Tuesday to Friday for those who choose not to or cannot book tests on Monday mornings, but there is more that we can do. That is why we are taking strong action against bots and third-party resellers. We will reform the booking system so that only learner drivers themselves will be able to book and manage their practical driving tests. The number of times that a learner can move or swap a test will be limited to two, and there will be a limit on the area that a test can be moved to once booked.
Tom Gordon
Will the Minister elaborate on whether there will be further input from driving instructors? Has there been an impact assessment of the effect that removing their ability to book tests will have on the system overall?
Simon Lightwood
These actions were taken as a consequence of the 90,000 submissions and the work that we did in the DVSA and the Department, so they are based on feedback. These changes will make access fairer and will prevent unofficial businesses and third parties from reselling tests at inflated prices. They will prevent tests from being booked in quiet areas, only to be moved to high-demand areas.
Simon Lightwood
I will make some progress.
Local learners in quiet areas will have better access to tests at their preferred centres, and examiner resources will be focused where demand is highest. Reform to the booking system will give greater control to learner drivers. It will remove the ability for third parties to exploit the system, and will make booking a practical driving test fairer for all.
These changes require both legislative and technical updates, and implementation is expected to begin by spring 2026. I assure Members that I will do everything I can to move as quickly as humanly possible.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
As the mum of three teenagers, I know at first hand the challenges of getting a driving test—it took us a year to get one for my son. Constituents have shared their concerns with me. One person said that they logged in at 6 am on Monday morning, and they were 24,000th in the queue. I welcome the Government’s crackdown on bots and third party bookings—that is good to hear—but will the Minister clarify what plans he has to help constituents between now and the implementation in spring 2026?
Simon Lightwood
I will come on to those points. I assure Members that I will provide regular updates on the bots work as we move towards delivery. I absolutely accept that it is urgent.
Our agreement with the Ministry of Defence is not a headline-grabbing gimmick. It is important that we do everything at our disposal to drive down the wait for tests, and I make no apologies for that. Thirty six defence driving examiners will conduct driving tests for one day a week for 12 months. They will focus on car tests, but that offers the flexibility for vocational testing if required.
Those measures are in addition to the action we have taken so far, which includes doubling examiner training capacity to accelerate the recruitment and qualification of new examiners; introducing tougher terms for driving instructors who book tests on people’s behalf; reintroducing the additional testing allowance scheme for up to 18 months to provide more tests; continuing with the Ready to Pass? campaign, which 95% of users rate as useful, to encourage learner drivers to take the right action to prepare for the driving test; and recruiting and training 450 new examiners.
Despite the DVSA recruiting and training 344 driving examiners, the number of full-time equivalent examiners has increased by only 46, so retaining driving examiners is just as important as recruiting them. That is why we are giving examiners an exceptional payment next year of £5,000 to encourage more to stay. Those combined actions demonstrate our commitment to tackling this issue systematically and listening to feedback to create a fairer system for everyone.
Let me pick up a few of the comments from hon. Members. On temporary test centres, obviously we continue to review the DVSA estate, but frankly we need to focus on ensuring that we have enough examiners. I hear the pleas from some hon. Members, but it is not possible to have a driving testing centre in every town, although we do try and make sure it is as equitable as possible. I hear the idea behind extending the hours. However, our regulations state that we have to ensure that the eye test is done in good light.
The DVSA is already increasing capacity by conducting more tests through overtime and additional testing allowance. I am assured that it is not possible to block-book car practical driving tests. A driving licence number can be assigned to only one car practical driving test within the booking system at this time. Additionally, it is not possible to book beyond the 24-week window; DVSA only releases tests for that period.
We have been honest in admitting the challenges that the DVSA faces to meet that seven-week target. We will be assessing the input of the new measures that we announced the other day, as well as continuing to look for more ways to get waiting times down. We will be looking to that new leadership to get a grip of this as its top priority.
There was an ask to extend the two-year validity for theory test certificates. I have every sympathy with that ask, but theory test certificates are valid for two years by law, for road safety reasons. Safety should always be of paramount importance. Road safety knowledge and hazard perception skills must be up to date when the customer takes their practical test, and the Government have no plans to change this.
Zöe Franklin
We are here in the UK Parliament, and it is within our power to change the law to address the current situation around theory test validity. It is clear that people are struggling as a result of the two-year limit.
Simon Lightwood
As I went on to say, it is important for road safety reasons, and we should never we should never relax road safety. It must be paramount. I have every sympathy with that position, but it is not something that the Government plan to change.
Driving is a lifeline for many, especially in areas where public transport is limited, and we remain committed to ensuring that learners in the south-east and across the country can access tests promptly and safety. We are determined to restore confidence in the system and ensure that every learner who is ready to drive has the opportunity to enjoy a lifetime of safe and sustainable driving.
Dr Pinkerton
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in this very important debate for our constituents. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), my hon. Friends the Members for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), for West Dorset (Edward Morello), for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) and for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tom Rutland) for their sagacious contributions.
I am grateful to the Minister for addressing some of the genuine frustrations of our constituents. I am also grateful for his honesty in acknowledging the ineffectiveness of the DVSA in tackling this issue internally. I echo the call of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for a thorough investigation to be undertaken into the DVSA to ensure that, in fact, it is a functional organisation. That may lead to the changes that we all want to see on behalf of our constituents.
I also second the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) that an impact assessment be undertaken into the decision to block driving instructor bookings of test appointments because, as we have heard in several contributions, that can have a very significant impact on the way the system works in practice.
I also say to the Minister that a £5,000 bonus does not an effective workforce plan make. Although it may address a short-term issue, it does not necessarily ensure long-term retention of hard-pressed driving instructors. I do not think a Member in this Chamber would ask for a driving centre in every town, but there is a need for a proper geographical understanding of where the main pressure points are in order to seek to develop a regional plan to tackle some of the greatest pressure points. The hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) tempted me earlier to back his plan for a test centre in Bracknell; of course, I know that he will support my plan for a test centre in Camberley. We already welcome many of his constituents to our wonderful Frimley Park hospital. Let us continue in that vein.
I am being asked to wrap up—I know it is a busy day in the House—but I pass on my thanks to everyone who has made such valuable contributions, and I hope the Minister has heard some of the very valuable plans that have been laid out for him.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the availability of driving tests in the South East.
Children of Alcoholics
(1 day, 4 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
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the children of alcoholics.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, particularly on this day, when there are other events going on in Parliament. I am grateful to colleagues from all parties who have come to support this debate, and to the Minister on what I know is a very busy day for his Department.
Today is a chance to speak on behalf of the children of alcoholics. They are the children who suffer in silence around our country, and sadly there are now many of them; nearly 2.5 million children live with one or both parents suffering from serious alcohol dependency or abuse. It is my great privilege, standing here today as chairman-elect of the all-party parliamentary group on children of alcoholics, to introduce this debate and formally launch our campaign across both Houses and all parties for this Parliament to take forward the work of the National Association for Children of Alcoholics.
The APPG has been brilliantly and ably led by my colleagues Jon Ashworth and the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), who have passed the baton to me now that I am no longer in government. As a freelancer, and the deputy chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, I am free to speak without fear or favour. [Interruption.] I can hear the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) saying that I have always spoken without fear or favour.
I start by saying that there are many children of alcohol in this great Parliament. For many children, it is a terrible trauma of silent suffering from which they never really escape. It also drives into many children an extraordinary ability to take on responsibilities too young, as well as tasks and duties that should really fall only to adults, and it often engenders a drive to make a difference. We see 11, 10, nine or eight-year-olds face things that nobody should have to cope with, let alone a lonely child carer. It is perhaps not surprising that much of the drive that lies behind many people in this Parliament comes from some of those experiences, whether of alcohol or other addictions.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman; we spoke about people who have lived with this before the debate, which he might refer to, and I was very moved by what he told me. Across Northern Ireland, there are some 40,000 children living with parental alcoholism, and there has been a rise specifically in alcohol deaths. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there must be more focus, and that antenatal and health visitors should routinely screen parents who are dependent on alcohol to not only support the parents but ensure that the children are protected in the home? I have a friend who grew up with this, and I always remember their story—it has stuck in my mind all my life.
George Freeman
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I want to reassure the Minister that I am not here to hit him with 20 demands—that will come in due course. Today is really a chance to raise the flag of the all-party parliamentary group. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned one of the things in our manifesto for change, and I am grateful to him for raising it.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am really grateful for all that the hon. Gentleman does in this place. I want to raise the issue of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. We know that its prevalence is now 4%, which is higher than autism, and there is no screening programme for pregnant women, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) just mentioned. It is really important that we understand these issues and find a sensitive way to protect children from developing such a disorder.
George Freeman
The hon. Lady makes another excellent point. As I know the Minister and his Department understand, not only is there no magic bullet but many of these issues circulate and form secondary complications that cost—which is the least of it—huge amounts to the health system later.
I will touch on some of the mental health issues. In our society, 80% of us are reasonably lucky, but 20% of us struggle to escape these difficult syndromes related to living with addiction or suffering from mental health. Many of our prisoners are people who are still suffering—they are prisoners, actually, of mental health and addiction—and many of our children are born to parents who have no chance of giving them a start in life. There is a circularity here that drives a lot of underlying health conditions, predispositions and comorbidities.
Without indulging my own back story too much, I want to make the point that this affliction knows no class or geographical boundaries. When I first joined the all-party group back under the coalition Government as a newly elected Conservative MP, I went with some trepidation because it was—very proudly—led by Labour MPs pointing out that poverty is a major cause of addiction and alcoholism, and they were right. The point I made was that it is a curse that goes across our society, too.
I was very lucky to have one of the most materially privileged childhoods—packed off to the greatest schools money can buy and given all the material support—but as a child in a family of two alcoholic parents, in the end it does not matter. If you are suffering that experience, you are lonely and you are on your own. I acquired at a very young age a habit of spotting which adults could see below the line. By that I mean those adults who would look at an eight-year-old, see what was going on and quietly acknowledge it, saying, “And how are you, young man? Things can’t be easy.” That is all you need as a child—to know that somebody has spotted it.
Children are very loyal. The last thing they would ever do is dob their parents in. In fact, it is quite the opposite: many children end up having to lie for their parents to get them out of difficult situations. Those are habits that no child should learn. The thing I learned above all is that there are two types of adults: those who understand—who look, who acknowledge, who see—and those who do not see below the line. That is not shaped by class or geography at all. It is the same in this House: there are some colleagues who really understand the importance of children, who do not have a voice in here unless we speak for them.
I am speaking today on behalf of all those children, wherever they are, whoever they are and whatever background they come from, to let them know that we are listening. This Parliament is here to speak for them. They may not vote, and they may feel silent or unheard, but it is not the case. Many of us here do understand and want to help them.
You probably know a child of alcohol, Mrs Harris, as do colleagues. I say that because people often say, “No, I don’t.” Well, they probably do, because there are sadly over 2.5 million children in this country who are living not with parents who drink a little bit too much—that probably applies to many of us—but with one or two parents with a serious alcohol dependency problem.
Alcohol is part of our cultural history and something that we have come to live with, accept and in many ways encourage as part of our society. However, that often means that we forget the difficult consequences for the children who live with the aftermath, whether of social drinking, binge drinking, the habits that alcoholics acquire—the habits of deceit and often forgetting what they said or did—or the unintended consequences that undermine their ability to parent and that lead to children normalising those behaviours. I am speaking for those children, wherever they are and whoever they are.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Alcohol was a very prevalent part of my childhood. I was very fortunate to have grandparents who were able to step in when it was necessary, but I will never forget. It was the fear of knowing that the pubs had just closed and that my parent would be coming home in a horrible state to disrupt what would normally be a very productive and pleasant household. Sometimes, those are the things that children take away—they are the things that I remember and cannot get away from. Those experiences also impact our relationship with alcohol, to the point that it is not something that I enjoy or particularly partake in, simply because my memories were formed by those experiences at a very young age. While I was lucky to have my grandparents, you cannot get away from those memories.
George Freeman
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for making a powerful, personal and political point. He is absolutely right.
For my part, people often ask me how on earth I ended up in this place. My mother, who went on to become an alcoholic—tragically, my father had been an alcoholic and she suffered terribly through that; it is her funeral on Friday—asked me after I was elected, “When did you decide that you wanted to be an MP?” I said, “Actually, mum, I came on a school trip aged 10 or 11,” as schools do; it is wonderful to see children coming in. Nobody in the class knew that I was then a solo child carer of an alcoholic parent, dealing with the things that those children do.
What struck me about the thing I was living with was the fact that there seemed to be no one I could turn to. There seemed to be no network of support, and no one I could raise it with. One was on one’s own. I walked into the Chamber of the House of Commons, in which we have the privilege to serve, and was literally electrified by what struck me: the fact that there is a place where the nation tries to take responsibility for itself, where people are elected to take responsibility and actively seek it. That, to me, was an electrifying idea.
I remember that I was the least prepossessing boy in the class. I was the smallest boy, with a mop of red hair, a very bad stammer, crushing confidence issues and a double brace. I was the least likely boy in that class to become a parliamentarian. I remember walking into the Chamber and seeing the signs saying, “Don’t touch”, “Don’t sit down”, and staring at the Dispatch Box—it was at my eye height. I remember my teacher behind the Speaker’s Chair saying, “Stop dawdling, Freeman—keep up.” I said, “I’m not dawdling, sir; I’m intrigued, because it says ‘Don’t touch’, but someone has been touching it,” as the Minister will have touched it—the sweaty corner of that Dispatch Box where nervous Ministers, being cross-examined, hold on as they are being forensically held to account, something I now realise having had the privilege of doing it.
My teacher said, “No, no, no—that is not for the public; that is where Ministers hold on when they are being cross-examined.” I was electrified by that idea, and I left the Chamber thinking, “What a place.” If we can give the children out there who are suffering some confidence that we are here for them and that we are listening, I think we will be doing them a great service, and this Parliament and our democracy too.
I want to make a point about the geography of this matter because, as with so many social malaises, we sometimes think of it as an inner-city issue. Many of the formulae that the Government use to allocate money are largely driven by the formulae shaped after the inner-city riots of the 1980s. I used to be a specialist in local government finance, for my sins, and when we look at those formulae, a lot of them allocate money to areas that have high-rise flats and high incidences of minority ethnic families—all important indicators of certain types of deprivation.
In rural areas and many areas that do not fit those qualifications, however, there are many social issues that are often hidden. In rural Mid Norfolk—an area that people drive through on the way to the most beautiful coast in the land—behind the hedges and the beautiful villages there is a tidal wave of mental illness, depression and suicide, with a farmer a week taking their life, and children suffering. We often overlook that rural dimension, and that is equally true for mental health more broadly.
That is why last year I set up the Regeneration Theatre company with my wife, to take her inspiring one-man “Hamlet” made by her ex-husband—a former alcoholic who has been to prison and has been on a journey now—around prisons to help connect with prisoners and help them understand that many of the traumas they have experienced are actually to do with addiction and the behaviours that go with it. I am grateful to the prisons Minister for his support of that.
Today is really about the children of alcohol, and I particularly want to pay tribute to NACOA, the National Association for Children of Alcoholics. Hon. Members will know that there are many all-party groups in this great Palace—although rather fewer than there used to be, which I think is probably a good thing. There were ones for jazz, teddy bears, and even I think “Brideshead Revisited” at one point. Those light, frothy, frivolous all-party groups have gone. They are now generally very serious groups, committed to issues that do not lend themselves well to individual party politics—causes that often get lost. It has been my great privilege to chair a few.
I have to say that the all-party parliamentary group on children of alcoholics is the most extraordinary I have ever seen. The meetings are packed, with 100 or 200 people. We hear from children who come to Parliament to speak about their experiences. We hear from very high-achieving adults who are still dealing with the damage of their experiences. I will mention in particular Calum Best, whose father George Best was one of the greatest footballers in the land, if not the greatest—and a Northern Irelander to boot, I believe. Funnily enough, my mother met George Best at a drying-out clinic 40 or 50 years ago. Calum is an inspiring advocate for this cause. I also want to pay tribute to Hilary, Piers, Amy, Maya and all of those who volunteer to support the children, who without them would have no voice. I will also give a shout-out to Camilla Tominey, who has been a great supporter of our work.
We have supporters in the House of Lords as well. Sometimes, I think people think that privilege comes with a disconnection from some of these ills, but people might be surprised to know how many people there are in the House of Lords who have suffered as children of addiction of all sorts. This is not an issue that lends itself to advocacy by those from just a single party or geographic area.
I welcome the Minister—it is the first time we have had the chance to engage like this—and congratulate him on his appointment as the Minister with responsibility for life sciences, a role that I was lucky enough to be the first to hold. It is great to see him in his place. Having served in his Department, I know how many difficult issues he and the Department have to deal with; there is no magic silver bullet for any of them.
Over the course of this Parliament, the all-party group will try to set out a manifesto of reasonable, deliverable, fundable, understandable and relevant reforms that we hope the Government can work with us on. We do not suggest that the Government are the only body that can deal with this; we require a culture change and a broader network of support to help the charities, the community groups and those on the ground in communities where so many children suffer in silence. I will not go through the list of issues in the manifesto, and I will save for the Minister the duty of reading out the speech that his officials have probably carefully written and gone through point by point, but may I lead a delegation from the all-party group to see him and officials in due course, once the group is formally constituted, to run through the manifesto and talk through what else we might be able to do to help these children?
I want to give the Minister the chance to respond, so I will not detain the Chamber any longer, other than to say this. Let us all keep it in our minds that there are 2.5 million children out there who are, right now, watching the bottles, watching the levels, keeping an eye on their parents, distracted from their school work, struggling to do all the things that children should, learning to normalise anxiety and learning a lot of habits that will stay with them. For some, extraordinary tenacity might serve them well, but for many it will cause them long-term problems. I think that if we can grip this issue, we will be able to do a lot for long-term public health. I am grateful to the Minister, and to you, Mrs Harris, for allowing me this debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) on securing this important debate, in particular during what must be an unimaginably difficult week for him. I think I speak for all of us when I say that we send him our love and sympathy. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) for sharing his powerful personal story, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for their thoughtful contributions. I will be very happy, once the APPG has been convened, to liaise with the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk and the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), who has responsibility for public health, to see what form of meeting can be arranged.
Alcoholism is a tragedy that blights communities across the United Kingdom, including in my constituency of Glasgow South West and the west of Scotland. Having practised as a medical doctor for more than 20 years, I have seen it, including in some of the transplant patients who have arrived across my operating table. As much as I love my job as a surgeon, I would love nothing more than for those transplants to never be needed again.
I want to reassure colleagues that this brief sits not just with my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire, but with all Ministers across Government, who are rightly focused on raising the healthiest generation of children in history. We want to support children whose parents have alcohol problems, but we also want to support their parents to get better.
Although not all children of parents with an alcohol problem will experience harm, they are clearly at far greater risk and, as we have heard, far too many of them will have their childhood scarred by their parents’ drinking. In 2024-25, 14% of child social worker assessments cited parental alcohol use, and in 2023-24 alcohol or drug use was identified in 43% of child safeguarding practice reviews where a child was seriously harmed or, sadly, died.
Children growing up in these environments are more likely to face additional challenges, such as parental mental health problems and sometimes, unfortunately, domestic abuse. The trauma from such experiences can last well into adulthood, which means that the cycle can repeat, with the trauma passed on through multiple generations. We must do everything we can to break that cycle.
As we have heard, alcoholism can affect anyone, but at times it hits hardest in some of our deprived communities. That is why from April next year, the Government will be rolling out Best Start family hubs to every local authority. Those hubs will provide a high-quality service for parents, and will focus on early child development and the digital resources to facilitate that. They will be open to all and based in communities where alcoholism is most prevalent, ensuring that services reach the children and families who are likely to benefit most from them.
The Government have also confirmed that we are giving vulnerable families and children better access to local support services. Our strategy is based, first, on breaking the cycle of late intervention and, secondly, on helping more children and families to stay safely together as a unit. We are doing this through the national roll-out of the family help multi-agency child protection and family group decision-making reforms, which will be delivered through the Families First Partnership programme led by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education. The programme’s funding amounts to £2.4 billion over the next three years. To help identify vulnerable children and families affected by parental alcohol problems who need a helping hand, my Department will support local authorities with an additional range of resources, including local prevalence and treatment data, and child safeguarding guidance for alcohol and drug treatment services.
We are doing this for children and their families, but we must also target our support to make a sustainable difference to pregnant women with alcohol problems. Timely and effective treatment is key, because drinking in pregnancy leads to long-term harm for babies—for example, foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which has already been highlighted in this debate. Unfortunately, the more that women drink, the greater the risk. That is why the UK chief medical officer’s guideline is that if a woman is pregnant or thinks she might become pregnant, the safest approach is not to drink at all.
It is a genuine tragedy that pregnant women and mothers with alcohol problems are sometimes the most stigmatised and harshly judged people in our society. That means it is incredibly difficult for those women to speak out about their issues and to let services know that they have children, which prevents women, children and families from getting the help they deserve. We cannot forget that many women who drink during pregnancy come from homes where their own parents were dependent on alcohol and are often at the sharpest end of not only inequality, but complex and multiple other needs. Many of them were victims of trauma and abuse in their own childhood.
That is why the Government are committed to reducing stigma, improving the quality of treatment and making support available to every woman who needs it. First, we are piloting local approaches to reduce stigma among doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals. Secondly, we will soon publish the UK’s first clinical guidelines for alcohol treatment that include advice for supporting pregnant women and parents to stop or safely slow down their alcohol use. Thirdly, the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England are finalising the co-occurring mental health and substance use delivery framework, which will outline the commitments that we are making to improve integration of alcohol and drug treatment with mental health services at a national level. Fourthly, we plan to publish guidance on how treatment providers can better support and improve service provision for women. We will work with local commissioners to ensure that they consider in their drug and alcohol treatment commissioning plans the specific needs of pregnant women and parents.
We are also continuing to invest in improvements to local alcohol treatment services, which faced significant cuts followed by a decade of disinvestment. Just last week, the Government announced an investment of £13.4 billion—a 5.6% cash increase—over the next three years in local authorities’ vital public health work through the consolidated public health grant. That includes the overall £1 billion of drug and alcohol treatment and recovery improvement grants over the next three years. But treatment alone is not enough to improve outcomes for children. The evidence suggests that alcohol treatment, combined with support to help parents raise their kids, can increase the likelihood of recovery from alcohol dependency, reduce the risk of child neglect or abuse and, crucially, keep families together.
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this debate. It has given me the chance to outline how the Government are laser-focused on improving outcomes for children from all kinds of backgrounds who find themselves in these situations—children who, through no fault of their own, were born to parents who suffer from alcohol problems. I hope I have demonstrated that our approach is based not on stigmatising, but on keeping families together. That is why our strategy is based on Best Start family hubs and the Families First Partnership programme, so that we can make sure that parents in alcohol treatment services also receive vital parenting and family support.
The Department for Education has released statutory guidance called “Working Together to Safeguard Children”, and I want to pick out one line from it:
“Nothing is more important than children’s welfare.”
That could not be more true. Everything we are doing across Government is aimed at improving children’s health and protecting child welfare, so that every child can thrive in a loving, safe and stable home.
Let me end by speaking directly about the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk. Today he has spoken not only in this place, but to the nation. In doing so, he has ensured that more Members and citizens of our nation will now look, acknowledge and see below the line, so that together we can ensure that more children do not continue to suffer in silence.
Question put and agreed to.
1994 RAF Chinook Crash
(1 day, 4 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
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the 1994 RAF Chinook helicopter crash.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. The date of 2 June 1994 was a dark day in the history of our United Kingdom. On that day, on the Mull of Kintyre, Chinook ZD576 crashed, killing everybody on board: nine senior military officers, 10 Royal Ulster Constabulary special branch officers, five MI5 officers, a senior civil servant and four highly skilled members of the RAF. They were not only servants of the state, but husbands, fathers, sons, brothers and friends. They carried on their shoulders some of the most sensitive responsibilities in the defence and security of our country, and lost their lives in the course of that service.
More than three decades on, the quest for truth and justice in relation to that crash remains as relevant, urgent and morally compelling as ever. Sadly, the investigations and inquiries to date have not met the standards that those families or this country are entitled to expect. We have seen gaps in the chains of evidence, missing or incomplete documentation, the then Secretary of State for Defence being given an incomplete briefing, key information withheld or redacted, and manuals produced with missing pages.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I congratulate my friend the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) on securing this important debate. It follows a series of interventions, most recently from my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) with the Prime Minister. Given the Hillsborough disaster and the change in the law to create a duty of candour, with the tools in place and the onus on Government to be open and answer unanswered questions from the families, does the hon. Member agree that this is a most opportune time, and one that the Government should seize?
Alex Easton
I wholeheartedly agree—we need to get the truth, and there are mechanisms for that truth to come out. To put it bluntly, all that has gone on before has been weighed in the balance of justice and found to be severely wanting. It is now undoubtedly clear that we must give a proper final opportunity for the truth to be told in full, in public and under oath, with the power to compel witnesses and require the production of documents. Those on board Chinook ZD576 gave their lives in the service of our country. In all conscience, the minimum we can give in return is a process worthy of their sacrifice and the trust that their families once placed in the institutions of the state.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Indeed, is that not the ultimate insult? Those who lost their lives had given indescribable service to this nation and were a huge loss to our intelligence community, but what has happened since has been a series of events of obfuscation and probably cover-ups. That is compounded by the fact that documents have been sealed for 100 years, causing families to question what on earth there is to hide. Only if that question is answered will there be any rest for those people or a final, acceptable conclusion.
Alex Easton
I totally agree with everything the hon. and learned Member says. The families deserve better; they deserve the truth, and we in Parliament deserve the opportunity to get them that truth.
Today, with the clear backing of tens of thousands of British citizens—as evidenced by the Change.org petition—I rise to demand a full public inquiry, because nothing less will provide justice for the dead or restore faith among the living. At the very least, any functioning democracy must be able to answer three basic questions in circumstances such as these: what happened; why did it happen; and what have we done—or what are we going to do—to ensure that it can never happen again? To put it in the terms set out by 24 of the 29 bereaved families, the bare minimum requirement is a fully independent, judge-led public inquiry with statutory powers to compel witnesses and to take evidence under oath; access to all relevant material, including currently sealed documentation; and clear, robust recommendations for systemic reform, so that nothing like this can ever happen again.
The integrity, clarity and reasonableness of what is being sought could not be more evident. This is not a radical demand; it is the basic standard of accountability that a mature democracy owes to its citizens and, above all, to those who lost their lives and the families. Having identified the gaps, as well as the remedy—a judge-led public inquiry—the question before us is whether we have the will to act. We are here not simply to catalogue injustice, but to confront and correct it. That is ultimately the purpose of this House: to ensure that when wrong has been done, justice is not just spoken of, but delivered.
Let me turn to the doubts and divisions that have marred this process. The record shows that from the very outset, the handling of this tragedy has in many ways been a second tragedy. It has been marked by profound and enduring concerns, including the initial findings of gross negligence against the pilots; the long and painful campaign by the pilots’ families—I pay tribute to them all—to overturn that verdict; serious concerns about the airworthiness and software of the Chinook fleet at the time; questions about pressures on crews, training, procedures and decision making; and deep unease, to put it mildly, about conflicts of evidence and missing, incomplete or constrained documentation.
Years later, the pilots were posthumously cleared of gross negligence. When I look at what evidence ever existed for such a grave accusation, I find it inexplicable that the original conclusion was reached. That should make every Member of this House stop and think. Let me be absolutely clear: if the state can wrongly pin gross negligence on two dead airmen—men who could not speak in their own defence—what confidence can we possibly have that the whole truth has been properly and fully explored?
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I have a history with this story. Back in 1999, the late Lord Chalfont and I tried to draw attention to the fact that even at the time, the rules said that only if there was no doubt whatsoever should dead airmen be blamed for gross negligence. Since this case, under no circumstances are dead airmen blamed for gross negligence. That should be some comfort to the families, at least those of the airmen, because there have since been cases in which the Chief of the Air Staff has rightly ordered records to be changed retrospectively to clear airmen in other crashes who were unfairly blamed. That is a result of the furore about this terrible case—it is something for which the relatives of those who died can take credit. It will never happen again to any other airman who dies in the course of fulfilling his or her duty.
Alex Easton
The right hon. Member makes some very poignant points, and makes them well. I appreciate that they have been made.
I will tell you what I do have confidence in, Mr Dowd: I have confidence in the words of Niven Phoenix, a bereaved son who lost a heroic father. He said that if he were choosing the aircrew again, he would choose exactly the same ones. That is the measure of the men we are talking about. The clearing of the pilots did not close the book on the story; it reopened it, raising further fundamental questions. If not pilot error, then what? What combination of factors—technical, procedural and organisational—contributed to this disaster? Why were certain lines of inquiry seemingly resisted or, at best, left under-examined? Why were experts put under a direct order to cease their investigation? For many of the families, and for many observers, those questions remain profoundly unresolved.
Let me turn to why a judge-led inquiry is not only desirable but necessary. To the cynics who say, “This has been looked at before; it is time to move on,” let me be absolutely clear that that argument fails on three levels—moral, constitutional and practical. First, I will set out the moral case. There is a clear and unavoidable duty owed to the dead and to their families. The men and women on board ZD576 were in the service of their country; they were doing their duty, often in the most sensitive areas of national security. The very least they deserve in return is something fundamental: if they are killed in the line of duty, the state will move heaven and earth to discover how and why.
Instead, for 30 years, the families have had to fight again and again for answers that should have been offered willingly. They have had to endure conflicting official narratives, piecemeal disclosures and technical complexities sometimes being used as a shield and barrier against proper lay scrutiny, as well as long periods of silence, delay and dismissal. All this has unfolded while families have grown older waiting for justice, and some parents have died without ever seeing their child fully cleared, or having received a clear and honest account of what happened to them. We cannot change the past or undo this terrible crash, but we can decide how we face it; we can choose either candour or continued evasion. Make no mistake—that is the moral choice that Members of this House are making today.
Secondly, there is the constitutional case, which is a question of trust in the state itself. Our democracy fully functions only if our citizens can believe with confidence that when something goes terribly wrong, the state will not close ranks to protect itself. When tragedies such as this aircraft crash occur, in which decisions at the highest level may have played a part, the very minimum that the British public are entitled to expect is that evidence is not buried, mistakes are not quietly airbrushed away, and those in authority are not shielded simply because of their rank or department.
A full judge-led public inquiry with powers to compel witnesses and take evidence under oath is the gold standard in our constitutional toolkit for restoring truth and trust—for examining major disasters, exposing state failings in policing, health, security and transport, and confronting painful truths about institutional abuse and misconduct. If the deaths of 29 people, including senior security and intelligence figures, on a military aircraft in the service of their country do not meet the bar for such an inquiry, it is very hard to see what ever would. It would be a profound constitutional error for this House to imply that there are areas of state activity that can never be fully examined, regardless of how serious the consequences are. I do not believe that any Member of this House would be content with that.
Thirdly, let me turn to the practical realities. We insist on a judge-led inquiry with powers to compel witnesses and take evidence under oath because it is the only form of inquiry that has tools equal to the task. This House knows that only a full public inquiry can compel serving and former officials to give evidence; require the disclosure of all relevant material across departments and agencies; hear expert and technical testimony with the rigour needed to weigh competing interpretations; test accounts against each other in a structured and forensic way; and place everything within a publicly accessible framework in a clear, reasoned report. Let us be honest: without the power to compel, we rely on voluntary co-operation, which is by its nature selective. Without evidence given under oath, we cannot properly test credibility or consistency, and without judicial leadership, we cannot guarantee the independence, discipline and authority needed to command public confidence.
Let me tackle the objections to a public inquiry head on. Some people say, “This happened a long time ago.” Indeed, the crash was in 1994. Time has passed, but it has not healed; it has fomented doubt, leaving a growing sense of injustice. Memories may fade, but documentation does not. Technical records can be scrutinised. Policies, processes and decision making can be examined. Many witnesses are still alive and capable of giving evidence. The delays we have seen to date are not an excuse to fail to act now; they are, in truth, a reason to act.
Some people say, “There have already been investigations” —well, yes, of sorts. There have been fragmented processes, internal reviews and limited inquiries, but we have never had the single, judge-led public inquiry that the gravity of this tragedy demands. Those piecemeal processes cannot substitute for a full public reckoning. If previous procedures had been adequate, we would not be standing here now three decades on. The fact that this question remains unsettled is deeply telling in itself.
Some people say an inquiry will cost money—of course it will: truth, justice and confidence in democratic processes have a cost, but what is the cost of failing to act? It is the cost to the families in prolonged anguish and uncertainty. It is the reputational cost to the RAF and our democratic institutions, given the inadequacies of past investigations. It is the cost to the wider public’s confidence when it appears that some tragedies receive full scrutiny, while others are expected to be quietly managed and forgotten. When heroic lives have been lost in the service of the Crown, the cost of an inquiry is not a luxury or an optional extra; it is part of the debt we owe.
Some people say that an inquiry might endanger national security. We have heard that before in other contexts, yet time and again it has been shown to be possible to balance transparency with legitimate secrecy— inquiries can take sensitive evidence in closed session, for example. Highly classified material can be handled through carefully controlled procedures. Redactions can be made, subject to independent oversight. National security must never be used as a blanket to smother legitimate questions. The families are not seeking operational secrets; they are seeking an honest account of why their loved ones died and whether the actions or omissions of the state played a part. I contend that it is not only possible, but now entirely normal for a public inquiry to both protect the safety of our nation and respect the rights of citizens to the truth.
The issue is about far more than one crash, one aircraft and one dark day in 1994; it goes to the heart of how we treat those who serve, and how we respond when they are lost. Failure is not an option because if we continue to fail the families of those who died on Chinook ZD576, we send a chilling message to every current and future member of the armed forces and security services: “We value your service, but if the worst happens the truth about your death may not always be negotiable.” I do not believe that a single member of this House finds that acceptable, let alone tolerable. A proper judge-led public inquiry is not simply about revisiting the past; it is about learning lessons for the future. It is about airworthiness, risk and how we respond to concerns over equipment.
Behind each of the 29 lost lives was a unique and irreplaceable story: a pilot who trained for years and took deep pride in his aircraft and his crew; specialist officers who sacrificed family life and health to confront some of the most brutal terrorism western Europe has ever known, placing their own lives between the innocent and those who would harm them. Parents, wives, husbands and children have been left with an empty chair at the table, birthdays never celebrated, and milestones never reached. Children have grown up with treasured photographs and cherished memories instead of a living parent. Then there was a knock on the door, the formal words of condolence and the long, grinding aftermath of unanswered questions.
For so many of the families, the search for truth has required them to become unwilling experts in aviation, procedure and bureaucracy, simply so they could argue their case on something approaching equal terms. They have pored over reports, examined technical data and followed every thread of the investigation to date. They have written to Members of the House again and again in the hope that somewhere in authority there might be a listening ear with the courage to act.
We should hang our heads in shame that three decades on the families are still having to ask. Their position is not radical or unreasonable; it is, in fact, an appeal to simple integrity. They want a judge-led full public inquiry, with the power to compel witnesses—past and present—to attend, with the ability to take evidence under oath and with access to all the relevant documentation, to produce a public report that clearly sets out what is known, what is not known and what must change. That is not some dramatic departure from constitutional norms; it is entirely in line with the very best of our tradition of providing accountability when things go badly wrong.
We face a stark choice today. When the victims’ families knocked on our doors, did we listen politely and then quietly turn our backs or did we take their pain seriously? Did we recognise the limitations and shortcomings of the earlier processes? Did we accept that in a mature democracy the state must submit itself to the discipline of searching, independent scrutiny?
What is being sought is a fair route to the truth and to justice: an honest account of what happened and why. It should not be feared. Indeed, it should be embraced if we truly believe in the rule of law, accountability and the dignity of those who served and died. Today, we choose between courage and convenience. I urge Members to choose courage.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd? You are known as probably the most friendly Chair in the House, so we are pleased to have you here. We all enjoy your company. I certainly did last night; you and I had a good time together. Thank you very much for that.
I also thank the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), my constituency neighbour. He has fought this battle for a long time. He has also been a good friend of mine, going way back to the time of the council and the Assembly.
Jim Shannon
Was it 2001? My goodness! There we are—that is how long ago it was; I was not sure. I was really pleased to see the hon. Member set the scene so incredibly well today.
As I listened to the hon. Member’s speech, my mind—my memory—went back. Last night, Mr Dowd, we talked about things from many years ago and this debate has given us the chance to look back on that fateful day in June 1994. I remember what happened at that time; the story has been regurgitated each time the possibility of an inquiry has been mentioned since. I also remember the mists of the Mull of Kintyre. At one time the theory was that the IRA had done it, which was probably a reasonable assessment to make, but the fact is that it was not.
I pay tribute to the families of the victims, who over the years have given time and energy to pursue the truth. They have been patient over the years, even though every time they think about what took place, they must relive the trauma that they experienced then. We must be very aware of that. In the past, constituents have come to me about this issue, but we always seemed to hit a brick wall when it came to asking questions. The families had the questions and the questions that we asked as elected representatives were the questions that they asked us to ask for them. I should have said this before; forgive me for not doing so. It is nice to see the Minister for Veterans and People here today. I wish her well in her role. I understand that the Government have agreed to a meeting with the victims’ families. That is the right thing to do because the families are the reason we are all here today. I appreciate that.
The background to this case is very well known. There were 29 victims of the Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash back in June ’94, including 25 very senior Northern Ireland intelligence experts who deserve the transparency and accountability that only a judicial review can compel. As the years have passed, the evidence that the victims’ families have gauged and brought together is the work that the Government should have done, but did not. What a pity that is.
As I have said before, and as the Minister and others will know, Chief Constable Jon Boutcher supports a public inquiry, and that is of major importance. The fact that he is backing one is clear evidence that there should be an inquiry at the highest level. He, of course, might have known some of the victims, or none of them, but his present role is to ensure that the questions that the families want answered are answered, and the only way of doing that is through an inquiry. He further highlighted the need to address the uncertainty of the event—an endorsement at the highest level in relation to an inquiry.
Those who died in the Chinook crash of June 1994 were undoubtedly the cream of intelligence—the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Army and those involved in other realms of intelligence. It is important that we deliver the justice and truth that their families seek. We have heard on numerous occasions about the cross-party support for a judicial review, and we have now engaged that collectively in this House: when we ask for this, it is on behalf of all parties. I am sure that those in the Labour party are equally anxious to ensure that we get justice and that those questions are answered.
This is not a political issue, though—it never has been. It is about taking the steps that are true and right. This is about justice for the families. The lack of transparency in this matter only betrays the truth and the victims’ service to this great nation. The hon. Member for North Down referred to their sacrifices—the efforts that they put in, the years that they spent in their jobs—and the families’ quest for justice over all those years. I am glad that the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) made the point about the pursuit of the airmen; their credibility was never questionable. We thank him for that. The right hon. Gentleman has been an assiduous Member of Parliament over all the years I have known him. His interest in this matter is deeply appreciated.
The families have been grieving for too long; that feeling of loss and unanswered questions will never go away. The Ministry of Defence’s lack of willingness to pursue the matter only prolongs that lack of trust. Was the helicopter airworthy? The evidence seems to show that it was not, and the pilots were certainly not to blame. There also seems to be evidence that this was not the first time the helicopter had broken down and had to be fixed, only for the same repairs to be needed again. The evidence suggests that. The families brought that evidence together, and we appreciate that. There are many questions that the families want answered.
I understand that the Minister will agree to a meeting with the victims’ families, and that that will involve more than one Minister. The Chinook crash has been described as the worst single loss of life in the history of the RAF during peacetime. We have all heard the speculation about the technical difficulties and the allegations of gross negligence. The evidential base that the families and others have brought together clearly shows that that was not the case. It is now time for the MOD to step in and step up.
Historically, documents such as the ones we are discussing have been sealed, sometimes for a century. I just cannot get my head around why anyone would want to seal something for a century if it has some impact on the inquiry that we are all seeking on behalf of the families. Releasing necessary documents allows for a restoration of trust, which some feel is wanting. Can the Minister say whether the decision to seal the information for 100 years —a century—can be reviewed and overturned? Many of us are asking that question on behalf of the families.
The second thing I would ask for is an apology to the victims’ families and friends, for having to wait for all these years to have the meetings and the inquiry that they have asked for. The Minister might be able to respond to that. There must be a formal acknowledgment of the tragedy—not for any admission of legal liability, but as a recognition of the emotional and societal impact that it has had on so many for so many years. The fact is that for years the Government and the MOD have tried to suppress what was happening; now, hopefully, the chance to hear about that is drawing closer. Confidence when it comes to the victims of the Chinook disaster of June 1994 has been wanting since that time.
My third ask is this: the overarching goal is to rebuild trust through transparency, accountability and genuine engagement, so will the Minister and the Government prove that that is what they are trying to achieve? Simply providing information is not enough. Families need to feel that the MOD is taking responsibility and prioritising justice.
Along with Northern Ireland colleagues, I will continue to represent the families of the Chinook crash until accountability prevails. As always, we offer our deepest sympathy to the families, who to this day are still living with the devastation of the events that occurred in 1994. Today, Government have the opportunity to give truth and justice to the victims’ families. We ask for that on their behalf.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) for securing this debate and speaking so eloquently on the issue, which I know is close to his heart.
This event, the tragic crash of a Chinook helicopter on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994, has left an indelible mark on the lives of many families in Northern Ireland and across this United Kingdom. Twenty-nine lives were lost that day, including 25 intelligence experts from the security services, the RUC and the British Army. The majority of the UK’s senior Northern Ireland intelligence and counter-terrorism experts were wiped out, along with four crew members. The loss shook not only their families, but the communities they served and the nation as a whole. Many of them served on the frontline, standing against terrorism in Northern Ireland at some of the most dangerous times.
In recent months, I have been approached by families who continue to seek answers, clarity and recognition for the profound suffering they have endured. They are not merely questions about the past; they are urgent calls for justice and transparency. Families who lost loved ones were denied answers to their questions by successive Governments who hid behind the Official Secrets Act. Their grief and loss has not been adequately acknowledged or addressed, and I believe they deserve answers.
The families are frustrated and angry at the continued lack of transparency. I recently spoke in Tesco to the wife of one of the gentlemen who lost their life, and it was plain to see that the pain is still as raw today as it was back in 1994. Their lives were changed forever on that day.
Important Ministry of Defence documents remain sealed, limiting the public’s understanding of the decisions made that day. The families and, indeed, the wider public have a right to know what happened. It is not simply about accountability; it is about openness, honesty and their right to know the circumstances leading up to their loved one’s death. The cloak of secrecy has heightened suspicions.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
One of my constituents is a cousin of Master Air Loadmaster Graham Forbes, who was one of the four crew members who died that day. The bereaved families were never informed that the MOD had sealed those documents for 100 years, and it took a BBC investigation for that to be revealed. Will the hon. Lady comment on that? It seems utterly outrageous that the families were not informed in the first instance.
Carla Lockhart
I will mention that later in my speech, but it is absolutely outrageous that families who had been seeking answers learned of it from the BBC and not from our Government.
It is difficult to summarise the failings within a 90-minute debate. Despite the repeated claim that there have been six investigations, none had the legal powers of a full inquiry, none could compel documents or witness testimony, and all relied almost entirely on information controlled by the MOD and RAF—information we now know was incomplete, withheld or simply wrong. Early investigations wrongly blamed pilot negligence, only for those findings to be overturned some 17 years later, after the families of the pilots put up such a fight and campaign. It is right to mention Flight Lieutenants Richard Cook and Jonathan Tapper today.
At the heart of the tragedy lies one central fact: the Chinook Mk 2 was officially deemed unsafe. MOD test pilots described its FADEC—full authority digital engine control—software as “positively dangerous”, and the aircraft was grounded. The release to service in 1993 falsely declared it airworthy, even though only one of its 60 regulatory components was fully compliant. Repeated engine faults, unpredictable flight control behaviour and warnings dating back to 1988 were never resolved, yet ZD576 was allowed to fly. And 29 people paid for that decision with their lives.
Key evidence disappeared from the crash site. As has been said, we know through a BBC documentary that those documents remain sealed for 100 years—to find that out in such a way is absolutely outrageous. Senior figures, including Defence Secretaries and fatal accident inquiry participants, were not told about ongoing MOD litigation over FADEC failures at the time, but they were expected to deliver judgments on its safety.
Today, we must ask: why were passengers placed on an aircraft deemed unfit to fly? Who authorised its use, despite unresolved technical faults? Why were MOD test pilots prohibited from flying the Mk 2, yet the 29 who lost their lives were not? Why were airworthiness concerns ignored, expertise overruled and evidence withheld? How can we prevent future disasters if the truth remains locked away?
The families are not seeking blame; they are just seeking answers. They are calling for an independent, judge-led public inquiry with full legal powers to compel documents and testimony, review technical and regulatory failures, and recommend reforms to ensure such a tragedy never happens again. After 30 years, transparency is not just overdue; it is a moral obligation. Only a full inquiry can deliver justice for the 29 lives lost and restore public trust in military aviation oversight.
I asked the Prime Minister for a meeting in a recent parliamentary debate on the duty of candour, and I am pleased that it has been confirmed to the families that they will receive a meeting with the MOD before the end of the year. That critical step is a recognition of the pain the families continue to carry, and a signal that their voices are being heard at the highest level of government. However, meetings and discussions alone are not enough. We must ensure that the families’ calls for a judge-led public inquiry are granted. We owe them a process that is thorough, independent and capable of uncovering the truth, unimpeded by bureaucratic delays or secrecy.
It is essential to acknowledge the work of the Chinook Justice Campaign. The campaigners have fought tirelessly. They have come together, they have gelled and they are on a mission to get answers from this Government. By supporting their efforts, we reinforce the fundamental principle in a democratic society that no tragedy should be hidden and no family should be denied answers.
The Chinook tragedy is not simply an historical event; it is a living wound for the families and friends of those who perished. They have now waited 31 years and counting for clarity, recognition and justice. It is our duty, as elected representatives, policymakers and citizens, to ensure that their voices are heard and that the process in place reflects fairness and compassion, and is one they can support. I urge the Government to act decisively. Let us ensure that the families have access to the information they need, that those who were involved in the aftermath are recognised, and that lessons are learned so that we safeguard our service personnel and communities in the future.
In closing, I reiterate the simple truth that guides my engagement on this matter: these families have suffered unimaginable loss, and they deserve transparency and justice. Let us commit to supporting them, to honouring the memory of those lost, and to ensuring that no evidence is left unheard in the pursuit of truth. If I had time, I would read out the 29 names. I encourage every Member to read them, because behind every name is a family who remain broken because of unanswered truths.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Dowd. I, too, begin by thanking the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) for securing this debate and for the thoughtful and considered way in which he opened it.
This debate is long overdue, and I share the hon. Gentleman’s hope that it will be the start of a process that leads to a much-needed and much-called-for fully independent, judge-led public inquiry. That inquiry must be able to compel people to give evidence so that we and, more importantly, the families can get to the truth of exactly what happened on the evening of 2 June 1994 when that ill-fated Chinook Mk 2 crashed into a fog-shrouded hillside on the Mull of Kintyre at the southernmost tip of my Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber constituency.
It was of course a tragedy for the families, but it has also had a deep and lasting impression on the community of Campbeltown and south Kintyre, many of whom were first on the scene of the accident and are still haunted by the experience. This is deeply personal for many of my constituents. The issue has come up time and again since my election to this place in 2015, brought to my attention by people in the local area. I recall attending a packed memorial service at Southend parish church on 2 June 2019 to mark the 25th anniversary of the disaster, before joining scores of local people on that desolate, windswept hillside on the Mull of Kintyre for a ceremony at the memorial cairn erected to the memory of all those who died in the crash.
The families have fought for more than three decades to get to the truth of what happened to their loved ones, only to be met by a wall of silence and obfuscation by the Ministry of Defence and repeated refusals to meet with them. No doubt the Minister will point to the fact that there have been numerous inquiries and investigations into the crash, but she knows that not one of those investigations has examined the central question of why the decision was made to authorise a flight in an aircraft that was known to be unfit and not airworthy. She knows, too, that every inquiry hitherto has not had the power to compel evidence, which is why it is essential that we have an independent, judge-led public inquiry.
The Minister will also know that many of the findings of those early investigations have been thoroughly discredited, particularly the shameful attempt by the Ministry of Defence to pin the blame on the flight crew—Flight Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook—who she knows were both subsequently fully exonerated. As one of the family members told me recently,
“Rick and Jonathan were the best pilots, flying the worst aircraft.”
Of course, if the MOD was so confident that it had got to the bottom of what happened on the Mull of Kintyre that evening and that there is nothing more to learn, why would it lock away and seal the key technical and legal documents for 100 years? There is a catalogue of such incidents, which means that the trust between the families and the MOD has completely evaporated over the past 31 years.
That suspicion and loss of trust is deeply entrenched among the families. I recall, in 2019, raising on the Floor of the House of Commons how rumours were circulating that the Ministry of Defence was about to destroy some of the files pertaining to the crash. I had to ask the then Leader of the House to make sure that her colleagues in the Ministry of Defence did no such thing. That was the level of distrust back in 2019, and sadly, it has not improved.
Last month, I was honoured to be asked, alongside the hon. Members for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) and for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), to join the families when they handed in a 51,000-name petition to Downing Street, demanding an independent judge-led public inquiry to get to the bottom of why that unairworthy aircraft was allowed to leave Belfast, and why it subsequently crashed into a Scottish hillside. After we handed in the petition, a few of us sat with the families for a few hours to hear about the impact the crash has had on them—not just the crash but the subsequent cover-up.
I leave Members with some of the statements I jotted down from those meetings with those still-grieving family members. One of them told us:
“It is like living with a chronic disease… the pain is always there.”
Another, whose father was a senior police officer on board, said that because of their circumstances,
“we all held our lives so dearly, but officers and Ministers held it so cheaply when they loaded them”—
their families—
“on to that Chinook.”
A third added that
“this is not a political issue. It is just an old-fashioned issue of right versus wrong.”
I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is hugely significant that two former Defence Secretaries, Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Sir Liam Fox, have publicly expressed their support for the families’ campaign, stating that they now believe that they were misled regarding the circumstances of the flight. Given that, it has become increasingly difficult to conclude anything other than that what we have witnessed for the past 31 years is simply a cover-up. It is not a cover-up for reasons of national security; it is a cover-up for reasons of national embarrassment.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd, given your insight on matters of national security. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) for securing the debate today.
This summer, a constituent joined me in my surgery at Honiton and explained that she was the widow of one of the victims who had been killed in a helicopter crash in 1994. Her husband was one of the 29 security personnel who were killed when Chinook Zulu Delta 576, in which they were travelling, crashed over the Mull of Kintyre. In my speech, I want to focus on what has happened since: the years of uncertainty, the fragmented investigations, the unanswered questions and the decision to seal key documents away until 2094.
My constituent is now a member of the Chinook Justice Campaign, led by 24 of the 29 families who are seeking answers about the crash itself, but also accountability for way that it was handled in the aftermath. They have set out a long list of unanswered questions—a stark reminder of how much remains unresolved for the families—including: “Why were our loved ones placed on an aircraft that even the Ministry of Defence and its most experienced test pilots were prohibited from flying?” and “Were the passengers on board told that the proper authority in the Ministry of Defence had determined that the aircraft was not to be relied on in any way whatsoever?” After three decades, those are modest and entirely reasonable requests.
The withholding of information has denied families the answers that could have brought some closure to their grief. Across 31 years, six separate investigations have examined the Chinook crash, yet none has provided a full or coherent account of what happened. The original RAF board of inquiry in 1995 blamed the pilots without ever resolving the serious airworthiness concerns known about at the time. Later reviews, culminating in the 2011 Lord Philip review, overturned the negligence verdict but still did not address why the aircraft was allowed to fly despite being declared unairworthy by the MOD’s own testing centre in 1993.
Even subsequent parliamentary scrutiny and internal MOD examinations, including through the 2000s and the 2010s, left major questions unanswered. Those include how the false declaration of airworthiness was made, why crucial information was withheld from the pilots, and what is contained in the documents now sealed until 2094.
Tessa Munt
When the Minister replies, I wonder whether she might answer this question, with which I am sure my hon. Friend will agree. When did the MOD stop allowing so many critical personnel on one flight? Those on board included members of MI5, RUC special branch and the British Army intelligence corps, as well as Northern Ireland security experts—almost all the UK’s senior Northern Ireland intelligence capability on one flight. We know that in the case of the royal family, the monarch and the heir are not allowed to fly together. Will the Minister explain exactly when the MOD stopped the practice of putting everybody on one flight? Has that actually happened?
Richard Foord
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I understand that so many high-value, senior and experienced personnel would not be put on the same flight today. If we reflect on that collision in 1994, we have to ask why six inquiries have not brought clarity. Instead, families are left with a patchwork of findings, and gaps where the truth should be.
The Chinook Justice Campaign poses a crucial question: how can future tragedies be prevented through changes to oversight and accountability? That brings me to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which passed its Second Reading this month. Its central idea is that public servants should have a duty of candour—a legal requirement to act truthfully, to co-operate and to avoid the kind of defensive practices that have deepened the suffering of victims’ families in the past.
The Bill contains a significant exemption under clause 6: the duty of candour does not apply to the intelligence agencies or others who handle material falling within the definition of “security and intelligence” in section 1(9) of the Official Secrets Act 1989. I entirely understand why some agencies and the broader intelligence community might need to be exempt, but if certain institutions are to be exempt from a statutory duty of candour, Parliament must at least strengthen the independent mechanisms that can review and oversee sensitive decisions behind closed doors.
At present, that mechanism is the Intelligence and Security Committee, but its remit no longer reflects how all national security work is carried out across Government. In its 2022-23 annual report, the ISC warned that the
“failure to update its Memorandum of Understanding”
has allowed key intelligence-related functions to shift into policy Departments outside its oversight, creating what it called an “erosion of Parliamentary oversight”.
Families want to see the full truth and have urged MPs who represent them to call for relevant documents to be released where possible. Liberal Democrats support the families and are calling for the release of those sealed Chinook documents that can be released, and a judge-led public inquiry in due course with access to all relevant material, so that the unresolved questions about airworthiness and accountability can be answered. We are also urging the Government to follow through with a duty of candour on public bodies, which should of course include the Ministry of Defence, in which the Minister and I and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), all served.
We need to ensure that bereaved families are never again forced to fight for decades to have basic transparency. Where documents relating to the Chinook crash can be released, they should be, so that families can finally understand the full truth of what happened and why. If there are elements relating to national security that genuinely cannot be made public, the Government must put in place trusted, independent parliamentary oversight with the authority to examine that material. For the sake of my constituent, and for every Chinook Zulu Delta 576 family still waiting for answers, we must not let this injustice endure for another generation.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) for securing this important debate and giving us the chance to revisit what more can be done for those involved in the Chinook Justice Campaign. We have already heard in detail the circumstances surrounding the fatal crash of the RAF Chinook on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June 1994. Like others, I begin by paying tribute to the 29 people who lost their lives that day in what remains one of the worst tragedies in the history of the RAF.
Many of the passengers were members of the Northern Ireland security and intelligence community. Their deaths were not only a serious loss to this country’s security but, above all, a profound personal tragedy for each of the 29 families who lost loved ones that day. It is deeply saddening that, 31 years on, those families still feel that their fight for truth and justice—we have heard those two words repeatedly today—is unfinished.
I am genuinely honoured to respond to this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. Like many others here, I remember watching the BBC documentary series on this tragedy when it aired early in 2024. It laid bare the lasting impact of that horrific day, the grief carried by the families and the distress caused by the RAF board of inquiry’s now-discredited findings, which placed blame on the pilots. Long, determined campaigns have followed to clear their names, and I pay tribute to the families for those efforts. We can all agree that those documentaries were deeply sad to watch. For those who remember the event itself, it was a horrible mark on this country’s history in Northern Ireland.
I do not believe that anyone who saw the documentary could fail to feel disappointed, or indeed frustrated, at the wholly unnecessary suffering that these families have endured. It took a 16-year fight, and a determined campaign by these families, for a formal acceptance that an injustice was done—that is a long time to have to live with that. In 2010, it was right that the Government at the time listened to the families and the repeated concerns raised by various Committees across both Houses, and commissioned the independent inquiry that finally set aside the findings of gross negligence against the pilots. Lord Philip’s conclusions cleared the pilots’ names, and formal apologies were issued to the families for the distress that they had carried for so many years.
Many of today’s contributions have outlined what action Members would like to see from the Government, and I believe that there is cross-party consensus on our asks. The hon. Member for North Down reiterated the two aspects of truth and justice, and he laid out a practical approach to getting answers, as well as the mechanisms needed to find out what really happened. I completely agree with him that the families deserve truth, and I align myself with a key point that he made: we need to provide justice for the dead and—from what we have seen recently—restore faith among the living. Ultimately, we are all asking for this because no one wants to see such a thing happen ever again. The hon. Member laid out the three parts of the argument—the moral, the constitutional and the practical—and I think we can all agree that they are very compelling.
I also put on record my apologies to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for missing him out in my last wind-up speech. He brings a great deal of experience to this House and contributes to many debates. He is also a veteran and speaks up for the people of Northern Ireland repeatedly. I completely align myself with his approach. The time and the energy that the bereaved families have had to put into the campaign to get basic answers is a stain on multiple Governments, and I really hope that answers can be found. I am glad that the Minister and the Government have agreed to meet the victims’ families before Christmas. That is important, and I look forward to hearing the findings.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) said that an indelible mark has been left on so many lives across Northern Ireland. She lives and breathes that every day, and I know she fights for her constituents. She highlighted the loss to our intelligence and security community; losing such key personnel at a time of increased instability will have had a massive impact on operations in Northern Ireland. She talked about the need for openness and trustworthiness. It is right that the families and those who are interested in this matter find out what happened. We have heard several times today that there were significant inconsistencies in the multiple investigations over 31 years. She rounded off by saying something that the families would agree on: they are not seeking to blame anyone; they just want to find out what happened.
The hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) talked about the impact that the crash had on his constituency. I have watched the documentary and seen the interviews with the families, but it is difficult to put myself in the shoes of the local people who were just going about their daily businesses when such a horrific crash was inflicted on their community. It has had a lasting impact across multiple generations. He spoke about the previous investigations, many of which have been discredited. I am glad to see the effort he put in to get together the 51,000 names to be presented to the Prime Minister in a petition, and I heard his calls for a judge-led inquiry.
The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), my neighbour in Devon, talked about the years of uncertainty. He looks into matters of intelligence and security in this House and brings weight to this conversation. He talked about the inconsistencies between multiple investigations, and about the six inquiries over the years, which have not produced an acceptable response to the families.
This issue is personal to me. I spent much of my career in the Royal Marines, and I relied on Chinooks. After a long night’s work in a hostile country, the moment that we heard one coming over the hill was the moment that we allowed ourselves to breathe. We trusted the aircraft and, of course, we trusted the people flying it even more. I know how highly trained and highly skilled the men and women who fly these aircraft are. They are utterly committed to their jobs. Having had the pleasure of being transported by special forces Chinook pilots, I can personally attest to their consummate professionalism. We knew that they would do everything in their power to keep us safe and get us where we needed to go.
That is why the original finding of gross negligence was so hard to accept, given the complete lack of evidence. It ran directly against the RAF’s rule that deceased aircrew should be found negligent only when there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever. Aircrew deserve the assurance that when something goes wrong every other explanation will be examined and, unless clear evidence points to fault, they will be given the benefit of the doubt.
In this case, as we have heard multiple times across the investigations, there was a great deal of doubt, yet two of the RAF’s finest special forces pilots, unable to defend themselves or explain what happened, were held responsible. That decision ignored the uncertainty and the RAF’s own regulations. For those of us who have placed our lives in the hands of aircrew, I can understand why that feels like a breach of the trust that every service person must have in those responsible for bringing them home.
We also know that there were persistent concerns that the aircraft itself may have suffered a malfunction—we heard that again from right hon. and hon. Members today. As has already been acknowledged, Boscombe Down, the military aircraft testing site, had repeatedly raised worries about the airworthiness of the Chinook HC2 variant. In the period leading up to the accident, those concerns became significant enough that Boscombe Down stopped flying the HC2 altogether. This is a very important point: if test pilots—people whose job is to push aircraft to their limits—decline to fly something because of safety concerns, that cannot be overlooked. Despite those warnings, the aircraft were still brought into operational service.
I have waited for Chinooks in some of the most dangerous moments of my life. The Minister probably has similar experiences. I cannot imagine being sent an aircraft that was even suspected of being unsafe. If we ask people to risk their lives for our country, we must ensure that the equipment they depend on and the decisions taken on their behalf meet the highest possible standard. I very much hope that lessons are learned from this incident so that nothing like it ever happens again. With that in mind, I again offer the families, some of whom are here today, my deepest sympathies that the full facts of what happened on that day remain largely unknown. I can only imagine the anguish that brings.
I understand entirely why the families are asking for the 100-year closure to be lifted. When the Chinook Justice Campaign approached my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, he wrote to the Armed Forces Minister seeking an explanation for that decision. I understand that the Government’s answer pointed towards GDPR restrictions and the assumption of a 100-year lifetime for sensitive material. I hope the Minister might expand on that. Personal information must be protected, but a century-long closure is a substantial barrier. Surely there is some way to provide the families with at least some sense or measure of clarity. Under the current approach, they will never see the information in their lifetimes. That is deeply sad for anyone who has lost someone and wants to find out what happened.
I ask the Minister to reflect on the inconsistencies of the wider Government position. One of the main arguments that we have heard time and again over recent months in support of repealing the Northern Ireland legacy Act is that the victims’ families have a right to know what happened, but that principle does not seem to apply in this case. I hope that changes when the Minister meets with families. It is difficult to reconcile.
The Ministry of Defence has said that the 100-year closure will be reviewed in 2029. Although I appreciate that that is part of a regular cycle, it must feel very far away for families who have spent decades searching for answers. I am willing to work with the Minister and the defence team to see what can be done. I ask the Minister to work closely with the Chinook Justice Campaign in the meantime and to provide whatever information can be safely shared.
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) for securing this important debate and speaking with such passion on behalf of the bereaved families who were impacted by this tragic accident 31 years ago. As he will know, I am a veteran myself. I know that the pain of losing loved ones does not diminish with the passage of time, and nor should it. In this case, there is the added hurt for families of not knowing, after more than three decades, precisely why the Chinook crashed or why their loved ones died. As he may know, I served in the Intelligence Corps. The loss of the Intelligence Corps personnel on board was felt when I joined in 2014 and, indeed, I discussed it with former colleagues recently. Their legacy is very much still alive and the impact of their service very much still remembered.
Colleagues will be well aware that the courts are considering the Chinook Justice Campaign’s request for a judicial review of the ministerial decision not to grant a new public inquiry into the accident. The judicial review process is a vital mechanism to hold public bodies to account and the courts will make their decision fairly and impartially. I will not provide a summary of our response to the courts or justify our position, but I will touch on a few points, including those raised in the debate.
I want to focus on the lessons that have been learned and applied as a lasting legacy of the 29 people who we lost that day and I know are greatly missed. It is vital that the public have confidence that those of us in positions of responsibility will honour our commitment to the duty of candour. That is the message at the heart of the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill, which I am pleased to say has cross-party support for the reasons that we have heard several Members address today.
I want to address some of the points about the files that are held in the National Archives. There are claims that the files contain vital information about the cause of the crash, and that the information has been intentionally withheld. As we have stated publicly, the documents contained in the files have been reviewed by officials, who have confirmed that they contain no information that would offer new insights into the crash. I understand that only 0.1% of the documents are subject to the 100-year review. Most of those relate not to maintenance or repair logs, but to compensation or personal details, which of course was the reasoning for the 100-year closure in the first place.
Tessa Munt
I have done quite a lot of reading and received information from the family, but it is not clear to me the date on which the documents were sealed or by whom. Can the Minister confirm that? Who made the request that they be sealed, who made the decision that they should be sealed, and when was that decision made? I do not expect her to be able to answer off the top of her head, so I am happy for her to write to me.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I do not have the exact details to hand right now, but it is quite routinely the case that, where documents of this nature contain personal information, they are closed for 100 years to allow for the people whose details they contain to have passed away, at which point the privacy considerations obviously change.
Tessa Munt
I understand why they have been sealed. I would like to know who made the decision to seal the documents for 100 years, and on what date it was made. It was clearly not in June 1994, because it lasts for 100 years. Somebody made the decision after that date to seal those documents.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I will get the hon. Member the information. I understand that they are sealed until 2094.
Carrying on the point I was making, there is some material, from various sources, that puts forward theories relating to the crash, but those theories have been publicly aired in previous investigations, and I reiterate that the reason for those documents being closed is that they contain personal information. As has been mentioned, that is up for review in 2029. Although these documents are FOI-able, personal details would none the less remain redacted. The files have been transferred to the National Archives, which is standard practice, and the personal data has been marked as closed.
There have been six investigations and inquiries into the crash of Chinook ZD576. As a result of those, and the inquiries into the tragic fatal crash of RAF Nimrod XV230 in 2010, the Department has made a number of very important changes to its air safety and incident—
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Did the Minister just say that all of these documents would be FOI-able and would then be released, albeit in redacted form, presumably in the usual way, with personal details being blacked out?
Louise Sandher-Jones
Yes, that is the information I have been given.
The Department has made a number of important changes to its air safety and incident review processes since 1994. As we heard from the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), the change to the board of inquiry process so that negligence is not attributed to dead airmen is a hugely important step, which resulted partly from the investigations of this incident.
Chief among the changes is the establishment of the Military Aviation Authority, an independent and autonomous body that ensures that expert, no-blame investigations of safety-related incidents and near misses across all defence domains are independent, impartial and timely. As recommended by the board of inquiry report, accident data recorders and cockpit voice recorders are now installed across the vast majority of Ministry of Defence air fleets, and formalised instrument meteorological conditions climb procedures were introduced throughout the RAF to support aircrew to safely negotiate poor weather conditions. Today the RAF has a robust and effective safety management system, and a commitment to total safety is embedded in the culture of the organisation.
Sir Julian Lewis
I apologise for intervening after having stepped out for part of the debate—this may already have been covered. Has any consideration been given to possible embarrassment over the decision to put so many staff, in so many sensitive positions, into a single aircraft? Despite my past interest in this case, I am not sure that I have ever heard that rules have been changed so that so many precious resources are not put at risk all in one single vehicle.
Louise Sandher-Jones
It is a very interesting point. I understand the reference, and I would be interested to know about further standard operating procedures. I am sure that, as the right hon. Member will understand, it is quite a rare occurrence to have that many senior people on the same airframe in the course of business, but I cannot say right now that that is definitely the case, or what the bounds are in terms of ranks and so on. I am sure the right hon. Member will appreciate that.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Order. If the Minister wants to give way, she is perfectly entitled to, but you should not force it by standing up.
Tessa Munt
Exactly as has just been said, I asked earlier whether, and when, that practice had been changed. I would very much like to know the date on which that decision was made, the nature of the decision and its wording, which I would share with the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis).
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and note her request.
The hon. Member for North Down spoke movingly in his compelling speech about our moral duty to uncover the truth. I am committed, as I know my colleagues are, to the contract with those who serve our nation—we are serving them. Part of that contract is that when we ask them to do dangerous things, or put them into harm’s way, we have a moral duty to have done what we can to mitigate the risks they will face. To do that, we must do all the preparatory work necessary and learn the lessons when there is the opportunity to do so.
Let me briefly address a point—a single point, and not necessarily the entire argument—raised by the hon. Member for North Down and others. Although the review by Lord Philip was not statutory and therefore did not have the power to compel, I note that nobody who was called to give testimony absented themselves. Although they were not compelled, nobody refused to come.
The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) made an excellent point about the need for the Government to be open. I wholeheartedly agree on that, and on the need for accountability. I have already addressed the point made by the right hon. Member for New Forest East. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke passionately, as he always does, on behalf of those who have suffered. I reiterate the importance of getting to the truth of what happened. That is the central driving point and why we are all here for this debate.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) spoke passionately on behalf of her constituents, and rightly called for justice and transparency. She called on us to read those 29 names, as I will do after this debate. She made the valid point that we must remember each and every person we lost in the crash. I thank her for her impassioned call.
The hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) asked some very important questions, and I will write to her on the specifics. I hope I have already addressed at least some of her questions about the closed documents. Her point about the families not being told about the documents being sealed is a valid one. In this and similar situations, it is incumbent on us, the Ministry of Defence, to communicate everything we can to the affected families. I thank her for raising the point.
The hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) raised the issues that the families have faced over the past 31 years in getting to the truth of what happened to their loved ones and why, and in achieving an understanding of the factors in the flight. I thank him for speaking so passionately on their behalf.
The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) spoke very well on behalf of his constituents. He made an important point about the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill. As he will know, some Government business is quite rightly classified, but there is still, of course, a need for accountability. He may be aware of my previous military service, and he will know that I absolutely understand the value of being able to carry out classified work, but the issue of accountability is valid whether we are talking about classified or unclassified work. I will certainly take his point away with me.
The hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) spoke very well, particularly about his own personal experiences. We heard a Chinook go overhead—
Louise Sandher-Jones
Exactly. It is a sound that the hon. Gentleman and I obviously know very well. Again, this goes back to my service in the Intelligence Corps. Before I deployed to Afghanistan, someone who was interested in my safety, and who was in the corps, told me to be careful, because it is when travelling that, unfortunately, we in the Intelligence Corps tend to lose our personnel. I am well aware that this is not the only crash in which we have lost members of the corps.
We are well aware of that every time we get into a military aircraft, particularly if it will be flying in hostile conditions. Every time I climbed into an aircraft, predominantly RAF Pumas, that had to fly in certain tactical ways—a bit more acrobatically than usual—I, and every single person on that flight, put so much trust in those who maintained, certified and produced the airframe. It is the work of many people to ensure that someone, whether the pilot or a passenger on the flight, can trust that it will get them from A to B as it should. That trust also extends to knowing that if anything happens to a flight, there will be truth and accountability in getting to the bottom of what went wrong, whatever the cause may be, without fear or favour. I very much acknowledge that principle today.
I also acknowledge the level of anger felt by those represented by the Chinook Justice Campaign. The noble Lord Coaker has written to them to invite representatives to meet him, the Minister for the Armed Forces and me, with the meeting scheduled for 16 December. I understand that the families and loved ones of the 29 people killed that day continue to search for answers to explain what went wrong. The review that was undertaken by Lord Philip concluded that the cause of the accident is likely never to be known, and I am truly sorry for that. Once again, I thank the hon. Member for North Down for securing the debate.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Before I call Alex Easton, I remind Members that I have allowed them more flexibility in coming and going than I would ordinarily, given the sensitivity of the issue and people having arrived late. Please bear that in mind in future.
Alex Easton
I thank all Members for their speeches and interventions. On behalf of the families, we appreciate the interest and the real reason: trying to get to the truth. Will the Minister to confirm something the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) mentioned about FOIs? Am I correct in saying that if somebody submits an FOI request for the documents that were sealed for 100 years, they can all be obtained, with redactions? I am willing to take an intervention.
Louise Sandher-Jones
They would have to go through the FOI process, which of course is not—[Interruption.]
Louise Sandher-Jones
I cannot prejudge the outcome of an FOI process for something that has not been asked for, but they can absolutely go through that process.
Alex Easton
I thank the Minister for her answer. We will certainly look at an FOI on that, just to see.
For too long, questions have remained unanswered. Why have the Ministry of Defence documents been sealed for 100 years? Why were repeated warnings ignored time and again? Where was the due diligence on the Chinook Airworthiness Review Team reports, which identified systematic failings? Where was the due diligence in response to the September 1993 report that described the FADEC software as “positively dangerous”? Where was the due diligence on the October 1993 findings of MOD test authorities that were unable to recommend the aircraft for flying? These are not just abstract questions; they go to the very heart of accountability, trust in our institutions, and justice for the families, who have waited far too long.
A 100-year blanket ban of secrecy cannot be allowed to smother the quest for truth, so we will test that with an FOI request. Light must be shone into the darkness. Today we have a choice to continue to hide behind delays and smokescreens, or to honour that long-held principle that justice delayed is indeed justice denied, and finally deliver the truth that is owed to the families through a judge-led public inquiry.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the 1994 RAF Chinook helicopter crash.
Home Insulation
(1 day, 4 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
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I will call Anna Dixon to move the motion and then I will call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they can only make a speech with the prior permission of both the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of home insulation on energy bills.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. Across the country, 12 million households are in fuel poverty, with almost 5 million of them spending over 20% of their income on energy. Like many other people across the country, my constituents in Shipley face a cost of living crisis, and energy bills are a huge part of that crisis.
Increasing the energy efficiency of our homes is a crucial way in which we can reduce bills, yet the rate of home insulation installations declined under the previous Government. I am pleased that this Labour Government have taken positive steps to reverse that decline with the warm homes plan. In addition, I particularly welcome today’s Budget announcement by the Chancellor to scrap the disastrous Tory energy company obligation scheme, which cost more than £1 billion per year and cost many families more money than it saved. All of this will bring down energy bills for the average household by £150 from next April, reducing the cost of living and lifting more people out of fuel poverty.
However, there is an urgent need to upgrade our homes. The UK’s housing stock is among the least energy efficient in Europe. According to research by Imperial College London, homes in the UK lose heat up to three times faster than homes in the rest of Europe. Perhaps that is not surprising, given that almost a quarter of properties in Great Britain with cavity walls have no cavity wall insulation.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First of all, I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. I spoke to her beforehand. The problems that she is outlining in her own constituency of Shipley are similar to those we have in Northern Ireland, where 65% of dwellings have full cavity wall insulation, 15% have partial cavity wall insulation and 20% have no cavity wall insulation. Does she agree that more must be done to lower the threshold for programmes such as the boiler scheme insulation grant, so that more households can apply for such grants to support them in heating their homes properly?
Anna Dixon
It is vital that people in all types of tenure and even low-income households—indeed, everybody—can access modifications that could save them money on their bills.
Poor-quality housing particularly traps households in fuel poverty, because people need to spend a fortune to keep warm. Data from Friends of the Earth shows that there are 17 energy crisis hotspots in my own constituency. These are neighbourhoods that have below-average household income but above-average energy bills.
In Shipley, we also have a higher than average proportion of homes that are non-decent, which means they do not meet the standards for a warm and dry home. Indeed, 64% of homes in Shipley have an energy performance certificate rating of D or below. As a result of the extortionate cost of energy, the unnecessary additional high usage due to poor insulation and the flatlining of living standards under the previous Government, energy debt is soaring. Millions of households across the UK now have a combined energy debt of over £4 billion.
To help people to deal with this situation, fantastic organisations such as Christians Against Poverty work to tackle poverty. In Shipley, CAP provides a debt advice service. Across the country, this service has helped more than 20,000 people to become debt-free since 2010. We also have local food banks that offer fuel vouchers to those on pre-payment meters who cannot afford top-ups. However, energy companies must also act to support those people who have large unpaid debts, by bringing in programmes such as social tariffs and other forms of fair pricing to help those living in fuel poverty.
Poor-quality housing not only harms people’s finances; it also has a severe impact on their health.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
It is well known that cold and damp homes are detrimental to both physical and mental health, with nearly three in every 10 children in cold homes at risk of developing health issues. Does she agree that home insulation is vital to improve public health alongside tackling fuel poverty?
Anna Dixon
My hon. Friend makes the point very well, and I absolutely agree that poor housing is part of a public health emergency. Young and old alike suffer from cold and damp homes. At the extreme, cold homes kill. It has been estimated that they contributed to 5,000 excess winter deaths among older people in 2022-23. For me, that figure is shocking and unacceptable.
Poor-quality housing affects people differently. The Centre for Ageing Better and the Fabian Society recently published research showing that as many as 80% of owner-occupiers aged over 55 live in poor-quality homes.
I probably should have drawn attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests in that I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on housing and care for older people. I support the proposals put forward in the “Forward Planning” report. One that is relevant to today’s debate is the suggestion that older homeowners could receive loan guarantees for improvements through the national wealth fund. That would reduce the cost of borrowing for those who want to use it to pay for improvements, as well as crowding in private investment.
There are significant inequalities. According to the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, 3.2 million of those in fuel poverty are pensioner households, with 964,000 pensioner households in deep fuel poverty. People on low incomes are also at greater risk of fuel poverty, as are renters and households with children, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Rusholme (Afzal Khan) mentioned. The cost of poor quality housing is colossal; it affects the health and wealth of individuals and the prosperity of the country, and it exacerbates existing inequalities.
There are also inequalities between north and south. In the north of England 41% of homes were built before 1944, 1.47 million homes are considered non-decent and £1 in almost every £4 spent on household heating is being lost due to poor insulation. The cost to the NHS of those non-decent housing conditions is estimated at £588 million per year, in addition to the societal cost of £7.77 billion, according to the Northern Health Science Alliance.
In response to this crisis we see really strong, innovative local efforts. I pay tribute to the charity Groundwork, which provides a “warm homes healthy people” scheme across the Bradford district, including in my Shipley constituency. It installs energy efficient measures, including insulation, and offers support and advice on energy bills.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. While she is looking at good local organisations, let me say that National Energy Action has often said that Stoke-on-Trent ranks first in the country for fuel poverty, but we are very lucky to have Fiona Miller and her team at Beat the Cold, who for 25 years have helped lead the fuel poverty action group in Stoke-on-Trent. They work with a whole variety of organisations to help homeowners and renters look at small local actions that they can take to increase insulation and reduce their bills. Will my hon. Friend join me in encouraging the Minister to tell us what more he and the Department can do to help organisations on the ground today with those small acts that bring down bills before the big roll-out of energy insulation?
Anna Dixon
I commend the work of local organisations such as Beat the Cold and the charity Groundwork. I also hope that the Minister will say how he can help support those efforts locally.
Another local project that I would like to pay tribute to is Saltaire Retrofit Reimagined. It is a community-led home retrofit initiative supported by the UK shared prosperity fund, as well as the Footwork Trust and the Shipley area committee. It has focused on improving heating and energy efficiency in our beautiful listed heritage properties within the Saltaire world heritage site. The project engaged with homeowners, tenants and landlords to understand their perspectives on what effective energy and insulation retrofit should look like. Based on that, the team developed bespoke, heritage-sensitive guidance for upgrading listed homes that were originally built in the 1850s and 1860s, and which are some of the most challenging properties to retrofit. The blueprint and toolkit that it has produced removes both time and cost involved for individual homes to get surveys, and provides confidence that they will get planning permission to retrofit their listed homes. Its work is inspiring and supports our national goals to reduce energy and achieve net zero. I invite the Minister to visit Shipley and Saltaire and see at first hand the great work that it is undertaking—it is a national exemplar of heritage retrofit for homes.
Given the clear evidence of harm caused by poor-quality housing, it is concerning that under the previous Government, we saw measures under the energy efficiency obligation plummet from around 80,000 per month in early 2014 to less than 20,000 from mid-2016 to 2020. The Conservatives significantly reduced the rate of energy efficiency installations. Meanwhile, energy bills rocketed. Between 2020 and 2024, UK-based energy companies made a profit of £420 billion. I am proud that Labour not only proposed imposing a windfall tax on oil and gas companies in opposition, but increased it when in Government in 2024. We should adopt the polluter pays principle and ensure that we continue to tax excess profits. I greatly welcome the Government’s warm homes plan, a £13.2 billion commitment designed to improve home energy efficiency, tackle fuel poverty and reduce carbon emissions.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for raising the issue of warm homes. Does she agree with my constituents who have formed the WarmHomesLeics Coalition that insulation is one of the most proficient and efficient forms of climate action that we can take locally?
Anna Dixon
I absolutely agree that home insulation is essential in tackling not only rising energy bills but climate change. I hope the Minister will confirm the Government’s ambition to upgrade 5 million homes by the end of the current Parliament; it is a fantastic goal that will reduce energy bills.
We are also expanding the warm homes discount. I was pleased to see that 2.7 million families across the country will get £150 off their energy bills this winter, doubling the number of people able to access vital support. Around 900,000 families with children, and a total of 1.8 million households in fuel poverty, will receive extra support thanks to this Government, in addition to the winter fuel allowance being reinstated for those with incomes up to £35,000. Upgrading our homes not only puts money in people’s pockets but helps us tackle what is perhaps the biggest challenge of our age: climate change. According to the Northern Health Science Alliance, if all homes had an EPC standard of C or higher, emissions could be reduced by an estimated 97 million tonnes of CO2.
It is deeply concerning to see the political consensus around climate change fracture, and both the Tories and Reform jumping on board with Trump and climate sceptics, against all scientific evidence and sense. I welcome this Government taking climate action seriously. Labour’s clean power mission is right for both people and planet. It is the long-term solution to tackling energy insecurity.
It is vital, however, that the public can trust any support they receive to install energy efficient measures in their home. Recently, I have been contacted by two constituents who had cavity wall insulation fitted under the Government ECO4 scheme. The work was faulty and caused serious damage to the properties. My constituents then hired the solicitors firm SSB Law, which had gone door to door to look for business in particular areas of the country where problems with faulty cavity wall insulation were discovered. This law firm operated on a no win, no fee basis and took the construction firms’ insurers to court on behalf of the individuals.
The firm went ahead with the cases, often without the likelihood of winning, and did not have the appropriate litigation insurance for when it lost. This meant that, when the cases were lost, the construction companies’ insurers counter-sued for their legal costs, which led to the collapse of SSB Law, whose insurers would not pay out. In response, the construction companies’ insurers directly sued the people who engaged SSB Law. Not only were my constituents let down by shoddy workmanship done under these eco-schemes; they were then chased for large sums of money by disreputable law firms and insurers.
I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee; we held a hearing on the last Government’s ECO4 scheme that was frankly jaw-dropping. Some 98% of external wall insulation done under that scheme was faulty, and oversight outsourced to the private sector meant that companies got away with shoddy work and left people, including my constituents, in damp and mouldy homes. It is utterly shocking.
At the hearing, we pushed Government officials from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and Ofgem, the regulator, on how they would fix the problems and ensure that faulty work was put right, without its costing my constituents. Can the Minister please confirm what the Government are doing to address the issue of faulty insulation installations? How will they restore faith in schemes designed to insulate homes, as well as other energy-saving measures? It is vital that the Government rectify the mistakes of the disastrous ECO4 scheme and, more broadly, restore trust in Government-backed insulation schemes.
To conclude, poor-quality housing is a huge problem for my constituents in the villages and towns across the Shipley constituency, and for people up and down the country. It leads to higher energy bills, higher personal debt and higher levels of destitution. It also leads to increased health problems and increased excess deaths. Home insulation is a critical tool to mitigate those issues, and I am incredibly proud of the work that the Labour Government have begun to do, from the warm homes plan to establishing Great British Energy. In the run-up to last year’s general election, colleagues and I pledged that voting for a Labour Government would lead to a reduction in household energy bills. I am confident that, with the Chancellor’s announcement today in the Budget, we are going to deliver that; I would like to hear from the Minister about how ensuring that our homes are properly insulated is perhaps the best way to deliver that pledge.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions today, and I thank particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon), not only for securing the debate, but for all her work on the Public Accounts Committee in scrutinising the ECO4 scandal. Over the last few months, she has fought extremely hard for her constituents who have suffered from substandard insulation through Government schemes.
When I came to this brief, about 10 weeks ago, I was presented with the outcome of the National Audit Office report. I was shocked by the extent of the failures under the previous Government, by the system that we inherited and by the many personal stories of people impacted by damp, mould and other issues.
Homes hold a special place in people’s hearts. They are places that we pour time and money into. We make memories in them. They are sanctuaries, shelters, places of care and settings for our lives. People will not put their homes at risk unless they can be absolutely sure that things will not go wrong—or that, if they do, they will be put right. That is why we are making consumer protection reform such a central part of the upcoming warm homes plan.
Just a few months into this new Government, widespread cases of poor-quality insulation were identified under the ECO4 and Great British insulation schemes. The Government, including both me and my predecessor, have spoken extensively about our actions on this. To give hon. Members reassurance, those include enhanced checks and oversight of contractors and TrustMark; new restrictions on installers operating through the multiple certification bodies we have; updated standards for retrofit co-ordinators and designers; and an offer of a comprehensive on-site audit to every household with external wall insulation installed under those two schemes, at no cost to the consumer. I see hon. Members present who I know are advocated for constituents facing particular problems with ECO4; they will all be receiving notices of audits, or maybe they have already. I encourage hon. Members to make sure that their constituents take up that offer of an audit, because that is the gateway to remediation.
Anna Dixon
I thank the Minister for the reassurance that householders affected by faulty work will be getting an audit and that there will be remedies. Can he confirm when those letters will be going out, if they have not already, and whether they will be from Ofgem?
Martin McCluskey
The letters will be sent, I think, from today. Many of those households will already have received knocks on the door or possibly direct contact from scheme providers. We are clear that the system needs to remediate this in the first instance. The issue was caused by the system, and there are guarantees available through the schemes to ensure that they are remediated. If any Member is dealing with constituents whose audits are not getting done properly or who are having difficulty with the guarantee providers, I ask them please to come directly to me, because we need to know exactly what is happening as this action takes place.
Despite all the actions we are taking on ECO4, we still need to think about the future system. That is why we have committed to reforming the system and to accelerating that process. I can confirm that we are looking at the entire landscape of consumer protection, from how installers work in homes to where people turn for rapid action and enforcement if things go wrong. The Government are planning to consult on the specific proposals early in the new year, and are already working with industry and consumer protection experts to develop and stress-test plans, including through the retrofit system reform advisory panel, which was set up under my predecessor and began work in July.
As this is one of the most urgent challenges that the Government face in our mission to improve the lives of working people, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister gave me the clearest of instructions on my first day in the job: to reduce bills by making millions more homes warm, safe and fit for the 21st century. We face a number of challenges, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley alluded to. More than 80% of UK homes rely on gas for heating—among the highest percentages in the world, meaning that we are particularly exposed to crises or energy shocks, as we saw after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Moreover, we have some of the oldest housing stock in Europe; more than a third of houses were built before the second world war, most with uninsulated walls, meaning that yet more money and fossil fuels are needed to heat them.
My hon. Friend mentioned a project in Saltaire, and I will be more than happy to visit. I have had good and constructive conversations with Members across the House regarding heritage retrofit. That is something we have to address in the new plan.
Gareth Snell
Stoke-on-Trent has some of the oldest housing stock in the country: brick-built terraces, single skinned and in some places still single glazed. A programme by the last Labour Government that made a real difference was the housing market renewal programme, which ran up until 2010 and then was unceremoniously guillotined by the incoming Tory Government. It was able to retrofit housing in a style that matched the local communities, but it was done with communities as part of a more progressive regeneration programme. It meant that houses were better looking and warmer, they lasted longer and residents wanted to live there. Why the Tory Government got rid of it I do not know, but it is something the Minister might want to look at for future ideas.
Martin McCluskey
I would be more than happy to look at that. I have been working to help develop the warm homes plan and am looking particularly at area-based approaches; one of the most effective is when entire communities and neighbourhoods are upgraded at once. The effect is much larger, and neighbours can see the impact on their bills, which helps to spread the benefit.
The warm homes plan will set out in more detail how we are going to meet the challenge addressed in this debate. We have been working hard behind the scenes to get it right and will publish it in full soon. We have been clear from the moment we came into government about the scale of the ambition. My hon. Friend mentioned £13.5 billion; after the Budget today that number is actually £15 billion, and we have extended our ambition to upgrade 5 million homes.
As a student of history, I think of the first Labour Government in the 1920s with their housing Act—the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1924—which upgraded and subsidised half a million homes. What we are trying to do with the warm homes plan is 10 times that. That is the level of ambition we have. It means entire streets and whole neighbourhoods benefiting from solar panels, heat pumps, home batteries and better insulation. We have already kick-started that. We are not waiting for the plan to get on with delivery. We have allocated £1.8 billion through the warm homes local grant and warm homes social housing fund. We have set out proposals to increase minimum energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector in England and Wales to EPC C or equivalent by 2030 and introduced a minimum standard in the social rented sector, which is incredibly important for many of our constituents. Those measures, combined, will lift hundreds of thousands of households out of poverty.
For homeowners, we are making it cheaper and easier to install a heat pump. To the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), we announced the extension of the boiler upgrade scheme to new technologies last week, and we have an ongoing consultation on alternative technologies. We have doubled the funding for the boiler upgrade scheme to £295 million this year and, because of decisions made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget, we will be increasing it year on year up to 2030. Just this month, as I said, the expansion has meant that we are able to extend the scheme to air-to-air heat pumps, a technology that I know many of our constituents were calling on the Government to make a change on last summer.
While we deliver the plan, we know there has to be short-term as well as longer-term action. That is why we have expanded the warm homes discount this year to every household where the billpayer is on a means-tested benefit. That is £150-worth of support directly to billpayers this winter. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) mentioned Beat the Cold; I met Fiona Miller yesterday and had a very good conversation with her about the work she is doing on data sharing between the NHS and her organisation. That is something I want to look at, and I am keen to visit Stoke-on-Trent Central to see in person the work that Beat the Cold is doing.
All those action that are taking place are good in the short term, but how do we tackle the cost of living and bring energy bills down for good? In the long term, we do that by pushing for our target of clean power by 2030: clean power generated in Britain, which we control and which will end the rollercoaster of energy bills that, bluntly, are at the moment decided by dictators and upheavals beyond our borders. We do that by upgrading homes with electrified, energy-efficient technologies, putting people in a position to benefit directly from clean, secure, affordable energy.
My immediate focus remains on some of the issues that we have heard about today, and on the people across the country living in homes that they can barely afford to heat. As we enter another winter, people should not have to choose between heating and eating. A large part of the reason the Chancellor took the action that she took in today’s Budget is that she wants to stop people having to make those incredibly difficult choices. When we publish it, the warm homes plan will set out our path to a future that we all want to see. We want warmer homes, no matter where we live or whether we rent or own—homes that are smarter, cheaper to run and greener, and are protected by a system that keeps them free of damp, mould and other issues. I welcome this debate, and I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley.
Question put and agreed to.
Young People not in Education, Employment or Training
(1 day, 4 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
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for young people not in education, employment or training.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am delighted to introduce this debate on an incredibly important topic. Young people not in education, employment or training are often referred to as NEETs. As Members will know, the proportion of 16 to 24-year-olds who are NEET has been rising since 2021, and is now nearing its highest level since 2014. Too often, the narrative we hear—be it in the media or from some Members of this House—is that these young people are lazy, unmotivated or overly sensitive, but that view is short-sighted and reductive, and ignores the complex reality behind that growing number.
On Friday, I had the privilege of speaking with two people who understand this issue not from spreadsheets or reports, but from years spent on the ground with young people and the unemployed. The first was Colin at Derbyshire Unemployed Workers’ Centres, and the second was Christopher Nieper, chair of the education trust for the David Nieper Academy, and owner of the David Nieper clothing manufacturing company. They both work in my constituency town of Alfreton. When we talked about NEETs, both raised the same point above all others: the Government must work with industry to facilitate the demand for jobs and educational pathways.
That is also borne out in conversations I have had with constituents. I recently met Shaun Holland at my advice surgery. Shaun is a 22-year-old motivated man who desperately wants to work. He suffers from arthritis and severe foot problems, which makes standing for long periods difficult. The only work he has found is through agencies, which is unpredictable and insecure, and employers are often reluctant to make simple adjustments such as providing a chair to do packaging work.
As Colin told me, agency work has shifted from an emergency measure to a business model that often fails workers, offering no clear career path. He likened it to the old “butty man” system, where men were recruited in pubs for a day’s work when the coal mines were first opened, and sent down the pit. That was not a sustainable or fair practice then, and, as Shaun’s case makes clear, it certainly is not now. For young people to succeed, academic, vocational and technical pathways must not only exist, but feel accessible and achievable.
Another example is Lily Hill, who wrote to me after losing her electrical apprenticeship through no fault of her own. Lily went to a jobcentre, where she was met with
“indifference and a lack of empathy from the staff”.
She described how she was left
“feeling humiliated and let down by a system that is supposed to be a safety net for people like me—people who have contributed and now need help getting back on their feet.”
She was told to update her CV, which got only two responses, but ironically her old CV landed her a job at Nottingham Forest football club, where she now works as a level 3 qualified electrical technician. They said that her CV was the best they had seen. While I hope that the Minister will join me in congratulating Lily on her success, the sad truth is that it came not because of jobcentre advice, but in spite of it.
Since being elected, I have spoken to local businesses, teachers, charities and many others like Shaun and Lily. Their experiences have made it clear that the barriers facing many young people are not simply about personal choice or effort, but are structural. The National Centre for Social Research has found that the most significant risk factors for becoming NEET include not having an academic qualification above level 1, having a limiting disability, becoming a parent before the age of 25, living with a mental health condition and being identified as having special educational needs. The charity Impetus has highlighted how those disadvantages compound. A young person with low qualifications from a disadvantaged background is 130% more likely to be NEET. There are also the new challenges brought about by technological change. Artificial intelligence is transforming the labour market, and entry-level jobs in some sectors are disappearing.
Despite all that, much of the conversation on this issue labels young people the problem, as if all the fault lies squarely with them. In fact, the Reform party leader of Derbyshire county council has said that he thinks there is a massive overdiagnosis of what he calls “general behavioural disabilities”, echoing the comments from the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) that we are creating a “class of victims” in Britain. That overlooks another possibility: that the systems are not designed for those who do not fit the narrow definition of “mainstream”. Our employment structures, training pathways and workplace cultures often fail to accommodate young people with special educational needs and disabilities, mental health challenges or caring responsibilities.
I want to talk about opportunity and aspiration, two principles that must underpin our approach if we are to empower young people to fulfil their potential. Today, the Chancellor said: “Let there be no doubt that this Government are on the side of our kids and will back their potential.” I am proud to have stood on a manifesto that promised every child the best start in life.
The Government have already made progress. The Chancellor has just announced further important measures, including merging jobcentres with the National Careers Service to create a single platform offering personalised coaching, digital tools and real links to employers. The youth guarantee reforms apprenticeship eligibility and funding for foundational apprenticeships. These changes will ensure that people like Lily are not let down in the same way again, and will enable Shaun to speak with a work coach and receive personal advice about stable, non-agency work going forward.
I also welcome the designation of Derby college group as a construction technical excellence college. It is working with the East Midlands Mayor Claire Ward and industry experts to make sure that its excellent programmes and apprenticeships equip students with the ever-evolving skillset needed in construction. Fairer funding will ensure that council budgets reflect need and deprivation. I will be fighting hard to ensure that Derbyshire county council is awarded its fair portion of that, so that it can invest in SEND provision and in our schools.
Those are important steps, but more needs to be done to build a system that is based on the principles of equal opportunity and aspiration. First, we need a joined-up, cross-departmental approach to tackling the root causes of disadvantage, one that is informed by the recently announced independent investigation into youth inactivity. Given that the investigation will not look into the SEND system, it is all the more important that the upcoming schools White Paper upholds legal protections and ensures that SEND children are given the support they need to excel. Secondly, we need to meet demand by ensuring that flexible, inclusive opportunities that dismantle barriers to work and education are readily available. Thirdly, we need to show young people where these pathways can lead and how to access them, including by encouraging stronger links between schools and employers.
I encourage the Minister to visit David Nieper academy, which works with local industry leaders and teaches employability skills. As a result, the academy has achieved zero NEETs aged 18 for the last two academic years. On a recent Friday, I visited Heanor Gate Spencer academy and saw a notice board showing what each of the students went on to do last year. It included their courses, universities and apprenticeships. Like me, many of this year’s students will be the first in their family to go to university. Some will be the first to take up an apprenticeship. Seeing a noticeboard like that shows them what is possible and raises their aspirations.
Whether their talent lies in skilled trades that will rebuild our country, after years of decline, in the green energy projects of the future, such as STEP Fusion in Nottingham, or in academic routes such as university, every young person in Amber Valley deserves their chance to fulfil their aspirations. If we invest in giving young people the tools to succeed, we do more than create jobs; we build stronger communities, restore faith that politics can change lives and deliver hope where it is most needed. That is why, although I welcome the independent investigation into youth inactivity, we cannot just wait until the final report is published in summer 2026. Action is needed now. Will the Minister tell us what steps will be taken before then to prevent this crisis from worsening? Given that the investigation will not look at the SEND system, what assurances can the Minister give to young people with SEND that they will not be left behind? Finally, how will areas such as Amber Valley be empowered to deliver specific, tailored solutions for our children?
Several hon. Members rose—
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Order. I will not remind Members to bob, because you are already bobbing—thank you for that. However, given that so many people wish to speak, I will regrettably be imposing a formal two-minute limit.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for setting the scene so well. Education and career prospects are so important. They affect confidence, mental health, opportunity and long-term economic wellbeing. It is imperative to get this right and provide the necessary support, if possible, and I look forward to the Minister’s answers to the questions posed.
To give an example from Northern Ireland, in 2023, 15,000 were not in education, employment or training; today the figure is 22,000 and rising. In particular, I refer to the underachievement of young Protestant boys. The potential impact on their future education, training or employment must be noted.
Why has this happened? It has happened because of economic hardship, poor mental health, unstable home life, deprivation in isolated areas and a lack access to transport. There are long-term risks for young people, including future unemployment, higher welfare rates and poor health. Those are the outcomes of the society we live in. The former Member for Harlow, for example, always used to refer to males between 16 and 21; I remember when I was young—not yesterday, by the way—we left school on a Friday and got a job on the Monday. That is the way it was, but it is not that way anymore. It is not the end of everything if young people reach the age of 17 or 18 and are still unsure, but further education, apprenticeships, placements and working opportunities will give them the tools they need to find out what route they might like to go down.
The opportunities available to young people in Northern Ireland and here on the mainland—and especially in my constituency of Strangford and also that of the hon. Member for Amber Valley—must be realistic and accessible in terms of finance and transport. I believe in greater careers guidance both inside school and outside, where people can avail themselves of advice and support. I again commend the hon. Lady for bringing this debate forward—and my two minutes are up.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for securing this debate.
Every generation says, “I’m glad I am not a child today.” That is often a cliché, but I am glad I am not a 16-year-old today trying to decide where my future lies, not least because we are forcing children to start choosing their future from the age of 11. That is because the route to university is so clear, that it is effectively a queue—a queue whose direction and length can be seen from the Moon. But for those who are not academic, there is no queue. We treat those not going to university like free-range chickens—“Just go and find something and please don’t bother us.” Those children often end up in low-paid and insecure work.
Around 65% of school leavers do not go to university, so why are we not focusing on vocational training and qualifications? We all know that we have a shortage of builders, plumbers and care workers—jobs that the country relies on. My team and I have focused our resources on looking at vocational training, education and employment. Many young people on the Isle of Wight do not feel that university is a place for them. Many do not feel the urge to leave the island for work, but feel that they have no choice.
How do we support NEETs? The answer is that we stop them becoming NEETs in the first place. We provide clear, vocational routes for those who do not want to go to university, but want to learn a skilled trade. We create a ladder to good, well-paying jobs—and, crucially, a future on the Isle of Wight for those who want it. In just over 18 months, the Isle of Wight Youth Trust has prevented 65 young people from becoming homeless, returned 98 young people to full-time learning or apprenticeships, and moved 273 young people into paid employment. That is great work.
Since I stood in this place five months ago, speaking on similar issues, we have come a long way. My team and I have convened a group of major employers on the island to ensure that we work alongside employers to provide work experience, training and good apprenticeships, which have become the Isle of Wight’s hallmark. Although I may be the first MP to offer T-levels, I sincerely hope I am not the last. NEETs are not inevitable; they are the product of missed chances and broken links between education and employment.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for securing the debate.
As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for skills, careers and employment, I have chaired several evidence sessions over the last year of a skills commission inquiry into the root causes of our worryingly high NEET rates. We engaged with more than 200 participants across a six-month period, and are due to publish our findings and recommendations shortly, but I appreciate the opportunity to talk about them briefly today. We have explored a lot of the reasons why we are in this position, but it is notable that other countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands, have not seen similar rises in their NEET rates.
I will mention a few of the drivers. Under the last Government, schools were incentivised to abandon vocational, technical and creative courses in favour of more academic options. That has had an impact by limiting choice and options. The system has also failed to properly target young people, with entry-level apprenticeships falling by 26% since the apprenticeship levy was introduced. The careers guidance landscape has become fragmented, with many young people not being told about apprenticeship or traineeship opportunities, and a cliff edge for careers support post-16.
One of our major conclusions is that targeted and preventive support works and is good for the public purse in the long term. We need better data sharing to identify young people at risk; early support to tackle mental health challenges, wellbeing and job readiness; local discretion to tailor support to local needs; and, most importantly, in-work mentoring for around six months into employment—not just job placement.
We must also think about how we can support small and medium-sized enterprises to recruit apprentices and invest in the skills of their workforce. That is particularly important in my constituency, so I welcome the Chancellor’s transformational announcement today about making training for apprenticeships for under-25s free for SMEs.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for securing this debate and the powerful points that she made, especially about how young people are often lazily demonised as being an idle generation. That view fails to take into account how much has changed since many of us here were young—which was more recently in some cases than in others, but let us move on from that quickly.
In my Oxfordshire constituency, despite having perhaps the highest levels of house building in the country, housing costs remain completely out of reach for people on low incomes, and particularly young people. There is a real shortage of affordable housing, particularly for one and two-person households, with many houses having four, five or even six bedrooms. Transport costs are also very high.
The world of skills is changing. I have a lot of high-tech, scientific industries in my constituency—space, biotech, fusion and so on—and we need to help young people to acquire these skills. As has been mentioned, NHS waiting lists can be a barrier to people entering the workplace, and I have many people in my constituency who are young carers. I am pleased that Be Free Young Carers supports them.
I am not alone in my concern about this issue: Didcot B power station in my constituency cites housing costs as the biggest barrier to retaining talented people. As a result, therefore, many young people continue to live at home with their parents. In some cases, I am sure they love that, but in others, it could be a barrier to expressing their freedom and creativity as a young person.
I am really pleased that Oxfordshire county council has an education, employment and training service supporting any young person in year 12 or 13 who is NEET or at risk of being NEET. I know the Government have a lot of ideas and good intentions on this, and I would be very keen to hear what the Minister will do to help young people not in employment, education or training in my constituency.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on further education and lifelong learning. This debate matters deeply to my constituency. Hartlepool has one of the highest levels of young people not in education, employment or training in the country, and behind every single number is a young person with untapped potential.
Hartlepool is also paying the price for that unrealised talent. It is a town that used to build things—shipyards, factories and docks. Our people were makers: they built the ships that sailed the world, the machinery that powered the country and the homes and streets that held our communities together. For too long, however, our view of education has not meant education in all its forms; it has meant academic education. That is wrong. Right now, Britain needs welders, bricklayers, engineers and electricians—workers who can build the houses, roads, factories and energy systems that we need to get our country moving again.
I therefore welcome the Government’s decision to scrap the target for half of young people to go to university. That was the right decision, and it starts to change the legacy of the previous Government. The Hartlepool college of further education, for example, had its budget cut by 10% in real terms at the same time as the previous Government put those essential skills on the points-based immigration system—importing talent from abroad instead of training it here at home. That is a salient lesson in how not to deal with skills in our country.
I say to the Minister: let us give vocational routes the respect they deserve by funding them properly, champion technical education, and rebuild further education as the backbone of towns such as Hartlepool. We should remove those key roles from our immigration shortage lists, recognising that the real shortage comes from years of neglect, and instead invest in our young people to give them the skills that they need to rebuild this country.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on securing this important debate on NEETs. This is an issue that affects the future of our young people, and it is a persistent challenge that we must tackle head on. In Winsford in my constituency, the challenge is particularly acute: the proportion of young people who are NEET is 5 percentage points higher than the borough average.
In the interests of time, I will make a couple of points that I hope the Minister will consider when he takes the floor. First, sustained funding to tackle this issue needs to be a priority. In the past, this was a specific focus of the European social fund, and schemes such as the education maintenance allowance provided a direct financial incentive to stay in further education. The Government have identified funding through the youth guarantee to ensure that all young people have access to the support they need to earn or learn. That funding needs to be sustained in the long term, to operate across Departments, and to measurably target reducing NEETs not in a decade’s time, but in this Parliament.
Secondly, I ask the Minister to look specifically at the damage done to further education in my constituency by the 2016 review into post-16 education in Cheshire. There is a direct relationship between the distance a young person has to travel for FE and the likelihood of their sustaining that place and gaining a qualification. Mid Cheshire has literally been caught in a perfect storm, with Cheshire FE colleges responding to their quality and financial problems through consolidation and divestment out of my constituency. That remains as unacceptable today as it was then. I urge the Minister to look into the issue and to commission a new review with a focus on undoing the damage caused by the 2016 review.
I hope that the Minister can set out how we can ensure that every young person, regardless of where they live, has the chance to learn, grow and succeed. I hope he will also set out what targeted support the Government can provide for towns with persistently high NEET levels, including funding for local engagement initiatives, so we can unlock the full potential of every young person in an area such as Winsford.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for securing the debate.
Of the almost 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, almost 600,000 are economically inactive and disengaged from mainstream employment support, and around 400,000 are hidden NEETs—unemployed, but not claiming universal credit. I will focus my remarks on those young people.
I welcome the measures brought forward by the Government, but this is a crisis of opportunity that cannot be tackled through a strong employment and skills offer alone. That is why we must be more effective in identifying, reaching and engaging young people to bridge them into support.
Youth workers and trusted adults are the missing piece of the puzzle to unlock the potential of NEET young people. They can build young people’s confidence and resilience; address barriers across education, mental health or employment; act as a gateway to proven interventions; and reduce the risk of disengagement through advocacy and guidance. That claim is supported by a growing evidence base: a paper from the Youth Futures Foundation, published earlier this year, identified the unique role that trusted adults can play in identifying and engaging harder-to-reach young people, and explored their role in delivering the change required to address that challenge.
We know, for example, that mental ill health has an impact on economic inactivity among young people, and that this is driven in part by a reduction in child and youth services. We need to take a holistic approach across Government. As we move ahead with some really strong flagship offers for young people—the national youth strategy, the youth guarantee and Young Futures hubs—we have an opportunity to deliver a shared long-term vision for young people across Government that puts relationships with trusted adults and the need for good employment at its heart.
The integration of youth provision, employment and skills support is being explored in some youth guarantee trailblazer areas. In his response, could the Minister reflect on its impact in those areas and whether that offers a model for elsewhere in the country?
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for securing this debate.
I believe that where someone is born should not determine where they end up, and I welcome the measures announced by the Chancellor today to lift children out of poverty. That is fundamental to my morals and values, and those of the party I represent, because young people from the most disadvantaged backgrounds are twice as likely as their better-off peers not to be in education, employment or training. On council estates such as those where I grew up in Nottinghamshire, people’s chances were and are still limited.
I was extremely disappointed when Dukeries sixth form in Ollerton announced it was closing its doors, as access to further education is lifechanging for young people in rural areas. The nearest further education option is now over 7 miles away, which is not accessible for many young people and their families. Opportunities for young people in rural and deprived areas are few and far between.
I believe we can do more to break the cycle. We have a responsibility to stand up for young people in this country, but we must also empower businesses to invest in them. That is already happening in small pockets, including at Murphy, an infrastructure and energy transition company in Ollerton, and Rolls-Royce, which has fantastic opportunities for local people, but those companies cannot do it alone. They need Government support to make sure it is financially possible to offer such incredible services.
The crisis in SEND is also affecting families in Sherwood Forest, and young people with SEND are over 80% more likely to be NEET. I want the life chances of children and young people growing up in Sherwood Forest to be as great as those living in more affluent areas. We must all strive to find better opportunities and better ways to educate and support our young people so that we can all categorically say that where someone is born will not determine their future.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for securing this important debate.
Due to the pressure of time, I will focus on one group of young people. At the Work and Pensions Committee this morning we took evidence from two panels about what is driving the increase in NEETs. We heard that post-16 education, employment and training is often predicated on a young person being in a parental home, and that outcomes are severely hampered for care-experienced young people and those in temporary or supported accommodation.
In the year ending March 2024, 14.3% of those placed in temporary accommodation in my constituency were aged 18 to 24, which is higher than the national average. Young people in supported housing do not have security, and they are penalised by the housing benefit taper rate. For those who are unaware, the universal credit of a young person living in supported housing is tapered at 55p for every £1 earned when they start working, meaning that they are restricted in how much they can earn before their universal credit is completely taken away.
After that, separate and steeper taper rates for housing benefit are what really do the damage. The cost of supported housing, including service charges, becomes completely unaffordable for those young people, which means that increasing their work hours can leave young people financially worse off and simply unable to cover their housing costs—that is without the stress of going into education. The essence of the current system, although unintentional, forces thousands of young people to make an impossible choice.
Removing the housing benefit taper rate barrier would create an opportunity for a more sustainable and supportive system for those young people. I would like to hear how the Minister will look at this problem, listen to those organisations and young people on the frontline, and recognise that solving the taper rates for those young people will massively improve the rate at which they are in employment, education or training to secure their future.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on securing this debate. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a governor of Stoke-on-Trent sixth-form college and chair of the APPG on sixth-form education.
I pay tribute to the leadership of the colleges in Stoke-on-Trent—Lesley Morrey at Stoke-on-Trent sixth-form college and Hassan at Stoke-on-Trent college. They are doing amazing work to reduce what has traditionally been a stubbornly high rate of NEETs in Stoke-on-Trent. In fact, at one point I think we ranked No. 1 in the country for the number of NEETs, but that is coming down because the colleges are working to make sure that every young person in Stoke-on-Trent knows that there is a route for them somewhere, whether it be academic, vocational or technical, into a job in the city.
However, we also recognise that part of that work must start further downstream, with young people in our secondary schools who have an idea of what they want to do and an aspiration to achieve it, but are not necessarily sure how to go about doing it. Under the leadership of Heather McLachlan and Simon French, the CEO Futures Forum is bringing together multi-academy trusts to consider how the curriculum review announced a couple of weeks ago can be used locally to create those academic, vocational and technical gateways into the right subject areas, where we know the jobs will be in the city, so that young people have something to look towards, strive and aspire to. Those are the good things that I wanted to mention today.
We also know that for young people in north Staffordshire who want to go to university, widening participation is incredibly important. The Higher Horizons programme, run by Keele University in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), demonstrates how young people from across north Staffordshire can go to university if they are given the right opportunities and understandings.
Briefly, the key point that I want to make to the Minister today is about V-levels. With the introduction of V-levels, there is a real possibility that a small group of young people will lose out in the next two years by not having access to BTECs, which are being defunded before V-levels come online. That could lead to a large spike in the number of NEETs in the next couple of years. What will his Department do to ensure that those young people are not lost in the transition to what could be an exciting new qualification?
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Dowd, for calling me to speak—and for saving the best until last. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for securing this important debate. Ensuring that young people in Newcastle-under-Lyme who are not in education, employment or training receive the right support is vital, not only to the lives of those young people themselves but to their families and our whole community.
When faced with the fact that over one in 10 young people are missing out on education and employment opportunities, we must stop blaming individuals or young people as a group and start considering why they are being set up to fail. I say that because I do not believe that 12.7% of all young people in our United Kingdom do not want to work or contribute, or to live without the ambition of having a career that fulfils them. The vast majority of young people, certainly in Newcastle-under-Lyme, want all those things.
I welcome the Milburn inquiry, which should give us the insights that we need to help get our young people into education, training and work. I pay tribute to Keele University and Newcastle College for all the work they do to support our young people. To return the compliment, I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), my constituency neighbour, for all his work on this issue. I pay tribute to YMCA North Staffordshire, based in his constituency; its jobcentre and work coaches, co-located on campus, support young people in both my constituency and Stoke-on-Trent Central. I also acknowledge the role of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams), who worked at YMCA North Staffordshire for many years.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way on that point. He is absolutely right to speak about the importance of skills. I point to the Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group, because our constituencies share a college. Does he agree with me that colleges such as NSCG, which are already delivering the courses that our labour market needs, must sit at the heart of the Government’s plan to reduce youth inactivity?
Adam Jogee
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for her intervention. She is absolutely correct to talk about the importance of not just our local college but of colleges generally in ensuring that we get this matter right for our young people up and down the country.
For young people affected by the issues we are discussing this afternoon, this debate is about hope, dignity and fulfilling their potential. For too long, far too many young people have been left behind. Now, this Labour Government have begun to respond with bold and targeted initiatives. But we must go further, especially in former industrial heartlands such as Newcastle-under-Lyme and the rest of Staffordshire, to ensure that no young person is written off.
I think my hon. Friend the Minister has promised to come and visit us in Staffordshire and I look forward to him doing so before too long. Today, however, I urge him to build on the progress already made by listening to communities such as mine, investing in tailored local support and using the Milburn review as a catalyst for real and meaningful change. By doing so, we will help to transform the lives of millions of young people up and down our United Kingdom, and build a better, more prosperous and inclusive country.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on securing this debate on such an auspicious day: it gives the Minister a chance to truly unpack what the Chancellor has been able to share with us—and consequently amaze us. We are here aghast, waiting for that a little later on. I look forward to it because this debate is a real opportunity.
I am still a councillor on Torbay unitary authority and as a local authority we have the highest level of deprivation in the south-west, so I hear about the issues that we are discussing when I go out and visit some of the local schools. Not that long ago, for example, I visited a school in Torquay and engaged with eight and nine-year-olds. Their real concerns were about the cost of living crisis and their parents being unable to make ends meet. At a school in Paignton, elsewhere in Torbay, the headteacher told me that a number of her children regularly came into school cold, tired, hungry and unable to learn. Given the challenges facing youngsters in an arena where they should be learning, it is not surprising that they leave school facing real issues.
Covid has had a massive impact on the mental health of youngsters, and that cannot be overestimated. A couple of colleagues from around the Chamber have already talked about care-experienced youngsters. It is shocking that a care-experienced youngster is three to 10 times more likely to be a NEET. Youngsters who have had an adverse childhood experience could be left scarred with challenges for significant parts of their lives, unless there is significant wraparound support for them.
This is not just about the individual; the other side of the penny we need to reflect on is the change to our economy. Colleagues have alluded to how the world of work has changed significantly. Brexit has had a significant impact, with a 6% shrinkage of our projected GDP and a massive reduction in opportunities. In the Work and Pensions Committee this morning, we heard that opportunities in retail over the last 10 years have shrunk by 70%. We have also seen significant shrinkage in our hospitality industry. Whether or not one wishes to blame it on the national insurance hike, this summer saw an 85,000 reduction in the number of places in hospitality—often an area where youngsters begin their working lives. There is also the issue of automatisation, as supermarket self-checkouts and being able to order without a waiter are ways in which the job market is shrinking for youngsters. We really need to be alive to that.
I would welcome comment from the Minister on findings from the Resolution Foundation, which suggested that the significant increase in the minimum wage for younger workers, although welcome in principle, could result in fewer jobs. There are other areas I would welcome the Minister being alive to, in addition to the interesting announcements from the Chancellor this afternoon, which I hope he is able to unpack a bit more. In recent weeks, Ministers have had a particular focus on universal credit and health conditions, and the impact on youngsters. Could the Minister talk about how that will be explored? There is concern that some youngsters could be demonised. Furthermore, how can we give long-term sustainable support to youngsters, rather than here today, gone tomorrow schemes?
Finally, I want to talk about something close to home —the shared prosperity fund that we benefited from in Torbay. There is an outstanding organisation called Sound Communities that helps youngsters on the edge of our communities, who may have had adverse childhood experiences such as a parent dying, to access support in getting into work. They have helped dozens of youngsters across Torbay, but their funding is due to fall off a cliff in March. We do not have an elected mayor in our Devon community, while the shared prosperity funding is due to end in March. What hope can the Minister offer to Sound Communities for future funding?
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall.
Conservatives are the party of aspiration. We believe that work is not just a payslip; it is a pathway to opportunity, dignity and hope, but for too many young people across the country, those words may ring hollow. The number of people who are NEET has soared to nearly 1 million, meaning that one in eight people aged 16 to 24 is currently deprived of the sense of purpose that comes from holding down a stable job or training for a future career. In 2024, over half of the NEETs had a health condition, and around one in five had a mental health condition. These are young people with talent and potential; they could, one day, set up a social enterprise or make the next scientific breakthrough, or they could join the workforce as postmen, plumbers and paramedics, as well as countless other roles that form the backbone of our economy and our country. However, they are currently languishing at home with no purpose and no hope for the future.
Being out of work at a young age can cost over £1 million in lost earnings over a lifetime, according to the “Keep Britain Working” review. Every single day of worklessness is a day of wasted opportunity, damaged ambition and diminished income. So far, this Government have not demonstrated an incredible plan to turn the tide; the benefits bill is ballooning, with 1 million more people on welfare than when Labour first entered office, and they are kicking the can down the road with the independent investigation into youth inactivity led by Alan Milburn—we will not hear its findings until summer 2026. Meanwhile, the number of NEETs will continue to grow, with each one costing the economy nearly £200,000.
By contrast, previous Conservative Governments have demonstrated a strong track record of supporting young people into work. [Laughter.] I am glad that some Members find that amusing. We cut youth unemployment by 43.8% between 2010 and 2023, despite the rocky economic terrain that we inherited after the 2008 financial crisis. We oversaw the creation of 1 million more apprenticeships. Our new plan to get Britain working again will give young people a first job bonus, redirecting the first £5,000 of national insurance that they would have paid into a savings account instead, which they can then use to save towards their first home, for example.
However, this Government’s policies are effectively locking young people out of work, denying them the chance to build their own future. The Government have announced a youth guarantee, a new jobs and careers service, and foundation apprenticeships, which are available only to young people. To me, those sound like empty assurances. Labour should not be promising more apprentices on the one hand while slashing accessible jobs in hospitality and retail on the other.
If we are serious about reducing the number of NEETs, we must increase the number of jobs available overall, yet jobs in hospitality and retail have plummeted after Labour’s damaging hikes in employers’ national insurance contributions, with 150,000 jobs having been lost since the last Budget. Between October 2024 and August 2025, a staggering 89,000 jobs were lost in restaurants, bars and hotels, according to UKHospitality.
Additionally, the Employment Rights Bill has rightly been labelled the “Barriers to Work Bill”. Banning probation periods will discourage employers from giving young people a chance. We should be rewarding employers for taking a risk and hiring an inexperienced recruit, not narrowing the talent pool by taking this option off the table. To truly tackle worklessness, we must trust our small and medium-sized businesses to make their own staffing decisions. Increased employment rights mean nothing if there are no jobs in the first place. Shortly after I was elected, I set up the Wyre Forest jobs fair to connect private and public sector employers with local jobseekers, including young people. I recognise that looking for work can, in itself, be hard work, and that was one way to broaden people’s horizons.
Supporting this nation’s NEETs comes with great rewards. If we could get just 5% of unemployed under-25s back into work, the Government would save £903 million over the course of this Parliament, according to research commissioned by the Work and Pensions Committee. Indeed, it found that spending £1 in return-to-work schemes could save the taxpayer £6 through consequential cuts to benefits and increased tax intake from the subsequent jobs. Most importantly, we would also be offering young people the confidence boost that comes from discovering a job where they can thrive.
To conclude, we must ensure that there is targeted support for all young people, no matter what barriers they face, so that they can start and succeed in work. We urge the Government to reverse their damaging economic policies that are crippling the very sectors that offer many young people their first stint in employment. We must back our small and medium-sized enterprises to the hilt, rather than strangle them with ever more costly regulations. Having stronger businesses means more and better jobs for everyone. We cannot afford to waste a generation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on securing this incredibly important debate.
Given the comments of the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), it is important to remind Members that we inherited a situation in which nearly 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training. That can have lifelong consequences for people. As he said, the “Keep Britain Working” review found that someone who leaves the workforce due to ill health in their early 20s can lose more than £1 million in lifetime earnings, and that the impact on their wellbeing is immense. It is bad for employers, too. They need the energy, talent and potential of our young people at a time of more than 700,000 job vacancies. And, of course, it is bad for the country. Failing to help people early in their lives stores up all kinds of problems and costs further down the line. Young people are the future of our country, so helping them to achieve their potential is central to our mission of national renewal.
I want to comment on some of the specific points that colleagues made, but I hope they will forgive me: with the two-minute limit, things came fast and furious. If I miss out anyone or any particular point, they should feel free to grab me afterwards or contact me, and I will provide a response where I can.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley for drawing out the examples of Shaun and Lily, which were indicative of stories I hear up and down the country. I offer my congratulations to Lily on securing the role at Nottingham Forest. My hon. Friend has clearly had a dialogue with Lily, so I wonder whether Lily might be willing to have a conversation with me about her experience in the jobcentre. I am always keen to hear about experiences on the frontline.
We are determined, through the standing up of the national jobs and careers service, to look at how we can make improvements to the support provided by our work coaches. In general, they do an important job well, but we are looking to modernise their approach through increased use of technology in support of young people and people who are looking for work across all age ranges. We want to upskill them to support people who might be from less-than-usual circumstances or are further away from the labour market. As we go through that, as well as our journey to increase the extent to which those closest to the labour market can self-serve, allowing work coaches to spend more time with people who really need the help, I am very keen to hear feedback, so if my hon. Friend would ask Lily whether she might consider it, I would be happy to have a conversation with her.
My hon. Friend was entirely right to mention the impact of artificial intelligence on the labour market. Some sectors in particular will be potentially negatively impacted, although overall, forecasters suggest that there will be a net increase in jobs as a result of AI. We need to look at particular sectoral impacts and what the Government can do over time to help. She and a number of other colleagues talked about access to mental health support, and I am sure that she will welcome the acceleration of the roll-out of mental health support teams to schools and further education colleges to ensure that we have full national coverage by 2029.
My hon. Friend took the opportunity, as did many colleagues, to make reference to the Milburn review into the drivers of youth inactivity and the number of young people not in education, employment or training. I hope that all colleagues welcome that review. Clearly, I cannot speak specifically to the SEND review that is happening alongside and separately to it, but given that education, health and care plans cover young people until the age of 25, while it is not directly part of that work, I hope that it is common sense to consider the implications of special educational needs and disability support as part of it.
My hon. Friend asked for an outline of the steps the Government are taking. I am sure she will have been pleased to hear today about the £820 million to implement the youth jobs guarantee and the £700 million-plus for the growth and skills levy, in addition to wider work already under way. That includes the eight youth inactivity trailblazers, which have been referenced, the auto-enrolment mechanism that is being put in place to ensure that anyone under the age of 18 who is not in education, employment or training is enrolled with a local education provider, and the shift in apprenticeship funding from all-age apprenticeships to those under the age of 22, where we have the most acute problem with people not in education, employment or training.
I want to assure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who called for greater careers advice and guidance, that the jobs and careers service that we are bringing forward will help to address that, certainly for over-18s. It is incredibly important that we recognise that jobs and careers advice extends not just to people not in education, employment or training, but to those in work who may be in sectors where there is not a huge opportunity for advancement or the pay is not particularly good. We are focusing on that as a key strand of our work to develop the service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) talked about the lack of focus on vocational training. I am sure that he welcomed the Prime Minister’s recent announcement of a shift away from the 50% university target towards a two-thirds target for vocational training and university education routes more broadly, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) mentioned. That is overdue. If I have one criticism of the policy choices of the last Labour Government, perversely, it is that one, because it meant that apprenticeships in particular, and vocational training in general, lost their value in the eyes of many people up and down the country, to the detriment of young people, industry and, ultimately, our economy.
I am sure that my hon. Friends will also welcome the diversion away from level 7 apprenticeships to apprenticeships to support those aged under 22. That will ensure that while masters routes through university remain for those on level 7 apprenticeships, we are able to target support at those at the youngest end of the spectrum who perhaps have fewer qualifications.
The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) rightly linked the NEET crisis to the housing crisis. As somebody who could talk about housing for hours, I completely agree with him. Housing is the most fundamental building block in anybody’s development, so I was particularly pleased to note that our new foundation apprenticeships look to address skills shortages that will prove to be a blocker to the Government’s intention to deliver 1.5 million homes, by focusing on construction and engineering.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool rightly seeks to champion technical education. I fully agree, and I hope that he will recognise the positive step of scrapping and amending the target, and the significant £785 million of funding for the growth and skills levy. That shows how serious we are about taking this forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) said that the youth guarantee funding needed to be sustained and not short term. I totally agree with him both that the intervention given to a young person must be not a one-off, but lasting—the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) mentioned that—and about the Government’s commitment to that. I think that as we see the results from that, the Government will continue to develop it.
On the consolidation of FE colleges across Cheshire, much as I know Middlewich, Winsford and Northwich, and the area surrounding my hon. Friend’s patch, relatively well, I cannot claim to know all the FE colleges in his locality, but that is something that I have experienced in my area with the expansion of the Trafford college group, its merger with Stockport college and so on. That is something that we need to look at, and I will feed that back directly to the Minister for Skills on his behalf.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) is a passionate advocate for young people, and he had an inspirational journey to his place himself. He is absolutely correct about this Government’s investment in youth hubs, our youth strategy and the investment that we are making in children and young people’s mental health. From next year, 900,000 more children and young people will be able to access mental health support in their education setting. The holistic approach that he suggested is critical to tackling the level of NEETs. I will write to him on his specific question about findings from the trailblazers, which is a fair challenge and an important question.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) rightly mentioned the link between special educational needs and disabilities and NEETs. This is why those holistic interventions are so important. It is often forgotten that an education, health and care plan covers a young person until the age of 25, so we cannot look at this as purely a skills problem. Although the Department for Education and the Minister for School Standards are leading on that, with the joint ministerial role that my noble Friend Baroness Smith fulfils, working between the Department for Work and Pensions and the DFE, we can hopefully ensure that that is fully played in.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) highlighted care leavers and pointed out the particular problem for young people in supported accommodation, who are caught in a taper trap that disincentivises work. She will be pleased that there were measures in the Budget—hot off the press—that will start to address that. We will introduce a series of new disregards, which we think will lead to 5,000 more people who are currently in supported accommodation being able to enter work, and 8,000 receiving more housing benefit. I encourage her to look at the specifics, but this is something that I and the Minister for Social Security and Disability have been alive to for a long time. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome those changes as more information becomes available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) is absolutely correct to highlight the particular challenges faced by young people in his constituency—as he said, certainly at one point, it had the highest number of NEETs in the country—and to highlight the further education and training landscape across north Staffordshire. I join him in commending the Higher Horizons scheme at Keele University, but we need to see more of that. I will come back to him in writing on his question about how the introduction of V-levels potentially impacts other training schemes, and BTECs in particular.
I do not recall promising to come to one of the colleges in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), but if I did not do so, I promise now that either I or the Minister for School Standards will do that. It may be that I had other things on my mind or a pint in my hand when I agreed to that; none the less, I will make sure that we look to take it forward. I share my hon. Friend’s view of the importance of the Milburn review and the need to look at this issue in an all-encompassing manner to make sure that, as we look at the levers to prevent NEETs and the drivers causing them, we leave absolutely nothing behind. Whether I had agreed previously or not, it will now be recorded in Hansard that I am off to his constituency.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), mentioned the challenges facing sectors including hospitality—I know that he has a particular interest in that sector, given the constituency he represents—and their inability to hire young people. I appreciate the challenges that he set out, but I hope that he will be pleased to hear that the new foundation apprenticeships will have a particular focus on sectors including hospitality and will be fully funded. I agree on the need to avoid suggestions of demonisation as we look at the drivers of NEETs, and particularly when considering those who suffer with certain mental health conditions. We know that there is a problem that we need to investigate, but the language that we use in this space matters. I fully accept the need to recognise that young people need support, not abuse and demonisation. On the hon. Member’s point about the need for long-term support and not one-off schemes, he will be pleased to know that the youth jobs guarantee will guarantee six months of paid work for 18 to 21-year-olds. That will not be a single intervention; it will be ongoing.
Finally, I was in danger of being in violent agreement with the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) at the start of his contribution, but when he moved into an attack on the Government I had to disagree somewhat. This is not a new problem—indeed, the number of NEETs is down 0.3% against this point last year. This is a problem inherited from the previous Government; what is different is the action being taken to deal with it: our youth jobs guarantee, our roll-out of further youth hubs, our new foundation apprenticeships and the shift in funding there, and the development of the jobs and careers service. This Government are taking this matter seriously. We will deliver the urgency needed to address it, and I hope that all colleagues will be able to support our interventions.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered support for young people not in education, employment or training.
Written Correction
Ministerial Correction
Cabinet Office
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
How can the Minister justify the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), receiving severance pay after she had to resign in disgrace?
Josh Simons
As the hon. Member knows, we have changed that policy. When the changed policy comes into force at the end of October, it will apply to all future such situations.
[Official Report, 24 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 34.]
Written correction submitted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons):
Josh Simons
As the hon. Member knows, we have changed that policy. When the changed policy came into force on 13 October, it applied to all future such situations.
Child Benefit and Guardian's Allowance: Uprating
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
The Tax Credits Act 2002 and Social Security Administration Act 1992 place a statutory duty on His Majesty’s Treasury to review the rates of child benefit each year in line with the general level of prices. There is a further statutory duty on the Treasury to increase guardian’s allowance in line with price growth. I have now concluded the review for the tax year 2026-27.
I have decided to increase child benefit rates in line with the consumer prices index for the year to September 2025, which is 3.8%. Guardian’s allowance will also increase by the same rate. This means that, from 6 April 2026:
the child benefit rate for the eldest child will increase from £26.05 to £27.05 per week;
the child benefit rate for other children will increase from £17.25 to £17.90 per week;
guardian’s allowance will increase from £22.10 to £22.95 per week.
I have determined that there will be no need for changes to tax credits rates in the tax year 2026-27, as there are no tax credits awards after 5 April 2025. The new rates will apply across the United Kingdom. I will deposit the full list of these rates in the House Libraries shortly.
[HCWS1100]
Ajax Armoured Vehicle: Safety
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I am releasing this statement to the House today to provide an update to Parliament on the British Army’s armoured cavalry programme, commonly known as Ajax. The programme has now reached initial operating capability. However, a recent training exercise has raised concerns regarding the safety of the vehicles.
As safety is my top priority, prior to IOC I asked for and was given assurances in writing by senior Ministry of Defence personnel that the system was safe.
On 22 November 2025, around 30 service personnel operating Ajax reported noise and vibration symptoms during a training exercise. The exercise was stopped immediately in line with our safety protocols, and those affected received full medical care and attention and continue to be monitored. There have not been any hospitalisations and none of the symptoms is life-threatening.
The safety of our service personnel remains a top priority for the MOD. As such, and out of an abundance of caution, I have directed a pause on use of Ajax for training and exercising while a safety investigation is carried out.
The rapid escalation of medical concerns, and halting the exercise immediately, demonstrates both the professionalism of our people and an improved safety culture functioning as designed, with the chain of command acting appropriately and with the required urgency. It is important to highlight that Ajax is continually being tested and developed. This approach enables our soldiers and industry partners to work collaboratively to address challenges as they are identified.
The Defence Accident Investigation Branch and the Army Safety Investigation Team are working with General Dynamics at pace to conduct an investigation into the incident.
The Ministry of Defence will provide further updates in due course, upon completion of the investigation.
[HCWS1099]
State Threat Prevention and Investigation Measures: 20 March to 19 September 2025
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
Section 55(1) of the National Security Act 2023 requires the Home Secretary to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of their STPIM powers under the Act during that period.
STPIMs were introduced through the 2023 Act and came into force on 20 December 2023. There have been no STPIM cases imposed to date.
[HCWS1098]
Statutory Review of State Pension and Benefit Rates 2026-27
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
I have concluded my statutory annual review of state pension and benefit rates under the Social Security Administration Act 1992. The new rates will apply in the tax year 2026-27, with most increases coming into effect from 6 April 2026.
I am pleased to announce that the basic and new state pensions will be increased by 4.8%, in line with the increase in average weekly earnings in the year to May to July 2025.
This delivers on our commitment to the triple lock, increasing these rates in line with the highest of growth in prices, growth in earnings or 2.5%. From April, the full annual rate of the new state pension will increase by around £575. The full annual rate of the basic state pension will increase by around £440.
The standard minimum guarantee in pension credit will increase by 4.8% in line with the increase in average earnings. From April, it will be £238 a week for a single pensioner and £363.25 a week for a couple, ensuring the incomes of the poorest pensioners are protected.
Other state pension and benefit rates covered by my statutory review will be increased by 3.8%, in line with the increase in the consumer prices index in the year to September 2025.
This includes most working-age benefits and other benefits for people below state pension age; benefits to help with additional needs arising from disability; statutory payments including statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay; and additional state pension. The pension credit savings credit maximum amount will also increase by 3.8%.
The Universal Credit Act 2025 removed the standard allowance and health elements of universal credit, as well as their employment and support allowance equivalents, from my review. The Act provided increases to certain rates. For example, the standard allowance for a single person aged 25 or over will increase by around £295 a year. That is over £110 more than if uprated by inflation alone. For couples, where one member is aged 25 or over, it will increase by around an additional £465 a year. That is approximately £180 more than if uprated by inflation alone.
These increases will apply across Great Britain.
In England and Wales, personal independence payment and other benefits to help with additional needs arising from disability, and the rate of carer’s allowance, will also increase by 3.8%. In Scotland, these are devolved matters.
All social security, including state pensions, is a transferred matter in Northern Ireland.
While not part of my formal uprating review, I can confirm that local housing allowance rates and the benefit cap will be maintained at their current levels and not increased for 2026-27.
I will place the full list of proposed state pension and benefit rates for 2026-27 in the Libraries of both Houses and on gov.uk in due course.
[HCWS1101]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kamall
(a) public playground,(b) provider of early years education, or(c) school.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment restricts the Secretary of State’s power to designate vape-free places to only playgrounds, providers of early years education and schools in England.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments deals with the designation of vape-free places. As with the earlier debate on smoke-free places, they probe—I stress, probe—the Government on the powers they seek to extend the restriction of the use of vaping products, and whether those powers will be exercised proportionately and responsibly.
There is a careful balance to be struck here, just as with other issues. We all agree on the importance of protecting children and preventing the normalisation of vaping among young people, but at the same time we must recognise that for many adults vaping represents a less harmful alternative to smoking—a point that the Minister has repeatedly made—which can be an essential part of a person’s journey towards quitting altogether.
It is with this balance in mind that we have tabled what I stress are probing amendments—Amendments 181, 183 and 184. Amendment 181 would restrict the Secretary of State’s power to designate vape-free spaces to three categories of child-centred environments where there is arguably a rationale for such prohibition. But beyond the specific context, the case for ministerial intervention may become weaker. As with the earlier group of amendments, we are probing the Government on the level of discussion and accountability in granting Ministers this very wide discretion to designate almost any public or quasi-public space vape-free, provided that it is also designated smoke-free.
This gives rise to two questions. First, if the Government are not minded to accept this amendment, as with the question on tobacco-free spaces, can the Minister tell the Committee whether the designation of vape-free spaces would be by way of the negative procedure, the draft affirmative procedure or the “made affirmative” procedure?
My second question relates to the consideration the Government have given to the effects of passive vaping as opposed to passive smoking, particularly in outdoor environments. I tried to look for papers on the effects of passive vaping and my impression is that there is as yet no definitive conclusion on the harms from passive vaping in outdoor settings. One study concluded:
“Bystanders in both settings (a car and in a room) experienced some short-term irritation symptoms, expressed as dry throat, nose, eyes, and phlegm. In conclusion, short-term use of an e-cigarette in confined spaces increased harmful particulates of 2.5 micrometres or less and caused some irritation symptoms in bystanders.”
Another study looked at the effects of 76 subjects who were vaping next to 73 non-vaping subjects who had agreed to be exposed to the vapour. The conclusion was that non-vaping subjects exposed to vapour had significantly higher oral temperature after 20 minutes of exposure, but blood sugar and forced vital capacity—in simple terms, a measurement of lung function—were not significantly affected by vaping or exposure to vapour.
The point here is that the vapers were sitting next to the non-vapers or passive vapers, and I have been unable to find any studies on the harms of passive vaping in outdoor environments. So my second question is a simple one: what evidence do the Government have on any negative effects of passive vaping in outdoor spaces? Can the Minister write to noble Lords with links to and details of these studies, and the department’s own assessment of them? Can she give an assurance that, if the Government designate further outdoor spaces, this will be based on scientific evidence of harm?
I also have to admit a certain concern about messaging. We know that some people believe that vaping is as harmful as smoking, which is clearly a barrier to encouraging smokers to switch to vapes. If the Minister does not believe that the harm profile of passive vaping is the same as that of passive smoking, what is the rationale for linking smoke-free and vape-free places? If the Minister does indeed recognise that the harm profiles of these products are in fact different, does it not make sense that the places liable for designation under the Bill should in fact be different?
Amendment 183 is equally important and would prevent the Secretary of State from designating as vape-free any hospital or part of a hospital that provides mental health services. We have had the discussion before: in many mental health settings, many people have a higher risk of smoking than those in the general population. Vaping can be a vital tool in reducing harm, improving well-being and supporting gradual cessation. To impose a ban on such settings not only would be counterproductive but, in some cases, could be inhumane. It would risk forcing some of the vulnerable individuals in society back towards cigarettes and undermine the very public health objectives that this Bill seeks to promote.
I want to probe the Government on how the nuance will translate into practice. On an earlier set of amendments, the Minister said that
“vapes will still be able to be sold in healthcare settings via on-site shops. It is the sale through vending machines that we are seeking to prohibit in the Bill”.
When my noble friend Lord Moylan raised the issue of vapes for smoking cessation in hospitals, the Minister replied:
“We know that a number of mental health trusts, for example, are providing free vape starter kits as part of our national Swap to Stop campaign. The noble Lord’s point was well made, and we continue to work on that”.—[Official Report, 30/10/25; col. GC 232-33.]
Could the Minister clarify what was meant by “we continue to work” on that? Is she saying that all patients in mental health settings who want a cigarette or vape will be offered one of these free vape starter kits? If not, what is the solution that the Minister is working on to make sure that those who do want access to an e-cigarette or a vape can get one, as my noble friend Lord Moylan intended in his earlier set of amendments?
Amendment 184 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe simply suggests clear definitions for “public playground”, “provider of early years education” and “school” to ensure that any designations made under these powers are precise, transparent and legally consistent.
I turn briefly to Amendments 182 and 187 from my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister. They offer an opportunity to probe the Government on whether they intend to prohibit only those under the age of 18 from vaping on school premises or whether they have had any discussions with teachers’ organisations or perhaps trade unions on banning teachers and adult visitors from vaping on premises of schools and colleges. I believe that most if not all noble Lords agree that vapes offer smokers a pathway to quit smoking. We understand the concerns about children taking up vaping, so how do we get that balance in settings where there are children but also adults—some of whom, maybe after a stressful class, will want to turn to a cigarette or a vape?
I quickly turn to Amendment 182A in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, which raises the important issue of age and responsibility. In spaces where we know that most people will be over 18, it makes sense that vaping should be permitted. I understand that there may be certain settings where people under 18 manage to creep in. I am sure that in our youth we all did that, although I have no evidence of my own past misdemeanours in that sense. What consideration has the Minister given to the challenge that the noble Lord has raised and what is the Government’s view on the potential harms that vaping in such a space could have? In other words, why do they believe that the Bill as drafted, particularly with respect to these issues on vaping, is necessary? I look forward to the answers from the Minister and I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise briefly to address a couple of these amendments in a broad sense. Amendments 182 and 187 would ensure that all schools and colleges were vape-free and would require them to proactively implement policies as such. I draw here on my own experience from the Learn with the Lords scheme. I had a shadow from that scheme here in Parliament—a young woman of about 16 or so. She had been with me for about an hour when she said to me, in tones of total desperation, “I need a vape”. I confess that that is not something within my personal experience, and I am not entirely sure about where I took her, although it seemed an appropriate place and I did my best. But I think that we have to acknowledge that schools, colleges and other similar institutions will encounter people who have started vaping and are experiencing great difficulties with addiction to that vaping. I would want to keep it so that the school can make its own decisions on what is best for its own situation and its community, rather than trying to apply a blanket ban. We know what the ideal would be, but we have to think about the reality for head teachers and others who have to deal with that practical situation.
I also want to speak against Amendment 182A, which would allow vaping products in places where it is reasonable to expect that everyone present is over 18. I should declare another interest here. I must admit that I really do not enjoy walking down the street and getting a face-full of vaping fumes through no choice of my own. Many of the pubs, clubs and bars that are likely to be in this situation are already voluntarily vape-free. We do not want to force them to change the circumstances of what works for their patrons.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I shall start with Amendment 182A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, which replaces his withdrawn Amendment 180A. It seeks to specify that vaping should be allowed in locations where it is “reasonable to expect” that only people over 18 congregate. I believe this would limit the Government’s response under their powers in the Bill if future evidence emerged that action would be desirable. Given that parts of the Bill seek to limit any action that opens the way to under-18 vaping and to discourage those aged 18 to 24 from vaping, except as a smoking cessation tool, this amendment would appear to be in opposition to that objective, which I share.
I have commented before that many young people slip undetected into over-18 places—the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, has just accepted that that does happen now and then—so the amendment could undermine the Bill’s objective, which could be why the noble Lord has reworded it. However, many indoor settings already voluntarily designate their premises vape-free, and they may do so because many non-smokers find vaping as well as cigarette smoke offensive because of the smell. I am sure they would not have done that if it were bad for business. Any change in this situation would require further consultation, so perhaps that is what the Minister might say.
Going back to the beginning of the group, Amendments 181 and 184, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, seek to restrict the Government’s ability to act in future to three specific locations. I am glad that the noble Lord did not specify that hospitals should be designated vape-free, because vaping may be a valuable quit-smoking aid to patients. However, it does not seem to me that these places need to be specified in the Bill. There is going to be a lot more consultation, and I hope that evidence will come from the call for evidence.
Amendments 182 and 187, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, are unnecessary as schools already have the power to ban students bringing vapes on to their premises as they cannot have been obtained legally if the students are under 18. However, it is sad that many of them either do not do so or find it hard to enforce their ban, if they have one, for the reasons the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has just mentioned. One has to have sympathy with young people who have managed to be hooked on nicotine so badly that they have to say, “I need a vape”, as she put it. I hope that schools in particular, where the pupils are under 18, will see it as their duty to discourage vaping among their pupils. In support of that, I would be sorry to see staff vaping on the premises because it is a very bad example.
There is a major problem with young people buying unlicensed vapes, some of which have been adulterated with THC or the drug spice, which is a dangerous development. The latter is particularly addictive and harmful, so I hope that schools would be active and vigilant on this matter. However, I think the Minister may tell us that more consultation is taking place on this issue, so I am content to wait for that.
I support the principle of Amendment 183, from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, which would prohibit the Government designating mental health trusts as vape-free. We must recognise the use of vaping in mental health and smoking cessation, alongside treatment, so the trusts should be able to make their own decisions about vaping on their premises. I very much hope that the Minister will reassure us that the Government do not have any intention of designating mental health trusts as vape-free areas. For all those reasons, and those given in previous debates, I would not support removing Clause 138 from the Bill. The public strongly support their opportunity to go into vape-free places, and many businesses have understood that already.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Kamall on the Front Bench. I have not taken part in these debates before, but I have to say that I find it quite disturbing that we should be making laws because perhaps we do not like walking down a street where people are puffing vapes. I do not, but there are lots of things I do not like that people do, and I am not going to ban them all—well, perhaps I would, actually, but I am not going to.
Similarly, if you cannot be hooked by passive vaping, as my noble friend Lord Kamall said, I am not quite sure why we are taking it so seriously. As I understand it, vaping is not addictive; nicotine is addictive, but vaping itself is a different matter. It also seems to me that we are legislating unnecessarily. I am afraid, to broaden the subject slightly, that this will lead to yet further influxes of cheap and nasty vapes, which may or may not be, as the noble Baroness just said, influenced by other matters.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. Let me first turn to the opposition to Clause 138 standing part of the Bill, which has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister. Clause 138 amends the Health Act 2006 to insert new provisions relating to vape-free places in England. These provisions allow the Secretary of State to designate certain places and vehicles as vape-free, but only where they are also smoke-free.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked about evidence. The fact is that evidence is developing, as the noble Lord himself rightly acknowledged, but we do know that while vapes are less harmful than smoking, there is a reason why the Chief Medical Officer says:
“If you smoke, vaping is much safer; if you don’t smoke, don’t vape”.
Vapes are not harm-free; there are legitimate concerns regarding the unknown long-term health impacts of vaping. They produce aerosol that exposes people to nicotine and potential toxicants, which poses health risks to children and medically vulnerable people in particular; for example, they can trigger asthma attacks. It is therefore important and right—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Robathan—that the Government act to protect more vulnerable groups from potential health harms. I should also say that evidence suggests that, in adolescence, the brain is more sensitive to the effects of nicotine, so there could be additional risks for young people compared to adults.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, many businesses and enclosed public places already have in place, on a voluntary basis, schemes to prohibit vape usage on their premises. We want to introduce legislative requirements to make it clear to the public where it is illegal to use vapes and to enable enforcement agencies to enforce accordingly. I know that noble Lords understand the reasons for wanting to be clear about what is and is not legal, and this Bill and the provisions in it are very much part of that.
Again, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, welcomed, the main answer to all the questions today— I will continue to go through the various amendments—is that we will be consulting on making indoor settings that are subject to existing smoke-free legislation vape free. The consultation in this area and beyond is crucial, because we also plan to consult on making some outdoor places where children are present vape free—for example, children’s playgrounds, and the outdoor areas of schools and early years settings.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked about how we will recognise the difference between harms. I can assure him that this is an area we absolutely want to get right. We do want to ensure that adult smokers who are using vapes as quit aids are doing so in appropriate places, such that they do not return to smoking. That is exactly why we will consult before making regulations and carefully consider the responses to ensure the policy seeks the appropriate balance.
Amendment 182A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, would mean that some indoor areas, for example nightclubs, would not be able to be made vape free. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for her views on this. As I have already outlined, vapers pose potential risks to both users and non-users, especially indoors. We had a debate in an earlier group about the workability or otherwise of designating particular areas as able to police themselves. It is quite important to say to the Committee that the vast majority—around 90% of those over 16—do not currently vape. Just because someone is in an over-18 setting does not mean that they are content to be exposed to these second-hand harms.
As discussed, this is a particular concern for medically vulnerable people whose conditions may not be in the least visible to the vaper, who I am sure does not wish to cause harm—for example, those with asthma. Additionally, people who wish to vape will still be able to do so in outdoor hospitality settings—for example, in the outdoor smoking areas of an over-18 nightclub. We have been very clear that we will not be consulting on including those outdoor areas in the scope of vape- free places.
Ultimately, the Bill grants powers to make places vape free and does not itself make any place vape free. The consultation will ask questions relating to areas that should become vape free, any necessary exemptions and any additional evidence on the second-hand harms of these products. Therefore, in our view there is no change needed to the primary legislation.
It is appropriate now to turn to Amendments 181 and 184, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, which would seek to limit the locations that can be designated as vape free. As I have already outlined, the current power allows us to respond to evolving evidence at a later time and ensures the Bill is future-proof. The noble Lord asked about the process. I can confirm as I have done previously that the power for vape-free places will be through an affirmative regulation. That will mean, as the noble Lord knows, a debate in both places. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, talked about vape-free areas being specified in the Bill. I hope I have explained why that is not the case. It is particularly important as we talk about evolving evidence that we look to the future. That is why we will be consulting and why we will turn to regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, mentioned vape-free schools and asked whether that measure applies to children or adults. I can confirm that it is about the area rather than the people in it. So there are no limitations on people of a certain age; it is the area that would be designated.
I turn to Amendments 182 and 187 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, which relate to vape-free policies in schools and colleges in England that are made vape-free places. It is my view that these amendments are not necessary. As I have said, we have already made it clear that we will consult on making schools, sixth-form colleges and early years settings vape-free places. Public consultation will allow us to gather views from a wide range of stakeholders, including those who run education settings. Enforcement officers will have the power to issue on-the-spot fines or pursue convictions where they deem it necessary for the offence of using a vape in a vape-free place. However, we anticipate—this may be helpful to noble Lords—that there will continue to be a role for internal sanctions for pupils found vaping on the premises. Schools are already required to publish a behavioural policy.
In relation to education provisions for pupils on vaping, we have worked closely with the Department for Education to incorporate education on the risks of vaping and nicotine use in the recently updated relationships, sex and health education statutory guidance for schools and teachers; I am sure that the person referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, will benefit from that in future.
I appreciate the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and his intention in Amendment 183, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, also spoke. I agree that it is important that patients receiving care in a mental health setting have access to appropriate smoking cessation tools; that is particularly true given that smoking rates among those with a long-term mental health condition are far higher than in the general population. As I have mentioned previously, in England, we are considering making inside hospitals—but not outside them—smoke-free. I appreciate and am alive to the fact that there are particular considerations in the case of mental health facilities, but I assure noble Lords that we are keen to get things right in this area and are going to follow the evidence. We want to ensure that vapes can continue to be accessible as an effective quitting aid for adult smokers; noble Lords have made strong and important points about this. As outlined, we believe that the details of any exemptions are best explored through the consultation process, although we understand the intention behind the amendment.
I hope that this provides reassurance and understanding to noble Lords that the settings that will be in scope of the vape-free policy will be fully considered by consultation and then considered under the affirmative procedure. I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response; I also thank all noble Lords who spoke on this group. I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that any further extension of the designation of vape-free places will be done via the affirmative procedure, which is very welcome.
I have a couple of outstanding questions; I suspect that the Minister and her department were not able to get the answers quick enough, thanks to the power of the internet or whatever, so I wonder whether the Minister could write to noble Lords on these matters. First, is there any evidence yet from studies of passive smoking in outdoor settings? As I said, the studies I looked at were all on indoor settings; nothing has been done on outdoor settings. It would be good to know what evidence the department currently has. I also ask the Minister to share that evidence, with the appropriate links, so that we can all understand it. usbI understand that the consultation is all about seeking further evidence, but it would be interesting to know what evidence the department currently has—on the understanding that the evidence is evolving, as the Minister rightly said.
“(c) whether it would be reasonable to expect that everyone present in that location is aged 18 or over.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow the use of heated tobacco products within locations where it is reasonable to expect that everyone present is over 18.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My amendment seeks to allow ministerial discretion for heated tobacco products. As I have said previously, we know that vapes and heated tobacco products are much safer than smoked tobacco products. We need a regime of regulation that promotes switching where smokers are unable to stop. This small change may shift the dial in favour of switching. I hope that Ministers will consider this amendment in the constructive way in which it is meant.
I am trying to make a consistent point across all my amendments to improve the number of smokers switching to safer alternatives. We all know our doctors are often harsh in their advice; they will tell us that drinking alcohol is always unhealthy, even though many of us drink socially and are not unhealthy. The fact is that we need a system that encourages people to make healthier choices without riding roughshod over their personal liberties. That is what I am trying to propose. By allowing discretionary powers on spaces where everyone is reasonably expected to be over 18 in respect of heated tobacco, Ministers will be able to nudge people to make healthier choices, when they have found it impossible to quit smoking. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly against all the amendments in this group. I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, about our understanding of heated tobacco products. I am drawing here, as I have been throughout Committee, on the excellent briefings from Action on Smoking and Health. I note its conclusion, that there is not currently good-quality evidence on the health harms of heated tobacco devices or their efficacy as a smoking cessation tool. Therefore, in that context, we need to be very cautious of the potential health impacts. The Bill as it stands is in the right place.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. In Amendment 184A, the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, seeks to exclude heated tobacco from the smoke-free generation objective of the Bill, to allow it in places where everyone is over 18. For this reason, and because of my lack of confidence that any location can be sure it is really only used by over 18s, I cannot support this amendment.
In Amendment 185, the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, seeks to exempt heated tobacco from being banned in uncovered hospitality areas, which parallels an earlier amendment about vaping. As smoking gradually declines, the Government may very well seek to make further restrictions, as the public will almost certainly become used to the lack of nicotine products in their environments, and they may rather like that situation. Therefore, the Government must be free to use their powers in the Bill to respond to the public’s changing attitudes on these issues.
Removing Clause 139 would prevent the Government from designating heated tobacco-free places at all. Many businesses have done this already, and any evidence that these products are being used as smoking cessation tools is likely to decrease over the years as the number of smokers decreases. That would therefore not be a good reason to prevent the Government from acting if they saw fit.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, my noble friends Lord Howard of Rising and Lord Udny-Lister, who is unfortunately not in his place, are to be thanked for enabling us to focus on the issues around the use of heated tobacco. We have touched on this subject at earlier stages but, when previously discussing heated tobacco, the Minister promised to write to noble Lords about the evidence that her department possesses of the harms caused by heated tobacco. I am sure that is high on her agenda, but the question is crucial in the context of these amendments since, whatever the answer is, it will have a direct bearing on the use of the Secretary of State’s powers to designate locations as heated tobacco-free.
There are various published studies, as she will know. A study published by UCL found that people who switched from cigarettes to heated tobacco had lower levels of exposure to harmful chemicals than those who kept smoking, but higher levels of these toxins than those who stopped using tobacco altogether, which I guess is not a surprising finding. Other studies state that it is too soon to know how using heat—not burn—products will affect someone’s health in the long term, since research looking at these tobacco products is still, I understand, in its early stages and, in the main, funded by the tobacco industry. We therefore need clear evidence, born of independent research, on both the relative harm of heated tobacco compared to burning tobacco, as well as the absolute levels of harm that result from its use.
I am a non-smoker. I understand the concern that heated tobacco should not be a loophole for large tobacco firms to get around the law, but I am also concerned that in the absence of long-term evidence, portraying heated tobacco as being in the same category as cigarettes carries the risk of failing to reduce harm for that small percentage of smokers who wish to quit but have not taken to vapes for one reason or another.
Pending fresh research findings, I think, alongside my noble friends, that there remains a legitimate question about how the Government intend to treat spaces, both indoors and outdoors, where heated tobacco is used, and about whether they believe there is a clear proven case for including heated tobacco in the generational ban. In particular, does the Minister consider uncovered outdoor areas to be different in this context from enclosed spaces, in terms of both health risk and social behaviour? As she knows, the hospitality industry has concerns about extending the indoor smoking ban to outdoor hospitality areas such as pub gardens, and I welcome the assurance she gave on that a few minutes ago. The indication from the Government thus far is that hospitality areas will not be caught by any outdoor ban, but if that is true of smoke tobacco, can the Minister confirm that there is no similar intention as regards the outdoor use of heated tobacco?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to limiting the Government’s ability to create heated tobacco-free places in England. I am grateful for all the contributions to the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, opposes Clause 139 standing part of the Bill. Clause 139 provides the power to designate certain places and vehicles in England as heated tobacco-free. Places can be designated heated tobacco-free only if they are smoke-free. As I have mentioned, we plan to consult on making heated tobacco-free all indoor places that are currently smoke-free. We also plan to consult on making certain outdoor spaces heated tobacco-free. As with smoke-free places, the consultation will cover children’s playgrounds, the outdoor areas of schools and early years settings, and areas outside healthcare settings where medically vulnerable people may be present.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked an important question about evidence, and I will write with more detail as soon as possible. However, I reiterate what I said in debates on previous groups and elsewhere: there is no safe level of tobacco consumption and all tobacco products are harmful, including heated tobacco products. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Walmsley, for their supportive comments. Laboratory studies show evidence of toxicity from heated tobacco and that the aerosol generated by heated tobacco devices, like other forms of tobacco, contains carcinogenic compounds. Recent evidence has also indicated that exposure to second-hand emissions from heated tobacco products is associated with significant respiratory and cardiovascular abnormalities in bystanders.
The noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, also tabled Amendment 185. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked me to repeat—I am glad to do so—that, as I have made clear, we are not planning to consult on making outdoor hospitality settings in England heated tobacco-free.
Amendment 184A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, seeks to exempt areas where it would be reasonable to expect that only over-18s are present from any future restrictions on heated tobacco places. This amendment is similar to the one already discussed in relation to vape-free places, which would mean that some indoor areas, for example nightclubs, could not be made heated tobacco-free.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and the Minister for her response. I hope she and her officials will take away some of the considered points made by noble Lords in this debate for consideration as we make further progress with the Bill. I hope the point about encouraging smokers to switch where they cannot quit will be taken on board. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Strategy to reduce retail crime linked to tobacco and vaping products(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a strategy to reduce offences against retailers of relevant products as a result of changes made by this Act.(2) The strategy must address—(a) violence and abuse against retail workers at work resulting from—(i) the refusal of sale of relevant products, and(ii) requests for identification by retail workers to a person attempting to buy relevant products;(b) theft of relevant products from retailers of relevant products, and(c) any other offence against retailers of relevant products relating to relevant products.(3) The strategy must be published before the end of the period of 12 months after the day on which this Act is passed and updated between 1 January 2027 and 1 January 2028.(4) In preparing the strategy the Secretary of State must consult—(a) retailers of relevant products,(b) representatives of retailers of relevant products,(c) elected local policing bodies, and(d) any other person the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult. (5) For the purposes of this section “retailers of relevant products” means a person who carries on a business involving the sale of relevant products by retail.(6) In this section—“elected local policing bodies” has the same meaning as section 101 of the Police Act 1996;“relevant products” means—(a) tobacco products,(b) tobacco related devices,(c) herbal smoking products,(d) cigarette papers,(e) vaping products, or(f) nicotine products;“retail workers at work” means a person who—(a) is working on or about retail premises, and(b) is working there for or on behalf of the owner or occupier of those premises, or is the owner or occupier of those premises.(7) In subsection (6) “retail premises” means—(a) premises used wholly or mainly for the purposes of the sale of anything by retail, or(b) premises used mainly for the purposes of the wholesale of anything, if the premises are also used for the purposes of the sale of anything by retail,and here “premises” include a stall or vehicle.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish a strategy to reduce retail crime against retailers of tobacco, vaping and nicotine products.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Kamall and I have previously raised the concerns of retailers in relation to several aspects of this Bill. Amendment 188 is intended as a probing amendment to ask the Government whether they have any plans to work with retailers and other partners to develop and publish a strategy to reduce retail crime against retailers of tobacco, vapes and nicotine products.
Noble Lords will be aware that these retailers are often the most affected by retail crime. Their businesses are often small, independent stores that lack the means to hire security, as larger retailers are able to do. The size of these businesses also means that retail crime has more of an impact, due to smaller profit margins. On top of that, by the very nature of selling age-restricted products, the likelihood of confrontation is heightened by the increased interaction with customers. This problem is being exacerbated by the rampant rise in shoplifting over the past year. Shoplifting offences across England, excluding London, have risen by 15%, and, in London, the number is almost unbelievable: 54%. That figure is now at a 20-year high, costing retailers £2.2 billion in lost profits.
Retailers, both large and small, are being pummelled by an increased disregard for the rule of law and, very often, a lack of response from the authorities. The department’s impact assessment acknowledges this when it says that the Bill
“could lead to an increase in aggression and abuse towards retail workers”.
That is why, in Amendment 191, I suggest that the Government have a responsibility both to oversee the transition that they are mandating in the Bill and to provide suitable guidance. Whatever noble Lords’ views on the provisions of the Bill, this amendment re-emphasises the need for clear consultation and for the Government to work with retailers to address their concerns.
For that reason, I support the principle behind my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising’s Amendment 200A. The policy set out in the Bill to prohibit those aged under 18 from buying nicotine products can be enforced only by age-verification checks. Where technology is involved in such checks, this will cost retailers money. Smaller retailers will find this burden commensurately heavier. This probing amendment from my noble friend— I hope he will allow me to call it that—allows us to ask the Minister how the Government intend to lighten the burden on those retailers.
I beg to move.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 200A touches on a different theme from the other amendments that I have tabled. As my noble friend Lord Howe commented, it is a probing amendment to test the Government’s attitude to small shops and the burdens that they face. I endorse the remarks made by my noble friend about shoplifting because it no longer seems to be a crime—you just go in and help yourself to what you want.
This amendment is focused on the burden placed on businesses by their need for age-verification technology. The businesses that will have to comply with this Bill are not just major supermarkets or established tobacco specialists; they are also corner shops and convenience stores up and down the country. These are small businesses on which local communities rely. They are run by local businessmen who provide employment in our villages and towns. They are a place where essential services, such as postal services and phone or bill payment services, can be accessed.
Any additional burden on our corner shops must be considered in that context. Can the Minister please set out what assessment the Government have made of the impact of this Bill on small businesses, especially convenience stores? Can she assure us that, if the impact on these businesses is shown to be overly burdensome following the passage of this Bill, Ministers will look closely at how to support convenience stores further by reducing the regulatory burden that they face? I should declare an interest in that I own a convenience store, although I do not run it.
It is essential that we do not proceed blindly without a proper understanding of the impact that this Bill will have on small businesses, so I hope that the Minister will be able to address my concerns fully in her closing remarks.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am very much in favour of these three amendments. As we come to the end of Committee, it is important that we consider some of the unintended consequences of this Bill, particularly in relation to retailers. In relation to Amendment 188 from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I stress in particular proposed new subsection (4)(a) and (b) on the need to consult retailers of relevant products and representatives of retailers of relevant products. This is key and would help to inform the guidance on implementation for retailers that is called for in Amendment 191.
I want to say something on consultation because, throughout Committee, whenever the word “consultation” has come up, the Minister has assured us that retailers have been consulted. I am not impugning her at all, but I do not think that the notion of widespread retail consultation is strictly accurate. Twenty witnesses were invited to give oral evidence to the Public Bill Committee, but the solitary witness from retail, the British Retail Consortium, represented large retailers. More broadly, a wide range of organisations representing independent shopkeepers and related stakeholders such as pubs and hospitality supplied written evidence. Nineteen of the witnesses called to give oral testimony represented health charities, public health practices, health regulation and local government officials. That is a distorting set of witnesses in relation to what will have a big impact on different sectors such as retail and hospitality. It distorts the evidence base and the information that the Government are working with, and it shapes the narrative away from one of the sectors that is affected by this legislation.
The sort of retailers that are caught up in and detrimentally affected by the Bill are thousands of small retail outlets, mini marts and convenience stores, often family businesses with up to half run by British Asians—the sort of shops that are the heart and soul of so many communities and are especially important in rural areas. They are a vital part of local economies, especially in areas where large corporate retail companies do not have much of a presence. I have been talking to a number of these retailers, and I think that it would be useful for the Government to talk to them to get an accurate picture of their fears and concerns and, indeed, to listen to some very imaginative and creative solutions they have to the challenges presented by the Bill. I recommend to the Minister that her department and officials start by reading a useful academic essay by Maged Ali, reader at Essex Business School, University of Essex, entitled The Backbone of the UK Under Attack: The Economic Effects of Tobacco Generational Sales Ban on Retail SMEs because it provides a lot of rich detail.
The economic effects are very important for Amendment 200A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, on the need to provide financial assistance and grants for the acquisition of age-verification technology. I stress how important this is. The sector is largely driven, as I have indicated, by independent retailers who run 71% of convenience stores. They are self-financing individuals who will have to invest their own money to enforce policies that, as we have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will mean them receiving potentially more abuse, intimidation and violence in terms of ID checks. They certainly need some help in dealing with all this.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for introducing this group. I will speak in specific terms against Amendment 188 and very strongly against Amendment 200A.
Starting with Amendment 188, I declare my position as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Customer Service. I note the terrible figures from the Institute of Customer Service earlier this year—these are from people who work in all areas of public-facing customer service—which showed that 43% of those surveyed had faced some incident of customer hostility in the previous year. That figure was up nearly 20%. Some 21% of the people surveyed had also faced physical threats while they were doing customer-facing roles.
As the noble Earl said, we have a real problem with shoplifting, but we also have a problem across the board. I do not think the best way to approach this is to look specifically at retailers of tobacco, vaping and nicotine products. There is a need for government action, and I have been working with the Institute for Customer Service more broadly, as I have in the past on other legislation, to tackle this. It does not make a lot of sense to regard this as a discrete problem; it needs a much broader angle of attack.
I am very strongly against Amendment 200A, which would establish a government grant scheme to subsidise the cost of age-verification technology to reduce the financial burden on smaller retailers. I absolutely agree that the burden should not fall on smaller retailers. However, I point out that—this is based on work earlier this year by the Social Market Foundation—the big four tobacco companies make £900 million in profits annually and that their average profit margin, looking at the cost of producing and distributing tobacco products versus the price they charge to whole- salers, is 50%. There is no other product that has anything like that kind of return.
Due to being involved here, I have not had a chance to look closely at what happened in the Budget today but, so far as I have been able to discover, a fairly standard increase in tobacco duty is coming in at 6 pm today. However, the Chancellor has not, it seems, followed the recommendation of the Social Market Foundation to put a levy on tobacco products on some of those windfall profits. At the time, that was suggested for health measures, but it could indeed go into such a measure as this. It is very clear that the merchants of death should be paying for the costs associated with their products much more broadly than this. But, certainly in the context of this amendment, they should meet any burden of compliance so that it does not fall on the smaller retailers.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I hesitate to interject at this late stage of Committee, but I just respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who had concerns that many of the organisations giving evidence previously on the retail question were from health-related charities, and I declare my own non-pecuniary interest as chairman of Cancer Research UK.
I just inject a note of caution about relying too heavily on some of the trade associations for the small retailers that she describes, given that they have some financial vested interests. The organisation that she cited, I noticed on their website, has received a sponsorship support from Japan Tobacco International. Another major retail association declares on its website that it has received funding from Philip Morris, Japan Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco and British American Tobacco. Therefore, notwithstanding the need to consult retailers directly, I think that some of these trade associations may have a conflict of interest.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about how important it is that retailers of all kinds feel supported as we move into the transition to a smoke-free generation. Those who operate legally and who will obtain a licence to operate under the new rules will want to see the Government doing everything that they can to attack the illicit trade that undermines the profits of law-abiding businesses.
They also need protection from the wave of shoplifting, which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, talked about, which eats into their profits and sometimes puts them in physical danger. It is quite possible that progress towards gradually raising the age below which the retailers may not sell tobacco products could exacerbate this situation unless action is taken. Age verification could be seen as a problem or a solution. However, the need for age verification is already quite common and it falls upon the consumer, not the retailer. I have to verify my own age when I buy a senior railcard to use on the train, although my grey hair means that I am not challenged when I want to buy a bottle of wine. However, the fact remains that, when I have alcohol in my basket at the checkout, a member of staff is entitled to verify that I am over 18—in fact, they take one look, and they click on the terminal. They do not ask for my birth certificate, but of course they might if I looked under 18, which I do not.
However, the situation will soon change for young people only a year apart in age. Having said that, young people are already quite used to having to verify that they are over 18 when buying a drink or a packet of cigarettes or vapes. What do they do now? They use a digital age-verification tool already, and some bars issue their own card once they have verified the age of their regular customers. It therefore would not be unreasonable, and would be helpful to the retailers, if a range of age-verification mechanisms could be available to customers who would then have to show one of them in order to protect the retailers from inadvertently committing an offence. They have to show that they are over 18 now, so why not that they are 19 a year after Royal Assent or 20 the year after that?
It may be a very good idea for the Government to carry out more research on this and publish a strategy, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has proposed in Amendment 188. But the public are not the only ones who need guidance and information about the law well before it comes into operation; how much more important is it for retailers? We have already debated my noble friend Lady Northover’s amendment about the need for a communications strategy, so I am not sure how much Amendment 191 would add to that, but it is a useful probe.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, I do not support Amendment 200A from the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising. I do not see why taxpayers should foot the bill for creating age-verification mechanisms. I suspect that individual customers will obtain their own digital age-verification mechanism and that inventive companies will produce them and make them readily available. Of course, the vape manufacturers may also produce age-gated products, so perhaps it should be the tobacco industry that foots the bill because of its very large profit margins. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on this issue.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
If the Committee will allow me, I want to come back on the point about retail organisations. I am more than happy to acknowledge that all sorts of organisations are not quite as independent as they seem. In fact, many health charities over the years feel more like Astroturfed organisations, because most of their money comes from government, one way or another. All I am pointing out is that the idea of a kind of neutral body of representative organisations is something that could be queried.
It is fair enough about trade associations, but my general point—rather than trying to imply that there is something dodgy about the associations I mentioned because of any association with tobacco—is that tens of thousands of small retailers are tearing their hair out about the implications of this legislation. That is reflected in a wide range of ways, not just by briefings I have had from trade associations, of which I have not actually had very many. I have investigated this myself; I have talked to quite a number of them and met others, and I have read around. That is why doing research for a piece of legislation matters.
There is a danger of saying, “We can’t talk to the trade associations for small convenience stores, because the ones we know of have some association with or get some funding from big tobacco”, but maybe that is because they are often sidelined and ignored by other organisations, and they should not be. The Government could actually take them seriously and not have them treated as though they were a kind of pariah one can ignore. These are the small players; this is your local corner shop. How do they get a voice here? I thought I would try to give them a voice, and it is not appropriate to imply that somehow giving them a voice is something to do with representing big tobacco. It is completely unrelated to the general point I was making and, as I have pointed out, organisations such as ASH get their funding from somewhere. That is not necessarily big tobacco, but it is big government.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
Having said that, does the noble Baroness agree that it would be unfortunate to see any organisations fearmongering among small businesses that already have a lot of concerns, and a lot to face when this Bill comes into operation?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
It would also seem that misrepresenting them in the pages of the Grocer by saying that they absolutely love this legislation is the opposite of fearmongering. That is called misinformation; it is illegitimate and not fair. I do not think any fearmongering needed to happen. As it goes, the Government recognise that small retailers are under pressure, which is why they are trying to bring in legislation so that there will be a special offence if you assault or attack a retail worker. I always hoped the law would do that anyway and that we would not need an extra law, so it makes me nervous that we would do it.
That is not because of fearmongering but because on the ground, in small shops up and down high streets throughout the land, things are pretty grim. The BBC report I recently mentioned about the illegal shops that are springing up was also an indication that a lot of these small shops are saying, “We don’t even mind being licensed. We don’t want to be part of a world that’s ignored”. All I am saying is that they have not had consultation with the Government; they do not know how to do it, and they cannot afford the big bucks—perhaps they get a bit of sponsorship, I do not know—but somebody should listen to them. They should go out and talk to them; go round with a billboard and just chat to them. I am suggesting that we do not pass this legislation without having a chat with them. I get annoyed when people say that we have already consulted retail, yet nobody has had a chat with the people who will be really affected by this.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful for this discussion. I say at the outset that, although I do not support accepting the amendments, I have a lot of sympathy with a number of the points made, which I will come on to. However, while I completely understand the pressure on small retailers—I will come on to that—I struggle to accept that the Bill is the fount of all evil, which I feel is the direction we are going in. I certainly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who spoke about the need to see the Bill in its overall context. I associate myself with those comments.
I absolutely agree with the intention behind Amendment 191, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I hope I can reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to supporting businesses to implement the measures in the Bill, which much of this discussion has been about. As I have said previously, we will continue —it is a continuing thing that is not in the past—to work closely with retail bodies such as the British Retail Consortium and the Association of Convenience Stores on the implementation of the measures, which will include the development of guidance.
I heard the concern of noble Lords about what guidance will be given. Again, I understand those points but, to say it in other words, we will support retailers through this transition. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned, what is being asked of retailers is not unusual for them; they are very familiar with age verification. I will come back to that later. The measures in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill will come into force across a range of dates and therefore it is important that the associated guidance is available at the appropriate time. In other words, there will be time to make this transition and there will be support for that. We are firmly committed to publishing the guidance in a timely manner.
Turning to Amendment 188, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, I say to nearly all noble Lords who have spoken that, although I understand the intention of the amendment, it is unnecessary. As noble Lords have acknowledged, the Government are already taking action to tackle the absolutely unacceptable rise in retail crime. The Government will not stand for violence and abuse of any kind against shop workers. Everybody has a right to feel safe at their place of work and we have long championed specific protections for retail workers.
To protect the hardworking and dedicated staff who work in stores, the Crime and Policing Bill introduces a new offence of assaulting a retail worker, which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, referred to. The Bill also removes legislation which makes shop theft of goods to the value of £200 or below a summary-only offence. That sends a clear message that any level of shop theft is illegal and will be taken seriously. I hope that that is helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Howard.
Alongside legislative action, we are also providing over £7 million over the next three years to support multiple policing bodies to help to tackle retail crime. As I have mentioned, we will continue to work closely with retailers and will utilise the lead-in time to best support them in preparing for and implementing the measures in the Bill. This will include government communications and information campaigns to inform both the public and retail workers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, asked what assessment the Government have made of the impact on small businesses. Page 82 of the impact assessment specifically addresses this. As noble Lords are aware, an impact assessment should be expected and is required for any Bill. That means that the Regulatory Policy Committee also took a view; it published an opinion on the impact assessment and provided a fit-for-purpose rating. This included a green rating for the assessments of small and micro businesses’ assessments. I hope that will be useful.
I turn to Amendment 200A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard. This would require the Government to create a financial assistance scheme specifically to subsidise the cost of purchasing age-verification technology to enforce on the sale of nicotine products. I heard the comments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Bennett, who spoke against that amendment.
There are no plans to mandate the use of age-verification technologies to enforce the age of sale of nicotine products. It will be for businesses to decide how they ensure that they sell only to people 18 years or over, including whether to use age-verification technology to support them in this. As I mentioned earlier, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, checking that a customer is over a certain age is a well-established and well-trodden path for retailers. They should continue to take reasonable steps and exercise due diligence to ensure that they do not sell products to anyone underage. Most retailers already follow recommended practice, and I am grateful to them; they regularly ask for identification from customers to verify their age.
To provide clarity for retailers on the types of ID that can be used, the Bill provides powers to specify in regulations the steps that may be taken to verify a customer’s age and satisfy the age of sale defence. This will include the types of digital identities that can be used, and work will continue with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, which is leading on this work. I emphasise that the Government are absolutely committed to supporting retailers through the changes brought in by this legislation, including through the publication of clear guidance in which they will be fully involved.
I hope that I have provided helpful reassurances and that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, including the Minister for her reply. Perhaps I could repeat that my amendment was intended as a probe to raise a set of general concerns surrounding the retail sector. I was reassured by the Minister’s reply, including her references to the provisions of the Crime and Policing Bill. But we need to bear in mind, as we debate the Bill, that retailers are not the source of the problem that the Bill seeks to address—yet they will be the ones to lose out.
The Bill is projected to cost retailers more than £1 billion in profits over the next 30 years, plus what I am sure will be a considerable amount more from the reduced footfall that many will see over time. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was right: there is considerable worry in the sector, which is exacerbated by the uncertainty surrounding the timetable for the Bill’s implementation. It would be helpful, perhaps when we reach the next stage of the Bill, for the Minister to give us an idea of how the Government intend to proceed as regards the processes of consultation—consideration of submissions, as well as the actual implementation—and what the outline timetable will look like. The transition needs to be as inclusive and smooth as possible, and practical guidance and support will be essential, especially for small retailing businesses. I have no doubt that the Government have this in mind, but we may need to return to it on Report, just to underline the point. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lansley
“Independent expert panel on vaping(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish an expert panel, consisting of members independent from the production, distribution, supply or sale of vaping or nicotine products.(2) The expert panel constituted under subsection (1) must consist of members nominated by the Secretary of State, whom the Secretary of State considers to have relevant expertise in relation to—(a) the health effects of vape use or of nicotine addiction,(b) consumer behaviour in respect of vaping or nicotine use, or(c) the economic effects of the market for vaping and nicotine products.(3) The expert panel must report to Parliament not less frequently than annually incorporating evidence relating to—(a) the health effects of the use of vaping or nicotine products,(b) the supply and use of such products by consumers, and(c) the impacts of regulations made under this Act on the supply and use of vaping and nicotine products.(4) The expert panel may make in its report such recommendations relating to the use of powers under this Act, in respect of vaping and nicotine products, as the panel considers to be beneficial in the light of the evidence they have identified.(5) In making regulations under this Act in regard to vaping products and nicotine products, the Secretary of State and Ministers for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland must have regard to the reports of the expert panel and their recommendations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause seeks to provide a continuing source of evidence to support the future implementation of the regime for vaping and nicotine products.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak to the last group of amendments in Committee. I hope that the smiles evident on the faces of Members, because we have reached this point, will encourage a positive response to this final amendment to be debated.
This amendment is rather neat in the way it fits in at the end of our discussions. In listening to the debates on this Bill—particularly in relation to vaping and nicotine products—we have heard on many occasions, not least from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, an emphasis on the requirement for the production of evidence. The Minister rightly said that the Government are undertaking a research programme—that is a good thing—but we need to emphasise that we are not simply strengthening the tobacco control regime and seeking to create another regime that parallels it; we are seeking to create a regime that is particular to the circumstances of vaping and nicotine products. They should not be treated as the same as tobacco, nor should they be treated the same as drink—they should be treated in their own terms. What I hope we might consider at this stage in Committee is that, on Report, we will increasingly identify how the vaping and nicotine products regime should be justified in its own terms—that is, not referencing the other regimes, with which parallels have been drawn, but looking at what is appropriate in relation to these products, their circumstances and the evidence pertaining to them, as well as how the regime should be established.
Amendment 197 is structured to say that there should be an independent expert panel. Why do I think this would be particularly helpful? First, the requirement for independence is illustrated in the amendment itself, in that it will not include those people who are responsible for the production, supply, distribution or sale of vaping and nicotine products. Happily, the industry is supportive of this, as it recognises the value of not seeing the advice that is given to government and Parliament—and, indeed, the advice that will then, I hope, be used as a basis for explaining in public communications what steps are being taken and why. As the discussion we just had demonstrated, these things should not be trammelled by being directly involved with the people who benefit, financially and otherwise, from the advice that is given. So independence is a first, straightforward step.
Secondly, this is not simply a scientific panel. It is really important that we deliver into the regime as much evidence as we can about health harms and the scientific basis for understanding the impacts of vaping products and nicotine addiction over time. But, as the amendment makes clear, we should also include in the expert panel people who understand all the behavioural science aspects of trying to structure a regime that is about seeking to influence behaviour.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have not always historically been an enthusiast for experts dictating policy, but I am enthusiastic about this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.
Particularly in relation to policy or legislation related to public health, there is an awful lot of evidence swapping, people citing data, and so on and so forth, then accusations of not being able to trust that data. It would be very helpful to have a genuine independent academic body looking at some of these things, that we could maybe all trust a little—or even look sceptically at—but which actually digs into the evidence. Many of my friends are academics; any research can be advocacy research. None the less, it has to be there in the public arena for us to examine it. It is not just data and numbers.
This is important because earlier today, the Minister rightly said that we are going to follow the evidence, yet we had a serious conversation about whether there should be regulation to ban second-hand vaping fumes. The explanation for the fact there is no evidence of that being harmful was that it is evolving evidence, evolving evidence being the unknown, unknown approach, as far as I can see. I want to Cancer Research here because this is what you do when you are not quite sure how to counter somebody saying this is evidence. It said:
“Further research is needed to understand the health effects of vaping”,
which I accept,
“however”,
there is currently no good
“evidence”,
that
“second hand vapour is harmful”.
However, we have managed to have a conversation as though, even though there is no evidence, it probably is, or it could be. I think that discredits the notion of evidence-based policy. There are also different kinds of academic studies. I was pleased to hear the idea of behavioural studies. At Queen Mary University, for example, they have done a lot of work on vaping, and all their studies suggest that vaping is not a gateway to smoking. I think that the Government need to consider such things. There are a large number of qualified specialist academics who are researching not just the health impacts of vaping but a whole range of how vaping is used. I would like that somehow to be acknowledged in the Bill and for that group of people not to be ignored.
As we are at the end of Committee, sometimes in this Bill I have argued in defence of vaping as a smoking cessation tool, because that is how I have used it. However, I have felt a little uncomfortable about the way that it is assumed that, unless it is a smoking cessation tool, there is something wrong with it. I wanted to query whether that is true. Have the Government got a view of a recreational habit? Why would the Government choose to try to overregulate something that is just a recreational choice? Some people might start vaping who have not smoked. It might be that, by vaping, they will not start smoking.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I just think we must not lose sight of the fact that we are talking about a highly addictive product and there is a role for the Government in ensuring protection from giant multinational companies trying to hook people on highly addictive products that we know do them harm.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I want to say that I understand some of the addiction points in relation to young people in particular. I asked in an earlier group in Committee if this Bill was tackling addiction per se as a problem. There are things that we know are addictive—for example, nicotine. I am simply asking the question about what it is we are trying to tackle. I am asking this because, when we are talking about adult freedoms and choices, it is not just enough to cite medical evidence. That is why I want the expert panel to really assess the medical evidence and behavioural points. That is where I was going. I am cautioning against seeing everything through the prism of expertise as medical expertise.
As it is the last time I will speak in this stage, I thought I would end on some behavioural insights. Since we last met, the BBC has rewritten its Christmas adaptation of Julia Donaldson’s book over its fears that it would encourage children to smoke. It is The Scarecrows’ Wedding, which as noble Lords will know, features a villain scarecrow called Reginald Rake who, lighting a cigar, accidentally starts a fire. There has been something of a kerfuffle, and the BBC decided that this had to be rewritten. It sounds like some Daily Mail story—how ridiculous, PC gone mad and all the rest of it.
For the purposes of this amendment, a colleague of mine who works in media literacy made the point that the irony is that The Scarecrows’ Wedding is a perfect example of a book for young people that puts people off smoking. Betty O’Barley, who is another scarecrow by the way, is so horrified at the villain, Reginald Rake, smoking that she keeps saying to him “smoking is bad for you”. The whole point about Reginald Rake is that he is the villain of the story. The irony of this is that a media literacy expert makes the point that the BBC’s rewriting of this is completely counterproductive in relation to messaging. I say that because I think it is a bit more complicated than just swapping numbers around. An expert panel, looking at the unintended consequences of well-meaning policy, would not do any harm as we finish Committee on this legislation.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lord, I want to add a brief footnote to the speech made by my noble friend Lord Lansley asking for this independent expert panel on vaping.
It seems to me, from looking back at history, that we used to have exactly such a panel because, when we had Public Health England, it published a series of reviews on vaping with precisely the terms of reference that my noble friend mentioned; Public Health England was replaced in 2021, I think, by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities. At that point, the series of reviews seemed to come to an end because, in September 2022, the OHID published
“a final annual update in the current series of evidence reviews about health harms of vaping by leading independent tobacco experts”.
However, if you look at that final report, it makes the case for what my noble friend has said.
First, it refers to the limited evidence on flavourings, clearly implying that more research should be done there. The final point was in its overall conclusion, which was that
“more standardised and consistent methodologies in future studies would improve interpretation of the evidence”.
It is not quite clear to me who will actually do that.
I note that, at the end of Second Reading, the Minister referred to some studies. She said that the Government had
“already commissioned a 10-year study to investigate the long-term effects of vaping on the health of 100,000 young people”.—[Official Report, 23/4/25; col. 743.]
I am not sure, however, that that is quite the same as what my noble friend asked for.
There seems to be a gap now, in that we no longer have the PHE/OHID reviews. We may have to wait 10 years for the study I just mentioned. The case that my noble friend has made for an independent panel on vaping seems to fill that gap; I hope that the case he made will have support from the Minister.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I add my support for this amendment, which seems very sensible. When we have an amendment in the names of both the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, we should all be looking at it very seriously indeed.
I have never smoked and never vaped but I remember, when vaping started, being absolutely delighted because it got rid of the smell of smoke whenever you went to places. There was a general feeling that vaping was better than smoking. I still feel that very strongly, but I accept that there is no evidence to tell us what is going to happen in the long term. I also think that things change; there is more research going on in all sorts of areas to do with vaping, and it just seems sensible that we have some form of expert panel.
I very much accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said about the word “experts”. We need to look carefully at who would be the experts on this but, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, this might be something on which there could be discussion before Report so that there is agreement on the kinds of expert that we want. What we do not want is for them all to come from the same aspect of research in a particular academic area. As we come to the end of this Bill, I really do think that the Minister should see this as something that she could accept and which would be very sensible.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for Amendment 197 and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for the robust debates that we have had during Committee; I thank the Minister and all noble Lords for that. I want to say just one thing in response to something that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, just said. There is something wrong with vaping in the very limited circumstances when it hooks a 12 year-old on to something very addictive, which may last for the rest of their life—the noble Baroness did concede that point.
I turn to the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, recognises that evidence and public opinion are likely to move forward as the measures in this Bill are implemented over a period of time. While the harms of smoking tobacco are well researched and evidenced, the impact or benefits of vapes and other nicotine products as smoking cessation tools are not yet so well evidenced. Besides, we can expect innovation in this area as the tobacco companies try to protect their profits. We must keep up with that. As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, just mentioned, Public Health England used to publish regular reviews on the impacts of vaping, but this has not continued; in any case, the reviews need to be a bit wider than vaping because we do not know what products are coming down the track.
The noble Lord is asking for an independent expert panel. I would certainly expect the Government continually to provide evidence themselves as they put the wide powers in this Bill into operation. However, just as the independent Climate Change Committee is well trusted in respect of the advice it gives to the Government, based on a wide range of scientific evidence—the Government benefit from that—so an expert advisory committee on the future implementation of the new regime for nicotine and vaping products, quite independent of the tobacco and vapes industry, would add to the Government’s confidence and to public confidence.
I do not want to predict what the findings of such an expert panel would be, but its deliberations could be very helpful when the operation of the Bill is reviewed at any point in future, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Russell in his Amendment 195. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested a five-year review. However, it will be very important that its deliberations and advice to the Government are totally transparent. If that were not the case, it would not command the respect of the public, the research community or anybody else. I am sure that that is the noble Lord’s intention. This idea is well worth consideration by the Minister. I am sure that there will be more discussions about it, perhaps offline, and I look forward to her reply.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the Committee will be grateful to my noble friend, with his considerable experience in health policy, for the clear and cogent way in which he introduced his amendment. I am very supportive of the principles behind the amendment, as it seeks to ensure that decisions taken after the passage of the Bill are informed by robust, independent evidence and that Parliament is equipped with the relevant and authoritative information it needs to provide proper oversight of the regime for vaping and nicotine products, information that is constantly updated as the body of evidence evolves.
Critically, this principle applies equally to the Government. Proposed new subsection (5) in the amendment would require Ministers, when making regulations under the Act, to have regard to the proposed panel’s reports and recommendations. That is a sensible idea. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham was right to remind us that there has for some time been a gap in the public health mechanisms regarding the production of such reports. If we were to recreate a mechanism of the kind suggested, the regulatory frame- work would evolve in response to the realities of science and the market rather than outdated information.
It is also important to recognise, as the amendment implicitly does, that although our primary concern here is health, regulation in this space cannot be viewed in isolation from the wider economy. When sales of currently legal products are restricted or prohibited, this inevitably impacts businesses, consumers and, sometimes, wider society, and those economic effects can themselves have unintended consequences for public health and people’s lives. There is also plenty of evidence of unintended consequences and the effectiveness of previous episodes of prohibition. The risk of a rise in consumption of illicit products is an obvious example, as is misinformation propounded on social media. The Government should make and review decisions with as clear a view as possible about those sorts of trade-offs.
For those reasons, I hope the Government will take on board the very sensible suggestion contained in this amendment.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful for this debate, which concludes the work of the Committee. As I have said before, I certainly share the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who tabled this amendment, to ensure that regulations are based on the best available evidence. I appreciate the consideration he has given to the amendment and the reason he put it forward.
I say in response that we continue to monitor emerging evidence, which we have much discussed, on vapes and nicotine products, including commissioning independent research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research. For example, we commissioned a comprehensive analysis of all youth vaping studies—referred to in the debate—which was published recently, and a five-year-long living evidence review that will collate the latest and most robust research into the health impact of vaping. This living evidence review is accompanied by a scientific advisory panel, which includes independent experts, appointed independently from the Government on merit, who the Government can call on for advice on the latest evidence. Further, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned, earlier this year we announced a landmark 10-year study that will include in its investigations the long-term health effects of vaping on young people’s health.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that misperception of the harms of vaping is of concern; I take that point. Vaping absolutely can play a role in helping adult smokers to quit, as we have discussed, but children should not be vaping and nor should non-smokers. We are committed to carefully considering the scope of restrictions, to avoid unintended consequences and the misperception of harms, which is an area for further work.
We also fund a vaping expert panel, which provides valuable guidance for trading standards professionals on the enforcement of regulations. Under many of the powers in the Bill there is a requirement to consult before making regulations and, on 8 October, we published a call for evidence on issues where more evidence is needed before we can consult on specific proposals. We will monitor the impacts of measures brought in by the Bill and subsequent regulations. We will also be able to update regulations in future to ensure that policy is responsive to evolving evidence, should this be necessary.
It is our view that we have access to appropriate expert advice, which I know is the noble Lord’s intention, and we will consider the best available evidence in making regulations. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who contributed to the debate. It is both helpful and timely at the conclusion of Committee to have exactly this debate. In a funny way, perhaps we should have had it at the beginning, because it helped to fill out some of the details of the ways in which the evidence base for the vaping and nicotine product regime will be assessed and understood.
Baroness Hoey
(1A) Parts 1 to 3 may not come into force until the Secretary of State commissioned and published the findings of an independent legal opinion showing that these parts are fully compatible with the Windsor Framework and consistent with the Tobacco Products Directive of the European Union (2014/40/EU).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to prevent parts 1 to 3 of the Bill coming into force until the Secretary of State has considered and demonstrated that this would be fully compatible with the Windsor Framework and the Tobacco Products Directive.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I think it will be helpful to bring the Committee very briefly up to date on what I raised. This amendment is crucial to this Bill because it is basically about whether we can implement it because of the Windsor Framework. I thought it would be helpful for noble Lords to know that four European Union countries have now put in detailed opinions to the European Commission that His Majesty’s Government now have a few months to respond to. The spokesman for the European Union said:
“It is now for the UK in respect of Northern Ireland to report on the action it proposes to take in view of the detailed opinions. The Commission will comment on that reaction”.
I am trying to impress again that what has gone right through this Bill is the question of whether, in the end, a generational ban can be implemented in Northern Ireland. The Minister has been told again that she has to meet me. She has been told by the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General has finally written a letter to me, not via his secretary, saying that, again, he will not be commenting, even though he is the Advocate General for Northern Ireland and the Attorney-General, and that he wants a meeting where the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, will respond to all the legal points. I thought that might be helpful. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morgan of Drefelin) (Lab)
The amendment has been moved. Does anyone else want to speak to it? If no one does, then we have had the debate. Does the noble Baroness wish to withdraw the amendment?
Domestic Abuse: Emergency Accommodation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Donaghy
To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their strategy to support local authorities and charities in providing emergency accommodation for those experiencing domestic abuse.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, local authorities in England have a statutory duty to ensure support in safe accommodation for victims of domestic abuse and their children, and they work in partnership with charities and specialist providers to do so. In 2025-26 the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government provided £160 million, a £30 million uplift, for councils to commission this support for victims. This funding supports the Government’s wider mission to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
As my noble friend the Minister knows, yesterday was the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. A woman is killed every three to five days by a current or former partner. Although government policy is great, specialist services, including emergency refuge accommodation, need a further £62 million to meet existing demand. I ask the Minister to reassure the House that everything is being done to increase the momentum to deal with this epidemic.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I have spent much of my professional life in the fight against violence against women and girls, and I am proud to be part of a Government who have this as a key priority. I pay tribute to the work done by refuges up and down the country. This year we have increased funding for domestic abuse safe accommodation services, such as refuges, by £30 million, and last week we announced that we would maintain funding at least at that level for the next three years, so that is a commitment of at least £480 million over three years.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I absolutely agree with the Minister that refuges have provided literally life-saving services. Does she agree with me that in 2025, it is not okay any more to expect women to put their lives into a black plastic bag and flee with their children to the other end of the country? That is not the solution. Can she talk about the real solution, which is to work with perpetrators of abuse and prevent this terrible crime once and for all?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
As the noble Baroness knows, I broadly agree with pretty much everything she says. That is why the Government are working on the three strands of dealing with domestic abuse: the first is prevention, the second is robust enforcement against those who perpetrate it, and the third is support for victims.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, victims of domestic abuse can fail to qualify to bid for a permanent home because of debt issues often not of their own making. Families and children across the country can be trapped in temporary accommodation because of debt accumulated by the abuser. Should there not be a national rule whereby coerced debt should be excused to help abused families out of the debt trap and into a permanent home?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a really important point. On Monday I addressed a reception held in one of the rooms in this Palace hosted by the charity Surviving Economic Abuse. Listening to what was said there reminded me—I hope I did not need reminding, but it made it starkly clear—that for the survivors, economic abuse is every bit as pernicious and damaging as actual violence, or controlling or coercive behaviour. We are acutely aware of this and are doing everything we can to ensure that it is recognised and dealt with.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, abusers are increasingly turning everyday objects, such as phone chargers, extension leads and even pens, into hidden cameras and listening devices, making women feel deeply unsafe in their own home. Can the Minister share with us what measures are being taken to protect women against this worrying new trend, particularly in emergency accommodation settings?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
What the noble Baroness describes is part of a trend of observation and control, which is part of the controlling and coercive behaviour that is now recognised as an integral part of domestic abuse and every bit as violating as actual physical violence. I do not know what is being doing about the actual methods of that kind of coercion that she described, but it sounds to me as though it is already covered by the criminal law.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, I refer to some of the cases that I have dealt with over many years of women who are victims of domestic abuse. I have been involved in trying to help a family for the past year. The problem is the sheer lack of suitable accommodation for these women and their children. The impact on the children is enormous because they have to keep moving from place to place, with insecurity at school and at home. Unfortunately, in the family I am dealing with, the children who have just started secondary school are having symptoms of mental health problems as a result and are unable to sit exams. I want to go back to the Question about what support local authorities are getting from central government to provide enough accommodation and support for these families. Charities have been very restricted in funding recently.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The short answer is that the £30 million uplift is bringing funding to £160 million per year. In 2024-25, 76,850 individuals, including children, were supported in safe accommodation, but we recognise that that left just under 30,000 who were in effect turned away because the provision was not there. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s Part 4 evaluation is showing progress in this, but it highlights the needs for further improvements. The department funds No Woman Turned Away, which offers caseworker support to access refuges and other forms of accommodation provided by local authorities.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, Labour pledged fairness and protection for domestic abuse victims, yet refuges are shutting, councils are financially stretched and housing delivery plans are years away from delivery. How do the Government justify these gaps while reorganising local government? Will the Minister admit that without a national ring-fenced strategy for domestic abuse housing, Labour’s promises will fail victims?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I do not accept that at all, hence the increase in funding and the fact that we have given a guarantee that for at least the next three years, the funding will remain stable at least, allowing local authorities to plan with consistency and security, knowing what the level of funding is going to be.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, it is just over 50 years since Erin Pizzey opened the first women’s refuge in Chiswick. I went there myself. At the time, about 1.5 women a week were being killed. That number has stayed remarkably consistent, despite government efforts of every stripe. If all those women in a year were killed on the same day in Trafalgar Square, there would be a national outcry. But there is a drip feed of women consistently suffering from domestic abuse, which is not taken seriously enough by the police or the authorities, and they are dying. It is truly shocking that 50 years later we have the same statistics. Are the Government building enough houses, is there enough police support and is there enough public awareness that it is not the woman’s fault?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The fact that it does not all happen on one day in Trafalgar Square does not make it any less of an outrage. I think every noble Lord in this House will hear the anger in the noble Baroness’s voice and, I hope, in my own voice. There is a profound commitment from across this Government to halve violence against women and girls within a decade. There are various departments engaged in this, all pulling together to try to deal with the three strands I mentioned earlier: prevention, support for victims and robust interventions against the perpetrators. We are determined to do this, and we are going to.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I am very proud of what my Government are doing and their ambition to reduce violence against women and girls, and I am very proud of the record of my noble friend. However, as we know, tech-facilitated abuse is growing and growing. What initiatives are there to train police officers, including first-line responders, on identifying, investigating and gathering evidence for tech-facilitated abuse?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her question. I think there is a broad acceptance, even by the police forces, that the police response to domestic abuse in the past left something to be desired. The Home Office is investing £13.1 million in the National Centre for Violence Against Women and Girls and Public Protection to strengthen police training. Working with the College of Policing, new research-based programmes will equip officers at all levels to investigate all forms of offences and to support victims.
Charities: Advancement of Religion
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Burt of Solihull
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure charities cannot use ‘the advancement of religion’ charitable purpose to advance ideologies which promote misogyny, sexism or violence against women.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
Anyone who advocates for violence against women has absolutely no place in a charity. The Charity Commission, as the independent regulator, will not hesitate to act where charities promote harmful or unlawful actions. The Government will consult in due course on new powers for the Charity Commission to automatically ban individuals convicted of hate crimes from serving as charity trustees or senior managers. We will also make it easier for the commission to take regulatory action against people promoting violence, terrorism or hatred.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. All charities have certain responsibilities to fulfil to qualify as charities and receive the generous tax allowances and kudos of the status of being a charity. However, some charities register under the charitable purpose of advancement of religion to promote misogynistic ideology in the name of religion, which threatens the rights and well-being of some of the most vulnerable members of their flock. In recent research, the National Secular Society found examples of charity sermons saying that a woman must serve her husband by cooking and cleaning, blaming rape on how women dress and saying that it is okay to hit your wife if she refuses to have sex. No charity worth its salt should ever promote misogyny or any other ideology that harms people and society. Should we not therefore review the role of the charitable purpose of the advancement of religion, with a view to its removal if it is a barrier to tackling misogyny or other forms of extremism?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Charity Commission is currently reviewing the National Secular Society’s recent report to determine whether it raises any new regulatory concerns. I read the report over the weekend, and some of the examples provided are shocking. However, I am pleased to say that the commission has already investigated a number of the charities cited. I have also spoken to the Minister for Civil Society and Youth, and I reassure the noble Baroness that she is looking at ways to strengthen the Charity Commission’s powers to tackle abuse of charities by extremists, whatever type of extremist they are .
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, the founders of different religions put forward straightforward ethical teachings of responsibility in our short journey through the world. Unfortunately, those ethical teachings have been overlaid by cultures, with culture even creeping into religious texts. Does the Minister agree that it is time to do a little spring cleaning of what we call religion and discard all the negative teachings about other people and about women, and to bring those ethical teachings to the fore? Sikhism stresses the complete equality of women. Does the Minister agree that that should be carried forward and be obligatory in the 21st century?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
It would be a brave Minister who decided which religious teaching we should prioritise above another. I will say that we have a proud tradition of religious freedom in this country, but those rights extend to everyone, and we condemn acts of violence against women and girls. Noble Lords will have heard from my noble friend’s answers on the previous Question that we are clear that we want the Charity Commission to have the power it needs, and we will consult in due course on new powers that will enable it to deal with this issue.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, having spent the whole of my professional life combating those who, in the name of religion, promote misogyny, sexism or violence against women, I hope the questioner will agree that the highest values, both of religion and of humanism, are conjoined in the effort to suppress, marginalise and deal with all these aberrations. Does the Minister agree?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
All charities should be safe spaces for everyone: employees, volunteers and members of the public. I agree that, at their best, our values, across all religions and those who have no religion, would uphold the freedom of individuals as well as our collective responsibility to one another.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, do the Government consider the advancement of education to be a valid charitable purpose? If so, why are charities delivering this treated differently from the rest of the sector?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
As I think the noble Baroness is aware, the Government have removed the VAT exemption for education and boarding services provided by private schools and removed the eligibility of private schools that are charities for business rates and charitable relief. The Government are taking these steps to raise revenue to support the public finances and help deliver their commitments relating to education and young people, including the 94% of school children in the UK that attend state schools.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, just two weeks ago, Sheffield City Council launched its faith and belief charter—a sort of service-level agreement between local faith communities and the local authority setting out what each might expect of the other for the wider benefit of our city. The charter assumes a shared commitment to the essential dignity of every human being, as created in the image and likeness of God. Will the Minister encourage the use of such covenants and charters between faith communities and local authorities, not least on account of their capacity to challenge precisely the behaviours identified in the Question put by the noble Baroness?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate raises a really good and positive example of how communities can come together in a particular area. I would welcome the opportunity to hear more about it from him.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the charities about which my noble friend is talking often get a great deal of funding from the United States, from extreme, allegedly Christian evangelical foundations. Do the Government intend to use the extended powers they are giving to the Charity Commission to insist on greater transparency about funding of charities? Will that require new legislation, or can it be done through the Charity Commission?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My understanding is that a number of the measures being considered would not require primary legislation, but others might at some point in the future. I am happy to write to the noble Lord relating to the specific point that he raises.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the vast majority of charities work for the benefit of everybody, whatever their religion or their sex, so why did the Chancellor not take the opportunity earlier today to reverse the punitive rise in employer national insurance contributions that she imposed on charities in her last Budget, which many charities have warned will lead to hiring freezes or job losses?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord will be aware that we doubled the employment allowance to £10,500 at the previous Budget so that more than half of businesses, including charities, with NICs liabilities would either gain or see no change. Employers will also continue to benefit from NICs reliefs, including for hiring those under 21 and apprentices under 25 where eligible. We provided charitable tax reliefs and exemptions worth £6 billion in the year 2023-24. The biggest individual reliefs provided are gift aid, at £1.6 billion, and business rates relief, at nearly £2.4 billion. With the civil society covenant being a key priority for this Government, we are supporting charities to deliver for the country.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I declare, as ever, that I am a teacher. It is the wrong department, I know, but does the Minister agree that a lot of this can be combated in schools but that we need the time to teach it. One day a term—when parents who hold some of these abhorrent views can take their child out for the day—is not enough.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will feed the noble Lord’s point back to my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern and will be happy to meet the noble Lord to discuss it further.
Visas: Highly Skilled People
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential impact on economic growth of trends in the number of visas granted to highly skilled people.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
The Government have published assessments estimating the impact of high-skilled migrants on the UK economy when changes to the Immigration Rules have been made. Skilled workers are estimated to be net contributors to the economy, particularly those in higher-skilled occupations.
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his Answer. Since I tabled this Question, there have been changes to the planned settlement arrangements for the UK. It is encouraging to see that there are no changes for the global talent visa and high earners, but there are changes for their spouses. It is now clear that they will be decided separately, potentially meaning that a high-earning applicant could receive settlement within three years, yet a stay-at-home spouse might never be eligible. Such a move would obviously have a detrimental impact on talent attraction and growth. Will the Minister look again at the eligibility of spouses for settlement in the forthcoming consultation?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. She is asking about the partners of highly skilled people being required to earn settlement in their own right, as part of plans announced by the Home Secretary last week. As my noble friend referred to, those plans are currently subject to a public consultation. She asks for a commitment to look again. We will, of course, consider the responses to the consultation carefully and in the round before announcing the Government’s next steps, and we will be particularly concerned to avoid some of the unintended consequences that have beset immigration policy in the past.
Lord Hintze (Con)
My Lords, have the Government looked at the counterfactual of people leaving these shores, specifically in medical, economic and finance areas, and what that means for our economy? If not, why not?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. The Government look at all this in the round. As I think everyone in your Lordship’s House knows, the overall intention is to reduce net migration, but we are committed to the high skills routes and I am very happy to provide more detail on that later. We will continue to measure not only the incomers but the net effect.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, nearly six months ago, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Department for Business and Trade jointly launched a taskforce and a £54 million fund to, in their words,
“attract world-class researchers and their teams to the UK”.
As the Minister knows, teams of researchers contain all sorts of different people, but some of the key people are not necessarily the best paid people in that team, and those salary restrictions may well not meet the Home Office’s criteria. What is the Home Office doing to work with the taskforce to make sure that a whole team can come to the United Kingdom, which would probably affect whether it came or not? How many visas have been applied for so far under this taskforce and how many have been granted?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
As I just said in response to my noble friend, this is all currently under consultation. We will, of course, look at all the routes in the way the noble Lord asks me to. To be clear, salary levels are not the only things that will influence our approach to global talent, high-potential individuals and the various schemes that we have. As I have already said, we will be careful to avoid the unintended consequences. On the specific question about numbers, I do not have them now but I am happy to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, following up on my noble friend Lord Hintze’s question, can the Minister—who has already addressed the economic impact of high skilled visas—say what the economic impact of the Government’s policies is? We know that nearly 1,800 high net worth individuals have left the country, and on Monday the Business Secretary acknowledged that Labour’s tax rises have made wealthy people feel the need to leave. Does the Minister agree that we would not need to have such a focus on more immigration if we did not have so many wealthy tax- payers leaving?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
No, I do not agree, as it happens. I feel strongly that we have done the right things from our side on the tax changes—although it is way above my pay grade. I am sure everyone knows that the highly talented, the innovators and the entrepreneurs are internationally mobile, and we should make arrangements to attract the brightest and the best to Britain. These two matters are not connected.
Lord Mair (CB)
My Lords, a few weeks ago, your Lordships’ House’s Science and Technology Committee published a major report on the financing and scaling of UK science and technology. It set out the factors behind the science and technology growth emergency, which is so damaging to the economy. It also highlighted that a Government who are serious about growth and wealth creation must not keep in place costly and bureaucratic visa barriers to the scientists and entrepreneurs they hope to attract to the UK. Does the Minister agree that when talented scientists and technologists want to move here, the UK should be rolling out the red carpet rather than red tape?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
How could I disagree? Let me make the situation absolutely clear. The Government, as everybody knows, are moving to an earned settlement approach but we are committed to increasing the numbers of exactly the kind of people the noble Lord refers to. They do not have a big impact on the overall total. On 14 October, the Government announced that they aim to double the number of highly skilled people coming to the UK on our high skills route, including the best researchers, designers, and creatives working in film and TV, to ensure continued competitiveness in those sectors. On the high-potential individuals, on 4 November, eligibility was expanded from the top 50 to the top 100 international universities, up to a cap of 8,000 applications. I hope that demonstrates to your Lordships’ House our commitment to attracting this talent. Perhaps I could take the opportunity to say that I am an immigrant myself and I pay testament to this country’s culture of fairness and opportunity—and I can tell you that I am neither global talent nor high potential.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
It is the turn of the Labour Benches.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, one of the unintended consequences to which the Minister referred is that hard-pressed and hard-working prison officers, who happen to earn less than £41,700 per year, will, as a result of this Government’s policies, find themselves deported when their visas expire. Given the impact that will have on the already strained criminal justice system, will the Minister undertake to ask his colleagues to think again about that policy?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. I pay tribute to his experience and commitment in this area. I too have history in the prison system, as it were: I was lead non-executive director of the Prison Service for many years, so I know first-hand some of the recruitment and retention problems that it faces. I totally understand the problem but, as I have said, these are all matters under consultation and we will make sure to try to avoid unintended consequences where we can. We take very seriously the problem that my noble friend has highlighted.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the Cross Benches next.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister agree that one of the problems with the immigration system for attracting exceptional emerging talent in the creative industries from abroad—it is the emerging talent we should be concentrating on—is that its inflexibility does not allow for the realities of this sector, where short-term contracts and portfolio careers, for example, are the norm? Are the Government looking at this?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. It is an issue that he has raised before, and one about which I am concerned. Indeed, I addressed it in my maiden speech. As I have already said, we announced on 14 October that we will aim to double the number of highly skilled people coming to the UK on the high skilled routes, precisely to address the issues he raises relating to the creative sectors.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
It is the turn of the non-affiliated Benches.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
With 1 million young people not in education, training or work, and with the number of apprenticeships having collapsed in this country, how can it possibly make sense for us to waive the visa rules to bring in roofers, bricklayers, carpenters and care workers, let alone nurses and other NHS workers? These are all highly skilled roles, but we can train young people up to do them quite quickly. Would it not make much more sense to massively increase the number of apprenticeships available for young people who are in this country already?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
Yes, it absolutely would, and that is what the Government are seeking. My noble friend will have noted some of the announcements on apprenticeships in the Budget. The skilled workers route is by far the largest route for these high skills; it is more than 250,000 people. We need to upskill the resident community, but we have raised the skills levels required for the skilled worker route and the salary levels. The occupational lists have been restricted, and we have created a temporary shortage list. I believe we are addressing exactly some of the points that my noble friend made.
West Midlands Police: Maccabi Tel Aviv Fans
Lord Cryer
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of alleged inaccuracies in a report produced by the West Midlands police force on the alleged activities of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans ahead of Maccabi’s recent match against Aston Villa.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
I am sorry, it is me again. The Government are limited in what they can say at this time about the intelligence used by West Midlands Police following alleged inaccuracies reported in the media, but I can tell my noble friend that the Policing Minister has written to the chief constable of West Midlands Police requesting an urgent response on the intelligence his force relied on and his confidence in it. Obviously, we have noted the press reports. As the Prime Minister has made clear, the Government remain committed to ensuring that all fans can attend football matches safely, regardless of their background.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, we have a situation where the police force stands accused of fabricating evidence while under pressure from a bunch of bigots and racists—as well as, it pains me to say, a number of Labour councillors—all with one aim: turning Britain’s second-biggest city into a no-go area for Jewish people; and they actually succeeded in that. I am glad to hear about the review; how soon will it deliver its findings? Also, will the Government undertake to hold an inquiry to find out what the hell is going on in Birmingham city hall and, if necessary, suspend the council and kick out any Labour councillors engaged in this evil plot?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. I will deal first with the issues surrounding the football match. Obviously, the police are operationally independent of government, and officials routinely engage with operational partners to support public safety and effective policing. The Home Office does not publish operational intelligence or risk assessments. To address my noble friend’s question, on 31 October the Home Secretary commissioned His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services to review how police forces in England and Wales provide risk assessment advice—of course, that is what is being contested here—to local safety advisory groups and other bodies responsible for licensing high-profile public events. I know that the Policing Minister hopes for earlier feedback from HMI on the situation in the West Midlands and what happened in relation to the intelligence that was available from the Netherlands. But we hope the report from HMI will be ready by March, and I am sure the problems at Birmingham City Council will continue to receive much attention.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, further to the excellent Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Cryer, the chief constable of Greater Manchester does not need to wait for this report because he said that, as a matter of course, Israeli fans would be welcome to come and support their team in Greater Manchester, at Manchester United or Manchester City. Why is it that the chief constable of Greater Manchester can say that, yet the West Midlands Police has acted in this terrible situation? Given that the Prime Minister said it was the wrong decision, when did the Home Office know about this and what did it know?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I will deal first with the question about the timeline and then perhaps respond on the other matters, because it is important that the facts are in the public domain. The United Kingdom Football Policing Unit informed Home Office officials on 2 October that there was a significant risk of disorder involving Maccabi Tel Aviv fans and that one of the options under consideration was to ban Maccabi fans from attending the match. On 16 October, two weeks later, Birmingham City Council, on advice from the safety advisory group, announced its decision, and this was when the Government found out. On 17 October, the West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner asked the safety advisory group and West Midlands Police to convene a special safety advisory group meeting at the earliest opportunity. However, as I think everybody knows, on 20 October, Maccabi Tel Aviv announced its formal decision to reject any allocation for the Aston Villa fixture. The Government have expressed our disappointment. On the noble Lord’s initial question, of course we would have preferred it to go ahead, and the Prime Minister has made that clear.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, we have had a long and unpleasant experience of football violence in this country, going back a long way. We also have set drills for keeping fans safe and getting them to and from grounds. For a midweek game, there cannot have been any shortage of available forces to support them. Can it be made quite clear that what happened here is totally unacceptable and that anybody who takes information from a foreign police force that has not been verified will not have that position tolerated in the future?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. I have already made it clear that the Policing Minister has written to West Midlands Police to find out precisely what intelligence it received about what happened in Amsterdam and how that is reflected in the various press reports. On a wider scale, we are looking at how intelligence is provided to safety advisory groups, through a review by HMI. On the noble Lord’s other point, of course, we deplore all kinds of public disorder at football matches.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this was a disgraceful decision. First, can the Minister tell me why it is going to take HMI five months to come back with a review? It cannot take that long. Secondly, he will know that the inspectorate looked last year at the powers of intervention of the Home Secretary and said that legislation and guidance do not
“clearly define the boundary between police operational independence and appropriate external influence or accountability”.
Will he look again at a government response to that report?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. On his first point, I have already said, but I am happy to stress, that we do not intend that feedback on the intelligence received from the Amsterdam match and HMI’s assessment of it waits until the overall report, which is due in March; the Policing Minister should have some information before that. We think it is very important that we review the safety advisory groups overall and how they are handled. On his second point, the Government do not interfere in operational police matters, except in very particular circumstances, but frankly, on this occasion, we were prevented from intervening because Maccabi Tel Aviv decided not to take its ticket allocation.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to hear that the Policing Minister has written to the chief constable for an explanation. Like all noble Lords, I am sure, I look forward to hearing what he has to say. Andrew Gilbert, vice-president of the Board of Deputies, said:
“This decision has sowed distrust, particularly for Birmingham’s Jewish community, and undermined community cohesion”.
Does the Minister agree that for the concept of policing by consent to work, people must have the confidence to know that police use accurate information and are held to account when they do not?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
Unlike on the previous Question, I do agree with the noble Lord. I want particularly to emphasise that this is not just about who attends football matches, this is about community cohesion and tolerance in our society, and it is absolutely right that people should use reliable evidence and should be held to account if they do not.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister constantly stresses the operational independence of the police, yet a Jew-free zone was created in the West Midlands—with, it appears, official sanction. Does the Minister understand that while the Government say they will not tolerate antisemitism, it seems that antisemitism was not only tolerated but officially endorsed, although not necessarily by the Government? Unless the Government act very strongly on this, it implies that officialdom thinks that Jews are not welcome in a major city in this country, and it is shameful.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I do not recognise the noble Baroness’s characterisation of any part of the United Kingdom as being “Jew-free”; that is a highly emotive way to describe it. However, I share the concerns of those who want to ensure that people of all religions—but, particularly in the current climate, Jewish people—can go about their lives without fear of intimidation. I am not sure that emotive rhetoric about Jew-free areas is helpful in this conversation.
Arrangement of Business
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before we move on to the next business, I wish to update the House on the forward plan for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. I have reflected on the first two days of Committee and discussed this with the usual channels and the Bill’s sponsor, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton.
Noble Lords will be aware that over 1,000 amendments have been tabled and only three groups of amendments have been debated so far. It is therefore clear that the House needs additional time to scrutinise the Bill. I have always been clear that, as this Government are neutral on the Bill, any additional time will not come from government time. I also believe, given the importance of the subject and the number of colleagues who wish to participate, that this scrutiny could not take place in the Grand Committee, as some noble Lords have suggested to me. I have therefore arranged for the House to sit on eight additional Fridays in the new year, in addition to the three Fridays already announced. The Fridays will be listed in today’s Forthcoming Business.
As noble Lords are keen to be made aware of these dates, I can tell the House that those Fridays when the Bill will be considered will be: 9 January; 16 January, alongside some other PMB business; 23 January; 30 January; 6 February; 27 February, 13 March; 20 March; 27 March; and 24 April. The House will also sit on 6 March for the debate on International Women’s Day. A notice with the full list of sitting Fridays will be made available in the Printed Paper Office and the Royal Gallery. I will also email all dates to all noble Lords’ parliamentary email addresses.
As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister reiterated last week, the Government are neutral and how we proceed with this Bill is ultimately in the hands of this House. The Government are not seeking to prescribe how it will progress, but I am sure my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton will be discussing with other noble Lords how to make good use of this time.
I am conscious that colleagues may also be thinking about the time available on each sitting Friday. For the past two Fridays, I have come to the House at the start of proceedings, to set out how I hope the House will conduct itself and made clear that, in line with the Companion, I will seek to bring proceedings to a close at a convenient point around 3 pm. It is my intention to continue with this approach, but ultimately it is a decision for the House as whole, not me as Government Chief Whip.
I hope this is helpful and my door remains open to all noble Lords on this or any other matter.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, may I, as the sponsor of the Bill, express my profound gratitude to the usual channels for making what amounts to 10 additional days available for the Bill? That means that, up to 24 April, there will be 16 days for consideration of the Bill through all its stages. May I also specifically agree with the Chief Whip that the right course now for all of us who are interested in the Bill—opponents or supporters—is to get together and agree the best way to use the remaining 12 days that we have on it?
Ministerial Code
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, in the foreword to the latest version of the Ministerial Code, the Prime Minister says:
“Restoring trust in politics is the great test of our era”,
but despite agreeing with his Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards that he would play no role in football matters, he was sent, and responded to, a submission appointing as chairman of the new football regulator David Kogan, a man who had made political donations not just to his Labour leadership campaign but to his general election campaign last summer. In the interests of restoring trust in politics, can the Minister tell us: how much did these donations amount to?
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his question. Given the fact that this was discussed previously both in your Lordships’ House and in the other place, he will be very aware that all donations were declared in line with the threshold, and the thresholds are publicly available. Let us be very clear that Mr Kogan was approached by the previous Government about this position, because they recognised the skills that he had—and we recognised the skills that he had. He has cross-party support and industry support, and we wish him well in his work.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, while I do not wish in any way to criticise proper criticisms of breaches of the code, may I suggest that the intemperate language used on occasion, and references to what are trivial breaches of the code, are often very damaging to the reputation of Parliament itself? Politicians and the media need to be very careful about how they express themselves in this context.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I could not agree more with the noble Viscount. Everybody in your Lordships’ House, whether they hold ministerial office or not, has a responsibility to help us rebuild trust in politics. It is incredibly important in a world of misinformation, in a world where we have seen the Horizon scandal and the infected blood scandal, and where we are trying to fix some things that were genuinely broken, that the general public have faith and trust in us, both as the Government and as the establishment, and that we collectively work together to make sure that people can trust their Government.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches see a very large pot attacking a rather smaller kettle. The Conservatives, as a responsible Opposition, must own and admit their own past record on this; on public appointments, including to the BBC board, the Conservatives have a number of answers to give. I am constantly amazed at the Conservatives’ denial that they were in office for the last 10 years.
The Minister will not have seen this morning’s publication by UCL’s Constitution Unit—one of the best sources of comment on constitutional matters—which has the headline, “Starmer’s constitutional timidity”. I encourage her to look back at what the Labour manifesto said on this, because much of what that manifesto promised on public appointments, a stronger role for Parliament and modernisation simply has not been pushed through yet. On public appointments, it seems clear, particularly after the current BBC arguments, that Parliament should be given a fuller role in checking public appointments—Select Committees, for example, which have been strongly supported to vet public appointments as they are made. Do the Government not intend to push through some of the commitments they made in their manifesto, such as proper modernisation of the Commons and thorough reform of the Lords?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for bringing my attention to the report; I look forward to reading it. He will not be surprised that, on Budget Day, I have yet to reflect on the report, but I will do so. We are 18 months into a Labour Government that have delivered on strengthening the Ministerial Code by setting out new financial penalties and new terms of reference for the independent adviser, establishing a new monthly register of Ministers’ interests, and establishing a new Ethics and Integrity Commission, which was in our manifesto. Having sat through every moment of our debates, I know that we have been in your Lordships’ House for over 50 hours discussing the future of the House as well as other areas of modernisation. We are acting. This is a hugely ambitious Government with a great deal to do, and we will continue to move forward.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, has the Minister or the department received any representations from the Opposition—including from their spokesman who just spoke—that Mr David Kogan, with all his experience in sports management, is not an excellent choice? If he is, in fact, eminently well qualified and probably the best person for the position, is it not absurd that, in a parliamentary democracy where political parties contest, someone could be disqualified because they support a political party?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question. I seem to remember that, when the previous Government were in government and since, they have accepted donations from supporters. It seems to be normal that people would want to support a political party; it is a normal part of our politics. My noble friend is absolutely right: to my knowledge, there has been no such representations from the Conservative Front Bench criticising Mr Kogan’s appointment based on his ability to do the role.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
My Lords, is there not in place an automatic system within government that, when a public appointment is being made by a Minister, checks whether a donation has been made to that Minister or to their political party in general?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, there is a system in place. The Commissioner for Public Appointments undertook a report to find out what has happened in this case and found that the Secretary of State acted in good faith. However, the processes have since been strengthened.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister referred to the establishment of the Ethics and Integrity Commission, which was indeed a manifesto commitment. Can she tell the House when she expects it, having been set up, to operate fully?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question. Obviously, we are in the process of ensuring that it is fully staffed and set up. I will write to him with the timescale.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that detailed codes of conduct can never ensure good behaviour, and constant allegations across the Dispatch Box of breaches of the code undermine public confidence in the integrity of public life rather than enhance it?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I completely agree with the noble Lord. That is why we have given more power and authority to the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, who can now undertake their own investigations without being instructed to by the Prime Minister. It is also why we have asked the Ethics and Integrity Commission to adopt a risk-based approach, so that it can focus on those cases that present a genuine risk to the integrity of government. There is collective responsibility to make sure that people trust us—politicians and the Government. We have a huge amount to deliver collectively, and people need to know that we are on their side, regardless of which party we represent.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, criticism of the Government’s breaches of the Ministerial Code do not just come from His Majesty’s Opposition. Paragraph 9.1 of the Ministerial Code sets out that
“the most important announcements of government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament”.
This morning, the Speaker of the House of Commons criticised the Government for their increasing habit of making these announcements outside Parliament. He said to his local BBC radio station that, in the past,
“if you leaked a Budget you would be asked to resign”.
Does the Minister agree with the Speaker of another place?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I have known the Speaker of another place since I was born. While I always appreciate the words of Mr Speaker, in this instance I remind noble Lords, from across all political parties, that there is always noise and speculation ahead of the Budget. Mr Speaker has asked the Public Accounts Committee to undertake a review of the Ministerial Code in terms of when business should and should not be addressed first in your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord is absolutely right about paragraph 9.1, and the Prime Minister too has been clear that significant announcements should always be made in Parliament.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, did the Minister note that, in his second intervention, the Opposition spokesman in no way made any criticism of David Kogan in relation to whether he was a fit and proper person to undertake the post? Does that not speak volumes?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend. He is right; I sat through many hours of discussion on the appointment of the football regulator and the legislation which passed through your Lordships’ House, which has been in both the Labour Party manifesto and the Conservative Party manifesto as a commitment. Not only did we sit through many hours of that, but now we have an effort to not support Mr Kogan going forward. He is a positive force for good; he was originally approached by the Opposition Benches when they were in government to hold this role, and nobody in the sector has any complaints about his appointment.
Sentencing Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
Member's explanatory statement
The presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences of less than 12 months.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the set of amendments in my name. I am sure that, throughout the course of this Committee, many noble Lords will debate and question precisely which offenders they think should be excluded from the numerous provisions for suspended sentences included in the Bill. The Government have made the underlying principle behind their approach quite clear: that only those who pose a serious risk of harm to a particular individual should be denied the privilege of a suspended sentence. On these Benches, we believe that the exemptions to Clause 1 should be much wider. We have tabled many amendments to that effect, and I will speak to them at several points throughout this Committee. I am sure that noble Lords will disagree with some of our suggestions, and I welcome the debate that will ensure that we scrutinise the Bill with care. The Bill received just one day of Committee in the other place. It is therefore imperative to carry out our duty to provide the Bill with the scrutiny that it requires.
These amendments do not directly relate to the specific offender types who we believe should spend their sentences in custody. Rather, this group of amendments seeks to clarify important practical and operational points of the Bill, which either the Government did not account for or appear to be in favour of. I have tabled these amendments to highlight the harmful effects that the Bill will have on communities and individuals, if it becomes law in its present form.
Amendments 1 and 12 may seem relatively minor in the grand scheme of the Bill, but, without their inclusion, a significant number of dangerous criminals will be free to roam the streets. There are many crimes for which a 12-month sentence is imposed, and these amendments seek to ensure that such offenders are past the cut-off point for suspended sentences to apply.
Just last month, a sex offender, Hadush Kebatu, was released from prison by accident. The Foreign Secretary said repeatedly that he was “livid” that such a man had been let loose and was free to roam the streets. Further, the Home Secretary called the same man a “vile sex offender”. Countless Government Ministers expressed their thoughts and sympathies for the victim and her family, and we on these Benches could not agree more with that assessment of Mr Kebatu.
Mr Kebatu was serving a 12-month sentence. He was convicted for trying to sexually assault a 14 year-old girl. A 41 year-old man convicted of a child sexual offence was allowed to roam the streets and the Government purported outrage, yet under the provisions of their own Sentencing Bill offenders such as Mr Kebatu would be at large not simply for a handful of days but for the entirety of their sentence. When questioned about this, the Minister simply explained that there were separate provisions for foreign-national offenders, but this misses the point. It does not detract from the fact that there are thousands of offenders convicted of charges similar to those of Mr Kebatu, all of whom would be let out on to the streets after their conviction for child sexual assault. Will the Minister finally accept this as being the Government’s stance with respect to these proposals?
In an ideal world, I would rather see all such offenders behind bars for the entire duration of their sentence, and I have tabled further amendments to that effect. However, Amendments 1 and 12 seek at least to close this obvious gap in justice to some degree by ensuring that only offences with sentences of less than 12 months are eligible for suspension. That way the one-year sentences imposed on men such as Mr Kebatu and other sexual offenders would be served in custody and not on our streets.
Amendments 2 and 13 similarly seek to plug apparent drafting oversights in the Bill. At present, it is not yet clear whether the presumption of a suspended sentence would apply to that sentence before or after a guilty plea is submitted. Given that in all published materials of the Government they have indicated that only short- term sentences of up to one year should be suspended, I can only guess that they intended for Clause 1 to take effect before guilty pleas were submitted. I have therefore tabled Amendments 2 and 13 to ensure that the presumption of suspended sentences should apply before any credit is given for a guilty plea.
If this is an amendment which the Government wish to oppose then I suggest they must make clear to all noble Lords, and indeed to the public, that they in fact wish to suspend sentences for all crimes up to 18 months, rather than 12 months. That is because any offender charged with a crime of 18 months has the ability to reduce it by a third by submission of an early guilty plea, which will subsequently make them eligible, apparently, for an automatic suspended sentence. I suggest that this will simply open a Pandora’s box for a whole new subset of crimes that will fall into the eligibility criteria of Clause 1.
The exclusion of an express clause negating credit for a guilty plea in this context will have unintended and dangerous implications for our justice system. It risks fundamentally undermining public confidence in justice if offenders come to recognise that by pleading guilty they can simply avoid prison altogether and serve their sentence in the community. That distorts incentives in a manner that no responsible Government should welcome. It may even encourage individuals charged with serious crimes, regardless of whether or not they committed them, to plead guilty, purely to escape a custodial sentence. That cannot be a principle on which our system of justice is based. I hope that the Minister will take this point seriously, and I look forward to hearing his response.
Amendments 3 and 14 address a further operational incoherence in Clause 1: the length of time for which a suspended sentence would be imposed. Under the Bill as drafted, there is no clarity as to whether suspended sentences imposed automatically under this presumption would be suspended for the maximum period. In many cases, an offender could therefore benefit from a dramatically reduced suspension period, serving little to no meaningful time under supervision. My amendments seek to ensure in statute that this is simply not the case. If the intention is truly to uphold the integrity of sentencing, any suspended sentence imposed as a substitute for immediate custody must be suspended for the maximum allowable period. Anything less would undermine the very concept of accountability that the public rightly expect from our justice system.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames is unavoidably unable to be here. I apologise for taking his place from the second Bench; I am sure noble Lords will understand that I need propping up.
I thank the noble and learned Lord for explaining the Conservative amendments in such clear detail. They read to me as if he and his party are going along with the Bill with such reluctance that they would really like to oppose it completely, and have proposed so many amendments so as to come just short of wrecking it. I know that the noble and learned Lord will say that he is giving shape to the presumption, and I accept that some of the amendments will help to clarify the position. He calls them “practical and operational”; I do not necessarily read them that way. But I do think is a pity. He quotes a very few cases, and few cases make bad law; and using language such as “roaming our streets” does not help a sensible and calm debate on a Bill which is thoughtful and addresses not only the matter of prison capacity but what will be best for particular offenders to assist them, as I read it, not to reoffend. From these Benches, we wholeheartedly support that.
I have to say, too, that, if we were to accept these amendments, we would be in danger of constraining magistrates so much that they would read what they are given as prescription instead of leaving them scope to produce the best sentence in the particular circumstances of the offender.
On the first amendment in this group, can the Minister say how often a sentence of just short of 12 months is given? I hear 12 months as being quite a usual order, so that, if one changed the terminology, one would be nullifying or at any rate reducing the effect of the central part of this Bill. On Amendment 4, concerning danger not just to an individual but to the public, when I read it, I thought, “If there is a real danger to the general public, we probably wouldn’t be looking at a sentence of less than 12 months”.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, there is a curious diffidence over so important a part of the Bill as Clause 1. I shall not say much about it, except that, although the amendments are worth studying to see whether they do improve how Clause 1 can operate, they seem to stem from a general hostility to the Bill disguised as a sort of benevolence. It is a strange position that the Conservative Front Bench has taken.
We would be in a happier situation if we were discussing this Bill because we had worked out a coherent alternative criminal justice policy and the sole reason for carrying it forward would be that it would be better at protecting the public, recognising, as it should, that many people who are in prison are not being improved in their propensity not to reoffend by being in prison, and some of the people in the community are not getting the support and structure they need to make their lives responsible—or reduce the danger to the public in general.
However, we are considering this Bill because our prisons are full and will remain full and get fuller unless we do something about it. That does not preclude having a sensible criminal justice policy in support of provisions such as Clause 1, but it does necessitate it. The good thing about this Bill is that significant parts of it are addressed to better provision in and out of prison and in the transition from prison to being out of prison—a matter on which the Minister has plenty of specialised knowledge from his own experience. It may be that we can tidy up Clauses 1 and 2 a little, but we should be quite clear in our minds that they are necessary clauses to deal with a crisis. We will rely on other parts of the Bill to ensure that we are dealing with that from the point of view of criminal justice reform, and not merely trying to empty prisons.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great honour to have the opportunity to speak for the Government in Committee on the Sentencing Bill. As noble Lords know, I have devoted much of my life and career to criminal justice reform, in particular the question of how to reduce reoffending. Therefore, I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the amendments on short sentences, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. While I am grateful to noble Lords for their constructive and thoughtful input on this Bill, inside and outside the Chamber, I remain convinced that the position of the Bill is the right one. I appreciate the words from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Beith, along those lines.
Let me be clear at the outset: we are not abolishing short sentences. Judges will still have discretion to send offenders to prison where there is a significant risk of physical or psychological harm to an individual, where they have breached a court order or in exceptional circumstances. However, the evidence shows that those given a community order or suspended sentence reoffend less than similar offenders given a short prison sentence. That is a key driver behind the presumption to suspend short sentences and why it must continue to apply to sentences of 12 months or less.
We are following the evidence to reduce crime, leading to fewer victims and safer communities, and we are also following the lead of the previous Conservative Government who originally introduced this measure during the last Parliament, without the additional amendments we are debating today.
Given the clear evidence on short sentences, the Government do not agree with introducing further exemptions. To do so could increase reoffending and so create more victims. I came into this job to build a criminal justice system that leads to fewer victims, not more.
I will now turn to the specific points that noble Lords have raised in this debate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, have both raised important points on early guilty pleas through Amendments 2 and 13. I can assure noble Lords that I have reflected on these amendments and considered them at length and with great care, but it has long been the practice of the courts to give a reduction in sentence where a defendant pleads guilty. This avoids the need for a trial, enables cases to be dealt with quickly, and shortens the gap between charge and sentence. Moreover, it can save victims and witnesses from the concern about having to give evidence. This is particularly important in traumatic cases.
Furthermore, the amendments proposed would create inconsistencies. The presumption would not apply where an early guilty plea mitigation brought the sentence down to 12 months or less, whereas it could still apply where the court applied any other mitigation that had the same effect. For these reasons, the Government do not support these amendments.
Through Amendments 3 and 14, noble Lords have also proposed requiring courts to impose suspended sentence orders with a maximum operational period of two years. This would not be appropriate for every suspended sentence order without consideration of the particular facts of the case, and would place additional burden on the Probation Service. The evidence shows that those given a community order or suspended sentence reoffend less than similar offenders given a short prison sentence. We are following the evidence to reduce crime, leading to fewer victims and safer communities.
It is absolutely clear that the last Government left our Probation Service under immense pressure. Fourteen years of austerity came alongside a botched privatisation. The scars are still there, and we are fixing it. Sentencing must always be proportionate to the offence committed, taking into account all the circumstances of each case. It is right for the judiciary to retain discretion to consider this and make the sentencing decision. This amendment would remove that discretion.
I thank the noble Lords again for their amendments and the opportunity to debate them. I hope I have sufficiently explained why our approach of following the evidence is the right one to take. With that in mind, I ask them not to press their amendments.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this part of the Committee debate, and I thank the Minister for explaining the position of the Government with regard to these proposed amendments.
On early guilty pleas, it appears to me, respectfully, that if the Government are going to maintain the position that has been set out, they should be explicit in the Bill that they are not dealing with suspension in respect of sentences of 12 months; they are dealing with suspension in respect of sentences of up to and including 18 months. That is far from clear in the Bill. Whether or not the Government accept our amendment, it is a point that has to be made clear so that public confidence can be maintained in the nature of the sentencing system that is going to be introduced.
With regard to the matter of suspension and the maximum suspension period of two years, we maintain that if these moves are going to be taken, it is only appropriate that the suspension should be for a period long enough to enable some form of rehabilitation to take place, because otherwise it is simply pointless. Again, I ask the Government to reconsider their position, but at this stage I will withdraw this amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender—(a) has been convicted of three or more other offences in the 12 months leading to the conviction for which a suspended sentence would otherwise have been passed (the “current offence”);(b) has been convicted of 10 or more offences prior to the current offence;(c) has been convicted of the same offence as the current offence on three or more previous occasions; (d) is convicted of an offence (the current offence) with a mandatory minimum custodial sentence;(e) has previously received a suspended sentence order or a custodial sentence for the same offence as the current offence;(f) has breached a suspended sentence order or orders on three or more occasions, either by breaching community requirements or committing a further offence;(g) has a history of poor compliance with court orders, according to a written or oral statement from a probation officer;(h) at the time of the current offence, was—(i) subject to a supervision order, or(ii) on licence, or subject to supervision, under Chapter 6 of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (release, licences, supervision and recall);(i) is convicted of an offence eligible for consideration under the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme under sections 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988; or(j) is being sentenced for three or more offences concurrently.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent suspended sentences from being passed in a range of circumstances.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, these amendments touch on similar issues to those we have already addressed. They highlight what we say is a fundamental flaw in Clause 1—the blanket presumption of suspended short custodial sentences even for offenders who pose a serious and ongoing risk to the public.
Under the Bill as it is framed, there is the real possibility that individuals convicted of crimes such as robbery, grievous bodily harm, sexual assault, burglary and offences involving knives or other bladed weapons could serve the entirety of their sentences in the community. As we have just noted, that may be far less than a suspension of two years if the Government proceed as they intend. From the point of view of public safety and public confidence in the justice system, that appears to be unacceptable.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 7 to 11. I support the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst and my noble and learned friend Lord Keen, particularly Amendments 6 and 18 to 29.
I fully understand the need to address the issue of prison capacity and overcrowding. We are now in a position where we have 97.3% capacity and 86,800 prisoners, as at 3 November this year. I think we are all committed to tackling recidivism and to improving prisoner education and rehabilitation; I know the Minister has a personal commitment and an enviable record in that respect. I support the wider aim of delivering 14,000 additional prison places by 2031, given that, at present, we will be 9,500 places short by 2028. I am one of the few people who has actually read the Independent Sentencing Review by my erstwhile friend and former colleague David Gauke, which is an excellent piece of work.
I notice that the Government are no longer propagating the disingenuous statistic and canard that the previous Government, who struggled with Covid, Ukraine and other contingent financial problems, created only 500 places. For the record, they created 8,500 places and opened three new prisons: HMP Five Wells, HMP Fosse Way and HMP Millsike. Unfortunately, due to the decrepit physical condition of the prison estate, presided over by both parties, the previous Government, cheered on by His Majesty’s Opposition at the time and prisoner advocacy charities, were compelled to take many prison places out of use. Some 4,151 cells have been closed due to dilapidation since 2010, according to the PAC report on prison capacity published in March this year.
I have two major concerns regarding the proposals in Clause 1 that give rise to my amendments, which in practice would de facto abolish prison terms under 12 months. They send out a regrettable message to criminals and the wider public that, because of government incompetence, a failure to plan and a failure of imagination, committing crime is cost free. Shoplifters, burglars, thieves, fences, thugs and drug dealers will be spared jail and instead will receive a community sentence. Even someone given an 18-month sentence for a serious crime, with a credit of a guilty plea taken into account and a reduction to 12 months, will receive no custodial jail time at all.
I shall focus on Amendment 7, concerning these rather wrongheaded proposals. The Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 was introduced by a Labour MP and supported by the Labour Front Bench and the GMB union, whose national officer said at the time:
“It’s welcome to see arrests taking place but we also want to see an increase in prosecutions and tougher sentences handed down for these unacceptable assaults”.
The Bill was supported by many senior Labour MPs, including, for instance, Louise Haigh, then a Front-Bencher, who said that the attitude
“sadly exists across the criminal justice system, that being punched and kicked is somehow to be expected and accepted … we will never accept that people should be assaulted while they are doing their job and we will do everything in our power to protect them”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/17; col. 1150.]
Under these proposals we have a situation where around 3,000 thugs—who assaulted police officers, NHS workers, firefighters and ambulance staff, among others—will receive a golden ticket: a free pass. What message does that send to the public and to those public servants who do these very tough jobs? The criminal justice system is distrusted by many taxpayers already. Will that improve as a result of this legislation?
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I made some remarks in the previous group about my concern that magistrates in particular would be constrained by being proscribed as to the detail of what they can do. In listing the offences of the offender, if some offences are not on the list, is that list conclusive? I am not sure that this is as helpful as the Opposition would suggest.
I wonder how many of these amendments are appropriate for primary legislation, and how many would or could go into sentencing guidelines. There are noble Lords here who know far more about the workings of both the courts and the guidelines than I do or could.
I am a bit confused about the suggestion that 12-month sentences are being abolished. I do not read them as being abolished. Would some of what is listed attract sentences of less than 12 months? I also wonder what is meant by “associated offences”, which crops up in a number of these amendments. Additionally, what are offences with “a connection to terrorism”? If an offender commits a terrorist act, is he looking at 12 months or less?
Many of the people who are listed in Amendment 6 and its companion amendment strike me as people who would benefit not from being in custody but rather from receiving support and rehabilitative services. I do not, of course, take issue with the comments made about the capacity of the Probation Service. We are all concerned about that, and we would all be with Baroness Newlove on that comment.
We were also told that there is no bar to reoffending. Is the suspension of a sentence not itself a bar to reoffending, given that, if the suspension is lifted, the custody applies? That strikes me as something of a bar.
I will try not to say this again today but I will repeat the point I made about the language that we use. I commented on the use of language such as offenders being free to “roam the streets”; “career criminals” seems to be a similarly unhelpful phrase.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, if I might, I will make a brief comment. I have a lot of sympathy with what the noble Baroness has just said. I share many of the reservations expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, but I wonder whether trying to identify a whole range of offences that fall outside the suspended sentence regime is helpful. It raises the question of what has not been included. My own feeling is that if we could get some generic language which encapsulates the thinking expressed by my noble and learned friend, we would be doing well, rather than to have a list of offences, which runs the risk of omitting others and perhaps including some that we should not.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
I understand why we have all got a problem with the size of the prison population. Generally, we could be safer if there were fewer people in prison. Many of them have probably been there too long and not had an awful lot done to help them. But as I have tried to understand the Government’s proposals and public spending generally, I have a growing concern about how they might be improved.
The proposals rely on the fact that, as people are released early or do not go to prison, they are tagged. I generally agree with tagging and think that we could do far more with it. At the moment, we do not do much with geofencing, with which we can stop a person going where a victim of domestic violence might be. There is sobriety tagging—where alcohol is the cause of somebody’s offending, you can check whether they are abiding by a court order not to drink or not to take drugs. These are positive developments. I am told that about 30% of the people leaving prison who should be tagged are not getting tagged because of administrative issues. That is a significant number of those who are leaving prison who should have some form of restraint or monitoring. If that is not happening, it needs to be sorted before we start allowing people out at a quicker rate.
The other opportunity with tagging which we are not currently taking—Ministers have been kind enough to find some time to talk with me about this—is how we might proactively use it better in the future. The data that comes from the tags goes to the commercial operators of the tagging system. I am not sure whether it is G4S, but it is a commercial operator. I have no problem with that. The problem is that the data goes into its control room and the police do not see it. It tells us where the offenders are; we might be able to check, for example, whether there is a rapist nearby to a rape or a burglar nearby to a burglary—real-time data sharing. At the moment, that is not happening, but it is an opportunity that could be taken with this new experiment. It would not take an awful lot of investment or time to get this running.
Further, as one or two people have said already, we could probably have fewer short sentences on the whole but I am not sure that they should be removed, as it appears the assumption is here, from the armoury of the judge. The particular group I would consider are those repeat offenders who commit low-level offending, but if you live next door to them it is not very good. Such cases are perceived as minor cases, but they often impact on their neighbours and the community where they live—they do not impact on people who live 20 miles away. The opportunity for a judge to intervene in those cases ought to remain. I worry that, with the assumption based on the Government’s proposal, that group, for example, would not get caught.
I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that the list offered by the Opposition is entirely the right one. It would force the Government to address what should be on the list, or, if not a list, what should be the principle to guide such action by a judge. I worry that, at the moment, judges may feel constrained not to give short sentences in circumstances where they are the only method. It is no good giving a fine to somebody who has repeatedly been given fines and does not pay them, as an example. I think we need to retain that in the armoury.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Is not the corollary of the noble Lord’s argument that, as it stands, if the Government were to reject these amendments, in cases of serious and egregious crime the judge may be fully cognisant of the fact that they cannot give a custodial sentence to someone who is deserving of one, and therefore will give a higher sentence than 12 months, with the result that prison overcrowding will be made worse? That is a risk if these amendments are not supported.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is quite right. In fact, that is one thing I would mention to the Minister about the risk, because judges will try to do what is best. They are not trying to subvert the law, but they will try to do what is best in the case before them.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
The noble Lord recalled what the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said about having a list of crimes to which this will apply, but the moment you do that you have fettered the discretion of a judge. It must be left open for the judge to determine. If it is not, and you list the crimes to which this applies, when he or she listens to the evidence, it will be absolutely clear that the person must be sent to prison. But you have fettered the judge’s authority and power. I would not go for a list. Certainly, I support the noble Lord’s suggestions around tagging and the last question he raised, but I am not so sure that the Government can say to the judge, “You’ve got discretion but, by the way, over this you don’t”.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
That is probably for the Minister. I say only that I fundamentally agree with the noble and right reverend Lord, but discretion for judges has of course been limited in some ways. For example, there are minimum sentences: of five years if you carry a firearm and of six months on second conviction if you carry a knife after the age of 18. There are occasions when their discretion is fettered, and the Sentencing Council does that anyway with a list of a type.
I am with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. The Government offer one broad principle, but I do not think it is sufficient to deal with some of my concerns. It may be improved. It may be that there should be a list—I would not argue that—but, personally, I am not reassured by the Government’s approach to what I take to be the broad assumption that people will not go to prison for a 12-month sentence. There could be some horrible cases and somebody might get hurt. That is what worries me.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I will briefly challenge some of what has been said. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, rather implied that it was his belief that the Bill intends to remove all short sentences. From the Minister’s opening remarks and those of others, that is clearly not the case. There is, however, very good reason for reducing the number.
The Minister pointed out that there is a significant reduction in the level of reoffending. He has not given the figures, so I will share them with the Committee, as a result of the work of your Lordships’ Justice and Home Affairs Committee, which I chair, in a report that was done during the chairmanship of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. It showed the figures then—they have been replicated by more recent research—that, of offenders who are put in prison for short sentences and are released, 60% reoffend, whereas the average reoffending rate for those on custodial sentences is only 24%. As that report said, and as we will discuss in future amendments, there are very good ways in which we can improve non-custodial sentences to reduce the rate of reoffending even more.
I am going to disagree during our deliberations over the three sessions that we will have on the Bill—maybe more—with a lot of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, says, but I entirely agree with him, and it has been reflected by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and my noble friend, that none of these measures we are talking about will succeed unless we have the resources to do the job. Again, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and others that there are amendments coming later where we can address the need for more probation officers and more people in our prisons. There is not currently, as far as I am aware, an amendment on police numbers, but there would be time to put one down.
The only other thing I want to say is how much I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, about getting rid of the list argument, which has also been picked up. I hope the Government will listen to his proposal about finding language that can be used about those people we know we would not want to put on short sentences, but not necessarily have the sentence inflation that has, sadly, caused a problem for us and is one reason we have so many prisoners in our prisons today.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, said, save that I think that the Bill already deals with the problem identified by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan- Howe. It is important to look at the text of the Bill: this is a “presumption” against short sentences; it is not a bar to them. Of course, there is a philosophy behind the presumption: the authors of the Bill and the Government have taken the view, which is not a revolutionary view in relation to the evidence that has been collected over many years, that, generally, short sentences are not a great idea. They do not lead to rehabilitation; they do not help with reoffending.
If you disagree with that and think that a short, sharp shock is a jolly good thing, you are obviously going to disagree with the Bill and these provisions. Having lists of various offences is a good wheeze, but it is not consistent with the philosophy of the Bill, which is that, in general, short sentences do not work—they do not keep the public safe because they do not rehabilitate anyone and, in fact, some people go to the university of crime for a short course of less than 12 months and come out with drug problems, relationship breakdown and other issues that they did not have before. But this is only a presumption; it is not a bar. To respond to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, with whom I so often agree, I do not think that anything else is required as an alternative to the list approach of exceptions, because there is the residual discretion provided in the Bill for exceptional circumstances.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Is this not a case for the Sentencing Council to express some guidance on these matters rather than go down the route of the list system in a statutory form?
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I find myself back in the comfortable spot where I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. Of course, that is something that we will come to later, no doubt, when we discuss the independence and the constitutional role of the Sentencing Council. If noble Lords are worried that I am being too glib, because “exceptional circumstances” seems too vague an alternative to a prescriptive list of offences which are exceptional, the answer is, on the one hand, to trust the judges—this is about their discretion, and they know jolly well about the awful case that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, mentioned, and about situations where people are repeatedly not paying their fines or breaching community orders, which should be exceptions to the 12-month presumption.
The second part of the argument is that the judicial limb of our constitution has in the form of its Sentencing Council—and I use that language deliberately because I am for the independence of the Sentencing Council—a council to help guide judges so that there can be an element of consistency in courts around the country as to the approach on what is exceptional, and therefore what type of case justifies the exception to the presumption and the philosophy of this measure that short sentences are a bad idea.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I hesitate to intervene on this matter, but I wonder what thought has been given by the Ministry of Justice to simplification. The Sentencing Code is now a very lengthy document. The way in which the title of the clause has been put is very sensible: it says that there is a presumption for a suspended sentence. However, one goes on to read the entirety of this text, with the words “the court must … unless”, and then there is a whole series of exceptions to that order. Why do we have to have complexity?
There are two strong reasons against it. First, there will not be parliamentary time to alter this if we get it wrong. Secondly, it is much better to leave this to the guidance of the Sentencing Council. If the Bill could say “the Sentencing Council will provide guidelines to bring about that there should be a presumption against short sentences”, would that not achieve what we want without language? I heavily criticise the parliamentary draftsmen for this unnecessary complexity. Can we go not go back to the Victorian age and do things simply? I know these words are likely to fall on deaf ears, but it would be so much better if we had simple sentencing legislation and left it to the Sentencing Council, which can adjust it as we see whether it works, because one thing experience shows is that we try one type of sentence and, a few years later, we want to tinker with it.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, as a judge who did not sit very often in crime but had to do it from time to time, I have been listening with increasing dismay to what has been discussed in these increasingly elaborate proposals. I hope that the Minister will listen to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, because that was the first bit of absolute good sense, whether we need to call it Victorian or just remind ourselves that the Victorians did a lot of things extremely well. At the end of this discussion and throughout this Bill, could we not do three things: simplify, trust the judges, and trust the Sentencing Council to do a lot of what is going to be, at the moment, in primary legislation?
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Foster, that I was not a co-author of this Bill; it is entirely the responsibility of the Government. I was merely saying I had a similar view: that prison numbers could come down and we could be safer. That was the discussion I had with the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, after the Bill was announced. If it had been my Bill, there would have been something in it about a 10% or 20% reduction in the Sentencing Council guideline targets for maximum or minimum sentences. In my view, there have been two causes of prison numbers going up: the lack of the ability to get parole, which has been addressed by the Bill, and the grade inflation in sentences, which has had nothing done to it. Unless someone would like to correct me, no political party has gone into any election promising lower sentences. Has anybody ever said that?
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
Without wishing to delay our deliberations, I point out to the noble Lord that if he feels passionately about it, there is still time for him to draft and put down amendments on the issues he raises. He may well find support from these Benches.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, let us remember that we passed a Bill here about the Sentencing Council, when there was a disagreement between the Ministry of Justice and the Sentencing Council, and we know how we resolved that, so we cannot put too much faith without that legislation, which went through here not long ago.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Jackson, for the further amendments they have tabled to Clause 1, which has allowed for another engaging debate on the presumption to suspend short sentences. I begin by reiterating that we are following the evidence to reduce crime, leading to fewer victims and safer communities. We are implementing the Gauke review, for which I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. Texas, which the noble Lord referred to, saw crime fall by 30% and 16 prisons were closed. I would also like to reiterate how much missed Lady Newlove is.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
Perhaps I might ask the Minister about the way he ran his business. One of the important roles of a legislature is to get things technically right. There is no disagreement, as I can see, on the view that that the policy is right, but can we not do things more simply? Throughout the Bill, I have asked the Minister: can we look at producing a piece of workable, simple legislation that can be adapted if what is set out is not right? I believe that this is something a legislature ought to address, where policy is not at issue.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The principle that the noble and learned Lord raises is the right one. I do not believe that we can change things in this Bill now, but the message that I can relay will be very helpful. There is another point around complexity: how this is then communicated to the hard-working staff on the front line, who will need to interpret and put into action what we are proposing here.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I will respond to the Minister. First, it is always our duty to put legislation right, otherwise we might as well all go home. Secondly, the Sentencing Council is there to give practical guidance; it is not our job as a legislature to tinker with the detail. I urge the Minister to go back and see whether we can produce, instead of the complexities inherent in this clause, something that just expresses the presumption and leaves the Sentencing Council to do its job. It will do it far more competently, I am sure, than the Ministry of Justice.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
We will come back to that later in Committee, when we talk about the Sentencing Council. But I reassure the noble and learned Lord that I will take back to colleagues his point about clarity and simplicity.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I do not think that simple legislation will ever catch on, because it would put a lot of lawyers out of business—I say rather irreverently. The Minister in his remarks did not specifically address my Amendment 7. The piece of legislation put forward by his honourable friend Sir Chris Bryant, the emergency workers offences Act, had significant support across both the other place and here. Given the impact of these proposals, I wonder whether the Minister would revisit the specific ramifications for emergency service workers, because there is significant concern about that. I take the point that we should not specify in too much detail in primary legislation, but that Act did receive significant support.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for raising the point about emergency workers: they deserve all our attention and we are very proud of what they do in often very difficult circumstances. I will take away his challenge on that.
I have met a number of people—especially women—in prison who are there for assaulting an emergency worker. While those assaults should not happen at all, often those people were in a very traumatic situation and, when the emergency services came to their aid, they reacted in the wrong way. That is something we need to bear in mind as well.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I am obliged for all the contributions from across the Committee and for the response from the Minister. Everybody appreciates that Clause 1 is not prohibiting anything. Nevertheless, a number of noble Lords, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, talked eloquently and correctly about the discretion of our judges and the trust that we should place in our judges. But that is not what Clause 1 is doing. Clause 1 is saying they must apply a presumption. They are not being trusted with it; they are being told they must apply it. That is one of the issues that we need to address.
A number of specific exceptions were tabled in the amendments, but I take on board the point made by my noble friend Lord Hailsham about it being far more straightforward to produce some generic description in this regard. Indeed, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, pointed out, it may even be something that should be left to the Sentencing Council at the end of the day. But that is another issue. I read this quotation:
“Even when criminals are found guilty, the sentences they receive often do not make sense either to victims or the wider public”.
That is from the Labour manifesto. My fear is that Clause 1 is simply going to reinforce that perception, and that is one of the concerns that we have with it.
I appreciate the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster, about the potential for a suspended sentence to lead to support and rehabilitation. The problem is that those facilities are simply not available at the present time and, in any event, we do not know what period of suspension might or might not be imposed by the courts. It may well be one or two years, but, as the Bill is framed, it may be much less and leave no sensible opportunity for either support or rehabilitation.
There is also the matter of statistics. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, alluded to some well-known statistics about the fact that those who are in custody for short sentences are much more likely to repeat offences when they come out of prison than those who have been given a suspended sentence. But one must bear in mind that those who have been given a suspended sentence have generally committed a far less serious offence than those who have been given a custodial sentence, and that those who are given custodial sentences for relatively minor offences are given those custodial sentences because they are repeat offenders. One must bear in mind Disraeli’s observation that there are lies, there are damned lies and there are statistics and, therefore, we have to approach them with a degree of care. I understand and appreciate that there is more generic evidence to suggest that suspended sentences, when properly applied, controlled and maintained, can have beneficial effects—nobody doubts that for a moment—but there is a very real need here to address, among other things, the whole scourge of repeat offenders.
This arises particularly in the context of Amendment 8 from my noble friend Lord Jackson, which highlights burglary as a particular offence. Burglary is an intensely intrusive crime that leaves victims traumatised, and it is inclined to attract repeat offenders. Its social damage is considerable. There are particular crimes of that nature, given their impact on society as a whole, that should attract something more than a suspended sentence, given the fear is that somebody will simply repeat them. Similar observations can be made on knife crime as well.
I fully understand that there is a need to revisit Clause 1 and its implications. We have sought to do so by identifying particular or specific exceptions to it. There is, as I indicated, and as outlined by my noble friend Lord Hailsham, potentially a better route to that conclusion. Indeed, to echo the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, there is hopefully a simpler route to that conclusion. For present purposes, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
or the court is of the opinion that, having considered the basis of opinion provisions in section 77 of the Sentencing Act 2020 (basis of opinion provisions not to affect power to mitigate sentences), it should mitigate the sentence to one of a community sentence as provided for in that section.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to clarify that the ‘basis of opinion’ provisions in section 77 of the Sentencing Act 2020 still apply and that a court can still, where appropriate, mitigate a sentence to a community sentence.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, before I get on to the detail of this amendment, may I say how much I agree with the comments that have been made about the increasing complexity of the Sentencing Code, the guidelines and so on? I started to look at them in connection with another amendment and found that I was very quickly bogged down. However, we need to sort out Clauses 18 and 19 first, I would say to the noble and learned Lord; otherwise, we could find ourselves in worse trouble.
I am grateful to the Prison Reform Trust for raising a reminder of community sentences and their place; my amendment provides specifically for community sentences. It should not, of course, be necessary, but it seems that it might be important to remind magistrates in particular. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has another amendment directed to the same end, which is probably more straightforwardly drafted—though I did not draft this one; I will come to that. The briefing that I have received from the Prison Reform Trust is very much based on the risk of increasing the imprisonment of women. The point might apply not only to women, but the position of women has just been trailed by the Minister.
We welcome the presumption that we have just been talking about against custodial sentences of 12 months or less, but there are implications of a custodial sentence that is suspended that do not apply to community orders. I tripped over the issue when I was looking online for the views of women’s organisations on the Bill, and I found an article by Vera Baird for the Centre for Women’s Justice. She wrote:
“There is abundant evidence to show that women are disproportionately given short custodial sentences, mainly for non-violent, low-level offences such as shoplifting—”
I am sorry to use that term in the presence of my noble friend, but I am quoting—
“or breaches of court orders. Nearly 70% of women in prison are victims of domestic abuse”—
that is an MoJ figure, I think, and I should perhaps declare an interest as having been chair of the charity Refuge for a number of years—
“many have complex needs and whilst, for male prisoners, relationships can be a protective factor, families rarely stay together if the mother goes to prison”.
On that issue of complex needs, the article also makes the point:
“Women with multiple needs may breach suspended sentences due to the complexity of their lives, the challenges they face in complying with court-ordered requirements, mental health disorders, caretaking responsibilities, unstable housing and lower employment prospects. Conflicts with conditions, missed appointments or failure to meet financial obligations linked to their sentences, can result in technical violations which will breach the suspended sentence and lead to women being returned to court for imprisonment. Women may also breach community orders, but the consequences are not likely to be as severe. Women on suspended sentences live under the threat of prison from day one of the sentence, long before the benefits of treatment and support, which may be offered alongside a suspended sentence order, have any chance of working”.
In case anyone thinks that I am advocating letting women off, community sentences are punishment. Vera Baird wrote that this amendment—I think it is this one; I have since seen a longer alternative—was drafted by members of the Women’s Justice Board. I mention that because I know that the Women’s Justice Board is very much supported by the Minister, and I have an amendment about it later, but it is significant that it is backing this. Vera Baird said that it was tabled in the Commons; it took me a while to track it down, but as far as I can see there was no comment from the Minister in the Commons in response to this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 29A. It is not often that I feel daunted in speaking out on legislation in this Chamber, but I feel a slight nervousness when a lot of senior police officers, former judges and KCs start—
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Yes, luckily they have, so I do not really need to be nervous at all.
Often, in putting my or the Green Party’s views—which obviously overlap quite a lot—I feel that I am speaking from the street. I talk to a lot of people who probably do not know much about this sort of thing, and they probably agree with me on some of it.
On simpler legislation, I know for a fact that the Met Police would like simpler legislation around protests. It is absolutely sick of the confusion and it is time for us to revisit it. However, that is not for today.
Amendment 29A would make a simple but important change: it would require courts to consider the use of a community order before imposing a suspended sentence order. This would strengthen the Government’s own intention to reduce the overuse of short prison sentences—an aim that I and, I am sure, many across the Chamber, including the Minister, warmly welcome. However, unless we make it clear that community orders must be properly considered first, we risk creating what justice organisations call a net-widening effect. In other words, people who should have received a community order may instead receive a suspended sentence order simply because it appears to be a tougher alternative to custody.
A suspended sentence order is still a custodial sentence. It carries the weight and the lifelong consequences of a criminal record, and it places people at far greater risk of imprisonment if they breach its terms. By contrast, a community order is a genuinely non-custodial disposal. It is designed, when properly resourced, to address the underlying causes of offending, whether those are mental health needs, alcohol or drug dependency, or others. Community orders enable people to keep their jobs, maintain their homes, stay connected to their families and communities, and continue caring responsibilities—all factors that are well established as reducing the risk of reoffending.
If the Bill’s aim is to reduce the crisis in prison capacity, we must avoid funnelling people into suspended sentences where a community order would be more effective and safely promote rehabilitation. Otherwise, we simply increase the pipeline into custody through breach, defeating the very purpose of the Government’s reforms. We also risk the danger that this disproportionately affects women as it currently stands, which we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
This amendment is supported by Justice and aligned with the recommendations of the Independent Sentencing Review, which suggested
“introducing ‘crime reduction’ as an overarching principle”
to guide sentencing. Community sentences can play a crucial role in achieving that. They provide a real opportunity for rehabilitation and practical programmes that help people rebuild their lives without the barrier of a custodial sentence on their record. Crucially, community orders can command public confidence when victims are properly informed about what they involve and understand how these sentences can reduce future harm.
Amendment 29A would simply ensure that the most proportionate, most effective and least harmful sentence is considered first. It would strengthen the Bill’s stated ambition of reducing pressure on prisons while supporting better outcomes for individuals and communities. I hope that the Minister sees this as a constructive amendment that aligns with the Government’s own agenda. I urge the Committee to give it serious consideration.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I support what is behind the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Jones, for two reasons. First, we still send far too many women to prison; we need to reduce that number. Secondly, a community sentence probably should be in priority to a suspended sentence.
However, it is not that simple. I will not come back to this point again, but the amendments show precisely why this should be left to the Sentencing Council, which can weigh up the detail of the terms and conditions that it is appropriate to attach to a suspended sentence, as you can make them almost as tough as a community order. The judgment of how the public perceive suspended sentences and community orders can also be left to the council. Unless we satisfy the public’s perception that we are punishing people, the result will be that the judges will think, “Okay, we’ve got to go above 12 months”. That would be a disaster, particularly in the case of women.
I support the excellent ideas behind the amendments. However—and I promise not to say any more about the Sentencing Council today—they are a very strong argument for changing this Bill and making it sensible.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to these amendments, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
Amendment 15, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, seeks to insert an explicit reference to Section 77 of the Sentencing Act 2020 to make it plain that courts may mitigate a sentence to a community order where appropriate. This amendment is not necessary. The Bill does not alter the courts’ ability to consider the full range of mitigating factors, nor does it disturb their discretion to impose a community sentence where that is the just and proportionate outcome. What it does is imposes an obligation to suspend a prison sentence where otherwise a prison sentence might be imposed. Those powers remain firmly in place. To single out Section 77 of the Sentencing Act for restatement in the Bill might imply that the legislation would otherwise curtail judicial discretion to impose a community sentence. That is not the case. For this reason, we do not consider the amendment to be needed or helpful.
Amendment 29A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would place a statutory duty on courts to consider a community order before imposing a suspended sentence order. Although we understand and appreciate the intention behind the proposal, we do not support it. The courts are already required to work upwards through a full hierarchy of sentencing options, including setting community sentences, before custody is reached. That is the well-established principle in law and practice. Sentencing judges are highly experienced in applying those principles.
To introduce a further procedural step will not add substance but create additional bureaucracy in an already very complex framework. It risks increasing administrative burdens on the probation services and court staff, and generating uncertainty about what additional assessments or reports might be required to satisfy the new duty. We should not legislate for processes that the system is not resourced or structured to deliver. Above all, a suspended sentence of imprisonment is, by definition, imposed only when the custody threshold has already been crossed. To require courts to revisit considerations that are already inherent in the sentencing exercise risks weakening clarity and undermining judicial confidence in the tools at their disposal.
For all these reasons, although we respect the intentions behind both amendments, we do not believe that they would strengthen the sentencing framework. We cannot support them.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for tabling these amendments. I was pleased to hear mention of two organisations: one which I used to chair, the Prison Reform Trust, and one which I now chair, the Women’s Justice Board. I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify the Government’s position on this issue. In doing so, I hope I will address the noble Baronesses’ questions, and reflections raised by other noble Lords at Second Reading.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, that there are too many women in prison, and that is why we set up the Women’s Justice Board to come up with a plan to fix that.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I agree that my amendment is not necessary, but perhaps that is in a technical sense; it is the practical situation that the Prison Reform Trust, particularly, and the Women’s Justice Board were pointing to.
Of course I will withdraw the amendment; but before I do so, I just throw back into the arena the hope that there can be some way of reminding magistrates that community sentences are still available and should be used. To my mind, they are the first thing that should be considered.
I hesitate to mention sentencing guidelines, particularly as the noble and learned Lord has imposed a self-denying ordinance on mentioning them again. I would not suggest what the mechanism should be, but there should be some mechanism. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie
“(2B) But a suspended order is not available in relation to that sentence if the sentence is in relation to—(a) any offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which involves a child under 13;(b) any offence of grooming or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity;(c) any offence of creating, distributing or possessing indecent images of children;(d) any offence of assault occasioning grievous bodily harm (GBH) or wounding with intent; (e) any offence involving use or possession of a knife or other offensive weapon in the commission of a violent offence;(f) any offence of stalking or harassing a victim with repeated conduct;(g) any offence against a vulnerable person (including children or adults) involving serious harm or risk;(h) any domestic abuse offence where the victim is a current or former partner or family member, including controlling or coercive behaviour and any offence involving violence, threats, or psychological abuse.(2C) The changes made by this section to the power under sections 264 and 277 of the Sentencing Code must not come into force until the Secretary of State has consulted on, and ensured the necessary exclusion list under subsection (2B) is operational for, all offences considered to involve serious violence, sexual offences, offences against children or vulnerable persons and domestic abuse offences.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would disapply the ability of the court to suspend sentences to those convicted of the offences listed in the amendment, and would require the Secretary of State to consult on and ensure exclusions for those convicted of other serious violent and sexual offence categories.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, the group of amendments in my name raise important points concerning Clause 2. Our concerns here stem from the same concerns that gave effect to our proposed amendments in respect of Clause 1. Of course, we have sympathy for the current pressures on our prison system, but we must also recognise that, in essence, an undiscriminating provision to let offenders remain in the community without custodial punishment is by no means the solution. Indeed, in many ways, the present provisions create greater challenges than Clause 1 in respect of the ability for the suspension of sentences for offenders who have been sentenced for up to three years’ imprisonment.
These are not petty criminals. This provision would apply to those going to prison for crimes such as robbery, grievous bodily harm, sexual assault, organised drug dealing and possession of an offensive weapon. Amendments 30 and 32 provide a list of offences where we believe it would be unacceptable to allow such offenders to serve suspended sentences. I accept that, as my noble friend Lord Hailsham observed when we debated Clause 1, there may be scope for a generic provision here rather than a long list of specific offences, and certainly we will give consideration to that. However, we do not consider that someone convicted of, for example, sexual offences related to a child or grooming should avoid custody entirely.
Without any effective form of custodial sentence, we risk two important consequences. First, the deterrent effects that are inherent to custodial sentences cease to operate. Secondly, serious offenders will have the opportunity to reoffend, having received no effective rehabilitation, and will have continued access to their victims.
Amendments 30 and 32 similarly make provisions for offences of assault and wounding with intent involving weapons such as knives. We believe it is important that offenders convicted of these serious crimes serve their sentences in custody rather than at large in the community. Those convicted of such violent offences should have to spend some time in custody. This is not only to ensure the continued safety of the wider public, but to ensure that the public’s perception is that serious crime of this nature is punished. I again repeat that, although we recognise that prisons are under considerable strain, we cannot allow that to be the chief or principal consideration when it comes to the imposition of sentences.
Finally, Amendments 30 and 32 seek to exclude offenders who have engaged in stalking or harassment, and also those who have been guilty of domestic abuse
“where the victim is a current or former partner or family member”.
I suggest that it is self-evident why such offenders should serve their sentences in prison and not have access to their victims. I note that even in Clause 1, there is an exception in respect of “significant risk of … harm” to “a particular individual”, where the presumption will not apply. Why is there no similar provision in respect of Clause 2 when we are dealing with far more serious offences than those addressed by virtue of a sentence of 12 months?
Amendments 31 and 33 seek to highlight further operational issues with respect to the Bill, and Clause 2 specifically. The clause, in essence, leaves the door open to a multitude of issues that would never arise if a custodial sentence was going to be present. It is entirely possible that someone convicted of assault on several occasions could be handed down a sentence of less than three years under the current sentencing guidelines. This provision would operate to provide that person with the possibility of serving a suspended sentence. Without meaningful accountability, law breaking and crime will continue to proliferate.
I draw particular attention to the proposed new subsection (2B)(g) in Amendment 31, which provides that suspended sentence orders should not be imposed on those who have
“a history of poor compliance with court orders”.
I respectfully suggest that this is an obvious point to make. Those who clearly have a history of not following community orders should not be placed immediately back into society after committing a crime. Yet that is a very real possibility under the provisions of Clause 3.
It would appear that Amendment 34, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, is perhaps underpinned by the same concerns that are rooted in our amendments, namely the real possibility of dangerous offenders on the streets, thereby putting the public at risk. The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to exempt specified offences of terrorism, violence and sexual offences from suspended sentences. We support the intention behind that amendment and certainly hope that the Government will take it seriously.
I have sought simply to illustrate a few of those instances where it should not be appropriate for a suspended sentence to be available. That is not only so that the crime is met with a proportionate punishment but is also required to ensure that the public can maintain confidence in the criminal justice system. I hope that the Government will take these amendments seriously, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, indicated, the motivation behind Amendment 34 is broadly similar to what he has just described in his own amendments. Indeed, later in the Bill, at some point next week, there is a series of amendments that I have laid, working with Nicole Jacobs, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, specifically to try to make sure that when we are looking at early release provisions, a particularly hard and clear focus is placed on domestic abuse perpetrators, who have very high levels of recidivism and can be particularly dangerous.
The motivation behind this amendment came partly from an interaction with an organisation in Northern Ireland called the Marie Collins Foundation, which is particularly concerned about yet another acronym I have learned—TACSA—which sounds like an injury to your ankle. It actually means technically assisted child sexual abuse, an activity that is prevalent and growing extremely quickly, assisted by technology. There was a particularly egregious example of a father of several daughters, resident in one of our larger cities outside London, who was found to have drilled a series of holes around his home, particularly into the bathrooms and lavatories, to be able to watch his daughters as they were going about what one does in bathrooms and lavatories. I am afraid this is, believe it or not, not that unusual.
I completely follow the logic that has been put forward by several noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord by my side, which is that we should not and must not be too specific in the Bill. But some clear guidance is required, whether that comes from the Sentencing Council or some other bodies. While I am not a professional politician, professional politicians in office know all too well the opprobrium and publicity that come their way when—not “if”—somebody is released from prison who should not have been, and does something dreadful yet again, or when somebody who should go to prison does not, for reasons to do with trying to alleviate the pressure on the prison population, and then does something really awful. Everybody will say: “Why didn’t we pick that up at the time?”.
We need to think about this very carefully. I understand fully the reasons behind why we are trying to alleviate the pressure on prisons and His Majesty’s occasionally loyal Opposition have quite a lot to answer for, given the state we are currently in. But we need to be very careful about this; that is really all I have to say.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I do not want to say more about lists other than to note that these amendments contain a lot of lists. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, will not think this is in any way an aggressive point, but I think I picked up that he would expect to see some fleshing out of the term “serious”, as well as the detail of “specified offences”, through a mechanism that follows today’s debate. If he is looking for encouragement for further work subject to some of the comments that were made earlier, then he has it.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Sandhurst, for sharing their views and tabling these amendments, which aim to prevent sentences for certain categories of offences from being suspended. I would be interested to hear more about the Marie Collins Foundation; I have never heard of that organisation before. If it would be helpful, I would be interested in having a meeting with the noble Lord and the foundation to learn more and see what I can gain from that.
I must be clear that it is at the discretion of the independent judiciary whether to impose a suspended sentence, taking into account all the circumstances of the offence and following the appropriate guidance set by the Sentencing Council. For example, sentencing guidelines are clear: it may not be appropriate to suspend a sentence if the offender presents a risk to any person or if appropriate punishment can be achieved only by immediate custody. If the offender breaches the order by failing to comply with any of the requirements or committing a new offence, they can be returned to court. If the breach is proven, the courts are required to activate the custodial sentence unless it would be unjust to do so. Of course, criminals serving suspended sentences also face the prospect of being sent to prison if they fail to comply with the terms of these orders. So, under this Bill, someone could receive a two-and-a-half-year sentence, suspended for three years, and with an electronically monitored curfew lasting for two years. In this scenario, if they breach their curfew or commit a further offence, they face the prospect of being sent to prison.
I would like to reassure noble Lords that there is already provision within this Bill to prohibit the use of suspended sentence orders under any circumstances in relation to sentences for offenders of particular concern and extended determinate sentences. These sentences can be imposed in relation to the specific offences listed in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, where the court is of the opinion that the offender is dangerous. Currently, if an extended determinate sentence is imposed for two years or less, it is imposed alongside a standard determinate sentence, and both can be suspended. However, the Bill will change that position so that where an extended sentence is imposed, it cannot be suspended under any circumstances, including when it is imposed alongside a standard determinate sentence.
I turn to terrorism sentences. Where a life sentence is not imposed, unless there are exceptional circumstances, a serious terrorism sentence is required if a court is of the opinion that there is a significant risk of harm to members of the public and the offence was likely to cause multiple deaths. The minimum sentence of imprisonment will then be 14 years and therefore a suspended sentence order would not be available. The noble Lords have also proposed to exempt offences with mandatory minimum sentences and those eligible for referral under the unduly lenient scheme. If the offence being sentenced has a mandatory minimum sentence and is capable of being suspended, judges still retain the discretion to impose an immediate custodial sentence when there is the appropriate outcome.
To be clear, we are not abolishing short sentences. Offences falling under the unduly lenient sentence scheme are rightly treated very seriously. I reassure noble Lords that Clause 2 does not interfere with existing mechanisms that allow for the review of sentences in these cases. We believe that these safeguards protect the public while preserving judicial discretion. Sentencing in individual cases is rightly a matter for the courts, considering the full circumstances of the case.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, which would prevent the court from suspending a sentence where an offender has not complied with previous court orders and to exempt offenders convicted of multiple previous offences from being suspended. I can reassure noble Lords that the sentencing guidelines are clear. Where an offender has not complied with previous court orders and the court thinks that they are unlikely to comply in the future, that may be a reason not to suspend the sentence.
Additionally, when an offender is in custody—for example, when they have breached their licence conditions by committing a further offence and have been recalled into custody as a result—the court will not suspend the sentence. Sentences are generally served concurrently when the offences arise out of the same incident, or where there is a series of offences of the same or a similar kind, especially when committed against the same person. The key point is that the court should ensure that the overall sentence imposed on the offender is just and proportionate. Noble Lords will know that this Government take prolific offending extremely seriously, and previous offending is already a statutory aggravating factor.
I must also be clear that a suspended sentence is not a soft option. The courts can impose a range of requirements on an offender, ranging from curfews to exclusion zones. This Bill includes tough new restriction zones, which will restrict offenders to a specific geographic area. These will be electronically monitored in most cases and are intended to serve as not just a punishment but an important tool to protect and reassure victims.
Reoffending is unacceptably high for victims and the public, and we must drive it down. That is why we are ramping up intensive supervision courts, targeting the prolific offenders whose criminal behaviour is often driven by addiction or other needs. The international evidence is clear: these courts cut crime, with a 33% decrease in the rate of arrest compared to offenders who receive standard sentences. That is just one way in which this Government are putting the necessary structures in place to build a sustainable justice system going forward.
Suspended sentence orders in appropriate cases give offenders a chance to stay in work, keep stable housing and access support in the community. All of this goes towards reducing repeat offending and supporting rehabilitation, and it is right that that remains the case. By targeting the causes of offending in the community, we can lower reoffending rates and in turn reduce the number of victims. I hope noble Lords are now assured of the Government’s position on this, and I therefore ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
I thank the Minister and other noble Lords for their contributions. These amendments are designed to ensure that dangerous or repeat offenders cannot avoid custody due to a general presumption of suspension.
I hear what the Minister said about the discretion of the independent judiciary, but it seems to me that he is attempting to go in two different directions at the same time—we have only just looked at Clause 1, where he is imposing upon the discretion of the independent judiciary a presumption that has to apply. There is no discretion there; they must abide by the presumption. So, in a sense, we go from one extreme to the other with regard to the justification for these provisions in the Bill, and it is very difficult to understand any underlying logic or principle that is being applied here. I do hope that the Government will give further consideration to Clause 2 and the proposed amendments to it, but, for present purposes, I will withdraw this amendment.
Lord Sandhurst
“Mandatory engagement with rehabilitation and support services for suspended sentence offenders(1) Where a court makes a suspended sentence order, it must include, as a condition of that order, a requirement that the offender engage in at least one of the following activities as directed by the responsible officer—(a) NHS mental health or substance misuse services;(b) education, training or employment support, including apprenticeships or vocational courses;(c) an approved behavioural change or accredited offending behaviour programme.(2) The responsible officer must monitor the offender’s compliance with a requirement imposed under subsection (1).(3) A failure to comply with a requirement under subsection (1) is to be treated as a failure to comply with the suspended sentence order.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause requires a suspended sentence order to include a condition obliging the offender to engage with at least one specified rehabilitation or support activity. The responsible officer must monitor compliance, and non-compliance is treated as a breach of the order.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s Opposition have made no secret of our profound reservations about the sweeping presumption in favour of suspended sentences. We fear that it risks sending entirely the wrong signal about the seriousness of offending and will undermine public confidence and place additional strain on already overstretched probation services. Yet, if the Government are to insist on pressing ahead with this presumption, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that public protection, good order and the prospects for genuine rehabilitation are at least properly safeguarded. That is the purpose of the amendment.
Amendment 35 would require that, where a court imposed a suspended sentence order, at least one meaningful rehabilitative or support-based requirement should be attached, whether that be engagement with NHS mental health services, substance misuse treatment, accredited offending behaviour programmes or structured education, training or employment support. The intention is clear: a suspended sentence must be more than a paper exercise; it must be a tool to reduce reoffending.
The Committee will have noticed that the list of activities is rather broad. The intention here is to permit the court to use its discretion as to which activity the offender is required to undertake. The activity or service would depend upon the particulars of the case before the court and the offender’s personal circumstances. If the offender had a history of alcoholism and their offending was related to that behaviour, the judge could require attendance at a substance misuse service. In other circumstances, the court could require an offender to undertake an apprenticeship for the purposes of rehabilitating them and helping them to become a contributing member of society.
If we are now to envisage a significant expansion in the use of suspended sentences, it is only right that Parliament builds in minimum expectations. Rehabilitation does not happen just because you want it, or by osmosis. If an offender has underlying mental health needs or substance addiction, or lacks stable employment, simply to suspend a sentence without addressing those elements that are the real drivers of crime is neither just nor sensible. It helps no one, least of all other members of the public.
Importantly, the amendment would not interfere with the sentencing powers of the independent judiciary. Rather, it would simply ensure that the court had power to enforce rehabilitative activity, for otherwise any failure to comply with this order would be considered a breach of the suspended sentence order.
I know the Minister has a long history of involvement in rehabilitation of prisoners, and I praise him for that. Hopefully, he will see that this amendment would complement that work. I beg to move.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I entirely agree with the sense behind the amendment, but I notice that it would be a mandatory requirement—the judge must do it. My own preference, as is so often the case, is to leave it to the discretion of the judiciary. As I understand the position, they already have the power to do what is suggested and I would leave it to them—there may be exceptional cases where it is inappropriate to do so.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I said earlier that there would be few occasions when I was likely to agree with the noble and learned Lord—I am sorry, I have forgotten his name—Lord Keen. In fairness, I should have added at the same time the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, because he has just moved an amendment that, in view of what I have said, he might have expected me to disagree with, but actually I very much agree with the broad thrust of what it proposes, although I accept the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord— I am trying to remember his name too; I apologise, my mind is going tonight—Hailsham.
I referred earlier to a report from the Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee when it was chaired by my noble friend Lady Hamwee—whose name I have been able to remember. That report was called Cutting Crime: Better Community Sentences. I referred to the fact that statistics show that current community sentences reduce the level of reoffending in comparison to those on short-term prison sentences, though I accept the caution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, when it comes to how we interpret those statistics. Still, we know that they are already better.
Baroness Porter of Fulwood (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 35, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. As I said at Second Reading, good intentions go only so far. The Bill transfers a large part of the responsibility for rehabilitation into the community, a change that, as has been pointed out by many, the evidence supports. Not only does it have benefits for those who would previously have served a short custodial sentence but, in theory, by reducing the number of those in prison over time, it should provide the capacity that is needed to ensure that those in the prison estate are better able to access the education and support services they need to give them a second chance on release.
The challenge, though, is that this Bill places more people out in the community but does not go far enough in answering the question of what support they will be receiving to help address some of the underlying factors driving their offending. Unless this happens, it could make a difficult situation worse. This amendment specifically deals with those on a suspended sentence, obliging them to undertake at least one form of support, such as an apprenticeship.
The proportion of people with a rehabilitation activity requirement attached to their suspended sentence is relatively high at the moment. The challenge is that adequate resourcing for them is often not available and access can be patchy. A Ministry of Justice assessment from earlier this year found that the rehabilitation activity requirement
“tended to be seen by probation staff as the ‘right idea in theory’ but more resource is needed to deliver it appropriately”.
When asked about the biggest barriers that affect how the rehabilitation activity requirement is delivered, responses tended to centre on limited funding and resource. All practitioner participants reported that resource constraints—for example, staffing shortages and time pressures—and practical constraints, such as a lack of meeting rooms, were barriers to the effective delivery of rehabilitation activity requirements.
This matters because, as the Magistrates’ Association pointed out in its submission to the Sentencing review:
“The impact of delays on offender outcomes is clear. One magistrate told us that an offender was given a Mental Health Treatment Requirement … as part of a suspended sentence, yet their first appointment didn’t occur until nearly six months after it was imposed. The offender was not able to access treatment in time and subsequently reoffended. This may not have happened had he been given support earlier”.
If this is happening at the moment, my worry is what will happen when the system is placed under much greater strain through many more people being managed in the community. Although the Government have committed to some additional funding for probation, they have published no detailed breakdown of how this funding will be deployed. They have also not addressed the central role that the many community and voluntary organisations in this sector play as a critical part of the delivery model for this type of activity.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
If I may, I would like to help the noble Baroness with the very powerful argument that she is making, with a set of statistics that I hope noble Lords will find worrying. If we look at the 91,000 people on average who are currently engaged in probation, community sentences and so on, we find that, in 2023, only 1,302 of them even started treatment—that is 1.8%. The shortage of support services is deeply worrying.
Baroness Porter of Fulwood (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. To build on that, more needs to be done for the community and voluntary organisations that, sitting alongside this Bill, will help build the capacity to deliver, so that the rates he outlined will be increased. Policy examples include multi-year, unrestricted grant funding and regional commissioning.
I return to the amendment. By being more explicit in the Bill about the central role that rehabilitative activity plays, my hope is that the Government would be forced to resource this area sufficiently and signal that they view these services and programmes as essential, rather than discretionary.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the names of my noble friends on the Front Bench. Some 14 years ago, I travelled to San Miguel prison in Santiago, Chile, which was one of the worst prisons in South America. I had the dubious distinction of travelling often with the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, who is a noted prison campaigner. When I travelled with her, she invariably asked me to accompany her to a prison. She would regale me with the greatest hits of the worst prisons in the world. Her choice was Kingston prison, in Jamaica. At San Miguel, in Santiago, we saw the results of a system that was overly concentrating on punitive actions and did nothing on education, training and rehabilitation. In fact, a few weeks before, 81 prisoners had died in a fire following a riot in that prison. Over the course of a few years, I visited the toughest prisons in Honduras and El Salvador. I can tell the Committee that they were not Pontins holiday camp in any respect.
The serious point, our earlier debates notwithstanding, is that if we accept the importance of suspended sentences and the fact that, according to Ministry of Justice figures, incarcerating a person in the prison estate costs £53,801 a year, then the state has an obligation to provide those individuals in the criminal justice system with endemic, underlying problems—drink and drug misuse, poor family background and poor education, skills and training—with an alternative way out of recidivism.
I have a great deal of respect for the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, particularly the work he has done on problem betting and gambling. I look forward to our debates on that issue in this Bill. He has been rather shy in neglecting to mention the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 that arose from the coalition Government. The Minister and others will know that, prior to the Act—which was groundbreaking legislation —prisoners were turfed out of prison on Friday evening with £46 and within a few hours were in the company of ne’er-do-wells, drug-dealers and others who were leading them back to a life of crime. That was the beginning of rehabilitation being taken seriously for offenders who were not at the top end of seriousness in their offences: there was drug testing and a need to attend appointments; specific, targeted help for young people; the beginning of rehabilitation activity requirement as a policy; and bespoke treatment for female offenders, which is something I know the Minister cares deeply about.
I welcome this amendment and the imperative of the wording. While it is important to respect the discretion of the judiciary, to put in the Bill a requirement that we use that time in as efficacious a way as possible, to ensure that those who have the most acute problems and who will cause the most acute problems, as my noble friend Lady Porter put it—
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
It is not so much that I dissent from what my noble friend is saying, but a mandatory requirement on the judge implies the capacity to fulfil that requirement. I can imagine circumstances in which the Probation Service would not be able to fulfil a particular requirement. In that event, the trial judge might feel that he or she could not impose a suspended sentence because they could not impose the required obligation to fulfil the condition.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My noble friend makes a fair point. However, it could be put the other way, like the chicken and the egg. Putting this as an imperative in the Bill would oblige the Probation Service and other organisations, such as the NHS and community trusts, to raise their game to provide those services.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
That may be so, but that takes you back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, was making: the fact that there is not capacity in many of the required services.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I understand the point that my noble friend is making—
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
Perhaps I can help the noble Lord a little in his answer to his noble friend. I am sure he has seen that later on the agenda there are a number of amendments in my name and those of others in the Committee proposing that the Bill not be allowed to go ahead until we have evidence of sufficient numbers of prison officers and in the Probation Service. That might be the way out of his dilemma.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I do not often get in-flight refuelling from the Liberal Democrat Benches, but I am grateful that it has happened on this occasion. If I had my way, I would encourage the Government to develop education and training plans, in primary legislation, for each individual prisoner in the prison estate.
As the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, has said, this is a wide area for debate. This amendment begins that debate by trying to encourage the Government to put processes in place in the Probation Service and other key stakeholders to assist prisoners. If someone is in a position where they have already been given a suspended sentence, it seems very sensible, in terms of opportunity cost and saving the taxpayer significant amounts of money in the long term, to have a position where education, training, drug treatment and other areas of work are not just encouraged but mandatory. On that basis, I surely support my noble friend’s excellent amendment.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. We cannot ask for mandatory work or process unless we are sure that we have the facilities and people on the ground. If we do not, from the word go, we are setting up a scheme that is going to fail.
As noble Lords all know, in 1966 an organisation called Nacro, the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, was established. I was a member of it, and we tried our best, with the Howard League. Our success at rehabilitating criminals in our prisons was very small, and the evidence about short sentences, which we have been talking about, is another great failure.
It therefore seems that history and experience tell us that we as a nation have failed to rehabilitate the people we put behind bars. We take away their freedom in the hope that they will be rehabilitated and come out as good citizens. Some do, but there is still great failure. If that is so with people in our prisons, how much more will it be for those who have suspended sentences, for whom we make engagement with rehabilitation services mandatory? The noble Lord has not identified where these centres are going to be; nor has he found who is going to carry out these services—schooling and education. I worked as a chaplain in a young offender institution. Some of the classes were no good and did not help, but there was a lot of success in some.
Our history of incarcerating people does not work. A previous Minister talked about payment by results, but even that did not do it. I want us to do a health check on ourselves, because these are suspended sentences that we would be creating a mandatory process for, through which people might go. If a judge is going to impose the proposed orders, he will want to know who will deliver these services and how certain we are that they will be delivered, because if an offender does not turn up, that may be a way of revoking this.
This mixes up two things that should not be mixed. A suspended sentence is a suspended sentence. If people do not fulfil what that suspended sentence is about, they know that the sentence in prison will begin from the day they break the order. However, with this proposal for mandatory rehabilitation and attendance at drug centres, we are saying that the suspended sentence is not a suspended sentence because somebody is going to watch over you. If it is very clear that they are going to be tagged, things offenders cannot do would be abandoned by this rehabilitation.
I have been with Nacro for so many years. I want to say that we did our best, but we never cared much or rehabilitated many people. We talked about it, and we provided money, books and all sorts of things, and these people were in our prisons. What about those who are roaming our streets—we think this is going to work? I am a realist, and I do not think that we would like this part of the Bill, particularly the way it is crafted. I am with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord for raising the very important issue of offender rehabilitation. As noble Lords know, this is an issue that is extremely close to my heart. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for his generous words about my work rehabilitating offenders.
I clarify that Clause 2 does not create a presumption to suspend sentences; it simply gives judges the power to suspend sentences of up to three years. This amendment would require a court, when passing a suspended sentence, to oblige an offender to engage in at least one of the following: a treatment programme, education, training and employment support, or an approved behaviour change programme.
As noble Lords are aware, sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. It must take into account all the circumstances of the offence and the offender, as well as the purposes of sentencing. The courts already have a range of requirements that can be included as part of a suspended sentence to rehabilitate offenders. These include treatment requirements, which require offenders to take part in accredited programmes, as well as unpaid work, which can include education, training and employment. As noble Lords identify, interventions such as these can be incredibly valuable in supporting rehabilitation, and it is right that they are available and used in those cases where they are needed.
The noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Porter, all raise the important issue of probation and the future of probation. Whether it is pre-sentence reports, rehabilitative activity requirements or all the various support options that probation has, they need to be funded; we need strong leadership, we need to train and retain our staff and we need to have the technology available to support them to do their jobs. We have pledged a 45% increase in funding for probation—that is £700 million. In the coming weeks, I would be delighted to do a presentation for noble Lords on my plan for probation and how funding for that links to that plan being landed successfully.
I am also very keen to hear more from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, about the Santiago prison system, which I have never heard of before. I have been to a number of prisons abroad, but that is one I have never been to. If we ever have time to hear the noble Lord’s wider reflections on rehabilitation, that would be appreciated.
However, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, clearly explained, the decision on which requirements to include in an order is a matter for the judge sentencing the case. This is to ensure that the most appropriate requirements are included in a sentence and that the Probation Service is not overburdened with requirements that may not be necessary in the circumstances of the individual offender.
Additionally, evidence has shown that, for low-risk individuals, the effects of accredited programme participation are usually found to be either negligible or, in some cases, even negative. There will be cases where an offender does not have any of the needs listed by the noble Lord and the court determines that it needs simply to impose a punishment. This amendment would fetter that discretion. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and many of them have supported the sentiment underlying this amendment. It has clearly shown our shared recognition that, if suspended sentences are to become more prevalent, as the Government intend, they must be made fit for that purpose. We on these Benches continue to oppose the presumption that custodial terms of 12 months or under should routinely be suspended. The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, helpfully has supported the thrust of this amendment, while also highlighting the issues with resources facing the Probation Service.
Our duty today is also a practical one. The Government are introducing a major shift in sentencing practice. If they are to do so, they must build into the legislation the safeguards necessary to preserve public confidence and deliver genuine rehabilitation. My noble friend Lady Porter of Fulwood, in a powerful speech, has explained the difficulties in delivering support for offenders in the community and has explained why support is necessary for offenders. So too, my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, after his excursion to Chile, made an important point: if we propose to go down this line, we must give practical help to recidivists, or they will simply come back and reoffend.
That leads me to say this: if we do not deal with this, and if offenders who have been given a suspended sentence—even if it is only suspended for 12 months—reoffend within that period, they will have to be brought back to court. This is an important point. It is not simply that they may end up in prison, but having been brought back to court, they will occupy court time. That will not help the backlog in the courts. I speak with the experience of someone who, until some 10 or 12 years ago, sat as a recorder for 20-odd years in the courts, so I have some practical experience of this.
People breach suspended sentences. That is why judges in the past have often been cautious about imposing suspended sentences, particularly on people who offend time and time again. If there are too many of them, this will be impractical. What will happen is that, in about two years’ time, we will have the courts overwhelmed with people coming back for resentencing and then having to be put into prison because, otherwise, as the courts will say, it will show that a suspended sentence is not a suspended sentence in any meaningful sense. I put that before the Government in a spirit of constructive criticism, not to try to make difficulties. That is what lies down the road if we are not very careful indeed.
If suspended sentences are to be used more widely, they cannot be hollow or simply be deferrals of punishment; they must require offenders to confront the issues that led them to offend in the first place, and they must offer the public some hope that these offenders will cease offending. I hope the Minister and those behind him, so to speak, will carefully consider this proposal, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and the amendment to page 10, line 25, is intended to ensure the court can take into account each offender’s situation as a whole and in particular not to reduce the offender’s income so that employment, training and housing cannot be accessed.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I speak to Amendment 36, and will also speak to Amendment 39.
Amendment 79 in the name of my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames is in this group. As rapid consultation during the course of this afternoon’s proceedings has revealed that none of us is entirely clear what we wanted to say, I hope that it is not too late to de-group it. There will be the opportunity to come to it on one of the days next week. I am sorry if that causes a problem to any colleagues. Otherwise, I will just let the Minister reply as if it had been introduced.
Amendment 36 and 39 deal with income reduction orders. They are complex and not very practical, I would suggest. These orders were not, I understand, recommended in the independent sentencing review. They are not easy to achieve; they can impose additional and unpractical burdens on the court system, which as we know is overstretched, and on HMRC and benefits administration. A lot of fines are imposed by the court; they are the most common criminal sanction, but payment is persistently low. In 2023, 49% of fines remained unpaid after 12 months, despite the requirement that they are set at an amount which can be paid within a year. If that rather simpler system cannot reliably recover half of what is imposed within a year, the more complex income reduction order is not likely to be more successful.
The IRO penalises a person for finding employment by making deductions from their earnings each month. This poses the risk of discouraging individuals from engaging in employment or, at any rate, formal employment. They may move into low-visibility work or decide they are better off not working at all. The impact of court fines is disproportionately severe for low-income households. People with court debts are very likely to live in social housing and very likely to be unemployed, strong indicators of economic precarity. The fines system, particularly additional court charges, rigid payment plans and deductions from insufficient benefits, often escalate the total owed beyond what is affordable for people on low means. I do not need to spell out the path that some people may follow.
I have some questions for the Minister. First, what is the projected collection rate for IROs, and how does it compare with the current 50% unpaid at 12 months for court fines? How will the system track fluctuating incomes, PAYE changes, zero hours and self-employment, and resolve disputes without adding to the burden on the court? What employment impact assessment has been conducted—I am going to come back to employment in a moment—given the Minister’s well-known support for hiring people with convictions to cut reoffending? How will IROs avoid pushing low-income households further into poverty?
I said that I would come back to employment. Our Amendment 39 raises the dangers, as we see it, of income reduction orders hindering the good things that we want to see—offenders taking up employment and training and achieving housing. If the net income with which an offender is left is too low for these various activities, the net benefit would be a disbenefit as we see it. I beg to move Amendment 36.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
I did not quite follow what the noble Baroness proposed about degrouping, but I draw attention to what it says in the Companion, which is that
“de-grouping is discouraged once each day’s groupings have been published”.
But I may have misunderstood.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
No, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, is quite right. I had only realised it shortly before we came to this group. “Discouraged” means no in House of Lords language, I think. So I wonder whether the Minister can regard me as having spoken to what is set out in quite a long amendment, because I am sure he will have words to answer what my noble friend would have said, had he been here.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, Clause 3 is of course a novel sentencing tool, and it is entirely correct that the Committee should probe its design with some care. Many of the amendments before us seek reassurance that the scheme will be fair and proportionate, and indeed that it will be workable in practice. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, with her amendment, draws attention to the basic question of impact. An income reduction order must not be set at a level that undermines an offender’s ability to work, train or maintain stable housing. If these orders are to be effective, they must support rehabilitation, not jeopardise the very stability on which it depends. The noble Baroness’s amendments highlight that there is a risk here that requires very clear scrutiny.
The amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst raise a series of questions about the architecture of the scheme. As drafted, the Bill establishes broad powers to reduce an offender’s income, yet it leaves almost all the crucial detail to regulations that we have not yet seen and that may in due course prove insufficiently robust.
Amendments 37 to 44 ask the Government to place in the Bill the essential elements that will govern how these orders operate in the real world. They begin by posing the most basic question of all: what do the Government mean by “monthly income”? Are we assessing gross or net income? How are fluctuating earnings to be treated? What of the self-employed or those on irregular or zero-hours contracts? It is very difficult to see how a fair and consistent system can be construed without clear statutory guidance on these points. If Parliament is to authorise a mechanism allowing the state to deduct a portion of a person’s income month after month, it is surely right that we also understand with precision how that income is to be defined, what thresholds will apply, how caps are to be set and which factors the court must take into account before imposing an order.
Amendment 44 goes to the heart of our concern that the Bill as currently drafted lacks the necessary clarity about the conditions under which an income reduction order may be imposed. Leaving this almost entirely to secondary legislation again risks undermining both transparency and fairness—surely qualities that are fundamental to the integrity of such a system.
These amendments illuminate the substantial gaps in the present drafting and ensure that Parliament does not sign off on a broad new power without understanding how it will work in practice and what safeguards will accompany it. I look to the Minister to provide the clarity that has so far been somewhat lacking. For our part, we do not oppose the principle of creating a more flexible and enforceable means-based penalty. But, before we take such a significant step, we must be satisfied that the framework is sound, that the protections are clear and that the consequences, particularly for those on the margins, have been fully thought through. I hope the Minister will address these concerns.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, one of the three guiding principles of the David Gauke Independent Sentencing Review was to expand and make greater use of punishment outside prison. We are determined to make sure that crime does not pay, which is why we introduced Clause 3, giving courts the power to impose income reduction orders on offenders who receive suspended sentence orders. From the debate we have just had and from my prior conversations, I know that noble Lords have a keen interest in how these will work in practice, and I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this at greater length today. I have been employing prisoners for over 20 years. Many are on day release and, in some cases, a proportion of their earnings goes back to victims. Income reduction orders are inspired by that principle: offenders must pay back to society for the harm they have caused.
I first turn to Amendments 37, 41, 42 and 44, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. They seek to specify what must be contained in the regulations detailing this scheme. I assure noble Lords that we are working cross-government to develop a process for delivering income reduction orders in a way that works cohesively with the rest of the powers that sentencers have at their disposal. We have intentionally kept the legislation flexible to ensure that we can deliver this measure in that way. For example, we do not agree that it would be appropriate for income reduction orders to be mandatory in certain circumstances. This would unnecessarily curtail judicial discretion to decide whether an order should be imposed based on the full facts of an individual case.
The Sentencing Council is actively considering what updates to its guidelines are needed to account for the Bill’s reforms, including these orders. My officials are working closely with the council. I reassure noble Lords that regulations will be subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure, so noble Lords will have the opportunity to debate and discuss these details prior to implementation.
I turn to Amendments 38 and 40 and am happy to explain the rationale behind the drafting of this Bill. Let me be clear: this measure is a penalty for high-income individuals. It will ensure that criminals who break the law, and who benefit from keeping their jobs and continue to earn a significant salary, pay back to society. I doubt that anyone in the Committee would disagree with that. The intention is to set an income threshold that would apply at an appropriately high level. But the Bill sets a baseline that the threshold for an income reduction order can never be below. The aim is to ensure that those with incomes in line with the minimum wage cannot ever receive this penalty. The minimum wage is set at an hourly rate, and 170 times that is a reasonable approximation of the hours likely to be worked over a month.
Noble Lords have also questioned why there is an upper limit. A core tenet of our criminal justice system is fairness and proportionality. So, setting a maximum percentage of an offender’s excess monthly income that can be collected protects individuals from receiving an excessively harsh penalty. We need to ensure that the punishment fits the crime. If the court determines that a higher penalty is appropriate and the offence is serious enough to carry an unlimited fine, the court will still be able to impose that, either instead of or as well as an income reduction order.
But income reduction orders must not be a disincentive to employment or amplify existing hardship. As someone who has championed the employment of ex-offenders for years, this is the last thing I would want to happen. Therefore, they will be applicable only to offenders who earn or are deemed likely to earn a significant income. We will set the minimum income threshold through secondary legislation at an appropriate level. This will ensure that low-income households are not in the scope of this measure.
As with any other financial penalty, judges will consider an offender’s means and circumstances when choosing whether to apply an income reduction order at sentencing. This can include, but is not restricted to, income, housing costs and child maintenance. Additionally, the provisions in the Bill allow the Secretary of State to set out in regulations the deductions that must be made when calculating an offender’s monthly income for the purposes of assessing whether an income reduction order can be applied.
Amendment 79, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, proposes to create a power for a sentencing court to require an offender to make periodic payments or other contributions towards the maintenance and welfare of their dependants. I must inform the noble Lord that there are existing mechanisms to deal with payments to dependants. For example, the family courts are able to make spousal maintenance payments on divorce.
This proposed new clause would require the court to inquire whether an offender has responsibility for children or other dependants. Although this is well intentioned, it risks creating practical difficulties. Inquiring whether a person holds parental responsibility, has dependent children or other dependants—and subsequently inquiring about the circumstances and reasonable needs of those dependants—may require interpretation of family court orders, birth records or informal care-giving arrangements for the purposes of verification. Imposing such a duty risks delaying sentencing.
This Government have committed to identifying and providing support for children affected by parental imprisonment. As such, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Education are working to determine the best way to do this to ensure that children get the support they need. This builds on a range of services offered by His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service to help families and significant others, where appropriate, to build positive relationships with people in the criminal justice system. This includes social visits, letter writing, video calls, family days and prison voicemail. I hope this addresses the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Beith. I ask the noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I got my calculator out because I was reminding myself, so far as I could, what the amount might be, in cash terms, that an offender could be left with. I am not sure that I believe what I am finding, multiplying the national minimum wage by 170 and so on. I realise that we are talking about the future, but is the Minister able to share now what the cash amount would be?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My intention is that this concerns people who are earning significant amounts of money and might otherwise have a custodial sentence. Let me give the example of long-distance lorry drivers. They regularly earn over £70,000 a year. These are the people who I believe this income reduction order is appropriate for, not people who do not have means beyond that which they need just to look after their children and so on. It is very much, as I reiterated in my comments, for high-income earners. That level is the minimum wage level, and that is where we see the minimum. We obviously need to have further conversations internally on this, but my intention is that this covers people who earn significantly more than that.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
That is helpful, because what is a high income to one person is not necessarily a high income in the eyes of another. I am grateful to the Minister for his response to the amendments and for dealing with them in that way. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 36.
G20 and Ukraine
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating this important Statement—although, for those who have not read it, it ends with claims that the Government are driving growth, creating jobs, cutting the cost of living and
“strengthening the economic security of the British people”.
Having heard the Chancellor’s assault today on pensions, savings and the homes of families who work hard, and multibillion pound handouts to those who do not work, one has to ask whether the Prime Minister missed something in the 10 weeks he has spent outside Britain since he took office. Promises not to tax working people were broken today, with another punishing £8.3 billion stealth tax, through fiscal drag, on people who work hard and earn more—but I guess we should be thankful for small mercies and we can all take in a cheap bingo game on the way home.
There are grim months ahead for the British economy—we will have other opportunities to debate this—and I do not share the Prime Minister’s sentiments in the Statement, but we must all agree that even that is put into perspective by the sufferings of the heroic Ukrainian people since Russia’s brutal invasion of their country. Even as peace is being discussed, barbaric bombardments of the capital and of civilian areas in other Ukrainian cities continue. We on this side are proud that what the Kremlin thought would be a six-day war was initially blocked by the technical, logistic, arms and training support offered by the British Government, first under the determined leadership of Boris Johnson and then by all Governments in all the years since.
We on this side are also proud of the unity displayed in our House—with a few, sometimes remote, exceptions—since those first days when the Leader of the House, then sitting on this side, reached out with the unequivocal support of the great patriotic Labour Party for our stand with Ukraine. I like to think that we have reciprocated that in opposition, and we reciprocate it fully and sincerely today. We are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine across this House and I assure the noble Baroness that our support remains unwavering.
Not only has Ukraine been battling the most flagrant breach of territorial integrity and sovereignty in Europe in recent times but its soldiers on the front line are protecting principles that underpin our whole way of life—democracy, liberty and the rule of law. We thank the Prime Minister for his resolute efforts to support Ukraine and, with the coalition of the willing, to seek and secure a just peace, which can only be one involving and acceptable to Ukraine. We strongly agree with the Prime Minister, in his Statement after the meeting of the coalition of the willing, that Ukraine must have the resources, forces and security guarantees to sustain its independence up to and far beyond any ceasefire or peace that may now be secured, and, indeed, for ever. That proud sovereign nation must never be erased from the map of Europe, so can the noble Baroness tell the House what progress was made at yesterday’s meeting of the coalition on the European security guarantees which the Ukraine and the US are seeking? Can she say what precisely the Government’s vision is of the multinational force about which the Prime Minister spoke last night? To what extent do we envisage the involvement of UK forces in that?
We must never forget that this war was started by Vladimir Putin, now propped up by an axis of authoritarian states in trying to extinguish a democracy on our own continent. I have to say, frankly, that if Mr Putin’s best chum is the crackpot North Korean dictator, what more do we need to know about him? We have no illusions about the declared and published ambitions of a revanchist Russian regime to throw Stalinist influence and Leninist borders once again over much of eastern Europe and the Caucasus. Lasting peace in the face of that can be secured and sustained only through strength, in which I am sure the noble Baroness agrees the defensive role of a revivified NATO will be essential. It was not clear from the Budget speech today how that will be achieved in the year ahead, but it is vital that we and our allies stand together to defend shared values and the fundamental principle that aggressors should not win. This is not the time for the EU to demand an entrance fee from the UK for participating in Europe’s common defence.
This is a fast-moving situation, so can the noble Baroness bring us up to date on events since the Statement in the other place yesterday, including the coalition of the willing to which I have alluded. Does she share the publicly expressed opinion of Secretary of State Rubio about progress in developing the US plan? Can she confirm that the Prime Minister was correctly reported as saying that Ukraine believes that a large part of the Trump plan can be accepted? Does she have any intelligence on the latest position of the Ukrainian Government? President Zelensky has spoken of “a solid foundation” laid in the Geneva talks. Can she confirm that the coalition of the willing has endorsed the US plan as the basis of progress, albeit with the refinements which all parties say are being discussed? Can she shed any light on the main remaining areas of concern on the part of the UK Government? We hear that US envoy Witkoff is going to Moscow again in the next few days. Is she able to say anything about our latest understanding of the Russian position?
We pray for progress in these initiatives. We are, frankly, sceptical; we have our eyes open. We may not succeed if Ukraine cannot justly accept the full price asked, or if Russia truly and truthfully does not will a peace. However, President Trump was surely right in a humanitarian aspiration to end this bloody conflict, one in which a group of old men in the Kremlin, besotted by Wilfred Owen’s “Ram of Pride”, are slaying their own sons and half the seed of Ukraine and Russia, one by one. It must somehow be brought to an end, and in all that our Prime Minister may do to assist in securing a fair, just end to this terrible war in partnership with Ukraine, I assure the noble Baroness that he will carry our full support.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I too welcome the Statement. On Ukraine, the Leader knows of our continuing support of the Government’s efforts. I know that our Ukrainian colleagues value greatly the cross-party support in both Houses—other than some weakness from one party, so perfectly displayed in the courts in recent days. However, all three main parties here are working together. This does not prevent my Benches from pressing the Government to go further, deeper and faster in some areas—indeed, there is a duty to do so. We have been a constructive opposition since the beginning of the conflict.
It is why we press for wider sanctions, more harmful measures against the Russian war economy and a real focus on ensuring that loopholes are closed and sanctions are not circumvented. It is why we make the case as strong as we can that Russian assets, frozen for some time, need to be fully utilised after seizure, for Ukraine to use to defend itself. I cannot imagine a circumstance in which we believe that these assets should be returned to Putin’s regime, so we need to release them now for Ukraine. We have been told, on a number of occasions, that we can act only as part of either the G7 or wider forums, and yet another one has passed without clarity, so I hope the Leader can update us on when we will be able to see concrete action.
Regarding the current developments with the US, it is becoming what I might call yo-yo diplomacy; it is quite hard to grasp the White House’s intent at any given time. Russia’s response to the fairly positive and sensible moves by the Secretary of State in Geneva, as well as the UK and the coalition of the willing partners—that the Trump plan has been undermined by Kyiv and the Europeans—is directed exclusively at Trump himself. We support the Prime Minister in his efforts. We should not need to say this, but we have to: the future of Ukraine is for Ukraine to decide. Anything else is appeasement.
Ursula von der Leyen was right to say that a settlement cannot be imposed on Ukrainians and there cannot be a unilateral carving up of a sovereign European nation. The concern is that it would be a bilateral carve-up, with the White House as the other party. Our Government are doing their best with the coalition of the willing to ensure that this is not the case in our support for Ukraine, and we back up the Government 100%.
The two lines on Sudan in the Statement are welcome but insufficient. The world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe warranted only one mention in one sentence in the G20 communiqué. That is unacceptable. The world’s worst humanitarian crisis is actively facilitated by G20 members and the UK as the UN penholder. Last week in the House, I raised the need for urgent action to prevent what might be horrors on top of those we have witnessed in El Fasher; they could be in El Obeid and Tawila. I hope that the Leader can update the House on what concrete actions we, as the UN penholder, are taking. We need to spend every hour securing a country-wide arms embargo, designated safe spaces for children and mothers, no-drone zones and concrete action against the RSF, which cynically says it supports peace, and the SAF and NCP, which have ridiculed it.
Last week I called for the Prime Minister’s direct involvement with Heads of State. I hope that there was more that the Prime Minister did at the G20 than what the communiqué and his Statement indicate. If the Leader can update me, I will be very grateful.
Finally, the Prime Minister proudly reported that the UK will host the first presidency of the G20 in the coming year, for the first time since 2009. This is most welcome. However, I hope that, when it comes, we will be able to scale up our development partnership opportunity. I have reread the UK’s 2009 G20 communiqué and I was heartened that we had inserted, in paragraph 26, that we reaffirmed the objective of meeting our ODA pledges. The Budget today confirms what many of us feared: that the Government will miss the ODA target for every year of their Administration. Indeed, we now have the lowest level of ODA in 50 years, since ODA statistics were calculated. The 15% reduction in the Global Fund budget from the UK is an illustration of the fear that, on the development partnership, on seeking global economic opportunity for those who are most vulnerable and at threat, the UK Government are making us smaller on the international stage.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their strong support for Ukraine. The noble Lord, Lord True, thanked me for repeating the Statement but I did not repeat it because I was sure that noble Lords had read it.
Comments from both noble Lords indicate the importance of unity in this House and across Parliament and parties, and the strong message that sends that we are united in our support for Ukraine. Lots of comments have been made about us reasserting our support for the sovereignty of Ukraine, which are comments we have all made time and again, and will continue to do so. If anything, as time moves on, our resolve is even stronger because of the suffering of the Ukrainian people. The sovereignty of Ukraine is a matter for Ukraine, and that cannot be repeated often enough.
However, it is not just about our support for Ukraine. We send a very strong message that Ukraine’s fight is our fight. It is hard to talk about winning or losing a war in which so many on both sides have died and suffered, but if Russia was to succeed, our security, and that of other countries across Europe, is compromised. Our fight is also the fight of the Ukrainian people, and we work together.
The Prime Minister met the coalition of the willing in London, and they met virtually yesterday; 36 countries are now signed up to the coalition of the willing and that is a very strong message to Russia and Ukraine about the strength of feeling for the just and lasting peace that is required. The noble Lord, Lord True, also made the point that it is no good trying to find a temporary sticking plaster or solution and to have to come back to this point two, three or even 10 years’ later. It has to be something that can last.
Noble Lords asked about the progress of the coalition of the willing in terms of military action. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, a lot of this is around the capability, co-ordination and command structure across the coalition. That is important; it is not just saying, “We have capability—it is there to help you”. It is working out how that works in practice, and that is what the coalition is about. The noble Lord asked about funding; I thought for one moment he was going to divert into a party-political rant about the Budget. I think today’s point is more sombre and serious; we can have that when we have our debate on the Budget. He knows, as we have said time and again, that the strategic defence review is very important to us and we look to that as we move forward with funding.
Both noble Lords asked for updates on the plan. If I understood correctly—I apologise if I am wrong—the noble Lord, Lord True, said that we should rule out the plan completely. It is for the Ukrainians to comment on what is there. There are clearly parts of the 28-point plan that were totally unacceptable and could not be accepted by Ukraine. If it says they cannot be accepted, we support it. It is right that it makes that decision. However, there are other points within the plan that it thinks it can work with and discuss further with the Americans. It is very fast-moving.
I think that during the Statement yesterday, one MP said, “Oh, there’s a deal been done. Can we try to confirm that?” No, the deal has not been done. There are ongoing discussions, and it is important that we give the Ukrainians every support we can in having those discussions on what they need. But we would never move away from supporting them, or from them deciding on their sovereignty. That is one of the most important things.
I cannot give a running commentary on where this has got to: it would be wrong to do so. We all know what diplomacy is like, and there will be lots of discussions ongoing over several days, perhaps longer. But we have to put our support, our faith and our trust in the Ukrainians, because of the suffering they have endured. The Russian community has suffered as well, yet President Putin is clearly responsible. The liability lies with President Putin. It is important we recognise that, and say to both Russia and Ukraine that that is where the responsibility and the liability lies.
I will try to answer the points that were made. Questions were asked about the sanctions. This is constantly monitored, looking at the impact of sanctions and the frozen Russian assets. Where we are coming from is that, while this war continues, sanctions continue, and we will continue to freeze assets. We are working closely with the EU Commission and our G7 counterparts to make progress.
The noble Lord, Lord True, has asked me about this before, and I cannot give him any more updates. Those discussions are making progress. I would hope to be able to come to the House at some point and say where we have got to on that. I think that we are making progress on how assets can be used, but he will understand that the impact of that will come if we work together to get to that point. That is part of the discussions that are constantly under review to make sure we can move forward.
As for Sudan, I understand that it was extensively discussed, although that probably is not reflected in the Statement at all. The suffering there is probably the worst humanitarian disaster that the world is seeing. It is hard to imagine, in so much of this, the suffering that people of Sudan are going through, and the lack of hope people must have. We fully support the work of the Quad in trying to make progress to reach some kind of agreement to end the suffering there, and the famine that ensues as well. That was extensively discussed, and was, I think, very much in the forefront of minds there.
The noble Lord also asked about international aid and assistance—ODA. May I say to him that in 2009 we had had 12 years of a Labour Government? The economy was in a better place, and the world was in a different place as well, so it does not surprise me that we were in a much better place on this issue in 2009. Our commitment to return to where we want to be, to return to how things were, remains. Our commitment has not ended, but that is not going to happen as quickly as I know he would like, or as quickly as others would like as well.
The noble Lord also asked for more information about the coalition of the willing. I would say that this is one of the most significant moves by the Government —to bring countries together, jointly leading that coalition of the willing to support Ukraine. The Defence Secretary is also bringing together 50 nations under the Ukraine Defense Contact Group. We are looking at the full range of European military capabilities. President Zelensky, who talks regularly with the Prime Minister, can be in no doubt that he has not just our sympathy and support but our total backing, and that that is not going to fail him.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, the Prime Minister is to be congratulated on the key part he has played in the coalition of the willing. I think his efforts have helped to kill the idea of appeasement, which was in the air a week or two ago. The stench of 1938 has been eradicated, and that is a good thing—but I wonder whether I could ask my noble friend a question. Could she say a bit more about what is being done to help in the reconstruction of Ukraine? It will cost a lot of money, but I think it is important that we get our policies in place, so that a quick reconstruction of that country can be brought into being.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his comments about the Prime Minister’s commitment. I think that, if you ever hear him speak, or see him and President Zelensky together, you know there is a bond there, and also that he feels this emotionally as well as practically in how we support Ukraine.
On the issue of reconstruction and moving forward in Ukraine, the first prerequisite is that we have a fair and lasting peace. While the Ukrainians are still facing drones and bombs, it really is not possible to make much progress on that. However, in terms of plans, one of the areas is the use of frozen Russian assets, which should be used to rebuild Kyiv and the rest of Ukraine after this war ends. But in the day-to-day lives of people at the moment, we can just imagine all the pressures, going through all the things we go through in our everyday lives, in a country facing bombs and other attacks. If we look at photographs and see films of the consequences of those attacks, we see how much harder life is for people there. So, yes, plans are being made, but they have to be against the backdrop of that peace, because otherwise the work will be lost and more will be destroyed.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for answering questions on the Statement. I fully agree with everything that has been said, especially by my noble friend Lord Purvis. Although I am in an opposition party, I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that the Prime Minister has been doing a splendid job on the external front, particularly in co-leading the coalition of the willing. I will not say anything about his domestic travails, as I do not want to spoil the harmony. He has been extremely stalwart. I heard what the Minister said, and I think it does come through that he feels this emotionally, not just intellectually. He is quite right.
It has been heartening, in my role as a member of the European Affairs Committee, meeting counterparts from European Parliaments in the last few months. I recall meeting Finnish colleagues and people from the French Senate, yesterday, and today, some of the delegation from the Lithuanian Parliament. That we are able to say, to note and to express the cross-party solidity of views and support for Ukraine is obviously welcome to them, and it is gratifying to be able to express that.
May I press the Minister about the use of the frozen Russian assets? I realise that discussions are ongoing, but could she give us any hint of where the current sticking point is? It is reported in the press that Belgium apparently wants guarantees. I may be out of date, but I think Belgium wants guarantees about its position, because most of these assets are located—in so far as anything is located anywhere these days—in Belgium. But is it that? Is it legal? Is it political? Can she give us any kind of time horizon? People are very impatient, and want to see these assets used for the benefit of Ukraine.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. She talks about domestic travails, but this is nothing compared with what the people of Ukraine are facing at the moment, and I would not want to trivialise that in any way. As she said, it is important that, across all Parliaments in different countries, it is not just the politicians and the representatives; it goes down to the people of this country. Some friends of mine feel that their lives have been enriched by being hosts to a Ukrainian family, who left Ukraine and want to return when they can. Because the politicians have been united, we have been able to lead our country on that as well.
The noble Baroness asked for further information on where the sticking point is. I cannot go into those discussions, and I think that she will understand why. Let me just say that we will ensure that everything we do on this—we want to make progress as quickly as we can—will be in line with international law and be financially and legally responsible. She will know— I am sure she has been involved in similar discussions before—that it is the case that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. That is why it is important to keep on pressing the point in order to get some progress as quickly as possible. She is absolutely right: we can focus on using the interest on those assets, but we have to look further than that for the long-term future of Ukraine.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, one of the principles that we apply in many debates is that we should not talk about people without them being present. Can the Minister confirm that we will continue to resist the carve-up of an independent country by two major powers? That means that we have to put pressure on the United States to see this not just as an object of interest but as something that has to involve the Ukrainians at every step.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I would hope that I have already been completely clear on that point. These are matters for Ukraine; it is not for other countries to seek to divide, or make decisions on behalf of, a sovereign country. Ukraine is a sovereign country and it has our support and backing in making its own decisions and having its own negotiations.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for responding to the Statement. I will press a her little on how the arrangements for the coalition of the willing will work. The noble Baroness mentioned the three Cs —capability, co-ordination and command structure—but can she say more about how the UK will be involved in determining how its support, potential peacekeeping forces and other resources may be used?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
There is not much more I can say because these discussions are continually ongoing. The Prime Minister, when he answered questions on the Statement in the House of Commons yesterday, made clear the huge amount of ongoing military work and how that will operate in practice. These are operational matters that will have to be worked through with all the other countries, to see what part they can play. These are military plans that will be put into effect when they are needed.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the chance to discuss the Statement. This is an extremely difficult time for Ukraine—heaven knows that what they have had to live through over the past three and a half years has been difficult enough. It is also a test for the coalition of the willing. I join my noble friend Lord Dubs in paying tribute to the work that the Prime Minister has done in this regard. As this potential peace process unfolds, at what stage does my noble friend the Leader of the House understand it is envisaged that Russia and President Putin would be welcomed back into the G7, which would become the G8 again? That might be a difficult part of the process.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I think my noble friend is getting a little ahead of where discussions are at the moment. While these discussions are ongoing, the most I can say is that our support for Ukraine remains absolutely ironclad—there is no dispute or ambiguity about that. The person responsible for the illegal invasion of Ukraine is Putin; the responsibility cannot be laid at any place other than his door. He can deliver peace immediately just by withdrawing from Ukraine. Until these matters are resolved, we are getting a bit ahead of ourselves.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I refer to my interest in the register as pro bono counsel for Ukraine in international legal proceedings. I too pay tribute to the Government for their work and support for Ukraine. I would like some clarity on point 9 of the European counterproposal, which states:
“NATO fighter jets will be stationed in Poland”.
We do not want Russia to read this as NATO proposing that NATO fighter jets will not be stationed in places that might be seen as more controversial to the north-east of Poland, such as the Baltic states or Finland. We must be particularly careful because in 1990 the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany contained a provision that said that there would not be foreign troops in what was then East Germany. Russia maintains, to date, that by that provision we had agreed not to station or deploy NATO troops east of the Oder-Neisse. Can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House assure us that NATO will continue to deploy fighter jets in the Baltic states or in Finland, if those countries so wish?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
That is a decision for NATO to take, but I see no change in the current arrangements. The noble Lord mentioned the plan. The ongoing discussions have not yet been agreed, and when they are, the plan will become clearer. No change has been made to NATO’s current position, and the discussions are ongoing.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I too join the chorus congratulating the Prime Minister on what he has done. The coalition of the willing—although the phrase has an echo of George Bush Jr—started with three nations and its membership is now up to 36. That is not a simple achievement. The Leader of the House has done something wonderful, and I thank her too for answering our questions. If I were Ukrainian, I would feel that, in 1994, we gave up our nuclear weapons in exchange for a security guarantee by the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia, but when one of them went into Crimea, the other two did nothing. It requires a lot of belief that, despite Ukrainians having been betrayed before, we are now trying to fix it. Therefore, my thoughts are those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds: are we going to stop and resist whatever happens, so that Ukraine will not be betrayed again? Having given up its weapons, we are now demanding that the country gives up bits of its land.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I fear I am in danger of repeating myself, but if it needs restating, I will do so. We have been absolutely clear that decisions on sovereignty are a matter for Ukraine. Clearly, there are points in the first iteration of President Trump’s 28-point plan that are unacceptable to Ukraine. Ukraine has asked for support with ongoing negotiations. The Prime Minister regularly talks to President Zelensky, and there is no doubt that the support of the Prime Minister and the coalition of the willing—which, as the noble and right reverend Lord said, is now made up of 36 nations—is behind Ukraine. On the one hand, there is the absolute moral principle about the sovereignty of a nation; on the other, there is the recognition that, if Russia were to get its way with Ukraine, we do not know where we would be next. It is a matter of security for the UK and for Europe. I do not know how much more I can emphasise this: it is for Ukraine to make decisions for its own sovereignty, and we will support Ukraine.
Sentencing Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beith
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to clarify that the purposes of sentencing specifically include the protection of victims of crime.
Lord Beith (LD)
On behalf of my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, I beg to move Amendment 45. The purpose of this amendment, and indeed of Amendment 45A which is grouped with it, is to get the focus right. We believe the focus on the victims of crime should be clear on the face of the Bill and regularly understood.
Much of this Bill is about enabling policy change by establishing public confidence in things that we know from evidence are likely to reduce crime and keep people safer. The problem is that that is not easy. Certainly, the media treatment of crime issues tends to undermine the ability of the public in general to have confidence that the system is working for them, that it is working to keep them safe and that it is also working to assist victims and to ensure that they get what they deserve, which is proper police pursuit of criminals, an effective courts process and appropriate methods of dealing with offenders that make it less likely that other people will suffer what they have suffered. That is a frequent comment from victims, who will say “What I care about is that something like this should not have to happen to anybody else in the way that it has happened to me”. I do not need to make a long speech on the subject; the issues that we are concerned about are well understood by Ministers. We want to make sure that people can see that this is what the Bill is about.
I very much welcome Amendment 45A—on the supplementary to the Marshalled List—tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and commanding the support of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett. Amendment 45A sets out the purposes of imprisonment, which is what I was talking about a moment ago, so that the public can understand that we want to deter and prevent reoffending. Amendment 45A refers to the incapacitation of prisoners in order to restrict their ability to commit further crimes, the deterrence of prisoners, the just punishment of prisoners and the rehabilitation of prisoners. It is not our amendment, but it is closely related to what we are talking about. It sets out very clearly some of the purposes of imprisonment and I will be very interested to hear what the Minister’s reaction to it is. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 45A in the place of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, who, regrettably, is not able to be here today. It seems that in wider society there is a greater push for harsher punishment and longer sentences, and there is a tension with what the purpose of such punishment is. This amendment is designed to provide some elucidation on that. It would define in law the purposes of imprisonment and require the courts and the Secretary of State to have regard to the purposes of imprisonment.
His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service’s strategic objective is to
“carry out sentences given by the courts, in custody and the community, and rehabilitate people in our care through education and employment”.
But there is no statutory or other provision that directly addresses the fundamental purposes of imprisonment. While the Bill sets out the statutory purposes of sentencing, these do not provide guidance to judges on whether imprisonment is appropriate, nor on what should occur once an offender is incarcerated. The need to confront this, we suggest, is quite urgent. There is tension, obviously, between punishment, rehabilitation and restoration.
In the absence of a clear understanding of the purpose of imprisonment, it seems important both for prisoners and their wider families and community, as well as victims, that the expectations of what the particular punishment sets out to do are clear, rather than just handing out a prison sentence and hoping that something good will happen. I should also add that, in my own experience of prisons and talking to people engaged in prison rehabilitation, the resources to enable such rehabilitation to happen—such as education and so on—are reducing, and this cannot be good.
At present, the public express little confidence in the courts and prisons, in part as a result of the lack of clarity around the purpose and use of imprisonment. A clear parliamentary statement on this issue would serve prisoners, who would better understand why they have been imprisoned. This is about clarity. A number of jurisdictions, such as New Zealand, have legislated guidance for courts and the community more broadly regarding this issue. On behalf of those who have signed up to this amendment, I say that this is an amendment that could be taken seriously and would help the judicial system.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches fully support the principle that victims’ rights, safety and experiences must be considered. Included already in the statutory purposes of sentencing is the protection of the public. In practice, courts make an effort to take victims’ interests into account. The explicit addition to Clause 4 raises an interesting principle, and the amendment serves, perhaps, as a useful reminder of the centrality of victims in our justice system. We look forward to hearing the Government’s response to Amendment 45.
Amendment 45A, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, would place in statute the purposes of imprisonment and require both the courts and the Secretary of State to have regard to them. The first of these principles is
“the incapacitation of prisoners in order to restrict their ability to re-offend in the community”.
I simply observe that the purposes of Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill are to the opposite effect. They raise presumptions in favour of the release of prisoners into the community, rather than their incapacitation to restrict their ability to reoffend. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to that.
I note that Amendment 45A would reinforce principles already central to sentencing and prison policy, which can only be good for public confidence. If it can lead to improvements in rehabilitation and public protection, then all to the good. Again, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reflections on the four aims proposed in Amendment 45A.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, to the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for bringing forward Amendment 45 in his place, and for the spirit in which it has been proposed. The Government share the noble Lords’ goal and dedication to ensure that victims are properly protected within our justice system. That is why Clause 4 makes it clear that the protection of the public explicitly includes victims of crime. This is a significant and, I must stress, intentional step forward. Although I wholeheartedly share the noble Lords’ intentions and commitments, I do not believe that the additional wording proposed in the amendment would add substantive value to what is already being achieved by the changes we are making in the Bill.
Clause 4 will make it clear that courts should consider the protection of victims as part of sentencing. That is very important. This amendment would simply restate what is already made explicit by Clause 4. Of course, the Government’s commitment to protecting victims is not limited to the changes we are making in Clause 4. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, asked me to comment on the centrality of victims to the justice system. I am so happy to do that that I rewrote this speaking note this morning, with the help of the officials.
The Bill contains other important measures that will protect victims. As noble Lords know, we are introducing new restriction zones, which will limit the movements of offenders instead of the movements of victims. We are also creating a new domestic abuse flag at sentencing so that domestic abusers are more consistently identified. This will help prisons and probation services manage offenders effectively and ensure that victims are better protected.
We are taking many steps outside the Bill to protect victims. We are continuing the provision of free sentencing remarks to victims of rape and sexual offences, and we are expanding the use of specialist domestic abuse courts—a very important cause, with which I have been associated for many years—with trained staff to support victims and more co-ordinated management of perpetrators.
I turn to the amendment proposed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, in the absence of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, who has made an important contribution to this debate by raising whether the purpose of imprisonment should be defined in legislation. I spent many years chairing the agency board of HMPPS, and one of my jobs was to set the strategy. We spent a long time debating precisely this point and how we should frame it, so I understand the issues the right reverend Prelates seek to address.
Although I agree wholeheartedly that our debates should be guided by principles and evidence, and not by headlines—the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said that one of the most important duties of new legislation is to win public confidence; I entirely share that sentiment— I am afraid that I respectfully disagree that a definition in statute is needed. The purposes of sentencing, including imprisonment, are already set out in statute and reflected in Sentencing Council guidelines. These principles should guide our courts every day and provide the flexibility needed to respond to changing circumstances and emerging threats. With those comments in mind, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Beith, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has made a good case for his reliance on Clause 4 in its reference to victims. The wider issues raised in Amendment 45A ought still to attract the Government’s interest as we proceed with the Bill, but on the basis of what has been said in this short debate, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“(3A) Sentencing guidelines must provide that domestic abuse is an aggravating factor.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require sentencing guidelines to treat domestic abuse as an aggravating factor in sentencing.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames has added his name to this amendment, which would ensure that sentencing guidelines
“provide that domestic abuse is an aggravating factor”.
Clause 6 puts into statute a provision that if the court is passing a sentence and
“is of the view that the offence involved domestic abuse carried out by the offender”,
then the court must state that. This clause is a very important acknowledgement of offences involving domestic abuse. My honourable friend the Member for Eastbourne played no small part in getting this on to the statute book.
Enabling the understanding of offences involving domestic abuse is important, generally and for the victim. I assume that the court being required to state that the offence involved domestic abuse will better enable the MoJ to keep data about this. I do not know whether the Minister will be able to confirm that or, at any rate, note the point that keeping data is important. We are going at little more than a snail’s pace in recognising domestic abuse; it is quite laborious achieving each step. I doubt I need to elaborate on this to noble Lords, but it is important for the victim to have not just a general recognition, but something which is official, stated by the court, of what they have gone through and what underlies it. That is of great significance to the individual.
However, simply providing for findings of domestic abuse provoked the question: and then what? Amendment 46 is intended to provide the answer by putting the matter into sentencing guidelines as an aggravating factor. I believe that the commission of an offence in the domestic context is already an aggravating factor under the sentencing guidelines, with which I struggled over the weekend. However, domestic abuse is more than context. I think the MoJ must accept that, otherwise new Section 56A would refer to domestic context, not domestic abuse. It is important; as people say, you cannot deal with what you cannot name. I beg to move.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I speak briefly to Amendment 46 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. As I read it, the amendment seeks to treat domestic abuse as an aggravating factor when determining all sentencing. Of course domestic abuse is a serious pervasive crime and it clearly has profound long-term impacts on its victims. This amendment appears to promote some degree of clarity and consistency, and, indeed, fairness in sentencing. It would ensure that the courts can take full account of both the nature and the impact of domestic abuse when deciding on an appropriate sentence. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on it.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for drawing attention to this important topic. They, along with their colleagues in the other place, have campaigned tirelessly on this issue.
I want to reassure the noble Baroness that we believe that this will improve the quality of data. The amendment we are debating today would require sentencing guidelines to provide that domestic abuse is an aggravating factor in sentencing. I fully appreciate the intent behind the amendment, and the Government wholeheartedly agree that judges should consider domestic abuse when sentencing, but I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that this is already the position and explain why the Government do not consider a further amendment necessary.
Domestic abuse is already treated as an aggravating factor through the Sentencing Council’s guidelines. Courts are required by law to follow this, unless it would not be in the interests of justice to do so. The Sentencing Council has looked carefully at this issue and has issued an overarching guideline on domestic abuse. That guideline makes it clear that the presence of domestic abuse can make an offence more serious. In addition, a wide range of offence-specific guidelines include
“an offence committed within a domestic abuse context”
as a specific aggregating factor.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for that. As I have said earlier today, I have struggled with the guidelines, which are long and dense. Without seeing the individual offences which domestic abuse aggravates—if I have the words in the right order there—it is hard to respond, although I retain a wish to see domestic abuse being an aggravating factor overall rather than just in some specified circumstances. However, I am happy to pursue this outside the Chamber so that I can understand precisely how this is currently dealt with. I am grateful to the Minister, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie
“Parents of young offenders(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the effectiveness and use by the courts of the following powers in the Sentencing Code—(a) sections 365 to 375 (parenting orders), and(b) sections 380 to 383 (costs, fines and other financial orders where offender aged under 18).(2) The assessment undertaken under subsection (1) must make recommendations on—(a) ways to increase use of the Sentencing Code powers to make parenting and financial orders, and(b) other potential sentencing changes to promote greater parental responsibility in respect of young offenders.(3) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment made under this section before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to assess the use of the courts’ existing powers to make parenting orders and financial orders to parents of young offenders.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, this amendment would require the Secretary of State to undertake a full assessment of how the courts are using their existing powers to make parenting and financial orders for young offenders. These powers are already available under the Sentencing Code but in practice are used far less than Parliament had originally intended. Indeed, the Ministry of Justice has confirmed that more than 1,000 such orders were made in 2010, yet only 27 have been made in recent years. That is a striking decline, which raises serious concerns about whether important statutory powers designed to support families and address the causes of youth offending are being neglected or overlooked.
The purpose of these orders is not to punish parents but to support them, to help restore discipline and stability in the home and, ultimately, to prevent the next crime before it happens. Through assessing their effectiveness and making recommendations to increase their use, this amendment seeks to strengthen parental responsibility and engagement in the rehabilitation of young offenders. Children are of course among the most vulnerable in our society and it is our responsibility as lawmakers, indeed as parents, and ultimately as adults, to ensure that when young people offend, there is structure, support and the necessary resources in place to prevent them reoffending. I suggest that this amendment is a measured and constructive step towards achieving that aim.
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is not in his place, but I will just mention his Amendment 87. The amendment addresses a very different but equally important aspect of youth justice: the question of transparency in cases involving the most serious offending by those under 18 years of age. The amendment would require reporting restrictions to be lifted at the point of sentencing where a young offender received a custodial sentence of four years or more. To receive a custodial sentence of over four years is telling of the crimes committed. I appreciate that anonymity has been a protective safeguard for most children within the justice system, and of course rightly so, but where an offence of such gravity that it warrants a substantial custodial sentence has been committed, there is a strong public interest in transparency and accountability. So I would welcome the Minister’s response not only to my own amendment but to that tabled by the noble Lord.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord for raising these important issues. Obviously, the Bill focuses on the adult system, but I am pleased that we have this opportunity to debate these amendments about the youth justice system, about which all of us are concerned. However, our position is that neither of these amendments are necessary.
Amendment 47 would require the Secretary of State to assess the effectiveness of certain orders available when dealing with a child under the age of 18. This includes parenting orders, and costs, fines and other financial orders. I am very happy to acknowledge the importance of these orders, as stressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen. They are very much part of the toolkit for dealing with youth offending and youth justice and have an important role in supporting greater responsibility for a child’s offending—excuse my voice; the NHS’s work in restoring my mellifluous tones is not quite complete yet. Whether they are used in a particular case is best determined by the court with access to professional advice from the youth offending team. When we were discussing this prior to this Committee tonight, we recognised the importance of youth offending officers having a view on what would be most effective in working with parents who should be doing more.
It is right that the court retains the discretion to determine whether such interventions are well placed to support the child’s rehabilitation—so we are not opposed to that—and that it has access to information on their individual circumstances. However, as the Minister said at Second Reading, we will be reviewing the position on youth sentencing separately in light of the changes that the Bill will introduce in due course, and we will be very happy to return to these important matters then. Therefore, although we do not agree that primary legislation is necessary for a dedicated assessment of these orders, I can confirm to noble Lords that we will consider this matter.
Amendment 87 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, who is not in his place, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, has set out the issue. I thank the noble and learned Lord, but let us be clear that the most serious childhood offences which result in longer custodial sentences are dealt with in the Crown Court. Here, it is at the discretion of the independent judge whether to impose restrictions to protect the identity of a child defendant. Reporting restrictions exist to protect vulnerable child victims, witnesses and defendants. They are very important. Being named in the press can obviously have a significant negative impact on the safety, prospects and opportunities of a child. That said, in all cases, judges have discretion to lift reporting restrictions once a child has been convicted, or before, where they are considered unreasonable—for example, in the well-known case of Axel Rudakubana, who was 17 when charged with the Southport murders. The Government’s view is that our existing system strikes the right balance between the fundamental importance of open justice and proportionate safeguards for children. With that in mind, I ask the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord not to press their amendments.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
Does the Minister acknowledge that there has been a very striking decline in the use of parenting and financial orders since 2010?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
We are conscious of that and we discussed it in our pre-briefing this morning, and we want to find out what that is all about. The important point to make at this stage, without jumping to conclusions, is that we want this to be part of the armoury, but we want youth offending officers to have discretion about what will really work with the parents. Anyway, you have got me on one of my favourite subjects, so I should get off it.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
I am obliged to the Minister for getting on and then getting off this topic. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie
“Child cruelty offences: notification and offender management requirements(1) A person (“relevant offender”) is subject to the notification requirements of subsections (2) and (3) for the period set out in subsection (4) if the relevant offender is convicted of an offence listed in subsection (6).(2) A relevant offender must notify to the police within the three days of the time of their conviction or their release from custody, and annually thereafter, providing —(a) the relevant offender’s date of birth,(b) their national insurance number,(c) their name on the notification date and, where using one or more other names on that date, each of those names,(d) their place of residence on the date of notification,(e) the address of any other premises in the United Kingdom at which, at the time the notification is given, they regularly reside or stay, and(f) any information that may be prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State.(3) A relevant offender must notify to the police, within the period of three days beginning with the event occurring, about—(a) their use of a name which has not been notified to the police under subsection (2), (b) a change to their place or residence, and(c) any other prescribed change of circumstances as defined in regulations made under this section.(4) The dates of discharge from notification requirements under this section are the same as those set out in Section 88B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.(5) The information required by subsections (2) and (3), once received, must be—(a) monitored regularly by the police and probation service, and(b) retained for the purposes of offender management.(6) The relevant offences are—(a) causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult, or allowing them to suffer serious harm (section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004),(b) child cruelty, neglect and violence (section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933),(c) infanticide (section 1 of the Infanticide Act 1938),(d) exposing children whereby life is endangered (section 27 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861),(e) an offence under sections 4, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 or 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1860, if the victim is under the age of 16,(f) an offence under any of the following provisions of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003—(i) female genital mutilation (section 1),(ii) assisting a girl to mutilate her own genitalia (section 2),(iii) assisting a non-UK person to mutilate overseas a girl’s genitalia (section 3), and(g) cruelty to children (section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933).”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would create notification requirements for people convicted of child cruelty, analogous to the Sex Offenders Register. Their information and personal details would be kept on record by the police for the purposes of offender management, with the aim of reducing the risk to children from future offences.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 48 seeks to establish a notification and offender management requirement clause for criminals convicted of child cruelty offences. For convicted child sex offenders, there already exist notification requirements, whereby those who have abused vulnerable and dependent children in the worst possible way must notify the police of their home address and other relevant details following their release from prison.
I know that the sex offender register is not a perfect system and that monitoring former convicts does not mean that we can control their every action, but it does act as a safeguard. It provides the police with the oversight needed to manage offenders and reduce the risk to victims, and it means that those who commit sex offences cannot just disappear back into the community. There is evidence that it is working, with sex offender reoffending rates having decreased in the past 15 years. Given that overall sexual offences have increased nearly fourfold over that same period, a decrease in reoffences does suggest that this part of the justice system is working. It is reasonable to argue that mandating the keeping of an offender register will have had some part to play in that reduction in the case of those offences.
It is unfortunate that similar provisions do not exist for those convicted of child cruelty offences. The offence is in a sense different, but the principle is largely similar. Child cruelty, like child sexual offences, is heinous, life-altering abuse to some of the most vulnerable members of our society. The only difference at present is that, once released, those guilty of such cruelty offences are not managed once their sentence and probation is over. A person can commit these horrific crimes—causing or allowing the death of a child, neglect and violence to a child or even female genital mutilation in some cases—and, once they have served a period of imprisonment, they are free to slip back into the community unnoticed. There is no centralised way for the police to know who these people are and where they are living.
This is all the more an issue given the fact that, in the majority of child cruelty cases, the offender very often has had parental responsibility for the victim. This means that they will often have connections to the child’s current guardian and in many cases to other family members with connections to the child. There is, therefore, the very heightened risk that they will be able to secure access to a child in these situations, yet there is no means of oversight or management of these people.
Amendment 48 seeks to correct this anomaly by introducing something analogous to the sex offender register. It would require those convicted of child cruelty offences to notify the police of their details following their release. They would need to share their home address, any other places of residence and any other name that they might choose to use. It would provide the police and probation services with the necessary information to identify individuals who might continue to pose a threat within a family community. It would give child victims some additional safeguard from the risk posed by such convicted offenders. It would also act as a deterrent to these offenders, just as entry in the child sex offenders register has done.
The child protection system should exist to save children from abusive circumstances and give them a measure of safety. This simple step of introducing a register would allow some additional protection for these victims and ensure a greater public awareness of the risks that such convicted persons would pose. I beg to move.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, for raising this matter. I pay tribute to Helen Grant MP and her constituent, Paula Hudgell. They have campaigned tirelessly and movingly on this important issue. Earlier this week, the Deputy Prime Minister had the great honour of meeting Paula and Helen to hear the Hudgells’ story and learn more about their campaign. This Government are taking decisive action to protect our children from those who would commit abhorrent crimes against them.
Currently, under Sarah’s law, the police can and do proactively disclose information regarding offenders to members of the public when they believe that a child is at risk of serious harm. For example, if the police become aware of an adult who has ever had a conviction, caution or charge for child abuse having unsupervised access to a child, the police can and will disclose this to the person best able to protect that child—usually their parent, carer or guardian. Sarah’s law also enables members of the public to make an application to the police for this information if they are worried about child protection.
In the Crime and Policing Bill, this Government are going further. We are strengthening Sarah’s law by placing it on a statutory footing. The clauses in that Bill will mean that chief police officers will have a statutory duty to follow the Secretary of State’s guidance on Sarah’s law. In practice, this will reinforce the police’s responsibility to make disclosures whenever that is necessary to protect children. We have also committed over £2 billion to support the roll out of the families first partnership programme to improve the early identification of risks to children and to take appropriate action.
The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will establish multi-agency child protection teams in every area. Additionally, we are placing a new duty on safeguarding partners to include education and childcare settings in their multi-agency safeguarding arrangements. We want to ensure that every opportunity is taken to keep our children safe. We are not standing still on this issue. We are exploring the best way to close the gap that Paula has rightly identified. This is why I and Ministers in the Home Office have instructed our officials to explore options for tracking offenders and offences involving child cruelty. I ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
I thank the Minister. In the light of his undertaking that the Government are pursuing this matter—vigorously, I take it—and intending to produce something, whether they term it a register or otherwise, so that the police can not only disclose information but access information, which is a more critical element here, at this point I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie
“(2) After paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 9 to the Sentencing Code insert—“(1A) The minimum number of days on which the offender may be instructed to participate in activities must be specified in the relevant order.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment replaces the maximum-days requirement with a minimum number of days for rehabilitation activity requirements, ensuring that there is a minimum threshold of activity that offenders must complete.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, repeated reference has already been made to the independence of the judiciary and to the need to allow the judiciary full discretion in the matter of sentencing, but the provisions in the Bill at Clauses 11 and 12 erode these principles and put the whole issue at risk. The requirements in these clauses will remove a degree of judicial discretion, transferring certain sentencing powers from the courts to the Probation Service, and ultimately, of course, to the Government.
We on these Benches believe that the judiciary, who are specifically trained and appointed, and not probation officers, are best equipped to make decisions on sentencing. Clause 11, as drafted, removes the requirement to specify the maximum number of activity days to be undertaken as part of a community order or a suspended sentence order. The Government’s intention appears to be to create flexibility for probation services, so that they can gauge and tailor the number of days that offenders must complete.
Of course, we appreciate that, at present, there is a discrepancy between the maximum days of activity ordered by the courts and the number completed in reality. But nowhere in the Bill does there appear to be, once the initial sentence order and length are passed, judicial oversight of the number of days that probation officers may then set; nor does there appear to be any minimum threshold or expectation of participation specified in the Bill.
Putting this conferral of sentencing power on to the Probation Service creates an obvious misalignment of, among other things, incentives. Overworked probation officers, already contending with quite unmanageable case loads, are liable to be motivated not only by what is right for rehabilitation and public safety but by what is administratively possible. The unavoidable consequence is that the number of activity days ordered will be determined by capacity pressures within the Probation Service rather than by the rehabilitation requirements of individual offenders. The clause, as currently drafted, could enable an offender to engage in little or no meaningful rehabilitative activity whatever. Such an outcome would, of course, be a betrayal of victims and simply an illusion of justice.
On the other hand, the judiciary are trained and entrusted to assess evidence, consider proportionality, and understand risk and the need to balance public protection with rehabilitations. It is in these circumstances that we give notice of our intention to oppose Clauses 11 and 12 standing part of the Bill.
Amendments 49 and 50 seek to remedy the issue of probation officers operating in a quasi-judicial capacity. Amendment 49 would ensure that the court specifies a minimum number of days required under probation activity requirement. This would mean that, rather than setting a maximum threshold, which is seldom met in practice, there would be no ambiguity for officers or offenders over the number of days that must be completed. This is a simple and practical proposal that has the effect of dealing with the impact of Clauses 11 and 12.
Amendment 50 would clarify in statute that, where activity days are to be set for offenders, the number of days must always be set by the court itself. Without these amendments, decisions relating to punishment will, effectively, be delegated from the court to the Probation Service, rather than being determined at the point of sentence by the judiciary, and we believe it is essential that it should remain in the hands of the judiciary.
I turn briefly to Amendments 125 and 126, which concern early termination of community orders and suspended sentences. These amendments would provide that a court may not terminate such orders early, unless a specified minimum proportion of rehabilitation days has actually been completed. This would prevent the unacceptable scenario in which an offender could be released from requirements without having undertaken the substance of the sentence that was originally imposed.
Again, at present, there are no checks or balances under the Bill to ensure that this is not the case. These amendments would ensure proper accountability and preserve the authority of the sentencing decisions made by the court, and they would also provide probation officers with a degree of flexibility. I hope that the Government recognise the constructive nature of these amendments.
We all recognise the intense pressure under which prisons and probation services currently operate, but the response to systemic problems cannot be to weaken judicial powers or diminish meaningful sentencing. Offenders must not be permitted to slip through the cracks in a system that is stretched to its limits. It is our duty in Parliament to reinforce judicial authority, not to erode it. It is for these reasons that I urge the Government to reconsider the implications of Clauses 11 and 12, and to recognise the importance of the amendments that have been tabled. Judicial sentencing power must remain with the courts, and I hope that the Government will listen to these concerns and engage constructively on this issue.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, has raised an interesting and very debatable question, which is what the role of the judiciary should be in allotting rehabilitation time and activity and what the role of the probation officer can reasonably be. In theory, I should be with him, because I am always anxious to protect the independence and autonomy of the judiciary, but I look at our court system, and what is feasible, and I look at the detailed work that would be necessary, which probation officers are trained and equipped for—not necessarily resources-equipped but equipped in terms of their training—and I am unconvinced that it would be a good idea to move away from what Clause 11 and 12 do towards a larger role for the judiciary.
I say that having gone, decades ago, to look at the court system in Texas, as the Minister himself has done more recently, and having seen proactive courts, with the judge handing out details of rehabilitation requirements and looking at people as individuals, and the applause ringing around the court when the judge commended the offender who had fulfilled the requirement, and the sight of one offender who had not fulfilled the requirement being taken away by the state marshal.
The whole set-up was very interesting, but very difficult to graft into our system without enlarging the judiciary substantially, giving it time to do this kind of thing. We are probably better to build on the foundation of the Probation Service, despite the fact that it went through such a terrible time with the privatisation process and is still well below the level it needs to be in terms of numbers and training. The Bill provides a more reliable route, even though my instinct is to be on the side of protecting the autonomy of the judiciary. This is a job that probation officers are probably in a better position to do than our hard-pressed judiciary.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I have considered the amendments and thoughtful debate from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, on this topic. Change is needed. The process evaluation of the rehabilitative activity requirement, or, as I prefer to call it, RAR days, published in May 2025, shows that the RAR is not working effectively. Offenders often do not understand what is expected of them, and magistrates sometimes sentence it as a catch-all.
Further to this published evidence, probation practitioners from Manchester to the Isle of Wight have told me personally that the way RAR is structured restricts their ability to rehabilitate offenders. From my experience of leading organisations, the people who are on the front line often give you the wisest advice. We value and trust our probation staff enormously. Their work is often unseen, but I deeply appreciate it. This change places professional judgment back at the heart of probation. We are enabling probation practitioners to utilise their professional expertise to ensure that rehabilitation is tailored to what works.
I reassure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, that this change does not remove the court’s sentencing powers. It is and will remain for the court to determine whether to include this requirement when making an order. But the removal of court-specified maximum days will ensure that probation resources are directed to where they will have the most impact. It brings our approach to rehabilitation activity in line with how supervision is determined. Both are led by a thorough assessment of risk and need after sentencing. This does not change the fact that offenders are required to comply with the instructions of their probation officer. If they do not comply, they could face a return to court and receive tougher penalties.
I turn to the noble and learned Lord’s Amendments 125 and 126. The community sentences incentive scheme, set out in Clauses 36 and 37, already requires offenders to complete all court-ordered requirements before the community order—or, in the case of a suspended sentence order, the supervision period—can come to an end. This will include completing all the required activities under the new probation requirement. These clauses bring a principle of progression and incentivisation into community sentences to encourage good behaviour and motivate offenders to change.
This scheme was inspired by the model in Texas, which used incentives to reduce the prison population. It will mean that the Probation Service can encourage offenders to engage early, comply with their sentence requirements and complete rehabilitation work. This will free up staff time to focus on more serious and complex offenders in order to better protect the public and reduce reoffending. Probation practitioners will be responsible for determining the amount of rehabilitation activity that must be completed under the probation requirement. The measure requires them to complete it all before the community order or supervision period can be eligible for early termination.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
I thank the Minister for his answer and the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for his contribution. I fear that the Minister is not properly distinguishing between issues of rehabilitation and issues of sentencing. There is a matter of principle that has to be addressed in this context, and there is a risk that the Bill in its present form will turn sentencing into some form of administrative exercise performed by the Probation Service rather than by the court.
I believe we will have to return to this on Report, but I look forward to discussing the matter further with the Minister. At this time, I withdraw my amendment.