Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
We are making significant investments in legal aid: we have announced additional funding of up to £34 million a year for criminal legal aid advocates and an additional £92 million a year for criminal legal aid solicitors. We are also uplifting housing and immigration legal fees by £20 million a year—the first major increase since 1996.
John Milne
My constituent Steve is currently being denied access to justice because he cannot afford to take action against a publicly funded body under Competition and Markets Authority legislation. His only other option is to proceed on a no win, no fee basis. Will the relevant Minister agree to meet me and Steve to discuss possible solutions?
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The Select Committee has just begun an inquiry into access to justice. The evidence we are getting suggests that civil and family legal aid in particular are in a dire position, with fees now approximately half what they were 28 years ago. There have been welcome increases in housing and immigration fees, but what wider plans does the Secretary of State have to review legal aid fees, particularly in the area of civil and family law?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend will recognise that the uplift of £20 million in housing and immigration is significant; it is actually the first major uplift in his and my time here in Parliament. He is right that we should look across the piece at civil legal aid, combined with what is happening in our courts, and I will continue to do that over this next period.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
My question follows on from that of the Chair of the Select Committee. In 2024, 39% of family court proceedings involved neither party being legally represented; in cases of domestic abuse, this forces victims to relive their experiences and confront their trauma repeatedly. The provision of legal aid in such cases is wholly inadequate, which presents an unacceptable barrier to many victims accessing fair and effective legal representation. Does the Secretary of State agree with me and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner that legal aid should be provided in all domestic abuse cases to end self-representation and protect victims from retraumatisation?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Lady is right that legal aid is important, but, in some cases, so is mediation. I would refer her to the pathfinder pilot, which is hugely important in relation to private family law. We are looking closely at provision, but we are also looking closely at the workforce, because as with criminal legal aid, we have seen lawyers—particularly younger lawyers—leaving that area of practice.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
We said that we are determined to remove foreign national offenders from our prisons sooner, and we have. I am pleased to say that the number of foreign criminals removed from the country early has rocketed by 75% under this Labour Government, with more than 2,700 foreign national offenders deported under the early removal scheme in the past year—up from just 1,560 in the last year the Tories were in charge.
Steve Yemm
I wonder what reassurance the Secretary of State could give my constituents that foreign national offenders who commit serious crimes will be removed promptly after sentencing, rather than allowing their appeal process to drag on. Does he agree that a deport first, appeal later approach would be most appropriate?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right. That is what we are doing in the Sentencing Bill, which is going through Parliament, which will enable us to remove foreign nationals earlier—a key component of the Bill. We are absolutely clear: if someone comes to our country and commits a crime, they no longer have any right to be here.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Last week in Northern Ireland, a 26-year-old Palestinian migrant was found guilty of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old boy. The police refused to publish an image of this man, meaning that people do not know who he is or if he is showing concerning behaviour. Can the Minister assure us that whether in GB or in Northern Ireland, any migrant found guilty of sexual offences will not only have their picture published, but be deported?
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I welcome the hon. Lady’s question. The Government are committed to reforming the family court to improve support for adult and child victims of domestic abuse. The pathfinder model provides expert support to victims and doubles the proportion of children seen by social workers. A quarter of all relevant cases will follow this model by January, and we are determined to go further.
Sarah Green
The Minister clearly knows that the backlog in the family court is causing real distress. I have one family who have waited over a year for a court hearing. A year is a long time for a child, and we know that others are waiting even longer. Will the Minister share what specific measures she is taking to ensure that cases involving children and vulnerable families are resolved more quickly?
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Lady is right; the delays in our family court are untenable, and families, children particularly, are waiting too long for resolution. That is why we are determined to go further by rolling out our pathfinder model to ensure a child-centric approach to the family court. She will be aware that we are determined to repeal the presumption of parental involvement through our Victims and Courts Bill, which is going through the House. We are also determined to really get to grips with our family court. If the hon. Lady writes to me about that specific case, I will ensure that she gets a full response.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
All misogyny is abhorrent, but we know that online misogyny is becoming increasingly pervasive. We have criminalised the creation of intimate deepfakes without consent, and we are creating new offences in the Crime and Policing Bill that will mean that perpetrators who take intimate images without consent face up to two years in prison. We will go further to ensure that we stamp out misogyny wherever it is—online or in the real world.
Irene Campbell
My constituent Dr Sam Rice has set up a grassroots charity called Kids For Now, which supports parents who want to delay smartphones for their children. There is much evidence to support that approach. For example, Ofsted has found that 80% of teenage girls are put under pressure to provide sexual images of themselves, which often end up online. Does the Minister agree that the effect that online misogyny has on children must be tackled?
Alex Davies-Jones
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Online misogyny radicalises our boys, pressures our girls, and fuels harmful attitudes. It must be tackled in order to protect all our children. The Government are acting through tougher laws, including the Online Safety Act 2023, and our upcoming violence against women and girls strategy will protect children from harm online. Prevention is fundamental, so we are supporting schools to teach children about respect, consent and healthy relationships. I can inform the House that the Secretary of State for Education is in Australia right now learning about the model used over there to see how we can best learn lessons from it and apply them here.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is quite clear that it is important that we all work together across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Indeed, we should take that a stage further and work together with the Republic of Ireland to ensure that we both can combat online misogyny. What discussions has the Minister had with the relevant Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly on how we can do that work better in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Gentleman will know that these crimes have no borders, especially online misogyny crimes. They do not take place in a silo, and it will take all of us to tackle them, including those of us in the England and Wales jurisdiction of the criminal justice system and those across our devolved counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland—and, as he states, in the Republic of Ireland too. We regularly meet with our counterparts to discuss these issues, and no stone will be left unturned when it comes to tackling misogyny.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
Mediation saves people time, money and stress. It can also help to reduce court delays and save the taxpayer money. Mandatory mediation for small money claims is now well integrated into the county court process and is delivering real results in terms of time savings and cost savings.
Sir Julian Smith
Time pressure is one of the best routes to encourage alternative dispute resolution, as the Minister knows, but in the commercial court in 2024 the median time to judgment was 786 days. The UK law sector is up against huge pressures from Singapore and the middle east, which are offering six months to judgment and six months for appeal. May I urge Ministers to look at the competitive challenges facing UK law against such tough international competition?
Sarah Sackman
The right hon. Member raises a really good point. Such delays are depriving our businesses of productivity and the ability to resolve disputes sooner. The successes we are seeing on small money claims under £10,000, which tend to affect small and medium-sized enterprises, show the progress that can be made. The other thing I will point him to is the launch of our English law promotion panel, which is looking at competitiveness with other jurisdictions.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
Before entering the House, I was an employment solicitor, and I saw the impact that judicial mediation had in our employment tribunals. Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss the role that expanding judicial mediation could have in bringing down the backlog in our employment tribunals?
Sarah Sackman
I welcome my hon. Friend’s experience in this area. I would be happy to meet him to discuss that important subject.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
The HM Prison and Probation Service prisoner escort and custody services team ensures that Serco meets its contract obligations and takes action when it falls short. Delays at Bournemouth courts are often caused by issues across the wider criminal justice system. The contract management team continue to work closely with partners to resolve problems and improve service delivery.
Tom Hayes
We must ensure that courts like Bournemouth are not being kept idle at a cost of thousands of taxpayers’ pounds every day. After all, we have a backlog that we have got to clear thanks to the Conservative party. Bournemouth piloted the pathfinder model, and it wants to do more, but it is being held back by private contractors such as Serco. Will the Government reconsider their approach and consider alternative ways to deliver prisoners to court on time, thereby saving the taxpayer valuable money?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the shocking situation in our Crown courts and civil courts that the Government inherited from the Conservative party. We must take action. That is why my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Courts and Legal Services will be setting out a wide-ranging package that will get a grip of the backlog and ensure that our criminal justice system is fit for the future.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
Prison security is a top priority. We constantly update our countermeasures to keep pace with criminals who try to undermine them. This year, the Government are investing over £40 million in physical security. That includes £10 million on anti-drone measures. Prisons also have X-ray body scanners, airport-style enhanced security and X-ray baggage scanners.
Andrew Rosindell
I thank the Minister for his helpful reply, but as he knows full well violence, illegal drug dealing and escapes are on the rise in prisons, with a shocking 12% increase in breakouts across England and Wales since 2024. That is risking the safety of all our communities. Dangerous criminals are also being released in error. When will the Justice Secretary take responsibility for this utter shambles, get a grip on the situation to ensure that dangerous criminals remain locked up behind bars and do the job he is supposed to be doing to keep the British people safe?
Jake Richards
I am constantly aghast at the chutzpah of the Conservatives, who left the prison system in utter crisis after 14 years. Prison officer numbers reduced under them, and prison places hardly rose at all. We are stabilising the prison system and investing in security measures to ensure that we have a prison system that is fit for the future and safe for the public.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
Everyone has a right to a fair trial, and the essence of a fair trial is a timely trial. Only 3% of all criminal cases are heard by a judge and jury under the current regime. Jury trials will remain a cornerstone of the British justice system. Delayed justice is justice denied.
Mr Bedford
The Justice Secretary may have complete faith in the independence of the judiciary; sadly, I do not. We have seen a plethora of cases, particularly involving freedom of speech, where the judiciary has arguably been influenced by political correctness and the virtue signalling of bodies such as the Sentencing Council. If his proposals are designed to reduce the backlog, why do they not include a sunset clause?
Mr Lammy
I completely reject what the hon. Gentleman said. It is an absolute essential foundation of our democracy that all of us in this House and in government respect the independence of the judiciary. I remind him that it is precisely because of the judiciary’s independence that it is not able to answer for itself. The Lord Chancellor has that responsibility, and I will do it robustly.
Sir Ashley Fox
When the Lord Chancellor made his statement on jury trials last week, he said that an impact assessment would be published with the legislation. Given how powerful a defender of jury trials he has been in the past, will he publish the evidence and the modelling that he has seen since coming to office that caused him to change his mind?
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Victims must be at the forefront of our minds when thinking about reforms to our justice system. Many of them wait years and are often retraumatised by going through the process of a criminal court trial. Can the Secretary of State tell me how these changes will ensure that we bring criminals properly and promptly to justice, to bring matters to a close for victims?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A third of all sex victims in the backlog have now been waiting a year or more, and she knows that in many of those cases, there are also defendants playing the system, pleading late with pre-hearing after pre-hearing, with the result that witnesses fall away and cases collapse. It is for that reason that it is absolutely right that we change the threshold and introduce the measures that Brian Leveson has properly looked at, to speed up the process and get those victims justice.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
The Justice Secretary wants to do away with some jury trials. He wants to extend the powers of magistrates to sentence up to 24 months without the right to appeal a conviction or sentence. I think I am right in saying that the capacity in prisons is at 88,000 as we speak today. Where are all those apparently guilty people going to be put?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend and I have been friends for a very long time and I recognise his experience in matters related to criminal trials. May I just remind him that we have the Sentencing Bill passing through the House? That will give us greater capacity in the prison system. He will also know that the Government are on track to provide 40,000 extra prison places by the early 2030s—under the last Government, there were only 500. All of that increases capacity, and of course we hope that jury trials will also make a difference for victims.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Justice Secretary quite rightly says that justice delayed is justice denied, but summary justice is no justice at all. He based much of his argument on the views of the eminent Lord Leveson, but has he read the analysis of that review by Geoffrey Rivlin KC, who went through the report in expert detail and described much of it as unfounded and misguided because it was based on poor data. If the Justice Secretary has not read it, will he please do so before he comes back to the House?
Mr Lammy
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that it was a serious independent panel and I do not think he can reject Sir Brian Leveson out of hand in that way. I remind him that David Ormerod was also on the panel. The analysis was based on data and on evidence internationally, and that is why it is important that we implement it. There is no silver bullet. To affect change, we have to do it all; otherwise, at the next general election, the backlog will have soared to over 100,000.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
I have heard heartbreaking stories of women from my constituency who have waited years for their abuser to be brought to trial. The crisis that has developed in our courts is having a devastating impact on victims. Given that many of the previous reforms to judge, jury and magistrate trials over the past 50 years were also intended to speed up the system, will the Secretary of State outline how these proposed changes will fix the broken system and deliver swift justice for victims?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. First, we need investment and more sitting days. We did not get that under the last Government—we are getting that now. Secondly, we need reform. We asked Sir Brian Leveson to look at this in great detail. He did that, and we must now respond and not shirk from the reform that is necessary. Thirdly, we need modernisation. That is why, for example, being able to get a transcript and a recording at magistrates is so important.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Under the Justice Secretary’s plans to slash jury trials, he is giving magistrates more serious cases. However, he also plans to scrap the automatic right to appeal—a vital safety valve in courtrooms where justice is delivered at pace by volunteers. Last year, 5,000 cases from magistrates courts were appealed, of which more than 40% were upheld. Given that very high rate of successful appeals, will the Secretary of State be honest with the public and concede that curtailing appeals will unquestionably lead to miscarriages of justice?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) on the Conservative Back Benches has just said that summary justice is no justice—either they believe in our magistrates or they do not. I believe in our magistrates. Sir Brian recommended a permission stage, and we accept his recommendation for creating a permission stage on appeal. That is the right thing to do, particularly because many appeals have no merits, and that is why victims fall away.
Robert Jenrick
If the Secretary of State maintains that this change will not lead to miscarriages of justice, he must be expecting the same number of cases to be appealed. In which case, there is no point doing it in the first place. The truth, deep down, is that the Government are willing to tolerate some miscarriages of justice to save a paltry sum of money, yet all the while the solution is staring us in the face. Since the Justice Secretary announced his plan on 2 December, 640 sitting days have been missed.
It is the end of term. The Justice Secretary’s report card is marked “improvement required”. Will he reflect over Christmas and make scrapping his plan to slash jury trials a new year’s resolution that we can all support?
Mr Lammy
I know the right hon. Gentleman has more front than Blackpool pier, but let us be clear: we are accepting a permission stage that was recommended by Brian Leveson. What we need are more sitting days and more investment, and we are doing that. We cannot shirk reform, he knows that jury trials will continue to be a cornerstone of the Crown court system, and we need modernisation. All of that was not done by the last Government.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
Strategic lawsuits against public participation, otherwise known as SLAPPs, are an abuse of the legal process and pose a threat to democracy. The Government recognise the profound financial and psychological impact of SLAPPs. That is why we commenced the SLAPPs provisions in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 related to economic crime SLAPPs, and we are monitoring how that is operating.
Sir John Whittingdale
I welcome the Minister’s answer, but is she aware that in the space of one week the Solicitors Regulation Authority has lost two tribunal cases relating to SLAPPs? Do the Government consider the SRA fit for purpose in this area? Is further legislation not needed to prevent lawyers from pursuing abusive cases?
Sarah Sackman
I welcome the right hon. Member’s question. We are actively considering where we can further extend the definition of SLAPPs to those that range beyond economic crime. Obviously, the Solicitors Regulation Authority is independent of Government. I welcome its guidance reminding solicitors of their duties and of the consequences of breaches, and I hope that it upholds that guidance robustly.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
Last week I announced record funding for victim support services: £550 million over the next three years—the biggest investment in victim support services to date. This Labour Government are putting victims at the heart of the justice system.
Tim Roca
I welcome the increased funding. Victim support and the commissioning of those services is incredibly important, and the operational independence of police and crime commissioners has been invaluable in that regard. What assurances can Ministers provide that, with the abolition of PCCs, victim support will not be led by forces themselves and that we will keep the important progress we have made over recent years?
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Building on the question from the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), police and crime commissioners were able to act as a strong independent voice for commissioners. In what has been outlined so far, there is not really a voice for victims in local areas. What will the Secretary of State do to make sure that is remedied?
Mr Lammy
We have up to May 2028. It is important that we get the money in and that that money particularly goes to the frontline. When I meet organisations on the ground such as Rape Crisis, they are the voice of women on the frontline, but of course we are looking very closely at how this interaction will work after we no longer have PCCs.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
The Government take seriously concerns about the operation of this Hague convention in situations where domestic abuse is present. Internationally, the UK continues to work with other parties of the convention to ensure that it operates effectively, particularly in cases involving domestic abuse. We have been an active member of the steering committee for two international forums to discuss and share best practice on this issue, and we have contributed financially to support these events.
Lisa Smart
Two of my Hazel Grove constituents, who I will not name because they are going through active cases, have fled Australia and Poland with their children due to domestic abuse and coercive control from their partners. Many mothers in similar circumstances face the prospect of being compelled to return to the country from which they fled in order to accompany their children under the Hague convention. I had a very constructive meeting with the Minister back in June, since when the second forum on domestic violence and the 1980 child abduction convention has taken place in Brazil. Could the Minister update the House on what progress was made at that forum and whether the Government plan to bring forward proposals—legislative or otherwise—to strengthen legal protections for mothers and children fleeing abuse under the Hague convention?
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome the hon. Lady’s question and her continued engagement on this really important issue. The Government are now considering initiating further qualitative research on the operation of the 1980 Hague convention in cases relating to domestic abuse. I can confirm that this research will inform any future policy and ensure that reforms are grounded in robust evidence, improving outcomes for both children and survivors. I will endeavour to keep her updated and involved in the development of that.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
We have extended the period of time that certain prisoners on standard determinate sentences are eligible for moves into open conditions. We know that open conditions can lead to better outcomes for offenders and confront reoffending. That is because open prisons give offenders better opportunities to find work and re-establish relationships with friends and family, both of which are significantly proven to reduce the chances of reoffending.
Mr Snowden
I agree with what the Minister just said, but through the early release programme, and given the “third, third, third” model that the Government want to introduce to split sentencing in custody, prisons such as Kirkham in my constituency in Lancashire are seeing a much higher turnover among their open prison population; prisoners are increasingly serving shorter sentences and in such prisons for much shorter periods. They are effectively becoming cat C prisons but without the walls, the security or the resources. We are concerned about the knock-on effect that that will have on the ability to run rehabilitation programmes, which are designed for significant amounts of time at the end of prisoners’ sentences. What additional resources will the Government put in place to support rehabilitation programmes in open prisons?
Jake Richards
The hon. Member raises an important point. The Sentencing Bill will hopefully receive Royal Assent next year, and there are certainly operational challenges to ensure that those reforms and changes to sentencing in our prison system work smoothly. One of the major measures in the Bill, which the Conservative party opposes, is to reduce short-term sentences for the reason that the hon. Member set out. I am happy to have a discussion about the prison in his constituency, and ensure that the Department is working with it closely, so that it is ready for the changes that, hopefully, will come into effect next year.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
We are enhancing security measures and easing crowding to curb violence and improve safety in prisons, as well as looking at measures to improve meaningful activity to increase welfare. We are investing around £15 million in protective equipment to help keep frontline staff working in prisons safe, including expanding the use of Tasers and providing more protective body armour.
Michelle Welsh
Lowdham Grange prison in my constituency is a failing prison, and I have been inundated with correspondence from prisoners, families and staff who on a regular basis inform me about unsafe conditions and a toxic culture of bullying, as well as incidents of violence, drugs and self-harm, many of which are not recorded; and there is no access to healthcare professionals. Since the last inspection in 2023, 10 prisoners have died. The prisoners have also had 32 days of lockdown in the past two years, and the prison has the worst possible rating for safety. Does the Minister agree that it is time for the Government to make a direct intervention in this prison?
Jake Richards
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important case, which is very much on the radar of the Ministry of Justice. I will raise the issue personally with the Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending in the other place. I am personally committed to this issue, and I will visit Lowdham Grange in the new year, hopefully with my hon. Friend, to meet the governor and others to discuss those critical issues.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The Minister will be aware that a number of prisoners are currently undertaking a hunger strike. They are remand prisoners, and some of them do not have a trial date until 2027. Deep concerns have been expressed by them, their families and their legal representatives about access to medical treatment, as well as how they have been treated when taken to hospital. Would the Minister be able to meet their legal representatives, and their families if necessary, to discuss the situation and try to help with the safety of these prisoners?
Jake Richards
No. Luckily, the Ministry of Justice and the Prison Service have robust and proper guidance and procedures for when such scenarios come to fruition. I am satisfied, and the Ministry is satisfied, that those procedures are being enacted, and we will continue to keep that under review.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
Our magistrates are the backbone of local justice, and I thank every magistrate the length and breadth of the country who gives their time to deliver that justice. In return, we need to support them. That is why we provide extensive training not just at the start of a magistrate’s journey, but on a continuing basis through mentorship. I recognise that we want to go further and provide stronger recognition for their service, and we will be looking in the new year at overhauling the expenses regime so that we can support magistrates.
Matt Turmaine
I thank the Minister for her answer. I recently had the opportunity to visit the county and family court in Watford, and while there I talked to them about the challenge of finding sufficient staff. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that staffing is what makes magistrates courts and family courts work, and will she outline further what support the Government are offering to them?
Sarah Sackman
I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. I was glad to visit Barnet court in my constituency, which has newly reopened after a year. I noticed what many who cross the threshold into our courts see: the first welcome from court staff, which often allays nerves and anxiety in an alienating environment. That is critical, and it is why we want to support our court staff, we are investing in legal advisers who support our magistrates, and we are supporting all of them. I would be happy to visit my hon. Friend’s local court in Watford if the opportunity arises.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I am pleased to hear from the Minister how the Government are supporting magistrates and that she visited a recently reopened magistrates court. The biggest single thing that the Government could do in my constituency in my county of Surrey is reopen Woking magistrates court, which was closed by the former Conservative Government. Will the Government consider reopening Woking magistrates court?
Sarah Sackman
We keep our court estate and the assessment of need under constant review. I would be very happy for the hon. Gentleman to write to me so that we can look into the provision in his area.
Mr Speaker
What is good for the Minister might be good for Chorley as well, with the reopening of the court.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
The Government inherited a justice system in crisis. Whether for a family experiencing family breakdown, small business owners trying to resolve contractual disputes or victims of crime, we inherited a system in crisis in every jurisdiction. We are beginning to turn that oil tanker around. We are sitting at maximum or close to maximum capacity in every single jurisdiction, while investing up to £450 million in our courts every year.
Debbie Abrahams
The Minister will recall that last week I mentioned two cases in my constituency involving juveniles and child sexual abuse. Those cases of alleged sexual abuse have been adjourned a number of times and, as I explained to her, the damage done to the lives of those children cannot be underestimated. I appreciate that reforms are under way, but what urgent steps can be taken now to ensure that those children have the justice that they deserve and can continue with their lives?
Sarah Sackman
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this shocking case. I am aware of it and I will be writing to her on the particulars of it. It graphically demonstrates precisely why we need reform of our criminal courts. As the Deputy Prime Minister has just explained, that will take three things: investment in sitting days and criminal legal aid, which we are currently seeing; systemic reform; and modernisation. That third component is about how we can improve efficiencies in the here and now, through better adoption of technology and improving the smoother running of our courts, which will help the victims in the case that she outlines.
Warinder Juss
Justice delayed is justice denied is the harsh reality for the nearly 80,000 cases that are currently waiting to be heard in the Crown court. I am pleased that the Government are taking action to modernise our justice system and to be reassured that the sanctity of jury trials will be preserved. Considering that only 3% of criminal cases are currently tried by a jury, what assessment has the Minister made on the impact that removing jury trials from certain either-way offences will have on significantly reducing the present unacceptable court backlogs?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend raises a number of incredibly important points. Behind each and every one of those 80,000 cases in the backlog is a victim, as well as someone who is accused who may be trying to clear their name. As the backlog heads in the wrong direction, with agonising delays for all participants, we will not sit idly by. That is why we have adopted the recommendations of the independent review of criminal courts. It makes the important observation that 90% of cases in this country are currently dealt with robustly, properly and in a timely fashion without a jury in our magistrates courts. The whole package of reforms that we are bringing forward, which is not a pick-and-mix, is designed to deliver swifter justice for victims.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
One of the contributing factors to the court backlog is the state of disrepair of our court infrastructure. Will the Minister set out how many of the more than 500 Crown court rooms are currently unusable because of their state of disrepair?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Gentleman is right that the crumbling and decaying state of our court estate has become a metaphor for the justice system that we inherited from the previous Government. It is why we are opening new courts in Blackpool and putting shovels in the ground in inner London, and why we have increased the court estate budget by £28 million, so that we can improve maintenance and keep as many court rooms running as possible. In the end, as Sir Brian Leveson tells us, money alone will not be enough. We need reforms so that we can run the system at capacity and deliver swifter justice for victims.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
When this Government came into office in July 2024, magistrates were dealing with cases that had a potential sentence of up to six months, but that has now gone up to 12 months and by next year it could be two years. There is already a backlog of 361,000 cases in the magistrates courts. In my meeting with the Law Society today, representatives expressed deep concerns about whether magistrates would be able to take on longer, more emotionally draining cases, and that some magistrates may decide that they are not comfortable about depriving people of their liberty for that long. What assessment has been done of the ability of magistrates to cope emotionally, and of the magistrates courts to cope with those increases?
Sarah Sackman
I think the hon. Lady is referring to the sentencing powers and the proposal to increase them, rather than the wait time. The fact is that our magistrates court is an efficient jurisdiction, dealing with 1.3 million cases a year. The Magistrates Association and the Magistrates’ Leadership Executive have endorsed the Government’s plans, which are a vote of confidence in our magistrates’ ability to deal with the caseload, and cases of this nature, swiftly, robustly and fairly, but she is right that our magistrates deserve support in dealing with emotionally charged matters. We will ensure that that support and training is provided.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
Following the changes in the Sentencing Bill, there will be more criminals behind bars than ever before. Those convicted of the most serious crimes will be unaffected, and will remain in prison for as long as they do now.
Sir John Hayes
The salient difference between the Government and the people is that the public expect vile, vicious, violent people to be locked up, so that they can ruin no more lives, whereas the Government want to let them free. About two thirds of rapists and 83% of child sex offenders will be eligible for early release. Is it any wonder that the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and the Victims’ Commissioner have criticised these plans? Will the Government at least exclude those kinds of offenders before implementing this policy? Otherwise, they will wreak harm, hurt and hate on every part of our country.
Jake Richards
I had the great pleasure of hearing the right hon. Member’s contributions on Report and in Committee on the Sentencing Bill. I remind him, as I did then, that we inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. The worst way to fail victims would be to have no prison places, and to be unable to keep the worst offenders behind bars, and we will not allow that to happen. I remind him again that the Sentencing Bill is informed by the independent sentencing review, led by a former Conservative Lord Chancellor, who offered sensible reforms to ensure that our prison system can cope with demands and is fit for the future. Finally, I remind him that this is not a case of being soft on crime; by the end of this Parliament, under this Labour Government, there will be more criminals behind bars than ever before.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
This week, the Government pledged action on violence against women and girls—an issue that I know many Members across this House care deeply about, including many Labour Members—but this so-called earned progression model will see thousands of rapists, child groomers and paedophiles let out of prison earlier. Shockingly, last week a Government Minister said that the reason why they could not be excluded from the model was that it would increase the risk of inaccuracies in release calculations. Does the Minister think that a single victim of rape should expect the offender to be let out of prison earlier because the Government cannot calculate the release date properly?
Jake Richards
We will not take any lessons about violence against women and girls from the Conservatives. Prosecutions for rape went down under the last Conservative Government, but we are taking action to protect women and girls. I will repeat this point: the scenario we faced last summer was that when those who committed the worst offences were convicted, there was not space in prison to keep them behind bars. That is wholly unacceptable, and this Government will never let that happen again.
Dr Mullan
The House will have heard that the Government are refusing to exclude those types of offenders. I am pleased to say that a number of Labour Members share my discomfort about the measures that the Government are taking; in fact, the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) tabled an amendment to exclude existing offenders from the measures. Why does the Minister think that she did that?
Jake Richards
I speak regularly with my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), who was an experienced Crown Prosecution Service prosecutor. When I speak to her, she tells me that the worst scenario for prosecutors who are trying to keep our streets safe is prisons being full, so that offenders cannot be kept behind bars. That was the situation in this country under the last Government, and we are fixing their mess.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
I pay tribute to Lenny Scott, who was a dedicated prison officer and much-loved family man. In 2020, he seized an illicit mobile phone from a prisoner, who took revenge four years later by taking his life in broad daylight. Perpetrators of heinous killings like that must feel the full force of the law. I can announce today that we will broaden the starting point for whole-life orders to include murders connected to the current or former duties of a police, prison or probation officer. That means that offenders can expect to spend the rest of their life behind bars. That is the latest step that this Government have taken to keep our hard-working prison and probation staff safe.
Uma Kumaran
I thank my right hon. Friend for that clarification. By the time my constituent gets her day in court, she will have waited nearly a decade for justice. That is the cost of the Tories’ broken court system—unacceptable waits, contributing to a tragically high number of victims not proceeding to trial. The result is near-total impunity for the men who commit serious offences of sexual assault and domestic abuse. My right hon. Friend is working tirelessly to reduce the courts backlog. What is he doing to ensure that victims are put first, so that they do not have to face waiting a decade for justice?
Mr Lammy
I am truly grateful to my hon. Friend for once again raising the voice of victims in this House. I hope that over the coming months, as we debate our courts Bill, hon. Members will keep in mind those victims, and the voices that we often hear, via female Members of Parliament. The £550 million of multi-year funding that I have found for victims to give them certainty was essential, and we will continue to keep victims front of mind.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I commend the Justice Secretary on the Government’s decision to extend whole-life orders to those who kill prison officers. Two weeks ago, I had the privilege of meeting the parents of Lenny Scott when they came to Parliament. It is absolutely right that we extend whole-life orders to cases in which brave prison officers are killed, either in the course of their duties, or in the exceptional circumstances that faced Lenny Scott after he had left the service. The Justice Secretary can be assured of the support of Conservative Members.
Two weeks ago, the Justice Secretary appeared on Sky News and revealed that 12 more prisoners had been mistakenly released, and that two remained on the run. I have two very simple questions: since then, how many prisoners have been mistakenly released, and how many more remain on the run?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
The Deputy Prime Minister has set out a five-point plan to deal with the long-standing issue of releases in error in our criminal justice system. There were 800 releases in error when the Conservatives were in government, and never once did they come to this House and give an update. We will release much more of that data over the coming months.
Robert Jenrick
In all the years that I have been in the House, I have never known a Secretary of State fail to answer the first question from his opposite number, but that says a lot about the man. The Justice Secretary was fine answering questions in the media two weeks ago, when the police investigation was under way, but now he says—or his Minister says, in his stead—that it would be inappropriate to comment in the House of Commons. What utter nonsense! Does he seriously think anyone is buying that excuse? He either does not know the details, or he is covering up his failure, both of which are a dereliction of duty. How on earth can the public assist in the manhunts that are presumably under way across our country and clear up his mess if he will not publish the names or mugshots of the prisoners mistakenly released? Once again, he is endangering the British public.
Jake Richards
Utter nonsense! We do not take advice from the Conservative party on the operational challenges that we face when we encounter these issues; we engage with the police directly. We will not give a running commentary on this long-standing issue in a criminal justice system that is failing after 14 years of the Conservative party in government. We have set out a five-point plan, through which we are attempting to grapple with this problem, and Dame Lynne Owens will report back to the Government early next year. We look forward to hearing her recommendations.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
Workers must receive the awards to which they are entitled. The case that my hon. Friend raises demonstrates the need to strengthen enforcement. The Government will take that up by transferring responsibilities to the new fair work agency. Working with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Insolvency Service, it will drive compliance and crack down on non-payments. That will help constituents like hers.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Andrew Turner has been fighting on behalf of parents of disabled children across the country who cannot access their children’s trust fund when their child turns 18, even though that money could provide support for the additional cost of living that comes from being a profoundly disabled young adult. Andrew has seen 10 Justice Ministers come and go since he started his campaign. Will the Minister assure me that the current Minister will be the last one Andrew has to meet before the situation is remedied?
Sarah Sackman
I met Andrew Turner, who is a tireless campaigner; we were embarking on the work that is necessary to support families like his, and those that he represents. I have personally undertaken to ensure that this work continues, irrespective of which person is sitting in the chair. I will follow up not just with Andrew, but with his very dedicated MP, the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne).
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
At the beginning of December, a sapling from the Sycamore Gap tree was planted by Micala Trussler and her family to commemorate what would have been her daughter’s 18th birthday. Since Holly Newton’s tragic murder, Micala has campaigned tirelessly to reduce the age limit at which someone can legally be classified as a domestic abuse victim. Will the Secretary of State join me in recognising Micala’s tireless campaigning, and meet Micala and me in the new year to discuss age classification for victims of domestic abuse?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. I will, of course, be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and Micala, and I thank her for her tireless campaigning on this issue. I share the concerns about abuse in teenage relationships, and I am pleased to say that we are conducting a scoping review of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which will cover the age limit for victims, to ensure that it captures adolescent relationships. The upcoming violence against women and girls strategy will set out steps to tackle teenage relationship abuse. I look forward to meeting him and Micala.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. It was an honour to meet him, victims and bereaved families who have been affected by this horrific situation. Our thoughts remain with those grieving families, who rightly expect their babies and the deceased to be treated with dignity and respect. That is the minimum that they deserve. We are committed to taking action. He might be aware that the Department of Health and Social Care today published its interim review into the Fuller inquiry. I look forward to reading that, and to working with him and others to ensure that the recommendations are followed.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
Kate Osamor (Edmonton and Winchmore Hill) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right to put on record the huge support that we have had, particularly from west Africans, in our prison system, for which I am grateful. I am in discussions with the Home Secretary and hope to update the House on that shortly, but I do see a way through.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
To build on the excellent questioning by the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), how many prisoners have been mistakenly released, and how many will it take before the Justice Secretary considers his position?
Jake Richards
We have already made it clear during this Justice Question Time that we will not be giving a running commentary on the numbers. This Government are taking action to deal with this problem in our criminal justice system, which, by the way, the Conservatives did nothing about over their 14 years.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
In Rochdale, our police work closely with staff from the sexual assault referral centre in St Mary’s in Manchester, who help rape victims through every step of the legal process. For many rape victims, the most traumatic thing is facing their rapist in court, so will the Government explain how they will help stop victims being smeared by defence lawyers as money grabbers? How can we take evidence of previous domestic abuse into account in court?
Alex Davies-Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is why we are determined to ensure that rape victims are treated with compassion and dignity throughout the entire criminal justice process. We are committed to implementing the Law Commission’s review on bad character evidence and to tackling those rape myths and stereotypes, and we are committed to our manifesto commitment of introducing independent legal advisers for adult rape victims to ensure that they get the support they desperately need.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Ministers have responded helpfully to me on two previous occasions regarding the “68 is too late” campaign. On both occasions—last January and most recently in writing in September—the Government indicated that they were prepared to amend or at least review pension provisions. Indeed, a working group was established to examine similar terms currently in place within the Ministry of Defence. Can the Minister provide an update on the working group’s proposals and the Government’s intentions?
Jake Richards
The Government regularly meet trade unions and the Prison Officers Association. I will take this opportunity to put on record again our thanks to prison officers, who do an extraordinarily difficult job in difficult circumstances, and we will be updating the House on that issue in due course.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
Earlier this year, a man was convicted by a jury of sexual assault of a child under the age of 13. This vile perpetrator was given a suspended sentence, with his mental health cited as the reason. He was spared prison and, crucially, his mental health had no impact on his culpability for this horrible crime. My constituents have sought justice, and I agree with them that the sentence is outrageously lenient. Will the Secretary of State please write to the Sentencing Council to stress that this Government believe that those found guilty of sexual crimes against children should go to prison, and that suspended sentences must only be granted in the rarest and most extreme mitigating circumstances?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her campaigning on this issue. She knows that I cannot comment on the individual case, which was subject to a review, but the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), is meeting the chair of the Sentencing Council and will take forward her recommendations.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Both this Government and the previous Government tried to get to grips with the increasing problem of the smuggling of illegal drugs into prisons. Can the Secretary of State indicate that, this time, this Government will get to grips with the problem so that people can be reassured that it is not a continuing and escalating issue?
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
Forests With Impact is delivering innovative prisoner rehabilitation through horticulture, paid work and accredited training at HMP Haverigg, helping people to gain skills for employment on release while also contributing to environmental recovery. Would the Minister be willing to pay a visit and observe this work at first hand, and will he meet me to discuss how similar schemes could be supported more widely?
Jake Richards
I thank my hon. Friend for her important question. That sounds like a really important initiative. A big swathe of this Government’s agenda is trying to tackle reoffending, which means improving rehabilitative services within our prisons. I look forward to meeting this service with my hon. Friend in the new year.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
One in three rape trials end up being postponed, in some cases more than six times, and 73% of rape survivors say that police treatment worsened their mental health during the process. What improvements will be made in how the police treat rape survivors?
Mr Lammy
The Criminal Justice Board, which brings all the justice partners together, met recently, and of course the police are represented on that board. However, I urge the hon. Lady to look closely at the Victims and Courts Bill, which provides for the reform that we need to reduce the backlog.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I welcome the news that the Deputy Prime Minister has been appointed to lead a national summit to discuss the issues affecting men and boys, but given that those in politics—including, let us face it, progressive politics—all too often fail to see and speak about some of the specific challenges faced by men and young boys growing up in Britain today, how can we make the most of the summit, which could be a truly catalysing moment to start to put that right?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for championing this issue. As part of our mission to deal with violence against women and girls, we must build a positive agenda that promotes opportunities for men and boys but is in no way at the expense of opportunities for women and girls. The Prime Minister has announced a new programme of work to be led by me and by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), which will include a national summit for men and boys next year.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Survivors’ Network supports all victims of sexual assault and abuse in Sussex. When my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) and I met representatives of the network at the start of the month, they told us that, owing to the rising costs of national insurance contributions and inflation, £40,000 of its costs are now unfunded. Given the Government’s emphasis on driving down sexual violence, is this the right decision?
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Lady may have missed the announcement that £550 million would be invested in victim support services, the biggest amount ever. I have met victim support services across England and Wales who have welcomed that announcement. The money will be transformational—it will change lives. However, victim support on its own is not enough, which is why we need to take every possible step to reform our criminal justice system, which this Government are doing.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Hillsborough law will deliver a generational strengthening of legal aid, but does the Minister share my constituents’ concern about the fact that the Scottish Government have yet to confirm that similar non-means-tested legal aid will be available to bereaved families in Scotland?
Alex Davies-Jones
I can confirm that we have had positive conversations with the Scottish Government about extending the provision to Scotland. This is a matter for them, but we are engaging in positive conversations, and they have shown willing in wanting to adopt the same model that we will be adopting to provide non-means-tested legal aid for all bereaved families when there has been state involvement in the death of their loved ones.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Has the Ministry of Justice had any contact with the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland in relation to the looming crisis in criminal justice arising from the fact that on 5 January the criminal barristers will go on strike because there has not been an uplift in legal aid rates since 2005? If contact is made, will the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland be asked why, given her statutory duty to review the rates, she paused the last review in 2022, and why the interim uplift that she announced last year has never been paid?
Jake Richards
The hon. and learned Member will know that this is a devolved matter. I met the Justice Ministers from all the devolved nations last week, and we continue to have that dialogue to ensure that justice is served across all four countries.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a crisis in family mediation, with no confirmation of mediation vouchers going beyond next April and over half of legal aid providers having been forced to give up in the last eight years? Does he agree that this is short-sighted, as mediation saves time, money and families, and will the Government work with the Family Mediation Council to rescue the sector?
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I served on the Bill Committee for the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—better known as the Hillsborough law—and was very grateful to the Minister for agreeing to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) and me to discuss 11 amendments, two new clauses and general points that came up in the line-by-line scrutiny. The Minister was very clear that she is a woman on a mission and that she wants the Bill to be on the statute book as soon as possible. May I seek an assurance that she will meet my colleague and me before the Bill is considered on Report?
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Lady is right: I am a woman on a mission. I will meet her early in the new year, ahead of Report, to discuss her amendments and the Bill’s progress through the House.
Chagossians: Trust Fund and Resettlement
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the rights of British Chagossians to access the trust fund and resettle on the Chagos archipelago.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
On 22 May the Diego Garcia treaty was signed and laid before the House. As the Defence Secretary told the House on the day of signature, the treaty secures the strategically important UK-US military base on the island of Diego Garcia. The base is essential to the security of the UK and our key allies, and to keeping British people safe. Under the terms of the treaty, the UK will capitalise a £40 million trust fund for the benefit of Chagossians, which will be established by Mauritius.
On 12 December the Mauritian Government approved the introduction of primary legislation to establish the trust fund. The Mauritian Bill confirms the principle that the trust fund will be operated for Chagossians and by Chagossians. Decisions on the use of funds will be taken by a trust fund management board. The board will comprise 12 members, seven of whom will be Chagossians, ensuring majority representation. The chair of the trust fund will be a Chagossian, selected by the Chagossian members. Following extensive representations and engagement by this Government, the Mauritian Bill also confirms that a UK-based Chagossian representative will sit on the board, alongside representatives living in Mauritius and the Seychelles. The UK high commissioner to Mauritius will also attend board meetings. We welcome these commitments by Mauritius, which will ensure that the trust fund reflects the full spectrum of perspectives within the Chagossian community.
The treaty enables Mauritius to develop a programme of resettlement on islands other than Diego Garcia. This agreement is the only viable path to resettlement on the archipelago. The UK Government have been in talks with Mauritius to ensure that the programme is open to all Chagossians, irrespective of their country of residence. The Mauritian Government confirmed on 12 December that eligibility to resettle will apply to Chagossians born on the archipelago before 31 December 1973, and to the children of a parent who was born on the archipelago before that date.
As of April 2025, 94% of Chagossians with British nationality also had Mauritian citizenship. However, any UK-based Chagossian who does not hold Mauritian citizenship and who meets the criteria will be eligible for it and therefore able to participate in any future programme of resettlement. All Chagossians will remain eligible for British citizenship under the current citizenship pathway, and they will be able to hold both British and Mauritian citizenship. Mauritius has also confirmed that civil status documents issued by the Government of Mauritius will continue to record the place of birth as the Chagos archipelago for all those born there. Where for any reason this has not been the case, the Government of Mauritius will review and amend the documents as necessary.
This landmark agreement secures the future of the strategically critical UK-US military base. As the Defence Secretary told the House, there was no alternative but to act. In so doing, we have protected Britons at home and overseas.
Priti Patel
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. We have basically just heard from the Minister that the Government’s betrayal of the British Chagossian community continues. We have just had more details on how bad this deal is for the Chagossian community. Labour’s surrender of British sovereign territory means that future decisions on access to and resettlement on most of the archipelago, the ancestral home of Chagossians, are now left in the hands of—guess what?—a foreign Government.
Can the Minister confirm if British Chagossians will need to become Mauritian citizens to have any hope of being entitled to or eligible for resettlement under the future resettlement programme? That is a simple yes or no—it sounds like the answer is an absolute yes. This is a country that, until only weeks ago, had an offence on its statute books of “misrepresenting the sovereignty of Mauritius”, and it is a country from which hundreds of Chagossians have fled to Britain in recent weeks. By the way, housing this community across the country is adding to the pressure on local authorities. Does the Minister recognise the sheer madness of this plan?
The Government have confirmed that, despite this Government giving the Government of Mauritius £40 million of British taxpayers’ money for the trust fund, Britain has no proper representation on the board and no control over how the funds are spent. There will be just one UK-based Chagossian representative on the board, chosen not by the British Chagossian community, but—guess what?—by the Prime Minister of Mauritius. Can the Minister tell us if he thinks this is acceptable, and did the Government—I cannot say the Minister specifically—press for greater Chagossian and British representation on the board? Can he tell us exactly what UK delegations have been doing in Mauritius this year, who they have met and what has been discussed?
On the so-called contact group, why have the Government refused to seek the views of the British Chagossian community on this surrender treaty? They have instead chosen to outsource this vital function to a House of Lords Select Committee, whose survey, as we have seen online, has been open to manipulation by and interference from the Mauritian Government.
It is no wonder that the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has called the Government out for their betrayal of the Chagossian community. That is massively embarrassing, particularly when we have a Government of human rights lawyers. What is the Minister’s response to this UN committee? Will he suspend the ratification of this appalling treaty, which is what the UN calls for, and importantly, say sorry to hard-pressed taxpayers in this country, who are forking out £35 billion for this shameful betrayal?
Mr Falconer
In the spirit of Christmas, I will not respond to allegations of betrayal. I suspect that Conservative Members will want to chunter throughout this discussion, but they might remind themselves who started these negotiations and on what basis. No doubt they will wish throughout this session to focus on transfer of sovereignty, but they might remind themselves what their negotiating position was when they were in government.
Let me turn to the questions asked by the right hon. Lady. I am pleased to inform the House that we met the Chagossian contact group on both 2 and 8 December. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who leads on these issues, has been very keen to ensure that he hears the full range of views from Chagossians in the UK. I understand, as I know Opposition Members also understand, that there is a range of views among the Chagossian community—they do not speak with one voice—and this Government are trying to listen to all of those views.
The shadow Foreign Secretary asked about the ratification of the treaty. As she knows, the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill will have its Third Reading in the House of Lords in the new year. No doubt this will be discussed further then, as it was in this House. This treaty will be scrutinised properly in the normal way, and all of these points will be surfaced.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s clarification that the Chagossian community will be involved in the operation of the trust fund.
Turning to support in the UK for the Chagossian community, which is a significant issue, the previous Government—including Conservative Members who now sit on the Opposition Benches, pretending they have no idea where some of these issues come from—legislated in 2022 to expand the rights of Chagossians to settle here in the UK and to claim citizenship up to 2027. I represent the port authority of Hillingdon, and we are seeing a significant movement of people based on the historical rights given by the Conservatives without adequate planning. Will the Minister and his team meet me to discuss the adequacy of the support available in the UK, and how we can stop playing politics with this complex historical issue and continue to find solutions?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I will ensure he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats have been clear from the start: nothing should be happening to the Chagossian people without the full democratic input of Chagossians themselves, who, in the custom of other overseas territories citizens, we should recognise as a self-governing and self-determining people, even if the UK has deprived Chagossians access to their homeland for more than 50 years.
Those principles, if they are to mean anything to our overseas territories family, must be both immutable and universal. In recognising that, I note that I am now joined by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which last week reported that the proposed agreement on the future of the Chagos islands should not be ratified on the grounds that it risks
“perpetuating longstanding violations of the Chagossian people’s rights.”
I am also concerned about the requirement—made, I think, explicit in the Minister’s statement yesterday—that Chagossian people will only be able to partake in the resettlement programme if, and only if, they accept Mauritian citizenship, even in circumstances where individuals and families have no historical connection, cultural or civic, to that state. Will the Minister therefore set out whether any negotiations have taken place that would have enabled Chagossians to exercise their right of return without being required to subscribe to Mauritian citizenship? Were there any discussions about a Hong Kong-style arrangement, whereby permanent residency and freedom of movement may have been granted outside of citizenship? Finally, how does the Minister reconcile last week’s UN report with his stated desire to conform with our international obligations?
Mr Falconer
In relation to the UN report, I am sure that it will be discussed on Third Reading, when the House of Lords further considers the treaty, and again in this House if that is where it returns. On the trust fund, the written ministerial statement yesterday set out the position of the Mauritian Government. There will be further discussions between the UK and Mauritius in the new year.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Chagossians have been treated appallingly by successive Governments—we all accept that. To me, it is unconscionable that, for the first time since the first world war, a colonial people is being transferred from one colonial power to another 1,000 miles away with no control. I think there should be a referendum, but we are where we are. Does the Minister recognise that it would lighten the whole atmosphere if there was an absolute right of return for all Chagossians, with them not having to take Mauritian citizenship and being fully in control of their own trust fund? In other words, they have a right to self-determination like any other people on earth.
Mr Falconer
I thank my constituency neighbour for that question. The UK negotiations with the Mauritian Government have had the wishes of the Chagossian people very much at their heart. Some of the elements that I laid out in my response to the shadow Foreign Secretary are responses very much to the Chagossians themselves, including both the majority control of the board that will determine the nature of the trust fund, and the element about civil status documents and origin of birth. We will continue to talk to the Chagossian community about their wishes.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Is, in the Government’s opinion, Mauritius a free society, and what is the Government’s assessment of the nature of its relationship with communist China?
Mr Falconer
These issues have been discussed at some length. Mauritius is obviously an important partner for us. I will leave it to the relevant Minister to provide a fuller commentary about the state of its relations with China.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
It is striking that the Government, despite deriding 14 years of Conservative Government, want to follow the example of the previous Government on just this matter. May I just point out that the former Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord Cameron, decided that the negotiations were not in the national interest and not in the interests of the Chagossian people, and that they should be suspended? May I recommend that the Minister follows our example on that?
Mr Falconer
I am confused whether I am or am not to follow the example of those on the Opposition Benches. My understanding was that Boris Johnson offered large quantities of money to Mauritius, absent negotiations, to try to make this all go away. That did not work. Negotiations were then opened with sovereignty at their heart. I am not sure which elements the hon. Gentleman would say I should or should not demur from. We are taking the action required to ensure the safety of the base and the security of the British people, and we are doing so closely with our partners, including the United States and Mauritius.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The Minister talks warmly of the relationship with the Chagossians. They have, of course, just formed a Government in exile. Do the British Government recognise the Chagossian Government in exile?
Mr Falconer
As colleagues across the House will know, there is a range of views across the Chagossian community. I am not familiar with the Government in exile in any great detail, but I suspect that there is a whole range of views among Chagossians here in the UK, in Mauritius and elsewhere. The relevant Minister has been closely engaged with a wide range of Chagossian voices.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I accept the fact that the treaty and the UN report will be discussed further in the other place, but the Minister is here to answer our questions, and we are the only ones who are able to question the issue. What is the Government’s reaction to the United Nations reports, and will they honour the recommendations?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Gentleman will know that I have been asked an urgent question about the trust fund. That is what I have come prepared to talk about. I am sure that the relevant Minister, in the plenty of opportunities he has had before and no doubt the House will give him again, will answer further questions about the UN report. We have undertaken this process soberly and seriously. We recognise that the Members on the Conservative Benches who started this process had views. We are now trying to follow the process through. We will, of course, accord with international law throughout.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
After a string of high profile corruption cases across Mauritius, what confidence does the Minister have that the bounty he is about to bestow on the Mauritian Government, including on the Chagossian trust fund, will be spent appropriately and will not end up in the pockets of corrupt officials and politicians?
Mr Falconer
As I set out in my response to the shadow Foreign Secretary, the trust fund will have a majority of Chagossians on it and a chair appointed by the Chagossians. The conduct of the trust fund will also be observed by our own high commission.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Last month, after a three-month wait for an answer, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry informed me in a written answer that the Government Actuary’s Department’s figure for the cost of the Chagos deal of £34.7 billion is inaccurate. I struggle to believe that the Government Actuary’s Department would have published the figure in error in August. It was widely reported at the time, and the Department has never publicly corrected the figure. Will the Minister confirm that the Government Actuary’s Department figure of £34.7 billion over the length of the deal is correct and that the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry is misinformed?
Mr Falconer
I will have to consult the Ministry of Defence to be sure where the error is. My understanding is that all costs have been verified by the Government Actuary’s Department, and I cannot provide any further clarification.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
In getting to this point, the Government have made much of their adherence to international standards and bodies, yet in the last 15 minutes the Minister has been asked three times to respond to the United Nations’ findings, which call for a suspension of the treaty, and criticise the denial of the right to self-determination and the right to return. Why is the Minister now so timid when it comes to dealing with those international findings?
Mr Falconer
I wonder if the hon. and learned Gentleman accepts all the UN findings—for example in relation to Gaza or UNRWA. There is a wide range of different UN bodies with different responsibilities. The UN Secretary-General himself welcomed the agreement between the UK and Mauritius. This further report by a UN body will no doubt be studied carefully by the relevant Minister, but I do not have a fuller response today.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister is an honourable and just man, but I do have to ask this question. Does he accept the reasons that Chagossians are concerned about the delivery of the UK-funded trust fund? They are concerned that the fund will not help to resettle Chagossians, but will be used by other settlers. How can the Government, with only one seat at the table, so to speak, ensure that that is not the case?
Mr Falconer
I feel a deep sense of foreboding when the hon. Gentleman chuckles before he asks me a question, as it is an indication that it will be difficult. I think the answer is straightforward: in addition to the British Chagossian who will sit on the board, our own high commissioner will be an observer of the board in order to give greater insight and transparency to the UK about its operations.
Africa: New Approach
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary if she will make a statement on the Government’s new approach to Africa.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
Africa matters to the United Kingdom and it matters to this Government, our missions and our plan for change. Africa has the greatest growth potential of any continent, providing expanding opportunities for UK businesses to kick-start economic growth. Strengthening the foundations of UK growth requires engagement with Africa to secure our borders and address the drivers of illegal migration. Africa is home to 30% of the world’s mineral resources, including significant deposits of the growth minerals identified in the new UK critical minerals strategy, which are essential to securing our supply chains and enabling the UK’s mission to become a clean energy superpower.
However, we inherited an approach that reflected the past and not the opportunities of Africa’s future. That is why we committed in our manifesto to deliver a new approach for mutual long-term benefit. We were also clear that reframing our relationship was not something to cook up here in London and then package as a shared approach, so we launched a five-month listening exercise, hearing from Governments and more than 600 organisations—from civil society and diaspora communities to businesses and universities—about what they valued and wanted to see from Britain. There was a clear common message: African nations want respectful, long-term partnerships that deliver real change for people’s lives.
Responding to the consultation, the UK’s new approach provides a high-level framing to guide the Government’s long-term engagement with African partners, reaffirming the shift from paternalism to a partnership of respect and equality over seven areas of shared interest. First, we are moving from donor to investor. We will go further to unlock investment and trade, helping African and British businesses to create quality jobs, economic opportunities and prosperity. Secondly, we are working together on the challenges of illegal migration. Migration should be fair, managed and controlled. We will be unapologetic in pressing for high ambition and clear progress against our priorities in this area. Thirdly, we are advancing shared interests on climate, nature and clean energy, recognising their significance for growth and security. Fourthly, we are continuing to collaborate for peace and security, working to silence the guns and tackle violence against women and girls. Fifthly, we are strengthening the systems that support people and growth, including strengthening financial self-resilience. Sixthly, we are championing African voices in global decision making, including in the global financial system. Finally, we are supporting innovation and cultural partnerships. This adds up to a new kind of partnership—one that works with African leadership and is inclusive, respectful and strong enough to work through difficulties and disagreements.
Our high commissions and embassies will be at the forefront of embedding this approach in spirit and content, and we will take it forward into the UK’s G20 presidency in 2027. British Ministers will be out there on the continent championing these principles, strengthening coherence across our partnerships and backing diverse African voices to shape our work.
Mr Speaker
I will just say gently, Minister, that this is a very important statement, and what you have said is so important to the House. We do not need written ministerial statements; it would be easier if it was brought to the House, rather than hidden away in the Library.
Adam Jogee
I am grateful to you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for foreign affairs and co-chair of the APPG for the Commonwealth.
The geopolitical challenges we face as a nation are acute and mounting and have real impacts on people back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme and across our United Kingdom. For too long, our relationship with countries on the African continent has been viewed through the prism of colonial guilt, which has harmed our ability to engage, left relationships to suffer and let generations down. We must think about what we can do with, not to, nations on the African continent.
The African continent is a big and diverse place and cannot be put in one basket. Each region will have different characteristics, and our approach needs to reflect that with respect, understanding and action. The United Kingdom has been found seriously wanting in relation to its former colonies over the past 30 years under successive Governments, and this must be a turning point based on respect, friendship, equality and our shared histories, bonds, systems and experiences.
I have the following questions for the Minister. How will the Government’s approach protect the United Kingdom against the geopolitical threats we face from Russia, China and other hostile states and their corrosive impact on nations across the African continent? Many African nations are members of the Commonwealth—a hugely important but totally underutilised post-war creation. How will the approach ensure that the Commonwealth gets meaningful support and is properly fit for purpose? I am concerned that one word that was not mentioned in the statement was “Commonwealth”.
How much money will be put behind this new approach? What steps will be taken to ensure that new, meaningful trade deals are established between African nations and the United Kingdom? Fair, balanced and decent trade has a hugely important role to play in this relationship, and it must be taken seriously. What will be expected of our heads of missions at high commissions and embassies across Africa to advance this approach? Finally, what will our new approach mean for British engagement with the African Union?
The bonds of history and people bind together our United Kingdom and many independent nations on the African continent; we have common languages, common legal systems, common but difficult histories and a common purpose. This new approach has the potential to help to grow our economy here at home, neutralise the influence of hostile states and move forward together. If it does that, it will have my full support.
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend both for the question and for his dedication to and diligence on these issues. I reassure him of the importance that this Government place on the Commonwealth, which is a vital partnership both in Africa and across the world. It is the C in FCDO, and it is very close to our minds and central to our strategy both in Africa and elsewhere.
My hon. Friend asks important points about the role of Russia and China in Africa. As he knows well, China particularly has been a long-standing presence in many African countries as an important source of trade and finance. In my experience, though, African countries are not naive about Chinese motivations or the potential risks associated with elements of its offer. The Africa strategy that we announced yesterday is in part a response to the desire from so many African countries for a longer, enduring and sustainable partnership with the UK, both to respond to the interests of others, whether that is China or Russia, and to build on the historic ties to which he so eloquently referred.
I pause briefly to talk about Russia’s role in Africa. Russia is exploiting conflicts, instability and natural resources right across Africa, in the Sahel and indeed in north Africa. We are already supporting African partners through strategic security and defence relationships with countries such as Kenya, Nigeria and Ghana, co-ordinating closely with like-minded states and international organisations. The role of the Africa Corps in Africa is malign.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for securing this important urgent question. May I say that I do not think it is acceptable for the Minister to just regurgitate the written ministerial statement from yesterday?
There are some fundamental issues about what should be the Government’s strategy. First and foremost, it was wrong to simply say that the approach that the Government inherited was wrong. I should know that, having recapitalised the Commonwealth Development Corporation, with British International Investment now having a huge amount of annual investment and reinvestment every single year on economic development in Africa. Fundamentally, whether it is from Gavi, the Global Fund or the sustainable development goals, these are founding principles that are now being advanced across Africa, and the Government really should do much more to stand up and defend them.
In the written ministerial statement yesterday there was no reference to China’s belt and road debt traps, Russia’s nefarious activities or the Wagner Group in Africa. Yet before our eyes, we see the axis of authoritarian states pillaging African countries for its natural resources. Where is the substance for a plan of action to counter the growing influence of that axis?
As we have already heard, there is also scant regard in the Government’s plan for the Commonwealth and its role in upholding democracy, capacity building and freedoms. Why is that the case? Are the Government working with the new secretary-general on her economic vision, which would clearly benefit the UK and Africa?
We do not know how the Government intend to support the African Union or rise to the challenges in the continent, and sadly, we are seeing so much conflict right now. Can the Minister explain what the UK will do to leverage our conflict resolution expertise to good effect?
Finally, on illegal migration, can I remind the Minister and the Government that they intentionally tore up engagement with a key Commonwealth partner? Rwanda sought to provide leadership on illegal migration and stop young men leaving the continent at great risk because it wanted to create an economic development partnership with the UK. That surely speaks to some of the serious challenges that this Government now need to pick up and confront.
Mr Falconer
I addressed the questions of Russia and China somewhat in my previous answer, but let me reassure the shadow Foreign Secretary how central those issues of conflict are to us. I travelled to Libya in recent months, where, as she knows, Russia has been active, particularly in the west. The Wagner Group may have been renamed the Africa Corps, but it remains as malign a threat to Africa and, indeed, British interests as it ever was. We are active across the continent in seeking to counter its baleful influence.
The right hon. Lady talks about migration pressures from Africa. We are working in places such as Algeria, Tunisia, and indeed Libya, where small boats cross into Mediterranean Europe—
Mr Falconer
I am glad to hear a moment of uncharacteristic harmony between the two Benches.
Where the work that was started by the previous Government was functioning, we continued it. Where it was not—such as the Rwanda deal that the right hon. Lady referred to—we stopped it.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I welcome the publication of the Government’s Africa approach. Strengthening systems that support people and growth is the right approach to improve health, education and social protection. Can the Minister confirm that the approach will include disability rights and inclusion, which the written ministerial statement did not mention? To truly strengthen systems and support, disability must be at the heart of the approach.
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate in this area. I know that the Minister responsible for Africa has been considering those issues, and I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets a meeting to discuss them further.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The Government are absolutely right to say that the United Kingdom needs a new relationship with Africa. Many Members in this House had hoped that that partnership would be sustainable, strategic and built on mutual trust. Africa, after all, has one of the youngest populations in the world and incredible economic potential, yet the Government are cutting aid to Africa by 12% this year alone, with further reductions likely in years to come.
Over the last decade the Liberal Democrats criticised the constant churn in Ministers under the previous Conservative Government, and we are very disappointed that the Africa Minister has recently again been changed. That has come as hard news in continental Africa, where the Minister was appreciated and the hard work that had been undertaken was bearing fruit.
Warm words are not enough when the overall trajectory that we see from the UK is arguably one of a diminishing partnership and diminishing influence. The Government are cutting overseas development aid from 0.7% to 0.3%—the lowest this country has ever seen—at a time when debt costs are rising in continental Africa. It is important to invest in the work of the FCDO, because trade commissioners, for example, provide the in-country expertise that is needed to develop the new economic relations that the Minister talks about. On migration, upstream investment in poverty reduction and conflict prevention is more important than ever, as is support for organisations such as the British Council.
Africa is an essential strategic partner in an increasingly contested world, so may I ask the Minister directly, how can the Government seriously claim that they are strengthening partnerships and seeking to influence Africa while cutting aid and hollowing out the very tools that make engagement sustainable?
Mr Falconer
As I set out, at the centre of the new strategy is a move from simply donation to investment. We are hearing that that new partnership is demanded from across Africa.
Let me join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the previous Minister for Africa, who I worked closely with. He was a diligent servant of the FCDO and the country, and I know that he continues to do important work in the other place. The new Minister for Africa is excellent. I have been the Minister responsible for North Africa consistently throughout the period, so I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that while some things have changed, others have not.
We will set out the ODA allocations in due course in the new year. On the point about whether or not we can truly have influence in Africa given the decisions we have made on ODA, I think that the hon. Gentleman has heard clearly from the continent itself the valuable work that the Minister for Africa, both past and present, is able to do, and that work will continue.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I welcome the change of approach that the Minister has outlined—a change from a paternalism to partnership—and I welcome the listening way in which it has been done. I am concerned that poverty reduction was not mentioned in the statement—neither were sustainable development goals, or working with local organisations on the ground that know best. Will the Minister reassure the House that poverty reduction is at the heart of our strategy in working with local organisations across the many countries in Africa to achieve the real change that Africa needs?
Mr Falconer
I reassure my hon. Friend, who has long experience in these matters, that we remain committed to sustainable development goals, poverty reduction and working with local partners.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I absolve the Minister entirely from responsibility for this statement, as he is not the Africa Minister, but is the so-called new approach for Africa not rather like the old strategy—which was so well set out in the White Paper published by the former Prime Minister in November 2023, with its emphasis on investment—but with much less development investment and much less influence? Will the Minister confirm that bilateral programmes are being cut to ribbons across Africa? Does he realise that in major African institutions there is genuine amazement and astonishment that a Labour Government, for the first time ever in the Labour party’s history, have slashed development aid? Does he appreciate that as Britain and America are withdrawing from Africa, it is Russia and China that are taking our place?
Mr Falconer
Let me pay tribute to the work of the right hon. Gentleman. I served for two years in South Sudan when he was the Development Secretary; I know his commitment to these issues and I know that many of the programmes that are still run in Africa were set up during his tenure. As I said, we will set out the ODA allocations in more detail in the new year. As the right hon. Gentleman alluded to, it is vital that we make this shift; there has been recognition on both sides of the House that there was a need for a change in approach. That is what the Africa strategy is about, and we will no doubt set out further detail in the new year.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I have visited four of my six markets in southern Africa this year, and we are clearly hearing support from those nations for this new approach. It transforms our relationship from donor to investor and from benefactor to partner. Key to delivering this ambition will be a focus on economic diplomacy. Therefore, it is critical that we sustain our resources and networks within the region. How will that be reflected in a new appreciation of the vital work that our diplomatic network does within Africa and the expertise that it has, because it is vital to enhancing both our interests and African interests?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend both for his kind words about the diplomatic service and for his own diligent efforts as trade envoy to southern Africa, which I know is yielding real results. He is right that there is a real desire for serious engagement on economic issues. We see in his work and the work of many other trade envoys the potential for further growth in Africa, and the Foreign Office will remain focused on it.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Since it is nearly Christmas, and in the spirit of goodwill, may I congratulate the Government on changing and updating the UK language on the Western Sahara? What will the Government now do to ensure that the good progress we have made since the 2019 association agreement with Morocco is sustained and improves further both our bilateral trade and our mutual security?
Mr Falconer
In the spirit of Christmas, I thank my predecessor for that important and helpful question. I know the House will be aware both of the shift in position on Western Sahara announced by the previous Foreign Secretary and of our vote in the recent Security Council deliberations about the future negotiations over Western Sahara. The UN special envoy, Mr de Mistura, retains our full confidence. He is working hard to try to advance talks. It is vital to try to bring to a close this long-running conflict and impediment to greater unity in north Africa, and we hope to see progress in the coming months.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Although I do not disagree with any of the principles set out in the strategy, I am disappointed by its level of ambition and detail. It does not reflect what we did when we were last in government with the Commission for Africa, which was an all-encompassing report looking at how we work together at the university level as well as on skills, trade, women and girls—all those issues—and build democracy. Unfortunately, it also does not address the real risk from Russia and China’s role in Africa. We have 21 Commonwealth countries in Africa, and they are telling us that they desperately need us as a partner so that we can bring the stability and prosperity to the continent that we all want to see.
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend has much experience in these matters. I sought earlier to address some of the questions on Russia and China. The Minister for Africa will have heard her disappointment and I am sure will be happy to discuss it further.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
As you will know, Mr Speaker, I have been calling for the Government to publish an Africa strategy for a very long time. Has it been worth the wait? No. Yesterday, we got a written ministerial statement with a new approach—a partnership. It is not a strategy. As has been said, of the 54 nations, 21 are Commonwealth nations.
Many years ago, I visited the Foreign Office and met the Africa Minister. He said, “Mark, I want you to tell me about certain countries in Africa.” I said, “The first thing you need to do, Minister, is change the map behind you.” He looked round at a tiny little map—as the Minister knows, the continent is huge. This is a timid, timid, timid approach to Africa; it is rather embarrassing. The Minister and the Government should be doing better.
Mr Falconer
I do not accept that it is a timid approach. We have set out seven principles of a new approach following hundreds of consultations launched by the previous Foreign Secretary, but I heard what the right hon. Member said, as the Africa Minister will have done.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s new approach to Africa and the shift from discussion of the continent and our role as donors to that of investors and partners. In the last 50 years we have seen the importance of Asia, with the tiger economies of India and China driving the global economy. It is quite clear that the next 50 years will be an African future, with demographic growth, economic growth and the role of critical minerals and other resources in Africa. I welcome recognition of the importance of that in the approach. In the light of the continent’s growing importance, will we see a shift in FCDO and diplomatic resources to ensure that our resources to discuss and build those relationships align with the new strategy and the continent’s importance?
Mr Falconer
As my hon. Friend would expect, our resources will indeed reflect our strategy. However, as I said earlier, ODA allocations will be announced in the new year, as of course will questions about the laydown of the Foreign Office.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Warm words offer cold comfort to those facing brutal aid cuts this winter. While the Scottish Government remain fully committed to their global partners, the UK is in full retreat. While Scotland’s First Minister has personally visited Malawi in recent weeks to see at first hand the impact of the lifesaving partnership we have, the UK Government leak to the press that they are likely to cut all their aid to Malawi, which is one of the poorest countries in the world. In the spirit of Christmas, will the Minister do the right thing and halt all those aid cuts until the Government have carried out full country-by-country impact assessments on the African continent?
Mr Falconer
In the spirit of Christmas, I am glad to hear that the First Minister of Scotland has been travelling to visit UK aid programmes, as have I and the whole of the Foreign Office ministerial team. As I said earlier, decisions on ODA allocations will be announced in the new year.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
One of the issues is what the effect of the new policy will be. To take one example, what will be the position of the new policy on Nigeria, where so many girls are not in education? The UK has invested in education to encourage them, but many of them come under threat from Islamists who try to convert them.
Mr Falconer
As I have said, we will set out further details on allocations in the new year, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the situation in Nigeria. To understate the position considerably, women and girls in Nigeria clearly face very considerable threats—as do Christians in Nigeria, as recent events have demonstrated. Let me take the opportunity to condemn the recent abductions. We welcome the news that some have been released, and we join the Government of Nigeria in calling for the release of all remaining abductees and for perpetrators to be brought to justice. Events in Nigeria have taken a very dark turn in recent months, and it is a high priority for the British Government to see that reversed.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Following on directly from that, what can the Minister tell us about any military advice or assistance that our experts in counter-insurgency are giving to the Governments of friendly Commonwealth countries like Nigeria that face vicious jihadist extremist attack from organisations such as Boko Haram?
Mr Falconer
The right hon. Gentleman asks an important question. We have a security and defence partnership with Nigeria and we are helping to build capacity within Nigeria’s security agencies to respond to and prevent attacks, including through support to the multi-agency anti-kidnap fusion cell, which is particularly critical given the events to which I just alluded.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
As Shakira once famously said, “This time for Africa.” Although I welcome the Minister’s statement, I am a little underwhelmed, especially by the constant cuts by successive Governments to the foreign aid budget. We know that 800 million Africans are living in countries where public spending on debt interest exceeds that on health expenditure. That is a feedback loop that only makes life harder. What Africa needs is long-term investments and to be viewed as a partner. What steps are the Government taking to invest in partnerships with African countries? How will they stack that up against what China has been doing for close to three decades?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Gentleman asks an important question—obscured by Shakira lyrics—and makes an important point. It is indisputable that China has put more financial resources into Africa in recent years than in any period before. However, what we hear from many African Governments and African people is that they are wary of some of the conditionality that comes with that investment, and the debt to which he referred. We are seeking a partnership that is respectful and can help African Governments address those issues. Where private sector investment is available from the UK, that is what we are working to support, including through trade envoys such as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), who spoke earlier.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his answers and recognise his intent and that of the Government to try to help in whatever way they can. For centuries, churches and faith groups have sent missionaries to Africa. I think of the Samaritan’s Purse charity, which works across Africa and the middle east. I also think of many churches from Ards and Strangford, such as the Elim church and missions who go to Swaziland—Eswatini—and have built schools, clinics and hospitals. They have also brought farm implements and introduced modern farming practices to feed the people. In the past, I have highlighted the key role that church missions could play. Is it not about time to work with churches and make those partnerships work for Africa and its people?
Mr Falconer
I appreciate the question. In my own time overseas, and indeed in Africa, I saw the vital work that church groups do. It was the bishops in South Sudan who performed some of the most important peace mediation work. Just last night I met Christian groups operating in the Holy Land as well. We are conscious of the vital work done by faith communities in Africa and across the world, and freedom of religious belief and partnership with groups of all denominations is important to the Government.
Electoral Resilience
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for granting the statement. When we each enter this Chamber, we carry on one shoulder the duty to represent our constituents and, on the other, the responsibility to protect this democracy. The case of the former MEP Nathan Gill has revealed the threat that our democracy faces today, and I know it has caused deep concern right across the House. On Friday 21 November 2025, Mr Gill was sentenced to 10 and a half years in prison for accepting bribes linked to the Russian state and attempting to advance that state’s twisted interests. It is the longest sentence handed down to a politician in such a case in our nation’s recent history.
While we must commend the work of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, who successfully prosecuted this case, it is right that we now take a step back and look at how we can protect our democracy against such appalling crimes. Let me be clear about what the crime was. An elected politician took bribes to parrot the lies of a hostile state responsible for the death of Dawn Sturgess, a British citizen, on British soil. He took the side of those responsible for invading a sovereign European state, and he was prosecuted while Putin’s military targeted the civilian men, women and children of Ukraine. At the time, he was a Member of the European Parliament, supposedly representing the British people, and he went on to become a senior leader of a UK political party. We must learn the lessons, so that this can never happen again.
Following discussions with ministerial colleagues, I have today ordered an independent review into foreign financial interference in UK politics. It will be led by the former permanent secretary, Philip Rycroft, who will report both to me as Secretary of State responsible for elections and to the Minister for Security, as the chair of the defending democracy taskforce. The facts are clear: a British politician took bribes to further the interests of the Russian regime—a regime that forcefully deported vulnerable Ukrainian children and killed a British citizen on British soil using a deadly nerve agent. This conduct is a stain on our democracy. The independent review will work to remove that stain.
The purpose of the review is to provide an in-depth assessment of the current financial rules and safeguards, and to make recommendations. I will deposit a full copy of the terms of reference in the House of Commons Library. I have asked Philip Rycroft to report back by the end of March, when I will return to this House to set out his findings and the Government’s response. It is right that the review be independent of Government and independent of any political party. It is also important that I make it clear to the House that investigating crimes and examining broader allegations of wrongdoing remain the responsibility of the Electoral Commission and the police, not of this review. Individual Members should continue to refer to the National Protective Security Authority guidance, and to speak to the parliamentary security authorities if they have any specific concerns. The findings of the independent review will build on the Government’s election strategy and on the counter political interference and espionage action plan, and will inform the elections and democracy Bill that we will bring forward next year.
We published our strategy for modern and secure elections earlier this year. It will close loopholes that should have been closed long before we entered office. It will strengthen rules on donations, so that only legitimate donors can support legitimate campaigns. It will also clamp down on the free rein that shell companies and unincorporated associations have to make donations without first undergoing proper checks. However, since the strategy was published, events have shown that we need to consider whether our firewall is enough. The independent review will look at that, focusing on: the effectiveness of our broader political finance laws; the checks and balances in political regulations on identifying and mitigating foreign interference; safeguards against illicit funding streams, including cryptocurrencies; the rules governing the constitution and regulation of parties; and the Electoral Commission’s enforcement power. It is right that the review looks at these critical issues in depth, and I stand ready to do whatever is necessary to protect British democracy from foreign and hostile interference.
I mentioned the weight of responsibility that each of in this House should feel. Those who seek to disrupt or attack the foundations of our democracy will never prevail. Britain will always be a democracy, because the people of this country will never have it any other way, and because the choices of the British people will always be the guiding star for our nation. I thank all hon. Members who have come to the Chamber today. I am highlighting the threat of foreign interference because the first responsibility of His Majesty’s Government is to keep our people safe. Our ability to protect this nation and its values is always stronger when this Parliament presents a united front, so I hope that Members from right across the Chamber will offer their support for the independent review. I commend this statement to the House.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement. Let me begin by saying that protecting the integrity of our democratic system from foreign interference is not a partisan issue. It goes to the heart of public trust in our elections. Interference in our elections by foreign actors is something that we must all be vigilant against. I concur fully with what he said about Nathan Gill, and join the Secretary of State in giving sincere thanks to the CPS and the police. Any such crime deserves full condemnation from all Members of this House.
The Government announced their election strategy back in July, a strategy that affects all of us in this House. However, there was no consultation of political parties before the strategy was released. There has also been no formal consultation since it was announced. December marks the first time that the Government have engaged with the parliamentary parties panel. We do, however, welcome the announced independent review led by Philip Rycroft, and we wish him well in his work. Will the Minister commit to all parties being consulted during the new independent review’s work? Does he also accept the long-standing convention that Governments should not unilaterally impose changes to the law affecting political parties without proper consultation and cross-party engagement?
On electoral resilience, last week the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission noted that the commission was not consulted at all on the cancellation of the 2026 mayoral elections. Will the Secretary of State update us on whether council elections are going ahead, or will he cancel more elections at the last minute? Will he give electoral officials plenty of notice, whatever he chooses to do?
Delving into the Government’s statement, I note that the Government have signalled their intention to introduce “know your customer”-style checks on political donations, but political parties are not banks or the taxman. During the passage of the National Security Bill, the last Government committed to looking at greater powers for information sharing between relevant agencies and with political parties, precisely to identify irregular funding sources. Does the Secretary of State agree that such information sharing would help political parties to meet these new duties? I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement on cryptocurrencies, and the clarity that they will be in scope of the independent review.
The Secretary of State is absolutely right to mention Russia. The last Government legislated for a foreign influence registration scheme to stop covert foreign influence. Can the Minister explain why the Government have repeatedly refused to extend the scheme to China? What reasons are there for leaving such a gap in our national security framework, and will China be included in the scope of the independent review? Unfortunately, that decision sits uneasily alongside the Government ramming through the planning application for the Chinese embassy. How is that meant to convince Members of this House that the Government take seriously foreign interference from all malign powers across the globe?
There are clear loopholes that the Government need to address. Loopholes created by the Scottish and Welsh Governments allow Chinese residents in Scotland and Wales to make donations to UK political parties and politicians. What steps are the Government taking to close those loopholes, and to ensure that safeguarding is consistent throughout the whole United Kingdom?
Finally, protecting our democracy requires transparent cross-party discussion. Centralised power that bends the knee to the Chinese does not have the United Kingdom’s national interests as a priority. The Secretary of State now has an opportunity to set the record straight, and reassure the House of this Government’s commitment to taking seriously foreign interference by any malign influence. I hope that the concerns I have outlined are directly addressed today.
Steve Reed
I warmly welcome the hon. Member’s support for the review. I agree with him that this is way above party politics; this matters to all of us. It is about the integrity and safety of our democracy, and about ensuring that the safeguards in place to protect those precious things are sufficiently robust.
On the election strategy and the Bill that will be brought forward in the new year, we will of course engage with parties on aspects of that Bill before it is brought to the House. The hon. Member asked about the elections that are scheduled to go ahead; they will go ahead. He asked about cryptocurrency. That will be in the scope of the review, and I expect the independent reviewer to take a view on the subject. It has been raised by Members in all parts of the House, but I am sure that the hon. Member and other Members of his party will want to make their views clear to the reviewer before he comes to his conclusions. Again, the review is fully independent, but I would expect China to be fully in scope because of the questions that have been raised about the threats that China poses to national security, which are well documented.
We will engage with the devolved Administrations on applying the independent review’s findings on matters relating to elections that are within their competency.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for making his statement. Far too often, Members right across this House take elections for granted. The fact that we can go to the ballot box and cast our votes in a free and fair election is something that we have to fight for and protect, so I welcome the fact that the investigation will look into this, and particularly the foreign donations angle. It cannot be right that while political parties can raise millions of pounds in cryptocurrency, the source of that funding is unchecked, so I welcome the review into illicit funding, which will ensure that we can trace the source of political donations.
I also welcome the appointment of Philip Rycroft, and I hope to go through the terms of reference, which, as the Secretary of State outlined, will be published later. In welcoming this announcement, it is important that we look at the fact that democracy is under attack. We need to ensure that accountability and independence stay in check. The strategy and policy statement introduced by the previous Conservative Government were a step in the wrong direction; they gave politicians undue influence over the Electoral Commission. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the strategy and policy statement will be abolished in the upcoming elections Bill, and whether the independence of the Electoral Commission will be protected in future?
Steve Reed
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her support for the review, and I look forward to the Committee making its views clear to Philip Rycroft and his team. I agree with her about the problematic nature of cryptocurrency, and with her concerns about the anonymity of donors. It is important that there be transparency about where that money comes, and that we see who is seeking to influence British politics and democracy, particularly if they are malign, hostile foreign or state actors. She asked a question about the elections Bill. That will be published in the new year, and the details will be clear to her then.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
First, I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of the content of his statement. The Liberal Democrats welcome the statement and the decision to establish an independent review. This is a serious issue that clearly demands action, and we will follow the review closely.
Public trust in politics is dangerously low. Polling consistently shows only 9% to 12% of the public trust politicians, which should seriously worry every Member of this House. Restoring trust must begin with integrity and transparency. People need confidence that the information shaping our political debate is accurate. Trust also relies on fairness. Every vote must count equally, and that requires a fair and credible electoral system. Finally, and most relevant to today, trust depends on transparency about political finance. Voters should know who funds our politics, and should trust that wealthy individuals, corporations or foreign interests cannot buy influence or access.
With that in mind, will the Government accept that a small number of extremely wealthy individuals now wield disproportionate influence over British politics? That includes overseas donors, which raises serious questions about foreign interference. In a recent Westminster Hall debate, Members from across the House spoke out about this strongly. Finally, will the Secretary of State commit to donation caps, which are supported by voters across every major party?
Steve Reed
I welcome the hon. Lady’s support for the review. We have now had that support from all sides of the House, and that is appreciated. It is very important that the House of Commons stands united against the potential threats to our democracy from hostile foreign state actors. Our democracy is one of the most precious things we have, and it is important that we all work together across the Chamber to protect it. We are not targeting any particular states or individuals with this review; we are looking to confirm that the safeguards that protect our democracy from inappropriate or malign foreign financial interference are robust enough. I look forward to Philip Rycroft’s findings when we have them towards the end of March.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) recently failed to declare on time hospitality in a French villa from the wife of the former Russian deputy Finance Minister. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the offer and acceptance of gifts and free holidays from Russian oligarchs will be in the scope of the review?
Steve Reed
I preface my response by saying that the review is not looking at individual cases, but the broader issue of gifts and hospitality and how they may be used by malign, or potentially malign, foreign agents or state actors will be in scope for the independent review.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I hope that the Rycroft review will take account of the fact that the giving of money is by no means the worst aspect, or the main aspect, of treacherous behaviour, because very often these people do what they do out of a genuine belief in a potential enemy’s point of view. It would be interesting to know whether the crime would have attracted such a large sentence as it did if, instead of just money being given, it had been a matter of clandestine contact because the person was willing to spout the Russian line anyway. Let us not be overconcerned with the giving of the bribe, which is often a bonus to people who want to betray us to a potential enemy in any case.
Steve Reed
The right hon. Member makes a very important point. The Security Minister, who is sitting alongside me, leads the defending democracy taskforce, which will be taking a wider view of the threats to our democracy as they evolve, and so too must our safeguards evolve to keep our democracy safe. Philip Rycroft’s review will focus on malign foreign financial interference, given that we know from the Nathan Gill case that there may be weaknesses and vulnerabilities, and we want to ensure that our safeguards are as robust as they can be.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before I call the next Member, I remind Members that if they are going to seek to make a complaint about the non-declaration of interests or the breaking of rules of conduct by another Member, that would be an issue better raised with the Standards Commissioner than with the Secretary of State today. Equally, if they are going to refer to another Member, they should have informed them in advance.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and thank him for mentioning the forcible deportation of Ukrainian children by Russia. I recently co-ordinated a cross-party letter to the Minister of State at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), asking him to ensure that the human rights of those children are protected in peace negotiations. Does the Secretary of State share my concern that, although that letter was supported by almost every party across this House, not a single representative from one particular party sought to sign it, and that was the Reform party?
Steve Reed
I commend and congratulate my hon. Friend on her campaigning for the kidnapped children of Ukraine. We would expect representatives of all political parties to seek to support those children’s interests in being returned home to their parents and carers. Perhaps most shocking of all is the fact that, despite the widespread knowledge that that was going on, this individual chose to accept bribes from the Russian Government, who were responsible for those heinous activities, betraying his country into the bargain.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I am curious to know in what respect our existing laws were insufficient to deal with this appalling case. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the best way to reassure the public on electoral resilience is never again to delay local council or mayoral elections?
Steve Reed
Well, I am curious to know exactly the same thing, which is why I have appointed Philip Rycroft to lead an independent review, so that we can find out.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
I welcome this review and the fact that it is independent. It is really important that this is seen to be above party politics, because we must protect our democracy; it is very clear that it is fragile and under attack from foreign forces. I want to ask the Secretary of State about the terms of reference. Will the review look at the role of social media companies? There is no doubt that foreign state actors are using that as a vehicle to spread disinformation and undermine our democracy.
Steve Reed
It is an independent review, and the reviewer and his team will be able to look at whatever they think may be problematic relating to the core terms of reference. The central part of those terms of reference is to focus on potential malign foreign financial interference in UK politics. That may or may not have a bearing on the point my hon. Friend raises.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The Secretary of State is right to highlight the appalling case of a senior UK politician being convicted of bribery for taking money from Russia. I am also concerned about a UK political party getting a donation—the largest single donation from a living person—from money abroad, from cryptocurrency. Can he assure me that this independent review, which I welcome, will consider political donations and potentially recommend where we set a political donation cap?
Steve Reed
The hon. Member is absolutely right to raise concerns about cryptocurrency. There is no way of knowing for certain what the origins of that financing might be. It appears to be potentially a back door for malign foreign actors or states to seek to influence British democracy, and we cannot allow that. It will be up to the independent reviewer to choose where he wishes to go with the investigation, but I am sure that the hon. Member and other members of his party will make clear the points he has just made and that they will be fully considered.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I would like to follow up on the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) about social media. This is really important. If a foreign Government are funding third parties to post false comments on social media in order to mislead people exercising their democratic rights, surely that must come within the terms of the Rycroft review. Could the Secretary of State confirm that that is up to Philip Rycroft and that he has the capacity to bring it within the terms of the review, given that particular issue?
Steve Reed
Yes, that is correct. What my hon. Friend has just described are foreign financial attempts to influence our democracy, and that will be in scope for the review.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
As a former elections Minister, I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I wonder if he would reflect on two points, together with his hon. Friend the Security Minister, with regard to the defending democracy taskforce. First, the Electoral Commission has plenty of influence, but it possibly needs more financial resource and sharper teeth that it can deploy more quickly. Would he reflect on that and ask Sir Philip to advise on that point? Secondly, the response of our police across the country is, at best, patchy when it comes to their interpretation of their key and pivotal role in defending democracy and ensuring that it works fairly and well for all of us. Through the taskforce, can he ensure that there is a more uniform approach from the police on this issue?
Steve Reed
I welcome the hon. Member’s question; he makes important observations. The role, resources and powers of the Electoral Commission will be in scope for the review, as will the role and enforcement powers of other agencies, including the police, if the reviewer sees fit to pursue that.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
As Chair of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement following the case of Nathan Gill. There is nothing worse than the enemy within. It is quite clear that there are significant loopholes in the current system. Money is flooding in. In fact, we have taken evidence about cryptocurrencies on our Committee as part of our defending democracy inquiry. I am interested to hear from the Minister when the terms of reference will be published, and I echo the points made about media ownership and social media. Will the Secretary of State appear before the JCNSS when we hold our inquiry in January and February?
Steve Reed
I am always happy to receive invitations to appear before inquiries of that level of importance. The terms of reference will be laid in the House of Commons Library today—indeed, they may already have been—and I refer to my earlier comments on social media.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
In terms of looking at political finances, we are supportive of the review, and I thank the Secretary of State for announcing it today. Donations made to political parties are one thing, but donations made to either candidates or politicians are another thing and can be considered slightly differently. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this will be part of Rycroft’s review and that he will look specifically at donations to main political parties that are made outside the normal electoral cycle?
Steve Reed
I welcome the hon. Lady’s support for the review. The circumstances she describes will be in scope. We need to look across the piece to ensure that the safeguards we have in place against foreign influence on our democracy are robust at all levels, all tiers and all elections.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that this appalling case of a senior Reform politician being jailed for accepting Russian bribes shows that the corrupt Putin regime is not only cyber-attacking our national infrastructure and interfering with our critical infrastructure under the sea with its shadow fleet, but trying to attack the very heart of our democracy itself? Can he explain how, when this review is concluded, the full powers and resources that might be recommended for the police, the security services and the other agencies that can protect our democracy will be provided?
Steve Reed
I will be responding directly to the findings of the commission when they are available at the end of March, and I will bring those responses back to the House. I agree with my hon. Friend’s point: the Russian dictatorship is clearly using malign information activity at scale to threaten the national security and integrity of democracies across the advanced democratic world, including in the UK. We must understand, as the threat evolves, that our safeguards are evolving similarly to keep our democracy safe.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I welcome the Rycroft review. In an earlier reply, the Secretary of State said that the role of the Electoral Commission will be in scope. If that is the case, it needs involvement from Opposition parties across the House—earlier in his statement he said that that probably would not happen, but perhaps it should happen with this taskforce, or more widely with the defending democracy taskforce. Given that the shocking case that he refers to started off in the European Parliament, may I invite the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues to look at the role of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly—I believe I am the only MP in history to have served on all three, although not on the same time, I hasten to add—as well as the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly? From my experience, all those have been subject to at least very low-level Belarusian or Russian influence operations.
Steve Reed
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, not least because it gives me the opportunity to correct any misimpression. The independent review will be engaging cross-party across the House and will be hoping—indeed expecting—to hear from Members of all parties who have a view to share. I am convinced that all of us, in all parties, want to ensure that we can defend our democracy against malign foreign interference, whether that is from Russia or anywhere else.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House and sending a clear message that attacks on our democracy will not win. This Government will not let that happen, and the British people will not let it happen. My right hon. Friend might be aware that the BBC sought to question the former leader of UKIP in Scotland, who also made pro-Russian interventions in the European Parliament at the same time as Gill, but he refused to answer those questions. With that in mind, can my right hon. Friend assure me that the review will have the resources it needs to leave no stone unturned when examining Russian interference in our political system?
Steve Reed
I agree with my hon. Friend. Our democracy is one of the most precious things in our country, and we must all do everything in our power to protect it. Resources will be made available to the independent review from my departmental budgets, and we will hear from the reviewer himself about exactly how he sees the review moving forward. I will make sure that it has appropriate resourcing to carry out the functions that the House of Commons is asking of it.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Members across the House expressed their deep concerns on this issue in the Backbench Business Committee debate on foreign interference that was led by my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), last Thursday, so I am glad that the Government have taken this step today. There is clear evidence that other leaders of UKIP and Reform UK also associated with Nathan Gill’s Russian handlers. There is also evidence, laid out—albeit in redacted form—in the Russia report from the Intelligence and Security Committee of Russian money seeking to influence other parties and elections. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the review will be free to look back as far as it needs to inform its recommendations, including to the referendums of 2014 and 2016, and that it will be free to publish its findings without ministerial censorship?
Steve Reed
The review will certainly have the freedom to be fully independent, because that is important if we are to have confidence in its findings, but it will be forward looking; there will be no relitigating of previous elections. Although we know, not least from the Nathan Gill case, that there have been attempts by malign foreign actors to interfere in British democracy, there have been no findings that the outcomes of any elections to date were affected by malign foreign interference. The point of the review is to ensure that we maintain safeguards that are robust enough to protect future elections from malign foreign interference.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I echo colleagues’ comments regarding social media sites. In Bexleyheath and Crayford, we have seen more and more examples of anonymous users, particularly on Facebook, spreading disinformation not just at election time, but also to undermine trust and faith in public bodies outside election time. As well as the review, will the Secretary of State give us assurances about how we can continue to work with colleagues across Government to look at these issues, and at how foreign interference is playing its part in them?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend speaks to a very real threat not just to our democracy, but to our national security, from foreign financial interference. We are all aware of bots and the role they seek to play in influencing the views of electors in elections. That is a function of foreign financial interference, and it will be in scope of the review.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The irony of hearing the Secretary of State talk about protecting democracy a week after cancelling mayoral elections will not be lost on millions of British voters. Nevertheless, we welcome the review, of course. Will the Secretary of State confirm that it will also cover the influence of the Chinese communist regime on the Labour party—a senior MP allegedly received hundreds of thousands of pounds of donations from a potential Chinese spy—as well as a Labour Government who gave away our valuable and strategic Chagos islands, a Labour Government who were responsible for the Chinese spy case collapse, and a Labour Government who are kowtowing to China over the mega-embassy?
Steve Reed
The leader of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), when asked to conduct an internal review into the Gill matter, of course refused to carry one out—although, to give him credit, he did say that he would welcome a review by the Government into these matters, so I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) does not welcome the review we are discussing today. To be clear: all potential sources of malign foreign financial interference are in scope for this review. If the review finds failings in any political party, I expect the leaders of other political parties, as I do my own party leader, to put the country first and their party second.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments on social media, and I hope we can meet the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), who is responsible for elections, ahead of the publication of the elections Bill to see what we can do about those protections. The Secretary of State has announced a very good review. Will the money that is coming into this country, particularly related to changing our politics on abortion rights, trans rights and other areas, be within scope of the review?
Steve Reed
I am sure that the elections Minister would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss her concerns. The review will look at any foreign financial interference in our democracy, and I would expect the points she raises to be in scope.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and the establishment of the independent review, and I agree with colleagues across the House who talked about the importance of the resilience of our democracy as well as about its current fragility. I note that the Secretary of State does not seem keen to give us too many spoilers about what to expect in the elections Bill in the new year, but I my question follows those asked by my colleague from the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin). If the review recommended a cap on donations or restoring the independence of the Electoral Commission, would those be things that the Secretary of State would support?
Steve Reed
We certainly understand the risks posed to elections; for that reason, as we published in the strategy in July, through the elections Bill we will seek to strengthen the rules on donations to political parties. The findings of the independent review will inform what is in the Bill.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I welcome the statement and the leadership that the Secretary of State is showing on this issue. Our democracy is important and requires our active protection. Does he agree that as well as actions that the Government can take, there is far more that individual political parties, particularly Reform UK, can do on due diligence and vetting procedures, to stop people being elected in the first? We continue to see too many horror stories relating to people up and down the country once they are in office, when they should have been stopped in advance.
Steve Reed
I agree with my hon. Friend’s points about due diligence. It is no secret that the Government are looking at standards in public life. The Prime Minister has already made some changes in the code of conduct that affects all Members of Parliament, but we need to look further at how we can strengthen standards across local government that, unfortunately, were weakened by the previous Government.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Madam Dirprwy Lefarydd. Following the sentencing of Reform UK’s former Wales leader for taking bribes to peddle pro-Russian propaganda, Plaid Cymru welcomes this review. As hon. Members will remember from the question asked at Prime Minister’s questions by Liz Saville Roberts—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Lady will know that we do not refer to other hon. Members by name but by their constituency.
Ann Davies
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Plaid Cymru has been calling for action in Westminster and the Senedd for months, only to be repeatedly dismissed by this Labour Government, who even left it to leave Reform UK’s own leader to police his party. Unfortunately, because of the Government’s delay, there is now no time to implement reforms before the 2026 Senedd elections. Will the Minister set out exactly what steps are being taken to protect Welsh democracy from foreign interference before next year?
Steve Reed
Safeguards are already in place, but the fact that the review will report in March means that it will come ahead of the elections. That is because not only Members of this House, but voters across the country, will want to know that the safeguards against malign foreign financial interference in the coming elections are sufficiently robust to ensure that those elections are free and fair.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, I warmly welcome this independent review into foreign financial interference in UK politics. However, foreign financial interference is not the only threat to our electoral resilience: misinformation, disinformation and aspects of the electoral system itself are all flaws in the system. Will those issues be in scope for the elections and democracy Bill that is coming next year?
Steve Reed
The terms of reference will be laid in the House of Commons Library today, but the review is not the only way in which we are looking at the security and integrity of our elections. The Minister for Security is leading the defending democracy taskforce, which is looking more widely at action that we may need to take to ensure that our safeguards remain robust against the changing nature of the threat to our democracy.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Of course, the appalling crime carried out by Nathan Gill, with a £40,000 bribe to speak about Russia, is not unique. Although that bribe is the one that we know about, eight other members of Reform UK also parroted pro-Russia narratives, sometimes line by line and word by word. I have two questions: first, given that the timeline is for the review to report by the end of March, if there are parts of the electoral system that are not robust, will the Government introduce legislation before May? Secondly, given that loopholes have already been exploited, particularly on moneys entering this country, will the Government be applying the legislation retrospectively?
Steve Reed
I cannot anticipate what will be in the review. We have to give Philip Rycroft and his team time to make their recommendations, and then we will consider them. We are as yet unaware of the level of the threat that he may identify. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand, I cannot comment on individual cases. They will be a matter for the police and if there are further prosecutions to be made, then I am sure that the police will carry them forward.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Russia is attacking every aspect of our state—our industries, our infrastructure and our way of life—and, as we have seen from the treacherous actions of the Reform UK politician outside this place, it is attacking the underpinning democracy that holds us together. While I welcome the steps and the leadership that the Secretary of State has announced, this must be a wake-up call across Government. Will he set out what steps he is taking to encourage similarly strong approaches and leadership from other Government Departments to counter Russian malign activity?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend is right that it is a cornerstone of Russia’s international strategy to threaten the national security and integrity of democracies, including the UK and our partners overseas. We know that but we are seeking to check that our safeguards against that evolving threat are sufficiently robust to keep our democracy safe. Our approach will be supported by Departments right across Government. The Minister for Security is leading the defending democracy taskforce and he has already published the counter-political interference and espionage action plan, which calls on Ministers across Government to collaborate and work together to ensure that we are making sufficiently robust the safeguards called for by my hon. Friend.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Although it may seem a little tangential, will the scope of the investigation include the fact that hundreds of thousands of people who have worked in this country for 20, 30 or 40 years and who have paid their taxes are unable to influence the outcome of elections because they have an EU passport, yet hundreds of thousands of ex-pats who have not set foot in this country for decades still have an influence? Unscrupulous parties could hoover up those ex-pats and direct them towards marginal seats, thus influencing the outcome of elections. Will the Secretary of State address this issue, either through the review or the Bill?
Steve Reed
The hon. Gentleman makes his point clearly and eloquently, but he is right that it is somewhat tangential to the review that Philip Rycroft will be leading. The review will be looking at malign foreign financial interference, but he should be reassured that no stone will be left unturned in seeking to protect our democracy, which is one of the most precious things that we have.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend give a clear assurance to my constituents in Portsmouth North that the police have all the resources they need to pursue all remaining leads in the Gill case? Will he reassure us that the review will examine the full extent of Russian interference in our country’s politics and democracy, including any influence exerted through Government contracts or strategic infrastructure projects?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Yes, of course the police have the resources they require to pursue any lines of inquiry arising from associates of Nathan Gill, as well as in relation to any other cases and political parties. It is important that the independent inquiry that we are launching today operates across political parties, in the interest of our democracy and everybody who holds that democracy as dear as all hon. Members across the House.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
Members of this House, including me, who have been targeted by Russia will be particularly horrified by the crimes of Reform UK’s former Wales leader. I am pleased that Philip Rycroft has been appointed to lead the review: we know he has been a fine public servant and has deep experience of Europe and Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State assure us that the EU referendum will be in scope—[Interruption.] I think I am being heckled by a Reform UK Member, today of all days.
Steve Reed
As I said earlier, we are not seeking to relitigate the past. There is no evidence that the outcome of any previous election or referendum was affected by any attempted foreign interference. We are seeking to ensure that the safeguards that we have in place against any threats to our democracy from malign foreign actors seeking to use finance to influence voters’ choices in those elections and the outcomes of those elections are robust enough to keep us safe. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for Philip Rycroft’s appointment. For me, one of the important aspects of his appointment is that he has no party political affiliation whatsoever.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Some in Reform UK have suggested that its former leader in Wales, the traitor Nathan Gill—he was a traitor—was just one bad apple, yet we have learned in recent weeks that at least eight MEPs who represented the UK Independence party or the Brexit party were approached by Gill at the behest of his Russian paymasters. What is it about parties led by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) that makes them uniquely susceptible to Russian bribes? Could it be that they are already apologists for Putin?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call the Secretary of State, may I entreat the hon. Member? I am sure he will have mentioned to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) that he was going to reference him in the House.
Paul Waugh
I referenced the party of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), not him.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I think you will find that you used the term “the hon. Member for Clacton”, if you wish to argue back with the Chair.
Steve Reed
I will not be tempted to comment on any individual cases. We are seeking to ensure that safeguards against foreign financial interference in the round are sufficiently robust.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I warmly welcome the review announced today by the Secretary of State. He is right to talk about the importance of upholding the integrity of our democracy, but this is not just about malign foreign interference; it is about things that are said in this place. One of the greatest threats to our democracy is the wilful spreading of misinformation by prominent politicians, and the Secretary of State is not without fault in that regard. He has repeatedly and incorrectly claimed that Scotland’s water quality was lower than England’s, but, in fact, it is significantly higher—I have pointed that out during a debate and in a point of order in this Chamber. Even when that was pointed out by the UK Statistics Authority, the Secretary of State refused to apologise. Will he take the opportunity to do so now, in the light of the fact that our conduct and social media posts are now in scope of the review?
Steve Reed
I know the hon. Gentleman did not like the facts when I made them clear in this House, but the review is not about points he dislikes but malign foreign financial interference in our democracy.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for announcing this review, which I fully welcome. Does he agree that every political party should welcome it, unless they have something to hide? Will he tell me whether the terms of reference of Philip Rycroft’s independent investigation will require every political party to co-operate? If they do not, will he name and shame them so that the public can render their judgment accordingly?
Steve Reed
The review will not have the powers to compel people to submit evidence, but, like my hon. Friend, my view is that members from every single political party represented in this House will want to ensure that the Russian state is not using dirty money to influence and interfere in our democratic processes. I would be shocked if any political party does not subscribe to that view, because it is what underpins the freedom of our democracy.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I am really disappointed that none of the Reform MPs who were here at the start—most of them have gone—took the opportunity to utterly condemn Nathan Gill’s treacherous acts. We should all condemn what he did; he is an absolute traitor to our country.
I am pleased that the Secretary of State is taking seriously his duties to build and protect faith in our democracy. He will be pleased to hear that I recently visited Forrester, Firrhill, Tynecastle, Boroughmuir and Balerno high schools in my constituency, to talk about our democracy and opportunities to come here and see it at work. The three most common topics they wanted to talk about were bobbing—I gave them a demonstration, of course; smartphone bans that may be coming towards them; and our electoral system and proportional representation. I know the Secretary of State takes seriously his role in protecting and modernising our democracy, so will he listen to our young people when doing so?
Steve Reed
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing young people into this House; it is very important that young people get to see their democracy in action. I am sure that they, like all of us who are older, want to get dirty money out of British politics, and that is what this review is intended to achieve.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
As a member of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, I very much welcome the independent review into foreign financial interference in our democracy. Does the Secretary of State share my concern about the inadequate oversight of foreign donations, particularly moneys funnelled through cryptocurrency, and the potential for malign actors to seek to influence our democracy through crypto donations?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Cryptocurrency is one route by which dirty money can covertly enter British politics in an attempt to influence the outcomes of elections. That is why crypto will be in scope for this review, and I look forward, as I know she does, to the findings of Philip Rycroft’s review.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
A once senior leader of the Reform party is now in jail for colluding with Russia. When the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) heard about that, did he launch an inquiry? Did he perhaps review his own previous statements on Russia, including saying that he admired Putin? No, he did not; he called Nathan Gill a “bad apple”. I welcome this review and the fact that all political parties will be invited to contribute, but will my right hon. Friend commit to make clear to the House, when he reports back on the findings of the review, exactly which political parties took part in this exercise of scrutiny and transparency and which did not?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
May I confirm with the hon. Member that he has informed the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)?
Peter Swallow
I am pleased to say that I did. The hon. Member for Clacton is not in his place to hear my comments, but I hope he is listening anyway.
Steve Reed
It will be for Philip Rycroft to publish his review in the way that he sees fit, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The sentencing of Nathan Gill for bribery, alongside other recent cases, has exposed vulnerabilities and weaknesses in the UK’s political and electoral systems. The review will give us the opportunity to check that our safeguards are sufficiently robust given the evolving nature of the threat.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
May I, like others, thank the Secretary of State for his robust defence of elections and our democracy through his statement? On the Gill case, he may be aware that the Reform UK board member Gawain Towler is on record saying that he realised very quickly that Nathan Gill was raising pro-Russia questions about Ukraine in 2018. After confronting Gill, Towler simply
“accepted his explanation at face value”
and was, by his own admission, “foolish”. Does the Secretary of State agree that it cannot be good enough for any political party to simply accept the peddling of pro-Russian propaganda? Can he assure me that this review will examine all and every link with Russia without fear or favour?
Steve Reed
The review will absolutely operate without fear or favour. It will involve an in-depth assessment of the current financial and bribery-related rules and safeguards that regulate all political parties and political finance so that we can ensure our democracy remains safe in the decades to come.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Last but by no means least, I call Chris Vince.
Chris Vince
May I thank the Secretary of State for his statement? This case should be of concern to anybody who believes in this country and in our democracy, which should be everybody in this Chamber. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure, in working with the Home Secretary, that police forces such as mine in Essex, which cover my constituency, are equipped to deal with any local investigations should the need arise?
Steve Reed
I have by my side the Security Minister, who chairs the defending democracy taskforce. He is located in the Home Office, and I am sure that he will have heard my hon. Friend’s comments. I agree with my hon. Friend; our democracy is too precious to allow dirty money from overseas to destroy it. I hope the whole House will come together to do what is necessary to protect something as vital and precious as our freedom to choose our own Governments.
Planning Reform
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the Government’s ongoing efforts to overhaul the planning system.
As the House is fully aware, England remains in the grip of an acute and entrenched housing crisis. It is a crisis, first and foremost, that is blighting countless lives, not least those of the more than 170,000 homeless children living in temporary accommodation today, but it is also hampering economic growth and productivity by reducing labour mobility and undermining the capacity of our great towns and cities to realise their full economic potential. In grappling with this crisis, the Government have never been under any illusions, either about the monumental scale of the task before us or about the challenges that must be overcome and the pitfalls that must be avoided if we are to succeed. However, we remain absolutely determined to tackle this task head-on and make tangible progress towards a future in which all our people have a decent, safe, secure and affordable home in which to live.
We have committed ourselves as a Government unashamedly to an incredibly stretching house building target of 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament. In the face of a housing crisis of such severity, anything less would have been a dereliction of duty. Progress towards that ambitious target of 1.5 million new homes was always going to be slow in the early years of this Parliament; after all, the Government inherited a housing market downturn, one that was exacerbated by the conscious and deliberate decisions of Ministers in the previous Conservative Government to make a series of anti-supply changes to national planning policy, including the abolition of mandatory housing targets. Such is the protracted nature of the development cycle that the corrosive impact of those changes is still in evidence today.
However, on taking office, this Government acted quickly and boldly to put in place the foundations of a revamped planning system that will facilitate the delivery of high and sustainable rates of house building in the years ahead. In December last year, we revised the national planning policy framework, reversing the previous Government’s anti-supply changes, implementing a new standard method aligned to our more ambitious national housing target, and releasing more land into the system through a modernised, strategic approach to green-belt land designation and release. In March, we introduced our landmark Planning and Infrastructure Bill to further streamline and speed up the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, and I am delighted that that Bill will receive Royal Assent before the House rises on Thursday.
Over recent months, we have carefully considered the extensive feedback we have received on a range of policy propositions, from a brownfield passport to reforming site size thresholds. As a result, I am today setting out details of the next phase of this Government’s planning reforms. That next phase consists of action on two main fronts. First and most significantly, we are today publishing for consultation a fuller and more definitive overhaul of the national planning policy framework. This wholly restructured framework maintains and builds on the initial revisions we made in December last year. It includes a range of new measures to support key economic sectors and incorporates new clear and rules-based national policies for the making of both plans and decisions.
As a result of the not insignificant risk and uncertainty that such an approach entailed, we took the decision not to proceed with statutory national development management policies at this stage. Instead, we have chosen to realise their benefits swiftly through agile national policy changes, while leaving open the possibility of a future transition to statutory NDMPs should it be required. The new decision-making policies in the framework published today are therefore designed to make development management more certain, consistent and streamlined; to standardise policies that apply across the whole of England; and to reduce duplication and avoid unjustified local deviation from national policy in local plans.
As well as setting out national planning policy in a clearer and more comprehensive manner, we are proposing a number of substantive reforms to boost housing supply and unlock economic growth in the years ahead. These include a permanent presumption in favour of sustainable development, building on the proposals outlined in our brownfield passport working paper to make development of suitable land in urban areas acceptable by default; a default yes for suitable proposals for development of land around rail stations within existing settlements and around well-connected stations outside settlements, including on green-belt land, to ensure that sufficiently dense development comes forward around existing transport infrastructure; and a targeted series of changes to drive urban and suburban densification, including through the redevelopment of corner and other low-density plots, upward extensions, infill development and residential curtilages. We will also take action to secure a diverse mix of homes. There will be stronger support for rural social and affordable housing; clearer expectations will be set for accessible housing to meet the needs of older and disabled people; and more flexibility will be provided on the unit mix of housing for market sale where local requirements for social and affordable homes have been met.
In addition to these and other important policy changes on matters such as design, vision-led transport and climate change mitigation and adaptation, the revised framework delivers on various commitments made either at this Dispatch Box or in the other place. As a result, it now includes a clear requirement to incorporate swift bricks into new developments; the application of new national standards for sustainable drainage systems; explicit protection for our precious chalk streams; and, as a result of sustained advocacy by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), recognition of the importance of providing new, improved, accessible and inclusive facilities for children’s play.
Taken together, these changes represent the most significant reform to national planning policy since the original NPPF was introduced more than a decade ago. The proposed framework is the culmination of a sustained effort over the first 17 months of this Parliament to revamp our planning system so that it meets housing need in full and unleashes sustained economic growth. We look forward to receiving feedback through the consultation.
Further revisions to the NPPF are not all we are announcing today. The second main front on which we are acting is support for small and medium-sized house builders. As a Government, we are clear that ramping up housing delivery requires us to diversify the house building market. Integral to such diversification is not merely arresting, but reversing, the decline of small and medium-sized enterprise developers that has taken place over recent decades. Building on the steps we have already taken to better support SME house builders to access finance and land, we are today announcing a series of policy and regulatory easements to help them thrive and grow.
In May, the Government published a working paper seeking views on a new medium threshold for development of sites up to 1 hectare with between 10 and 49 homes, noting that over 80% of such sites are developed by SME builders. Having reflected on the useful feedback we received, we have decided to go further. While the 10 to 49 unit threshold will apply, we propose to increase the size of sites covered by the new medium category to up to 2.5 hectares, thereby increasing the number of SME house builders being supported.
To support development activity on this new category of site, we are proposing limiting information requirements to what is necessary and proportionate. We are also setting a clear expectation that local planning authorities allocate 10% of their housing requirement to sites between 1 hectare and 2.5 hectares, in addition to the existing requirement to do so for sites under 1 hectare, to better support different scales of development. Without compromising building and residents’ safety rules, we are using the consultation to ask the technical questions necessary to determine whether to exempt this new medium category of development from the building safety levy, and we are exploring further the potential benefits and drawbacks of enabling developers of medium sites to discharge social and affordable housing requirements through cash contributions in lieu of direct delivery.
Finally, having considered carefully the responses to the consultation undertaken by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs earlier this year, I can confirm that the Government will exempt smaller developments of up to 0.2 hectares from biodiversity net gain and introduce a suite of other, simplified requirements to improve the implementation of BNG on small and medium sites that are not exempted. DEFRA will also rapidly consult on an additional targeted exemption for brownfield residential development, testing the definition of land to which it should apply and a range of site sizes up to 2.5 hectares.
This Government promised to get Britain building again, unleash economic growth and deliver on the promise of national renewal. While there is more that needs to be done to transform the failing housing system we inherited, the further changes to regulation and policy we have announced today are integral to our plans to improve housing availability, affordability and quality in this Parliament. They will not be without their critics, both in this House and in the country, but in the face of a housing crisis that has become a genuine emergency in many parts of England, we will act where previous Governments have failed to ensure that a decent, safe, secure and affordable home is the right of all working people, rather than a privilege enjoyed only by some.
I commend this statement to the House.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
This Labour Government’s last planning framework began pushing development on to rural areas, prioritising concreting over the green belt and green fields rather than focusing on supporting building in urban areas, which is where we need to build most. From what the Minister has just said, it sounds as though the Government are going to double down on this approach with an all-out assault on the green belt. Over the past decade in London, under its abysmal mayor, Labour has conspicuously failed to build the right amount of housing, and now it is going to fail to build the right kind of housing in the right places in the rest of England. It clearly prefers to target building in rural areas, while not building in the cities and urban areas where demand is highest and much of the necessary infrastructure already exists.
At the current rate of house building under Labour, which is at a dismal low, the Government will fail by some distance to meet their target of 1.5 million homes. House building is falling under Labour, with the number of additional dwellings delivered in 2024-25 falling by 12,810. If the delivery of net additional dwellings continues at this rate, Labour will deliver its target not by the end of this Parliament but in seven years’ time. This Labour Government’s record on house building is dreadful—they delivered fewer homes in their first year in office than we delivered during a global pandemic. This is not a good sign for Labour’s first year in office, and now this Labour Government are intent on ignoring the voices of local people up and down the country while imposing top-down housing targets, disproportionately in rural areas, and tightening their grip through Whitehall-imposed targets.
The reality is that Labour is prioritising building on rural areas while claiming that it is grey-belt land. It is now returning to something that the previous Labour Government did, namely garden grabbing. The previous Conservative Government removed the top-down diktats that forced councils to demolish gardens, but the Minister has just promised “the redevelopment of low-density” residential plots, introducing higher buildings at street corners and “infill development” within “residential curtilages”. It is clear that, because of Labour’s failure to build homes on brownfield land, it now has residential gardens in its sights. The Government should be prioritising and incentivising brownfield development first, and making it easier to build on brownfield sites in cities and urban areas, but they are not—they are only paying it lip service. If Labour really wants homes to be built where they are needed, it should think again about how its planning framework will actually deliver.
There are many questions about the Government’s approach, but time is short, so I will restrict myself to four. The Minister states that there should be “a default yes for suitable proposals for development of land around rail stations within existing settlements and around well-connected stations outside settlements, including on green-belt land”. In that context, what is a “well-connected station”?
The Minister proposes “action to secure a diverse mix of homes” and “stronger support for rural social and affordable housing”. What form will the support take? What regulations will the Government relax or scrap to support housing delivery? What incentives will they offer to get brownfield development actually to happen?
Finally, the views of local people are not a burden in assessing planning applications; they are among the most important factors. Putting local people and local concerns high up the agenda is a long-established and democratic precedent that successive Governments have followed. However, I fear for their voices under the current Administration. The Government railroaded their Planning and Infrastructure Bill through Parliament and are now following up with this statement. It is increasingly clear that the planning system that this Government are not just envisaging and planning for, but actively creating, is one in which such local concerns are much harder to raise. His Majesty’s Opposition do not believe that local people and local democracy should suffer for that.
The Government are eroding trust in the planning system and widening the gulf between the Government and local people. That is why we are clear that local voices, not just Whitehall’s, must play a key part in any planning decisions. We will continue to scrutinise the framework as the Labour Government implement it, and we will hold them accountable as it begins to negatively impact local communities.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for his questions. I appreciate that he has not had a huge amount of time to look over today’s announcement, but he has completely misunderstood one of the primary thrusts of the changes we are making, which is to double down on a brownfield-first approach. Through the draft framework, we are introducing a presumption in principle for development in urban areas. We want to make clear in principle what forms of development are acceptable in different locations. Building on our brownfield passports, that will mean that, in practice, the development of suitable urban land will be acceptable by default. That is a doubling down on a brownfield-first approach.
The shadow Minister raised concerns about the green-belt. As ever, this Government are committed to protecting the green-belt, which has served England’s towns and cities well over many decades, but we did introduce—[Interruption.] I am more than happy to have a debate with Opposition Members. We replaced the haphazard approach to green-belt release under the previous Government with a more strategic and modernised approach. All the draft framework does is build on that approach in a specific form by allowing development to proceed in the green-belt on well-connected stations.
I should say that well-connected stations are precisely defined as the 60 highest travel-to-work areas based on gross value added. However, as with all the policies in the draft framework, we are consulting on whether that is the right number or whether it should go higher or lower. There are appropriate densities in the framework for all stations across the country and higher densities for specific well-connected stations in those areas.
The shadow Minister asked me what we are doing on rural affordable housing. We want to see greater support for social and affordable housing in rural areas. The new framework—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, the framework makes it easier for rural exception sites to come forward through clearer national policy; makes it far easier for rural authorities to require affordable housing on smaller sites, including by removing the need for legislative designation; and removes the first homes exception sites as a stand-alone form of exception site, to avoid driving up land prices and crowding out wider social and affordable tenures.
Finally, the shadow Minister critiques this Government’s record on housing supply, and it is true that net additional dwellings in 2024-25 stood at 208,600, but in attempting to castigate this Government for that figure, he betrays his ignorance of the development process. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of new homes completed in 2024-25 are the result of planning applications submitted in the last Parliament. In criticising those numbers, he is rebuking his own Government’s record. He is right to do so because, as many hon. Members know, the previous Government, in abolishing mandatory housing targets, have torpedoed housing supply in this country. We are turning things around, and the draft framework will help us to do just that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I commend him for his work on bringing the planning system up to date, which can be quite a technical process, and on the landmark Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will receive Royal Assent later this month. I welcome the fact that the Minister has listened to many people from across the sector before making some of the changes, including the default yes on development around train stations and the national standards for drainage.
We must remember that many children do not have access to a play space, so the inclusion of measures on play spaces is vital. It is easy for us to get caught up in the technical aspects of planning, but we have to remember the 170,000 children stuck in temporary accommodation this Christmas; if we do not get moving on this, they will still be there next year. That means building more homes, including social homes. I heard what the Minister said about NDMPs. I am hopeful that that will be kept under review, so that we can look at planning decisions and speed up planning reforms.
I have raised accessible housing with the Minister before; in particular, housing should be delivered in line with the requirements of approved document M4(2) and M4(3) under the Building Regulations 2010. Will there be a target for these new homes? What discussions has he had with advocacy groups and disability groups to make sure that those homes are fit for purpose for everyone?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee, who makes a very good point. The Conservative party does not want development on the greenbelt, and it does not want urban and suburban intensification; in short, it does not want homes brought forward in the volume required to meet housing demand across the country.
My hon. Friend asks a specific question about accessible housing. The changes we are making through the draft framework will set new, higher requirements for authorities to deliver more accessible housing. They include proposals for 40% of new builds to meet mandatory accessibility standards, and proposals to ensure that local plans provide for wheelchair accessible homes. I stress that that is a minimum, not a target. It will drive up the provision of accessible housing overall—I note that some local plans at present have 0%—while ensuring that different levels of local need are met.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Although I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement, I fear that it represents an unprecedented removal of power from local people and local government by a Government who appear to have given up on sustainable development as a driving force behind decision making. The cost-benefit statement reads like it was written in the Treasury. It sees only the benefits of development, and none of the costs to communities or nature.
Under the new framework, sustainable development is no longer the pre-eminent principle. The framework means widespread development in the greenbelt. The presumption has so many holes in it that buildings put up for any purpose, including under permitted development, will now be green-lighted for development across the open countryside. Lorry parks in green fields will be green-lighted. The framework rewrites and overrides the policies in local plans. For many authorities, the value and purpose of all the expense that they went to in writing a local plan will be called into question.
I have only one minute, which is simply not enough time to debate the most significant rolling back of planning controls for decades, so will the Minister hold a debate on the framework in Government time, so that all hon. Members have the chance to debate it? The framework will have much more impact than the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which recently went through Parliament. Will the Government upgrade the framework’s wishy-washy mention of chalk streams, and recognise them fully as irreplaceable habitats? Will the Minister reverse the abolition of BNG for 0.2 hectare sites, and go with the 0.1 hectare limit that environmental non-governmental organisations call for? Will the Government increase their target for social and council-rent homes from 18,000 per year to the 150,000 per year that we Liberal Democrats wish to see, or at least to the 90,000 per year that Shelter wishes to see? Finally, will the Government go further and ensure that the 1.5 million permissions for homes are subject to real “use it or lose it” powers before new homes are created?
Matthew Pennycook
I have a lot of time for the hon. Gentleman, but again, I think he misrepresents what is in this new framework, with regard to local involvement and local engagement. He seeks to give the impression that there are no safeguards on development in the new framework, and that is not true. The new permanent presumption provides significant backing for development—absolutely. We want to introduce clear, rules-based policies, both for plans and for decision making, but development still has to comply with the wider policies in the NPPF, and decisions on individual applications still have to be taken.
The hon. Gentleman raised a point about local standards. Our proposals support our overall aim of making policy more rules-based to streamline the content of development plans. The framework still allows some local standards, where it makes sense to set them locally—for example, on design, parking and open space—but where we have national standards in building regulations, including in the forthcoming future homes and future building standards, which raise our ambition in this area, it does not make sense to allow duplication and variation across local areas.
Lastly, the hon. Gentleman mentioned chalk streams, and again I want to push back. We have included explicit recognition of chalk streams as a feature of high environmental value, as I committed to doing during consideration of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Local plans will, as a result, have to identify and manage the impacts of development on these sensitive areas, such as by creating buffer zones or green corridors. We have set clearer expectations that development proposals will assess and mitigate adverse impacts on water quality, including in relation to chalk streams.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the statement, and for the support for getting our housing market going again, particularly when it comes to brownfield sites; proposals for many of them are still being held up right across the country. He says that he will not at this stage make NDMPs statutory. Many people across the sector would like him to do so, because of the extra certainty it would provide. When he talks about the risk and uncertainty of taking that approach, what does he mean? If he will revisit this question, when might he do so? What will he be looking at when he potentially makes the decision to revisit that question?
Matthew Pennycook
I do not have the time to go into incredible amounts of detail on why we did not choose to take a statutory approach to national development management policies. Suffice it to say that the approach carried considerable uncertainty and risks. There has been a long debate—I can see Members who served on the Bill Committee—about what a conflict between statutory NDMPs and a local development plan would mean in practice. We were concerned about the chilling effect that might have on the system as a whole, so we have decided to proceed, as I have said, with agile changes to national policy. I remind hon. Members—Opposition Members often complain about this—that national planning policy carries significant weight. Since our December reforms, an unprecedented 80% of major residential appeals relating to grey-belt land have been approved. That is the power of national policy in action, but we will keep the matter under review.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
We do not have green belt in east Kent. We used to have something called farmland; it is now called blighted land, because it has been zoned for housing, but it is not being built on. House building in east Kent has virtually come to a grinding halt, and houses are not selling as a direct result of this Government’s policies. How many unbuilt-out housing consents have already been granted? Should we not be using those before we start taking further agricultural land for building?
Matthew Pennycook
I will say two things to the right hon. Gentleman. First, the draft framework we have published today continues to provide the protections for agricultural land that are in place in the NPPF as revised last December, including a preference that development be directed towards areas of poorer-quality agricultural land. On consented sites, he is absolutely right. We want to see more consented sites built out, and that is the whole purpose of our new homes accelerator, which we established to take forward those sites. We published a working paper on build-out transparency, but I am afraid that it remains the case that we have to oversupply consents into the system to drive up the number of houses delivered.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I agree with my hon. Friend that the housing crisis has become an emergency, but can I ask for detail on an issue that I have raised with him in the House before? He said that it is a default yes for suitable proposals for the development of land around rail stations. He knows that I have a number of sports grounds close to railway stations that might attract the attention of developers as a result of what he has said today. Those grounds are not just a green lung for south-east London, but provide vital access to sports for people from central London, Kent and East Sussex. Can we have an assurance from him that these sites will not be put under threat, and that owners will not put these grounds under lock and key, say that there is no demand for them, and start planning to build houses on them?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is right that the new framework proposes a default yes to suitable proposals around train stations, particularly targeting well-connected train stations across the country, as I mentioned. He will know that in the revisions we made to the NPPF last December, we strengthened protections for playing fields. As I said to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), although there is a new permanent presumption within settlements as part of this framework, development still has to comply with the wider policies in the NPPF, and individual decisions on applications still have to be taken. I am more than happy to sit down with my hon. Friend and discuss his particular concerns about playing fields.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
As the Minister knows, in Wiltshire, speculative development is often approved without consideration of access to active travel routes, health provision, school places, and access to public transport, so that our residents can reach work or education. This leads to areas of extreme deprivation, caused, according to the Government’s own statistics, by a lack of skills and job opportunities. Rural housing can work, but only when it is genuinely plan-led, and when infrastructure keeps pace with housing. Will the Minister ensure that rural development is supported by its communities, and is for its communities, rather than villages being left to absorb growth without the services that they so desperately need?
Matthew Pennycook
There is a lot in the hon. Lady’s question, but let me say a couple of things. First, we have been clear as a Government that when new housing comes forward, it must be matched with new amenities and infrastructure. We strengthened the policies in the previous framework last year to provide for community infrastructure, but today’s draft framework consolidates and strengthens that even further. She will be interested in the new vision-led transport measures in the framework, again strengthening those provided for last year. We want the appropriate amenities and infrastructure to come with housing, because we want to create not just housing units, but thriving places and neighbourhoods for people to live.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his efforts to get the homes built that the country needs, particularly for young people, who face the prospect of never being able to afford a home of their own. I have two questions. First, does he think that where a site is earmarked in a local plan for development, the local planning authority should give permission for that development automatically? Of course, the details will have to be considered at the time, but there should be a presumption that such sites will be given planning permission when an application is made. Secondly, the draft local plan in Sheffield, as he knows, is mainly geared up to building on brownfield sites, but there are some proposals to build on greenfield sites to create the additional number of homes. He has laid out the golden rules for infrastructure development that will go alongside house building, but will he give the assurance that if a site in the local plan is on green belt, the planning authority has the right to turn down an application, if infrastructure will not be provided alongside the development?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend tempts me, I think deliberately, to comment on his local plan, which, for reasons that he will appreciate, I cannot do. On the general principles, there are many factors that need to be considered when planning committees, officers or elected members consider particular application, but we want to see greater weight given to applications on sites that are allocated in the development plan. This goes to the question from the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson). We want plan-led development. Local plans are the cornerstone of our planning system. That is why it is such a problem that we inherited a planning system where the coverage of up-to-date local plans is only a third. We are determined to drive up coverage of local plans, and to drive plans to adoption as quickly as possible.
When it comes to the green belt, through the changes that we made last year, we have set out a very clear sequential test for what local planning authorities need to do when they have exhausted brownfield development, densification, cross-boundary planning and co-operation with local authorities. When they do need to review green belt, they should start with the poorer-quality green belt—grey belt—in the first instance, if that is required to meet their housing need.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Within a mile of the well-connected stations of Radlett, Cuffley, Borehamwood, Potters Bar and Bushey there is pristine countryside that is treasured by local communities and prevents urban sprawl. The opening up of this green belt to a development free-for-all runs totally contrary to the promises made by the Labour party at the last election. What radius around those stations is envisioned in these proposals, and what will the Minister do to protect the character and integrity of existing villages and towns in my constituency and others up and down the country?
Matthew Pennycook
I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but it is absolutely incorrect to say that the draft framework proposes a free-for-all in relation to land around railway stations. As I have said, we want to establish, in principle, a default “yes” for development around railway stations within existing settlements, and to extend it to well-connected stations outside. That will provide clarity and confidence that these locations are suitable for growth, with the potential to unlock land for up to 1.8 million homes over the decades ahead. Alongside this, as I have said, we are proposing minimum densities to ensure that land is used effectively.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me for a specific radius. It is set out in the framework—[Interruption.] If he will allow me to reply, the definition set out in the framework is “within walking distance”, so about 800 metres. However, as with everything in this framework, we are consulting on what is the appropriate distance around stations, and I am more than happy to take his views and those of any other hon. Member views into account.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I have a little aspiration that we will finish this statement by half-past 3, so short questions and short answers would be very helpful.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I am very pleased, as I know my constituents will be, to hear about the swift bricks. Ours is a city of nature lovers, and I know that people have been very concerned about BNG, which has been mentioned. I would like to understand a little more about how it has been determined that 0.2 hectares is the right area, particularly in relation to natural capital.
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: BNG plays a vital role in protecting and restoring nature, while enabling us to build the homes that this country needs. The Government remain fully committed to it as an approach to development, but, as I hope hon. Members will recognise, this is a novel system that was introduced only last year. We have heard from developers, local authorities and ecologists that the system needs to work better for some of the smallest developments, and that there are particular challenges on brownfield land. That is why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consulted earlier this year on updates to the system, and why we are today confirming that we will introduce that new exemption—and we think that 0.2 hectares is the right size for it. There is a suite of other simplifications for smaller and medium sites that are not exempted, and DEFRA will consult on whether any acceptable exemptions are appropriate for residential brownfield land.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
In my constituency there is planning permission for over 2,000 new homes in and around the town centre alone, yet developers are not building those much-needed homes. What steps are the Government taking to tackle developers that are land banking instead of building homes, and are they continuing to refuse to introduce tougher “use it or lose it” powers in these planning reforms?
Matthew Pennycook
It is wrong to say that this is an area that we are overlooking. I refer the hon. Member to a working paper that sets out a series of proposals to get build-out transparency and accountability up. A delayed homes penalty, for instance, would act as a charge when development could be coming forward but is not. Those proposals are distinct from today’s draft framework, which does not deal with that issue, but I can assure him that it is very much a priority for me and for the Department.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. In my constituency, many new homes have been built in places such as Ebbsfleet and Stone, and I am glad to announce that there are plans for many more, but it is fair to say that local infrastructure—including GP surgeries, Darent Valley hospital and local schools—has struggled to keep pace, and there have not been enough affordable homes. Can the Minister outline how new, clear policies on where and how we build will ensure that development is sustainable and linked to jobs and infrastructure, and that we have enough affordable homes?
Matthew Pennycook
I have visited the developments in my hon. Friend’s constituency that Ebbsfleet development corporation is taking forward. As I said in response to an earlier question, we as a Government are clear that new housing must be supported by appropriate infrastructure and amenities. Last year we made important changes to the framework to strengthen the provision of community infrastructure, and, as I have said, the draft framework consolidates and strengthens the support given to that provision, including public services. However, we know that there is more to do to ensure that the right infrastructure comes forward at the appropriate time, alongside the building of new homes.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
As with business rates and the Budget, it might take a few days for it to be absolutely clear what is in today’s announcement, although I hope that it will not take quite as long as it did with the Budget. I think it possible that some things will be welcome, given what the Minister said about densification and brownfield, if that is accompanied—this would be consistent—by a rebalancing of the housing target formula, which resulted in a doubling of targets in places such as East Hampshire and many places in the far north-west and far north-east, and a reduction in parts of London and Birmingham. Will the Minister now revisit that formula?
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
No Minister could be doing more than my hon. Friend to try to drive forward the house building that we need, and that will be greatly welcomed by many of those who are struggling to get hold of a property. I am also pleased about what he said in response to the question from the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster). However, many of us are concerned about developers who sit for years on planning applications without bringing them forward. Planning permission was given to the former North East Derbyshire district council site in my constituency more than four and a half years ago, but nothing has been built, and the building is running to rack and ruin. Can my hon. Friend say any more about the powers enabling councils and central Government to work together, so we can ensure that the errant developers who will not get on and build are brought to book and that they pull their weight as well?
Matthew Pennycook
It is difficult to make blanket statements about individual development sites. There are many reasons why sites across the country are held up, but sometimes they are legitimate reasons to do with viability. As I have said, we are experiencing a housing market downturn, although we are hopefully coming out of it with the assistance of some of these policies. Viability is a challenge across the whole country and is particularly acute in places such as London, but where development could be coming forward and is viable but developers are not proceeding with it, we want to look at further measures on build-out to ensure that it does come forward. We are providing central Government support through the new homes accelerator to unlock the large strategic sites that have already received consent. That is the low-hanging fruit when it comes to bringing forward new homes in this Parliament.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Minister knows that I share his enthusiasm for speeding up housing delivery, but that can only happen if we get the right infrastructure. He is aware, as I am, of the pressure around certain motorway junction upgrades, including at junction 10, which is adjacent to my constituency. Can he give me some reassurance that motorway junctions that are crucial to the upgrades that are required to deliver the housing that he so desires will not soon be scrapped?
Matthew Pennycook
I am aware of the case to which the hon. Member refers. There is considerable pressure on the housing infrastructure budget and the projects that remain within it. I am aware that in respect of this case, which he has raised with me previously, a material amendment has been submitted and is being considered. Obviously I will not comment on that, but I think his point shows that the Government do provide significant amounts of funding support for land and infrastructure across the country to help to ensure that those homes can come forward in the right places, with the right infrastructure and transport connections.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I recently attended the launch of a development site for 32 new affordable family homes in Bournemouth town centre. That is fantastic, but we need much more of it, because there are still 535 children in temporary accommodation in my constituency, many of them under the age of 10. House prices and rent costs are higher than the national average, whereas wages are not, because the previous Government failed to get a grip on the housing crisis. I welcome this decisive action to build more homes. Will the Minister condemn the last Government’s failure to deal with this crisis and the hundreds of thousands of children we still see in temporary accommodation?
Matthew Pennycook
Absolutely, and we are taking concerted action across the Department, not least through the homelessness strategy that was published in recent weeks. At the heart of how we resolve the problem of temporary accommodation is building more affordable homes, particularly more social rented homes. That is precisely why the £39 billion social and affordable homes programme devotes 60% of its funding to social rented homes.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
The Conservatives were right to abolish Whitehall-imposed mandatory housing targets, and Labour was wrong to bring them back. May I ask the Minister specifically about call-ins? Under the well-established system, the Secretary of State might have called in, on average, about 20 applications a year if they raised issues with national implications, and there was almost invariably a full public planning inquiry. Under Labour’s proposals, councils will have to notify the Secretary of State if they intend to refuse any application for more than 150 homes. The Secretary of State could then call it in before local councillors have even had a chance to vote on it. There would be no guarantee of a public inquiry, and the application could even be given to a planning inspector to deal with it behind closed doors by written representations—by letter—so that local people and their councillors would not have a chance to say anything at all. That is completely undemocratic, is it not? Why have a local plan at all?
Matthew Pennycook
I am afraid that I fundamentally disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. Mandatory housing targets have an important role to play in a functioning housing and planning system, and we have seen the impact—in nosediving supply—of what happens when anti-supply changes are made to the NPPF. On the specific change that he references, yes, we are changing the referral criteria so that they apply not just to planning applications that might be accepted and that the previous Government wanted to ensure could be blocked, but to planning applications that might be refused and that we might want to see come forward.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
This morning I accompanied my constituents Jacob and Mikey to No. 10 to make a heartfelt plea to the Prime Minister for accessible playgrounds. I welcome the Minister’s statement, especially the inclusion of play spaces and their importance for children and young people. Can he assure me that disabled children and their families will be consulted on how to make these play spaces accessible?
Matthew Pennycook
I want to mention again the advocacy and work that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) did on this subject through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill; he persuaded us to look at it very closely. The new policies on children’s play signal strong support for providing and safeguarding areas for children’s play, both through plan making and when dealing with development proposals. Importantly—my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) is right to reference this—they make it clear that local communities should be actively involved in the design of play areas, so that they are inclusive and reflect local needs.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The Government say that they are committed to green belt protection—in fact, the Minister has said as much at the Dispatch Box today—but the reality is set out in his statement, which says there will be a default “yes” to settlements around stations on green belt land. In my constituency of Esher and Walton, we have seven stations and lots and lots of green belt. What words can I use to reassure my constituents that that green belt is not under threat?
Matthew Pennycook
As I have said in response to previous questions, we made a series of changes to green belt land designation release in the NPPF last year. These changes have been carried over into the draft framework, with one substantive change, which is to enable appropriate development around well-connected train stations across the country, including in the green belt. What I would advise the hon. Lady to say to her constituents is that we should bring forward appropriate and appropriately dense development around existing public transport infrastructure.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I thank the Minister and his Department for confirming yesterday that Dudley has successfully cleared the first stage of Pride in Place assessment—the first step to unlocking £20 million over the next decade. Will he outline how the new planning reforms, Pride in Place funding and greater community powers will revitalise Dudley town centre, and can he confirm that any new infrastructure will use local materials from local businesses, such as Dreadnought Tiles, to boost the local economy?
Matthew Pennycook
There is support within the new framework to boost local and regional economies, and we want to encourage economic growth by giving substantial weight to the benefits of supporting business growth and to particular areas and sectors. I am more than happy to sit down with my hon. Friend and ministerial colleagues to give her a better sense of how the different initiatives across the Department, including Pride in Place, will work for her area and across the country.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that in certain parts of the country the agricultural planning system has ground to a halt, preventing modernisation on farms, stifling investment and damaging British food security. I welcome today’s measures on biodiversity net gain, but may I ask him to go further by tackling Natural England’s barmy guidance on nutrient neutrality and preventing vexatious judicial reviews against planning applications, to free up the hundreds of millions of pounds in the system?
Matthew Pennycook
The solution to nutrient neutrality and other similar constraints is the environmental delivery plans delivered through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which the hon. Gentleman’s party voted against.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
When I met local nature activists in Bracknell, they told me that swift bricks are used not just by swifts, but by house martins and sparrows. Sadly, they are not used by swallows—although this Swallow certainly welcomes them. As the Minister knows, I have been strongly calling for swift bricks, so I am really pleased to see that they will be a requirement in new developments. Does he agree that this demonstrates that bringing forward the housing that we need to address the housing crisis does not have to come at the cost of nature? If we get this right, we can make sure that there is fantastic access to nature, alongside the homes we so badly need.
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he is one of a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have called for greater support for swift bricks, which we recognise are a vital means of arresting the long-term decline of the breeding swift population. The new swift brick requirement in the framework will require all developments to include swift bricks in their construction, unless compelling technical reasons prevent their use or make them ineffective. This is a significant strengthening of the expectations already in place, and we expect the end result to be at least one swift brick in every new brick-built house, unless there are legitimate reasons why installation would not be appropriate.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
In Stratford-on-Avon, previous changes to national planning policy wiped out the council’s five-year housing land supply almost overnight. Despite years of over-delivery, we did the right thing, and this has opened the door to a developer free-for-all. Will the Minister look again at the impact of these changes, and commit to restoring a genuinely plan-led approach that puts the allocation of housing back in the hands of councils and communities, rather than developers? Through their viability studies, developers are not delivering social housing or infrastructure.
Matthew Pennycook
I know the hon. Lady will take a keen interest in annex B of the framework, which deals with viability specifically and asks a range of questions. We want to ensure that we have a viability system that is working effectively, that is fair and that deals with the constraints that prevent development from coming forward, rather than being, as the National Audit Office and others have drawn attention to, abused by some developers to reduce rates of affordable housing and other obligations in section 106 agreements.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
This is really about ensuring that we can balance national standards and local decision making. As a former chair of a planning committee, I seek reassurance on how we and local decision makers can hold developers to account on stalled sites. We absolutely need to get building on brownfield sites. We have over 5,000 permitted homes in Gravesham, but we need reassurance that the small pockets of beautiful green space in our urban areas are protected, so that we see development where it needs to be.
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is right, and the protections and provisions that were in the draft framework last year have been carried across. We want councils to be able to designate those spaces for their areas, but we also want to see development come forward in the right places. I think she alluded to a national scheme of delegation, and we will be taking forward our reforms to modernise planning committees that are in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. We will set out details of the national scheme of delegation, and consult on the draft regulations, early next year.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
My constituents would have much more sympathy with the Minister if he could explain why, when it comes to house building, Leicester city’s target will go down by 31%, whereas Hinckley and Bosworth’s and north-west Leicestershire’s targets will go up by 59% and 74% respectively. It means that we have 10,000 houses proposed near Twycross, and thousands near Burbage and Barwell. What would he say to my constituents about the unfairness of the discrepancies between targets for city and brownfield sites, and targets for green-belt sites and agricultural land?
Matthew Pennycook
As I have said to other hon. Members in the past, housing targets, under the new standard method we have introduced, will increase in every metro area in the country with the exception of London, which was given a fantastical figure by the previous Government, because they applied the urban uplift—an entirely arbitrary 35%—to every London borough, not just the core centre.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Under the previous Conservative Government, there was significant building in Mickleover in Derby, yet the GP surgery that was promised alongside that development never materialised. Can the Minister outline how the Government’s new clearer planning policies, particularly on where development should take place, will ensure that future growth is genuinely sustainable and properly linked to the delivery of GP provision and other essential services and infrastructure?
Matthew Pennycook
I have referenced before the consolidation and strengthening of the provisions in the framework we published last year in terms of the provision of infrastructure, particularly public service infrastructure. It is local plans, primarily, that should address needs and opportunities around infrastructure, and identify what infrastructure is required and how it can be funded and brought forward, but the reforms we are making through the draft framework will make both plan making and decision making clearer and simpler. I am more than happy to sit down with my hon. Friend to discuss the particular challenges she is facing in her constituency.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
Bramhall and Heald Green are facing huge numbers of development proposals in their area, and the Government are today proudly announcing their policy to presume approval of developments around rail stations to improve sustainable transport. Gatley and Heald Green stations have the highest rates of cancellations in the north-west, and there has been no Sunday service in Bramhall for over a year and a half. The Minister should know that these stations are serviced by Northern—coincidentally, it is in effect a Government-run company—so how can my constituents trust this Government when it comes to building sustainable communities?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman’s constituents can trust this Government because we are setting out—for consultation, as I continue to stress—a clear definition of what a well-connected station means. As I said in response to the shadow Minister, we have defined it as the top 60 major economic centres based on travel to work areas by GVA, and four trains an hour or two trains in one direction. This covers 60% of train stations across the country, with 40% that are not covered, but we welcome views through the consultation.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
There is much to welcome in the Minister’s statement, and I would like to invite him to come and have a look at the opportunity for new housing around Shipley station. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on housing and care for older people, I particularly welcome the commitment in the NPPF to more accessible homes for older and disabled people. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), the Minister mentioned that 40% of new homes would be mandatory at M4(2) standards. Can he confirm that that is a baseline, and that the ambition is for planning authorities to go further and move towards 100% of all new homes?
Matthew Pennycook
I confirm to my hon. Friend that the 40% figure is a minimum, not a target. Our proposals recognise that accessibility needs are locally specific, and our changes ensure that necessary levels of accessible housing are provided, while providing authorities with the flexibility to maximise house building overall. Where needs are higher than the mandatory minimum, we are proposing that planning policies should reflect this.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Minister has said that the Government want to double down on the brownfield-first approach, that they have a presumption in favour of development in urban areas and that they are committed to protecting the green belt. Neither I nor my constituents can square that with the reality of what is happening across Bromsgrove and the villages. My constituency is 89% green belt, but the housing target has increased by a staggering 85%, yet in adjacent Birmingham the housing target has decreased by over 30%. Local people are concerned not just about the erosion of the green belt, but about the lack of infrastructure. Over 5,000 local people have signed my petition expressing their concern about this approach. I want to work constructively with the Minister, so will he agree to meet me, together with the leader of Bromsgrove district council, to discuss the impact of this approach and forge a new path forwards?
Matthew Pennycook
I will meet the hon. Gentleman and his local authority leader—I am more than happy to set out the Government’s position on green-belt land designation and release—but I gently say to him and other Opposition Members that there is no way of building the volume of homes our country needs on brownfield land alone. There is not enough land on brownfield land registers, certainly not brownfield land that is in the right place and viable to meet that need. We do need to release more land, including green-belt land, but we are doing it in a fair way and starting with grey-belt land first.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Minister’s commitment to tackling the housing crisis that we inherited. I have had many emails from people in Norwich about the need to build much-needed homes but also to protect our natural environment. As he probably knows, Norfolk is home to 10% of England’s chalk streams. He has touched on this, but can he provide reassurances to my constituents, and outline how this new policy will protect vital nature spots, like chalk streams?
Matthew Pennycook
We do want to provide greater protection for our precious chalk streams, which is why we have included explicit recognition of them in the framework. As I said in a previous answer, we will ensure that local plans identify and manage the impacts of development on these sensitive areas and set clearer expectations for development proposals in relation to them. The aim is to secure the consistent application of policy on these precious habitats. That will be supported by the roll-out of local nature recovery strategies, which will be able to map chalk streams and identify measures to enhance and improve them.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Minister’s statement pins the blame for the housing crisis on the planning system, but we all know that there are many challenges facing the building sector: cost inflation, staff shortages made worse by Brexit, issues with housing association funding, and the problem of land banking, with all these planning permissions not being built out. Instead of the Minister pitting nature protection against house building—if he really wants to increase housing availability, affordability and quality, as he said in the statement that he does—will he set a social housing target, invest far more in directly supporting social housing and ensure that all building meets nature protection and climate crisis challenge goals?
Matthew Pennycook
I have never pitted, and I will not pit, development against the environment. This Government have sought a win-win for both, which is precisely what part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill does. The hon. Member is wrong to suggest that all this Government are doing is planning reform. Planning reform is a necessary but not sufficient measure, and we are undertaking plenty of others, including £39 billion for the new social and affordable housing programme.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I particularly welcome the comments about social and affordable homes in rural communities, and the commitments around swift bricks and chalk streams. In many areas, including in my county of Norfolk, the environment so often is the economy, whether that is through farming or tourism. Does the Minister recognise that one of the barriers to growth in many rural areas is capacity in district council planning authorities and the recruitment crisis? Will there be any specific measures on improvements to planning in rural areas?
Matthew Pennycook
I would say two things in response to that question. The Government have already allocated significant funding for planning capacity and capability in local departments. The Chancellor in the recent Budget allocated another £48 million. We are making £8 million of that available today to support local authorities with development management. In general, this framework will give a major boost to rural economies. We are making it very clear that development that supports farm modernisation and food production, and that allows rural businesses to grow, should be supported.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
This is a dark day for Shropshire’s green belt—places like Albrighton and Shifnal in my constituency—for the remaining green belt in the borough of Telford and Wrekin, in places like Preston upon the Weald Moors, Edgmond, Bratton and Church Aston. Another time in this place, the Minister referenced the number of local authority voids—both Conservative and Labour, to be fair—and voids held by social landlords. What more can be done to release those voids so that we can take the pressure off Shropshire’s green belt?
Matthew Pennycook
The right hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to the potential to do more on voids and on empty homes more generally, although councils already have quite significant powers to bring empty homes back into use. I say very gently to him, building on my comments about the need to release appropriate green-belt land where necessary to meet housing need, that my concern is less about the instances he described and more about the 1.3 million people languishing on social housing waiting lists and, in particular, the 170,000 children who are today homeless and living in temporary accommodation. We have to build more homes. That requires green-belt land, as well as brownfield land, to be developed.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his statement. He will be aware that Harlow is home to a number of builders, construction workers and entrepreneurs. How will the proposals he has set out today make a difference for Harlow’s hard-working builders, construction workers and entrepreneurs?
Matthew Pennycook
The second half of my statement—I hope my hon. Friend will have noticed—is a series of measures, interventions, policy and regulatory easements to get small and medium-sized house builders back on the pitch in a serious way, alongside councils and community-led housing. We need more providers on the pitch, building a diversified house building market. I hope that SME house builders across the country will welcome the package.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
I am pleased that the Government have listened to my calls, and to those of other Liberal Democrats, to mention the explicit protection of chalk stream rivers in the statement. The Minister mentions the consistent application of policy. Will he confirm whether those policies might include, for example, exclusion zones around chalk streams to protect them fully as unique and irreplaceable habitats?
Matthew Pennycook
I am more than happy to clarify and provide a bit more detail, which will hopefully reassure the hon. Lady. Through the changes we have made in explicitly recognising chalk streams, we are now clear that local plans must identify and manage the impacts of development on these sensitive areas. That might include creating buffer zones or green corridors around them, as well as and alongside clearer expectations for developments, so that in decision making they are properly protected.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
If the Minister is serious about, in his words, “doubling down” on brownfield first, will he look again at the Campaign to Protect Rural England report, which was put together with academic rigour, which identified enough land in England alone for 1.4 million homes on brownfield sites? If he looks again at that seriously, he will find that it is right and will mandate to build on those sites first before a single farm, field or piece of green-belt land is built on.
Matthew Pennycook
I am afraid—I have been very open about saying it before—that I have never been convinced by that CPRE research. As to the general thrust of the right hon. Gentleman’s question of whether we want to see more development on previously developed land, absolutely. I stress once again to hon. Members the radical nature of the proposals that we have brought forward today with regard to brownfield land. We are proposing development support in principle within settlements as a whole, with a permanent presumption in favour of development on brownfield land. Opposition Members keep challenging us to go further on brownfield. There is no further. This is dialling up brownfield to the extreme and it will ensure that we get brownfield applications in, as well as green-belt land release and designation where necessary.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
My column for the Stockport Express is this week encouraging my constituents to respond to the Stockport local plan consultation—the deadline is Sunday—because the Government’s doubling of the housing target for Stockport will have an impact on our green belt and our community, and I am really keen that they have their say. Anyone serious knows we need more homes to be built, but I absolutely understand the worries of my constituents. They are thinking about the impact the doubling of the housing target will have on roads, GP appointments, schools and, in particular, our green spaces. One of the problems with the Government’s approach is the sequencing. Constituents see the downside of large-scale developments without the needed public transport. Would the Minister support minimum infrastructure targets before and alongside minimum housing targets?
Matthew Pennycook
I refer the hon. Lady to the comments I have already made on how the new draft framework further consolidates and strengthens the expectations around infrastructure provision. Vision-led transport, which is now hardwired through the framework, will make a difference to the challenges she poses, but she is absolutely right that we want to see infrastructure up front, alongside new homes being delivered.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The Minister’s statement referenced a presumption in favour of sustainable development on certain brownfield sites. Will applications for those developments still have to undertake a traffic and environmental impact assessment? If, for example, the highway network were found to be inadequate, would the local planning authority be able to refuse that application?
Matthew Pennycook
I have a lot of time for the hon. Gentleman. It sounds to me—I may be guessing here—that he has a specific constituency matter that he might like to discuss with me, and I would be happy to do so.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Minister referred in his statement to the housing crisis we face, yet there are an estimated 1.4 million homes with planning permissions that are yet to be built. We know that developers favour land banking—waiting until the situation is so acute that they can then deliver those homes for more money, or renege on their commitment to deliver social homes by claiming that the cost pressures mean that they can no longer be delivered. We have seen that in my constituency. Does the Minister therefore agree that “use it or lose it” planning permission would get houses built, and that he does not have a housing crisis, but a building crisis?
Matthew Pennycook
There are real challenges with housing delivery. I refer the hon. Lady to the proposals on build-out generally that we have outlined and sought feedback on. She is absolutely right in the thrust of her question: we are overly reliant as a country on a handful of volume developers. That is precisely why we are encouraging other providers to get in the game through the package we have announced today for small and medium-sized house builders, so that we can have the diversified house building market that we need to bring forward delivery in the volumes the country requires.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Minister must accept that house building targets are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. House building targets are based on a naive delusion that private developers will collude with Government in driving down the price of their final product, which surely cannot be the case. Cornwall is not a nimby location; we have grown faster than almost anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Despite almost trebling our housing stock in the past 60 years, the housing need of local communities is greater now. Will the Minister therefore consider that some local authorities, where simply setting targets is not the answer, should be given the tools to meet need rather than developers’ greed?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman and I have had this discussion, or variants of it, many times. We have a slight difference of opinion over the role of housing targets; I think they are necessary and play an important role. However, we are giving local planning authorities the tools they need—specific to the hon. Gentleman’s area, that includes changes in the draft framework on rural, social and affordable housing and the wider grant funding support that we are bringing forward through the £39 billion social and affordable homes programme.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I welcome the explicit protections for chalk streams—something I have long campaigned for, as the River Itchen runs through my constituency. Will the Minister also guarantee that local plans will be strengthened by the NPPF overhaul and that community input will not be undermined?
Matthew Pennycook
We want to see more community input, particularly upstream in the development of local plans. The Government are committed to driving local plans to adoption; we want to see universal coverage of local plans. The clear rules-based policies in this draft framework will help with the new plan-making system that we announced just weeks ago to ensure that we can drive up coverage in this Parliament.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I welcome the ambition to build much-needed homes, especially social and affordable housing. However, in places such as Cherwell district in my constituency, the problem is not planning permissions. Under Liberal Democrat control, the council has already consented more than 10,000 homes; though consented, those homes have not yet been built, because the real blockage is delivery. Homes are not built because of a failure of grid capacity, supply chain costs and land banking by developers. These problems, which are outside the council’s control, now undermine its five-year housing land supply. The build-out consultation, which the Minister referred to, closed in the summer. Will he now commit to holding developers to account, once permission is granted, with real “use it or lose it” powers and to developing core infrastructure first, so that approved homes actually get built?
Matthew Pennycook
I was very clear that there is more that needs to be done to transform the failing housing system we inherited from the Conservatives. We need greater focus on reform and delivery; that will come next year. The regulatory and planning changes that will be made today—the culmination of 17 months of work to transform our planning system—are absolutely vital. We will come forward in due course with a response to proposals around build-out measures.
Points of Order
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a slightly unusual point of order, but one that it is important to deal with now as it may become more of an issue going forward. Last week, it was claimed I had participated in a Westminster Hall debate on digital ID, where I allegedly not only spoke but voted in favour of digital ID. Of course, as we know, we do not usually hold votes in Westminster Hall; I was also actually in the Chamber at the time, speaking on the Employment Rights Bill. On further inquiry, it transpired that Google AI had claimed that I was in Westminster Hall at the time, speaking in favour of digital ID. As I know many more constituents will seek to use these devices to understand our positions on various matters, I wonder whether there is any way that I could correct the record, and in fact whether the House could give some advice to these tech companies on using Hansard as the authoritative source for positions on various subjects.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for advance notice of his point of order. As he acknowledges, external AI services are not a matter for the Chair. However, he has certainly put his accurate position—and his presence in this Chamber, and not in Westminster Hall—on the record.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This morning I received a notification via the Facebook page of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) that the planning for the Universal UK theme park, which is located wholly within my constituency of Mid Bedfordshire, has been approved. The hon. Member for Bedford shared a letter that he had received from the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. Subsequent to notifying the Secretary of State about this point of order, I received a letter. Madam Deputy Speaker, could you advise whether it is appropriate for Ministers to provide notification of a planning approval in a Member’s constituency to the neighbouring Labour MP but not to the Member themselves?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order and for informing the Secretary the State that he intended to raise this matter. There is no specific rule or convention of the House that I am aware of relating to notification of planning consents, but as a general principle, if a Minister is informing hon. Members of a development of any kind, as a courtesy they should include the hon. Member in whose constituency the development is to take place.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It sounds like there was an error made by the Department, and for that I sincerely apologise. I will discuss this with Ministers and officials to make sure that it does not happen again.
Vacant Commercial Properties (Temporary Use)
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable local authorities to allocate for temporary use by charities, community organisations and small businesses any vacant commercial properties during the period of their vacancy; to provide for certain obligations on landlords of commercial property in connection with such allocations; and for connected purposes.
During the last general election, I kept my election literature very simple, making only three pledges. One of those was to improve the state of our local high streets, known in County Durham as front streets. Everywhere I go in North Durham, this is a matter of great concern for residents. Within living memory, both of the larger towns in the constituency—Stanley and Chester-le-Street—had thriving bustling front streets, with a variety of independent traders selling food, clothing and other items, larger stores, a range of pubs, banks, and entertainment venues, such as cinemas. Sadly, that is no longer the case.
Chester-le-Street has a fine selection of independent retailers and cafés, such as Cafe Neena’s, Computer Centre, Chester Le Geek, GW Horners pub, In the Closet, Carsons Cafe Bar, and REfUSE community café. In recent months, we have seen excellent new additions to the front street, including Willow’s Bakehouse and Pretty Busy Blooms. However, Chester-le-Street’s front street is blighted by vacant landmark sites, including the former Barclays, Santander, HSBC and Halifax banks—which will sadly be joined by Lloyds, closing in January—and large, empty landmark pubs including the Queens Head and Red Lion.
In Stanley, the situation is far worse. The former Board School site reached a stage where it had to be demolished. We have literally the burned-out remnants of Bertie’s Bar, and there are very few remaining active units among the vacant premises. It creates a depressing air of dereliction, which is a source of deep shame and disappointment to residents, who take great pride in the history of their town. It is desperately unfair on the small number of businesses, such as the lovely DH9 café, that are striving to keep the front street alive.
While in both cases there is need for improvement, residents have explained to me that the relatively worse performance of Stanley is largely down to the nature of the landlords. In Chester-le-Street, the main landlord is local to the town, committed deeply to it and takes care to curate his front street holdings by making generous arrangements to help new businesses get started. In Stanley, however, the tale is different. Many of the key landlords are absentees who bought their sites speculatively and have never even visited the town to see what they purchased. When approached by potential tenants, they make wholly unreasonable rent and other demands, as they would rather maintain a high notional value for their property in the hopes of a future sale than accept a lower rent to get the premises occupied. There are a limited number of premises in Chester-le-Street in similar circumstances too.
The challenges facing our front streets in Chester-le-Street and Stanley are faced by many high streets across the country. The universal nature of this issue, and its paramount importance to our constituents up and down the country, is demonstrated by the geographical spread of the Members sponsoring the Bill. From Stoke-on-Trent and Stafford to Sittingbourne and Sheppey, Truro and Falmouth and beyond, I am grateful to my hon. Friends who are backing the Bill to revitalise our high streets. We are all proud to be part of a Labour Government who are already delivering for small businesses across the UK.
Labour’s plan for small businesses places the growth and productivity of smaller firms at its core. It will help make the UK the best place to start and grow a business. From creating a business growth service that helps local businesses access the advice and support that they need, to pledging to end the scourge of late payments, which drains £11 billion from our economy every year, this Labour Government are standing up for our high streets. We are expanding start-up loans, overhauling the business rates system so that 250,000 small businesses will benefit from up to 40% off their rates, and standing firmly behind the shops, cafés and entrepreneurs who keep our town centres alive.
The Bill strives to add to the impressive record of our Labour Government. It aims to give local authorities the power to step in and compel absentee landlords to make empty shop units available temporarily to charities, community groups and small businesses. The aim is to address the growing number of empty shops and commercial units, each of which represents the wasted potential of a space that could be serving customers, hiring local people and bringing footfall to the town centre.
The Bill will provide a lifeline to new enterprises, giving them the backing that they may need to break through and become a staple of the local community. Whether filled by a small business employing our constituents, or a charity or community organisation providing vital services for the most vulnerable, those spaces could be so much more than a vacuum.
The Bill presents us with two visions of our town centres. The first is all too familiar to Members across the House: a ghost town of empty shops, lost potential and eerily quiet streets. The second is a brighter alternative: a thriving town centre, where every unit provides value to our constituents, and to which more people come to do their shopping, to treat themselves, and to spend time with loved ones. I know which of those visions our constituents put us here to deliver, and the Bill would help us get there.
The state of the high street is the clearest visible indicator of the state of the economy, and it is of paramount importance to how the public see the communities that we live in. The Bill fits in with the tangible steps that the Labour Government are taking to restore pride in place in our communities; for example, the aptly named Pride in Place scheme is injecting £20 million into some of the most deprived communities in the country, including South Stanley in my constituency.
We should have zero tolerance for eyesore, derelict buildings. Premises sit empty, while many organisations, charities, businesses and community groups desperately need them. If there were more people working on the high street, that would naturally bring more footfall—visitors who will use other shops and cafés. The high street naturally faces problems, due to increased internet shopping and out-of-town shopping centres, but we do not need to accept terminal decline. We need to reimagine our high streets as community hubs that people will once again be proud to visit. My constituents and those of other hon. Members deserve better. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Luke Akehurst, Dan Aldridge, Danny Beales, Dr Allison Gardner, Leigh Ingham, Jayne Kirkham, Amanda Martin, Kevin McKenna, Mike Reader, Alistair Strathern, Dr Lauren Sullivan and Peter Swallow present the Bill.
Luke Akehurst accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 January, and to be printed (Bill 351).
Finance (No. 2) Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:02 - The House divided: - Ayes: 118 / Noes: 340 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 341 / Noes: 195 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been selected.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
On 26 November, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor delivered her second Budget at this Dispatch Box. This was a Budget to build strong foundations and a secure future for our country, with no cuts to capital spending—which I am sure would have been implemented by the Conservatives, if they were in this financial situation—and no return to austerity, including for public services. This is a Budget about Labour choices.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Minister says that there will be no cut to capital budgets, but of course he is talking only about the public sector. Has he seen the CBI Economics research that suggests that there will be severe capital budget reductions in the private sector—the very sector that creates the wealth on which everything else depends?
Dan Tomlinson
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have read the Office for Budget Responsibility’s report—we had a bit of extra time to read it this year. He will know that according to that report, investment—both overall, whole-economy investment and private sector investment—has outpaced the OBR’s forecast from March this year. I look forward to returning to those points later.
The Budget delivers choices that were fair and necessary—choices that deliver on the public’s priorities, and that bring about the change that this Government promised. This Government have chosen to cut the cost of living, delivering £150 off energy bills and freezing train fares and prescription charges. This Government have chosen to cut NHS waiting lists, delivering 5.2 million more appointments and announcing in the Budget 250 new neighbourhood health centres. This Government have chosen to lift 550,000 children out of relative poverty in this Parliament, by removing the two-child limit, and by expanding free breakfast clubs and free school meal eligibility.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Government have chosen to absolutely decimate family farms across the whole United Kingdom. The Prime Minister was questioned yesterday by members of the Liaison Committee, and he was told that farmers have said that they might be better off dying before this tax change comes in. I feel that we need to let the reality of that sink in. His response was that Governments have to bring about sensible reform, but sensible reform is not someone lying in an early grave to avoid the break-up of their family farm. He also claimed that this policy was not targeted, and was merely a change to the tax regime, but when this Finance Bill decimates family farms, it certainly—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Lady’s intervention is far too long.
Dan Tomlinson
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I look forward to contributions from Members on both sides of the House on the various measures in the Finance Bill. On the point that the hon. Member raises, this Government considered really carefully the reforms that were announced at the Budget last year, and have put forward changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief. There is an additional £1 million allowance—an allowance that was made transferable between spouses in this Budget—and also a 50% discount on the inheritance tax rate, so tax on that higher allowance will be at 20%, rather than 40%.
As well as making changes to lift children out of poverty, this Government have chosen to increase the national living wage from 1 April 2026 by 4.1% to £12.71 an hour, and to increase the national minimum wage for 18 to 20-year-olds to £10.85.
Dave Doogan
The Minister will know that for the vast majority of employees in Scotland, the increase in the national living wage is redundant, because it is less than the Scottish living wage. He talks about the things that the Government increased in the Budget; was it their intention to increase unemployment by 25% as a result of their jobs tax?
Dan Tomlinson
This Budget will lift thousands of children in Scotland out of poverty, because of decisions that we have made. This Government have made £10 billion more spending available to the Scottish Government, yet we still see public services failing up and down Scotland; the NHS is not working as well as it should north of the border.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
The Minister is making an excellent series of points, and I commend him on behalf of 4,000 vulnerable children in Reading for the fantastic support he is offering them and their families. It is much deserved and appreciated by our community. I point out other significant benefits, such as the freezing of rail fares, continued bus fare subsidies, and economic measures that will drive growth across this country.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention—the first from a Labour Member. I look forward to many more from Labour hon. Friends, as well as Opposition Members. This Government have also chosen to cut Government borrowing every year, so that interest rates, already cut five times since the election, keep falling.
Sir Oliver Dowden
I thank my neighbour. The Minister did not answer this point made by the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) about the effect of the jobs tax on unemployment. In my constituency, I have met countless businesses that have laid off staff, or have shifted staff to being self-employed. Does he accept, particularly given the unemployment figures today, that there is a direct link between the jobs tax and higher unemployment?
Dan Tomlinson
The OBR was aware of the tax changes announced in the previous Budget when it made its forecast just a few weeks ago. It expects that employment will rise in every year of this forecast; that every year, the figure will be higher than it was in March; and that there will be over 35 million people in work by the end of the decade.
As I was saying, this year, borrowing as a share of GDP will be at its lowest level in six years, and the Chancellor made the decision to more than double our headroom against the fiscal rules in this Budget to provide continued economic stability. This Finance Bill, alongside other Budget decisions, delivers choices that give people new opportunities and renew our public services. These choices will help lift thousands of children out of poverty, get more people into work and maintain the highest level of public sector investment in 40 years. I was struck by the response from the North East chamber of commerce, which welcomed the ending of the two-child limit, saying,
“The Chancellor is right to scrap the two-child benefit cap. Our members have long argued that this is one of the most powerful levers available to tackle the unacceptable rates of child poverty across our region and to support more parents into sustained and meaningful employment.”
Statements like that are further confirmation that lifting 500,000 children out of poverty is not just the right thing to do, in order to give our children the best start in life, but is an investment in the future and our economy. All of us will be better for it.
This Government have promised to deliver economic growth as our No. 1 priority.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I am not quite sure whether the Minister believes what he is reading, because UKHospitality has already done the sums on the impact that this Budget is having on many hard-working hospitality businesses across Keighley and Ilkley. Indeed, it has calculated that over the next three years, hospitality businesses in my constituency will have to pay on average an additional £13,690 per annum. Can the Minister say what the Budget will mean for the growth of hard-working hospitality businesses in my constituency?
Dan Tomlinson
The hon. Member said that he is not sure whether I believe what I am reading. I did write this myself, and I do very much believe it. We will have plenty of time to debate the business rates measures when we consider the relevant pieces of legislation and in Committee, I am sure. They are not specifically in the Finance (No. 2) Bill, but I am mentioning things that are not in the Bill, so of course, he is welcome to raise things that are in the Budget, too. At Treasury questions last week we discussed at length, with the shadow Front-Bench team and others, the relief and support that is now in the system to help businesses with the increases in valuations they have seen since the pandemic—there is over £4 billion of support over the next few years, with £2 billion coming this year alone. However, I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Madam Deputy Speaker, I thought I might speak for 15 minutes, but we are 11 minutes in and I am only on page 2, so I will try to make some progress.
We are sticking to our commitments in the corporate tax road map, maintaining the headline rate of corporation tax—the lowest in the G7—and making reforms to capital allowances to support fiscal sustainability while retaining incentives to invest. We are going further to support companies to scale up and attract investment and talent by significantly expanding the enterprise management incentives company eligibility limits, to maintain the world-leading nature of this scheme. We are doubling the maximum amount that a company can raise through the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts scheme, to make the schemes more generous and supportive for entrepreneurs, helping to support more investment in companies and improve access to finance for those we want to see make the transition from start-up to scale-up.
We are delivering a new service to support major investment projects with advance tax certainty, as committed to in the corporate tax road map. We are also introducing a 40% first-year allowance, allowing businesses to immediately write off a significant amount of their investment to reduce their corporation tax or income tax bill in the year that they make that investment. Overall, these growth measures and the many others we are delivering across the Government will result in the doubling of limits for our enterprise tax incentives and will support many scale-ups and businesses to attract capital as they grow.
This Finance Bill builds on many other measures announced at the Budget and delivered over this Parliament. We are expanding and continuing the work of the National Wealth Fund. We have committed £14 billion for Sizewell C, to help power more than 6 million homes. We are making rapid progress on enabling the delivery of a third runway at Heathrow, and we have provided £120 billion in additional capital investment for roads, rail and energy, including £15.6 billion for major city regions.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the £50 million or £60 million that the Government have provided to Lancashire county council to provide good roads for my constituents. On the Minister’s point about business investment, I welcome the three-year holiday from the stamp duty reserve for new listings, which we are not talking about enough. That will be a huge benefit to newly listed companies in the UK and manages our competitiveness very well.
Dan Tomlinson
I, too, welcome that change in the Budget, and I commend my colleague the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for the work she has been doing on that—I am sure we will hear more about it in her closing remarks.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Will the Exchequer Secretary give way?
Dan Tomlinson
I will give way, and then I will try to make some progress, so that other Members can get in.
Mr Carmichael
I am grateful to the Exchequer Secretary for giving way. On the point of growth, he should be aware that, since the Budget last year, 49% of farm businesses have paused or cancelled planned investment, 10% have already downsized operations, and 21% intend to do so before next April. What are the Government going to do to restore confidence in farming to invest? Without that, there is no growth in the rural community.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the right hon. Member for his point. We do want to see farming businesses in rural communities and businesses up and down the country investing and growing for the future. On the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief, it is worth noting that the statistics suggest that up to 375 estates a year will be affected—a small proportion of the overall number—and that number has come down from 520, as was forecast at the previous Budget.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dan Tomlinson
If I may, I will try to make some progress so that other hon. Members are able to contribute.
This Government are delivering growth and are focused on driving investment in our economy. As I said earlier, whole-economy investment has risen by 4.2% in real terms since the start of the year, outperforming the OBR’s March forecast of a decline of 0.1%. As the shadow Chancellor will know, Britain has outperformed its growth forecast this year, with growth in 2025 upgraded to 1.5% from 1% in March.
Beyond growth, this Bill delivers a set of responsible choices that safeguard our economy and prepare us for the future. We have been clear that in order to achieve that we have had to take the decision to ask everyone to contribute more at the end of the decade to protect our public services. After a freeze that was initiated by the previous Government, this Bill maintains income tax thresholds for employees and the self-employed at current levels for a further three years, from April 2028 to April 2031. That is a fair choice. In 2029-30, three-quarters of the revenue from maintaining income tax and employee, self-employed and national insurance contribution thresholds is expected to come from the top half of households.
The Bill also takes action to ensure that income from assets is taxed more fairly, raising £2.2 billion in 2029-30 by increasing taxes on property dividend and savings interest income. The Government are narrowing the gap between taxes paid on work and taxes paid on income from assets. At the moment, for example, a tenant will pay national insurance on their income, and a landlord will not. With the extra 2p, we will be closing the gap between tax rates on landlords and on tenants. In 2029-30 around two-thirds of revenue from increases to dividend property and savings interest tax rates is expected to come from the top 20% of households. Importantly, there are choices we have not taken—choices that previous Governments have taken to borrow more in a fiscally irresponsible way, or to return to austerity, which would undermine our economy and society. We have also chosen not to increase the rate of corporation tax, and we have stuck to our corporation tax road map.
It is important that those with the broadest shoulders contribute more to protect our vital public services, and the Bill delivers previously announced reforms to tax wealth fairly, including a revised tax regime for carried interest. That sits wholly within the income tax framework to ensure that reward is taxed in line with its economic characteristics, removing the opportunity for individuals to use pensions as a vehicle for inheritance tax by bringing unspent pots into the scope of inheritance tax, and by reforming agricultural property relief and business property relief, while ensuring that any of the £1 million allowance for the 100% rate that is unused will be transferable between spouses and civil partners. Those decisions build on our action in the previous Finance Bill, including abolishing the non-dom tax status, ending tax breaks for private school fees, and raising the rates of capital gains tax. That currently raises £14 billion a year, with revenue expected to more than double to around £30 billion by 2030-31.
Fair choices also mean delivering justice for those affected by the infected blood scandal. The Government will extend the existing inheritance tax relief for infected blood compensation payments, so that if an infected or affected person has already died when compensation is paid, inheritance tax relief will instead apply on the death of the first living recipient of the compensation payment.
Fair choices in a Finance Bill also mean tackling serious reforms that have been ducked for too long. That means reforming tax reliefs that, while intentioned, have exploded in cost in recent years. This Government are reforming capital gains tax relief, which has allowed wealthy business owners to sell their shares without paying any capital gains tax. We are reducing the relief available for business owners who are selling their businesses to employee ownership trusts from 100% to 50%—a relief that the previous Government expected to cost less than £100 million a year in 2018-19, although published figures now show that the cost of the capital gains tax relief reached £600 million in 2021. Without any action, forecasts suggest that that could rise to more than 20 times the original costing, to £2 billion by 2028-29.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dan Tomlinson
I give way to the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), who was the first to catch my eye on that occasion.
Robbie Moore
Business property relief impacts many family businesses across the country. What does the Minister say to Fibreline in my constituency, which has worked out that its BPR liability is about £850,000? The company employs 250 people in Keighley whose jobs are potentially at risk as a result of the business not being able to mitigate an inheritance tax liability that this Government are imposing on it.
Dan Tomlinson
Our proposals on APR and BPR mean that those with business or agricultural assets will have both the additional £1 million allowance and a tax rate that is half the rate that others within the system pay. My understanding is that the system will be more generous than the one in place before 1992, throughout the whole time that Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister.
We are reforming the Motability scheme to end the VAT relief on top-up payments, which was a one-off payment required to lease more expensive vehicles on the scheme. We are also ending the application of insurance premium tax on leases to ensure that the scheme delivers value for money for the taxpayer, while choosing to continue to support disabled people.
We are introducing reforms to ensure that private hire vehicle operators will no longer be able to illegitimately exploit an administrative scheme intended for tour operators to pay a much lower rate of VAT than others.
Graham Stuart
The Minister is always both gracious and generous. Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) about the impact of BPR, imagine a company that is worth £11 million. It will have a £2 million BPR tax payment to make. The person who inherits the shares will not have that £2 million, so they will have to extract that money from the business. Am I right in thinking that that would require £3.3 million to be deducted and taken out of the company in order to pay that £2 million in tax? Is that in the right order?
Dan Tomlinson
I am happy to discuss those numbers with the right hon. Member in more detail, either afterwards or I can come in and discuss those points with him, although I did not quite follow all of the maths—[Interruption.] I thank Members on the Conservative Front Bench for their intervention about that.
Increasing taxes on online gaming and betting is another change that we are making in the Budget, with the rate for remote gaming increasing from 21% to 40% from April 2026, and the rate of remote betting increasing from 15% to 25% from April 2027, while choosing to protect in-person betting and horseracing, which plays such an important role in our sporting culture and many local economies.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will be aware that those rate changes will have a consequential impact on jobs, particularly in places such as Stoke-on-Trent, where thousands of people are employed by gambling companies. The rights and wrongs of gambling aside, there will be an impact on jobs. Is he willing to look at that issue with the industry going forward, so that we can mitigate the damage done to the sector and keep people in Stoke-on-Trent gainfully employed?
Dan Tomlinson
My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for his constituents and the businesses based in his part of the world. Those businesses contribute significant revenue to the Exchequer, and this Government are asking them to contribute a bit more in order for us to be able to continue to fund our public services in a sustainable way. I will continue to have conversations with him and others about the impact of the changes that the Government are announcing to this sector and others in the Budget and this Bill.
Alongside the choices I have mentioned, we are also taking action on the loan charge review. That will include accepting all but one of the recommendations of the independent review, and in some places going further than the review suggested. We are creating a new settlement opportunity to support those with outstanding liabilities to resolve their affairs with HMRC. This marks the start of a final opportunity to draw a line under this long-running issue. I sincerely and dearly hope for everyone involved that we will be able to move forward and that this issue can start to be part of people’s pasts, rather than a seemingly never-ending part of their future.
In tandem, we are delivering a package of measures to close in on promoters of marketed tax avoidance and help taxpayers to steer clear of the schemes that they promote. Those measures include a new prohibition on promoting avoidance arrangements that have no realistic prospect of success and new promoter action notices to require businesses to stop providing goods or services to promoters of tax avoidance where they are used in the promotion of avoidance.
Matt Rodda
The Minister is making an excellent point. May I commend him on his work on the loan charge? Many IT consultants in my constituency and across the Thames valley are grateful to the Treasury for looking into this matter. Many of them felt they were sold schemes that they did not always fully understand, and they are also grateful for the action to tackle inappropriate schemes being marketed at professional people. I thank him for his work on this matter.
Dan Tomlinson
That is very kind of my hon. Friend. I know that he and others on all sides of the House have made representations over many years on behalf of their constituents affected by the loan charge. I have met some of those affected and members of the all-party parliamentary group. In the months that I have been in this role, having been appointed only on 1 September, I have worked hard to ensure that we come forward with proposals that I hope will help to draw a line under this issue. I hope that those affected can see we have a reasonable and fair set of proposals that will help those who were subject to the loan charge to be able to come forward and to settle; I really encourage those individuals to come forward.
Alongside those changes, we are making steps to continue to close the tax gap by closing loopholes and removing barriers to ensure that people pay the tax that they owe, including raising an additional £2.4 billion in ’29-30 by introducing further reforms to pursue those who bend or break the rules to collect more unpaid taxes. We are also going to modernise the tax system to make it easier for taxpayers to get their tax right the first time. With the choices delivered in this Finance Bill, that will bring the total additional revenue raised by closing the tax gap in this Parliament to £10 billion by 2029-30.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has spoken about this Budget being
“a package, not a pick-and-mix”,
and that is so important for our public finances and our public services. Through this Bill, we are choosing to deliver long-overdue reforms to update our tax system so that it can work for a modern, dynamic and thriving economy, and funding vital policies such as the removal of the two-child limit, which will lift half a million children out of poverty.
This Bill is about delivering on choices: choices to protect working people; choices to cut energy bills, and to freeze train fares and prescription charges; choices to boost wages and reduce poverty; and choices to cut inflation to bring down mortgage costs. It delivers the Government’s commitment to this country to build a stronger and fairer economy in which living standards rise, to see child poverty fall, and to ensure that public services are improved up and down the country. With every measure in this Finance Bill being geared towards that goal, I commend this Bill to the House.
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add
“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Finance (No. 2) Bill because the Bill includes provisions breaking the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s promise, given after the Autumn Budget 2024, not to raise taxes, and breaking the Chancellor’s promise at the last Budget that there would be no extension of the freeze in Income Tax and National Insurance thresholds and that, from 2028–29, personal tax thresholds would be uprated in line with inflation once again; because the Bill implements changes to Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief for Inheritance Tax which will devastate family farms, businesses and food security; because the Bill is the result of a Budget that will lead to higher spending and borrowing, while damaging growth and living standards with £26 billion of tax rises; and because this House is opposed to raising taxes on working people to pay for increased welfare spending.”
In the middle of Leicester Square, in the heart of our great city, there is a statue of perhaps one of the greatest Englishmen who ever lived: William Shakespeare. In his hand there is a scroll, which reads, in his own words:
“there is no darkness but ignorance”.
This Government have brought plenty of darkness to our country—indeed, during the run-up to the Budget, we had so many kites flown as to what taxes were going to be put up or not that the sun was blotted out of the sky, and a huge, dark shadow was cast across consumers, who stopped spending, and businesses, which stopped investing and employing people. Don’t take my word for it, Madam Deputy Speaker: the Bank of England itself says precisely that it damaged the economy. Indeed, we have seen this in the latest figures on growth, which the Minister was most eager to tell us about in his speech. For the three months to the end of October, growth in the economy was negative—it was minus 0.1%—which is further evidence of the darkness that this Government have cast upon the animal spirits in our economy.
To return to Shakespeare, were he here today, he would be appalled by the ignorance that this Government have shown of the basic rules of economics. It is a basic fact that if you focus on redistribution, as socialists always do—of course, there is always an argument for redistribution—at the expense of getting the incentives right in the economy, you will damage growth. That is exactly what is at the heart of this Budget. The key choice that has been taken is to increase taxes on hard-working people and spend at least a substantial proportion of the money raised on increasing the benefits bill.
The second rule that this Government seem incapable of grasping is that if you tax something, you get less of it. That is a simple fact. That brings me to the topic of work. This Finance Bill further freezes the income tax threshold, meaning that 800,000 people or thereabouts will be dragged into the basic rate of income tax, and 1 million or thereabouts will be dragged through fiscal drag into the higher rate of income tax. By 2030, it is estimated that around one in four taxpayers will be in either the higher rate of income tax or the additional rate—an £8 billion tax grab in the target year, rising to £12.7 billion in 2030. That is on top of various other issues that are coming down the track, such as the freezing of the threshold for repayment of student loans, which is effectively a stealth tax on younger people. It is also on top of the freeze in the employer national insurance threshold, which will raise around £1 billion by 2030. Once again, that comes straight out of employers’ pockets—it is a further instalment of the extra jobs tax.
All of this will reduce the incentive to work, as we have seen. In an intervention a moment ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) raised this very point in the context of hospitality. We have seen 90,000 jobs destroyed on this Government’s watch—and whose jobs are they? They are predominantly young people’s jobs, because increasing national insurance and reducing the threshold at which that tax kicks in disproportionately impacts those on lower incomes, which includes younger people. Of course, we also have the Employment Rights Bill coming down the track, which will make employing people, particularly younger people, even more risky and expensive.
We see in this Finance Bill an outright attack on savers —those who are doing the right thing, putting money by for their retirement—and a 2% increase in taxes on savings income, which the OBR suggests will ironically lead to more people putting cash into individual savings accounts. That is quite the reverse of the effect that the Chancellor is attempting to achieve. According to the OBR, three quarters of the impact of that tax will be borne by working people by way of reduced pension contributions and lower wages. Indeed, the Association of British Insurers says that this measure is
“a short-sighted tax grab which will lower pension saving and undermine people’s retirement security.”
Then we get to inheritance tax. When we shuffle off this mortal coil—to get back to our friend Shakespeare—there will be a tax charge for those who have the temerity to have left something by way of a pension. It is a £1.5 billion tax grab by the Chancellor on those unused pensions.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
There has been much mention of Shakespeare. I wonder whether the gravediggers in “Hamlet” might give us some clues as to what the last Conservative Government did to the British economy.
Sir Mel Stride
Sadly, I think the gravediggers are still alive and well under this Government. We are seeing that in the destruction of jobs, businesses, farms and livelihoods up and down this country.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Minister gave his estimate of the number of farms that would be affected by the new tax, which I am quite sure is an underestimate. Notwithstanding that, though, the chilling effect on agricultural investment has been felt across the entire sector as people seek to avoid their farm reaching the threshold for the new tax.
Sir Mel Stride
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. What businesses, including farms, need to succeed is lower taxes and not to be spending most of their time worrying about how they will cover the impact of future taxation. They need to be planning for the future of their businesses and investing in them.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The hon. Member will be very familiar with my constituency, as he is my constituency neighbour. Does he agree that the Minister might have got his figures wrong? I surveyed all the farms in South Devon—there are nearly 500 small farms—and 44% of respondents said that they would be hit with an inheritance tax bill of over £300,000 when these measures come in. Does he agree that the Government simply do not understand the value of a farm, particularly in a part of the country like ours?
Sir Mel Stride
I would not naturally defer to the results of a Lib Dem survey over the work of His Majesty’s Treasury. However, I get the gist of what the hon. Lady is saying—perhaps a bar chart with a slightly dodgy scale would be a good way of putting the point.
The Chancellor says that those who are in receipt solely of the state pension should not worry about being dragged slightly into taxation, because that will be dealt with, but we do not know what that actually means. We do not know what the plan is, nor the cost. Perhaps in the wind-ups the Minister can tell us exactly what is envisaged for the very large number of pensioners who, under the Bill, will be dragged into paying tax on their state pension for the first time. What a mess! The Government are working against the instincts of those who are doing the right thing to save for their future.
The same is the case in respect of investment. The 2% increase in tax on dividends—a £1.2 billion tax grab—will simply have the effect of disincentivising investments in equities. That will mean less capital being invested in businesses, which is what drives up productivity. Part of the story of low productivity in our country is the fact that private investment has been too low for too long. This tax increase will weigh in the opposite direction. The Minister spoke about the importance of increasing investment in plant and machinery; the reality is that the Bill cuts the writing-down allowances, unless they relate to new plant and machinery, which will weigh against that very objective.
This is an unfair Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) raised the issue of the farm tax, and he was absolutely right to do so. Farms up and down this country are now worried about the future. Farms in my constituency, which have sometimes been in the family for decades or generations—in some cases even for centuries—are now having to stare down the barrel of a very uncertain future. What an irony and what a tragedy that, during the run-up to the general election, the then shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), looked the president of the National Farmers Union in the eye, and said that, when it came to inheritance tax, farmers had nothing to fear from a future Labour Government. How wrong they were. As Tom Bradshaw said, this whole tax increase is
“morally wrong and economically flawed”,
and he is right.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is also a near neighbour of mine in Devon. Does he agree that the changes to agricultural property relief feels like a double taxation that burdens farming families in their old age? One can reasonably reach only one conclusion: this Government neither understand nor value this country’s farming communities —talk about biting the hand that literally feeds us. It is for this reason, amid a host of others adumbrated by colleagues across the Opposition Benches, that I will vote against the Bill this evening.
Sir Mel Stride
I welcome the hon. Lady’s intervention. She is absolutely right on the matter of APR, but the issue is not just APR.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
We are in a world that is extremely uncertain, and our farmers are part of our national security, but we are farming them to death. What does that do for sustainability and our thriving farm agribusinesses?
Sir Mel Stride
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The value of farming goes above and beyond successful businesses simply contributing to the economy in the traditional way. Farming also underpins our food security as a nation.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of farmers in Parliament Square this afternoon, blasting their horns about the family farm tax. The shadow Chancellor and many other colleagues from the Opposition Benches have been out to meet the farmers to understand their concerns. Has he heard, like I have, their frustration at the Government’s failure to listen and understand the impact that the family farm tax will have on farm viability?
Sir Mel Stride
My hon. Friend is right. I was out there this morning speaking to farmers, including a group up from Newbury, who have taken the trouble to come here to make exactly that case powerfully to us on the day of this debate.
Sir Desmond Swayne
This attack on investment extends well beyond agriculture and family farms; it is an attack on every family undertaking and every family business in the land. It is bonkers.
Sir Mel Stride
I notice that my right hon. Friend is being restrained in his use of language, given the severity of the matters we are discussing. He is absolutely right. Business property relief is being changed in broadly the same way as agricultural property relief in this Bill. That will have a devastating and similar consequence for family businesses across the UK, and I have been up and down the country to meet many of them. One of the foremost in campaigning has been Steve Rigby of the Rigby Group. He is the head of Family Business UK, and he put it perfectly when he said that family businesses are spending too much time protecting their legacy and succession, not on promoting growth. That is the whole point. If this Government want growth, they will have to do things that get businesses to think about growth, rather than having to worry about being broken up because of onerous tax measures.
Graham Stuart
Does my right hon. Friend worry, like me, about the background of those on the Government Front Bench? I do not want to disrespect either of the individuals sitting there now, because they are both fine people, but neither has ever, so far as I am aware, been involved in running a private business. They do not understand how private business works, and they equate the inheritance of money—for example, from a father to a daughter—with a family business. A family business needs to continue, because of all the employment that arises from it. Equating the two and saying that it is half the normal inheritance tax is to show a complete failure of understanding of the economy of this country and the economy of a family business.
Sir Mel Stride
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It shows a complete lack of understanding of business, and it reflects the lack of true business experience on the Government Front Bench. It also goes right to the core of the difference in principles and beliefs between the two principal parties in this Chamber. We on the Opposition Benches believe that if someone works hard, saves hard and has something left at the end of their life, they should be allowed—because they love those who they wish to look after in their absence—to pass on that inheritance without the taxman taking a huge, disproportionate amount of what they have accumulated. All the Labour party believes in is mounding up ever more debt in a statist world in which that debt is to be passed on to future generations to be paid back.
We believe in supporting the little platoon, as Burke put it—the families that together form a mighty army. We believe in personal responsibility and for that to be rewarded.
Sir Mel Stride
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then I will come to the hon. Lady.
Dave Doogan
Does the shadow Chancellor bristle like I do and like my constituents in Angus and Perthshire Glens who are engaged in farm businesses and agribusiness more generally when they hear Ministers make a false equivalence in talking about the generous rates of agricultural property relief compared with the wider economy and how long people will get to pay? They are making a false equivalence between someone inheriting their mother’s house after her death and transferring the family farm from one generation to the next. They are completely different propositions, are they not?
Sir Mel Stride
As I have to say so often following his interventions, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is a huge difference between the position of a dynamic, growing organism of a company and the other situation that he has described. Loading up these taxes on the death of the principal owner or one of the significant owners of a business means loading it up with uncertainty, and quite conceivably the business must be broken up as a consequence.
Alison Taylor
As someone who used to be part of a small family business in Glasgow, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman agrees that stability in relation to inflation and corporation tax and reducing interest rates are equally important to a small family business.
Sir Mel Stride
It is interesting that the hon. Lady should raise the issue of inflation. Inflation is currently at about twice the target of 2%, and it was bang on target on the day of the general election, at 2%, because of the action that we took, alongside the Bank of England. The International Monetary Fund is forecasting that inflation in our country will be the highest in the G7 this year, and the highest in the G7 next year. If we ask why that has happened, the answer is relatively simple. If national insurance increases are imposed on employers, they pass on some of those additional costs by way of higher prices, and that is inflationary. If vast amounts of money are borrowed, and, notwithstanding what the Minister had to say earlier, vast amounts of money are spent, too—about half a trillion pounds more than was the case under the plans that Labour inherited—that also stokes inflation. Those on the Government Front Bench may trumpet the fact that interest rates have come down five times, but if they had not mismanaged the economy, rates would have come down an awful lot faster. Interest rates are higher, and for longer, because we have sticky inflation, which is due to the choices made by this Government.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
My right hon. Friend makes a good case for Conservative economics. Does he agree that the Government have made some wrong-footed changes to non-dom status in their two years in office so far, and that they will damage investment and growth? Not only is that a development that Conservative Members do not want to see, but the Government’s forecasts rely on £34 billion of revenue from these people. Does my hon. Friend agree that they should think again about the wisdom of these changes?
Sir Mel Stride
My hon. Friend is right to suggest that we have become an economy that has closed the door on international investment. In fact, the door has been blown wide open by those fleeing to go to the United Arab Emirates, Milan and other places around the world to escape the high-tax jurisdiction that we have become, and it comes with great cost. Given the 16,000 high net worth individuals who have fled under this Government, about a third of a million to half a million people on average earnings would probably be needed to cover the tax that has just walked out of the door. I can also tell the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) and others that we will reverse the APR and BPR changes if we form the next Government.
I will now make swift progress. Let me just say that the wrong choices have been made. Tax should not be going up and spending should not be going up in this way, and I do not even believe that the Chancellor’s heart is in the benefit changes that have occurred, including the two-child benefit cap change. If it were, why was the Whip removed from several Labour Members? The reality is that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are lashed to the same mast. This is all about their survival. They lost control of their own Back Benchers. Let me go back to Shakespeare, and “The Tempest”. The storm has no respect for rank, so they pitch and roll solely at the command of those behind them. The great man also wrote:
“All the world’s a stage…And one man in his time plays many parts”.
However, this Chancellor has played but one part, that of recklessness. At heart, she has taxed that which is good, and in this Bill she has incentivised that which is not. By so doing, with this Bill she will diminish us all.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. As it is the Second Reading of a finance Bill, I cannot impose a time limit, but I can suggest that colleagues keep their remarks to around six minutes.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
I am pleased to contribute to this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary on bringing forward his first finance Bill. I hope it is the first of many.
Given the limited time that I have, I will focus my remarks on the Government’s central mission: economic growth. The Government have rightly placed investment and reform at the heart of their strategy, and they are removing the barriers to economic growth that for too long have held back this country and the towns, villages and city that make up the Buckingham and Bletchley constituency—be it through major planning reforms, cutting regulatory costs, investing in skills and apprenticeships, or undertaking fundamental pensions reform to free up more risk capital. This pro-investment and pro-reform approach lays the foundation not only for our long-term economic growth across the UK, but for our long-term global competitiveness.
This country is a great place to start a business, despite what Opposition Members have said, but scaling a business has been too difficult for too long for too many entrepreneurs, and too many firms are acquired early by private capital—often from abroad—and therefore fail to scale globally. There are a number of fantastic, innovative and high-growth companies in the Buckingham and Bletchley constituency—be it Pulsar, Envisics or Carnot Engines—and I want all of them to realise their full potential in my constituency, not overseas. I believe that this Bill goes some way towards enabling that, and it is not just those companies that it will help. I have read many commendations from the Startup Coalition and the ScaleUp Institute, which have backed many of the measures that I will cover in my remarks.
Clauses 13 to 16 and clause 82 back ambition, encourage investment and reward those who want to take risks. Expanding the enterprise management incentives—by raising the employee limit to 500, the gross assets limit to £120 million and the holding period to 15 years—ensures that more high-growth, innovative companies can attract and retain the world-class domestic and global talent that they need. For many, joining a fast-growing company is a leap of faith, and when that risk pays off, the people who create the success should share in the reward.
I also welcome clauses 14 and 15, which follow the logic that I just set out with regard to the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts. I particularly welcome the raising of the company investment limits and the lifetime caps, which will ensure that more early-stage companies can scale here in the UK, not overseas. Similarly, raising the respective gross assets limits before and after share deals sensibly reflects modern growth realities. I believe that these reforms will support life sciences, green technology and advanced manufacturing, all of which are sectors identified in the Government’s industrial strategy, which they published earlier this year. The reforms will enable earlier capital raising and faster, more efficient scaling, and make it far more likely that more companies will become national champions and companies of global consequence that are anchored here in the UK.
The final clause that I particularly welcome is clause 82, on the new UK listing relief, which removes the 0.5% stamp duty reserve tax on transfers for newly listed companies. This measure has been called for by UK financial services, and also by a wide range of sectors that are included in the industrial strategy, for a significant period of time. I believe that the clause will boost liquidity, incentivise more investors of all types—be they institutional or retail—to buy British, and entice more domestic companies to follow in the footsteps of Magnum, Shawbrook and the Beauty Tech Group by listing in London. I am pleased that this Bill strengthens the UK’s ability to compete globally, to support its entrepreneurs and to make sure that the UK is the best possible place to scale a company.
I will close my remarks by mentioning what I hope will be given consideration in a finance Bill in future parliamentary Sessions: the Government may wish to dedicate themselves to pro-growth and pro-enterprise tax reform. The previous Government, and indeed many Governments of different political orientations, have increased the length of the tax code, increased the number of cliff edges, complicated the tax base and, frankly, fundamentally failed to close or tackle various loopholes. As we rededicate ourselves to growth in this parliamentary Session and in future parliamentary Sessions, we would do well to ensure that simplification and fairness anchor our growth agenda.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
If this Finance Bill represents anything, I am sorry to say that it represents the fact that the Government know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. We Liberal Democrats have tabled a reasoned amendment against this Bill, setting out all the reasons why we are against it.
Ultimately, this Bill is a series of short-term Treasury tax grabs, with no care for the consequences and no vision for the future. People are crying out for change—the change that they were promised—but the double whammy of stealth taxes on households and high streets makes the Labour Government look like nothing more than continuity Conservatives. Once again extending the unfair freeze on income tax thresholds will drag millions of low-paid workers into tax. The failure to reform the business rates system again makes the Government look like continuity Conservatives.
In a turbulent world, we need to boost our sovereign capabilities, and food security is critical to that, yet despite all the evidence, all the campaigning and all the honking of tractor horns on Whitehall, the Government have failed to get it right.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
In 2023, the Prime Minister told the National Farmers Union that
“losing a farm is not like losing any other business”.
He has also said,
“If somebody makes powerful representations, then my instinct is to consider what’s being said. Getting it right is more important than ploughing on with a package which doesn’t necessarily achieve the desired outcome.”
Is it not time that the Prime Minister followed his instincts and abandoned the family farm tax?
Daisy Cooper
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I wholeheartedly agree that the Prime Minister should change direction. It is deeply disappointing that, having been grilled at the Liaison Committee yesterday, he clearly has no intention of doing so. The changes to the agricultural property relief and the business property relief will punish family farmers who put food on our tables and guarantee the food security of our nation, and they will not tackle the loophole of private equity companies and celebrity farmers buying land to reduce their tax liability.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
Labour Members have made much of the fact that, upon a family farm being inherited, the inheritance tax will be payable over 10 years. They completely ignore the fact that 30% of family farms made no profit at all last year. Invariably, those who inherit will have to sell land to pay the bill. That will feed exactly the kind of market that the investors that my hon. Friend mentions are looking for.
Daisy Cooper
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. This will have unintended consequences, and we can see what those will be. We have spent a year warning the Government; they can no longer say that they have not been warned. I hope so much that, at this late stage, they make changes to the Bill.
Mr Carmichael
My hon. Friend may be a little over-generous in saying that there are unintended consequences. The anti-forestalling clause, which is intended to deny those over 65, or anyone who dies within seven years of making a transfer, the ability to manage their tax affairs in a sensible way, puts a massive burden on those who are over 75.
Daisy Cooper
I could not agree more. My right hon. Friend chairs the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee—a Labour-majority Select Committee—and he has navigated that issue so well over the last year. I say on the parliamentary record: all credit to him for his sterling efforts to draw attention to the issue.
If there had been any justification at all for the APR and BPR changes, it would have been that the Government were trying to crack down on loopholes, but as my hon. Friends have said, that has not happened as a result of these changes. The Prime Minister in effect admitted in front of the Liaison Committee yesterday that the Government were not even trying to do that. We all know that the measures will cause damage. Farming communities know it; Liberal Democrats know it; and Labour-majority Select Committees know it. This is just another short-term Treasury tax grab. Family businesses will be hit, too—the very businesses that support their employees through thick and thin; the very employers who provide employment in every corner of the country; the very family businesses that help the economy bounce back strongly after a crisis, giving our economy resilience. Why would a Government want to target our family businesses?
Rachel Gilmour
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not a tax on passive wealth, but that it punitively, cynically targets productive enterprise? The Government expect to raise roughly £1.4 billion from the inheritance tax changes, but analysis by Family Business UK suggests that behavioural responses could produce a net fiscal loss of £1.9 billion by the end of the decade. Are these measures not anti-growth, and directly at odds with the supposed messaging of this Government?
Daisy Cooper
I wholeheartedly agree. It is so frustrating; in last year’s Budget and in this year’s Budget, the Government continue to say that they are pro-growth, and that growth remains their No. 1 mission, but measure after measure in those two Budgets is anti-growth.
Many of us have heard from family businesses in our constituencies and around the country. Many of them have told us that they have sat around the family dinner table and had deeply difficult and traumatic conversations, planning what to do with their business if they “die in the wrong order”, a phrase that some family businesses have used with me. Again, if they have to break up the business, they will probably end up selling it off to private equity companies. These are businesses that are household names and family favourites. It is another short-term Treasury tax grab, with no care for the consequences.
On the income tax hike for dividend, property and savings income, the Federation of Small Businesses sums it up:
“Hikes to dividend tax mean the Government continues to make investing in your own business one of the least tax-friendly things you can do with your money.”
At a time when we desperately need more business investment, that seems to be another short-sighted Treasury tax grab.
We desperately need growth. We Liberal Democrats have repeatedly banged the drum for growth with Europe. Brexit, we know, has been a disaster. Many of the Government’s own Ministers admit it, yet where is the strength of conviction needed to try to fix that? We now know that the previous Government’s failed Brexit deal costs the taxpayer around £90 billion a year in lost tax revenue. Just think about what the Government could deliver if they started to fix that. Just imagine what it would mean for people’s pockets and energy bills, and the money that they could have in their bank account at the end of the month. Imagine the change that the Government could deliver for households and high streets if they just started to plug that gap of £90 billion a year in lost tax revenue.
Our high streets are critical to our sense of community up and down the land, yet high-street hospitality businesses are getting hit once again. Last year it was the jobs tax; this year it is the higher business rates bills.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
Just yesterday, I was talking to a pub landlord who wants to expand his business and has acquired a new building. He has found that even though the new building is derelict, his business rates on it have increased by 89%. He is eager for his pubs to continue to be the heart of the community, but he is finding it difficult to recruit workers since Brexit, when all the casual workers went back to Europe. Does my hon. Friend agree that these policies profoundly undermine not just growth but the heart of our communities?
Daisy Cooper
I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, because our pubs in particular, but hospitality more widely, are at the heart of our community. They provide so much more than just somewhere to have a pint and a pie. They provide community and social cohesion. They are the antidote to the epidemic of isolation. They have history and culture attached. They are somewhere we can go to argue well over a pint, yet our pubs and hospitality businesses are really struggling. That is why, as a point of protest, we Liberal Democrats voted against the increase in alcohol duty in the Budget resolutions last week, and we remain opposed to the measures in the Bill that relate to that increase.
On business rates, I am sorry to say that the Government are behaving as though they are somehow doing hospitality a favour, but I cannot tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, how angry hospitality owners and leaders are. Furious, angry, betrayed, gaslit—these are just some of the politer words I have heard them use. The Labour manifesto was clear:
“The current business rates system disincentivises investment, creates uncertainty and places an undue burden on our high streets. In England, Labour will replace the business rates system, so we can raise the same revenue but in a fairer way. This new system will level the playing field between the high street and online giants, better incentivise investment, tackle empty properties and support entrepreneurship.”
However, Labour has not replaced business rates, and it has not levelled the playing field.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
As a result of the Bill, in places like Stratford-on-Avon, pubs on high streets and in villages face bill increases many times higher than those faced by the larger distribution warehouses linked to online retail. Does my hon. Friend agree that this raises serious questions about whether the tax system is really supporting communities and local economies?
Daisy Cooper
My hon. Friend is spot on with that comment. We have all seen the statistics; while offices and warehouses face marginal percentage increases in tax, the increases faced by our pubs and hospitality businesses are massive. Analysis that I know has been shared with Ministers this morning suggests that the bill for Harrods, for example, will actually fall by £1.1 million, while the bills for many of our small independent pubs, hotels and hospitality businesses will be going up by tens of thousands.
The Government cannot hide behind semantics. For a year, they kept using the word “lower”, and that is what businesses heard; however, now the business rates bills have arrived, businesses can see that the rates are higher. The Government gave themselves the power to reduce the retail, hospitality and leisure multiplier by not just 5p, but 20p, but they now refuse to use that power. The system of transitional relief that the Government have put in place is simply an admission that they have got this badly wrong.
There is a stark warning coming from the hospitality industry that the looming increase in business rates, due to come in during 2029, will kill the pipeline of owners coming into the hospitality industry. This comes just as the Government are about to publish their visitor economy strategy. There is so much incongruence here. The Government say that they want to do one thing, and then do something else to undermine it.
The bottom line is that hospitality and high-street businesses have just two choices: they can shut up shop, or they can put up prices. There are few things that speak to the economic health of the nation and the high street more than the price of a pint. I issue a warning to the Government now: if they do not act, customers will see the £10 pint before the next general election, on Labour’s watch. I call on Ministers again to use the powers that the Government gave themselves to reduce the multiplier by the full 20p, and to make an emergency VAT cut for our hospitality businesses to boost growth, stimulate consumer confidence and help save our high streets. For all these reasons, we Liberal Democrats will vote against the Government’s Finance Bill.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Ind)
I struggle to be brief, so excuse me if I compensate with bluntness, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am a lifelong Labour supporter, a Labour activist of 20 years, a former councillor and chief whip on a Labour group, and although I currently have the Labour Whip suspended, people should be under no illusion about where my loyalties lie.
I knew before the election in July ’24 that this Government would not have an easy job. I believe that there is too much to do: many broken services and not enough money to fix them. I also know that the choice at the ballot box was between a party that subjected this country to politically motivated austerity or a Labour Government who would invest in the future. I believe that still means tough decisions on spending and tax—tough decisions that our Treasury team have not ducked. I do not find it credible that the Conservatives, who were last in government, failed to tackle backlogs in the NHS, cut back on early intervention and family support, and failed to fix the housing crisis, yet they complain about the benefits bill, like those things are not all linked.
Today I will support the Bill to progress to the next stage—the Government need to set a Budget, and there are many measures in the Bill that will benefit Cumbria—but let me be clear: Whip or no Whip, as the Bill progresses I will not be supporting the agricultural inheritance tax proposals. I want a full U-turn. I have previously set out why I cannot and will not be moved to a position where I break my word to farmers in my community.
My advice to Ministers is to take note of my more reasonable colleagues on the Government Benches. They have been increasingly vocal on this issue, and it does not look like they are going to stop soon. Ministers must look at the anti-foreclosure clause in the Bill, recognise the deep discomfort it is causing across rural Britain, and change course. It really is not too late.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and follow the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours), who is rare, as a Member on the Labour Benches, in feeling such commitment to maintaining and fulfilling the promises he made, not least to his farmers.
I will begin by focusing on the farming issue. Too often we look at it in an overall, structural way and make comparisons with other types of inheritance, rather than looking at the specifics of the farming industry. A third of farmers do not make any profit at all, and those who do make profit make very little. Although we do not have exact data, it would appear that well over half of farmers make a 1% return on capital employed or less.
Even if Treasury Ministers do not have any business experience—sadly, Labour Treasury Ministers typically do not—they should at least practice numeracy. If they are numerate, they can work out that if someone makes just 1% return annually on the capital value of their business, it would take 20 years of earnings to pay a 20% tax—and a third of farmers do not make anything at all. How is someone who makes 1% profit going to pay a 20% tax? This is not some freak thing that has just happened; it is consistent.
The Government, to be fair to them, seem to have woken up in one sense. They said, “We must have a new initiative”—I forget what it is called—“to increase the profitability of farmers”. Well, yippidy-doo, well done for that. But should they not increase the profitability of farmers before imposing a tax that, mathematically, arithmetically—whatever other word you want to use—they cannot pay? The truth is that farmers cannot pay it.
More than half of farmers literally do not have the profits to allow them to pay that tax. That simple truth sits at the heart of this. These businesses are prepared to do it because of their lifestyle, personal commitment and love of farming. They do it in order to put food on our plates that is among the highest quality in the world and at costs that are among the lowest in Europe.
The Government could think about this from a public policy point of view too. There are businesses that are prepared to do that—unlike any other business sector I can think of or have ever experienced, or would certainly ever have entertained being part of myself. There are businesses that would take such low returns, work all the hours God gives and bring brilliant food to the tables of people up and down this country at low cost. Why on earth would the Government want to drive the people running those businesses out so that the people they say they want to attack—namely, huge billionaires and vast trust-based businesses—can gobble up those very farms, which are currently run by decent people in our communities who do all that good and ask for very little in return?
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The right hon. Member is making an impassioned speech that certainly represents the feeling of farmers in my rural constituency. Does he agree that farmers are also up in arms at these billionaire companies that are ripping small farms out of the system and building their empires? Any time the small family farms do make a profit, they reinvest it straight back into the farm so that they can farm the following year.
Graham Stuart
Yes, indeed—and they did. We have seen it. All the evidence is there, and it is happening now, regardless of the argument from Ministers as to what percentage of farms will be affected. We can see it in all the stats. Those stats are available—particularly, I would have hoped, to Treasury Ministers to find out what the real-world impact of this policy is. The real-world impact is that we have seen a drop in investment in the farming industry. That is a disaster.
It may be that the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway is standing alone, but let us look at the enthusiasm on the Labour Benches for the Second Reading of this major Finance Bill that is supposed to be doing such good for the country. There are more than 400 Labour Members, but they are not exactly here to cheer it on. I think they—and, I hope, the Minister—are realising just how counterproductive this is. The one thought I will try to implant above all is those numbers, which mean that it is absurd.
Madam Deputy Speaker, imagine generally being a business owner today, and not necessarily in farming. You hike your way up the mountain to get to success, wading through an eternal shower of tax rises and hacking your way through a jungle of red tape. Then, on your death bed, you are met not first by the grim reaper but by the Chancellor, armed with one final sting: a double tax bill for your children. This is the reality facing family businesses: if the Government cut business property relief next year, that will lead to a double tax bill.
I asked the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, who opened the debate, to comment on how that double taxation works. He was unable to respond off the top of his head to my specific numbers, which is entirely understandable, but I hope that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, armed and perhaps refreshed by the brilliant people in the Box behind her, will be able in summing up to address the specifics of the tax reality for a business faced by the double tax bill that thousands of sons and daughters will receive when their entrepreneurial mum or dad passes away.
From April, the 100% inheritance tax relief that family businesses rely on will be capped at just £1 million; anything above that will be taxed at 20%. Take a small company worth £11 million: the inheritance tax bill alone will be £2 million. But as far as I am aware, the sons and daughters of most entrepreneurs in Beverley and Holderness do not have £2 million tucked away down the back of the sofa. To pay that bill, which is a tax not on the business but on the people who inherit the business, as they are outside the business—I am not sure whether people have focused on this enough—they will be forced to extract that money from the business itself, usually in the form of dividends, and those dividends are taxed at rates approaching 40%. So a £2 million inheritance tax bill becomes a £3.3 million hit on the business, with £2 million to pay the Chancellor and another £1.3 million to pay—oh yes—the Chancellor, simply because the money was invested in jobs, equipment or the business overall rather than left idle.
Dave Doogan
Is the right hon. Gentleman as concerned as I am that this is a spreadsheet Budget concerned with little more than the number in the bottom right-hand corner? That is why everything is unravelling so catastrophically. On his BPR point, I have nothing against PLCs, but does he agree further that businesses that are owned by families and rooted in communities spend their investments locally, support local organisations and charities, employ locally and have their profits going back in locally, and that this is devastating jeopardy for those businesses?
Graham Stuart
As so often, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Again, the talk is of hitting the fat cats and big businesses, but it is the huge corporates that will benefit. They will snap up the farmland and the small business. This is not fair taxation; it is irrational double taxation.
The consequences of this policy are real. If the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan)—I will call him my hon. Friend, if I may—is right about the Treasury being obsessed with the bottom right-hand corner, I hope that if no other argument weighs with the Minister, this might. A report by the CBI suggests that far from raising the welcome £1.4 billion forecast by the Treasury, the changes are likely to reduce tax revenues from family-owned businesses by £1.8 billion by 2030. That is yet another example of this innumerate Government having the exact opposite outcome from the one they wished, as investment falls, businesses restructure and growth is choked off. Instead of supporting the Government’s claim to be pro-business and pro-worker, this change could cost more than 200,000 jobs, on top of the 200,000 that the Chancellor has already cost the country. That is money sucked out of the economy and into Labour’s bottomless black hole. The impact will be felt directly in Beverley and Holderness, where it is expected to put 237 local jobs at risk, according to the CBI. Those are apprentices—
Graham Stuart
I had better not.
That means apprentices not taken on, machinery not upgraded and businesses downsizing. The changes will leave us all poorer, so I ask the Minister and the Chancellor a simple and constructive question: if the Chancellor will not reverse these changes to business property relief, will she at least consider a targeted mechanism so that when these dividends are necessarily extracted, solely to pay the inheritance tax bill, those dividends are not taxed again?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I cannot set a time limit, but I will ask colleagues to monitor their own timekeeping and I suggest that six minutes would be a good time.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this important debate. Members on both sides of the House have eloquently set out their views on the provisions of this Budget. From my own experience of running a small business, I empathise with entrepreneurs working hard to build something, to employ people and to be willing to take on the risk of building a business. In my constituency, as in many others, small businesses are an important part of the local community. Obviously, they provide a source of local employment. They make our high streets into destinations. Many of them lend their expertise to local charitable and social organisations in the community, including local sports teams and volunteer organisations.
Paisley and Renfrewshire North benefits from the generosity of local businesses in lending expertise, making donations or providing sponsorship. This Budget provides a sure foundation for the services that our entrepreneurs need to establish their business. We need a firm foundation of laws, police to enforce them and courts to oversee the process. We need transport infrastructure and public transport by which workers and customers can get to work places or shops and deliveries can be made.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
One of the concerns that probably all of us in this Chamber have, including the hon. Lady, is the squeeze of the middle class and the working class. Many of my constituents have told me—I wonder whether her constituents have also told her—of their concern that that squeeze is going to be felt even more. The people who are paying the most are the working class and the middle class, who cannot afford it.
Alison Taylor
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. We need a balance about fairness, and there are a lot of things in this Budget that will balance things out in the round, including all the investment in infrastructure. In Scotland, and in my constituency, that is really important for driving economic growth.
We need a workforce with the education to produce our goods and services and to drive our business ecosystem forward. This Budget sets a fair balance between taxes and services, a fair balance between benefits and responsibilities, and a fair balance between meeting immediate needs and investing in the future. I know that people are still suffering the hangover from the last Government, and I hope that they will start to really feel the benefits of recovery from this Budget.
Last week I was at the Paisley Christmas market. I expect it is quite like markets up and down the country: a mix of established local businesses and young and family entrepreneurs testing out a business idea, or making Christmas gifts or treats for a little extra income. In 2026 some of those stallholders will grow their businesses locally. Some will be taking steps in wider markets and new products, and my constituency of Paisley and Renfrewshire North is a suitable place to do that. Recently named Scotland’s town of the year, Paisley has a supportive infrastructure for new and growing businesses. New net zero commercial property developments across my constituency are making it one of the most welcoming places in the country to locate or grow a business. This Budget gives them a firm foundation on which to build.
The Budget’s demonstration of the Government’s commitment to fiscal responsibility is keeping borrowing costs down and bringing much-needed stability to the economy. In education, we are focusing on skills and increasing the availability of apprenticeships. We are negotiating exciting trade deals across the world, attracting important new orders for ships to be built on the Clyde and so much more.
I am in no doubt that much more still needs to be done, and I look forward to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and colleagues across Government can achieve in 2026.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I want to start with a comment that some may see as controversial—uncharacteristically so, I hope. I want this Government to succeed. I think it is in the national interest; everyone should want our Government to succeed. I worry that continued economic stagnation poses an increasing threat to social cohesion, and that is why I agree so strongly with their growth mission and why I think it is so important. If that growth is to be meaningful, though, it has to be available, felt and understood in every part of the United Kingdom. It should not just be growth in the cities and towns; it has to be felt and understood in rural communities, coastal communities and, of course, our island communities. It is for that reason that I feel so strongly about the dangers of what the Government are doing on the removal of agricultural property relief.
We have already seen the effect that the prospect of that has had on agricultural businesses, and of course agricultural businesses underpin so much of what happens in rural communities. Forty-nine per cent of farm businesses have already paused or cancelled planned investment, 10% have downsized the scale of their operations and a further 21% intend to do so before next April. The truth of the matter is that these changes to APR have absolutely killed the sense of growth in the rural community.
I welcome what the Minister said today about changes to the spousal transfer. I was inspired by the shadow Chancellor’s references to Shakespeare. I offer my own from A. A. Milne—maybe not quite so high-falutin’. As you well know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am a bear of very little brain, but I am pretty sure that what we heard from the Dispatch Box is more or less what the Government were telling us last year was going to be the case any way. If that is a concession, it does not seem to be much of a concession to me.
It may have escaped the attention of the Treasury Front Bench that not every farmer is married and, indeed, a lot of farmers—like everybody else these days —get married and some then get divorced. Is the message from the Government to the farming community really, “If you want to hold on to the farm for the next generation, then get on to Tinder now, because that is your best chance of holding on”?
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr Carmichael
In a second—this is my punchline: “You’d better understand that if you want to develop your relationship in the back of a double cab pick-up, then that is going to cost you as well.”
Richard Foord
I suppose some in the farming community will not be taking up my right hon. Friend’s dating tips, but is he aware that 46% of farms are owned by single farmers and that a single farmer with 200 acres of land would have to pay 136% of their yearly profits to cover this tax bill?
Mr Carmichael
I am indeed aware of the general point. The specific illustration is a new one on me, but I am pretty sure, knowing my hon. Friend, that it will be well founded.
The reason this is so dangerous is rooted in the exceptionally poor return on capital investment that we get from agriculture. I have sat down with many farmers in my constituency. The average family farm in Orkney will be something in the region of 250 to 300 acres, running perhaps 100 suckler beef cattle and some sheep. The value of that property will be something in the region of £3 million, including stock, buildings and machinery, but it will return a net profit most years of something in the region of £25,000 to £30,000. Do the maths here—that is an inheritance tax liability of £400,000, which, even over the 10 years that is allowed, farmers simply will not be able to pay. As a consequence, farms are going to be sold off in whole or in part, and they will not be bought by those who want to produce food. That comes to the nub of it. The Prime Minister tells us that food security is national security, but the changes to APR will in fact diminish our ability to look after our own food needs.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury said that this would only affect 375 estates per year. That figure may or may not be correct—I have heard nobody outside Treasury say it is a credible figure—but it honestly misses the point. Whether it is one estate or 1,000 estates, an injustice is an injustice, and that is why I was so disappointed by the Minister’s attitude today. Let us consider who will be paying this tax and whose estates will be affected. The Treasury’s own figures tell us that 75% of those estates will belong to those who are 75 or over. That is why the anti-forestalling clause in this Bill is so pernicious and so obnoxious. The effect of the anti-forestalling clause is to trap especially those who have farmed into their 70s and 80s into the new rules unless they die before next April. I dislike the use of hyperbole, especially when we are talking about people and their lives, but the anti-forestalling clause in this Bill is downright cruel.
Those who have farmed into their 70s and 80s did it principally for two reasons. First, they were given good, sound professional advice that this was the best way to hold on to the farm and hand it on, and that was true until last October. We also have to understand—and again, this is rooted in the poor level of farm incomes—that many of them did it because they could not afford not to. In my own family, there are those who continued to farm into their 80s because if they did not, they would be left simply on the state pension and nothing else. That is why this Bill and these measures are wrong, they are dangerous, and they are a threat to our growth, our national security and our food security, and I, along with my colleagues, will be voting against them this evening.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I fully support the Chancellor’s decision to rebuild the headroom, tackle Government borrowing and stick to her fiscal rules. It is consistent with Labour values. There is nothing progressive about 10% of Government spending being on interest. There is nothing progressive about leaving unsustainable debt to future generations.
I worry that there is a lot of criticism of the Chancellor’s proposals but very little by way of fully worked-up alternative proposals. Tackling debt is very important because the nature of Government debt buyers is changing with the closure of defined-benefit schemes, and as the OBR has outlined in a report, where we borrow money from in the future will be very different from what we face now. Furthermore, there is rising debt across many Governments in the western world. Tackling this Government debt in the longer term is very important, and the Chancellor is quite right to focus on her fiscal rules and face the tough decisions that need to be taken. All of us must play our part in assisting with something that is incredibly important for our country.
Robbie Moore
This comes down to choices. The tax revenue that will be raised from the changes to APR and BPR is about £500 million. On the other hand, the Government are saying, “We are going to spend £1.8 billion on a roll-out of mandatory digital ID, and £47 billion on the Chagos deal.” This is about choices and how the Government not only raise revenue, but spend it.
John Grady
It is about choices—choices to invest in the health service so that people can return to work and contribute to the economy. There is nothing more heartbreaking than being a constituency MP and listening to people who have been waiting for over two years for a hip operation and cannot work. It is about choices to invest in infrastructure and in new nuclear power stations. These are the choices that the Government are making, and I am proud of them.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is about choices, but will he accept one of the choices that the Chancellor has made? Even though hospitality employs less than 7% of people in the UK, since she has come into office, the number of jobs lost in that sector is almost 100,000—50% of total job losses? The Chancellor has made a choice in the Budget, and that choice is to lose swathes of jobs throughout hospitality, including making many young people—whose first jobs are often in the hospitality industry—unemployable.
John Grady
I have worked in hospitality. I am not sure I was particularly successful at it, but there is a macro point here—an important point not to lose sight of. We hear from Opposition Members objection after objection to the Chancellor’s decisions, but no credible alternatives.
John Grady
I am going to make some progress if I may. Given the public finance situation that we face, I am afraid it is incumbent on Opposition Members to come up with some credible alternatives. But of course we know what their credible alternatives are; they are the sort of decisions made by the gravediggers Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng—back to Shakespeare.
Control of public finances is one part of the equation. The other is growth, and the Government are promoting growth in the economy through things like the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which was shamefully delayed in the other place.
I suppose we should talk about Reform’s proposals for growth. Private sector investment—like many Labour Members, I have worked in business—is supported by contract law, the rule of law, confidence in the independence of our courts, and the reliability of the Government. The European convention on human rights also has an important part to play, particularly article 1 of protocol 1: the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. Those Members who argue for the complete unilateral withdrawal from the ECHR may wish to consider the catastrophic effect on the economy of such a step. In the summer, Reform threatened investors with the cancellation of contracts for difference. That shows that a Reform Government would be happy to rip up contracts and to shred Britain’s reputation as a place of stability. I fail to see how that would promote economic growth. It would mean higher bills for consumers, and would make the country poorer.
I welcome the Chancellor’s reforms to gambling taxes. There is a clear distinction between going to the bingo and gambling on the horses—I will disclose that in the past I have enjoyed quite a few trips to the races—and online gambling and gaming, which, as we heard in the Treasury Committee, cause serious harm. It is essential that we start to tackle this issue. I realise that it is not a matter for the Treasury, but the marketing of online gambling and gaming needs to be reviewed, and I encourage the Treasury to act robustly against any evasion and black market activity.
I have heard some mention of choices today. This Budget and the Bill put in place steps to remove the two-child limit. My constituency of Glasgow East has some of the highest levels of child poverty in the United Kingdom. This is a disgrace and a scar on our society.
John Grady
I will make some progress—I am mindful of Madam Deputy Speaker’s time limit.
Child poverty blights the lives of children in Glasgow East, and the levels of child poverty are a moral outrage. The Conservatives’ approach is to refer to my constituents as being on “Benefits Street”, which reveals the contempt that they have for my constituents, and Reform UK Members have been speaking about children in my seat with real racist malice. I say that it is a privilege to be a Member of Parliament for those children and I am proud that this Bill will help to lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. I am proud of our Labour Government’s actions on child poverty and I fully support the Bill, which raises the funds to reduce child poverty.
Dave Doogan
I can only guess that Reform UK is polling quite high in Glasgow East. On his substantive point about child poverty, is the hon. Member relieved that his constituents in Glasgow East are benefiting from the fact that under the SNP, Scotland is the only part of the United Kingdom where child poverty rates are falling?
John Grady
Perhaps Reform UK is polling high in Perthshire as well. Leaving that to one side, let me tell the hon. Member what my constituents in Glasgow East are not relieved about: record NHS waiting lists, an SNP Government who block nuclear developments that would bring in hundreds of thousands of pounds a year through the creation of good employment, excellent jobs and growth in the economy, and an SNP Government who are anti-business and anti-growth, and who have just spent 18 years running Scotland into the ground. That is what concerns my constituents and that is why next year Anas Sarwar will be the next First Minister and create optimism for Scotland.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I am pleased to speak in this debate on the Finance (No. 2) Bill. I have now spoken in most of the Finance Bill debates since I was first elected to represent the people of Ceredigion in 2017, and subsequently, since last year, I now also represent the good people of Preseli, in north Pembrokeshire. In advance of all Finance Bill debates I make the effort to consult widely with my communities, in particular with the small businesses that form such an important part of the economy in my constituency. In all the years that I have served as a Member of Parliament, never has the sense of fear, the lack of confidence and the uncertainty been so palpable when I have met businesses in my constituency.
If I reflect briefly on the structure of the economy of the constituency, it is perhaps no surprise that they should be so worried about the measures in this Budget. As of March this year, there were some 5,500 businesses registered in Ceredigion Preseli—that number may well be slightly lower by next March—and 81% of them are classified as small businesses, with fewer than 50 employees, which makes Ceredigion Preseli the small business capital of Wales. It is a rural and coastal constituency, so the industries of agriculture and hospitality are key pillars of our economy. Indeed, 35% of all businesses are classified as being in the agricultural, forestry or fishing sector.
Much has already been said in the debate about the changes to the agricultural property relief and the business property relief, and the concerns that these changes have caused for small businesses and small family farms across the United Kingdom. We have heard other Members, particularly the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), eloquently speak on this matter. As he mentioned, we have already seen how these proposals have changed the way in which our small businesses, particularly farm businesses, operate. Some 55% of small businesses and 49% of farm businesses have already cancelled proposed investment projects in anticipation of the changes. Family Business UK estimates that in my constituency these changes alone will lead to the loss of some 250 jobs and deliver a £13 million hit to my constituency’s gross value added.
There is a real danger with these changes that the Government will deliver incredibly long-lasting harm to small businesses across the country, especially in rural areas. It is particularly disappointing that the Government have refused to pause, at least, these changes so that they can properly understand the impact that they will have on rural areas. Many figures and statistics have been bandied about in the many debates that we have had in the past months about the prevailing facts of these changes, but the Government have not undertaken a full impact assessment, as follows most policy decisions that they take.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I am intervening on the hon. Gentleman because we both represent rural constituencies—he in Wales and me in Lincolnshire. Our constituencies are very different in their rural aspect, but both are affected equally badly by the family farm tax. Many of my farms may be larger than his, but their income is still quite marginal. So many of us representing rural areas cannot understand why the Government have not been prepared to compromise, listen to the NFU and, if necessary, take more resources from the big estates but preserve our family farms.
Ben Lake
I very much agree with the right hon. Member. That is a point of real bemusement and confusion for many of my constituents.
The Government have not looked for or sought compromise or engaged with the alternative proposals presented by the NFU and the Farmers Union of Wales. Some consensus is to be found, if only the Government would budge and were willing to compromise ever so slightly, so that they can achieve the objectives they so eloquently pointed out are the intention of the policy without sacrificing hundreds if not thousands of family farms and businesses across rural Britain, particularly in my constituency.
That probably underlines a growing sense that I have had. Although my constituency is only 170-odd miles from Westminster and Whitehall, where many of these decisions are dreamt up and subsequently implemented on us, we may as well live on the moon, such is the disconnect between the policies that are sometimes made here and the impact that they have on the ground. There is a lack of effort to try to understand why so many businesses and people in my communities are so fearful about the impact that these proposals will have on their lives.
Let me add that some 15% of all jobs in my constituency are in hospitality. There was a missed opportunity in this Budget for the Government to look again at the VAT for hospitality. That would have done a world of good and given much-needed confidence to an industry and sector that are suffering dreadfully at the moment with the cumulative impact of different price increases as well as new taxes. A VAT cut on hospitality would have been very much welcome.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is not only the VAT; the proposed hike in alcohol duty is yet another blow to pubs and breweries in my constituency. They include the Three Hills in Bartlow, which is reeling from a business rate increase of 123% as a result of the business rate valuation changes. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Chancellor is failing to protect our pubs and breweries with these measures?
Ben Lake
I very much agree; that takes me neatly to my next point.
The Government have failed in their Budget to acknowledge the many increasing and cumulative pressures on hospitality and pub businesses in particular. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) referred to significant increases in the rateable value of a pub in her constituency, and I have also been contacted in recent days by hospitality businesses, such as a pub that has just been informed of a 131% increase in its rateable value.
The pub is now waiting to understand what exactly that means for its business rates bill, but the fear that it will find itself having to pay a great deal more in the coming years than it previously did is very much well-founded. That is on top of the higher employment costs generated by this Government’s decisions on employer’s national insurance and all the other inflationary costs in terms of energy and goods.
The Valuation Office Agency will come under HMRC from next April, if I have understood things correctly. I very much hope that the Government and HMRC will avail themselves of the opportunity to ensure greater consistency and clarity—and, dare I say, transparency—in the way that the VOA works and these valuations are calculated. It is a very technical, complicated and murky way of addressing and calculating business rates.
There is such a discrepancy in Wales that I must finish my remarks by bringing it to the attention of the House. The town council of Aberystwyth has done a lot of work in recent months on trying to find out why so many retail premises on the high street have been vacated and are empty. Time after time, businesses say that the business rates are just too high, so it did some research and found that on average, a business paying the zone A rates levied on retail properties in Aberystwyth town centre would expect to pay £525 per square metre.
The town council then looked at other towns and cities in Wales and found that a retail business on St Mary Street in Cardiff would be paying £460 per square metre for zone A rates, and a premises on the Kingsway in Swansea would be paying £180 per square metre. One does not need to be an expert on Wales to understand that as wonderful as Aberystwyth is, it is not quite the same sort of hotspot as St Mary Street in Cardiff, or Swansea for that matter. If the Government and HMRC will be taking ownership of, and responsibility for, the VOA from next April, I very much hope that one of the first things they will do is look at some of those inconsistencies. At the moment, as I say, some of these decisions are so disconnected from reality that we might as well be living on the moon.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
As an eight-year-old girl sheltering in the little library at my primary school, I was able to escape my bullies by using my imagination. Later, I harnessed my love of reading to build a successful career as a screenwriter, so I am delighted that the Finance Bill extends the Libraries for Primaries scheme to secondary schools. The Government have already committed £10 million to create libraries in the 1,700 primaries across the country that do not have one, and now we are giving £1,400 to every secondary school to purchase new library books. This £5 million investment is targeted at getting more children reading for pleasure, and is part of the Government’s aim to make 2026 the national year of reading.
Feeding a child’s imagination is wonderful, but making sure they do not go hungry is essential. The Chancellor’s choice to lift the two-child benefit cap will lift around 1,850 children in Scarborough and Whitby out of poverty, and next year, up to 4,000 children in my constituency will benefit from the expansion of free school meals. I have visited some of my local primary schools with fully funded breakfast clubs and seen for myself how incredibly popular they are with both children and parents. All these measures are expected to lead to the largest reduction in child poverty over a Parliament since comparable records began. The choices that the Chancellor has made in this Finance Bill and previously will endure for generations. In my constituency, children will be helped to fulfil their potential. These are the barriers to opportunity that we promised in our manifesto to break down, and they are the barriers that this Finance Bill is breaking down—promise made, promise kept.
One of the projects I loved at my primary school was “My Breakfast Table”, where we looked at where our food and drink came from. Tea from Sri Lanka was incredibly exotic; bacon from a local pig farm was decidedly less exotic, as the aromas from said pig farm often wafted as far as the school playground. Growing up surrounded by farms, I learned to value their contribution, not just through the food they produced but through the difference they made to our community. I was reminded of their practical, altruistic attitude this summer during the wildfire that centred on Langdale forest and Fylingdales moor. At its terrifying height, that wildfire covered an area 10 miles square, ripping mercilessly through shallow peat, deep peat, forest, grassland and heather moor. The farming community reacted immediately by cutting fire breaks, back-burning, bringing water in tankers, and generally assisting the firefighters from North Yorkshire fire and rescue. The farming community did not think about anything other than putting the fires out—they were all heroes, and we must value them.
Alison Hume
I will just make some progress, thank you.
I started my speech with children at the start of their lives, and I end it with people coming towards the end of their lives. I owe it to the farming families who I represent to raise my concerns about the anti-forestalling clause in the Bill. That measure means that any elderly or terminally ill farmer who transfers their ownership of their farm to a descendant, but dies within seven years, will be liable to pay inheritance tax under the new system. If they do not live seven years after the gift, that could also trigger capital gains tax.
If a farmer does not make a transfer but dies before April 2026, the agricultural estate will pass inheritance tax free. I have met several families in Scarborough and Whitby who told me that they are having heartbreaking conversations with their parents, who talk about ending their own lives before April next year. I ask my hon. Friends in the Treasury to please look at removing the anti-forestalling clause from the Bill, or at the very least introducing a transition to protect the most elderly, and those with a terminal medical diagnosis. We have shown before that we can listen and amend our policies; please can we listen again? It is my hope that we can show the same compassion for our farmers in the winter of their lives as we have for our children in the spring of theirs.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The SNP will not support a Second Reading. This Bill derives from a Budget that failed to deliver for Scotland and does nothing to move the dial for the households hammered by the cost of living crisis.
Scotland was relying on a step change from this Labour Government—on investment in public services, jobs and industry, and real action on energy bills—but none of that has come to pass. Instead, we have a dog’s dinner Budget that results in an increase in funding for Scotland that does not even cover half of the Scottish Government’s exposure to the national insurance increase across the public sector, and a resource block grant that increases only 0.5% per annum on average across the spending review period.
Thankfully, the clauses on income tax largely do not concern Scottish taxpayers, who benefit from the SNP’s judicious and progressive income tax rates in Scotland. Those in Scotland earning less than around £30,300 are expected to pay slightly less income tax than they would elsewhere in the UK, with the freezes to higher, advanced and top-rate thresholds estimated to affect only the highest 26% of earners. Someone earning more than £35,000 in Scotland will pay just 90p more in income tax per week than someone in the rest of the United Kingdom, while benefiting from Scotland’s unique social contract, whereby, under the SNP, we collectively fund prescription charges, bridge tolls, the Scottish child payment, tuition fees, under-22 bus travel, the baby box, personal care, publicly owned railways and publicly owned Scottish Water, which is the best-performing water company in the United Kingdom. Not bad value for 90p a week.
John Grady
The Scottish public finances have been aided by a record budget settlement from the UK Government, but there is a £5 billion black hole in them. Might it be the case that after 18 years of the SNP, some responsibility for such matters lies closer to home, perhaps in Edinburgh?
Dave Doogan
The hon. Gentleman was obviously not listening. The increase to the block grant is spread over the entire spending review period—five years—and it does not cover more than half of the cost faced by the Scottish Government as a result of the increase in employers national insurance imposed by the same Chancellor. I am glad that I got the opportunity to say that twice.
Energy bills have gone up by £340 under this Government, despite the fact that they were supposed to fall by £300. That is what people voted for—that is the prospectus that Labour gave them—and the Government are not taking it seriously. They are coming back with a £150 reduction to energy bills, which is coming out of general taxation. As sleight of hand goes, that is not very slick. The money comes out of people’s standing charge, but goes directly on their general taxation.
In the interests of time, I will not dwell on agricultural property relief; I have said a fair bit during interventions, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) will contribute on that issue.
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way while he is on the subject of energy. Of course, what should have been in the Bill was an end to the additional tax levy, because there are no sky-high profits any more, there are no excess taxes that need to be paid, and 1,000 people a month are losing their job in the oil and gas industry.
Dave Doogan
The right hon. Gentleman anticipates my next paragraph. The energy profits levy should be coming to an end, but it has been extended by this Labour Government until 2030. That has caused 100 job losses from Harbour Energy, and it is causing 1,000 job losses every month, according to Offshore Energies UK. We are in this situation because the Prime Minister lacks the mettle to get rid of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. That is one job getting protected in Whitehall, but it is costing 1,000 jobs a month in Scotland. That is the Labour way, and it always will be.
On electric vehicles, this thruppence a mile probably does not sound that much to those who live in Chelsea or Kensington, but it will cost an awful lot more to those who live in Angus and Perthshire Glens. I get the politics of it: half of the entire Labour membership lives within Greater London, and the other half lives in other English cities, and in Glasgow and Cardiff. They probably think it is a tremendous wheeze to make people in my constituency subsidise the tax on the Labour membership’s electric vehicles, but people are smarter than that. People who live in the countryside can add up, and they know that this Government’s attack on their electric vehicle taxes does not add up. They are being swindled by a Labour Government.
Richard Foord
The hon. Gentleman’s characterisation is slightly unfair to those 80 or 90 Labour MPs who represent rural areas, and it is worth paying tribute to the speeches by the hon. Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), and for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours). They have spoken out against this mean, callous agricultural property relief measure, and they have done a brave thing by doing so. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree?
Dave Doogan
I absolutely do agree. I am in full accord with those Members’ bravery on the APR, but I am not sure how that links directly to 3p a mile for electric vehicles. The point is made, though.
The preamble to the Budget was hugely challenging and had a direct consequence on the markets. It caused people to freeze employment and investment in their businesses, and it caused pensioners to cash in their pensions. I am pleased that the SNP was the first to call on the Financial Conduct Authority to investigate the Chancellor’s behaviour, and I hope that the FCA’s position changes. Despite all that, Scotland’s economy remains one of the best performing parts of the United Kingdom. Since 2007, per-person growth under the SNP has been 10.2%. That compares to 6.8% in the UK. We lead the whole of the UK, with the exception of London, for foreign direct investment, and a NatWest report recently confirmed that Scotland had one of the highest start-up rates in the UK in the first two quarters of this year.
Employment across the UK is 75%, but as I mentioned in my intervention on the Minister, unemployment in the UK has risen from 4.1% to 5.1% since this Labour Government grasped power last year. Thankfully for the people of Scotland, unemployment is 25% lower in Scotland, at 3.8%. I am sure that fact will not be lost on the good people of Glasgow East. Next month, the Scottish Government will deliver their Budget and continue to build on our success, but the SNP will not be voting for this Bill’s Second Reading. We will not be party to the injudicious and unjust damage that will be inflicted on businesses and households by the grabbing hand of Labour through this Bill. The people will have their verdict on this risible Chancellor and her bilging outflow of fiscal calamity in May 2026, specifically in Scotland and Wales, and in English councils. I, for one, look forward to the Government getting their just desserts.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I was elected to this House to be a voice for working people, and the thousands of families in Erewash who, in 2022, saw their mortgages skyrocket because the Conservatives sent markets spiralling with billions in unfunded tax cuts. The people who I represent did not vote for Liz Truss—most of them did not know who she was. It was hard-working families up and down the country and in Erewash who paid the price for her failures all the same. That should never happen again.
What my right hon. Friend the Chancellor did last month in the Budget—made actionable by this Bill—was take the necessary decisions to ensure that there will never be another Liz Truss moment. The Bill will, by the end of the decade, deliver the fiscal headroom that we require to withstand shocks and help pay down the national debt. It does so while we deliver record levels of public investment, and without a return to the brutal, crippling austerity that gave this country 14 wasted years under the previous Government.
Change is already under way. The economy is now forecast to grow faster this year than previously expected, and as record investments and trade deals made and secured by this Government pay off, and reforms to stifling planning rules finally come through and deepen, it can grow further. In the first year of this Government, average wages grew more than they did in the entire lost decade of the 2010s, and what happens when workers have more money? They do not sequester it in Dubai or the Cayman Islands; they spend it—on housing, on food, on our high streets, in the pub, and on their children, the greatest investment of all. Rewarded properly for their labour, they fuel our economy.
Graham Stuart
I wonder when the people of this country will catch up with the hon. Gentleman and start to express the appropriate gratitude for all that has been bestowed on them by this Government.
Adam Thompson
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his amusing intervention. I am sure that time will tell.
We must all contribute to Britain’s renewal, and there are things that only Government can do to secure that renewal. If we want to get the NHS back on its feet, fix our crumbling schools, cut waiting lists and truly invest in Britain’s future, we must pay for it. We know that the alternatives proposed by the Opposition parties lead only to calamity. Liz Truss showed us that when Governments cut taxes for the wealthy, it is working people who end up paying. Nor should we want infinite borrowing, however; I do not want to spend £1 in every £10 serving debt interest. It should go to our schools, our hospitals, and our country.
So yes, in the Budget and in the Bill, the tax burden has increased, but it is those with the broadest shoulders who will bear the greatest weight—those with property to let, those with shares to sell, those paid not through wages but through dividends, those with such vast savings that they pay tax on the interest alone.
Adam Thompson
In the interests of time, I will not give way again.
These are income streams that are overwhelmingly enjoyed by the highest earners, and it is, by and large, the already well-off who will pay more under the Bill. Its provisions include changes to national insurance relief on pension contributions through salary sacrifice schemes—again, a mechanism primarily used by the highest earners. They include reforming council tax, so that someone living in a £10 million mansion in central London does not pay less council tax than a terraced house owner in Ilkeston and Long Eaton. They include a new surcharge on homes worth more than £2 million, which will be paid by fewer than 1% of homeowners. This Budget was for working families, for the everyman and the everywoman, for children and for young people. It was not a Budget for millionaires, billionaires, slum landlords, investment bankers, or the bosses of big corporations.
Adam Thompson
As I have said, in the interests of time, I will take no more interventions.
Instead, we are taking action to cut the cost of living and strengthen our public services. There will be £150 off average energy bills next year, rising to £300 for the poorest households—again, money back in working people’s pockets. As inflation continues to fall, it becomes easier for the Bank of England to cut interest rates, as it has repeatedly under this Government. Prescription charges, train fares and bus fares have all been frozen. There are 5.2 million more appointments in our NHS, with 250 new neighbourhood health centres, cutting waiting lists and bringing care back closer to where people actually live.
The Opposition parties will decry these measures, exposing our fundamental differences. Reform—whose Members are not here today, I note—would sell off our NHS to the highest bidder, and force people to pay for the care they need. Meanwhile, the Conservatives are calling for mass redundancies in the public sector, enough to sack every police officer in the country twice over. They are against the minimum wage, they are against protections for workers, and they have no plans for growth or renewal—just policies that would leave working families worse off, while their donors get richer and richer.
To renew Britain costs money. To restore confidence in the public finances takes time. To get the economy growing again is a serious challenge, but we are meeting it. The choice is between the measures in the Budget and the Bill, and a return to austerity, and I know which side I am on. I will never apologise for standing up for working people, and for saying that the highest earners should pay their fair share. Nor should the Chancellor, the Government or the British people.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) has read the Budget. He said that those with the broadest shoulders must bear the pain, but those on the basic rate of income tax will be paying an additional £220 a year in income tax as a result of this Budget. I am not quite sure that those with the broadest shoulders will be paying that level of tax.
Growth is down, inflation is up, taxes are up, unemployment is up, borrowing is up and interest debt is up. This Budget, coupled with the last one, is £66 billion of tax raising. As we speak, there are farmers outside this Chamber once again, and I know that they are in the Public Gallery as well. Why? Because of the changes that this Government continue to press ahead with through the family farm tax and the family business tax.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that farmers across South Shropshire have been devastated by the family farm tax? It is going to impact them far beyond what the Government are even considering, and it will impact national food security.
Robbie Moore
I absolutely agree. This Budget has an impact not only on our farming community, but on the wider agricultural supply chain and the many businesses that support our farming community. Why? Because bringing in a threshold of £1 million will impact nearly every family farming business.
Let us look at the figures. The average size of a farming business in England is about 200 acres. When valuing farmland, there may be a farmhouse, a cottage or two, livestock, agricultural machinery, growing crops and crops in store, which will put it well above the £1 million threshold, thereby exposing the farming business to an IHT liability that kicks in at 20% of the value over and above £1 million. The Government will say that they have permitted some allowances, but that does not take into account the value of those businesses. This is going to have a hugely detrimental impact not only on those family businesses, but on the wider agricultural supply chain.
Carla Lockhart
The hon. Member is passionate about this issue, and I commend him for the stand that he has taken. I know that he is an expert on valuation. Does he agree that Northern Ireland will be harder hit because of the land valuations and the price of land in Northern Ireland?
Robbie Moore
I absolutely agree, because the value of farmland in Northern Ireland is far greater than the average rate per acre in England or, dare I say, anywhere else in Great Britain. That is why Northern Ireland farmers are going to be absolutely decimated as a result of the changes that this Labour Government are bringing in.
John Lamont
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Is he aware of some research done by the National Farmers’ Union of Scotland, which shows that, under the current inheritance tax rules, farmers in Scotland typically pay a £20,000 inheritance tax bill, whereas under Labour’s current proposals the figure goes up to a staggering £775,000, which will kill off most farming businesses?
Robbie Moore
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, I was in Dumfries and Galloway just last week to speak to farming businesses that will be impacted by the changes that this Labour Government are bringing in. He hits on a very important point, because the NFU, the Country Land and Business Association, the Tenant Farmers Association and the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers have over the past year continually tried to put forward progressive options for this Government to listen to and engage with, but they have not listened. That just shows the naivety associated with this Government. Indeed, at the Liaison Committee yesterday, the Prime Minister himself acknowledged that he was aware of farmers who have worked all their lives within the farming community and who are considering taking their own lives. Despite that knowledge, he wanted to crack on with this policy regardless. It is callous and heartless, and it just shows what this Government are about.
Graham Stuart
I am reminded again of Shakespeare, who I believe said:
“Th’ abuse of greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power.”
Robbie Moore
Absolutely. All I advocate, as I am sure my right hon. Friend does, is that this Government simply engage with and listen to our farming community. It is not just our farming community that is hit by the IHT changes; it is family businesses more widely.
Ben Maguire
I want to point out the case of a North Cornwall farmer called Will Harris, who gave up an engineering job at £60,000 a year to provide food security and put food on our tables. His income is about £30,000 a year, but the tax his children may have to pay would be £500,000—or £50,000 a year, which is almost double the farm income. He is terrified and can hardly sleep at night for thinking, if something happens to him, what will happen to his teenage children and their farm.
Robbie Moore
The hon. Member makes an excellent point, and not only Cornish farmers, but those right across the country are being impacted by this Government’s decisions. He also makes the excellent point that many of our farming businesses are incredibly highly geared, given the level of debt associated with their businesses, and are not returning a level of income to even contribute towards paying an IHT liability at 20% over and above the £1 million threshold. They will therefore be subject to a death tax that they will simply be unable to pay.
Sir Edward Leigh
My hon. Friend was brought up in a notable local farming family in my constituency, and the reason why the House is listening to him is that he has been bred into farming and knows about farming. Would he like to say what, from his own family’s experience, this means for farmers in Lincolnshire? Some people say that Lincolnshire is full of large estates and all the rest of it. No, it is full of working farms, and he can speak with authority on this subject.
Robbie Moore
The point to make quite clearly is that every single farming business will, in one way or another, be impacted by the £1 million threshold kicking in. Why? Because for an arable farm in Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire or wherever it is, the price of feed wheat is still at about the same price it was 20 years ago, but the costs of all the inputs have been rising. Not only are such businesses subject to cash-flow challenges as a result of this Government removing the delinked payments —dramatically dropping them to £600—as well as removing the sustainable farming incentive and bringing in the fertiliser tax or the double cab pick-up tax, but they will be impacted by the changes to inheritance tax. That impact will be felt by hill farmers in Keighley and Ilkley; arable farmers in Lincolnshire or, dare I say it, down in Cornwall; and farmers wherever there are, even those subject to high land values in Northern Ireland. This Government must listen to our farming community right now, because whether farmers come down today or tomorrow to make noise with their tractors outside, I hope they continue coming to make sure that this Government listen.
It is not just our farming community that is impacted by the IHT changes. This has an impact on our family businesses, our hospitality businesses, our breweries and our manufacturing and engineering businesses. That is why I simply cannot understand why we have not heard from Back-Bench Labour MPs representing urban constituencies, who may be representing a manufacturing or engineering business, a hospitality business or a hotelier. Why on earth have those with such family businesses in their constituencies not been loud and proud in making noises to the Chancellor about the negative impacts these IHT changes will have on our many family businesses?
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)
I have recently joined the Public Accounts Committee, and in my short time on the Committee I have come across qualified accounts and local authorities not having audited accounts; only 4% of them have audited accounts. I have watched the Government wasting almost endless amounts of money, and then I witness this madness of them basically breaking the backbone of British farms and British small businesses, and in effect ensuring that there will be none of the long-term investment that drives our economy. Does the hon. Member agree with me that, before we start breaking up these enterprises, we should get the Government’s house in order and cut state waste?
Robbie Moore
I do agree with the hon. Member that the Government must get their own house in order before implementing strategies that are impacting many of our hard-working businesses.
The changes to BPR are detrimental. Why? I would use the example of a business in my constituency that has already worked out that its liability after the changes to BPR is about £800,000. The business is owned by the fourth generation, who are in their late 80s. They have been told that the only way to pay a BPR liability, should a death occur after April 2026, is to sell plant or machinery, or to sell shares in their business, either way losing control of their business or not being able to keep their business productive. That demonstrates how uninformed the Government are about the changes they will be making.
I think I have made my point. [Interruption.] The Minister sits on the Front Bench laughing away, but had she had the time to go outside and engage with our farming community, or at least get around the table with Back-Bench Labour MPs and Opposition Members who have been consistently raising this issue over the last year, she might not be sitting there smiling away; she might be able to come to the Dispatch Box in her winding-up speech to give some sort of positive conclusion and hope to those many businesses who will be impacted by this disastrous Labour Government.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
For my constituents, the Finance Bill is more than just a legislative process; it is a statement of who we are as a country and what we believe our future to be. I can say with confidence that this is a Finance Bill for places such as Wolverhampton and Willenhall.
I came into politics after years in the classroom. I know the harm that poverty does to our children. I have seen too many young people believe that a successful career is for someone else and not for them, and not addressing poverty ends up costing society far more in the long run. We inherited a country where we have a rise in food banks—more food banks than branches of McDonald’s. There is no single silver bullet to end poverty, and some of the Bill’s measures might not ever make the headlines, but they show the different choices that a Labour Government will make for our communities.
I support the Finance Bill to enable us to lift the two-child benefit cap. Independent analysis estimates that it will lift around 450,000 children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament. The inaccurate attacks from some quarters, painting families in poverty with a broad brush, are disappointing but not surprising. In Wolverhampton North East, I inherited more than a third of children in poverty after housing costs—higher than the UK average. Lifting the two-child cap will benefit more than 4,200 children in Wolverhampton North East. That is the equivalent of 20 primary schools packed full of children. How could I not support that measure? And for those who are still clinging to lazy stereotypes, did you know that 60% of families in poverty are working families? The rest may be families who have lost a parent or where a parent has lost a job, fallen ill or become disabled. So this, along with the expansion of free breakfast clubs for all families and free school meals for children from families on universal credit, ensures that no child is too hungry to learn. Labour values and choices are clear: children need to come first.
I welcome the Chancellor’s response to calls from MPs like me and others to reintroduce libraries in our secondary schools, with an additional £5 million in funding on top of the £10 million for primary schools. I want all children to benefit from social mobility-boosting libraries and reducing inequalities that saw libraries removed disproportionately from poorer areas. This is a Finance Bill that shows that our children matter.
The Bill goes further. It strengthens the dignity of work. The national living wage will rise to £12.71 per hour from April 2026, putting more money directly into people’s pockets. That money is more likely to be spent in our local shops, precincts and high streets. Targeted cost of living measures continue to make a difference: prescription charges frozen, energy bills likely to fall by around £150, train fares frozen for the first time in 30 years, and continued support to ease everyday financial pressures. Alongside no cuts in capital projects, sustained investment in public services, infrastructure and skills, the Bill is set for stronger long-term growth: a long-term plan with undeniable benefits for Wolverhampton and Willenhall and across the UK.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I encourage the remaining speakers to focus on the fact this is a Finance Bill, and therefore the debate is about taxation measures, not spending.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Wales is the poorest of our four nations. It has the highest levels of unemployment and the lowest wages. The family farm tax is yet another example of how this Government are going to hurt the Welsh economy with full knowledge of the consequences. They have decided to hit Wales, in whose economy agriculture is a major sector, with an extra tax. It is, quite frankly, an unacceptable and horrific way for this Government to start off.
Family farms are the backbone of our rural economy, the heart of our food system and central to the survival of many communities in Wales. People in Wales are shocked that this Labour Government have decided to come for one of our major industries. People in Wales are accustomed to the Conservatives unpicking our major industries and taking them out—they expect that—but they expect better from the Labour party.
When family farms are hit, the damage spreads far beyond the farm gate; it hurts vets, suppliers, hauliers, markets, local shops and rural high streets. That is why it was so deeply disappointing that 23 of Wales’s 27 Labour MPs chose to vote this policy through despite clear warnings from rural Wales. The scale of what is being put at risk is enormous.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
My hon. Friend’s communities are not dissimilar to mine; they are very rural and very mountainous, and upland farming is critical to his communities, as it is to mine. Does he think the Labour Government have failed to understand that wealth is not concentrated in the hands of famers in the way that they think? It is entirely possible to be an upland farmer in my hon. Friend’s patch or in mine and to be earning the minimum wage or, indeed, less—the University of Cumbria shows that the average upland farmer earns less on average than the minimum wage—and yet to be in a position, after inheritance tax is due, to be paying £20,000 a year or more while earning only £16,000. That is not right, is it?
David Chadwick
My hon. Friend is quite right to point to the struggles of upland farmers, who deserve to earn a living from their work—they are working people too, but they are not being recognised as such.
Agriculture and the wider food and drink sector supports more than 228,000 jobs in Wales and generates more than £24 billion in turnover each year. This is not a marginal industry; it is a pillar of the Welsh economy. Industry bodies have warned that these tax changes will force family farms to sell land or assets simply to meet higher liabilities, accelerating consolidation and driving our young people out of rural Wales, which damages our food security and local supply chains, hollows out communities and obviously undermines our tax base, too.
This is not just an economic but a cultural issue. Some 43% of people working in agriculture in Wales speak Welsh, compared with 20% of the population overall. To undermine family farming is to undermine Welsh culture and the Welsh language itself.
What makes this policy even harder to defend is the Government’s selective approach. Ministers have refused to act on supermarket profiteering—with Tesco alone seeing its profits rise by more than 100%—yet are content to squeeze family farms that are already grappling with rising costs and post-Brexit uncertainty. The Welsh Affairs Committee has called for this policy to be paused so that a Wales-specific impact assessment could be carried out. It is a grave mistake that that request has been ignored. This is becoming a familiar pattern for those of us from Wales. There has been rail underfunding, a refusal to devolve powers, including over taxation, and now a tax that threatens one of Wales’s most important sectors.
Time and again, Labour has advanced policies in this Parliament that would hit Wales the hardest, and waved them through regardless. The Welsh Liberal Democrats oppose this tax because we believe that family farms should form the spine of a prosperous rural economy. Rural Wales—in fact, the rural economy across the whole UK—deserves a plan for growth, not punishment driven by ideology.
The Welsh Government deserve a Government who understand the value, strength and work that our agricultural sector provides to rural Wales. I think of the tens of young farmers’ clubs in my constituency; they are run by incredible young people who form community groups and build the confidence of the young people in their communities, as well as running their family businesses. We need those young people to stay in Wales, run their businesses well, and create the jobs and employment that will enable rural Wales to prosper. Instead, they are being told by this Government, “No, we’re going to hit you with an extra tax”. This will fall on the shoulders of Welsh young farmers. The Welsh economy deserves a Government who understand Wales, and that is not what we are getting so far.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I want to begin by endorsing and agreeing with the very articulate and passionate contributions from Members right across the House. It is encouraging that there have been speeches from those on the Labour Benches attacking the cruel death tax on family farms—that is the only way to describe it. It is cruel, no matter what way you look at it.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) laid it out very clearly, as indeed he did yesterday in the Liaison Committee when he put the Prime Minister on the spot and the Prime Minister had no answer. A Prime Minister with no answer needs to change course. The Government have lost the argument on this issue. It is no answer to simply say, “We have the numbers to drive it through”. This needs to be done on the basis of equity and what is right. Having lost that argument—and so patently lost it—they need to face up to that. Just as the Prime Minister lost the argument yesterday in the Liaison Committee, so the Government need to face up to that point on this issue as well.
I want to make some comments about the Bill that are particularly pertinent to Northern Ireland. In any fiscal landscape, critical to being a part of a United Kingdom is the reasonable expectation that there will be the same fiscal ground rules across that United Kingdom—that if business is given advantage in one part, it will equally have that advantage in another. Yet when I come to this Finance Bill, particularly clauses 13 to 15, I discover to my dismay that businesses in Northern Ireland are not to have the same advantages when it comes to the capacity to scale up, as is provided for in clauses 13 to 15 regarding enterprise investment schemes, venture capital projects and enterprise management incentives. That is because the hideous tentacles of the Windsor framework have reached right into this Bill.
Because of the Windsor framework’s imposition on Northern Ireland business of EU state rules, we find in clauses 13 to 15 the exemption of Northern Ireland companies from the advantages to be given to others under those clauses. That removes the fiscal level playing field that should operate in any UK internal market. That undermines the UK internal market, because under those clauses companies in Great Britain will rightly be able to maximise state aid so that they can maximise their trading power, but an alike company in Northern Ireland has the benefit it can obtain from those scaling-up opportunities capped by EU state aid rules. That means they are not on a level playing field when it comes to competitiveness in respect of the capabilities in the Finance Bill.
That causes me to challenge the declaration that the Bill has no effect on GB-Northern Ireland trade. It most patently does if some companies in GB can scale up using these enhanced benefits from investment and venture capital unfettered by any state aid rules, while the same type of company in my constituency has the benefit it can draw fettered by the imposition of EU state aid rules. That is neither fair nor right, and it is but the latest manifestation of the Windsor framework and our continuing subjection to foreign laws.
These are not laws that we make here. EU state aid rules are not set here; they are set in a foreign Parliament that no one in this United Kingdom elects by a combination of Ministers from 27 other countries who have no accountability to anyone in my constituency or any constituency in this Parliament—and yet those rules are traducing and impeding business in Northern Ireland.
Carla Lockhart
The hon. and learned Member is making a passionate contribution, and he is absolutely right. In truth, clauses 13 to 15 all increase support for businesses across the UK, apart from those in Northern Ireland. It is not that we have been overlooked; the clauses expressly, explicitly and deliberately exclude us. That amounts to discrimination. It has to end.
Jim Allister
It has to end. It is discrimination at the behest of a foreign power. It is Brussels saying, “You must impose state aid rules on Northern Ireland.” The product of that in these clauses is a foreign Parliament dictating to this Parliament what we can and cannot give to our own businesses in this United Kingdom. That is so fundamentally offensive to our constitutional integrity that it goes to the very heart of what it means, or what it should mean, to be part of a United Kingdom.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I rise to focus briefly on a small number of issues in the Bill and one associated with it—I will explain. I want to focus on how these issues will impact Scotland generally and my constituents in particular. Although the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury is no longer in his place, I note his comment that persistence pays off, which I think he made in reference to the intervention of the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart). I therefore hope that the Minister is listening to me in relation to this matter.
It is just over 100 days until April, when farmers across Scotland will face changes to agricultural property relief described by NFU Scotland as
“one of the most significant threats to Scottish family farms in a generation”.
They did not know that the changes were coming—no one did—because they were not in Labour’s manifesto. What was in the manifesto, on page 59, was a pledge to recognise that
“food security is national security. That is why we will champion British farming whilst protecting the environment.”
The sudden application of the new rules on inheritance was deeply unfair. No farmer expected it.
In Scotland, 98% of the total land area across the country is classified as rural, covering about 17% of the Scottish population. Land use in my constituency is classed as 76% agricultural, 18% forest or semi-natural and 3% built-up areas. There are 51,200 farm holdings in Scotland, and I accept that not all of them will be impacted by this policy, but studies by experts such as the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation have offered an alternative approach—one that is less harsh and that would generate similar levels of revenue, but it has been ignored by the Government. As I say, although not all farms will be affected by the change to APR, all farms could be, and maybe have been, impacted by having to take new and costly legal advice in the light of these unexpected changes.
The spousal transfer allowance change is welcome, but its addition points to a recognition at the Treasury. It is a shallow attempt to placate farmers in the light of the ensuing backlash and an admission that the 2024 Budget provisions were too harsh. The anti-forestalling clause mentioned by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael)—clause 62 of the Bill—and the associated schedule 12 are deeply cynical, as they penalise anyone who transfers their farm but dies within seven years, creating a potentially massive bill. Good for the Treasury; potentially disastrous for national food security. As the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) pointed out, if no transfer is made and the farmer dies before April 2026, the estate passes tax-free. That is the problem with the anti-forestalling clause.
I appreciate that Labour MPs are probably preoccupied with a different aspect of succession planning at the moment, but perhaps they could focus their minds on this issue. As has been said, Labour is paradoxically biting the hand that feeds it, but every family across these isles is feeling this effect.
Dave Doogan
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree with me—and, I think I am right in saying, with the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick)—that agriculture in Wales and Scotland forms a very much larger part of our economies than it does in England, and it is therefore particularly objectionable that the Government did not consult the devolved Governments on this legislation? Does my hon. Friend further agree that farmers do not own wealth; they own value?
Seamus Logan
I agree with my hon. Friend completely. I implore the Treasury to reconsider and hear what the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) said, but if it does not, my party will bring forward a suitable amendment on Report.
Labour MPs have talked a big talk about how much money is going to Scotland, but I would like to ask them how much they are taking away from Scotland, whether it is through the APR, the energy profits levy, the excise duty on Scotch whisky or the national insurance hike. Once again, it feels like Scotland’s wealth and success are being used against it by an uncaring Westminster Government.
I want to turn to one other issue: NHS drug costs. They are not in the Finance Bill, but my point is that they should have been. I appreciate that you are giving me a bit of leeway, Madam Deputy Speaker. The new UK-US trade deal in medicines raises huge questions about where the money is coming from to pay for these increases in drugs costs. If the additional costs are to come from within existing NHS budgets—that is, through efficiency savings—I must ask the Government whether they have read the University of York’s impact assessment concerning excess deaths and negative impacts on cancer patients, gastroenterology and respiratory care in particular. If the additional costs are to come from the Treasury, where is this mentioned in the Budget, in this Finance Bill or in the accompanying Red Book? It is certainly not in the Bill, but it should have been. The OBR will be listening and watching, and will get to this in due course.
What does all this mean for Scotland in Barnett consequentials? Why has there been so little opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of this smoke-and-mirrors deal? Transparency is needed on costs. The Health Secretary says £1 billion to £1.5 billion. The OBR says £3 billion, and £6 billion has been suggested by other commentators. Which is it? The Government hail it as a great deal for the UK, but the truth is that no matter where this money comes from—the Treasury or existing NHS funds—patients will ultimately pay the price for filling this pharma black hole. It looks like the UK Government are over a barrel on this, with drug companies threatening to pull out of investment in the UK, bullying from an increasingly erratic White House and creeping privatisation of the NHS. The Government need to provide some answers. I simply say to all Labour Members who have bragged this evening about what a wonderful Bill this is and what a wonderful Budget this has been: why are the polls showing that this Government are the least popular in history?
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way at such an opportune point. I respect the fact that he is here and that his political ambition is Scottish independence. The Government negotiated that trade deal with the United States, and it is one of the best deals any country in the world has. I find myself wondering what kind of deal an independent Scottish Government—perhaps led by the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) sitting next to him or by John Swinney—could negotiate with Donald Trump. Would it be a better deal or a worse deal?
Seamus Logan
I am glad to hear that the hon. Member respects our desire for Scottish independence. I simply say to him: when will this Government respect the democratic will of the Scottish people?
I could go on to talk about energy and the coastal growth fund—two measures that, again, have particularly hurt my constituents—but I will leave it there.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We come to the final Back-Bench contribution. I just note that the Front Benchers wish to be on their feet by around 6.40 pm.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
In contrast to the Budget and its effects, so much about business in Taunton and Wellington is on the up thanks to the enterprise, community spirit and business nous of people there. In Wellington, the new community hub in the Kings Arms—with a café set to open in the new year—where I held my surgery last Friday, is a huge success thanks to volunteers such as Cliff and many others. New units are going up in Westpark, and new retail and food outlets are popping up all over the town. In Taunton, footfall has jumped by 2.1%—four times the national average increase of 0.5%. Lots of independent shops, such as Dosha Wellness and The Little Cheese Shop, have recently opened. We have great pubs and restaurants, too. In just the past few months, we have seen The Winchester open in Castle Green, Tap One in the independent quarter and The Chapel Tap in the town centre. I thank all those business people who are committing to Taunton and Wellington and opening businesses in our area.
However, these hospitality and drinks businesses are not sharing the joy this Christmas from the Budget, and neither are our farmers. The Lib Dems would not have levied the family farm tax—I voted against resolution 50. Instead of abolishing the penal anti-forestalling clause as many have called for, the confirmation of the transfer by the Government of the £1 million allowance between spouses and partners, though welcome, does not go anywhere near what was needed.
Hospitality and drinks businesses are worried about increasing duty and business rates. Cider is worth £150 million to the south-west economy, but cider makers are struggling. One in my constituency has pointed out that orchards take 10 years to become mature, demanding contracts of 25 to 30 years. Cider plays a huge role in supporting our agriculture and maintaining the countryside, so it delivers a public good. However, the fact that it represents only 6% of the sector means that it is much more vulnerable to duty changes and price changes. What cider needed from this Budget was a 5% duty cut to put back the original differential with beer duty.
Hospitality believed that its rates would go down—it believed the famous “permanently lower business rates” promise—but they have actually gone up. Philippe, a partner of The Little Wine Shop, which is a fantastic brasserie in my constituency, tells me that the Budget means
“less hours for my staff, therefore less revenue for the treasury”
as he is closing one day per week. He says:
“we will stop employing young people (16 years old)”
and
“I have 3 members of staff leaving by mid-March, I will replace only one if I am still open by then! I AM FUMING!”
What does the Minister say to Philippe in my constituency?
We have discovered since the Budget that hospitality rateable values have increased, helping to cancel out the new multiplier. For another business owner, Mr Miles, although his valuation has actually gone down by 10%, his business rates bill has gone up by 12%. What does the Minister have to say to those at Mr Miles tea room as they work to keep the lights on in the high street? As the owner of the other great Winchester pub in my constituency, the Winchester Arms, has pointed out, pubs have to pay business rates according to their turnover. What other business is subjected to the disincentive that when they increase turnover, their property rates increase? The answer is none. What Taunton and Wellington residents and high streets needed from this Budget was a boost.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
Like me, the hon. Gentleman represents a constituency in the south-west where hospitality businesses of all sorts will be very heavily hit by this Budget. They have seen rate increases. They have seen increases in alcohol duty, increases in the minimum wage and national insurance increases. Some of them are literally going to be taxed out of existence. This Government say they support small businesses. That could not be further from the truth.
Gideon Amos
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Small businesses are the backbone of the economy, and the promise to reform business rates made by the last Government needs to be delivered upon by this Government.
As I was saying, as a result of quantitative easing funds, the big four banks alone will make £50 billion of profit this year. The boost that people and the high street need is both the cut to electricity bills and the 5% VAT cut that the Lib Dems propose, funded by a windfall tax on those bank profits. It is time the Government backed small businesses like those in Taunton and Wellington—part of the biggest and most important sector of the British economy—after the economic chaos under the Conservatives. It would be a boost to going out in the evening, a boost to our pubs and restaurants, and a positive boost to the economy. That is the kind of Budget we needed, and that is the kind of Budget the Liberal Democrats would have delivered.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure, as always, to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I thank Members across the House for their contributions to the debate, in particular those on the Conservative Benches, and notably my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), who has been a ferocious champion of farmers not just in Yorkshire but across the country. He also spoke well about the family business tax and his business, Fibreline, which has been adversely impacted. My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) sought to give those on the Labour Front Bench a maths lesson, although I am afraid it is a little late for that and entirely futile.
I enjoyed very much the speech by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). I enjoyed his A. A. Milne reference almost as much as I enjoyed the unexpected mention of Tinder. Of course, when it comes to politics, I encourage everybody to swipe right. [Laughter.] I thought I would give it a go.
Let me highlight how prominent the family farm tax has been in this debate and acknowledge the contributions from the hon. Members for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) and for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), who spoke well, speaking out against their own party’s policy when it comes to farmers. That is not an easy thing to do, but it is the right thing to do, and we appreciate it.
For my part, I am struck by a sense of déjà vu. Here we are again, with another Finance Bill that targets working people’s pockets while failing on the Government’s No. 1 mission of economic growth. This Finance Bill is actually double the length of Labour’s first Finance Bill, and I fear it will bring double the pain to the British public. Last year we had the now infamous Halloween Budget, which scared the living daylights out of business, and this year we have the nightmare-before-Christmas Budget, which is essentially finishing off the rest of the country. This Bill feels less like a carefully wrapped present and more like something hastily stuffed into a stocking at five minutes to midnight, with the receipt missing and the instructions written in a different language. We were promised a gift to working people, but what we have instead are higher burdens and lower incentives.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech, with some very colourful analogies, but if I may be prosaic, is it not the case that the Office for Budget Responsibility has not scored a single impact on growth in the overall Budget?
Gareth Davies
As always, my hon. Friend points out something that is important for the whole House to consider. I will come on later to the broader assessment of the OBR, which does not make for pleasant reading for Labour Members.
Tonight, Labour Members must decide whether they are content to vote for a Bill that makes their working constituents poorer, punishes family farmers and family businesses, and breaks promise after promise that they made to secure their seats. For all the bravado that we may hear later from the Minister, there is now a growing gap between what Ministers are saying, and what families and businesses are living. That gap has now become so visible that it has followed Labour Members out of the Chamber and into the real world. At this time of year, pubs should be putting up mistletoe; instead they are hanging up signs saying, “No Labour MPs welcome.” This is a Christmas tradition that this Government have invented all on their own. When a Government cannot get a warm welcome or a pint in the local pub that so badly needs the trade, it might be a good idea to reflect on why.
There is another growing gap between what Labour Members told the public before the election, what they repeated after it, and what is in the Bill. First, the Bill is anti-working people. Only last year, Ministers stood up and promised the House that this Government would not freeze income tax thresholds. They could have stopped there, but they did not. They went further and said that to do so would amount to a tax rise on working people’s payslips. Yet here we are today, with this Bill that freezes income tax thresholds to 2030-31. The message to working families could not be clearer: if someone gets up early, goes to work, does the right thing and provides for their family, Labour will not back them; it will tax them. What will the Labour Government do with all the money they are raising? They will not pay down the national debt—debt is going up. They will not employ more teachers; there are fewer of them now. They will not employ more police officers, either; there are fewer of those, too. In fact, they will fail to deliver on almost everything they promised while in opposition. Instead, they will turn hard-working taxpayers’ money into handouts to appease their left-wing Back Benchers.
This Bill is anti-aspirational and anti-business. If someone decides to start their own business, or wants to take over a business or a farm from their family, what does this Labour Government think of them? As we have heard extensively today, this Budget takes further what they introduced at the last Budget: the family farm tax, as spoken about by so many colleagues, and a family business tax that will destroy aspiration and entrepreneurialism. Time after time, the Chancellor has been warned of the impact of these changes to inheritance tax. She has repeatedly dodged questions in the House, as she is doing this very moment. She has ignored concerns from the business community, and run scared of meeting the National Farmers’ Union. That is not leadership; that is not owning one’s decisions.
Finally, we were promised economic stability and management, yet the OBR’s own assessment of the Bill tells a very different story. Growth will be slower over the forecast; inflation will be higher. Debt will rise every single year of the forecast, and taxes will rise to their highest level on record. Just this morning, we learned that unemployment continues to spiral to levels that we have not seen in years. This was not a Budget for the wellbeing of the country; this was a Budget to try to preserve the careers of the embattled Prime Minister and the embattled Chancellor.
As we approach Christmas, it is traditional to reflect on who has been naughty and who has been nice. We are told that Father Christmas checks his list twice, but the British public need only glance once at this Finance Bill to know that they have been seriously let down. They know exactly which list the Chancellor belongs on. It does not matter if they work hard, run a family business or farm, and have saved responsibly for their retirement; even in death, through the Bill, the taxman still comes a-calling. Under the Bill, there is simply no way that hard-working British families do not end up poorer. Nobody voted for that, and we will certainly not be voting for it tonight, either.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
The shadow Financial Secretary, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), took the time to mention Father Christmas and Tinder. I thought he might also have taken a moment to welcome the fourth major trade deal secured by this Government and signed today with South Korea, which is set to boost our economy by £400 million, but that was obviously too much to ask.
It is an honour to close this Second Reading debate on the Finance (No. 2) Bill. I thank the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury for opening the debate, and all right hon. and hon. Members who made contributions. I look forward to hearing further contributions during the rest of the Bill’s passage.
Before I turn to the points made during today’s debate, let me be clear about the purpose of the Bill. I will frame it in the context of choices, because so many hon. Members who have contributed to the debate have done the same. Put simply, the Bill delivers the fair, responsible and necessary choices required to strengthen our economy and cut borrowing, to return our public services to health, to back British entrepreneurs and to make people better off. Those are the choices that this Government are making.
Lucy Rigby
Not yet.
We have heard absolutely nothing from the Opposition that acknowledges that they made the wrong choices. Indeed, what we heard just now from the shadow Financial Secretary and earlier from the shadow Chancellor was a masterclass in selective amnesia. People would be forgiven for thinking that Members on the shadow Treasury Bench were not living in this country during their period of Government, let alone running it. They have conveniently forgotten that their choices gave us appallingly low productivity, threadbare public services, ballooning welfare spending and real wage stagnation. Those were their choices, and it is little wonder that they do not to want to remember them, let alone be judged on them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Lucy Rigby
I will make a bit of progress. Our choices are different: they seek to rebuild and repair our country and our economy. They are choices to renew our public services and reform our welfare system; we are rebuilding our NHS, helping to lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, and investing in getting more people into work. They are choices to strengthen our economy; we are maintaining the highest level of public investment for 40 years, backing British aspiration and, importantly, cutting borrowing and doubling the headroom against our fiscal rules.
Graham Stuart
If we look at employment over time, we see that employment was growing every month until a certain thing happened in July last year: Labour came to power. As of this morning, unemployment has officially gone up 5.1%. As it stands today, there is a 25% increase in the number of people who are not in employment. How can that possibly correspond with a mission for growth?
Lucy Rigby
I am afraid to tell the right hon. Gentleman that employment is rising in every single year of the forecast.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) raised the importance of getting debt and borrowing down. I could not agree more. There is nothing progressive whatsoever about spending over £100 billion a year on servicing our debt. That is more than five times our annual policing budget. It is money that could be spent on schools, hospitals and the urgent public service renewal that this country so desperately needs. That is exactly why, under this autumn Budget, borrowing falls in every year of the forecast, and we are bringing the national debt under control. The Chancellor is putting in place the fastest rate of fiscal consolidation in the G7, and she is doubling the headroom to £21.7 billion.
Dave Doogan
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will she concede that approximately three quarters of the last three hours of debate on this Bill has been devoted to the egregious family farm tax, including two noble and articulate contributions from Labour Beck Benchers, which took some bravery? Will she take that message back to the Chancellor, and get her to finally scrap the family farm tax?
Lucy Rigby
It is not a concession to acknowledge that that was the topic of much of the debate. We are more than aware of the strength of feeling on inheritance tax and the cost pressures that farmers are under, and I appreciate the compassion with which hon. Members have made their arguments. I remind them that that is why the Government came forward with the changes announced at the Budget just a few weeks ago. Following those changes to both APR and BPR, surviving spouses can pass on double the tax-free allowance, making the system more fair and simple for farmers.
A core part of strengthening our economy is about backing British businesses to reach their full potential. That means backing British innovation and aspiration and giving entrepreneurs what they need to start up, scale up, list and grow here in the UK. That is why this Bill significantly expands the enterprise management incentive scheme limits to maintain the world-leading nature of this relief.
John Grady
Does the Minister agree that it is due to the careful management of the public finances that we have record investment in defence and other areas of the Scottish economy, creating lots of well-paid jobs in Glasgow?
Lucy Rigby
The Scottish Government have been given a record settlement—a £820 million boost in this Budget—that takes the total additional funding for the Scottish Government from this Labour Government to more than £10 billion.
I was talking about the entrepreneurship package in the Budget. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) said, we are doubling the maximum amount that a company can raise through the generous enterprise investment and venture capital trust schemes. We are making them more generous, and are supporting more investment in companies that are making the transition from start-up to scale-up, and we are not stopping there.
When some of our most innovative, high-growth companies succeed, bringing jobs and growth to our economy, we want them to list here, too. That is why this Bill ensures that companies that list here in the UK will benefit from a stamp duty holiday on their shares for the first three years on the market—a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan). We are backing British entrepreneurs and ensuring that the UK remains one of the most attractive places in the world to found, scale and list a business.
Let me address the point referred to by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) about the application of the measures that I have just spoken about to Northern Ireland. I can assure him that Northern Irish service companies will benefit from the expansion of the scheme, and goods and wholesale electricity companies in Northern Ireland will continue to benefit from the previous scheme limits.
Jim Allister
The key is in the point that the Minister finally made there; that is under the previous scheme. Northern Ireland is not to get the uplift that the rest of the United Kingdom does under clauses 13 to 15. Why? Because we are subject to EU state aid rules. We are being held back by the old rules, whereas everywhere else in the United Kingdom gets the new uplift.
Lucy Rigby
I assure the hon. and learned Member, who makes a valid point, that there are hardly any—very few, if any—of these types of goods and wholesale electricity companies in Northern Ireland that come close to the existing limits of the scheme, let alone the extended limits.
We are very clear about the role of business and economic growth in improving household incomes, but we are also clear that after the Opposition gave this country the worst Parliament on record for living standards, far too many people are still struggling with the cost of living. This Government are already making progress to tackle that. Wages have gone up more in the first year of this Government than in the entire first decade of the last Government. Real household disposable income was £800 higher in the first year of this Parliament than in the last year under the Tories, but we know that there is more to do.It is because of the fair and necessary choices in this Bill that we are able to help ease the cost of living for millions of families across this country. Those choices are how we are cutting energy bills for millions of households by an average of £150 per year and extending the warm homes plan. They are how we are lifting the two-child cap and, with it, lifting half a million children in this country out of poverty. They are how we are freezing prescription charges and rail fares, and increasing the national living wage while protecting the triple lock on pensions. This is a Government who are committed to helping people with the cost of living, to putting more money in people’s pockets, and the choices we are making in this Bill do just that.
My hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) and for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) are absolutely right that the choices this Government are making in this Finance Bill will help restore our public services. Those choices are why the Chancellor is able to put libraries in primary schools, as my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby referred to, and they are why she is able to protect NHS budgets as well. They are why she is able to invest an extra £300 million in NHS technology, roll out 250 new neighbourhood health centres right across this country, and continue to get waiting lists—which stood at a record high when this Government came to power—back under control. That means millions more people able to access the healthcare they need, free at the point of use; millions more people getting the operations, preventive care and scans they need. It is how we will be able to repair our NHS and ensure it will continue to exist for the next generation and for many generations to come.
This Finance Bill is about delivering on our commitments. It is about building a stronger economy in which prosperity and living standards rise, child poverty falls, businesses succeed and public services are renewed. Every measure in this Bill is geared towards that goal. We promised change and fairness, and we are delivering both. For those reasons, I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
First Day | |
|---|---|
Second Day | |
Clauses 1 to 6 and Schedule 1; Clauses 7 and 8 and Schedule 2; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those Clauses and those Schedules | Two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the first day. |
Clauses 9, 10 and 69; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those Clauses | Four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the first day. |
Clause 62 and Schedule 12; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the subject matter of that Clause and that Schedule | Six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the first day. |
Clauses 63 to 68; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those Clauses | Two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second day. |
Clauses 83 to 85 and Schedule 13; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those Clauses and that Schedule | Four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second day. |
Clause 86; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the subject matter of that Clause | Six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second day. |
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would be grateful if you could confirm whether any points of order raised by Members of this House since this parliamentary Session began have actually been deemed to be points of order. If this is not the case, could you provide guidance to hon. and right hon. Members about what does constitute a point of order, so that the time of Members is not wasted in this House?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order on points of order. I can say that his point of order was most definitely not a point of order. For clarity, and for the benefit of the hon. Member, a point of order should in principle draw the Chair’s attention to a possible breach of the House’s rules of order, which his point of order failed to do. I would not like to speculate on how many points of order actually have served this purpose—I am sure many now will—but the hon. Member raises an interesting question. Hansard can point out how many points of orders have been raised that, like his, were obviously not points of order.
Delegated Legislation
Petitions
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
I would like to thank Save Hall Moss Fields Action Group for this much-needed petition. In my Cheadle constituency, we are facing unrealistic and unsustainable developments that are already impinging on residents’ quality of life.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Cheadle,
Declares that the green belt is under unprecedented threat from short-sighted planning policies that prioritise profit over people and concrete over countryside; further that once the green belt is gone, its biodiversity, beauty and balance are lost forever; and further that the Government must be held accountable for the systematic erosion of these protected spaces, which were established to preserve nature, safeguard our heritage and maintain the health and wellbeing of communities across the UK.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to schedule a debate in the House on the protection of the green belt, and to resist destructive plans to sacrifice green fields, woodlands and wildlife habitats to unsustainable and unnecessary development, in favour of investing in sustainable housing solutions and protecting our natural environment for future generations.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003149]
Criminal Justice System: Wales
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lefarydd.
People like to think that criminal justice happens to other people, to other families—that anybody who finds themselves in the criminal justice system deserves what they get, and that people get sent to prison to be punished. One of our jobs here is to remind ourselves, the legislators, that what we do has repercussions for real people and for their families, so I would like to open this evening’s Adjournment debate on the criminal justice system in Wales with an account of what happened to one family from Blaenau Ffestiniog: to 22-year-old Gwenno Ephraim, to her mother Karen Ephraim, to her half-sister and brother, and to her extended family. Dr Rob Jones and the Wales Governance Centre of Cardiff University allow us to understand the cracks in our criminal justice system in Wales. Gwenno’s story is what happens when real families fall between the gaps.
Gwenno’s mother first contacted my office in January 2022, seeking support after her daughter had attempted to kill herself. Gwenno was discharged from the local district hospital after two days in A&E. I am told that the mental health team were not making home visits—this was, to be fair, during the covid pandemic. A year later, Gwenno pleaded guilty to six charges at Caernarfon magistrates court, which included the assault of a healthcare worker at the Hergest mental health unit in Ysbyty Gwynedd. She was sentenced to 44 weeks in prison. This was her first experience of the criminal justice system. The family, of course, readily acknowledge that her victims deserve justice.
Despite promises of a women’s residential centre in Swansea since 2018, Wales has no prison or secure accommodation for women; neither are there any approved premises for women. Gwenno was sent just over 100 miles away to HMP Styal, outside Manchester, where she was held for a period of three months. Three months was not long enough for Gwenno to be able to get a proper diagnosis for her mental illness, but it was long enough to churn her life into chaos.
Despite being on suicide watch while in prison, Gwenno was released back into the community, where her refusal to engage was a sufficient reason for accommodation to be withdrawn. She could not stay with her mother, as her behaviour posed a threat to the younger children. This was the beginning of a vortex of bed and breakfast rooms, breaches of licence conditions, pointlessly short returns to HMP Styal, hand washing over terms like “capacity”, when Gwenno’s vulnerability was obvious, and harrowing mental health episodes in train stations, hospitals and north Wales seaside towns.
Although health and homelessness support through local authorities are devolved to Wales, criminal justice is not. Welsh women’s experience of the criminal justice system epitomises what Dr Rob Jones and Professor Richard Wyn Jones conceptualised as the “jagged edge” of justice in Wales. Despite not having a female prison, Wales has the third highest incarceration rate for women in western Europe. Like Gwenno, Welsh women are sent to prisons all across England, although predominantly to HMP Styal and HMP Eastwood Park in Gloucestershire. Last year, 78% of those women—more than three quarters—were sentenced to 12 months or less, while nearly a quarter received a month or less. Such short sentences do nothing to rehabilitate female offenders, but they do plenty to derail lives. With a 45% increase in the numbers recalled to custody for breach of licence in Wales in 2024, Gwenno’s revolving door experience is far from unique.
It does not improve when we look at the wider picture, either. Wales has had a higher in-country imprisonment rate than England since 2019, with 167 prisoners per 100,000 head of population in 2024—the highest in western Europe. In fact, one in every 648 people from Wales was in prison last year. Of course, it is not just people from Wales; 35% of all prisoners held in Wales last year were from England, with 65% of them held at HMP Berwyn in Wrexham. That is not sustainable—and so says the PCS union at Berwyn. Staff are worried that as prisoners are released early under new Government plans, empty spaces will be filled by prisoners turned away from full prisons closer to home. Of course, it is not a one-way street; around 30% of prisoners from Wales were being held across 109 prisons in England, away from their families, support networks, culture and sometimes their first language, as was exactly the case for Gwenno.
That last point is important, considering that a recent study by Rob Jones and Gregory Davies found that Welsh-speaking prisoners have
“experienced widespread neglect of their needs and overt interferences with their use of the Welsh language”
in prison. Were prisons in Wales answerable to the Senedd, more stringent Welsh language requirements would apply and the language rights of Welsh speakers in prisons would very likely be more robust. As the UK Government deal with a prison crisis that incentivises filling spaces wherever they are available, the differing needs in Wales are all the more important for us to stress.
I say this following the news of HMP Parc’s approved expansion, despite serious concerns over safety and access to drugs, and the prison recording the highest number of deaths for a single prison in 2024—the joint highest ever recorded in England and Wales. Surely placing more people in a prison where the number of prisoner-on-prisoner assaults has risen by 15%, alongside a rise in self-harm and assaults on staff, is a recipe for disaster. Also, accounting for women and category A prisoners, who also cannot be accommodated in the Welsh prison estate, is providing Wales with 700 more prison places than we presently have Welsh prisoners really a sensible idea? This could see Wales’s in-country imprisonment rate surpass the average for the whole of Europe.
Of course, it is to be anticipated that prisoners are eventually released. In Wales, this is where the “jagged edge” is particularly clear—where the wraparound services to help ex-offenders are, of course, devolved. Gwenno was released on occasion without a fixed address, far from home.
The number of people released into homelessness from Welsh prisons rose by 34% in 2024-25, and we do not even know how many Welsh prisoners released as part of the Government’s SDS40 scheme—standard determinate sentence 40—between September 2024 and March 2025 were released into homelessness, because the Ministry of Justice did not provide that data when the Wales Governance Centre requested it. There is a real constitutional question on why data on the impact of UK-level decisions that have a knock-on effect on devolved services on the ground in Wales cannot be released. Communication and data tracking between relevant bodies is the bare minimum expectation. This is, as it stands, not effective governance of criminal justice in Wales.
I will turn now to probation. When Gwenno lost her train ticket home from HMP Styal, she missed her probation appointment back home in Wales. Therefore, she was in breach of her licence and was sent straight back to prison. Her experience again shows how the Probation Service has to operate in this “jagged edge”, where prisoners are at risk of being cut off from the support that they need to negotiate the difficult space between prison and rehabilitation.
It is no secret that the probation system is overstretched, and that is an accepted reason behind the higher rates of ex-offenders like Gwenno being recalled to prison and behind any risks not being taken when there are breaches in licence conditions. As the co-chair of the justice unions parliamentary group, I have heard directly from probation staff who warn that unless the service receives a significant funding uplift and a marked change in both working conditions and culture, the UK Government’s Sentencing Bill plans simply cannot succeed.
A major overhaul is necessary. However, in response to an amendment by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd calling for the devolution of probation—as recommended by his own commission’s report, by the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales, and by the Commission on the UK’s Future, chaired by Gordon Brown—the Government Minister’s response was that the
“capacity for change in the Probation Service…is pretty much maxed out”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 December 2025; Vol. 850, c. 1889.]
I am proud to say that that is not the view of many probation staff in Wales. For the Wales Probation Development Group, this juncture provides an opportunity for a 21st-century probation service that is locally managed, commissioned and delivered, with an emphasis on rehabilitation, desistance and the importance of relationships. To make that a reality, we need devolution. If change has to happen anyway, why not undertake real, lasting change that puts in practice what is actually being asked for in Wales and what could make a real difference to people like Gwenno in future?
I understand that the UK Government propose a memorandum of understanding to allow for some changes in Wales, but can the Minister tell me specifically what that would achieve in practice, because I understand from the House of Commons Library that a memorandum of understanding based on the Manchester model has “no legal force”? In the case of the Manchester agreement, either side would be free to withdraw from the MOU “at any time”, and it is not possible to raise a formal dispute or take legal action
“if either side believes the terms of the MOU have not been adhered to”.
Can she tell me how that will work for Wales, what the Welsh Government could actually do, and what would be in place to ensure that the UK Government keep to their side of any deal?
In reality, this is a way for the UK Government to essentially subcontract the meaningful community-based work, while refusing to give up the powers that set the agenda. That works for no one. If it did, why was it not the recommendation made by multiple independent commissions? I beg the Minister to answer that question. That is particularly important considering the way that the abolition of police and crime commissioners is being handled in Wales.
The Government say that Wales has a
“unique nature of devolved arrangements”,
but rather than addressing the fundamental incoherence of those arrangements and devolving criminal justice, the UK Government are instead expecting the Welsh Government to help work things out in Wales.
The delayed policing white paper is an opportunity for the UK Government to undertake meaningful reform to improve Welsh policing and the criminal justice system in Wales. To do that effectively, the Government must engage with the repeated recommendations of independent experts.
I come to my conclusion. Let us put ourselves in the position of Gwenno’s family. They have seen how offenders and ex-offenders in Wales, and their families, are failed by a resolute lack of joined-up thinking. It is through the full devolution of the criminal justice system that we can start to fix structural problems and address systematic issues in Wales that hinder both effective rehabilitation and the safety and welfare of victims, survivors and their families. This is not a political ask or a tick-box on a constitutional wish list; it is a pragmatic solution with the needs of people—victims and offenders within their communities—at its heart.
Gwenno Ephraim had been happy at school until the age of 16. She found the move to college difficult, and of course, after this there was covid—and there was a traumatic event in the family. Her mental health made her vulnerable. After offending, the only place where Gwenno found the safety of routine was in prison; she was in and out eight times between January and July this year. How is it possible for a young woman to be released from suicide watch in prison to chaotic bed-and-breakfast accommodation over and over again?
On 7 August, North Wales police put out a missing person appeal for Gwenno. It stated that she was
“last seen in…Bangor…on Monday night (28 July)…CCTV footage…appears to show Gwenno walking alone between 10.20 pm and 11.10 pm”,
by which time it is understood that she had reached the Menai suspension bridge. She has not been seen since.
The emergency services and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution made searches in the days immediately afterwards, but they found nothing. An inquest has not been opened because Gwenno is officially missing—that is her status. Because of that, Karen Ephraim is refused access to her daughter’s medical notes, as she has not got her daughter’s permission to access them. That is all logical, officially, but it makes no sense to a grieving mother looking for answers.
Will the Minister please meet Gwenno’s family, Karen Ephraim? It is better if the questions come from her mother than from her Member of Parliament. Let us remember that Gwenno was in the care of the state—in prison, in hospital and on licence. We failed her.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I thank the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) for bringing this important debate to the House this evening. She will know that I am a proud Justice Minister, but I am also a very proud Welsh MP. I therefore recognise everything she said as a constituency MP. All my thoughts are with Gwenno’s family. I will happily meet Karen to answer her questions directly. I will ensure that the meeting happens.
Gwenno is a prime example of exactly how the criminal justice system is not working. It is exactly why we set up the women's justice board. It is exactly why we need to close the gaps and ensure that women like Gwenno are given the support that they need, rather than necessarily a prison sentence. It is why we have taken forward work looking at recommendations on short sentences, which serve no one, and potentially create better criminals, rather than better citizens. It is why there needs to be better wraparound support, and better support services available for women like Gwenno. It is a mission of this Government and of the Justice Department to ensure that we do not fail women like Gwenno going forward.
I also sincerely thank the right hon. Member for her continuing engagement on, and interest in, the justice system, not just in Wales but generally. She has been a tireless advocate. I welcome all engagement with her. It is not the first debate she has had on the matter, and I am sure that it will not be the last. She has tabled amendments to the Sentencing Bill, and has sought to change the probation landscape in Wales, which she also discussed. During a debate on the Sentencing Bill, she noted the impact that the Bill will have on probation in Wales; she mentioned it again this evening, as well as the work of the Thomas commission and the Brown report on the devolution of powers to Wales, which I have read closely. I know all too well about the interface between reserved and devolved services, as an MP representing a devolved constituency; she mentioned that jagged edge. She also noted the importance of using data to inform services and practices. This debate gives us a further opportunity to explore those issues in detail, and allows us to examine justice policy and the delivery landscape in Wales. I welcome that wholeheartedly.
First, I would like to deal with the commissions and reports that have considered justice and devolution in Wales, and the jagged edge that we have sadly heard so much about this evening. As the right hon. Lady noted, a number of commissions have looked into the wider devolution of powers to Wales, as well as the devolution of justice. The Thomas commission recognised the complex landscape when it comes to justice in Wales. It examined the interface between reserved and devolved responsibilities, and the delivery of many of the support services provided by devolved authorities on justice-related issues—a matter that the right hon. Lady mentioned. Yes, these interfaces exist, but it is not necessarily true that they cause problems in the delivery of justice in Wales. The Ministry of Justice, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service all work together with the devolved authorities on a day-to-day basis to ensure that delivery meets the distinct needs of Wales.
The Ministry of Justice engages with the Welsh Government through several structured mechanisms aimed at co-ordinating justice delivery. These include: a formal concordat between the MOJ and the Welsh Government, which establishes principles for co-operation; a memorandum of understanding on offender education; the Criminal Justice Board for Wales, which co-ordinates across criminal justice agencies and partners to oversee work on cross-cutting challenges in justice delivery for Wales; the Justice in Wales Strategy Group, which acts as the senior strategic-level interface on justice issues between the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office and the Welsh Government on key areas of policy and reform; and the inter-ministerial group for justice, a cross-Government forum that enables formal and regular engagement on justice issues among the UK, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Governments, and which addresses matters of shared interest.
The Minister with responsibility for sentencing, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), met our devolved counterparts in the past week, and I have also recently met my counterpart in the Welsh Government to discuss cross-jurisdictional issues. We regularly meet and have collaborative conversations. This is in addition to the daily official-level engagement on a range of issues. As a result, I am pleased to inform the House that justice delivery in Wales is performing well. Prisons are, believe it or not, performing well. HMPPS in Wales has five public prisons: Cardiff, Swansea, Usk, Prescoed and Berwyn, and one private prison, Parc.
Liz Saville Roberts
On the matter of courts, there has been much debate about the removal of jury trial in certain circumstances, but I am told that in Wales, we do not have those court backlogs, and that this is a problem in England that could be imposed on Wales. Is there not the potential to leave the status quo as it is in Wales? We could then see whether the proposal works by making a comparison between Wales and England. I am told that the courts in Wales are not in the same position as those in England, as regards backlogs, at all.
Alex Davies-Jones
I would like to see the information that the right hon. Lady has, because the information I have had is that our court system in Wales has quite a severe backlog. Victims and survivors who I speak to in Wales daily have told me that they are waiting years for their case to get to trial. That backlog is very real. If the right hon. Lady has information to the contrary, I would welcome that. We know that the issue in our courts is quite severe at the moment.
Going back to our prisons, HMP Usk scored the highest possible score across all four areas of assessment. Despite a challenging time across the estates, HMPPS in Wales identified strengths in leadership and governance, along with collaborative working with the Welsh Government. It shows that this can be done well, and all our prisons have robust action plans in place to ensure continued improvement and ongoing development.
The right hon. Lady mentioned our Welsh courts. They are performing well. The Crown court performance in Wales is one of the best in the country. However, backlogs still exist. Also on backlogs in Welsh courts, there is concern about magistrates courts in Wales. Civil and family justice is performing well. Wales has seen successful initiatives, such as the pathfinder pilot, which is transforming private family law proceedings in Wales by offering a less adversarial process, focused on early intervention, especially for domestic abuse cases. I have seen that at first hand in Newport and Cardiff.
However, we must do more to continue to improve delivery. One recommendation of the Thomas commission was that justice data should be Wales-specific and more detailed, and that there should be disaggregated data, reflecting distinct Welsh needs. Such data is crucial to effective delivery in Wales. It is important to note that disaggregated, Wales-specific data is already collected and published. A comprehensive review of nearly 400 Welsh Government priority data requests found that 40% of the requested data had already been published, with clear signposting provided to aid navigation.
Notwithstanding that, the Government recognise the importance of specific data in policy development and operational delivery, so last month, Lord Timpson, the Minister in the other place, wrote to the Welsh Government to set out areas where we will now collect additional, disaggregated data for Wales. I will happily keep the right hon. Lady updated on that.
Over the past 18 months, the Ministry of Justice has worked collaboratively with Welsh Government officials and stakeholders, including Dr Robert Jones of the Wales Governance Centre, and has made significant steps forward in Welsh data collection and disaggregation. We have focused on improving transparency, accessibility and relevance of Welsh-specific justice data. We have developed and published a new Welsh-specific dataset, including the annual management information release on Welsh prisoner data, and a bespoke Welsh reoffending data release for the Equality and Social Justice Committee. Additional breakdowns, such as custody type by institution and deaths under probation supervision in approved premises, were published in the October 2025 offender management statistics quarterly release.
Liz Saville Roberts
I welcome the disaggregated data. It has been quite a battle to get that, but it indicates that this is an area that the new Government are interested in. If a complete dataset shows us that there are certain tendencies from year to year, and that justice is not being served well in Wales, I hope the Government will consider the evidence put before them.
Alex Davies-Jones
We will always be evidence-led. The right hon. Lady mentioned that the issue is not political. We will always look at what the data is telling us, and I will happily work with her and other colleagues on that.
We have also committed to publishing further data—for example, on homelessness by institution, and on the Welsh language. It is a severe concern to me that Welsh prisoners are not able to converse in their mother tongue, and it is important that we address that. We are committed to publishing that data when it is available. It is anticipated by the end of 2026. We are also supporting the development of a publicly available Welsh Government dashboard. We have facilitated data sharing agreements, including agreements on Welsh youth justice data.
In addition, substantial volumes of data are now accessible via the Office for National Statistics Secure Research Service and the Welsh Government-funded SAIL—secure anonymised information linkage—databank, and this will support evidence-based policy development. Officials will continue to enhance Welsh data provision when opportunities arise. We will promote awareness of existing datasets and maintain engagement with stakeholders to understand emerging priorities.
I turn to the impact of criminal justice initiatives on devolved services, which I know is an area of interest for the right hon. Lady. In our manifesto, we committed to undertaking a strategic review of probation, which will also cover devolution, and we are working constructively with the Welsh Government on this—I want to reassure her on that point. That includes developing a memorandum of understanding on co-commissioning and local working partnerships. That is still in development and, again, I will happily bring her into that, to ensure that we get this right, and that we do not just get a replica of Manchester, but instead do bespoke work for Wales that is Wales-specific.
However, the right hon. Lady will be aware that the criminal justice system faces acute and significant pressures, and we are taking action as a Government to remedy the situation. The Sentencing Bill and upcoming legislation to implement the recommendations of the independent review of the criminal courts are key components of that action, and we will need time to bed that in. It is important that we take time to get that right. Our priority is to ensure that the system is stabilised before we undertake any further review of the governance arrangements, but we will do so.
We will continue to ensure that the impact of this work on devolved services is considered carefully, and we will continue to work with the Welsh Government and devolved authorities to ensure that the system works effectively and sustainably in Wales. We have already had a number of discussions with the Welsh Government about this work and the impact on devolved authorities, and my ministerial colleagues and I will continue to engage with Welsh Government Ministers on all justice issues to ensure that they can inform policy development and delivery, and reflect the distinct and specific needs of the people of Wales.
To conclude, the justice system is, as we are all sadly aware, facing unprecedented challenges, particularly in the criminal justice space. The Government inherited a prison system on the verge of collapse, which would have left the courts unable to send offenders to prison and the police unable to arrest dangerous criminals. By working closely with our partners in Wales, we are delivering a system that is meeting the needs of Welsh users. The picture in Wales is positive, in the criminal, civil and family space, and we are striving to ensure that these partnerships continue to improve justice delivery in Wales.
Again, I extend a hand to the right hon. Lady and colleagues across the political divide, and offer to work with them to ensure that we get this right, because this is not political; this is about serving the needs of the people of Wales. When we came into office, we spoke of the difference that a Labour Government working at both ends of the M4 would have for Wales. This is that delivery in action. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Oil and Gas Authority (Carbon Storage and Offshore Petroleum) (Specified Periods for Disclosure of Protected Material) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Oil and Gas Authority (Carbon Storage and Offshore Petroleum) (Specified Periods for Disclosure of Protected Material) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Barker. I apologise in advance to the Committee for my voice; I am full of the joys of the season, which are going around this place at the moment. I hope we get through this in one go.
The draft regulations were laid before the House on 24 November under the affirmative process. Like so much of what I seem to bring to these Committees, the draft regulations may appear technical, but they are hugely important. They are essential to the effective sharing of data within UK carbon capture, usage and storage and the offshore petroleum industries—data that underpins collaboration, transparency and innovation, all of which are critical to advancing our energy security. The data-sharing rules set out by the regulations will support the effective use of the UK’s carbon storage capacity and the contribution that it can make to delivering the Government’s mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower and accelerate our journey to net zero.
Carbon capture, usage and storage is a set of emissions reduction technologies designed to prevent carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide captured from a range of sources, including power generation and industrial processes, will be transported for permanent storage offshore, deep underground, rather than being emitted into the atmosphere. Complementing our transition to home-grown clean energy, not only is CCUS essential to meeting our climate commitments, but it will safeguard our energy security and decarbonise power and industry in a way that drives economic growth.
The Oil and Gas Authority, now operating under the business name of the North Sea Transition Authority, regulates the secure permitting of carbon dioxide stores on the UK continental shelf. That means that anyone who wishes to explore for, or use, a geological feature for the long-term storage of carbon dioxide on the continental shelf must hold a carbon storage licence issued by the NSTA.
As set out in the Energy Act 2023, carbon storage licensees are responsible for complying with various obligations, including the reporting to the NSTA of information and samples obtained through the conduct of licensee activities. In our view, the wealth of data that carbon storage licensees gather during exploration or storage activities is a national resource, and its publication will accelerate the deployment of CCUS in the UK. That is why we introduced the Oil and Gas Authority (Carbon Storage) (Retention of Information and Samples) Regulations 2025, another thrilling statutory instrument, which came into force in May. Those regulations specify the types of information and samples that carbon storage licensees must retain and the periods for which they must be retained. These requirements ensure the preservation of valuable data on carbon storage activities on the continental shelf.
The draft regulations set out when the NSTA can publicly disclose carbon storage information and samples provided to it by carbon storage licensees, and which types of information and samples may be so disclosed. They will also amend when the NSTA can publicly disclose information on the drilling or operation of wells under offshore petroleum licences; the timeframe for that was set out in the Oil and Gas Authority (Offshore Petroleum) (Disclosure of Protected Material after Specified Period) Regulations 2018. This amendment to the 2018 regulations will bring the NSTA disclosure powers across CCUS and offshore petroleum into alignment.
Information and samples play a significant role in the UK carbon dioxide storage industry. Access to high-quality data for the NSTA, industry, academics and the public will help to deliver efficient ways to utilise the UK’s storage potential. The carbon storage information and samples published will support the sharing of knowledge and lessons learned, including best practices and innovation, ultimately leading to cost reductions and the overall advancement of the sector. That includes accelerating the North sea’s energy transition. The NSTA helps to drive that transition by realising the significant potential of the UK continental shelf as a critical energy and carbon abatement resource. The draft regulations will further provide opportunities for the industries based offshore, with very significant potential for storing carbon dioxide in the depleted oil and gas fields and other geological formations on the UK continental shelf.
The NSTA consulted on the carbon storage and the offshore petroleum aspects of the regulations—under the previous Government, I might say. The consultation on the amendment to well data confidentiality closed in 2022; a response was published in 2023. The consultation on the proposed regulations for the disclosure of carbon storage information closed in April 2024; a response was published in October 2025. Feedback from both was positive and has been carefully considered to ensure that the draft regulations reflect industry needs and best practice.
CCUS is critical to the UK’s future energy security and to our industrial ambitions. The draft regulations may be technical, but they are imperative and will enable a wealth of data to be made accessible, which will ultimately support the advancement of the CCUS industry and the future of industries on the UK continental shelf. I commend them to the Committee.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this morning, Ms Barker. The draft Oil and Gas Authority (Carbon Storage and Offshore Petroleum) Regulations will make some key amendments to the regulations pertaining to the CCUS and oil and gas sectors with regard to the publication of data connected to the wells in which they are operating, as the Minister has set out. That information, which includes geological assessments, rock and liquid samples and drilling data, is collected by the NSTA—or the OGA, as it remains in law for now—for publication to support research activities, wider industry and future licence applications.
The changes made in the draft regulations set out, for CCUS, how long such data must remain confidential after being collected, and specifically when different data is published, in order to protect the commercial interests of sector operators. This brings CCUS in line with existing regulations in the oil and gas industry. There are changes for the oil and gas sector, too, in particular in respect of how petroleum well information is disclosed. At present, the two-year confidentiality period takes effect once the NSTA receives the information; under the draft regulations, the clock will start from the reporting deadline. All of that was ably set out by the Minister.
Although the changes will bring consistency across the sector, questions remain. Will the Minister provide further details on enforcement when reporting deadlines are missed? Are we to expect a form of sanctions to be imposed? If so, when will details of those sanctions be released? There is also the question of how any operators will be affected whose reporting deadline for wells has already passed. Will they be given a new one and expected to comply by the new deadline? We recognise that the face of the North sea oil and gas industry is changing, with a significant amount of decommissioning work taking place now and over the coming years. Does the Minister think that the introduction of hard deadlines will add further administrative burden to operations? Have the Government made any assessment of the impact on decommissioning?
The North sea energy industry is already facing a multitude of challenges emanating from Government policy, which is having a knock-on effect on wider investment in the sector. I would be grateful if the Minister could elaborate on whether any assessment has been made of how these changes might affect investor confidence in the sector, and what discussions about them have been had with industry representatives.
I echo the Minister’s comments about the NSTA, and particularly its chief executive officer Stuart Payne. They are doing an incredibly important job in managing the North sea basin. Notwithstanding the differences in how we think the North sea should be managed, the work of people in the NSTA should be recognised more than it is. They are undertaking vital work, and as a result of these changes the burden on them will be greater still.
Notwithstanding my questions, to which of course we would like answers, the Opposition think that the draft regulations are a very sensible move, coming as they do from that almighty and indeed seminal piece of work, the Energy Act 2023. I therefore see no reason why we should object to them or stand in their way. I do not intend to detain the Committee any longer.
Michael Shanks
It is always a pleasure to end the year on a high with the shadow Minister agreeing with the Government. I wish it happened more often.
Michael Shanks
I think the shadow Minister was actually congratulating his own work when he was in my role several years ago, but it is a treat nevertheless. I thank him for his support and echo his comments about the NSTA; its primary role is that of a regulator, but it also does a phenomenal amount of work to bring the industry together to look at how it improves on its practices. I also echo his thanks to Stuart Payne and the team for their work.
I turn to the shadow Minister’s questions. First, our purpose is not just to bring both sets of regulations into alignment; it is also important to recognise that a lot of the decommissioning work is moving further and further to the right. It will be a huge economic opportunity for us if we can ensure that that work happens. This is partly about making sure that the regulations are aligned, but it is also about ensuring that action can be taken against those who are not meeting the deadlines. Beyond the draft regulations, wider work is going on to ensure that we are enforcing our expectation of decommissioning work being concluded, not least because the public will end up on the hook for many of the costs if that work is not done.
On the question about the administrative burden, we look at these issues in the round, but there were consultations with the industry in 2023 and 2024 and no objections were raised by industry bodies. I think we had 11 responses, including three from industry representative bodies and five from individual companies, and overall the consultation received a positive response, so our sense is that the draft regulations will be warmly welcomed.
On the specific question of enforcement, one of the issues that we addressed in the North sea plan was how we will look at the enforcement powers of the NSTA. We will say more about that when we introduce legislation in due course.
I welcome the support for these measures, and indeed the work of the previous Government on setting up the landscape for carbon capture and storage. It is a huge opportunity for our country, and we look forward to moving it forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Rules for making health claims about food supplements
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
Quarries: Planning Policy
(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
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered planning policy for quarries.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful for the opportunity to bring the issue of planning policy for quarries to Westminster Hall today. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate.
I would like to declare at the very outset that, like many hundreds of my constituents, I will be impacted by the development that I am going to refer to. My South Leicestershire constituency has been home not just to me and many hundreds of my constituents, but to many quarries throughout the years. In 2022, a new proposal from Tarmac was floated for a mega-quarry in the hamlet of Misterton, which will have a huge impact on residents in Lutterworth, as well as the villages of Walcote, Cotesbach, Kimcote and Kilworth—to name just a few.
In engaging with that proposal, I have come to understand just how outdated, inconsistent and, in some places, inadequate the planning guidance for quarry operations has become. Nowhere is that clearer than the guidance on air quality. The documents that local authorities are expected to follow do not reflect comparable environmental standards in developed countries, the latest science or the reasonable expectations that residents like mine hold about their air that they and their children breathe.
I have had regular meetings with residents and the Misterton and Walcote residents group to examine the proposals for the mega sand and gravel quarry. I am pleased to say that some of those residents are here today. Three main concerns have emerged: the first is the scale of the proposed development, which covers 74 hectares—the equivalent of 104 full-sized football pitches—and will extract 400,000 tonnes of sand and gravel a year for at least 20 years. It has caused understandable concern over dust, noise and the movement of heavy goods vehicles, especially given that the site is directly opposite a proposed flagship housing development. There is an interesting potential conflict here, because Leicestershire county council is, rather unusually, the promoter of that housing development, as well as being the minerals authority tasked with approving the proposed quarry on the doorstep of its own proposed development.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. That is an everyday reality for my constituents in Epsom and Ewell: we have a chalk pit and residents are faced with dust, noise and traffic. Three agencies are involved: the Environment Agency, Surrey county council and Epsom and Ewell borough council. They all have different and sometimes overlapping responsibilities, so residents find it difficult to raise issues, and some just fall through the cracks. Does the hon. Member agree that the current system for regulating pits and quarries is too complex for residents to navigate and get their issues resolved?
Alberto Costa
As the hon. Lady will hear in the remaining parts of my speech, I entirely concur with her comments.
Given that the proposed quarry site is not allocated in Leicestershire county council’s minerals plan, which runs until 2031, we can understand why a group such as the concerned residents present today would try to seek the advice of a professional minerals planner to review the proposals, consider the data and write a report that the residents group could use as the basis for their representations to Leicestershire county council, as the appropriate local planning authority, on Tarmac’s proposal. What surprised me, as their Member of Parliament, was that it was nearly impossible to help them find someone in the industry willing to produce a report that the residents association could use. Why? Because virtually every qualified planner we approached—and there were a great deal—cited potential conflicts of interest with Tarmac. In fact, Tarmac is such a big beast of industry that it took nearly a year to find a planner willing to produce and put their name to an impartial report reviewing Tarmac’s Misterton quarry application.
I am concerned that ordinary groups of residents who want to hire a specialist barely stand a chance because of Tarmac’s influence on the industry. Does the Minister share my concern that local communities often struggle to access independent, impartial technical advice, particularly where the applicant is a large and influential company in the industry? If the Minister is unable to answer any of the questions I put to her today, I would be grateful if she would answer in writing, not least because the residents association would be most grateful.
On air quality, I have a specific concern about the regulation 25 notice issued by Leicestershire county council to Tarmac. Forgive me, Dr Murrison, for the highly technical nature of some of my speech. That relies on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 2021 background model, which produces artificially low PM2.5 figures that no longer reflect the current conditions on the ground. We now have local post-pandemic monitoring data from Harborough district council, showing that background PM2.5 levels in rural areas close to Misterton are already at or above the Government’s future legal target. Even Tarmac’s own consultants—Vibrock—reported significantly higher background levels than those quoted by the county council.
Does the Minister agree that, to ensure evidence-led decision making, it is imperative that baseline data should be up to date and, if more recent local data exists, it should be used? Does she consider that, where a proposed major industrial development has the potential to increase community exposure to PM2.5, a mandatory period of local monitoring should be undertaken to establish a reliable baseline before permission is considered?
The main guidance that developers and local authorities rely on comes from the Institute of Air Quality Management. Although the IAQM is a respected professional body that works closely with regulators, it is important to recognise that it is a membership organisation and, therefore, potentially vulnerable. For example, its members may also have commercial interests in consultancy firms that deliver air quality services to clients seeking planning consent, such as Tarmac.
The most relevant document used as guidance for developers and local authorities is the IAQM’s 2016 “Guidance on the assessment of mineral dust impacts for planning”. It is fundamentally used as the de facto industry standard by all who work in the industry, including developers, consultants and local authorities, but that guidance is now nearly a decade old. The document sets the industry standard for how dust, particulates and emissions must be modelled or evaluated when a quarry is proposed.
Last year, I wrote to the IAQM, raising concerns shared by my constituents, such as whether the IAQM guidance adequately distinguishes between nuisance dust and finer, more harmful PM10 and PM2.5 particles; whether the 250-metre screening criterion remains appropriate for fine particulates, given the emerging evidence showing that those dangerous particles can travel considerably further; and how well it aligns with forthcoming legal PM2.5 targets, with which the Minister will no doubt be familiar. The IAQM has since contacted me and put a note on its website to say that the guidance on assessment of mineral dust for planning is now under review. That note says:
“The 2016 IAQM Guidance on the Assessment of Mineral Dust Impacts for Planning is now nine years old and as such there are some elements of the document that are dated”.
I repeat:
“there are some elements of the document that are dated”—
this is the document being used—
“and the focus of assessment is changing.
A full review is being carried out by an IAQM Working Group established specifically with regards to this guidance.”
Is the Minister’s Department liaising with the IAQM to ascertain when the review will be completed and a report published?
With the guidance now formally under review, developers and planning authorities need clarity on the interim approach, such as the one faced by the residents in my constituency. The Government’s own interim planning guidance on PM2.5, published by DEFRA in October 2024, already encourages local authorities to take the 2028 interim and 2040 targets—10 micrograms per cubic metre annual mean—into account in planning decisions. Dr Murrison, I promised you that this speech would be full of technical details, and I hope that I am not letting you down.
Given the legally binding obligations under the Environment Act 2021 and Environmental Targets (Fine Particulate Matter) (England) Regulations (2023), can the Minister confirm, either today or by follow-up letter, how planning authorities should apply the most up-to-date scientific evidence and statutory air quality objectives when assessing quarry applications, especially given that the relevant IAQM guidance is under review, as I have just outlined?
The IAQM guidance to which I am referring is used by developers and planning authorities to assess air quality impacts, particularly in relation to fine particulate matter such as PM10 and PM2.5. I welcome the fact that it is under review, but I wonder: had the residents group not informed my team, and had my team and I not written to the IAQM to raise the concerns of South Leicestershire residents, would the review be under way now? The 2016 primary guidance documents from the IAQM, which are now under review, are used by the industry, and I understand that overall it is very good guidance, but in key areas it is behind current scientific understanding of the risks of respirable dust particle behaviour and the Government’s own commitments under the 2021 Act and the clean air strategy 2019. The guidance is also far too subjective, offering scope for varied interpretations and approaches.
We now know that PM2.5 particles—those fine particulates that penetrate deep into the lungs—can travel much farther than previously assumed. The use of a 250-metre screening threshold, still applied in the current guidance, significantly underestimates risks, because it treats those dangerous particles as behaving in the same way as nuisance dust. Evidence from recent legal cases, including the Corby litigation, which was depicted in the Netflix hit series “Toxic Town”—I encourage listeners and viewers to watch that—has shown that those particulates can travel well beyond 250 metres, exposing far more people to harm than our assessments currently acknowledge.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The hon. Member is making a very technical speech, but it is bringing to light the challenges in the planning process. Although the situation in Scotland is devolved, I recognise quite a lot of what he is saying. He is talking powerfully about the impact of air quality on people, but it also affects nature and wildlife. In my constituency there is a proposal to extend a quarry at Lucklawhill in Balmullo, and the local community is concerned about the impact on the nature around it. Does the hon. Member agree that there does not seem to be a way to properly recognise that when planning is considered?
Alberto Costa
I absolutely agree, and I sympathise entirely with the hon. Lady. I would go further. I made the point earlier about finding suitable experts who are able to apply their technical expertise to help campaign groups or MPs to rebut planning applications on a technical basis. They are simply not there, for fear of a conflict of interest given their commercial interests with large-scale developers. The hon. Lady makes an important point and has put it on the record.
The UK has committed, through regulation 4 of the Environmental Targets (Fine Particulate Matter) (England) Regulations 2023, to achieving an annual mean concentration of 10 micrograms of PM2.5 per cubic metre by 2040, with an interim target for 2028. That is a legally binding obligation, and rightly so, but we will not meet it if the standards we use to assess air quality for quarries are not up to date with the latest scientific evidence. If we keep relying on outdated guidance, we will keep underestimating the risks to public health, particularly for children, older people and those with respiratory conditions who live near quarry sites.
Furthermore, when key guidance is issued by professional bodies rather than statutory authorities, it is far harder for us as lawmakers, and for the public, to scrutinise and challenge their work. That can lead to accountability issues. At the same time, the reliance on organisations such as the IAQM places a significant burden on them, and they may lack the resources or mandate to keep up with changing scientific and legal requirements. Accordingly, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm, either today or by follow-up letter, whether she believes it is right for professional bodies like the IAQM to set air-quality guidance for quarries, as opposed to the relevant statutory public bodies, given the possibility of a conflict of interest between public health goals and financial gain.
Does the Minister agree that we need to ensure that the guidance that underpins air-quality assessments is independently reviewed, regularly updated and aligned with statutory obligations on air quality and public health? In addition, the regulatory framework for quarry safety could be strengthened. The Quarries Regulations 1999 focused primarily on workplace safety, but do not require the same structured pre-emptive risk management that is now standard in other high-risk sectors. Would it not make sense for quarry operations to be brought under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015, for which the Minister has ministerial responsibility? She knows that the CDM regulations are not just best practice but required under the 2015 statutory instrument, which requires comprehensive risk assessments, formal hazard identification and clearly defined duties of care for all parties involved. Those measures are now standard practice across the construction industry.
Quarries present many of the same hazards as large construction sites, including airborne dust, heavy plant machinery, vehicle movements and complex site operations, but under the current framework there is no consistent requirement for structured design or risk assessments, no formalised application of the “as low as reasonably practicable” principle, and no robust mechanism for protecting the public from involuntary risk. Incorporating operations into the CDM framework could deliver more rigorous and consistent risk assessments, clearly documented mitigation strategies, legal accountability for duty holders and, crucially, better protection both for workers and for the surrounding public. Does the Minister agree that environmental protection, worker safety and public health will benefit if we treat quarrying operations as the major industrial undertakings that they are?
Finally, I hope the Minister will agree that targeted reforms, the clarifying of interim assessment standards and the modernising of safety regulations will deliver better outcomes for the industry, for workers and, most importantly, for all our constituents, wherever they may be.
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
I intend to start calling Front Benchers at 10.28 am, which means we are oversubscribed, so I will impose an indicative limit on speeches of four minutes, an exemplar for which will be Adam Jogee.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Dr Murrison. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for securing the debate and giving me the opportunity to speak about the impact of quarries once permission for them has been granted. Newcastle-under-Lyme has regrettably been tarnished in this place for far too long by the events at Walley’s quarry landfill site. I look forward to the day, as do my neighbours back home, when we can finally put this disgraceful situation behind us.
When Walley’s quarry was granted a licence to operate as a landfill site, the assumption was that the site would be managed safely, responsibly and with the local community in mind. But we know all too painfully that that did not happen. Odour complaints began many years ago, but from 2020 onwards they surged to intolerable levels. The experiences of my constituents were beyond comprehension: respiratory irritation, headaches, disrupted sleep and mental health strain, with children unable to play outside, elderly residents housebound and families unable to open their windows. That is not to mention the disgraceful experience of my young constituent Matthew. I pay tribute to him, his mother Becky Currie and their family for all they have done to shine a light on the disgraceful situation at Walley’s quarry.
It is clear that the impact of the hydrogen sulphide emitting from Walley’s quarry was not just a nuisance; it was a public health crisis that the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme were forced to live with. Although we cannot go back in time, we must ensure that our experiences are not repeated anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
Walley’s quarry reveals a fundamental gap in the UK’s planning system. Even when technically compliant, planning permission does not guarantee that a waste site in a former quarry will remain safe or tolerable for those who live around it. Too much trust was placed in conditions that lacked enforceability and, in our case, an operator who consistently failed to do the right thing. In my working life I have never seen cowboy operators as irresponsible, as greedy, as reckless and—to put it bluntly—as criminal as those in the details I shall share with the House today.
I have received news that Nigel Bowen, who was once responsible for the operations at Walley’s quarry, died last month. I of course acknowledge the impact on his family, but I am also concerned about what this means for the criminal investigation. We cannot be in a situation where people who know what happened, who can provide answers and who must be held accountable avoid justice for whatever reason. I hope that the criminal investigation reaches its conclusion sooner rather than later.
I have received reports, which I have raised with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, that the former operators at Walley’s quarry owe in the region of £80 million. I urge all relevant authorities to go after every single penny, because the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme deserve no less.
The Environment Agency has been clear in its assessments. It recorded repeated breaches by the operator, identified poor management, and concluded that Walleys Quarry Ltd had failed to demonstrate that it could control fugitive landfill emissions. Between 2021 and 2024 the Environment Agency undertook more than 180 inspections—far more than would be considered normal for a landfill site—and still the problems persisted.
The problem is not simply a bad operator or political leaders at all levels of government who fail to act when needed; it is a system that allows a badly managed site to continue operating for years, even as the harm grows and enforcement escalates. Planning permissions granted decades ago no longer reflect modern environmental standards, population densities or public health evidence, and the law does not make it easy to intervene when things go wrong. Two weeks ago we celebrated a year since Walley’s quarry was closed down, and I am grateful to all those who campaigned so hard to help to make that happen.
Local planning authorities must require far more vigorous assessments of the long-term environmental and public health risks associated with converting quarries into waste sites. Before any waste site is granted permission, operators must provide fully protected bonds or trust funds that are capable of covering decades of aftercare. When companies collapse, the public must not inherit their liabilities.
I have two specific requests of the Minister. First, no quarry with the potential to become a landfill site should be opened within 500 metres of any homes, and no planning application should be approved. Secondly, I urge Ministers to create an excess of supply for the responsible disposal of gypsum. All planning permissions for landfills should require separate stable non-reactive hazardous material cells to be constructed, because this will help to deter the mixing and misclassifying of such waste. What happened at Walley’s quarry must never be allowed to happen again.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for his highly technical and broad speech, and particularly for his points about the environmental concerns about quarries.
I want to talk about Whitehall farm and the surrounding area, in which there have been several applications for gravel extraction by Cemex. That part of my patch used to be entirely in the Runnymede and Weybridge constituency but, as a consequence of the boundary review, is now on the border between it and Windsor. The area is a wholly inappropriate place to build a gravel pit for a whole range of reasons. The need for gravel extraction at the site remains to be seen, bearing in mind that we are expecting the River Thames scheme, which will produce a lot of aggregate as part of the construction process. The traffic in the area is highly stretched, to say the least. Inappropriate HGVs going down small roads in Egham with level crossings are already causing traffic carnage.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The picture the hon. Gentleman paints is very familiar to me. There was recently an application on the edge of a village in my constituency. The heavy lorries would cause vibrations on the narrow roads. However, as well as the environmental impact, there is the economic impact on rural areas, where agriculture is trying to diversify. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a tension between the tourism industry and the need to diversify, and the impact of quarries, which discourages people from coming to an area?
Dr Spencer
That is a very good point. Of course we need aggregates to be produced, particularly for the construction sector. I find it confusing that there has been such a push for the site at Whitehall farm. Industry and the residential sector need to work with each other. We need industry because people want jobs, but there are egregious examples, such as the one I mentioned in my constituency, that just do not make sense. I will expand on that point later. To go back to the issues with Whitehall farm, the broader traffic impact would be highly problematic, as would the pollution impact, particularly for a local school that is downstream. There would also be a flooding risk if gravel extraction goes ahead.
Aside from all the problems with the site, which I have been campaigning against, it is a really good example of the importance of community and elected representatives working together to stop something that does not work. Over the years, several applications have been made for the site, and I have worked closely with other elected representatives and the community group to oppose them. I pay particular tribute to Residents Against Gravel Extraction and Professor Moreton Moore, who has done a huge amount of technical work to fight against the site, and local councillors, particularly Councillor Jonathan Hulley, who has worked to oppose the developments. I am pleased that, as a consequence of the boundary review, my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) will join us. I know that he will also work to prevent the site.
It is clear from the intervention from the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) and from what my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire said that this issue affects a lot of constituencies. The best defence against inappropriate development is close working among community groups and elected representatives. Will the Minister comment on how Labour changes to planning infrastructure will hamstring our ability to stand up for our local residents?
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve, Dr Murrison. Back in October, I went to Laxton and met with the parish council, a fine bunch of people. One of the main issues was the impact of the nearby Wakerley quarry. People turned up because it is affecting their homes and their lives. Residents told me about blasting, the noise, and cracks appearing in their houses. In older homes especially, people said their houses actually shake.
I have met residents since that meeting; they have complained to Mick George, which runs the quarry, and to Burghley, which owns the site, but they feel ignored. Their complaints have not been dealt with. I am trying to get a meeting with Mick George and when I raised the issue with North Northamptonshire council, I was told that everything is being reported properly and no action is needed. Here is the problem: when planning permission was granted, people were given all sorts of promises about monitoring and limits. When what is on paper and what residents experience are so far removed from each other, we have to rethink what we are doing.
We may need quarries to build the homes of the future, but companies have a duty to be good neighbours. Being a good neighbour is not about reports and assurances; it is about listening and doing the right thing. I will continue to seek those meetings to ensure that the residents of Laxton are heard. In the meantime, I suggest that those companies and those that run the site do the right thing by their people and their neighbours.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) on securing the debate, which is vital to me and my constituents.
Over the past six years, since being elected in 2019, I have been fighting against a proposal for an aggregate quarry down Hamble Lane in my constituency, which was recently given permission by the planning inspectorate on appeal. In the four minutes that I have to speak, I want to get across to the Minister that the planning system is fractured, disjointed and weighted against local communities. It does not take into account the true nature of quarries or the stuff that they produce; it does not take into account air quality or water run-off that will go into the River Hamble. The Planning Inspectorate is also culpable in not looking at regulations set down by locally elected planning authorities. In my case, it has been acknowledged in local planning authority notices that the Hamble Lane highway—which has one lane going in and out that 200 lorries a day will have to use—is already oversaturated and at capacity, and yet the minerals and waste authority has granted that permission.
We have a slightly strange process in Hamble that I want to outline briefly. As I said, we will have 200 lorries a day, but there has been a lack of consultation by Cemex, the company proposing the quarry. I will go as far as to say that Cemex are cowboys and bullies of local communities. There was not one physical consultation with people during covid, the company treats the community with utter disdain, and it treats the planning process as one of its personal toys that it can afford to challenge and manufacture. The Minister needs to be aware of that.
The quarry in Hamble is being proposed 50 metres from a primary school and 100 metres from a secondary school. That was not taken into account at all by the planning system. Physical highways data has not been taken account of since covid, but since then hundreds of houses have been built on Hamble Lane. That was not taken into account. Even more concerning is what happened after the regulatory committee of the minerals and waste authority refused the quarry: when 300 of my constituents turned up to attend the final meeting, the minerals and highways authority chose not to defend the reasons for refusal of democratically elected councillors without telling me or a single person in the community. That meant it went to an appeal.
My local residents group, the Hamble peninsula residents group, has done a fantastic job in raising funds to defend the appeal, but it was based on flawed data. At no time in my six years as an MP have I been consulted and no one on my local council—I have been working very closely with the Liberal Democrat administration on Eastleigh borough council—has been consulted. That is not good enough.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
The hon. Member’s situation sounds very familiar to me. In my constituency, in the middle of Kingsteignton, we have a large clay quarry called Zitherixon, whose operators are trying to extend their permission for mining, even though it has been established for some 300 years and planning permissions are somewhat ancient. Does the hon. Member agree that, however the mining is permitted, whether by appeal or by planning some time ago, those doing it must be held to the most modern and best possible environmental and residential standards for local people?
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. His situation sounds very similar to mine. I do not blame the Minister, as she has inherited a system that has been in place for decades, but what confidence can local people have in maintaining high standards when they are not in the guidance? What confidence can local people have in challenging the impact of quarries if the democratic body that refused permission in the first place is overturned by an unelected inspector, with the rug pulled out from under the local authority?
Will the Minister commit to meet me to discuss the circumstances of this case? There is a clear democratic deficit in the way in which this has been granted. It was handled by officers who superseded locally elected councillors. We are going to seek a statutory review, but that is now at the cost of the local community. That is not good for local people. People feel absolutely let down in Hamble, as they do across the country. I would be grateful if the Minister would commit to meet me in the coming months to discuss this case specifically.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for securing this debate. It goes without saying that quarries are integral to our infrastructure. My constituency is home to many quarries, and I have been able to visit Bardon Hill, Cloud Hill and Breedon on the Hill. Quarries can be difficult for residents, whether that is navigating the planning process or dealing with issues once they are opened. Lorry queuing dominates my casework at the moment. Since becoming the MP for North West Leicestershire, I have been contacted repeatedly by constituents about huge queues of lorries, sparking safety concerns. Earlier this month, a constituent shared that lorries have been parking on the island of a main road into Coalville, as well as on local pavements. The lack of a response from authorities is frustrating. There appears to be little redress when issues arise, leaving residents worried when new proposals are put forward.
On particulates and air pollution, North West Leicestershire district council’s latest air quality report covers data from 2022. It specifically mentions high levels of nitrogen dioxide and fine particulates of PM2.5 near to Bardon quarry. As a former health scrutiny member of Leicestershire county council, I know that this type of pollution is much higher near our quarries in Leicestershire. We must therefore consider the impact on local people when we go through the planning process. These pollutants can cause residents concern, for in addition to the associated dust and the smells generated from this type of heavy industry, nitrogen dioxide levels have been exceeded 216 times on the monitoring site. We need a new planning system, but we must also be able to deal with the impact of existing quarries. I would welcome the Minister’s response on how we deal with that going forward.
I do, however, want to give people some faith that quarries can be good neighbours. Whitwick quarry has an understanding with local residents. When there are flood alerts, the quarry will stop pumping water into the local brook. The operators send out text alerts when there are going to be blasts and explosions, and they wash the wheels of the lorries down before they leave the site to minimise the dust dragged on to the street. We also have the opportunity brought by Bardon quarry leasing a private line that connects to the Ivanhoe line, which could potentially be reopened to passengers in the future. In the long term, we need to look at the balance between the resilience that hardcore material provides us and the impact that quarries have on local people. Being good neighbours should be the focus of managing planning going forward.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for leading the debate. I will give a Northern Ireland perspective, but first, I want to say that quarries bring economic life to communities. They create jobs. All the debate so far has been about the negatives, although we cannot ignore those either. Back home, I always try to find ways of going forward in relationships both with local people who have concerns and with the quarries so that they can continue their work. Quarries can cause noise pollution, environmental impacts, and health risks. It is crucial that the planning policy is correct and properly analysed, and that is why we are having this debate.
Back home in Northern Ireland, we have a range of active quarries. First, there is North Down, a quarry in Newtownards, in my constituency. It is an operational quarry site, supplying stone and aggregates. There is also Whitemountain Quarries, which is listed on the Ballystockart Road in the Comber and Newtownards area. Those quarries are part of a materials and contracting business, supplying ready-mixed concrete. The rock that was brought to build and reinforce the roads around London came from the Ballystockart quarry. Many years ago, I was able to be with those working there one night at 12 o’clock when the stone came across, and they were also doing the roads. Quarries play an intricate and important role in our lives. There are also historical quarries, such as the ones at Scrabo Hill, where there are old sandstone quarry workings, Killynether Wood old quarry and South quarry. Ballygowan quarry, beyond Comber and Newtownards, is one of the largest quarries in the area.
I want to focus on planning policy—it is so important and ensures that the construction process is done properly. For example, materials such as sand, gravel and other finite natural resources are widely used in Northern Ireland and further afield, and planning policy helps to ensure that resources are identified, managed and protected, so that they are available for current use and are managed properly. As an elected representative, I have worked with North Down Quarries. The guys were arriving every morning at half-past 5 or 6 o’clock in the morning, and they were sitting by a row of houses until the quarry opened. After negotiation with the quarry owners and lorry drivers, we ensured that for those neighbours who had concerns, those concerns were alleviated.
Neighbourhood notification allows for greater integration between developers and communities, especially when it comes to managing the impacts of noise, dust and other disturbances. The inclusion of local communities in the decision-making process helps to provide balance, along with protecting the wellbeing of residents. Neighbourhood notifications can also warn residents about blasting, heavy machinery and truck traffic. Dealing with the vibrations of machinery can severely disrupt lives, especially for people who work from home. There can also be damage to property, as has been mentioned, and many people plan their day based on expected noise or vibrations.
The enforcement of rules is critical. The Minister is not responsible for Northern Ireland, but regular and clear communication about quarry operations can help to maintain a long-term, positive relationship between the quarry and the community. That can be essential for future expansion or continued operation. Back home, planning provides clear benefits in relation to protecting the environment and communities, while ensuring correct resource use. However, as we have witnessed in Northern Ireland, there can be huge delays, leading to higher costs and waiting for the unknown. That must also be taken into consideration, for the betterment of public services and for local communities.
Has the Minister had the opportunity to discuss with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland how we do planning back home? It is not that we are better than anybody else—we are not—but it is about asking: how do we do this in a way that can help us to move forward, and bring quarries and communities together?
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for so fully introducing the debate. It is of real interest to me. I am always amazed, when I go to cities, that so much of what we see above ground was once below ground. I want to speak about two quarries in Edinburgh South West, and my speech might be a bit more positive than some of the others we have heard.
Back in April, I had the opportunity to visit Ravelrig quarry in Edinburgh South West. It is operated by Tarmac, and that site demonstrates what a collaborative approach between operators, planners and the community can achieve. Ravelrig extracts about 450,000 tonnes of stone every year, and that stone has built the foundations of the Queensferry crossing, filled countless roads across the region—I think some more of it may be needed to fill the potholes—and helped to underpin Scotland’s renewable energy infrastructure, including wind turbines.
Behind the impressive scale of that operation, there is an incredible ethos. The quarry’s processes are powered largely by electricity, keeping its carbon footprint remarkably low. About 90% of the stone is used within 11 miles of the site, genuinely minimising the environmental impact of transporting that heavy stone. Not all stone from Edinburgh quarries has stayed so local, however. The stone used for statue of Nelson at Trafalgar Square was extracted in Edinburgh. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) is not here to hear me say that, because it is from her constituency.
When the city considered the planning extension for Ravelrig, it did so through a framework of conditions—31 in total. That ensured that the community and environment were not afterthoughts, but integral to the decision. The conditions eventually agreed on will limit blasting times, restrict operating hours, cap HGV movements and put rigorous noise, dust and wildlife protections in place. They also set clear restoration timelines, and expect Tarmac to put forward a financial guarantee to make sure that it happens, so that it cannot walk away from it.
I am proud of the work that Balerno community council has done to broker this agreement with Tarmac, and I look forward to working with it to make sure that Tarmac keeps its side of the bargain. I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire: although those in the community council were not quarry experts, they had to become experts quite quickly—a daunting task, but one they absolutely embraced. That is what planning for quarries should look like; it should be focused on engaging with local residents.
On the issue of restoration, another quarry in my constituency is a great example of what restoration could look like. Hailes quarry was a quarry between 1750 and 1920; at its peak, it employed around 150 people, and its stone was used to construct much of the New Town, as well as the fantastic St Cuthbert’s parish church in nearby Colinton. Thanks to the Wester Hailes community enterprises, it is now a fantastic public park. I find myself there every Sunday to support the local junior parkrun. There have been lots of requests made of the Minister this morning, but I will put a nice one in: it would be great to see her at the junior parkrun. I am sure that she would be very welcome to run it alongside the children, if she has the energy to do so.
Other former quarries in Edinburgh have now been converted to fantastic attractions, including what is now an international climbing centre and an outdoor surf arena—I guess the Minister could also go surfing at a quarry while she is in Edinburgh. The standard of restoration that we see across Edinburgh, particularly that of Hailes Quarry Park, is what we should aim for. Quarries are necessary, as we have heard, and they can be run responsibly, but planning policy must always ensure that collaboration, community benefit and long-term restoration are built in right from the start, not treated as optional extras.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. When I first supported my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) in applying for this debate, there was an ongoing planning application in Silsden in my constituency, to reopen a local quarry at Horn Crag. I am pleased to say that since then the application has been rejected—not only at the initial stage, but on appeal. While Horn Crag quarry may no longer be a current threat to Silsden, the whole experience throws up many issues relating to quarries and our wider planning system.
I met a number of Silsden residents, my neighbours on the ground, who had fought tooth and nail to have their voices heard by Bradford council and the Planning Inspectorate. It was only after considerable effort on their part that their concerns—about the environment, the impact on nature, air quality, complex site operations, ecology, drainage, potential water pollution challenges and congestion through Silsden and Addingham—were heeded.
It is easy to understand their passion and anger when we consider the broader planning context in Silsden. The town has been inundated with hundreds of new homes in just the last 10 years, and many of those strongly opposed proposals went through without Bradford council even batting an eye. Many were expecting the Horn Crag quarry application to be simply another case of the council ignoring local wishes. People might accuse those Silsden residents of nimbyism, but when the Isherwood family made a proposal for a new farm shop on the outskirts of the town, which was well supported by many local people, it was rejected by the same planning authority that had no issue with approving a huge number of new houses across Silsden.
While stopping Horn Crag quarry was a definite win for those residents, it will not be enough to restore local people’s confidence in our planning system. That is why I think it is really important that we continue to have these debates in the Houses of Parliament, to explore how the planning system for quarries can better reflect local views and provide assurance to local planners that schemes are suitable. It is clear, from the many contributions that we have had today, that the system is currently not fit for purpose. It is also clear that many quarry applications are not sufficiently considering the impacts on air quality, water quality, noise and vibration.
What has not yet been mentioned in the debate is the possibility of requiring a bond when quarry developers put forward an application. That money, which will have been negotiated by a local authority in putting the bond in place, will then be able to provide financial reassurance that, if a quarry operator goes bust, restoration and aftercare can still take place. However, when bonds are being negotiated, they are not being negotiated robustly enough to deal with current economic pressures and inflationary challenges. When things go wrong, the bond should be there to provide reassurance. It is frustrating that, when landfill sites are not considered, bonds are not put in place at the start, and I would like the system to reflect that.
I am concerned that the legislation currently going through the House is not dealing with the challenges. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill that has been put forward by this Labour Government, alongside the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, is actually having negative implications on environmental mitigation, as well as the ability of local people to have their say as part of the planning application. No one wants to say no to any development, and of course quarries are needed, but we must ensure that we have robust ways to manage their undesirable consequences, and that local people are brought along as part of that process. At the moment, I feel that they are not. I am just glad that, in the case of Silsden, common sense prevailed.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
Thank you for squeezing me in, Dr Murrison. In the limited time that I have, I want to put on record that the experiences of my constituents in Preesall are echoed by communities right across the country, as we have heard in the debate. Preesall saw a proposal for a quarry to extract sand and gravel. Thankfully, we are in a similar situation to that of the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), as the quarry application has been turned down, but we are now waiting to see whether the developer will appeal.
The community feels that it has all the necessary arguments on HGV movements on narrow country lanes and health data from the Over Wyre Medical Centre on the proportion of residents with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma, who could be adversely affected. The proposed quarry site is within a kilometre of a primary school, and there is another school just 2 km away. We know that when children’s lungs are developing, they are more vulnerable to the kind of things that will be floating around in the atmosphere, with the potential health implications. The health issues combine with having HGVs on narrow country roads and the implications of unstable ground and an area historically associated with localised flooding.
Paul Holmes
It is actually worse than that, is it not? In my case, the quarry is 50 metres from a local school. Parents are already talking about taking their children out of two very successful schools, which adds to the pressure on communities and the associated infrastructure.
Cat Smith
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point—it does have an economic impact on the area. Preesall is located in a beautiful corner of Lancashire, with the Wyre estuary on one side and Morecambe bay on the other. Who will want to visit this beauty corner of Lancashire if the landscape is littered with quarries? It will have an impact on our tourism offer.
All in all, this issue is concerning to my local residents, and I want to put those concerns on record today. I thank the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa); I know he has been pursuing this debate for a long time. When I supported his application to the Backbench Business Committee, I was unsure where my local application would end up. While I hope this is the end of it for my constituents, the reality is that we do not know. Current planning applications for quarries are not fit for purpose.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) on securing this important debate, which is of real concern to not only his constituents but those of Members around the country. As a child growing up in Somerset, I well remember the occasional roar of the neighbouring Dulcote quarry, which is now worked out. I no longer live near a quarry, so I do not experience the very genuine issues and concerns of those who do. In particular, significant concerns have been raised about respirable silica dust, especially when the particulate matter is PM10 or smaller, which means that it is fewer than 10 micrometres across.
Studies by the Health and Safety Executive have shown that respirable silica dust, inhaled over prolonged exposure—for example, by workers who do not receive proper protection—is potentially carcinogenic. It can lead to silicosis and other respiratory diseases. Environmental impacts from the dust, which could affect local residents, are therefore a concern to those who spend time near quarries.
HSE studies of those environmental effects in 2002 and 2003 led it to conclude that no cases of silicosis have been documented among members of the general public in Great Britain, indicating that the levels of environmental exposure to silica dust are not sufficiently high to cause the occupational disease. Notwithstanding that finding, the impact of dust in residential environments is a genuine concern rightly held by many residents, and a potential hazard.
As we have heard, the new Environment Act targets would reduce PM2.5 concentration levels to no more than 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2040. People also suffer wider immunity impacts from the dust, noise, vibration and flyrock that quarries emit. The fact that PM10 and PM2.5 pollutants can travel further than 250 metres and that IAQM guidance is under review emphasises those effects and immunity impacts.
We must also remember that quarries are vital to the building of homes and other needed infrastructure. According to the Mineral Products Association, UK quarries produce 177 million tonnes of aggregates and support thousands of valuable jobs. On housing, the Liberal Democrats differ from the Government in that our ambition is for 150,000 council and social rent homes per year—but, to the extent that new homes are needed, we agree that quarrying in the UK needs to continue apace rather than be curtailed.
None the less, health and wellbeing of the public is the main priority of the Liberal Democrats, and must be the main concern in this debate. We would therefore pass a new clean air Act to cover not just quarries, but all air pollution, based on World Health Organisation guidelines and enforced by a new air quality agency, including funding for local pollution centres and a new vehicle scrapping scheme for cleaner transport.
Clean air is important not just around quarries, but across all our communities. While life expectancy in Somerset and the south west is higher than in other regions of the UK, in my constituency it differs by 10 years from one side of my hometown, Taunton, to the other.
A report from Public Health England in 2018 attributed 250 deaths to black carbon—unburnt fuel from motor vehicles. As with quarries, there is little people can do about these sort of environmental health factors, but they still shorten people’s lives, sometimes by years. Therefore, as well as controlling quarries, we must do all we can to encourage people to replace their cars with zero emission vehicles at reasonable costs that they can afford. The Government must hold firm against the Conservatives and Reform, who seem no longer to care about that air pollution or the related deaths it causes. Flirting with climate deniers, the Conservatives want to reverse a position they once held, announcing that they will continue burning petrol in vehicles around people’s homes, schools and neighbourhoods.
While it is welcome that the Government have set out a delivery plan for nature’s recovery, we are waiting for a commitment to a new clean air Act and for them to get on with giving regulators the powers and resources they need. Instead, we are seeing unacceptable cuts to DEFRA—and therefore to the Environment Agency, which among other things regulates quarries—of 1.9% in real terms this year.
I turn now to the issue of buffer zones around quarries, which some hon. Members have raised. While imposing a buffer zone on an existing quarry—such as requiring a distance to residential properties to perhaps a kilometre—could detrimentally affect its operations, the imposition of some sort of environmental limit, as planning permissions already do, is an entirely reasonable proposition.
Some have argued that introducing a buffer zone could be devastating for the thousands of jobs in the sector. If that is the case, it would be equally devastating, not to mention reckless, to suggest no buffer zones or limits at all between quarries and residential properties. Presumably, even the most ardent quarrier is willing to stop when they reach someone’s garden wall or the threshold of their front door. Therefore, in a very real sense, the question is where to draw the line.
The Canadian example has much to commend it. For example, over the 600 metres under the Canadian rule, 100 dB from quarrying—a common level of noise from a building site—would degrade to around 40 dB. That is a typical level for background noise in residential areas—it is a little higher in cities. It has to be recognised, of course, that topography and other factors play a part in those calculations. Subject to assessment, Liberal Democrats would set in planning policy a buffer zone of 600 metres to 1 km for new quarrying consents. Local communities, through their elected councillors, should be empowered to impose such a zone and to make exceptions to it only in wholly exceptional circumstances. Sadly, the Government are going in entirely the wrong direction on the voices of local people being heard in planning.
Dr Arthur
In my experience of dealing with Ravelrig quarry in Edinburgh South West, a 600-metre line on a map is not always the best way to proceed, because the impact of blasting on properties varies considerably depending on the underlying geology and so on. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the policy needs a bit more rigour than a simple 600-metre line around a quarry?
Gideon Amos
I accept that further assessment is needed before the policy is finalised, but the experience in Canada shows that the distance is appropriate for reducing noise. At the moment, no buffer zone at all is set as standard, as I have pointed out. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not be the quarrier I described quarrying up to someone’s front door, but a buffer zone of some sort is needed.
Clear and understood safeguards, such as a buffer zone, or something similar to the 21-metre back-to-back standard for houses, give people more confidence in the planning system and enable them successfully to live side by side with development, but under the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the Secretary of State will remove decisions from local councillors and the people who elect them. A new direction will force councillors to report to the Secretary of State and get his permission before they can refuse anything more than 150 homes, and we are told that there is more centralisation, and more community and nature bashing, to come this week in forthcoming announcements on the planning system.
We need quarries and we need development, but unless the Government change direction, we will have forgotten the most important lesson: that we develop for our environment and for people, not in opposition to them. In a world where a staggering 73% of global wildlife has been lost in the last 50 years, we need to save the remnants of nature for everyone’s sake, and we need people’s voices, and the safeguards they desire, to be heard in the process.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, and to take part in this debate about planning policy for quarries. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for securing the debate. I appreciate that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have local examples and experience of this issue, and I thank those who spoke before me for sharing their experiences and those of their constituents.
Our quarries and mineral extraction sites are of great economic importance to the UK. Nationally, we are rich in key mineable materials such as lithium, nickel, tungsten and rare earth alloys. Furthermore, we are a nation in need of more homes to help make the dream of home ownership a reality for people up and down the country; we are in need of more buildings; and we are in need of more infrastructure. Quarries are a key factor in providing many of the materials that our nation needs to build more of those things. Having said that, the Government already have 2,000 active quarries at their disposal, and I am not sure what number the Minister would need to get close to the Government’s increasingly distant target of 1.5 million new homes.
Despite that, it is important to recognise that no two quarries are the same, and that their context—be that their economic value, social impact or environmental footprint—is always of great importance when considering planning permission. That is why the national planning policy framework has long made it clear that those factors are critical to assessments of the planning conditions for quarries. The current draft says that, in areas of mineral extraction including quarries, minerals planning authorities must always keep the health of local communities and people in mind, alongside the potential impact on
“the natural and historic environment”.
That includes making sure that
“unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions and any blasting vibrations”
are accounted for, ensuring that their impacts are mitigated and controlled.
It is always important that such safeguards are in place when a new quarry is proposed or when opportunities for expansion are explored. The application of these safeguards, namely the health and safety aspect, is currently governed by the Quarries Regulations 1999, which include an approved code of practice. The regulations define our quarries as
“an excavation or system of excavations made for the purpose of, or in connection with, the extraction of minerals or products of minerals, being neither a mine nor merely a well or borehole or a well and borehole combined”.
We are, therefore, talking not just about small sites or eyesores, but about vast landscapes of machinery, dust, industry, and health and safety risks.
In 2024-25, falling from a height, being trapped by something collapsing or overturning, and contact with moving machinery accounted for 65 fatal accidents at work in the UK, or 67% of the top five most common fatal accidents. All those kinds of accidents have been recognisable health and safety concerns in quarries, and the 1999 regulations sought to prevent their number from being higher.
There must be safeguards to protect the local people and local communities who suffer health and safety risks from quarries without ever even working in them. For example, it is important that proper safety procedures are discharged when planning permission is granted for quarries. That includes proper adherence to paragraphs 135 and 137 of the approved code of practice on the 1999 regulations. The code states in respect of regulation 16:
“Barriers are appropriate where it is reasonably foreseeable that members of the public, including children, are likely to trespass on the site and could suffer injury if they did so… where there is evidence of persistent trespass by children which places them at significant risk, sophisticated metal paling fences may be required.”
It is not just the quarry site itself that should be considered when a quarry is proposed; consideration of the impacts on local people and their local area must extend to transport concerns. The approved code of practice makes it clear that
“Where site vehicles cross a footpath or turn onto a public highway, particular consideration needs to be given to safeguarding the public. This may involve discussions with the planning, highway or police authority.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) presented a Bill on this very topic in 2023. I recall his concerns about small rural roads—rural infrastructure that is completely unsuited to the task—facing 100 or more lorries a day. I know that many hon. Members from across the House have shared or could share examples and figures to much the same effect, and I hope the Minister is listening to those examples closely.
In assessments of planning applications for quarries or anything else, the views of local people are not a burden; they are among the most important factors. Putting local people and local concerns high up the agenda is a long established and democratic precedent that successive Governments have followed. However, I fear for local voices under the current Administration. As the Government railroad their Planning and Infrastructure Bill through Parliament, it is increasingly clear that the planning system that they are not just envisaging and planning for but actively creating is one in which it is much harder to raise local concerns.
As I mentioned at the start of my speech, it is vital that the economic benefits of quarries are properly realised. That is especially the case when more homes are needed right across the country in the light of the Government’s failure to build anything close to the target for their first year in office. However, His Majesty’s Opposition do not believe that local people and local democracy should suffer for that. The Government are eroding trust in the planning system and widening the gulf between themselves and local people. That is why we are clear that local voices, and not just those in Whitehall, must play a key role in any planning decisions. Having heard the important testimonies of Members from both sides of this House, I believe that is especially the case for developments such as quarries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for securing the debate, his constituents for attending, and all hon. Members who have spoken. A number of hon. Members have raised concerns about the development of quarries and referred to specific planning applications in their constituencies. They will understand that I am unable to comment on specific cases, but I hope that the position I am about to set out will provide some reassurance.
I recognise that proposals for new or extended quarries are often controversial and unpopular locally. Once permitted, minerals extraction at individual sites can often take place over very many years, so if it is not planned for and managed in an appropriate manner, communities living nearby can be faced with the impacts associated with the development for a long time.
However, I want to reassure hon. Members that the planning system provides a robust framework to make sure that the impacts of minerals development are appropriately considered and addressed through both the plan-making and decision-making processes. Chapter 17 of the current NPPF sets out policies on facilitating the sustainable use of minerals to support that. In relation to plan making, the framework is clear that planning policy should
“set out criteria or requirements to ensure that permitted and proposed operations do not have unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment or human health, taking into account the cumulative effects of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or a number of sites in a locality.”
Samantha Dixon
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will carry on.
In relation to decision making, the framework requires mineral planning authorities to
“ensure that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment, human health or aviation safety”.
The cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites or a number of sites in a locality should also be taken into account. Mineral planning authorities should also make sure that
“any unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions and any blasting vibrations are controlled, mitigated or removed at source, and establish appropriate noise limits for extraction in proximity to noise sensitive properties”.
As well as policies specifically on minerals, the NPPF includes policies in relation to air quality, which was raised by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, and pollution. They make it clear that both planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of air pollution.
Samantha Dixon
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will carry on with my speech.
The NPPF further states:
“Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality…Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects…of pollution on health, living conditions”—
Samantha Dixon
I am not going to take any interventions.
The NPPF continues:
“and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development.”
That issue was raised by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes).
Paul Holmes
On a point of order, Dr Murrison. I am desperately sorry, and I am not usually this kind of politician, but a number of Members have raised specific issues and contributed lived experiences, which relate directly to what the Minister is saying, yet she is not giving way. I seek your advice on how we can interact with the Minister and get some answers from her.
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
Whether the Minister gives way is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for the Minister.
Samantha Dixon
Thank you, Dr Murrison.
I know that the issue of increased HGV movements and congestion is important to hon. Members. Although quarry development can often result in additional HGV movements, where necessary, access roads can be constructed and routeing agreements can be made to reduce the impact on local roads, residents and the environment.
Dr Spencer
Brilliant. I am so grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I am glad that she has reflected on the importance in our democracy of Members being able to raise points with Ministers—something that I mentioned in my speech in terms of local representation. Given that she is explaining, in effect, that the system is perfect and there is nothing to see here, could she comment on why so many Members decided to participate in the debate?
Samantha Dixon
I will come to that point in due course.
Proposals in respect of transport impacts should be supported by a detailed transport assessment, which is considered as part of the decision-making process. Further information to support the implementation of the policies set out in the national planning policy framework is provided in planning practice guidance.
To respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, I should highlight the fact that the Government are about to launch a consultation on a revised national planning policy framework, including a clearer set of national policies for decision making on mineral extraction and other matters. This is a great opportunity for all Members and the communities they represent to engage. In the light of the concerns that they have raised today, I encourage them to take part in that consultation.
Samantha Dixon
With your indulgence, Dr Murrison, I would like to continue.
As part of the planning application process, applications and supporting information, including statutory environmental assessments where required, are consulted on with stakeholders and the public. Where issues are identified, the imposition of conditions can assist in mitigating impacts to acceptable levels. Where planning conditions are breached, including during quarry operations, and issues arise as a result, the mineral planning authority has powers to take action to make sure issues are addressed.
Although much of today’s debate has focused on the negative impacts of quarrying, I would like to thank the hon. Members for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for recognising the vital role that quarries play in providing the raw materials needed to support our society. The Government have an ambitious growth agenda, which cannot be delivered without a sufficient supply of minerals to feed our construction and manufacturing sectors. The intrinsic link between growth and the provision of minerals is recognised in the national planning policy framework, which is clear that we need a sufficient supply of minerals to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs. The framework also sets out that, when determining planning applications, great weight should be given to the benefits of mineral extraction, including to the economy, except in relation to coal extraction.
Importantly, what distinguishes quarries from most other forms of development is that their location is driven by geology, which is fixed. In this context, minerals can be worked only where they are found, which influences where quarries can be located. Working of minerals is a temporary land use, and all planning applications for extraction will require an approved restoration and aftercare scheme. The NPPF indicates that mineral planning authorities should provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity, to be carried out to high environmental standards, through the application of appropriate conditions.
Robbie Moore
Great, that is very kind of the Minister. Seven days ago, the Campaign to Protect Rural England commented that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is working its way through the House, will have a detrimental impact on environmental regulation and reduce the influence of local people and their ability to have their views heard when quarry applications are put forward. I wonder whether the Minister might like to comment on that.
Samantha Dixon
I refer to my earlier comments about the consultation due to be launched on the national planning policy framework, which I hope the CPRE and all local communities will participate in.
Restoration also offers the opportunity to enhance the environment. Possible uses of land, once minerals extraction is complete, include the creation of new habitats and biodiversity, and use for agriculture, forestry and recreational activities, such as surfing centres.
I conclude by once again thanking the hon. Member for South Leicestershire and other hon. Members for participating in this debate. I want to reassure them that the Government take planning policy for quarries and the concerns that they and others have raised very seriously. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire has set out a number of issues and put a number of questions to me—
Samantha Dixon
I will just finish my sentence. I would be most grateful if the hon. Member for South Leicestershire set out his specific concerns to me in writing, so that I can make sure that a response to every point he has raised is forthcoming. Similarly, I would encourage other Members to write to set out their concerns.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for giving way. She will recall that in my speech I did not attack the Government at all, so I am not sure why her tone this morning is quite dismissive of other Members of Parliament. I think she should reflect on that. I asked specifically whether a Minister in the Department would meet with me about my case and she has not answered that. I wonder if she could, please.
Samantha Dixon
Dr Murrison, it is not my intention to offend anybody. I have previously referred to the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley. If he writes to me, I am sure his concerns can be addressed in the appropriate way.
The Government do take these issues seriously, as is reflected in our robust planning framework, which protects communities and the environment while enabling industry to get on with the job of providing the minerals that we need to build 1.5 million new homes and new infrastructure, and to support our growing economy.
Alberto Costa
To conclude, there is no doubt that quarrying plays an extremely important role in delivering the homes, roads and infrastructure that our country needs, as the Minister has said and I acknowledge. That cannot and must not, however, come at the expense of the health of the people of our country. The residents of Misterton, Walcote, Lutterworth and the surrounding villages, as well as all our constituents, are asking us to pay attention to the latest science and heed the lessons of the past, particularly on air quality.
I am grateful to the residents who travelled here today: Liz and Nick Marsh, Paul Mann, and to those who have taken part in the Misterton with Walcote residents group, including Adrian Lott, Graham Jordan, Paulette Murrell, Mark Denton and Richard Nunn, among others unable to be here. I also thank Lord Bach of Lutterworth for his strong support. I am grateful that the Minister said she will respond to the technical issues I raised; I will send her a letter shortly.
We all want to ensure that vital mineral extraction proceeds responsibly. I am grateful to all MPs who have spoken on behalf of their constituents. Local communities must have confidence in the process and confidence that public health is firmly at the heart of planning decisions, while allowing for the building of infrastructure, with the necessary mineral extractions that entails.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered planning policy for quarries.
No Recourse to Public Funds: Homelessness
(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
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered No Recourse to Public Funds and homelessness.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I point hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for the help I receive from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project for the work I do in this area. I am also the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on migration.
This is the second debate I have secured this year on no recourse to public funds. It is also the second time I do so with a profound concern that our stated ambitions of prosperity over poverty, and reducing homelessness and child poverty, are being actively undermined by immigration policies that are designed to do the very opposite.
This debate could not be more timely. Just days ago, the Government published their homelessness strategy. While I welcome the strategy—there are a number of measures contained within it—it is disappointing that it stops short of introducing meaningful action to tackle homelessness among one of the most vulnerable groups, which is migrants affected by the no recourse to public funds condition. As was highlighted in my previous debate, that group includes many children.
Our understanding of homelessness remains partial and fragmented. Official data routinely fails to capture hidden homelessness, which is especially prevalent in migrant communities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady—I spoke to her beforehand. It has been brought to my attention in this last period of time that there is a proportion of people in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland who are survivors of trafficking. They were brought to the UK with unresolved status and they therefore struggle to access public funds for secure accommodation. Does the hon. Lady agree that those who are here illegally, but not because of their own choices, should be able to access the necessary support to help them gain safe and secure accommodation while they figure out how to get out of the mess they are in?
Olivia Blake
That is a very timely intervention, as we consider our aims to reduce violence against women and girls. As we know, many women are trafficked and suffer sexual abuse and sexual violence as a result. I absolutely agree: the least we could do is make sure they have a safe roof over their heads when they come forward for help and assistance. The hon. Member highlights an important point.
The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has repeatedly highlighted the urgent need for robust data on migrant homelessness and no recourse to public funds. Will the Home Office commit to collecting better data on the number of people subject to no recourse to public funds who are at risk of, or are currently experiencing, homelessness?
Even in the absence of comprehensive figures, every available indicator points to a growing crisis. Around 4.5 million migrants in the UK are subject to no recourse to public funds, which means no access to universal credit, child benefit, personal independence payments if they are disabled, or social housing. The latest rough sleeping figures underline the scale of the problem. On a single autumn night this year, 27% of those sleeping rough in the UK were non-British citizens. That is the highest proportion recorded since 2017. This is clearly a growing problem.
Migrants face the same pressures that could push anyone into homelessness, which is something we are all at risk of, including low wages, a shortage of affordable housing, the lack of support for mental health needs or substance abuse, but these challenges are compounded by the additional barriers imposed by the immigration system. These include prolonged settlement routes, high visa fees, the immigration health surcharge, lack of rights to homelessness assistance, the local housing allowance and discrimination from private landlords due to the right to rent.
As a result of being routinely locked out of social housing and housing-related benefits, people with no recourse to public funds are often forced to rely on overcrowded, unstable and often unsafe accommodation. When those arrangements break down, as they often do, people may be unable to access the last resort safety nets that exist to prevent homelessness. People with no recourse to public funds are therefore far more likely to fall into rough sleeping, not because services do not exist, but because their immigration status prevents them from being able to use them.
Once someone with no recourse to public funds becomes homeless, the reality they face is bleak. I have many examples, but most homelessness accommodation services have little or no provision for people excluded from the social security system. With services under immense pressure, more and more people are being forced to compete for fewer and fewer bed spaces. Too often, that leaves people relying on short-term emergency help from charities and faith groups that are already stretched beyond their limits.
Nowhere are the consequences of no recourse to public funds more stark than for survivors of domestic abuse. Many migrant survivors have their documents, finances and movements tightly controlled by a perpetrator through coercion and abuse. Those survivors are among the most vulnerable, yet they may be barred from welfare and housing support because of no recourse to public funds, leaving them unable to access safe accommodation, including refuges. Women’s Aid has found that over a quarter of women refused refuge spaces in the UK had no recourse to public funds, with many being forced to sleep rough, sofa surf or even return into the hands of their abuser. I know that some people can submit a change of conditions application to have the no recourse to public funds condition lifted, but the application process is complex and often requires legal advice to navigate and complete successfully. That advice is also in desperately short supply.
In South Yorkshire alone, two out of the five legal aid firms have stopped delivering legal aid and immigration services entirely, and there was a gap between provision and need of nearly 9,000 cases in 2023 and 2024 across Yorkshire. Research has found that 90% of people surveyed who attempted to have their no recourse to public funds status changed unassisted were unsuccessful. Yet when professional advice was sought and provided, 95% were subsequently successful.
Successive Governments have justified no recourse to public funds as a way to save money for the taxpayer and to ensure that migrants earn their settlement. The reality is very different for local authorities. Their statutory duties to support families with a child in need or adults with care needs means that councils end up supporting thousands of migrant households experiencing destitution and homelessness each year. Research from COMPAS, the Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, estimates that if all local authorities recorded data consistently, the annual cost of supporting no recourse to public funds households would be around £102 million each year. In 2023 to 2024, Sheffield city council spent at least £1.2 million supporting people with no recourse to public funds.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. She is right that it is not cost free to do this. London councils spend tens of millions of pounds supporting families through emergency accommodation. Does she agree with the Select Committee on Work and Pensions report in the last Parliament, which suggested exempting parents with dependent children from no recourse to public funds?
Olivia Blake
Yes, I think that that is a very valuable solution. It is one that we discussed in the last debate we had on children. This is an issue that affects children profoundly; therefore, councils have to pick up that cost, so the Work and Pensions Committee makes a very valid point.
I am glad that the commitments in the homelessness strategy provide £3.5 billion to homelessness services and welcome the renewed emphasis on prevention. However, despite those positive steps, the strategy falls short in its response to homelessness driven by the immigration system. It fails to grapple with the impact of restrictions on access to public funds and ignores the damaging consequences of the 28-day move-on period for refugees, which is another pinch point where people find themselves falling into homelessness.
I am glad that the Home Office is included as one of the key Departments responsible for delivering on the cross-Government strategy. However, it is disappointing that the Home Office is not held to the same standards as other Departments, which have been given clear measurable targets to end the discharge of people from institutions into homelessness. The strategy mentions a pilot in four council areas for people with restricted or unknown eligibility to public funds. I would welcome clarity from the Minister on that initiative and how local authorities are expected to use funding to support such migrants.
However, it is not clear how local authorities should use funding allocations to prevent and reduce homelessness among migrants at the moment. Existing successful schemes such as immigration advice services for people who are rough sleeping, including the Sub-regional Immigration Advice Service in London, the Restricted Eligibility Support Service in Manchester and the Home Office homelessness team and escalation team should be maintained, extended and replicated if we are to meet the challenge we face.
In the immigration White Paper the Government claim they want to halve long-term rough sleeping and tackle homelessness, but the policy outlined in the paper will inevitably prolong the risk for migrant communities for decades, extending qualifying periods to settlement to 10, 15 and 20 years. Prolonging the time without access to public funds will inevitably inflict penalties for those who do not receive benefits, which will exacerbate homelessness among migrants and create longer periods for which homelessness will become a concern and an issue for individuals.
Examples highlighted by Praxis are a stark reminder of the profound consequences of the policy. A child brought here at 14 on a visitor visa could face waiting until middle age for settlement. A mother who lawfully accessed universal credit after losing her job could be forced on to a 20-year path, and someone who lost their immigration status following a mental health crisis, already street homeless for two decades, could now confront an additional 30 years of uncertainty. Applying the proposals retrospectively would be a profound injustice for the hundreds of thousands of migrants and their British families who have already invested years of their lives, built communities and contributed financially to this country. I remind the Minister that anyone can fall victim to homelessness. We are each of us in a precarious state in the UK. We can pretend that some of us are isolated from it, but certain communities are exceedingly vulnerable to it, including migrant communities.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. The points she makes are extremely accurate and relevant. She talks about the ease with which people can fall into homelessness. It is incredibly sad that at this time of year my inbox is seeing an explosion in homelessness cases, including hidden homelessness and people living in cars, some still in work. No recourse to public funds is especially painful in rural areas, where there might be limited additional support of the type she talks about from charities and a shortage of emergency accommodation. Does she think that the recommendations she has made to the Government and what the Government need to look at should also focus on the peculiarities of rural areas and the difficulty of providing services there?
Olivia Blake
Yes, it is more challenging to provide support in rural areas, but there is also huge pressure on cities as well. As I mentioned earlier, the financial burden that falls on councils as a result of the policy is huge. Wherever they are in the UK, I think local authorities would say it is a challenge. That is why this needs to be taken in the round and why we need to look at how we tackle individual support.
I would also like to ask the Minister, in relation to the White Paper, on what basis the Government will be applying rules retrospectively. Will holders of indefinite leave to remain be subject to no recourse to public funds? How will local authorities be supported to manage the resulting poverty and homelessness? Will there be new burdens funding, for example, for local authorities, as they have to pick up the pieces? Does the Minister generally think that the Home Office’s earned settlement model is compatible with the Government’s ambition to halve rough sleeping and get back on track to end homelessness?
In my debate in June, I urged the Government to ensure that immigration policies do not deliberately plunge people into destitution and homelessness. I find myself stood here today repeating that call. Instead, we should be reviewing restrictions on access to public funds. We need clearer guidance on the legal powers and responsibilities of local authorities so that councils know when and how they are expected to accommodate and support migrants with limited eligibility for public funds. Crucially, we need proper funding from the Government so that local authorities can provide minimum standards of safe, suitable accommodation regardless of immigration status. That should move beyond trials and pilots so that every local authority can benefit from it.
We urgently need to create a system that no longer traps people in poverty or pushes them into homelessness. Without that, we fail some of the most marginalised people in our society, increase pressures on public services and deepen the social divisions and instability in our communities that so many of us are so concerned about.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. Let me start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) on securing this debate on a topic that I know is of considerable interest to her, and indeed to other Members. I am grateful to her and to all who have contributed to what has been a wide-ranging and interesting discussion, and I look forward to meeting her in the new year to discuss this further.
I will come on to some of the issues and questions that have been raised, but it may be helpful if I set out the positions in broad terms first. As Members are aware, the no recourse to public funds policy is a long-standing one. In essence, it seeks to ensure that those coming to the UK are able to support themselves and their families while in the country, thus avoiding unexpected pressures on the welfare system. When applying for permission to enter or stay in the UK, most migrants must demonstrate that they can financially support themselves and their dependants. On that basis, a no recourse to public funds condition is attached to their permission to stay or enter. That means that most temporary migrants will not have access to benefits that are classed as public funds. Those in the UK without an immigration status who require one are also subject to the NRPF condition.
There are certain specific exemptions to the NRPF condition. Certain benefits, such as those based on national insurance contributions, may still be assessed. A number of safeguards are in place to protect more vulnerable migrants. Those here under the family or private life routes, the “appendix child relative” or the Hong Kong British national route have the option to apply for a change of conditions to have their NRPF condition lifted for free if they are destitute or at risk of imminent destitution, if there are reasons relating to the welfare of a relevant child or they are facing exceptional circumstances affecting their income or expenditure. If there are particularly compelling circumstances, discretion can be used to lift the NRPF condition on other immigration routes.
I will turn to the issue of homelessness, a central theme of this debate. This Government inherited a homelessness crisis. Both rough sleeping and households in temporary accommodation have more than doubled since 2010. There is no single or simple solution, but our cross-Government strategy, published just last week, sets out a long-term vision to end homelessness for good.
The national plan to end homelessness has three key pledges to be achieved by the end of this Parliament: to halve the number of long-term rough sleepers, to end the unlawful use of B&Bs for families and to prevent more households from becoming homeless in the first place. The strategy is backed by ambitious goals to deliver lasting change. That includes a duty on public services to work together to prevent homelessness, a boost to the supply of good-quality temporary homes and £3.5 billion—a £1 billion funding boost over and above previous commitments—to combat rough sleeping and support services.
Furthermore, the Home Office has made a strategy commitment to ensure that all local authorities receive information from asylum accommodation providers for 100% of newly granted refugees at risk of homelessness. That will enable local authorities to commence a homelessness assessment, which will be received within two days of an asylum discontinuation and within 14 days of family reunion visa issuance.
I will outline the safeguards specifically in place for rough sleepers with NRPF. The Home Office provides a dedicated homelessness escalation service, which helps local authorities and service providers swiftly clarify and resolve the immigration status of individuals if they are rough sleeping or at risk of doing so. I will also highlight an ongoing piece of work directly relevant to the issue. As we know, the Home Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are running a pilot in four council areas. It focuses on access to immigration advice and short-term accommodation, and provides a named point of contact in the Home Office for rough sleepers. Its aim is to provide more support to councils so that they can better help people sleeping rough with restricted or unknown eligibility to public funds. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam says about moving beyond the pilot, and we look forward to the results to see whether we can move it forward. We will consider its evaluation, which we expect to receive next year, to understand whether the approach is working.
For some people, returning to their home country can be the most viable route out of homelessness. To that end, the voluntary returns service will work in partnership with trusted and willing civil society organisations, establishing a clear and accessible process to identify and assist individuals who would benefit from being supported to return to their country of origin. The Government encourage councils and partners to explore all lawful options to help those who cannot access statutory homelessness assistance due to their immigration status. Our shared aim is to work together to identify pathways off the street for everyone, including individuals with a no recourse to public funds condition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam raised the issue of data. We will continue to explore what further information on NRPF can be produced. At this time, we are unable to provide a specific timeframe for data publication or confirm what will be published. Additionally, the Home Office has committed to working with the Department for Work and Pensions to develop questions on no recourse to public funds for inclusion in the 2026-27 family resources survey, which is a household survey undertaken annually to explore living standards in the UK. The Home Office continues to develop the underlying dataset used for its publications so that it can show where NRPF has been applied to leave to remain applicants.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam raised the issue of safeguarding. It is important that safeguards are in place to protect the most vulnerable. A change of conditions application provides that safeguard for temporary migrants, but I hear what my hon. Friend says about access to legal aid in South Yorkshire, and I would like to cover that in more detail when we meet in the new year. There is an option to apply if someone is destitute or at imminent risk of destitution, if there are reasons relating to a child’s welfare that outweigh the considerations for imposing the condition, or if they face exceptional circumstances affecting income or expenditure. On applying the rules retrospectively, we are going through a consultation period in which transitional arrangements are still under consideration. Any representations on that issue are encouraged; the consultation ends early next year, when there will be more detailed guidelines.
To conclude, the NRPF policy is and will continue to be a means by which we operate a managed but fair immigration system.
Olivia Blake
I wonder if the Minister wants to make particular comment about violence against women and girls and the impact of the NRPF condition.
Mike Tapp
That quite rightly falls under any additional safeguarding issues and circumstances that apply to migrants, which can and will be taken into consideration. As I have set out, the Government are committed to driving down rough sleeping across the board. Our cross-Government strategy will help to deliver on that. Ours is a compassionate and generous society, as has come through in the contributions that we have heard in this debate. One of the tasks of governing is to ask ourselves constantly whether our systems and processes strike the right balance of firmness and fairness. On this issue, we believe that they do, but that does not make the discussion today any less worthwhile. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam for securing the debate and thank all who have participated.
Question put and agreed to.
Grassroots Cricket Clubs
(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
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for grassroots cricket clubs.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. There is something quintessentially English about amateur cricket: the thud of the bat on ball, the awkward silence after a catch goes down—I know, I have been there—and the beer mats hanging out of trouser pockets, as players hope to dry the ball on another soggy May afternoon. Mostly importantly, this summer 2.5 million of us played the game, which is a force for good in so many ways.
I want to reflect on why grassroots cricket is so important to our communities and needs to be nurtured and invested in, and to ask the Minister how the Government can work with clubs, schools and the game’s governing body, to ensure that our great game thrives and is open to all. Cricket has always been a big part of my life. I am wearing the tie of Bishop’s Stortford cricket club, where I first rocked up as a six-year-old. I have played for a few clubs in my time. The excellent Play-Cricket website, used by clubs across the country, records that I have batted 193 times and scored 3,854 runs in club cricket. This is a 90-minute debate, so we have plenty of time—[Interruption.] No, don’t worry, Mr Turner. I was sorely tempted but, as I intend to stay in your good books, I will resist the temptation to talk any more about my career.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It was a great privilege to serve under the captaincy of the hon. Member this summer for the Lords and Commons cricket team, in our valiant defeat against Marylebone cricket club. I note that, despite that valiant defeat, neither I nor he has received a call-up from Brendon McCullum or Ben Stokes in Adelaide. My constituency is home to some wonderful clubs: Epping, Theydon Bois, Loughton, Buckhurst Hill, Roding Valley and High Beach. Such clubs are the beating heart of our communities. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government should do all they can to support those fantastic institutions, which offer so many opportunities to people young and old?
Karl Turner (in the Chair)
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I remind Members that interventions are meant to be very short.
Andrew Lewin
Of course, Mr Turner, but I hope we can make an exception for a teammate. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I have played at some of the clubs that do so much for his community. I know that that is true of many hon. Members who will take part in the debate. As for future call-ups, there are still three test matches to go.
I want to thank Welwyn Garden City cricket club in my constituency. This August, I played a small part in helping to organise a tournament to raise money for two brain tumour charities. The driving force behind the day was Connor Emerton, the club captain, whose brother Shay was diagnosed with a brain tumour aged just 24. Shay and Connor both played on the day, and £10,000 was raised for brain tumour charities. That epitomised the best of a grassroots cricket club: a community coming together, enjoying an English summer’s day and raising money for an exceptionally important cause.
Grassroots cricket is in good shape: 2.5 million played the game in some form last year, and 216,000 fixtures were recorded across England and Wales, which is the first time the amateur game has surpassed the 200,000 mark in a single calendar year.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. The Co-operative party, which I chair in Parliament, believes that community ownership and local control really matter. Does he agree that stronger protections for grassroots cricket organisations such as Harborne cricket club in my constituency, and greater support for communities to safeguard and run their own facilities, are essential if we are serious about community support?
Andrew Lewin
I strongly agree, and will talk a little more about the protections we can offer clubs and what more we can do to build and establish clubs of the future.
Cricket clubs set a new record for participation in the England and Wales Cricket Board’s All Stars and Dynamos youth programmes this year, with more than 105,000 children signing up, including a record number of girls taking up the game. Just short of 3,000 girls’ teams played fixtures this summer—another double-digit percentage increase on the previous year.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The hon. Member makes a good point about the growing diversity in cricket. My constituency is home to Challow and Childrey cricket club, as well as to Didcot cricket club, at which there is a junior division, one of Oxfordshire’s largest disability cricket associations, and a women and girls division. Didcot cricket club is also very diverse. Does he agree that cricket, and sport in general, can bring communities closer together and therefore need more central Government support?
Andrew Lewin
I could not agree more on the power of cricket in bringing communities together. I am pleased to hear that the hon. Member has such a thriving club in his community.
As in all good teams, complacency is not an option. We are in a good place, but when we reflect on grassroots participation in our game, and who has access to it, we must question whether facilities are always truly open to all. Many of the best cricket facilities in the country are located at private schools—that is not a new phenomenon. There are good examples of such facilities being opened up and shared with a much wider community. King Edward’s school, Birmingham has been highlighted to me as an exemplar. It has a decades-long relationship with Warwickshire county cricket club, and makes its pitches and indoor facilities available all year round. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. I would be grateful if the Minister said a little about what her Department is doing to build on examples of best practice, and to encourage more private schools to open their facilities to the whole community.
High-quality pitches and outfields will always be core to our game—they are an essential tenet of it—but our sport is evolving fast. I was delighted by our Government’s commitment to the first two cricket domes in Luton and Lancashire earlier this year. The domes will provide a unique opportunity for the game to be played all year round. I would value hearing more from the Minister on the Government’s plans to accelerate and expand the roll-out of these domes.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes an important point about indoor cricket, which is particularly vital in Cumbria because our weather requires slightly more cover-ups than cover drives. I recently learned that, through the Super 1s programme, Cumbria Cricket is now offering table cricket to young disabled people in a number of schools such as James Rennie school and Richard Rose central academy in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Lord’s Taverners funding that makes that possible is absolutely vital to ensuring that the game of cricket is inclusive at a grassroots level?
Andrew Lewin
I agree. My hon. Friend’s constituency has a proud cricketing history. I know a little bit about the work of the Lord’s Taverners; it is an inspiring organisation that helps young people with disabilities and additional needs to thrive and enjoy our great game.
In respect of domes, it is so important that we keep an eye on urban centres in particular, where there is so much passion for our game but far fewer opportunities to take part.
We also need to plan today for the facilities of tomorrow. I support the Government’s planning reforms and believe that we need a collective focus on building homes and communities that stand the test of time. Sports facilities, cricket pavilions and pitches are part of what distinguishes a community from a simple housing development. Sports England has been a statutory consultee in the planning process since 1997. In the 18 years prior to Sports England being given that status, 10,000 sports pitches were sold off. Since 1997, that number has fallen to fewer than 600.
We need a planning system that values sporting facilities—not simply to preserve them, but to recognise that our most successful places often have a sports club at their core. As the NHS rightly shifts its focus from sickness to prevention, the public health benefits of getting this right today will be felt for decades to come. I appreciate that much of the decision-making power here lies in the remit of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but I would be grateful if the Minister said a little about the representations that she is making to ensure that protecting existing sports facilities and building them for the future is part of live conversations about planning reform.
The biggest and best change to happen in cricket since I was playing as a kid is not Bazball—sorry, Brendon—but the growth of the game for girls, women and people with disabilities. I have also had the privilege of visiting a Super 1s cricket programme at Chancellor’s school in Brookmans Park in my constituency. It was one of my most uplifting days in this job—I saw young people with disabilities and additional needs come together in the simple joy of playing a game of cricket. Hatfield Hyde cricket club in my constituency is another leading club in Hertfordshire for disability cricket, and my visit for next season is already booked in.
The growth of the women’s game has the potential to reach new heights next year as we host the women’s T20 world cup. I hear that ticket sales are going well—I can say with certainty that they will be drastically more affordable than tickets for a certain event happening at the same time in the US. May I invite the Minister to tell us what plans she has to capitalise on England’s hosting of the world cup next summer, so that it lives long in the memory, not just as a tournament but as a catalyst for further growth of our game?
Grassroots cricket is in good health. The top order has built a good foundation, and there is much to be optimistic about, but in cricket parlance we need only add two wickets to the scorecard for things to start looking a bit more vulnerable. Now is not the time for overconfidence or any rash shots outside off-stump—and that is as true for our long-term stewardship of the game here as it is for England in Adelaide over the next five days. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how she plans to play it from here to ensure that grassroots cricket keeps growing, is open to all, and can be a success story in constituencies all across the country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Karl Turner (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members to bob should they wish to catch my eye to speak in this debate.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for securing this important debate, despite what may be happening down under at the moment.
Grassroots cricket plays a fundamental role in shaping us as individuals. Although such cricket clubs clearly help to keep us fit and healthy, their influence extends far beyond physical activity. They are often where we first learn what it means to be part of a team, and how to respond to frequent setbacks, stay motivated and take responsibility, both individually and collectively. I am sure that many Members present, as well as those of our constituents who are watching from home, will reflect on their own experiences of grassroots sport, whether in childhood or in later life, and recognise how profoundly those moments have stayed with them.
Lessons learned on the pitch or in the clubhouse so often translate directly into later life, such as working with others towards a shared goal, striving to meet clear objectives, and developing the discipline required to train early in the morning or late into the evening, just as we do in our professional lives. Grassroots sport therefore contributes significantly to quality of life for individuals and families, building not only physical health but resilient, confident characters.
I am very proud to have seven grassroots cricket clubs in my Surrey Heath constituency—Camberley, Frimley, Valley End, Bagshot, Chobham, Pirbright and Normandy —each of which plays a vital role in shaping lives and strengthening our community. These clubs support both children and adults, providing opportunities that promote physical and mental wellbeing. Indeed, my wife and son have both played for Camberley cricket club over recent seasons, so I have seen at first hand the positive impact that it has had on our whole family—I only wish that my diary as a Member of Parliament allowed for more time to watch my son play on sunny weekend afternoons.
More broadly, those clubs have had a profound impact on the people they serve, particularly women and girls. Although girls are of course encouraged to participate in sport, there remain far too many barriers to their continued involvement, especially as they reach adolescence. Factors associated with puberty, including changes in body confidence, concerns around kit and facilities, and a lack of appropriate female role models or coaching provision can all contribute to girls disengaging from sport at a critical stage in their development.
That is why access to welcoming, inclusive grassroots environments is so important. Outreach initiatives such as the ECB’s All Stars cricket programme play a vital role in encouraging girls and boys to start playing cricket early, build confidence and foster a sense of belonging before the effect of those barriers takes hold. Just as importantly, clubs that actively invest in girls’ pathways through dedicated coaching, suitable facilities and clear progression routes can help to ensure that participation does not fall away as girls grow older.
This summer, I had the great privilege of visiting Pirbright cricket club to observe a training session involving girls and boys. Seeing girls confidently taking part in a summer training session, supported by coaches who understood their needs and fostered an inclusive culture, was a genuinely fantastic sight. It is so important to have environments just like that, where girls feel visible, and are supported and valued.
However, it is also important to recognise the challenges that grassroots cricket clubs face. While my constituents are fortunate to benefit from seven clubs in the constituency, each with strong outreach and summer programmes, growing participation in cricket is limited in part by the availability of high-quality cricket grounds.
A cricket pitch is a highly specialised and bespoke facility, and unlike football or rugby pitches, it does not easily lend itself to multi-purpose use. As a result, cricket facilities are too often overlooked in the planning of new developments and communities. That is why it is so welcome to see an exception at the new Mindenhurst development in my Surrey constituency, where a brand-new cricket pitch and pavilion are being created right now. Indeed, we are looking forward to the first summer of cricket on that ground in just a few months’ time. I truly hope that that example will be replicated across the country, ensuring that future communities have access to the facilities that they need in order to support and expand grassroots cricket for generations to come.
With that in mind, I ask the Government: what investment and incentives are being put into grassroots sport infrastructure, particularly given the changes to the national planning policy framework and the overwriting of so many of the protections that are currently in the planning process? What steps will be taken to ensure that facilities such as cricket pitches are properly considered and provided for as part of future planning?
Finally, I pay tribute to the volunteers, club coaches, PE teachers, participants and parents—and the parents who are also participants and volunteers—who dedicate their time, week after week, to supporting grassroots sport. Their commitment is the foundation on which those clubs that I have mentioned rely. I wish the best of luck to all the budding cricketers who are honing their skills in winter nets over the coming months, in readiness for next summer—some of whom may go on, one day, to represent their county or even their country.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for securing this important debate. Grassroots sport offers so much to so many across my constituency. Whether it is personal fitness, social interaction or a chance to emulate a sporting icon, the importance of our local clubs and teams should not be underestimated. People in Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes do not just “like cricket”; they “love it”. We are proudly home to two major clubs—Cleethorpes cricket club and Grimsby Town cricket club—both successful teams and pillars in their communities, offering achievements on and off the field.
For all that passion and commitment, grassroots cricket is fragile. It relies on volunteers, fundraisers and facilities that are often one extreme weather event away from crisis. That is exactly what Grimsby Town cricket club has faced this year. It has been flooded three times in 2025 alone, most recently—fortunately—just days after a very successful charity day. It has not only affected the pitch but disrupted junior coaching, women’s cricket, training sessions and matches. It has hit a club that gives young people structure, confidence and aspiration, and that brings communities together, week after week.
What makes it even more frustrating for those involved is the lack of clarity about responsibility and accountability —getting clear answers from Anglian Water has been painfully slow, and small, volunteer-led clubs simply do not have the resources to battle large utilities on their own. While I am very happy to lend my support and the weight of my office, it highlights exactly why Government support matters—not just through funding streams for grassroots sport, important though they are, but through backing local clubs when they are seeking answers from water companies and regulators.
Clubs such as Grimsby should not be left feeling stumped when looking for answers, so what assurances can the Minister offer to grassroots cricket clubs so that they do not stand alone when batting for the survival of their club? I hope that this debate underlines why protecting grassroots sport must mean protecting the places that it is played in and the communities that keep it alive.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for setting the scene so well.
I have to say, I was never much good at cricket, to be truthful, but I loved it. I was one of those guys who went to the crease and would bat about three or four balls. Usually, my idea was just to hit the ball as hard as I could, and if I missed it, the wicket was away. My prowess at the cricket crease never lasted more than about four balls. But I never got a duck; I always got at least a four, a two and maybe a one, but that was as far as it went. However, cricket is one of the many sports that I enjoy watching. I still follow the Leicestershire cricket team; I do that because I followed the Leicester football team back in 1969, when I was at boarding school at Coleraine Inst.
When the Ashes come, everyone’s national pride rises. As my old mother always taught me, I always support the home nations, so I root alongside most of the hon. Members in this Chamber, whether it be for England, Scotland, Wales or indeed us back home. However, the benefit of cricket is not simply giving the Aussies what for once in a while—and I have to say, it is once in a while these days. The benefits are felt in communities throughout the United Kingdom.
I want to talk about those grassroots, as that is in the title of the debate. The benefits are felt everywhere. Grassroots cricket in Northern Ireland thrives through clubs under the Northern Cricket Union, offering youth and adult programmes across Northern Ireland. I am very proud to say that a number of the popular clubs lie within my constituency. There is absolutely no doubt that everybody else here is going to talk about their cricket clubs as well—and why shouldn’t they? We want to promote them. We have Ards cricket club, Bangor cricket club and North Down cricket club, which is in Comber and is probably one of the better ones out of the three. These cricket teams provide coaching, matches and community for all ages and genders, as seen with the initiatives from Cricket Ireland. I read a synopsis on cricket, which sums up the benefits to the local community as follows:
“Grassroots cricket clubs in Northern Ireland are vital community assets, fostering social cohesion, physical health, and personal development by providing inclusive, accessible sporting opportunities for all ages and abilities, building local pride, offering guidance, and creating spaces that bridge divides, supported by funding from Sport NI and local councils to improve facilities and coaching.”
All of those things are admirable.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Member agree that the work of fantastic charities such as Derbyshire Cricket Foundation is essential to nurturing the game from the ground up and ensuring that people from all walks of life can enjoy it?
Jim Shannon
I certainly do. The hon. Gentleman is certainly right to highlight the issue of Derbyshire, as I and the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) will do shortly; we will also highlight the attributes and the plusses of Leicestershire cricket team as well.
I love the fact that sport draws people together, as the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) referred to in his intervention. With the increase in adverse mental health in Northern Ireland, particularly in young men, we must promote and support these clubs, now more than ever, to help them get people involved and part of something worthwhile—something positive for them, that they can grasp and be part of—and hopefully take away the concerns, anxiety and even depression, sometimes, that they may have.
Only last month, the Communities Minister in Northern Ireland was at Lisburn cricket club to announce that its application has been approved for the next stage in the Olympic Legacy Fund. That fund is designed to build on those breathtaking Northern Ireland Olympic successes —and boy have we had a brave few in the last few years —and ensure a lasting legacy for local sport. It just so happens that the Communities Minister is one of my colleagues in Northern Ireland; I understand the good work that he does.
That funding will help sports clubs grow stronger, enable facilities to be modernised, and help communities come together through sport. I believe that it will secure many benefits for the local community. Indeed, part of that funding awarded by the Minister for Communities is reliant on the club also crowdfunding a contribution towards the total investment, so the money comes, but the club has to match it. That will mean community fundraising events, which will inevitably draw more people into involvement in the club.
It is clear that we must invest in the grassroots clubs that deliver so much in return. I look to the Minister—where it is within her remit—to ensure that clubs throughout the United Kingdom have access to funding to create fit-for-purpose clubs and facilities. This is not just simply about funding, but about an investment in health and mental wellbeing, and in communities. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on what can be done to help those volunteer clubs that really are a lifeline in so many rural communities.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for securing this debate. It gives me a chance to wax on about surely the greatest cricket league in the country—the historic Lancashire league, of which my constituency of Rossendale and Darwen has been at the heart throughout. Three of the founding 14 members—Haslingden, Rawtenstall and Bacup—were there right from the start.
Haslingden is just outside of my constituency, unfortunately. It was the first club, formed in 1853. Rawtenstall and Bacup have proud histories. Bacup has been at Lanehead Lane since 1860—160 years at the same cricket ground—and I think it is England’s highest sporting ground. Clearly, weather plays a factor. Rawtenstall has been at Bacup Road since 1886.
These clubs are steeped in history. Perhaps their greatest moment, which epitomises the nature of Rawtenstall and Bacup’s rivalry, was the championship title game of 1922. Both teams were tied at the top of the league and had to play a play-off in Haslingden in front of 5,000 spectators. They got as far as the fourth innings and fell out over the playing conditions. For the next five days, the teams turned up on alternate days, until the match was finally abandoned and they shared the title. That rivalry continues to this day.
One of the great factors of the Lancashire league is the international professionals that we welcome. There are too many to list. Rawtenstall had Sydney Barnes for three years—one of the true greats. Bacup had Everton Weekes, at the height of his powers. In the year he was named Wisden Cricketer of the Year, he was playing at Bacup. It is absolutely remarkable. When I moved to Bacup back in the 2000s, I was stunned to find that Chris Cairns was the professional. He was a great New Zealand all-rounder. These places have deep histories.
Dr Hudson
The hon. Member is talking about sporting and cricketing heroes. Kids need to be able to look up to those role models and heroes. There is no doubt that broadcasting deals have ploughed money into grassroots cricket. Does he agree that the ECB should look at enabling more access to international cricket on terrestrial TV, so that children watching the Ashes or the England-India series can see these heroes and aspire to be like them?
Andy MacNae
I remember that great series of 2005 where we all saw the Ashes on Channel 4 playing out with great drama. It was amazing. There is no doubt that access to those moments on terrestrial TV is massively important.
Through the all-party parliamentary group for cricket, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield has been convening many meetings around this issue, with broadcasters. There are subtleties to it, but the fundamental is that people need to be able to see their heroes. That is one of the great things about the Lancashire league. People could go down and see Viv Richards or Everton Weekes playing. Past generations have stories about seeing these players in the flesh—it was massively inspiring. Modern formats like the Hundred play a real role here. The number of kids in the audiences there is really inspiring.
Darwen are relative newcomers to the Lancashire league, only joining in 2017, but were champions in 2022. The club has gone from strength to strength in recent years, under the brilliant leadership of chair Chris Lowe. It has drawn in money through partnerships with Blackburn with Darwen council, the Aldridge trust and the ECB. It has invested in a brilliant new club house and, more recently, a cricket dome, one of only two currently in the country, and a brilliant indoor facility for kids. I was involved in opening it recently. It is a truly inspiring sight and it is so important that we have these year-round facilities in places like Lancashire, because kids want to play all year.
That is one of the great risks in our patch: we have these wonderful summer programmes—All Stars and Dynamos—and yet the spark can be so easily lost during the winter. Innovations like cricket domes are brilliant value for money. The Darwen club has already established a partnership with 13 local schools, which gives them a conduit into the game all year round. These are clubs with all sorts of different histories, but what they have in common is brilliant youth programmes engaging kids and great community facilities. At Bacup, where my son was involved in the All Stars, we have brilliant, inspiring trainers—Terry, Lawrence, Ben and Sam. On a Sunday morning in the summer, the sight of all the groups across the pitch is wonderful and inspiring. Indeed, the sausage sandwiches in the clubhouse afterwards are equally inspiring in their own way.
As I said, all these clubs have great facilities, which have become the heart of their communities. The first birthday party I went to at my kid’s school was in the cricket clubhouse. We have our town board meetings in Darwen clubhouse. We have so many major, vital community events in these community sports facilities; they are so important to us.
The other thing these clubs have in common is that they could do so much more for our communities, which brings us to the funding question. Some great stuff has been done with grassroots funding over the years, but, as all colleagues have said, it has a fragile status. I think we all recognise that there is perhaps a disconnect between the investment we put into sport and the great value of sport across society in terms of health, wellbeing and economic outcomes. One question I am sure the Minister will want to reflect on is the extent to which our investment matches the huge benefits that sport can bring to our communities.
In that regard, I associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield about Sport England and its role as a statutory consultee. To get the benefits, we have to have the facilities retained in our communities. We have to protect them, and Sport England plays a vital role there. I cannot remember the exact stat, but it only objected to something like 3%—a tiny number—of the applications that it was consulted on. It is not a barrier, but it brings much value and vital expertise into the mix.
I will finish with one final reflection on funding, from the point of view of someone who lives in a small town and whose cricket clubs are in small towns. The role of sports clubs in small towns and villages is disproportionate to that of those in big towns and cities. They are vital, so I ask the Minister to consider how our funding approaches and prioritisation might reflect the value that those clubs—not just cricket clubs, but football clubs, rugby clubs and so on—have to our small towns. They are the heart of our communities and we must retain them.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for securing the debate.
Cricket is our heritage. It has probably been played since the mid-1500s and was formalised in the late 1700s. The sport likely originated with shepherd children using shepherd’s crooks as bats and rags or wool as a ball. It is a legacy of the empire and is enjoyed globally. Cricket is also a major business, generating billions in revenue when done right, mainly from the Indian premier league. But fundamentally, for many, cricket is more than a sport; it is a passion. As the hon. Member alluded to, nothing says England more than a green with players in white and the sound of leather hitting willow. In the summer I am blessed, because there are so many cricket clubs in my constituency that barely a weekend goes by when I am not invited to a tournament to hand out a trophy. I would like to mention SASA cricket club, just because it provides really great food and hundreds of people of all ages come—it is fantastic to see.
In April 2024, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), made a pledge to invest £35 million in grassroots cricket. It was much needed, given that 80 school cricket pitches had been lost over the decade since the Conservatives came to power in 2010, and 150 publicly accessible cricket pitches had also been lost. This is part of a larger erasure of grassroots sporting facilities, including 2,488 school grass pitches. I know it is a different sport altogether, but 677 publicly accessible tennis courts were also lost. Unfortunately, in October 2024 the present Government reversed that promise, citing the financial black hole and saying that the pledge belonged in fantasy land.
Simply, we need more cricket facilities, ranging from dedicated facilities with well-manicured lawns, changing rooms and scoreboards, to the strip of synthetic turf that is all some people need. All such facilities are unfortunately in short supply in my city and my constituency. That is a shame, as the city of Leicester is cricket mad.
The issue is that countless grassroots teams are competing with minimal resources. Teams that play just for fun come to play on one solitary turf—the only one available for miles around. If one team cannot play, hostilities sometimes arise, and then, if the teams are from different ethnicities, races or religions, an issue of resource constraints suddenly escalates into something much bigger. Sacco, the largest cricket club representing south Asian players in Leicester, unfortunately has no home to play in at the moment and may have to face extinction, while the wonderful SASA team that I described earlier just needs a piece of turf and would be delighted with a small changing room. Small investments now will sustain these clubs and save us millions in terms of community cohesion and other issues in the future, while delivering the benefits that we all know only sports can deliver.
I also want to speak briefly about women’s cricket. It is expanding but, again, a lack of infrastructure, volunteers, coaches and ground shares could put a halt to that. What are the Minister’s plans for the growth of women’s cricket in this country?
My final points are on a slightly darker subject: the lessons learned from the horrendous racism and discrimination faced by Azeem Rafiq. Many will know the young, talented cricketer who paid the price for his honesty. It ruined his career, but it could have been a lot worse. I spoke with the former Yorkshire county cricketer this morning. It would be fair to say that he is somewhat disappointed that the implementation of the findings of the “State of Equity in Cricket” report, which was instigated after his case, has not matched their intention, but he remains hopeful and so do I.
The report speaks of opening
“access to the talent pathways through reducing financial barriers”.
Cricket is very expensive, and talent is everywhere but opportunities are not. Children from poorer and ethnic backgrounds are literally paying the price. They need support and we need to reverse the trend—I think we are going some way towards doing so—whereby over 30% of recreational cricket is played by south Asian children but only 3% of professional players are south Asian. We have to bridge that gap somehow.
We also need more diverse boards across the county game. It is difficult to obtain information about diversity on our county cricket boards. Women in senior roles are few, so it was wonderful for me to meet the new Leicestershire county cricket club chief executive officer, Emma White, who has strong ideas and plans to bring the club back to the community. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Leicestershire county cricket club—the mighty Foxes—on their promotion to division 1. A “hear, hear” would be nice. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Thank you very much.
However, there is a real lack of representation of black people on cricket boards, and much further to go to ensure that the recreational game has the capacity and expertise to deal with discrimination issues. Disability cricket also requires deeper integration within county and club systems, and more work is needed to develop disability cricket for women and girls. Grassroots cricket is the lifeblood of the future of the game. We must invest in it or, simply, it won’t be cricket.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on securing the debate.
I do not want to start with something controversial, but I will. The hon. Member said that cricket is “quintessentially English,” and I think the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) was surprised, too, to see me and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—two Northern Ireland MPs—in the Chamber to take part in a debate about the values of cricket.
To start with, I do not think that the hon. Member for Leicester South should be surprised at the fact that the hon. Member for Strangford is here, because I do not think there is a debate in this place that he does not attend—he is always at the scene. But cricket has deep, embedded roots and love in our villages and small towns in Northern Ireland, and indeed across the island of Ireland. The owners of the old flax and spinning mills created their own cricket teams around the mills, and many of those teams are still in existence today. That is why I want to take the opportunity to talk specifically about two cricket clubs in my constituency.
The first, Muckamore cricket club—or, to give it its full title, Muckamore cricket and lawn tennis club—was established in 1874 and just celebrated its 150th anniversary. It is still going strong, with its own grounds and a number of teams across all ages. Over the years, it has grown to become one of the premier clubs within the Northern Cricket Union, culminating in its second Challenge cup victory on its 150th anniversary last year.
The club includes all ages and abilities. Its older members still come together to form a walking group that walks around the town of Antrim to keep up social interaction. They still take that opportunity to call into my constituency office to tell me what I should and could be doing and give me their opinions on everything. That shows the strength of the connection through the cricket club that has been built up through the years and generations. The hon. Member for Leicester South talked about the number of tennis courts that have been lost. The lawn tennis club has taken the next step and developed a partnership with a group to build padel courts that can be used in all seasons. That shows its commitment to a healthy lifestyle and keeping people fit and active.
The second club is Templepatrick cricket club, which plays out of the Cloughan in Ballyclare. If anybody knows Northern Ireland, there is a slight confusion because it is named after a different town from the one it plays in. That club formed more recently, in cricket terms—in 1969. Cricket in Northern Ireland is a cross-community sport. It is often not recognised for the work it does in that regard. Templepatrick was recently shortlisted for Cricket Ireland club of the year and has one of the biggest youth systems across the island of Ireland. The club capped a successful 2024 campaign by winning section 1 and securing promotion to the top flight.
This debate is about Government support, which is obviously an issue. The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned the support that exists in the devolved nations, but unfortunately, a number of different clubs and sporting codes in my constituency have been raising with me since I was first elected the issue of support from local government and from Antrim and Newtownabbey council. That is why I conducted a survey earlier this year of all the sporting clubs across the constituency and of teams across different codes, which engendered a significant response. On the back of that, I produced a sports development report for the constituency with the intent of informing a plan to improve provision, boost investment and deliver support for local teams and clubs.
Given the subject of the debate, I want to concentrate on the issues raised by Muckamore and Templepatrick cricket clubs. Those issues have already been mentioned, but they are not unique to England. They include an appeal for indoor areas and nets at council leisure facilities, which could benefit continual practice all year round, especially in cold and adverse weather. The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned Government grants. Although both clubs said that grants were important to maintain safety standards and good facilities, they found that the new process in Northern Ireland of match funding grants can often be restrictive for some clubs. It means going back to the same people time and again to get match funding, whereas previously core grants were made for a specific issue.
The last issue that both clubs mentioned, which was also mentioned by the hon. Members for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) and for Leicester South, is the benefit of increasing and upgrading existing facilities to bring about an increase in the number of women and girls taking part in the sport. There is a wide interest in that. The biggest obstacle for both clubs is setting up changing facilities to make their facilities more accessible.
I commend the other Members who have spoken about the benefits of cricket, both physical and from a mental health point of view. I know that the Minister will respond on the subject of the debate, but I seek assurance that she works with her devolved counterparts to make sure that the benefits of sport, and especially cricket, are fully recognised.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on securing this debate. Cricket is not played much in Germany, so I had to come a long way when I married my cricket-loving husband who spent most of his summer weekends either playing or listening to endless—and I thought monotonous —commentary on the radio, but I quickly brushed up on the meaning of “googly” and “duck”.
In those days, cricket was very much a man’s game, and the woman’s role was to sit and watch. I felt I had become a cricket widow—I had the option to take along my toddlers, who would then invade the pitch as children do, or to wait at home long into the evening until a game was finished. As the years went by, it got better, becoming something my husband did with his sons.
It got a little worse again when, under my husband’s watch, my son knocked out his front tooth—with very little sympathy from his dad, who said, “He knows he has to catch like this and to get his head out of the way,” and very little sympathy for me as a mother, who thought her beautiful son was ruined forever. He has since found love. Of course, I learned to love the game—and what a beautiful game it is.
Grassroots cricket clubs are a vital part of my community in Bath, with some fantastic local initiatives. I will begin by repeating some of the challenges facing grassroots cricket clubs in state schools. The findings of the Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket report are clearly unacceptable.
The report found that children in state schools remain heavily under-represented on the sport’s talent pathways. It described widespread and deep-rooted elitism and class-based discrimination, alongside structural and institutional racism and sexism, as we have already heard. Two of the biggest barriers are the lack of cricket provision in state schools and the high cost of equipment. All of us in this room agree that a child’s opportunity to get involved in sports should never depend on their parents’ income or the type of school they attend.
The England and Wales Cricket Board responded with its state school action plan 2024, which also laid bare the inequalities that exist within the sport. An independent school is eight times more likely to have a proper grass pitch and 10 times more likely to have a qualified coach. Given these facts, it is no wonder that most county and national-level players come from private schools.
I will now come on to the positive part of my speech about the inspirational work of Lansdown cricket club in Bath. Founded in 1825, it is the oldest club in Somerset. I was proud to attend its 200th anniversary this year, where a microphone was put in front of my face and I had to say what is great about cricket. I said, “It covers so many sporting talents: you have to run, you have to catch a ball, you have to bat and you have to”—at that point, I could not think of that special word, so I said, “throw the ball.” Even though I had spent so much time watching and listening to cricket games, I could not think of that important word—bowl.
The anniversary was a wonderful community event, and it showed that cricket clubs provide so much for their communities beyond sport. Lansdown’s partnerships with local state schools have been transformative. Using a cluster model, it has worked with three local primary schools and one secondary school to deliver more than 200 coaching sessions to nearly 5,000 children.
Lansdown’s success shows what can happen when local clubs, schools and sponsors pull together, but it also shows how fragile those projects can be without sustained investment. Bath is blessed with many grassroots clubs, but significant constraints remain, particularly regarding facilities for girls and access to local coaches. That is why Government investment must reach the grassroots directly.
Alongside centralised cricket domes in major cities, funding should flow to proven networks such as Chance to Shine, the Lord’s Taverners and the Somerset Cricket Foundation. Those excellent organisations already know the local landscape and can ensure that funds reach the children who need them most.
Earlier this year, the Government announced a much reduced investment of £1.5 million for only two cricket domes in Luton and Preston, after cancelling the previous £35 million commitment made by the former Prime Minister in April 2024, as we have already heard. That decision was deeply disappointing, and will limit the potential to reach children in underprivileged areas who do not have access to cricket at school.
The case for support is wider than just sport. Through initiatives such as “Freddie Flintoff’s Field of Dreams”, we have seen how structured team sport changes lives. It improves mental health, reduces anxiety, builds self-esteem and creates a sense of belonging for young people who may struggle elsewhere. Cricket can be such a wonderfully inclusive game if we want it to be. It values patience and teamwork—yes, listening to a lot of cricket commentary requires patience too—welcomes a range of body types and personalities, and offers a place for every child to thrive.
Finally, I echo two of the key recommendations from the Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket. First, the Government should make resources available for significantly higher levels of cricket provision in state schools. Secondly, Ministers should work actively with private schools to open up their facilities and gift coaching hours to local state schools. I ask the Minister: what progress has been made on achieving those goals? Clubs such as Lansdown have shown us that, when local partnerships are properly supported, cricket can be a genuine force for community inclusion and opportunity. I hope that Bath’s success can be replicated across the country.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on securing this debate. I am pleased to wind up for the Liberal Democrats. In place of my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), I am acting as our 12th man on this occasion. I am pleased to be the opener for the Front-Bench speeches; I hope to put in a good innings, something of a rarity for English openers at the moment. I must warn hon. Members that my speech takes a Bazball approach to cricketing puns: I am trying to score as many as I can as fast as possible.
I know that Norfolk is a first-class county in every way, and I still remain hopeful that the ECB will see us that way as well. I could use this speech to lobby strongly for a new Hundred franchise based in Norfolk, or for a 2027 Ashes test to be played at Cromer cricket club. I hope hon. Members will indulge me in a brief journey through the proud cricketing heritage of Nelson’s county, and how much of that is rooted in North Norfolk.
Of the handful of first-class matches that Norfolk has played, our first was in 1820, when a team took on Marylebone cricket club at Lord’s. It is believed that that team was primarily made up of Holt cricket club, based in my constituency. We also have a strong heritage of cricketers hailing from Norfolk. Recent England internationals Olly Stone and Emily Arlott hail from Thorpe St Andrew and King’s Lynn respectively. Perhaps most famously, the legendary cricketer and commentator Henry Blofeld was born in Hoveton, in my constituency.
Grassroots cricket is a much loved part of North Norfolk’s culture. I am reminded particularly of the village of Aldborough, with The Cricketers pub sitting next to the traditional village green pitch, and the houses behind the stumps aptly named First Slip and Second Slip cottages.
Grassroots cricket is beloved across many Liberal Democrat constituencies, with an array of great clubs: South Petherton cricket club in Yeovil and its All Stars programme for five to eight-year-olds; Sherborne cricket club in West Dorset, which dates all the way back to 1837; Bradford on Avon cricket club in Melksham and Devizes; and Malmesbury and Sherston Magna cricket clubs in the South Cotswolds. There is also all the work that Hampshire county cricket club does across its county, based in Eastleigh; Lansdown cricket club, which we have heard about; and, obviously, all seven grassroots clubs in Surrey Heath—as well as many more that are pillars of their local communities.
For many young people, a grassroots cricket club is their first encounter with the game. It is where they learn to play in a setting that is safe and supportive. Those teams are where the next Ben Stokes or Nat Sciver-Brunt are currently learning their craft. Without support and investment, the bright sparks of the future of English cricket could fizzle out—and after the first two tests in Australia, it is clear that we could use some hope for the future.
Looking at the root of the issues, it is clear that access to cricket must be widened. Of the 11 players starting the next Ashes test, only two were not privately educated. The dream of being an England cricketer must be equally accessible to all the young people growing up in my constituency, not only those with the ability to attend a fee-paying school.
I want to reassure the Minister that she should not feel stumped, as the Lib Dems have ideas to help. One way to take easy action is to look again at the amount of free-to-air international cricket available in this country. Before the general election, the Lib Dems sought to amend the then Media Bill to allow for one ODI and one test match to be free to air every year. Sadly, the Conservative Government voted that down and the Labour party abstained, but I hope that this Government might consider looking at that again. Inspiring more young players through their TV screens, who may then seek out their local grassroots club, is a sure-fire way to support the long-term existence of those teams. It is a simple change that can deliver broad benefits.
Those benefits are wide-ranging. We know the power that sport has to support community cohesion, bonding people over their shared passion and bridging divides that may otherwise exist. We also know that sport is a key tool for battling health inequalities, which is a huge issue in coastal communities such as mine, where health outcomes and life expectancy are poorer. When the Government consider the support they can give to grassroots clubs, I hope they see it as an opportunity to tackle health inequalities around our coastline.
I remain hopeful that there are future Ashes winners playing in Aldborough, Holt, Ashmanhaugh, Bradfield and the many other clubs across the towns and villages of North Norfolk. Cricket is an icon of our country, a sport recognisable as truly British the world over. All Governments have a responsibility to ensure that it has a secure future, and it is vital that this Government do not duck it. They should take inspiration from England’s bowling attack in Perth and deliver this at pace—although hopefully with a little more success. Grassroots cricket clubs will want them to play a straight bat and cut out the spin. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Thank you.
Despite that being tongue in cheek, I hope the Minister recognises the passion for our grassroots cricket clubs displayed across the Chamber today. I have been bowled over by the breadth of contributions this afternoon; Members have really hit for six in supporting their local clubs. I wish all Members a merry Christmas and a happy new year. I hope that we will return in 2026 to the sight of an England comeback and a 3-2 Ashes victory.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on securing this important debate. His timing is excellent, because I am confident that tonight we shall witness the start of a resurgence by the England men’s cricket team, as they begin their Ashes comeback in Adelaide. Although the first two tests have not exactly gone to plan, it was fantastic to see Joe Root finally score his first test century in Australia, taking his grand total to 40.
Around 2.5 million people play cricket each year, which includes 1.4 million under-16s. In 2025, 43,000 teams competed in 216,000 fixtures—passing the 200,000 mark for the first time. This popularity is reflected in the England and Wales Cricket Board’s All Stars and Dynamos youth programmes, with over 105,000 children signing up, including a record proportion of girls. The girls and women’s game is growing fastest, with the number of women’s teams up 18% and girls’ teams up 13% in 2025 compared with 2024.
It is against that success and momentum that we must consider how the Government can provide support to build on the progress made. In the last four years, the ECB has awarded £55 million in grants, invested £32.2 million in 6,638 awards for recreational game projects, invested £22.8 million to create more welcoming and inclusive stadiums, invested £12.7 million in women and girls’ cricket, and invested £4.9 million in improving equality, diversity and inclusion in professional cricket. The previous Government committed £35 million to grassroots cricket in state schools, aiming to reach 930,000 young people, including 80,000 with special educational needs. That included £14 million for accessible cricket, 2,500 new pieces of cricket equipment and 16 cricket domes in cities due to host the women’s T20 world cup and the men’s T20 world cup.
That investment was allocated and it sought to make a substantial impact for those who are currently underserved. The Government may say that the funding was not allocated, but that is simply not true. Will the Minister commit to reviewing the short-sighted decision to reallocate the funds elsewhere, especially given the vast benefits that cricket brings, not just to our communities but also by supporting a healthier population? The decision to backtrack is a disappointment. If all the Government can offer is warm words, that is plainly not enough. The Government must work alongside the ECB, as they still finance the hubs programme. Has the Minister considered how much further and faster the programme could go if it is delivered with the Government rather than despite the Government?
We know that clubs are desperate for support. The Cash4Clubs initiative, which gives away £2,000 to 250 clubs for community sport and to drive participation, saw 1,400 applications this year, with recent cricket club winners including the Young Lions. It had hoped to double the pot this year, but the Budget and gambling tax have haltered that progress. Cricket is the only major sport that does not receive any direct funding for tournament or legacy delivery because of hosting major cricket events. Will the Minister commit to review that ahead of the 2026 and 2030 T20 competitions to be hosted here?
The average age of a cricket pavilion in England and Wales is more than 70 years. Although clubs are already struggling due to rising maintenance costs, including energy, lighting and other upkeep, the Chancellor has further burdened them with increased business rates bills. Many clubs also seek to contribute to their local communities by employing locally. The increase in national insurance contributions has prohibited that.
In my constituency, Ventnor cricket club is the island’s largest and highest performing club. It runs senior men’s, women’s and girls’ teams, junior disability cricket and over-50s walking cricket. The club’s facilities include a main building valued at just under £1 million, incorporating a three-lane indoor net and sports hall. Despite that success, the club faces significant challenges. The Government are failing to address the growing accessibility problems facing cricket pitches, as local authorities, particularly in urban areas, deprioritise maintenance to make savings, offloading responsibility, leading to a managed decline of sports facilities. Does the Minister not recognise that if clubs are forced to make significant savings, that will impact the positive action they take, which contributes to the communities they serve?
Furthermore, the proposal to remove Sport England as a statutory consultee is deeply concerning. In the past five years, 90% of applications it reviewed resulted in pitches being improved or protected. Without its expertise, and amid local authority budget and capacity pressures, safe and sustainable cricket facilities are put at risk. I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield about Sport England and its role as a statutory consultee.
Although the Minster may claim that local authorities will upskill, does she not share my concern that they may face challenges in prioritisation, budget constraints and lack of sport expertise? Does she agree that facilities planning must include schools and public leisure facilities? Before building new developments, the Government should assess the reasons why existing assets are not accessible, such as high hire costs, and should consider solutions such as local subsidised hiring. It is disappointing that the opening schools facilities fund, which aimed to do exactly that, was scrapped.
Finally, the outlook is concerning and Government support must be provided at the earliest opportunity, not years down the line when the opportunities may have passed. I urge the Minister to consider what more could be done to reduce bureaucracy and get on with delivery. Sports bodies, including the ECB, are ready to provide support, as we all want the best for our communities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am pleased to respond to this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on securing it. I applaud his work chairing the all-party parliamentary group for cricket. He is an incredibly important champion for the sport.
This nation has a rich and proud cricket history, and I am not going to pass judgment on how the Ashes are going—I will leave that to other Members—but I share the optimism of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), for a comeback.
In mentioning the Ashes, it is important to say that I know that the thoughts of the whole House are with the victims, families and everyone affected by the abhorrent Bondi Beach terrorist attack. Both teams will be wearing black armbands this evening.
I will begin my response to the debate by addressing some of the specific points put to me; I will address others as I progress. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield is right to point out that this year 2.5 million people played the game. It is incredibly important to communities up and down the country. I know that from my own constituency.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Does the Minister agree that grassroots cricket clubs are essential to community integration? I give the example of Thames Ditton cricket club, which welcomed the Afghan refugee community to play in its youth team. They made solid friendships, which will last for life.
Stephanie Peacock
The hon. Lady makes an incredibly important point—one that I am sure all Members agree with. Indeed, I have seen that in my own constituency of Barnsley South. I visited Darfield cricket club a few months ago, and since we last debated cricket in this Chamber, my town lost the late, great Dickie Bird, who hailed from Barnsley. I pay tribute to all the work he did over a long and happy life.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), who is no longer in her place, spoke about the importance of her local club, Harborne cricket club. Indeed, my cousin and his family have been members of that club for many years.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) gave many examples of clubs in his local community, and his colleague from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann), asked me specifically about engaging with my counterparts. I am always delighted to do that; I visited Northern Ireland a few weeks ago and met with and chaired a meeting of Sports Ministers. I am also due to meet them tomorrow in relation to a separate subject. I am always keen to engage.
There were a number of questions about private schools, and I can see the huge benefit from opening up facilities. A good example from Birmingham was given, and I will certainly reflect on the points made to the Department for Education. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) asked me specifically about class, disparity and some of the statistics. I share her concerns and her worry. To close that gap, we want to increase opportunities for state school children. We intend to start a new teacher-training programme, which aims to reach more than 160,000 students over the next year, and to train 1,000 teachers by 2030. I am happy to write to the hon. Lady with more details if she is interested.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) made an important point, which I really appreciate, about flood damage. I had a similar challenge in my own constituency, albeit with a football club, rather than a cricket club. Sport England’s movement fund can offer specific support for flood damaged facilities. I will perhaps write to my hon. Friend after the debate and can facilitate a meeting, if that would be helpful, with Sport England to help her and her club.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), who is no longer in his place, made a point about broadcasting. We debated broadcasting and cricket on 9 September in this very Chamber. Broadcasting revenue is, of course, very important to the ECB and is reinvested into sport. The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), made a similar point. It is important to remember that the evidence shows that watching live sport is the thing that most inspires people to get involved, so it is a balance.
I will come to cricket domes shortly, but I want to address the point about funding head-on. Language is very important, and it is particularly important in this place. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) spoke about a commitment and the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak). The hon. Member for Bath spoke about funding being cancelled, and the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East, spoke about funding being allocated. The simple truth is that the previous Government announced £35 million, but it was not costed or delivered. This Government are not only funding facilities with £400 million over the spending review period, but also through Sport England funding of more than £250 million, and an additional £1.5 million for cricket domes, so I simply do not recognise the characterisation of the points that those three Members made.
The hon. Member for Leicester South made an important point about the importance of cricket to his community and gave an interesting overview of the long history of the sport. I want to pick up the point about the Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket. My Department continues to monitor progress. I will reflect his comments to the ECB and I will write to him, and if it is helpful, we can certainly set up a meeting.
I know that I have not covered all the points, but I intend to address them in my speech. As we watch the England men’s team, it is important to remember that each player began their cricket journey at a grassroots club. Grassroots cricket reaches a broad and diverse range of communities. For example, a third of recreational players come from south Asian backgrounds that overwise make up just 8% of the overall population, as the hon. Member for Leicester South said. He asked specifically about women’s cricket, as did a number of other Members, which I will talk about a few times in my speech.
I have been delighted to see growth in women’s cricket, particularly over recent years. The England women’s team has inspired thousands of women and girls to pick up a cricket bat, and I applaud the team for its work to champion the game and for acting as role models for fans across the country. I am thrilled that England and Wales will be hosting the T20 women’s world cup next year. I look forward to watching some great cricket, but it will also be a fantastic opportunity to showcase the sport to new audiences.
The ECB’s investment in community cricket is supporting the growth in participation. I have had the pleasure of visiting a number of ECB’s cricket projects across the country, and I can attest to how that work, coupled with the exceptional and tireless support of volunteers, is helping people to discover a love for the sport. ECB figures show that 2024 was a record-breaking summer for all recreational cricket, with over 190,000 games played across England and Wales, which is up 12,500 on the previous best. I am sure all Members will join me in hoping that that upward trend continues in the figures for 2025 and the years to come.
As participation in the sport continues to grow, it is important that we recognise grassroots clubs and the positive contributions they make in their local communities. The Government recognise that grassroots sports clubs, including cricket clubs, are the beating heart of communities up and down the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) asked me to reflect on the value of sport. I am really aware of its value as Sport Minister, and all the club volunteers I have met over the last 18 months have really brought that to life for me. The social value generated by sport and physical activity is calculated to be £123 billion a year, and we are committed to breaking down barriers to ensure that everyone has access to, and benefits from, quality sport and opportunities for physical activity.
Cricket clubs make a huge contribution to their communities, and I know that week in, week out, local people come together to support their clubs, their children’s teams and young players. They engage people from all backgrounds and foster an inclusive environment, as Members from across the House have outlined. I witnessed that during my visit to a women’s and girls’ cricket festival at Sheffield Collegiate cricket club, which brought together four local grassroots clubs. The club is a prime example of how cricket clubs provide important community hubs for a diverse range of people.
Cricket clubs also provide opportunities for young players, like Joe Root, to progress to the elite level. The Government provide the majority of support for grassroots sport through Sport England, which annually invests more than £250 million of Exchequer and lottery funding. That includes long-term investment in the ECB, which receives up to £13.4 million over seven years to invest in grassroots cricket initiatives in local communities and get people involved in cricket.
Earlier this year, I saw some of the great work that the Chance to Shine project does to provide opportunities for under-represented children to play, learn and develop through cricket at its 20-year impact report event in Parliament. I was delighted to see that work in action when I visited the Chance to Shine project in my constituency in Worsbrough in Barnsley last year. This Government are committed to supporting such initiatives, which not only break down barriers to participation but allow everyone to get involved in the sport they love.
I am particularly proud of the Government’s recent commitment to invest £1.5 million of capital funding for two new state-of-the-art cricket domes, one at Farington cricket club in Preston and the other in Luton. I was lucky enough to visit Luton women and girls cricket club earlier this year with the local Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), and to hear at first hand how this investment will benefit local clubs. It was really inspiring to speak to the young girls involved in the club.
We are proud that this investment is in addition to the funding that Sport England provides the ECB to support grassroots participation. In June, we announced that a further £400 million will be invested in new and upgraded grassroots sports facilities, which will remove the barriers to physical activity for under-represented groups, including women and girls. This funding will support more women and girls to take part in the sport they love, particularly by ensuring that funded sites across the UK provide priority slots for women and girls. This is vital investment that will improve sports facilities, including cricket facilities, across England and Wales. Part of the work will involve assessing sports facilities in communities—for example, sports facilities that may be made available for wider use, a point raised by a number of Members.
Members have also raised the issue of planning. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield mentioned the importance of protecting cricket grounds in planning reforms. I completely agree. Improving the planning system should not be done at the expense of playing fields. As the Minister for Sport, I want to ensure that communities have the sports facilities and playing fields that they need.
The Government are currently consulting on proposed changes to Sport England’s statutory consultee role in the planning regime and the national planning policy framework. I encourage anyone interested to feed into those processes. My hon. Friend acknowledged that that is a MHCLG lead. I have of course spoken to the Minister responsible directly, and this is something I also spoke about when I appeared before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
The Government are very much looking forward to England and Wales hosting the Women’s T20 world cup in 2026. The tournament provides a great opportunity to showcase our world-class cricket venues, while making sure that women and girls have opportunities to see elite female cricketers compete at the highest level. I encourage everyone taking part in today’s debate to get behind the tournament and lend their support—I know from the quality of the debate and from hon. Members’ enthusiasm that they will all do just that.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield for securing this debate and all other hon. Members for taking part with such passion and insight. I hope my hon. Friend takes from my response that the Government are committed to supporting grassroots cricket and ensuring that it continues to flourish across our country.
Andrew Lewin
There were so many good speeches, and I want to briefly reflect on the highlights from each. I congratulate the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) on the new cricket pitch and pavilion landing this year. I was really sorry to hear about the flooding that impacted the club of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn). Cricket is particularly exposed to the damage of climate change in this country and across the world. We need to be really conscious of that.
We already knew that there has never been a parliamentary debate missed by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); now we know he has never got a duck either. That is particularly big news in Westminster.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) talked about the brilliance of the Lancashire league. I largely agree with him, but as I went to York university, I will say no more—I want to remain friends.
The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) gave a really powerful speech. I particularly support his comment that while there is talent everywhere, opportunity is not equally shared. He made a powerful point about state-of-the-art facilities—some young people just need some synthetic turf. His point was very well made.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) and I got off on the wrong foot. He is absolutely right to say that cricket has a very proud history in Ireland. It is not just the Aussies who have beaten the English in recent history; the Irish team has as well, as has Scotland—a lot of people share in that.
I love the journey of the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) from cricket widow to a champion of the sport, and the opening up of the game. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), is, I think, all out of puns. He might be a little optimistic in thinking that there will be an Ashes test at Cromer cricket club, but the parliamentary cricket team is always looking for fixtures, so we can talk afterwards.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) and I might not agree on everything, but we can agree on the class and permanence of Joe Root, whose career has spanned six Prime Ministers.
Most importantly, I thank the Minister for everything she is doing for our game: for her commitment to raise the issue of opening up facilities in private schools with the Department for Education, for the specific £400 million investment, and for considering how those two things can work together. I think that will matter to a lot of the Members who have spoken today, and many more colleagues as well. She finished by encouraging submissions to the MHCLG consultation. I do not need any excuse to write about cricket, so I will certainly be doing that. I thank everybody who took part in the debate today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for grassroots cricket clubs.
Budget 2025: Impact on Graduates
(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
Karl Turner (in the Chair)
Jack Rankin will move the motion, and the Minister will respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. No Members have indicated to me that they wish to speak, but Members may try to intervene on the mover of the motion and, indeed, the Minister. As is the convention in a 30-minute debate, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of the Autumn Budget 2025 on graduates.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the Minister for taking time from his busy schedule to attend the debate today. I will start by painting a picture of two graduates at two different points in their lives—both taxed to death. Let us start with Nick, now 30. He has done all the right things. He got his GCSEs and A-levels, went to a Russell Group university, secured a place on a decent graduate scheme—in London and the south-east perhaps—and has even got himself a lovely girlfriend. Yet Labour’s most recent Budget will see his student loan repayments increase. His rent will go up. He will end up paying more tax because of the freeze on income tax thresholds. At work, his company is making redundancies and blaming rising employer’s national insurance. He cannot buy a house. His finances are pushed to the edge every month, yet a family on his road receiving benefits seem to enjoy the same quality of life without ever leaving the house.
The Centre for Social Justice found that someone would need pre-tax earnings of £71,000 a year to match the disposable income of a family with three children and receiving benefits. Even if Nick earns more, as a headline figure, than someone on benefits, he faces so many extra costs—for commuting, council tax, rent and suits for work—that his disposable income will end up being very similar to, if not less than, that of someone who sits at home. In my view, Nick has every right to feel aggrieved. Writing in the Telegraph at the weekend, I estimated that a young person earning £40,000 a year and renting in my constituency is left with less than £500 a month in disposable income after reasonable expenses.
Then there is Henry, or Henrietta—a high earner, not rich yet—who is perhaps slightly older, and might have excelled working in engineering or a tech start-up. Yes, they may have more disposable income, but often they are still far from financially free. We are seeing a bubble in the data for younger professionals earning just under £100,000, because crossing that threshold, for a parent of two, could well mean a £20,000 tax hit due to the high income child benefit charge and the withdrawal of child support.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate to the House. The plan 2 student loan repayment threshold was frozen until 2030 under new announcements in the Budget. That means that graduates begin repaying sooner, but it is also almost like a hidden tax on career incomes, whereby students will pay more over their working life even if their earnings stay the same. Does he agree that for many students, who could be paying up to £40,000 in student debt, there could be a significant impact on their early month-to-month salary, which could put people off attending university and pursuing their academic dreams?
Jack Rankin
I intend to get to the implications of plan 2 loans—both the freeze in the threshold for repayment and the freezing of the interest rates in a falling-interest-rates environment. I think the hon. Gentleman will find in the Budget papers that that raises about as much money as the mansion tax does, for example. I think that is deeply unfair.
More broadly, what is the incentive structure here? Are we not punishing some of our most productive people? Of course many people across the country have it worse, but the point is that Nick, Henry or Henrietta should not have to apologise for striving and being ambitious. After all, it is their tax money that is used to prop up the welfare state, whether that involves benefits, pensions or housing illegal migrants. But they are the lucky ones; we now have about 1 million young people not in work, education or training. Worse still, we have 400,000 graduates claiming out-of-work benefits.
I hear from graduates in my constituency who have applied for hundreds of jobs but get rejected or hear nothing at all. At the end of 2024, the Institute of Student Employers found that, on average, organisations were receiving 140 applications per job.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
With research indicating that up to three quarters of higher education providers could be in deficit by 2025-26, and with plans being drawn up for course closures and staff cuts, does the hon. Member agree that there is an onus on the Government to act so that we secure a richly educated generation of UK graduates, and not simply the educated rich?
Jack Rankin
I am not sure that I agree 100% with the hon. Member. I suspect that, in this country, we are sending too many people to university, and we should have a higher focus on higher quality courses and courses that add economic value, while investing some of the money saved in apprenticeships. But I take the hon. Member’s point, which he makes well.
There are hundreds of people, like Nick, who have done everything the right way—just as the system told them to—but who are not seeing the results in their lives. We have a huge disenfranchised cohort of young people, ranging from Gen Zers who have just graduated to millennial young professionals who are trying to get on and start a family.
I am afraid that many are now voting with their feet. In the last year to March, 176,000 people aged 16 to 34 left Britain. Net migration may be down, but that is only because young Brits are fleeing the country under this Government. This is a national crisis, and it is really a question about the future of our country. If young people do not think they can thrive, they will not put down roots and have families, and there will be no next generation to fund the pensions and public services of the future that we will all rely on.
That feeling of disillusionment has not come around by accident. I would not pretend to the Minister, who gives as good as he gets, that my party delivered in some of these areas, particularly in house building and the intergenerational compact, but the past two Budgets have made things demonstrably worse.
The increase to employer’s national insurance in the first Budget created a freeze on hiring, and saw vacancies down and unemployment up. The Office for Budget Responsibility has shown that this could cost almost 50,000 jobs, and stats out today show that unemployment has risen to 5.1%. Increasing the national minimum wage has an impact on hiring and it further squeezes those on middle incomes. It could mean that baristas and shop assistants are dragged into paying back their student loans despite seeing no benefit from the so-called graduate premium.
At this year’s Budget, the Government raised £26 billion on the backs of working people. If the Minister will not take it from me, maybe he will take it from the Resolution Foundation, which found that a worker on £35,000 a year will be £1,400 poorer because of the freeze. It also raised concerns about the negative impact of increasing the minimum wage on levels of employment.
The most directly damaging policy is the latest changes to student loans, which have largely gone under the radar. Freezing the threshold for repayment will mean that as graduates’ starting salaries increase with inflation, they will end up paying more and earlier. There are also the perverse disincentives whereby those on plan 2 loans who earn more than £50,270 per year will pay a higher interest rate of 6% RPI—retail prices index—plus 3%. This means that they will have to earn up to £65,000 before they start paying off the actual loan, rather than simply the interest accumulating on it. They are being punished for success. That interest rate freeze, in an environment where rates are falling, is unjustifiable. Even the New Statesman has been critical of the grad tax, making the point that it will raise roughly the same amount as the mansion tax. Do the Government really see graduate workers as rich or as having the broadest shoulders? They are not being asked to chip in; they are being bled out. Moreover, the Minister and I may have different political perspectives, but an idiot he is not. He knows that national insurance for landlords will be passed straight on to rents, walloping exactly the same people.
All those choices will affect recent graduates: the Intergenerational Foundation estimate that they will pay an extra £24,500 on average as a result of this year’s Budget. But young people everywhere still want what young people everywhere have always wanted—the chance to own a home, start a family, be productive and get on in life.
I want to articulate a centre-right approach where we reform welfare, saving £23 billion, and cut anti-growth taxes such as stamp duty to galvanise the housing market. I have also been pushing for the liberalisation of planning reform and a bonfire of regulation to give young people a future to believe in.
In the light of that, I have several questions to put to the Minister on behalf of all the Nicks, Henrys and Henriettas out there. What message does it send to graduates when their taxes and student loan repayments increase while those on benefits get more? How can the Government explain record low house building in London while some on benefits live in council properties in London worth more than £2 million? What would he say to the young people who are considering leaving these shores because they do not feel that they can get on in life, buy a home and start a family here in Britain? And what risks does he perceive in the impact of the anti-graduate approach on future productivity, and really, the future financial stability of this country?
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
It is always a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) on securing this important debate. Budget discussions, which there have been lots of in the past month, tend to focus on economic statistics, GDP and borrowing. Those are very important, but they can sound abstract. What ultimately matters is what happens to people, including young people, and their wages and bills, the firms they work for and the public services they rely on.
I welcome the hon. Member’s focus on young people and what is happening to their wages, homes and student finance, as well as apprenticeships actually, which he did not touch on much. I also welcome his honesty about a number of the trends and policies put in place by the previous Government. I would add to his critique of the previous Government the 40% fall in youth apprenticeship numbers, which has had a real effect on the volume of routes available to young people.
Across all the fronts that he mentioned, the Government are supporting graduates and, for that matter, non-graduates. I know he would agree that the most important thing we can do for them is to make sure our economy overall is strong, because in the end, that is what provides graduate opportunities. He will be aware that Britain outperformed the growth forecast this year, with growth upgraded from 1% to 1.5%. Lots of things in the long run matter to economic growth, but raising Britain’s investment levels is high up the list. That is why public investment is up by £120 billion and why we place so much emphasis on the old-fashioned idea of actually getting things built in this country. He raised the issue of housing, which I will return to shortly. We have also seen real wages rise more in the first year of this Government than in the first 10 years of the Conservative Government, but there is a lot further to go, and the Budget does go further.
Let me touch on some of the areas that the hon. Member mentioned. On the microeconomic policy side, Britain is already the best place to start a business in Europe. That can be seen clearly in all the statistics, but it needs to be the best place to scale up a business and for a business to stay. That is exactly what we dealt with in the Budget, with tax breaks to make it easier to grow and keep attracting capital and workers. In the long run, that is what creates more graduate jobs, which he rightly focused on.
On the macroeconomic strategy, we aim to support growth by cutting borrowing and inflation. That in turn helps the Bank of England to keep interest rates falling—they have already been cut five times since the election—and that is crucial to give businesses the confidence to invest and to directly cut mortgage bills for millions of Henrys, Henriettas and everybody else, because those with mortgages are disproportionately graduates.
The hon. Member rightly raised the question of assets. He touched on housing but in my day job dealing with pensions, the same thing applies, because the young people he referenced will also be saving for pensions in a very different environment from those who came before them.
Briefly on housing, what are the Government doing? We aim to tackle two things: first, the security of rental accommodation through the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, making sure that if people are renting, whether that is for a temporary period or an extended period, they cannot be evicted at short notice, with no certainty. Secondly, we have to tackle housing costs, and in the long run that means building houses. There is no substitute for that. It means building affordable housing and market housing. The hon. Member mentioned London, where a package of measures has been announced to deal with the building trend over the last few years towards lower building levels than we would like, but we also need to see this around the country. We need to see all enthusiastic MPs not opposing planning permissions when that is their easiest path to take.
On pensions, I will add two things that I think matter for today’s younger generations. The first is the adequacy of the system that they are saving into, largely via defined contribution pension schemes. We have launched the Pensions Commission—I think that has cross-party consensus—to make sure, when we look ahead to 2050, that young people are on course for an adequate retirement. But we also need to address the fact that it is not just the amount of the pension, but the level of risk that younger generations are being asked to bear—in longevity, investment, inflation and other risks. That is exactly what the Pensions Commission is doing.
I agree with most of the comments about young people in the labour market. It is a disgrace that one in eight young people are not in education, employment or training—I think we would all agree about that. Of course, it is a disgrace that we inherited from the Conservatives, as the hon. Member for Windsor is well aware. It is good that the number of NEETs has not continued to rise, but I absolutely agree that it is far too high, and that is on all of us. That is why we have committed to tackling it, not least through a youth guarantee. That needs to continue, as does the work on mental ill health. We have committed to expanding the use of talking therapies in the NHS, delivering an additional 384,000 courses of treatment by 2028-29. There is one thing that I would gently add, in thinking about some of these issues, and mental health is a good example. We must not forget that the long-lasting effects of mental ill health, for example in the labour market, tend to be felt among those with fewer qualifications, even though, on the health side, that affects a very wide range of people.
Turning to tax, we are certainly not hiding from the fact that the Budget asked everybody to make a contribution. The reason for that is simple: people have had enough of failing public services that are not doing the basics, and they know that borrowing levels must be brought down. The hon. Member will know that the Budget reduces borrowing in every single year of the forecast, because spending £1 in every £10 on debt interest rather than on schools and hospitals is already quite enough. The Budget included the freeze on the repayment threshold for plan 2 student loans from April ’27—where the threshold remains above that for other student loans, such as the plan 5 loans.
The hon. Member mentioned some details of the plan 2 rules, which, again—I gently say—were introduced by the Conservatives, who looked to rebalance the system away from having as much taxpayer funding of students in the university system as there had been, with the cost being passed on to individuals. The measures are part of a wider package of reforms, including in relation to higher-value properties, electric vehicles and changes to income tax rates on income from assets. Those are part of the Budget so that we make sure that the wider contributions we are asking for from everybody can be kept to an absolute minimum.
More broadly, there has been a cross-party consensus that a fairer system of university funding will require a lower net contribution to universities from the taxpayer, particularly from taxpayers who did not go to university—I think that the hon. Member still agrees with that. In 2025, 34% of loan debt for full-time plan 2 graduates was forecast not to be repaid, so what we are talking about is still substantive. I agree with him more broadly on the need for other higher-quality qualifications in greater numbers; he will have heard the Prime Minister referring to that in his conference speech earlier this autumn.
We must also not lose sight of something that is still very true, despite the call for more and a wider range of qualifications: graduates still genuinely benefit from higher earnings and higher employment rates. We have talked about NEET numbers, and a degree still provides a very high level of protection against that. That does not mean that we should not continue to focus on ensuring that we get the best value for money for everything that young people go on to do.
It is important that we have a sustainable student finance system, and also one that is fair to students and to the taxpayer. Students will pay nothing back unless they earn above the threshold, as they do now, and no one whose salary remains the same will see their monthly repayments change as the years of the freeze continue. Of course, we will keep the system under review.
I again thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. It is vital that we secure the best possible future for graduates and, I think we all agree, for all young people and the younger generations. We will do that by tackling inflation and making sure that we bring down debt, as well as by ensuring that this is a country where wages and living standards are rising, where people can get things built again and where firms are able to grow. The Budget goes about delivering exactly that.
Question put and agreed to.
Transgender People: Provision of Healthcare
(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
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the provision of healthcare for transgender people.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. This debate is about healthcare for trans adults. I know that a lot has been said in this House in recent weeks about care for young people questioning their gender identity, and particularly about the recent announcement of a trial of puberty blockers. I do not wish to repeat that debate here, other than to say that I welcome the fact that the trial is going ahead to ensure we can get the evidence that we need.
I want to begin with the experience of one of my constituents, because this debate must be about real people, not headlines in The Times or the Daily Mail, not culture war soundbites, not the opinions of Donald Trump or J. K. Rowling, and certainly not whatever bile is being pushed out by transphobic trolls on social media. This is about real people’s lives.
Earlier this year, my constituent, a trans woman, came to my surgery to share her experience of accessing healthcare locally. At her GP practice, she was told that she could not use the women’s toilets and must use the men’s instead, and she was repeatedly misgendered by staff. She faced difficulties simply getting her preferred name recorded correctly. On one occasion she was even told that she could not wait in the waiting room because she “scared other patients.”
My constituent is also struggling to access the gender-affirming care that she needs. There are no adult gender services in Birmingham, let alone in my constituency of North Warwickshire and Bedworth, meaning that she would have to travel to Nottingham for treatment. She is stuck on a waiting list with no idea when she will finally receive care. Because she cannot get NHS support, she is taking hormone replacement therapy on a private prescription and is understandably anxious about dosage and the lack of monitoring or regulation. She is not alone.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and bringing the debate back to people, which is where it needs to be. I want to highlight a case in my constituency of a young transgender person who spent two years on the under-18s waiting list for an initial appointment. They have now aged out of that waiting list and potentially have a six-year wait, meaning that when they are able to speak to a doctor or a health professional it will have been eight years. Their parents approached me to tell me how much that is damaging their young one.
Karl Turner (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that interventions need to be very short. Lots of Members want to take part in this debate and long interventions eat into the time for speeches.
Rachel Taylor
I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that experience. It reflects the reality for many trans young people and adults in the UK: discrimination from healthcare professionals, waiting lists stretching over years, a complete lack of local provision and a reliance on less well-regulated private providers. That is the state of healthcare for trans people in Britain today. It is woeful and inadequate, and it is letting people down.
The consequences are serious. Almost one in four transgender people avoid going to the doctor altogether for fear of mistreatment. They delay cancer screenings and push aside chronic pain, and their health outcomes worsen as a result.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The NHS has finally issued a call for evidence regarding a clinical pathway for adults who wish to detransition. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is a welcome and long-overdue first step, and that the NHS must continue making serious efforts to improve care for detransitioners?
Rachel Taylor
As I welcome services for trans people, I also welcome services for those people who do not feel happy in the gender that they have acquired. That is only right, but we have to get all those services right.
Trans people are now seeing their health outcomes worsen. Waiting times for gender-affirming healthcare are nothing short of a national scandal. Across the UK as of March 2025, more than 48,000 trans adults remained on waiting lists for that care. We rightly debate NHS waiting lists in this place: a year for a hip replacement; months for cancer screening. Nobody finds those waits acceptable, but freedom of information requests reveal that the average wait for gender services is 12 years in England, two years in Wales, 41 years in Northern Ireland and a staggering 58 years in Scotland. At one Scottish clinic, the wait was three times longer than the average British life expectancy.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the waits that transgender people face in Scotland, which are far too long. I recently met a group from the transgender community in Dunfermline who are concerned about their safety when they are out on the streets, whether going out on a Saturday night or doing anything else that they would like to. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must work with the police across the UK to make sure that transgender people feel safe on the streets?
Rachel Taylor
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Trans people are fearing for their lives in my constituency, in his constituency and in many others up and down this country.
Let us imagine being told that the wait for a hip replacement or a cancer check was 224 years—it just would not happen. Some Members in this House might not want to hear it, but the reason that the NHS provides gender-affirming treatments—hormones, surgeries, and mental health and social support—is because they are proven to improve mental health, reduce gender dysphoria and significantly reduce depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts.
Doing nothing is not a neutral act—doing nothing allows suffering to grow. The Women and Equalities Committee heard that directly earlier this year. To echo the findings of the Trevor Project’s 2024 report, LGBTQ+ young people’s suicides are preventable. Prevention means tackling discrimination, hostility and unaccepting environments. Safe, supportive, affirming care saves lives. One trans adult told the LGBT Foundation:
“The only effective treatment for gender dysphoria is transition and leaving this untreated is killing people.”
Rachel Taylor
I will make some progress, if I may. I am part-way through something that a trans person said, so it is not an appropriate time to intervene. They went on to say:
“I have personally used alcohol, cannabis, cocaine and self-harm to survive the last year and a half since referral and I have now been told I will have to wait several more months because of the backlog.”
Jim Shannon
I am reminded of last year when a mother came to me back home. Her son wanted to transition. The mother was under real pressure, as was the young boy. We tried to help as much as we could through the health system back in Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a journey not only for the young person who wants to transition, but for their parents? Everyone needs support to get them through that difficult transition.
Rachel Taylor
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful contribution. Of course, parents need help and support through this process.
In 2022, a coroner ruled that a 20-year-old trans woman had died in part because of delays in accessing gender-affirming care after two and a half years on a waiting list. Trans people also struggle disproportionately with general healthcare. A third of trans and non-binary people, rising to almost half among people of colour, received no NHS or private support during pregnancy, compared with just 2.4% of cis women. Nearly one in three trans and non-binary birthing parents said that they were not treated with dignity and respect in labour, compared with just 2% of cis women.
According to TransActual, 60% of trans people surveyed had been refused care because they were trans. Hundreds reported that their GP refused to prescribe hormones, even when they had been recommended by NHS gender clinics. Participation in cervical screening is also significantly lower, with trans and non-binary people estimated to be up to 37% less likely to be up to date with appointments. This Labour Government are the right Government at the right time to tackle these issues.
I congratulate the Minister and the Secretary of State on the HIV action plan that was announced this month. I remember vividly the stigma and shame of an HIV diagnosis in the ’80s and ’90s, which often led to suicide, as the alternative was a death sentence and a life spent facing discrimination and abuse. This HIV strategy is groundbreaking and sets us on the right path to end new HIV transmissions. I applaud its commitment to ensuring that all prevention efforts target underserved populations, including trans people.
The Government pledged in their manifesto to ensure that trans people receive the healthcare and support they need. I welcome the review being led by Dr David Levy into adult gender services, and I hope it will bring forward strong recommendations to cut waiting lists, expand access and deliver timely, appropriate and sensitive care. I know that trans people and LGBT organisations have been awaiting its publication, so I ask the Minister: when can we expect Dr Levy’s review to be published?
In April 2025, the Secretary of State also commissioned NHS England to undertake an LGBT+ health evidence review. That review seeks to identify the barriers to healthcare for all LGBT+ people, from examining the poor treatment of lesbian couples seeking IVF treatment to looking at insufficient mental health support for LGBT+ people. The review is highly anticipated by the whole community. Therefore, I ask the Minister: is Dr Brady’s review still due to conclude in January 2026, and when can the public and parliamentarians expect to see it?
Although I applaud the Government’s work to improve healthcare for transgender adults, I know that reviews alone will not fix the problem. We need to know that these reviews will be followed by action. I know that getting this right matters to the Government, so I ask the Minister: what steps will the Government take to reduce discrimination and transphobia in healthcare settings?
Will the Minister commit to mandatory training for clinicians on the respectful and appropriate treatment of trans patients? Will the Government commit to significant sustained investment in trans healthcare, with reducing waiting lists and expanding local provision as urgent priorities? We must build a healthcare system rooted in science, not stigma, and in compassion, not fear. We must decide whether we want to be a society that listens to people, supports them and gives them the tools to thrive.
There is one final point I would like to make. Those who know me will know that I first got involved in politics in the 1980s when Thatcher was introducing section 28. That policy was intended to make people like me feel shame about who we were, and to reverse the progress that previous generations had fought for. I got into politics to fight that cruel law and everything that it represented.
I am a gay woman who grew up in the ’80s, so I know what it feels like to be told, “It’s just a phase. Maybe you’ll grow out of it. Maybe it’s not really who you are. Maybe there’s just something wrong with you,” so believe me when I say that I have heard it all before. LGBT people have heard this all before. We know what bigotry is when we see it, and we know that bigotry is back. Let us make no mistake: the people who are organising against trans people now are no different from the people who campaigned for section 28. They want to present parts of our movement as a danger to society and push them to the margins. I will never let that happen.
To all those in this room and in this House who are totally convinced that trans people are not real, that they are making it up, that it is TikTok, Reddit or foreign TV that has turned them trans, that somehow this is some kind of new phenomenon, let me assure you all that I have had trans friends for as long as I have been out. Trans people have always and will always exist.
To all those in this room who used to say warm things about trans people back when it was popular to do so but who decided when the wind changed that they would blow in the other direction, and to the Conservatives who in 2018 introduced an LGBT action plan promising trans equality but who now are quite happy to laugh along with cruel mocking jokes about trans people in front of the mother of a murdered trans teenager, we see you, and much like history condemns section 28, history will condemn you too. Meet trans people, talk to them, understand what they are going through and believe them, then we can all stop fighting our toxic culture wars and get back to doing what we as lawmakers are elected to do: make things better for every single one of our constituents—not some of them, all of them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Karl Turner (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to speak in this debate. I have to put on a time limit of three minutes for speeches.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) for such a passionate, incredible speech. Although she focused on adults, I would like to talk more about young people.
I am not sure whether the recent outrage about the puberty blockers trial is a result of misunderstanding, or whether those who do not accept that trans people have a right to affirmative care are simply using it as another opportunity to cause distress and harm to young people who are already marginalised and deeply frightened about their future. I am going to be generous and say it is the former, and I will help by providing some clarity.
Puberty blockers have been used since the 1980s. Although in a small number of high-profile cases, an individual has transitioned back to the gender assigned at birth, the vast majority do not. An Australian study found that 5% ended up identifying with their sex assigned at birth, but only 1% of those did so after receiving puberty blockers or hormone replacement therapy. The others did so during their initial assessment at the clinic. That is significantly lower than the regret rate for breast implants, tattoos or any other change to someone’s body. Puberty blockers are not permanent; they are to delay puberty and pause development.
Imagine a young transgender child who starts to live as a boy as they end the primary phase of their education—taking part in boys’ sports and changing their name on documentation—then having to contend with breast growth and menstruation at school. Or think of a teenage trans girl, who is fully accepted by her friends, suddenly experiencing the growth of facial hair and a dropping voice, and waiting years for an appointment. Imagine how they feel sick, showering a body that physically repulses them, binding to ensure they pass among their friends, and hiding from any situation where they are exposed.
Children whose puberty is advancing too quickly can access these drugs, but trans children cannot. When the drugs were banned last year and the Government announced that there would be a trial, I thought that those who genuinely wanted fair and safe healthcare for trans children would have welcomed it. Instead, they described those children as guinea pigs. The trial must go ahead and needs to be expanded.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Trans healthcare is challenging to access and afford. Waiting lists are ludicrously long and treatment options are limited. There is a massive gap between the treatment that trans people need and what they are being offered. Does the hon. Member agree that, as we just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), trans people are human beings who deserve to be treated as such, with equal access to healthcare?
Vikki Slade
I thank my neighbour for his intervention. Of course they are people; they are our friends, family and neighbours. Puberty blockers are of no use once someone reaches 16 or 17, as by that time the damage is done. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) may pull a strange face at me but, frankly, for those children the damage is often done. They have often attempted suicide multiple times and their lives have been damaged. All they want is access to the support, the hormones and the treatment that they should be entitled to. When they reach 17 years and nine months, however, they are transferred to adult services. In some cases, they have been waiting since they were 12 or 13, only to be told that the south-west of England is currently dealing with referrals from 2017. That is simply not acceptable. We know it is dangerous for people to wait long periods. Coroners repeatedly refer to long waiting lists in the context of trans people’s deaths.
In my last few seconds, I want to address shared care. A constituent of mine, a trans man who transitioned at about 18, has had NHS care in place for many years. He has now been told by his GP that they will not offer him shared care. He has been told that the practice has had a letter from the gender identity clinic saying that the practice does not have the systems, capacity or expertise in place to provide the level of monitoring and care. That is simply unacceptable. This is NHS care. My constituent has NHS prescriptions. Now his own GP says that they will not support him, despite being required to do so. I ask the Minister to look carefully at this issue to ensure that trans children get the services they need and trans adults continue to receive them.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) for securing this important debate and for all her work to champion trans rights in this place.
First, I want to speak about the delivery of general medical care to trans people and the discrimination they experience. Constituents have told me how unrelated health problems have been attributed to them being trans. One person described this as “exhausting and frightening”, stating that it discourages them from seeking help. Meanwhile, 14% of respondents to a survey by TransActual reported that they had been refused GP care on account of being trans. One trans man told the Nottingham Pastel Project that he had been turned away for a cervical smear and treatment for a urinary tract infection.
The second issue I want to raise is the difficulty of accessing gender-affirming care. Trans people will be the first to say that the delivery of gender-affirming care in this country is deeply flawed and in need of serious reform. Instead of taking their experiences as the starting point, discussions about trans healthcare have been rooted in transphobia, misinformation and moral panic. Meanwhile, waiting times for gender-affirming care stretch into years. One Nottingham resident said that they waited seven years for a diagnosis. Another has been waiting for an appointment with a gender identity clinic for five and a half years. Someone who joined the waiting list two years ago has been told to expect to wait a further four years.
Faced with an eight-year wait for gender-affirming surgery on the NHS, one trans person in my city worked two full-time jobs, sold their car and held fundraising events to cobble together £20,000 so they could have that surgery abroad. They are emphatic that it saved their life, but they should never have been forced to go through that ordeal just to access healthcare.
Reports of GPs denying gender-affirming care have increased dramatically. One constituent told me they had huge problems finding a private gender clinic with which their GP would do shared care, and that delayed their treatment by six months. Another Nottingham resident who was on testosterone for more than a decade has not received a single dose in 16 months because their GP has refused to prescribe it. I could go on and on with examples just from my city, and I have not even spoken about the appalling situation that trans people under 18 face.
It is clear that the Government must act, from increasing funding for gender-affirming healthcare to improving training for GPs, modernising assessment and treatment pathways and ensuring co-production of services with trans patients, because this is an emergency. Inadequate healthcare is ruining trans people’s physical health, their mental health and their lives. It cannot be allowed to continue.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Mr Turner.
It is a pleasure to represent a constituency with a thriving trans community. Too often, however, when I hear from trans people who live in Bristol Central or their loved ones, it is because they are struggling to access healthcare. Whether they are stuck on a waiting list to access a gender identity clinic or whether they are a parent looking for support for their child who is questioning their gender, again and again, trans people are refused healthcare that they are entitled to.
Despite the invaluable work of organisations such as TransActual and Stonewall nationally, and Trans Pride Bristol and Trans Aid Bristol in my home city, investment is not being made in public services; instead, trans people find that their rights are sacrificed to the same culture war that scapegoats migrants and people of colour.
When I speak to young trans and gender-questioning people and their families, a major concern is the ban on puberty blockers. Many were heartbroken when the Labour Government made the Conservatives’ temporary ban permanent, rather than rolling it back. That forces young people to go through puberty in a body that does not match their gender, as we have heard. I strongly urge the Department of Health and Social Care to think again on the puberty blocker ban.
I welcome the announcement of the pathways trial, which will give some young people a route to access puberty blockers. I asked the Secretary of State a year ago to clarify the size of the trial, and he assured me in the main Chamber that it would be uncapped. Yet it turns out that the trial will allow just 226 young people to take part. Please will the Minister explain why the numbers were capped, contradicting what I was told in the Chamber last year? Will she also respond to concerns that young people are being pressured to take part in the research because it is the only way to access the care they need?
Healthcare is no better for trans adults. As we have heard, waiting lists for gender identity clinics are unmanageable, with an eight-year wait in the south-west. Coroners have repeatedly referenced the length of such waits following trans people’s deaths. As a result, more than half of trans people have used private healthcare, creating a two-tier system for a community that already faces economic disadvantage. While I am pleased that a pilot wellbeing programme will be introduced for those on the waiting list, that is no replacement for getting trans people the timely healthcare that they need.
Trans people face more barriers to accessing healthcare than I have time to cover in this speech, but I want to highlight that I have had plenty of casework about shared care agreements that have suddenly been stopped, even for people who had accessed healthcare successfully for years through their NHS GP. The Levy review on adult gender dysphoria services might cover some of the issues, but I hope that it will cover all of them. I would like to hear from the Minister when that review will be published, if possible.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I think I speak for everyone in this Chamber when I say that it is a privilege to be in the room with my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), and to hear her passion for this subject and her honesty about the impact. Too often, that voice is missing in our politics. Wherever we stand, I think people can recognise that.
I am so grateful for this debate, because in the time available to me, I want to highlight what we have been doing in Walthamstow on this issue. We were worried that we would never find allies for our work, and today is a reminder that we will, because the majority of people in this country understand a simple and decent point: trans people pay for the NHS too, and they should be entitled to services that suit their needs. The reality for that very vulnerable and small group within our society is that they are not getting the services they need. This is not just about gender-affirming healthcare; it is about healthcare across the piece. That is the challenge that we have been dealing with in Walthamstow.
I pay tribute to the members of my local trans community who have had the bravery to come forward and speak about their experiences. I will not name them because, sadly, we live in a world where people would demonise them simply for speaking up about the fact that, because they cannot access their local GP—particularly in shared care agreements, which many others have mentioned—they cannot access healthcare at all, even for other conditions. They might also have physical disabilities or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, but they struggle to access services accordingly. No one can think that it is acceptable for a patient group in the NHS to be systematically excluded. I pay tribute to the North East London integrated care board, which has risen to the challenge and recognised the problem, and is now looking at how to resolve it.
I think we all recognise that shared care agreements are complicated, but the reality is that not every shared care agreement is refused. Not every person in my constituency with a referral from an NHS provider, let alone a private one, gets a doctor who says, “We do not cover that agreement”. Some in our local trans community are self-prescribing hormones and not getting the blood tests and monitoring that they need, and they face a delay in getting support. I want to put on the record that there have also been some very positive responses from my local GPs, but it is patchy.
In the time available to me, I make one simple plea to the Minister. It is great that we have the David Levy review, but I ask for the Minister’s help and support for my local clinicians. They are cutting through the heat in this debate and asking a simple question: how can we serve this local community better? How can we make services work better for them? I will stand up for the right of every single one of my constituents to get decent healthcare, but I ask the Minister to work with us to get it right on the ground.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) for securing this important debate. She is the champion we all deserve, and she almost brought me to tears with her passion in opening the debate. I commend her work and her advocacy. She is a modern-day LGBT icon, and I feel privileged to serve with her.
In a world that feels increasingly divided, debates like this matter because they force us to confront and test a simple but critical principle: the great, objective universality of our healthcare system—who gets access to healthcare, and who is treated? My gut, my politics and my experience as an LGBT person say everyone. I am sure that all Members present would agree that healthcare is not a privilege to be earned; it is a right grounded in dignity, compassion and evidence-based care. It is an inalienable right of every citizen of this country. To get to the nub of this debate, that means transgender people too, such as constituents who have come to see me in my surgeries. They are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for the same thing as any of us would expect: timely, safe and respectful healthcare, and dignity.
I am sorry to say, however, that healthcare falls short for them. Thousands of transgender people are waiting years for first NHS appointments. Those are not just statistics, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth said, but people spending years of life in uncertainty and distress—years when people put their lives and careers on hold, delaying their education and questioning whether they will even survive long enough to be seen. Where care is delayed, it is denied, and 48,000 trans people are currently on waiting lists. Many are pushed towards unregulated overseas routes, not because they want to bypass safeguards but because the alternative feels unbearable. Families make decisions out of love and desperation, often fearing self-harm or suicide if they are left without support. That is not a failure of those families; it is a failure of an outdated system, which apparently is unfortunately questioning its duty to these individuals.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Something that I hear from concerned parents of trans children and young people, who are often such powerful advocates for them, is that they feel powerless to help their children, so does my hon. Friend agree that support and guidance for families and friends must absolutely be embedded in gender-affirming care, as we hopefully expand and invest in that?
Oliver Ryan
I thank my hon. Friend for that very relevant point. He took the words right out of my mouth, to quote Meat Loaf. We must also recognise that the wider picture, though, is that transgender people face questioning or even denial of their very existence as people. They face barriers not just in specialist gender and transitioning services, but across society as well as our healthcare system, including GP surgeries, maternity care, cancer screenings and mental health support. Too many avoid seeking help altogether not because they are disengaged, but because they fear being misunderstood, judged and discriminated against, or turned away, as unfortunately they are, as the evidence tells us.
Taking this away from silly social media debates, evidence-led medicine, properly funded services and clear clinical guidance do not harm patients; they protect patients. In a world where there is still so much hostility, we have a responsibility and a duty to work harder to ensure that everyone has a place. I know that this Labour Government, at their core, believe that. This House has a responsibility to speak up for those individuals who are too often drowned out by fear and misinformation and by the madness of the online space because we owe it to the sort of country we want to be, where we consider everyone in a mature, dignified and rational way to be worthy of healthcare.
I am not transgender, but I believe in fairness and the principle of good, timely, effective, universal access to healthcare, which applies to transgender people as much as anyone else, because at its core, this is about whether we meet people at their most vulnerable moments with care or with closed doors, and I know which side of that choice I stand on. I hope to hear the Minister take up the points my hon. Friend has made, and I hope to see a more dignified approach to this debate from all concerned in future.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) for bringing us this debate. I am proud to call her a colleague and a friend. She is an exemplary part of the LGBT movement, and I am proud to associate myself with her and her comments in this debate.
We have heard already about the extraordinary length of waiting lists for gender-affirming care. Based on current appointment rates, a trans person can expect to wait an average of 25 years across the UK for an initial appointment to start gender-affirming care. That is simply not good enough, and we would never accept this in any other patient category in our NHS. We have heard much in this debate about the delays in receiving this care and the devastating impact that has on the lives of transgender people. With that in mind, I would like to ask the Minister whether waiting times for transgender patients are included within the current target to cut waiting times to 18 weeks by the end of this Parliament. Can she commit specifically to decreasing the length of waiting times for gender care by the end of the Parliament?
The second issue that I want to raise—which we have heard about already—is the operation of NHS gender care services more generally, and shared care as an important component of them. Once a gender clinic deems a trans person’s medical transition complete, it discharges them from its care to that of the GP, who will then authorise hormone prescriptions and contact the clinic about any issues. However, GPs in my constituency —and many that we have heard about in this debate—are increasingly refusing to enter into shared care agreements. The rate of such rejections has gone up from 5% to 21% in the last 12 months. Will the Minister therefore commit to clarifying the roles and responsibilities of different NHS services for the provision of gender-related healthcare? It is unacceptable that those who have waited years or decades for initial appointments, who have jumped through all the hoops possible to get NHS gender care, and who are finally in receipt of NHS prescriptions from NHS doctors, are then in practice unable to receive a prescription because their GP has unilaterally decided not to perform blood monitoring tests and provide that shared care support.
It is vital, as has been said, that we ensure access to a range of health services beyond gender-specific needs, whether sexual health services, reproductive health services, or primary and secondary care more generally. The voluntary and community sector, including trans-specific groups, perform a vital role in providing services, brokerage, networking and support in the health service but they are often poorly funded. I encourage the Minister to see what the NHS can do to support trans-led health organisations within it.
Unfortunately and increasingly, a hostile environment is being developed across much of the media. It seeks to erase the existence of trans people from our past, present and future. It is vital that we speak up about their existence, and about the experience of our constituents. I have been contacted by many of my constituents who are trans to detail the impact that the media, political and public discourse is having on their lives. I welcome this debate as part of resetting that discourse in this place and in our society. Fundamentally, this is about treating all people with dignity and respect, and about recognising that trans people exist, as do their health needs.
Karl Turner (in the Chair)
We have four minutes remaining for three speakers.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I feel it is incumbent on me to speak out on behalf of parents of trans people and, by extension, their children. On a couple of occasions, such parents have come to see me with, frankly, some of the most harrowing cases I have heard as an MP. One family is planning to leave the country. What kind of country have we become where that is even a possibility? One parent’s child, who is currently receiving puberty-blocking drugs and who has been thriving at school and socially as a girl, has in recent months seen her horizons shrinking just at the moment she hoped they would be expanding, as is the right of any young person. As people opine about rights, and debate the apparent clash of rights on this sensitive topic, hon. Members and members of the public would do well to put themselves in the shoes of that girl. How is that young person to feel, knowing that there is a growing hostility towards people like her that is being weaponised, exploited and unleashed?
Although of course it is right that there is rigorous scrutiny of the efficacy of drugs, given the perceived risk of harm, I ask the Minister to consider that thousands of young people are deeply fearful because they are currently on puberty blockers that are now being banned. Just imagine if we suggested taking drugs away that treated a conventional medical issue. That would cause enough fear, but imagine what it must be like to fear that your very essence as a human being is going to be damaged against your will. As others have mentioned, the trial of such drugs will be for 226 young people, but many thousands are waiting to be seen by gender identity services, some of whom are ineligible for the trial anyway. We must put the humanity back into the debate about human rights, especially when they are seen to clash. We must put humanity back into our deliberations and the human back at the centre of our thoughts. Empathy and kindness cannot be drowned out in a debate about rights, and I will continue to speak up for vulnerable people.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I will be brief because we are running out of time. Detransitioners are an often marginalised and misunderstood group. Ritchie Herron is a civil servant who underwent gender surgery in 2018 in order to live as a woman. That involved rearranging tissue in the genital area to create a vaginal opening. When he decided to detransition, he was concerned that specialists were unable to advise him clearly about the correct dosages of hormones that he should take during the process to avoid increasing his risk of osteoporosis. In brief, I simply ask the Minister what her Department is doing to look at how the NHS supports those who are detransitioning? That is not to say that those who are transitioning should not be able to access the support that they need, but what is the NHS doing to support those who want to detransition, especially those who experienced puberty blockers at a young age?
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) on introducing the debate. I will be brief.
A trans woman from my constituency told me:
“Transgender healthcare. Even these words feel contentious… If I have a toothache, I understand that I can book an appointment to see a dentist. The pain I was feeling radiated through every aspect of my day, but for a long time it seemed impossible to name. Even when I finally found a way to begin to understand this pain, I was met with a second, greater barrier. Reaching out to the dentist doesn't make me feel ashamed and like a monster.”
That is just one small snippet of many stories I have, and I could share many more today. Trans people are human beings, and we need to start treating them as such. I await the outcome of the Levy review, but live in hope that it will focus on the safety, dignity and autonomy of trans and non-binary people. Time will tell.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) for securing this important debate on healthcare for transgender people and the excellent opening speech she made.
As Liberal Democrats, we believe that everyone should have the freedom to live their lives as who they are, with their fundamental rights protected. Nobody’s health or life chances should be limited or determined because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Liberal Democrats strongly support better specialist healthcare services for people who are struggling with their gender identity. These individuals are often the most vulnerable and marginalised in our society, and it is key that they get the support they need from both the Government and healthcare services to ensure they are protected.
I will start with young people. The old system—a single clinic with a shockingly long waiting list, rated “inadequate” by the Care Quality Commission—was clearly failing vulnerable people at a very difficult point in their lives. Before the gender identity development scheme closed, more than 5,000 young people were stuck on that list. They were left waiting for a first appointment for almost three years on average.
For teenagers going through what are often incredibly difficult experiences, three years is an eternity. I have met parents in my constituency surgeries who are visibly distressed by the additional pressure and interminable wait for help for their children or teenagers. We must try to do better for these families. Liberal Democrats have consistently campaigned for action to tackle appallingly long wait times across the NHS, whether it is for cancer treatment or mental health, and it is right that we do so for gender identity services, too.
Trans people should not face a delay in receiving healthcare just because they are trans, and the current situation of waiting years is simply unacceptable. That is why change is needed, and why Liberal Democrats have long pressed the Government to establish new specialist services and recruit and retain more specialist clinicians—so that trans people can access the appropriate, individually-focused and high-quality healthcare that they need.
The NHS’s move to create multiple new regional services is therefore welcome, but only three are open now—in London, the north-west and the south-west—leaving those who have already been stuck on waiting lists for years to wait even longer. There is no indication yet of when the other centres will open.
I hope the Government will show far more urgency in getting these centres up and running properly, or more people will be denied the critical care they need as they languish on long waiting lists. I urge the Minister to take this opportunity to put forward a solid timeline on delivery for the future centres.
Moving on to adults, we are concerned that the current waiting list for adults trans people attempting to access gender identity clinics in the UK is on average five years, and there are some reports of much longer averages of 12 years in England or even longer, as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth highlighted. That is unacceptable for people in distress.
Trans adults have significantly higher rates of mental health conditions, such as autism, dementia and learning disabilities, so timely help is really important. Furthermore, many patients report discrimination, misgendering or the refusal of standard services. Surveys reveal that 40% of trans individuals experience negative healthcare interactions and 21% say their needs were ignored. We have heard about the devastating impact that can have on these real people.
I welcome the commissioning of the Levy review into healthcare for trans adults. Will the Minister clarify when we might expect it to conclude and report back? I hope it will cover both the quality of healthcare and its timeliness. We believe that trans people have the right to be seen by a specialist within 18 weeks, as set out in the NHS constitution, and that they deserve further support while on an NHS waiting list, such as mental-health support and gender-affirming care. Therefore, I welcome the fact that the NHS has doubled investment, opened new clinics and initiated wellbeing pilots offering digital mental health and community support while patients wait, but there is still much more to do.
It is critical in our modern and inclusive society that no one should wait longer or suffer inappropriate care just because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. I urge the Minister to ensure that all UK citizens are provided with adequate care, support and protection by increasing the availability and quality of specialist gender services across the country.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) on securing this important debate. I declare an interest: I am an NHS consultant paediatrician and I have cared for those with gender dysphoria in the past, and am likely to do so in the future. As we discuss a fairly heated topic, we need to remember that there are people experiencing significant challenges, and they deserve the very best healthcare based on need and the best evidence.
One challenge is that name and sex records are sometimes different from how people are referred to in a ward. The previous Conservative Government launched the Sullivan review, which found that a failure of NHS bodies to record biological sex meant that some people were not invited to sex-specific screening. It recommended that we should not combine questions on sex and gender, and that putting politics before patients threatens clinical care. When will the Government formally respond to the Sullivan report? When does the Minister expect to implement its important recommendations? How will the Government ensure that intimate care is provided by someone of the same biological sex where possible?
I would also like to raise the issue of phalloplasty, which is a major surgery on healthy bodies, creating a penis. According to the NHS website, it causes urinary incontinence, loss of sexual function, and in 3% of cases, necrosis and loss of the penis. Is the Minister confident that the NHS is doing the right thing with this surgery?
I want to move on to talk about children with trans identity. We have been talking about the puberty blockers trial. Why is that trial occurring? Drugs are, unusually, being given to children with physically healthy bodies. Despite telling Members of this House that he was comfortable with the trial, the Secretary of State said on Friday to the media that he was “uncomfortable”. Why is it being considered before the completion of the data linkage study recommended in the Cass report?
Some 9,000 children went through the Tavistock gender identity and development services. Many regretted irreversible damage to their bodies. Why have the Government chosen to experiment on a new batch of children before the data linkage study recommended by the Cass report is complete? What steps is the Minister taking to secure that data? What steps is she taking to hold to account the people who are obstructing the data linkage study? What assessment has she made of the motivation of those obstructing a study that, at its heart, is designed to protect children?
What of the trial itself? Some 226 children will receive puberty blockers—is that a limit? Will there be no more by law? They will be randomised into treatment now or treatment after 12 months, and analysed after just two years. When someone receives the drug for only a year, they will still be a child. What meaningful results can be obtained over that period?
The true control group of those not receiving the drugs is not randomised, but chosen or matched from a different trial—the Horizon Intensive trial. Is the Minister concerned that that may introduce a bias? The criteria for getting puberty blockers under the trial require that one parent consents, not necessarily both—one might disagree—and the clinician must think it will benefit the child, but on what specific criteria will the clinician make that decision? Is the Minister concerned to ensure that ideology does not affect judgment?
The Cass review said that the majority of children with gender dysphoria will recover from their distress without any medication, and that it is not currently possible to predict which children they would be. Does the Minister accept that the vast majority of children in this, the Streeting trial, are physically healthy children whose distress would get better without puberty blockers, and that this Labour Government are choosing to give potentially dangerous drugs to children, most of whom will not need them?
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) on securing this important debate. Without giving away any state secrets, we are roughly the same age; I am not gay, but I also marched and campaigned against section 28—I remember those days from very early on.
I want to say from the outset that this Government stand for the important principle in our healthcare system—which has been echoed this afternoon by many Members—that everyone in our country deserves access to first-class healthcare. I will not rehearse here the mess that we inherited from the last Government; we do not have time. However, we are determined to ensure that what I have set out happens. If we are to make good on that principle, we must take account of the diverse needs of our society. That of course includes trans people and the wider lesbian, gay and bisexual community.
Colleagues are right to say that transgender people experience significant and specific health inequalities throughout their lives. As we have been reminded again this afternoon and should always bear in mind when we have debates in this place, these are real people’s lives. Many people are with us today in the Public Gallery, and I am sure that many others are watching online. That is why this Government have commissioned NHS England to undertake a health evidence review, led by Dr Michael Brady, the national adviser on LGBT health, whom I met in advance of this debate. He has held the position of adviser since 2019 and works as a sexual health and HIV consultant at King’s College hospital. I am pleased that he is doing that review. The work is considering how we can better understand lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender healthcare needs and will provide a clearer picture of what the problems are—the data, the evidence—and how we need to address them.
That is particularly important in relation to preventive healthcare and the inequalities space. The Government have been very clear about our commitment to reversing the shocking health inequalities in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) highlighted where there is good practice across the country. In addition, it is important to highlight the fact that despite the umbrella term of LGBT, needs are different in this group, and equality terms are covered by different aspects of the Equality Act 2010. All of this needs to be clearly evidenced and brought forward in the work to which I am referring. Lots of people asked this question: we anticipate that the findings of the evidence review will be finalised in the new year. We will then be considering those very carefully.
We have talked this afternoon about the fact that trans people—they are the subject of this debate—have unique health needs and specialist services to support them. This Government are improving specialist gender services for children, young people and adults in England. I recognise that those wishing to access gender services are waiting far too long for a first appointment. We are determined to change that, which is why NHS England has increased the number of adult gender dysphoria clinics in England from seven to 12, with the roll-out of five new pilot clinics since July 2020. These clinics are helping to tackle long waits, but we know that waiting times for these services can be distressing and are having a real impact on people’s wellbeing. To support those facing long waits, the Department of Health and Social Care has tendered for a new Waiting Well pilot. That will run for 12 months and provide those on the waiting list for the gender dysphoria clinic in the south-west region with access to support and information before appointments. The aim is for the pilot to launch in early 2026 and to inform plans for a national offer, subject to effective evaluation.
It is vital that transgender people are able to access the high-quality healthcare that they deserve. As we have heard, NHS England has asked Dr David Levy to carry out a review of adult gender services, because that was a specific recommendation from the Cass review of children and young people’s gender services. As an independent chair, Dr Levy will examine the model of care and operating procedures of each service, and is carefully considering feedback and outcomes from clinicians and patients. To respond to a number of questions this afternoon, that includes issues relating to shared care prescribing and monitoring of hormone medication. Dr Levy has been supported in his review by independent senior clinicians and professional bodies. I expect the review to be published shortly, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will inform the House as soon as that has happened, but let me assure Members here, and people listening to or reading about this debate, that we will use the review as a basis to improve NHS adult gender services.
Issues relating to children have been raised this afternoon. I know that children and young people’s gender services are a sensitive topic that elicits strong opinions, some of which we have heard today. Let me be very clear: we will take an evidence-based approach when it comes to the health and wellbeing of all children and young people. Their safety is our primary concern. We are committed to implementing the recommendations of the Cass review, to ensure that children who access these services receive the same high-quality care as any other child or young person accessing NHS services. We believe that the Cass review remains an excellent, evidence-based report. I urge all hon. Members to use it as their guide when making assertions, including in their understanding of gender dysphoria. We welcome that report and accept its work; it is our guidance for navigating healthcare for transgender young people.
It is still my understanding that the report is not supported by the Green party, and not properly supported by the Liberal Democrats, so when we talk about evidence, colleagues perhaps need to check and go back to the source report, because we are determined to follow the evidence and great work done by Hilary Cass.
NHS England has opened three new services in the north-west, London and the south-west, as we have heard. Those services operate under a fundamentally different and new clinical model, in which children and young people get the tailored and holistic care they need from multidisciplinary teams of experts in paediatrics, neurodiversity and mental health. A fourth service in the east of England is expected to open early in the new year. NHS England aims to open service provision in every region of England by 2026–27. That will help to further reduce waiting times and bring these services much closer to the homes of the children and young people who need them.
On puberty blockers and the pathways trial, the Cass review was clear that better quality evidence is critical to understanding the effects of puberty-suppressing hormones. That is why the NHS has removed them from children’s gender services, and why the Government have indefinitely banned them in private supply.
Dr Cass also recommended a clinical trial to understand the effects of these hormones, which is why the pathways trial has been established. In this controlled study, puberty suppression will be offered solely within the context of the comprehensive assessment and psychosocial support now offered by the NHS. The trial has undergone comprehensive review, has received independent scientific, ethical and regulatory approvals, and will soon open to recruitment.
I know that many hon. Members have strongly held views about this research. However, I want to be really clear that safeguarding the children and young people participating in this trial is our absolute priority. In response to the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) on detransitioning, I will add that NHS England has called for evidence from people with lived experience and from professionals; I understand that the consultation closes on 28 December.
Karin Smyth
I will finish.
I met Dr Sullivan recently to understand her report and how it impacts on the Department of Health and NHS England. My understanding is that each Department is looking at the recommendations of her review, and that it is important to have accurate data. I will ensure that the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) gets an answer on whether there will be a formal Government response.
This Government were elected on a manifesto to bring down inequality. We are doing so through a number of different measures—on the soft drinks industry, free school meals, the generational ban on smoking and Awaab’s law. In her Budget, the Chancellor lifted half a million children out of poverty at the stroke of a pen.
We are determined to ensure that no one falls through the cracks of our health system, and we will give transgender people the care they deserve. I hope the actions I have set out today demonstrate our commitment to that goal and our focus on improving healthcare provision for transgender people, across all ages, based on good clinical scientific evidence. We will cut waiting lists for gender services, along with all other waiting lists, and ensure that healthcare is always evidence-based, improving health outcomes for trans people and the wider community.
Rachel Taylor
I thank everyone who has spoken in this debate, and all my hon. Friends, for their passion, care, advocacy, understanding, kind words and leadership in this area. The tone of the debate has proved that we can, away from the glare of culture wars, have a sensitive and nuanced discussion about how to guarantee care for some of our most vulnerable citizens and how to support their families.
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), for her understanding and clarity of thought; she is a strong advocate. I also thank the spokesperson for the Green party, the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer).
I thank the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), for coming here divested of some of the toxic and inflammatory zeal, even though she seemed more concerned about the small number of people who are detransitioning rather than about all trans people and their healthcare.
Most of all, I thank the Minister for her remarks. I welcome her commitment to first-class healthcare for everyone. I welcome the Brady review reporting early in the new year, including the fact that there will be between seven and 12 healthcare centres for young trans people, with more clinics to come around the corner. I also very much welcome her Waiting Well pilot and hope that it can be rolled out across the country.
I want to finish by broadening out this discussion. This has not been an easy year for trans people. The Supreme Court judgment and the misguided, unnecessary interim guidance that followed from the Equality and Human Rights Commission have created genuine fear that rights long enjoyed are now at risk. We have heard today about the poor state of healthcare for trans people in this country, and flawed guidance risks making that situation worse.
I have heard from trans and non-binary people who have developed urinary tract infections because they feared going to the toilet. There is no doubt that the toxic culture wars have the potential—
Capture Redress and Horizon Shortfall Schemes: Chair of Independent Panel and Independent Reviewer A
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
On 29 November, I launched the Capture redress scheme to provide payments to postmasters who suffered as a result of the Capture software.
Today, I am pleased to announce that the Government are appointing Judge Carol Taylor CBE as the chair of the independent panel for the Capture redress scheme. Her role is to oversee appeals and governance across the panel’s decisions. All appeals will be assessed by the chair, who will serve as the independent reviewer. Judge Taylor will assess whether the grounds for appeal have been satisfied. She will also determine whether the eligibility decision or award should be amended or remain unchanged.
Judge Taylor is a former regional employment judge with over 30 years of judicial experience. She has a distinguished career in employment law and substantial expertise in discrimination and compensation matters and is a champion of diversity. Her expertise will ensure that postmasters are treated fairly and in line with the scheme principles throughout the process.
I am also pleased to announce that the Government are appointing the right hon. Lord Carnwath as the independent reviewer for Horizon shortfall scheme appeals. His role is to act as a final arbiter for appeals claims, to assess whether the assessment of the appeal is substantially inconsistent with the guidance and principles and/or reflects a manifest error, procedural irregularity or a substantive error of principle. Alongside Lord Carnwarth’s appointment we have also published on www.gov.uk the names of the individuals who will make up the HSS appeals independent panel.
[HCWS1174]
Ministerial Correction
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
The Minister for Digital Economy (Baroness Lloyd of Effra CBE) has today made the following statement.
The Government’s answer to written question HL985, published on 8 October 2024, included the following paragraph:
“UK Seabed Resources Limited has two International Seabed Authority exploration contracts, UKSR1 and UKSR2. These have an initial period of 15 years with the contract period of UKSR1 ending in 2026 and UKSR2 ending in 2027.”
That paragraph contained errors, so I am correcting the record today. The paragraph should have read as follows:
“UK Seabed Resources Limited has two International Seabed Authority exploration contracts, UK1 and UK2. These have an initial period of 15 years with the contract period of UK1 ending in 2028 and UK2 ending in 2031”.
[HCWS1189]
BBC Charter Review: Terms of Reference and Green Paper
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
The Government have today published the terms of reference and the Green Paper consultation for the BBC charter review, formally launching the review.
The BBC is an institution like no other. For over 100 years it has been at the heart of our national life and a light on the hill for people across the world. This charter will formally set the terms of the BBC for the future, with a clear ambition to set the BBC on a path to thrive until well into the latter half of this century.
Our vision is for a BBC that is trusted, loved and belongs to us all, providing those shared spaces and places that have become so rare and so precious in recent decades. Sustainably funded, with a strong presence in every nation and region so that all of us can see ourselves reflected in our national story. A broadcaster known for its unique strengths, from the highest-quality children’s programmes to impartial and trusted news and documentaries, the world over.
The review will focus on the following areas, which are set out in the objectives in the terms of reference and the Green Paper:
Trust, independence and accountability are central to the BBC’s future, to how it operates and to how it engages with audiences. The BBC must remain independent, genuinely accountable to the public it serves, and, critically, it must continue to command public trust.
To ensure that the BBC remains a trusted institution, it must also follow the highest editorial standards. This is how the BBC provides the facts necessary for civilised debate and a foundation of shared national understanding. It must continue the World Service’s vital work in providing trusted and truthful news internationally, and delivering on its role as a UK soft power asset promoting British values abroad.
The BBC needs to also reflect the whole of the UK. People, right across our nation, must be able to access content that genuinely reflects their lives, their communities, and their contributions. This means the BBC must commission, produce and distribute stories that are truly rooted in diverse UK experiences and promote British stories and creativity to the world.
This charter review will ensure that the BBC continues to remain an engine of growth driving good jobs, skills and creativity across every region and nation of the UK and a leader in technologies that provide public value.
Finally, we have to ensure that the BBC is funded in a way that is sustainable for the long term, providing the BBC with the funding it needs to continue to deliver a vital public service, while also being fair for audiences.
The consultation will be open for 12 weeks. Following this, the Government will bring forward a White Paper next year ahead of tabling a new charter, which Parliament will have the chance to debate. The new charter must come into force by 1 January 2028.
[HCWS1176]
Arts Council England: Independent Review
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
Today, the right hon. Baroness Hodge of Barking DBE is publishing her independent review of Arts Council England.
The Government strongly welcome the review and would like to thank Baroness Hodge for her unwavering rigour and dedication over the past 12 months. We also thank the members of Baroness Hodge’s advisory panel, who freely gave their time to share their expertise, and all those who contributed to the review, either by submitting views via the online survey, or through meetings with Baroness Hodge and her team.
This Government are committed to ensuring arts and culture thrive everywhere. Access to arts and culture is not a luxury—it is a necessity. It shapes our communities and enriches our lives. We believe that excellence must be open to everyone, wherever they live and whatever their background. A national Arts Council, connected to the places and people it serves, is essential to making that vision a reality.
The review highlights the strengths of Arts Council England’s work, but it also challenges us to do better. It sets out recommendations to strengthen support for artists, reach communities more effectively and ensure that creativity is accessible to all. The Government will now consider these recommendations, work with Arts Council England to begin the process of ambitious change and respond to the review in the new year.
I will place a copy of the review and a copy of relevant annexes to the review in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1180]
Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report 2025
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
I have today laid before Parliament the 14th armed forces annual covenant report, delivering the statutory duty of the Secretary of State for Defence under the Armed Forces Act 2006.
Since 2011, the armed forces covenant has been a promise by the nation that those who serve or have served in the armed forces, and their families along with the bereaved, should be treated fairly. Its founding principles recognise the unique obligations and sacrifices made by the armed forces community, and that special provision should be given to those who have given the most. The annual report is the primary tool by which the Government is held to account in delivery of the covenant.
The 2025 report covers October 2024 to September 2025 and showcases the extraordinary work that has been achieved throughout the UK in support of our armed forces community. Contributors to the report include several departments from across the Ministry of Defence, alongside wider Government, the devolved Governments and third sector organisations.
Our first of its kind strategic defence review, published in June 2025, introduced 62 recommendations that have been fully accepted, driving significant reforms in structure, accountability, and support for armed forces personnel. Further notable achievements this past year include the largest pay rise in over 20 years, a 35% increase for new recruits, and the reacquisition of more than 36,000 service homes to enhance affordability and quality. Further measures have strengthened fairness and accountability, such as a new tri-service complaints process and the creation of a violence against women and girls taskforce, while the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025 will provide independent oversight and a stronger voice for personnel and their families.
We have reinforced our enduring duty of care to the wider armed forces community, military personnel, veterans and their families including the bereaved. The Prime Minister announced our plans for the extension of the armed forces covenant legal duty. This stronger legislation will ensure all Government Departments, and devolved Governments, will be legally required to consider the needs of the armed forces community when making policy or decisions, giving them a meaningful voice and delivering on this Government’s pledge to strengthen support for our armed forces communities.
The past year has been one of delivery and renewal: securing pay, housing, welfare, oversight and long-term investment in our people and capabilities. The work continues, but the direction is clear. Our armed forces and their families make extraordinary sacrifices. In return, they deserve respect, support, and fair treatment.
This report demonstrates our unwavering commitment to that principle and our determination to build a Defence community that is valued, protected, and empowered.
Attachments to the statement can be viewed online at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2025-12-16/HCWS1181/
[HCWS1181]
Reserve Forces External Scrutiny Team Annual Statutory Report 2025
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
Led by Air Chief Marshal (Retd) Lord Peach, the reserve forces and cadets associations external scrutiny team provides an independent assessment on the health of the reserve forces on behalf of the Department. I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of the 2025 report, along with a copy of my response to this report. I am most grateful to the team for their work.
Attachments to this statement can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2025-12-16/HCWS1175/
[HCWS1175]
Fuller Inquiry Phase 2 Report: Government Interim Update on Progress
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
I am today updating the House on the Government’s progress in responding to the recommendations of the independent inquiry into the serious issues raised by the appalling actions of David Fuller, including an accompanying interim update published alongside this statement.
The final report of the Fuller inquiry, published on 15 July 2025, set out 75 recommendations to strengthen the security and dignity of people after death across a wide range of settings. The inquiry’s findings were clear: current arrangements for the care of the deceased are partial, piecemeal, and not universally mandated. A dedicated cross-Government programme board was established in July and has met fortnightly since.
At this interim stage solid progress has been made on 54 of the inquiry recommendations.
Eleven are accepted in full and work is already in progress to implement these recommendations—22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 30,31, 32, 33, 34 and 75—covering standards, data and operating procedures in the wider health sector. Implementation highlights include: the publication by the Human Tissue Authority on 1 December of updated guidance to ensure adverse incidents in the anatomy sector are recorded—recommendation 26—with incidents already being reported; agreement by NHS England that data collection on the conveyancing of deceased patients will be rolled out in 2026-27 for the first time—recommendation 31. Further details are included in the interim update publication— https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fuller-inquiry-government-interim-update-on-phase-2-recommendations.
Forty-three of the inquiry’s recommendations relating to both NHS and local authority mortuaries require further work before they can be implemented. Those include nine recommendations—1 to 9—for the NHS estate, and NHS England continues to assess the recommendations and is working with NHS trusts to develop actions at trust board level. A further 12 of the inquiry’s recommendations —10 to 21—relate to governance, accountability and safeguarding in NHS trusts. Analysis of the logistics and costings of these recommendations is currently being carried out by NHS England. Recommendations 35 to 56 relate to local authority mortuaries, which include 21 HTA licensed mortuaries. MHCLG sought views via the Local Government Association on the state of the estate, and there is an LGA-led roundtable meeting in January. The LGA and HTA are also working together to assess how LA mortuaries’ current practices compare with the inquiry’s recommendations, and existing HTA standards in the post-mortem sector. The HTA has reviewed these recommendations against their own standards and concludes that seven are fully covered by existing HTA standards, and has shared this analysis with the LGA.
There are a further 21 recommendations still under consideration. Seven of these are miscellaneous recommendations—24, 25, 67, 68, 69, 70 and 73—and three are for LAs who contract with third party providers —57, 58 and 59. A roundtable was held in November regarding the role of faith organisations—67 and 68—in the care for the deceased in these settings. Outputs of the roundtable will inform the response to these two recommendations. In addition, the chief coroner has notified all coroners of the inquiry’s conclusions, in response to recommendation 70.
No decisions have been made regarding the 11 recommendations—29, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 69, 71, 72—relating to wider regulation in all settings that care for people after death. We are working closely with the NHS, local authorities, the Human Tissue Authority, the Care Quality Commission, and other partners to explore how we can ensure that robust and consistent standards are in place across all settings. This includes reviewing mortuary access controls, oversight arrangements, contractor vetting, and requirements for training and reporting.
The Government are committed to transparency and accountability as this work progresses. This update demonstrates that work is actively under way to consider and respond to the inquiry’s recommendations, with action already being taken towards implementing 54 of 75 recommendations. Full details of the status of all recommendations are contained in the published update. A full response to the inquiry’s recommendations will be published in summer 2026.
[HCWS1173]
Government Response to NHS Dentistry Consultation: Quality and Payment Reforms
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I wish to update the House following the Government’s recent public consultation on quality and payment reforms to the NHS dentistry contract.
Restoring NHS dentistry is one of the Government’s top priorities.
The Government remain committed to fundamental reform of the dental contract by the end of this Parliament, with a focus on matching resources to need, improving access, promoting prevention and rewarding dentists fairly, while enabling the whole dental team to work to the top of their capability. This is our ambition, and it will take time to get right.
We held a public consultation over July and August, on a package of proposals to address some of the pressing issues that dentists and dental teams are experiencing. Ensuring payment reflects the support patients require, creating a culture that rewards and improves quality of care, and further embedding the principles of skill mix within NHS delivery are all critical steps to improve access to NHS dental services for those who need it most.
We received over 2,250 responses to the consultation, including from members of the dental sector as well as members of the public. I want to thank those who shared their thoughts and experiences, which have helped us to refine our proposals.
Overall, the response to the consultation was positive and therefore the Government intend to proceed with implementing all the proposed changes, with some adjustments to specific proposals in response to consultation feedback. For example, we have revised and improved the payment structure for the unscheduled and urgent care proposal, to work better for dentists and patients.
The final set of changes are designed to help deliver our mission to build an NHS fit for the future, and are intended to:
secure the manifesto commitment to provide additional urgent dental care appointments by embedding urgent care into the dental contract, supported by increased payments for dentists delivering this care, making it easier for patients to get rapid support for urgent dental needs through the NHS;
introduce new clinical and payment structures specifically designed to provide better care for patients with gum disease or significant decay who require more intensive treatment;
support increased use of cost-effective evidence-based prevention interventions for children, reducing the opportunities for tooth decay;
introduce a new payment for denture modifications, relining and repairs, better supporting providers to manage the costs associated with delivering these treatments;
support a reduction in clinically unnecessary check-ups, helping dentists to focus care on patients with the greatest need and avoiding patients being overtreated, and therefore overcharged for care;
improve care quality by introducing quality improvement activities and funded appraisals, allowing teams to focus on the quality of care they deliver and to evaluate performance; and,
provide support to the profession by extending discretionary support payments and developing a model contract and NHS handbook for dental teams, helping them to feel part of the wider NHS.
The proposed changes are intended to deliver benefits for both patients and the profession and represent a move away from some of the features of the current unit of dental activity payment model, which dental teams have told us is a barrier to delivering NHS care.
The Government will introduce the proposals from April 2026 onwards and the specific timing for the delivery of each proposal will be communicated to the sector in due course.
These changes build on the Government’s wider dental rescue plan, including providing additional urgent dental care appointments and £11 million in 2025-26 for the national supervised toothbrushing programme for three to five-year-olds including over 4 million free toothbrushing products in the most deprived areas to protect children’s teeth, thanks to a groundbreaking partnership between the Government and Colgate-Palmolive. In addition, community water fluoridation will be expanded across the north-east of England, to reduce tooth decay and inequalities in dental health.
[HCWS1172]
Knife Sellers Licensing Consultation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
As part of the Government’s aim to halve knife crime within a decade, and in line with their manifesto commitment, the previous Home Secretary commissioned Commander Stephen Clayman, the National Police Chiefs’ Council knife crime lead, to conduct a review of online sales of knives.
The “Independent End-to-End Review of Online Knife Sales”1 was published on 19 February and made a number of recommendations, including the introduction of a registration scheme for sellers and importers of knives. The Government accepted the most important recommendations immediately, and this included legislating in the Crime and Policing Bill for stronger age checks for online sales and delivery of knives, and the reporting by retailers of bulk purchases of knives online. The Government also committed to launching a public consultation to explore whether registration for sellers, in the form of a licensing scheme, should be put in place for anyone selling knives, whether online or offline.
The consultation will launch today, and it will run for a 10-week period, closing on 24 February 2026. A copy of the consultation and related options assessment will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament and published on gov.uk.
1Independent end-to-end review of online knife sales: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-end-to-end-review-of-online-knife-sales
[HCWS1178]
Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation Report 2024
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of state threats legislation, has prepared a report on the operation of state threats legislation in 2024.
In accordance with part 3 of the National Security Act 2023, I am today laying this report before the House, and copies will be available in the Vote Office. It will also be published on gov.uk.
I am grateful to Mr Hall KC for his report. I will carefully consider its contents and the recommendations he makes and will respond formally in due course.
[HCWS1179]
Electoral Resilience
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
His Majesty’s Government are today announcing an independent review into countering foreign financial influence and interference in UK politics. The review will be led by former permanent secretary Philip Rycroft, and will report both to me as Secretary of State responsible for the administration of elections, and to the Minister of State for Security as the Chair of the Defending Democracy Taskforce. It will be concluded by the end of March 2026.
The review follows the sentencing of Nathan Gill at the Old Bailey on 21 November 2025 under the Bribery Act. This case has revealed the threat our democracy faces today, and has caused deep concern across Parliament.
Mr Gill’s sentence is the longest handed down to a politician in a case like this in our nation’s recent history. At the time his offences were committed, Mr Gill sat as a Member of the European Parliament, and he went on to become a senior leader of a UK party. We should be clear about what his crimes were: An elected politician took bribes to parrot the lines of a hostile state responsible for the death of Dawn Sturgess—a British citizen on British soil. He took the side of those responsible for invading a sovereign European state, and he was prosecuted while Putin’s military targeted the civilian men, women and children of Ukraine. While the work of the police and Crown Prosecution Service in successfully prosecuting this case must be commended, it is right that we now take a step back to look at how we can protect our democracy against such appalling crimes.
The purpose of the review, which is independent of Government and of any political party, is to provide an in-depth assessment of current financial rules and safeguards, and offer recommendations. The detailed terms of reference will be deposited in the House of Commons Library.
The findings of the independent review will build on the Government’s elections strategy and counter political interference and espionage action plan, and inform the elections and democracy Bill that we have pledged to bring forward.
Our strategy for modern and secure elections, published earlier this year, will close loopholes that should have been closed long before we entered office. However, in the time since that strategy was published, events have shown that we need to consider whether our firewall is enough. The independent review will look at this, focusing in particular on the effectiveness of our broader political finance law, on current checks and balances within political regulation for identifying and mitigating foreign interference, and on the rules governing the constitution and regulation of parties, and the Electoral Commission’s enforcement power.
[HCWS1186]
Planning Reform: Next Phase
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
England remains in the grip of a housing crisis that is both acute and entrenched. The detrimental consequences of this disastrous state of affairs are now all pervasive: a generation locked out of home ownership; 1.3 million people languishing on social housing waiting lists; millions of low-income households forced into unaffordable private rented housing; and more than 170,000 homeless children living in temporary accommodation.
Our economy, and the public services we all rely on, are suffering too because, as well as blighting countless lives, the housing crisis is consuming ever-larger amounts of public money in the form of a rapidly rising housing benefit bill, and it is hampering economic growth and productivity by reducing labour mobility and undermining the capacity of our great towns and cities to realise their full economic potential.
The monumental scale of the challenge that this Government inherited demanded a commensurate response. That is why we committed ourselves, unashamedly, to an incredibly stretching house building target of 1.5 million new safe and decent homes in this Parliament. And it is why we acted quickly and boldly to put in place the foundations of a revamped planning system that will facilitate the delivery of high and sustainable rates of house building in the years ahead.
Within three weeks of taking office, we moved to consult on changes to the national planning policy framework, finalising them in December 2024. Among the many changes made in that initial revision to the framework were: the restoration and raising of mandatory housing targets; a new standard method for assessing housing needs aligned to our 1.5 million new homes target; greater support for social and affordable housing provision; a strengthening of policy relating to brownfield land development; a modernised, strategic approach to green belt land designation and release; and enhanced support for key economic sectors and clean energy infrastructure.
In March we introduced our landmark Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The Bill will speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, supporting delivery not only of the Government’s 1.5 million new homes target, but of our plan for change milestone of fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. It will also support delivery of the Government’s clean power 2030 target by ensuring that key clean energy projects are built as quickly as possible. As a result of its swift passage, it is due to receive Royal Assent before the House rises on Thursday.
Over recent months we have carefully considered the extensive feedback we have received on a range of policy propositions, from a brownfield passport to reforming site size thresholds in the planning system. As a result, I am today setting out details of the next phase of this Government’s planning reforms alongside a comprehensive package of support for small and medium-sized house builders.
A revised national planning policy framework
We are today publishing a fuller and more definitive overhaul of the NPPF for consultation. It is the culmination of a sustained effort over the first 17 months of this Parliament to revamp our planning system so that it meets housing need in full and unleashes economic growth, and represents the most significant reform to national planning policy since the original NPPF was introduced more than a decade ago.
This wholly restructured framework maintains and builds on the initial revisions that we made in December last year; includes a range of new measures to support key economic sectors; and incorporates new clear and rules-based national policies for both plan and decision making. These proposals will make the NPPF easier to navigate for communities, local authorities and developers alike.
As a result of the not insignificant risk and uncertainty that such an approach entailed, we have taken the decision not to proceed with statutory national development management policies at this stage. Instead, we have chosen to swiftly realise their benefits through agile national policy changes, while leaving open the possibility of a future transition to statutory NDMPs, should that be required.
The new decision-making policies in the framework published today are therefore designed to make development management more certain, consistent and streamlined; to standardise policies that apply across the whole of England; and to reduce duplication and avoid unjustified local deviation from national policy in local plans. To ensure that these changes make an immediate difference, the Government are proposing that the new national decision-making policies effectively override conflicting policies in local plans from day one.
As part of this overall change to the framework, we are also proposing new policies to boost housing supply and unlock economic growth in the years ahead:
1. A permanent presumption in favour of suitably located development
We want to make clear what forms of development are acceptable in principle in different locations as part of creating a more rules-based approach to development. For urban land, this approach takes forward parts of our “brownfield passports” work and builds on the December 2024 framework update, by making development of suitable land in urban areas acceptable by default. As part of this change, we are also proposing a revised presumption in favour of sustainable development, underpinning the way the new policies direct different forms of development to the most appropriate locations—in effect, applying a permanent presumption in favour of suitably located development.
2. Building homes around stations
We want to establish “in principle” support—a “default yes” —for suitable proposals that develop land around rail stations within existing settlements, and around “well-connected” train stations outside settlements, including on green-belt land. We are also proposing a minimum density of 40 dwellings per hectare around all stations and 50 dwellings per hectare around “well-connected” stations—maximising opportunities for sustainable development, making the most of high levels of connectivity, and improving access to jobs and services.
3. Driving urban and suburban densification
We want to get the most use out of land in urban and suburban areas, including through the redevelopment of corner and other low-density plots, upward extensions and infill development—including within residential curtilages. These changes will support higher density development in sustainable locations, with good access to services. We are also setting clear expectations that authorities should set minimum densities in well-connected locations, including around train stations and town centres, and support an overall increase in density within settlements.
4. Securing a diverse mix of homes
We want to better support the needs of different groups through the planning system. This includes stronger support for rural social and affordable housing and setting clearer expectations for accessible housing to meet the needs of older and disabled people. It also means providing more flexibility on the unit mix of housing for market sale, where local requirements have been met for the mix of affordable homes.
5. Supporting small and medium sites
We want to make it easier to bring forward small sites, through clear support for the principle of development in different locations, the policies on building more densely in settlements, and strengthened support for mixed tenure development. We are also introducing a category of medium development (see annex C of this consultation document), linked to a range of policy and regulatory easements, to support a more streamlined and proportionate planning system—including exploring further the potential benefits and drawbacks of enabling developers to discharge social and affordable housing requirements through cash contributions in lieu of direct delivery.
6. Streamlining local standards
We want to promote certainty for applicants and speed up local plan production by limiting quantitative standards in development plans to only those specific issues where local variation is justified. We also want to limit duplication of matters that are covered by the building regulations—other than where there is the existing ability to use “optional technical standards”.
7. Boosting local and regional economies
We want to encourage economic growth by giving substantial weight to the benefits of supporting business growth, and to particular areas and sectors—including those named in the industrial strategy, AI growth zones, logistics, town centres and agricultural and rural development. We are also interested in views on whether the town centre sequential test should be removed, in order to allow greater flexibility to respond to changing patterns of demand.
8. Supporting critical and growth minerals
We want to ensure that adequate provision is made for their extraction, recognising their economic importance. In parallel, and in view of the Government’s mission to achieve clean power by 2030, we want to restrict further the extraction of coal.
9. Embedding a vision-led approach to transport
We want to further embed the changes made in December 2024, which signalled the importance of moving away from a “predict and provide” approach to transport planning, which can create unattractive environments dominated by cars.
10. Better addressing climate change
We want to set out how decisions can take a proactive approach to both mitigation and adaptation in relation to climate change, in a way that links to other relevant policies in the draft framework.
11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
We want to make a number of changes, including to reflect local nature recovery strategies, to recognise landscape character and conserve and enhance existing natural features, to incorporate swift bricks and to provide guidance on sites of local importance for nature.
12. Taking a more positive approach to the use of heritage assets
We want a clearer and more positive approach that can better support suitable heritage-related development, replacing the current policies that are difficult to navigate.
The framework will also support the implementation of reforms that I set out in the written ministerial statement of 27 November— https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-11-27/hcws1104 —to deliver faster and clearer local plans, preserving their place as the cornerstone of the planning system. New plan-making policies in the NPPF will support the implementation of the new plan-making system by setting out policy on the role, content, preparation and examination of the plans of different types—including supporting the introduction of spatial development strategies across the whole of England to ensure effective planning across local authority boundaries.
The proposed new NPPF will play an integral role in delivering the new homes and essential infrastructure that the country needs and unlocking sustained economic growth. The consultation is an opportunity for everyone to play their part in shaping a planning system that delivers for local communities and the country as a whole.
Development plans will not be required to follow the revised framework until the final version is published, in accordance with the transitional arrangements set out within it. However, local planning authorities preparing plans under the new plan-making system should have regard to the draft framework to help inform the early stages of their production, bearing in mind the framework’s status as a consultation draft.
Support for small and medium-sized house builders
In addition to publishing a fuller and more definitive NPPF for consultation, the Government are acting to support small and medium-sized house builders. As a Government, we are clear that ramping up housing delivery requires us to diversify the house building market. Integral to such diversification is not merely arresting but reversing the decline of SME developers that has taken place over recent decades. Building on the steps we have taken to better support SME house builders to access finance and land, we are today announcing a series of policy and regulatory easements to help them thrive and grow.
In May the Government published a working paper seeking views on a new “medium” threshold for development for sites up to 1 hectare with between 10 and 49 homes—noting that over 80% of such sites are developed by SME builders. Having reflected on the useful feedback we received, we have decided to go further. While the 10 to 49 unit threshold will apply, we propose to increase the size of sites covered by the new medium category to up to 2.5 hectares, thereby increasing the number of SME house builders being supported.
To support development activity on this new category of site, we are proposing to limit information requirements to what is necessary and proportionate. We are also setting a clear expectation that local planning authorities allocate 10% of their housing requirement to sites between 1 and 2.5 hectares, in addition to the existing requirement to do so for sites under 1 hectare, to better support different scales of development.
Without compromising building and residents’ safety, we are also using the consultation to ask the necessary technical questions to determine whether to exempt this new “medium” category of development from the building safety levy. And we are exploring further the potential benefits and drawbacks of enabling developers of medium sites to discharge social and affordable housing requirements through cash contributions in lieu of direct delivery.
Finally, having considered carefully the responses to the consultation undertaken by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs earlier this year, I can confirm that the Government will exempt smaller developments up to 0.2 hectares from biodiversity net gain, and introduce a suite of other simplified requirements to improve the implementation of biodiversity net gain on small and medium sites that are not exempted. DEFRA will also consult rapidly on an additional targeted exemption for brownfield residential development, testing the definition of land to which it should apply and a range of site sizes up to 2.5 hectares.
Wider funding and support
To ensure the successful implementation of the changes to national planning policy and regulation that we are announcing today, the Government will provide additional funding and support.
We are making £8 million available to local planning authorities to accelerate planning applications for major residential schemes at the post-outline stage. This funding will be targeted at those authorities with high volumes of deliverable applications in this Parliament and those with strong economic growth potential, ensuring that resources are directed where they will have the greatest impact.
£3 million of this funding will be allocated to the Greater London Authority to provide specific support to London boroughs to bolster their planning departments and enable them to implement the emergency measures announced by the Mayor of London and the Secretary of State on 23 October 2025.
These measures build on the announcements set out in the Budget last month, where the Government have committed to spend an extra £48 million to strengthen planning capacity and support the aim to recruit around 1,400 new planning officers this Parliament—substantially exceeding our original commitment to recruit just 300.
We will also provide an extra £5 million to boost the roll-out of the small sites aggregator initiative across Bristol, Sheffield and the London borough of Lewisham, supporting SME builders to deliver much-needed social housing on 60 small brownfield sites that would otherwise remain undeveloped, and attracting private investment to build new social rent homes.
Beyond the planning system, this week we will launch an expression of interest for ambitious local planning authorities to work with us to create pattern books of standardised, high-quality house designs—intended to accelerate the delivery of attractive new homes and make use of artificial intelligence and modern methods of construction.
[HCWS1187]
Sentencing: Murder of Police, Prison or Probation Officers
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
My noble Friend the Minister of State for Justice, Lord Timpson, has today made the following statement:
Today, I am announcing that the Government will table an amendment to the Sentencing Bill to broaden the starting point for sentencing for the murder of a police or prison officer in the course of their duty. It will apply not only where the murder occurs during the officer’s duties, but also where the motivation for the murder is connected to their current or former role.
We will also extend this provision to cover the murder of probation officers in connection with their current or former duties.
This change ensures that the exceptional seriousness of murders—such as that of former prison custody officer Lenny Scott—that are motivated by the vital work of these professionals is fully recognised in our sentencing framework.
Police, prison and probation officers perform unique and often dangerous roles, routinely dealing with high-risk offenders in challenging circumstances. Their work is fundamental to public safety and the rule of law.
By making this amendment, we are reinforcing the principle that murders motivated by a police, prison or probation officer simply doing their job and carrying out their duties strike at the heart of justice, and these murderers must face the most severe sentences available.
This amendment is part of a broader package of amendments that the Government are making ahead of Lords Report stage of the Sentencing Bill, in response to points made by parliamentarians. The Government will write to peers with full details and the amendments will be available online.
[HCWS1182]
Independent Review under Schedule 6A Northern Ireland Act 1998: Government Response
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
Following the Northern Ireland Assembly’s democratic consent motion on the trading arrangements under the Windsor framework, on 9 January 2025 I commissioned Lord Murphy of Torfaen to lead an independent review on those arrangements. I received his final report on 9 July 2025, and I can confirm to the House that the Government have now responded in line with schedule 6A to the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I have placed a copy of this response in the Library of the House.
I was very grateful that Lord Murphy agreed to conduct the independent review, as an experienced former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He has my utmost thanks for the detailed consideration that he has given to these issues, and for the engagement he has conducted, including with the Northern Ireland parties and the relevant civic and business organisations.
The Government’s response reflects their clear aim of ensuring that Northern Ireland’s trading arrangements command the broadest possible confidence among communities. In preparing this response, I have taken into account the views expressed in the Northern Ireland Assembly and in Parliament; and those expressed by other public bodies and stakeholders, including the Independent Monitoring Panel and the Federation of Small Businesses, as well as Intertrade UK and civic organisations with whom the Government have engaged. Given the number of reports that have been published within a six-month period examining similar themes, I have concluded that a single, comprehensive response is the most appropriate and timely way to set out how the Government will be taking action.
In particular, the Government are committing to legislation that will better support scrutiny of relevant regulations by the Northern Ireland Assembly and, as part of the measures announced at the Budget, we will be delivering a £16.6 million programme to boost trade within the UK internal market. This funding will, in particular, answer the call from business for an enhanced one stop shop service, and provide a single place for businesses to get guidance on how to trade across the UK and the opportunities for businesses in Northern Ireland to trade across two markets.
The Government are clear about wanting to deliver practical solutions for businesses and traders, on the basis of agreed arrangements with the EU. This has underpinned the Government’s approach in the 12 months since I commissioned the independent review, including in the form of new arrangements for human medicines and freight and parcels. We have taken action where the Assembly has expressed concerns, including to safeguard the supply of certain dental fillings. The Government have also put in place a set of measures to safeguard the supply of veterinary medicines from 1 January 2026, and we will continue to monitor those arrangements into the new year.
The response outlines the Government’s continued commitment to work collaboratively with businesses, civil society, the Northern Ireland Executive and our partners in the EU and its member states, across all of these issues as relevant. As we look ahead, we will continue to be guided by our commitment to implementing the Windsor framework in good faith while ensuring the protection of the UK internal market, and will seek to secure a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU from which Northern Ireland’s traders and hauliers benefit.
[HCWS1185]
Investigatory Powers Commissioner Annual Report 2024
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
I have today laid before both Houses a copy of the annual report of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, the right hon. Sir Brian Leveson. This report covers the activities of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office (IPCO) and the Technology Advisory Panel for 2024.
The Investigatory Powers Commissioner provides independent oversight of the use of investigatory powers, as outlined in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. This oversight includes the inspection and authorisation by judicial commissioners of the use of these powers by over 600 public authorities. This includes the intelligence and security services and law enforcement agencies.
The report is positive about how investigatory powers have been used over this period in accordance with the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 and other legislation. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner acknowledges that there continue to be good levels of compliance in respect of how investigatory powers are being used.
Where the Investigatory Powers Commissioner has identified concerns, our agencies and Departments are working with IPCO to address these. I thank them all for their hard work to protect the UK, at home and abroad.
Now in its seventh year since creation, IPCO continues to provide independent oversight of the use of investigatory powers, providing assurance to both the public and Parliament that privacy safeguards are applied. In March 2024, IPCO merged with its sister organisation, Office for Communications Data Authorisations, to become one organisation, while retaining the IPCO name. I wish to express my sincere thanks to Sir Brian, his team of judicial commissioners, and all the staff at IPCO, for their important work.
Maintaining public trust and confidence in the exercise of investigatory powers is vital for national security and public safety, and a top priority for this Government. This report demonstrates the high quality of oversight over our intelligence and security agencies’ use of the most intrusive powers. I am satisfied that our oversight arrangements are among the strongest and most effective in the world.
In accordance with section 234(6)(b) of the IPA, I wish to notify both Houses that the report contains no material considered too sensitive to be published. Following consultation with relevant Government Departments and agencies, the contents of this open report are not prejudicial to national security or ongoing investigations.
I will be sending a copy of this report to Scottish Ministers, as required under section 234(8) of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA), and I commend this report to the House.
[HCWS1188]
International Maritime Law Changes
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I am making this statement to introduce updates to maritime legislation as a result of changes to international law, in order to fulfil a commitment to Parliament to make such a statement. The legislation comes into force from 1 January 2026.
Some domestic maritime secondary legislation includes provision for ambulatory reference to give direct effect in UK law to certain amendments to international maritime obligations. This means that where the legislation refers to a requirement of an international instrument, this reference will be ambulatory; in other words, it is a reference to the most up to date version of that requirement. This approach ensures so far as possible that the UK keeps up to date with its international maritime obligations.
Amendments have been made to international maritime instruments which will enter into force in the UK in 2026 by way of ambulatory reference provisions. The amendments are to the international convention for the safety of life at sea (SOLAS), and the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships (MARPOL) and to certain codes made under those conventions, as well as to the international convention on standards of training certification and watchkeeping (STCW). The UK is a signatory to SOLAS, MARPOL and STCW and the amendments have been agreed in the International Maritime Organisation, and all relate to enhancing maritime safety.
The amendments to SOLAS chapter II-1 introduce new safety requirements for lifting appliances and anchor handling winches. SOLAS II-1 is ambulatory by virtue of the ambulatory reference provision in the Merchant Shipping (Cargo and Passenger Ship Construction and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2023 (SI 2023, No. 246). The relevant IMO resolution is MSC.532(107). The amendments introduce enhanced design, maintenance, operation and testing standards for lifting appliances and anchor handling winches with effect from 1 January 2026.
The international code of safety for ships using gases or other low-flashpoint fuels (IGF code) was made mandatory internationally by chapter II-1 of SOLAS, which relates to the construction of ships. Chapter II-1 is implemented in the United Kingdom by the Merchant Shipping (Cargo and Passenger Ship Construction and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2023 (SI 2023, No. 246) and, as such, the implementation includes the IGF code. Amendments have been made to chapter II-1, along with changes to the IGF code, that affect ships constructed on or after 1 January 2026. These amendments will come into force on 1 January 2026 and can be found in IMO resolutions MSC.524(106), MSC.551(108).
Amendments to the qualification standards for inspectors of protective coatings are introduced by MSC.557(108) and MSC.558(108). These standards form part of the requirements under chapter II-1 of SOLAS. These amendments fall within scope of the Merchant Shipping (Cargo and Passenger Ship Construction and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2023 (SI 2023, No. 246). The amendments are textual updates to the qualification requirements for coating inspectors, replacing the reference to
“NACE Coating Inspector Level 2”
with
“AMPP Certified Coatings Inspector, FROSIO Inspector Level III or equivalent as verified by the Administration”,
reflecting the name change of the responsible professional body. This change ensures alignment with current certification standards and applies with effect from 1 January 2026.
Amendments to the international code on the enhanced programme of inspections during surveys of bulk carriers and oil tankers (ESP code) have been introduced via IMO resolution MSC.553(108). These standards form part of the requirements under chapter II-1 of SOLAS. These amendments take effect by virtue of the ambulatory reference provision in the Merchant Shipping (Cargo and Passenger Ship Construction and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2023 (SI 2023, No. 246) and apply to part A, annex 5, paragraph 2.2 and part B, annex 5, paragraph 2.2 of the code. The changes are minor amendments to the text for clarity and take effect from 1 January 2026.
The amendments to SOLAS chapter II-2 introduce new requirements for fire safety on ships including fire detection, fire suppression and containment of fire. SOLAS II-2 is ambulatory by virtue of the ambulatory reference provision in the Merchant Shipping (Fire Protection) Regulations 2023 (SI 2023, No. 568). The relevant IMO resolutions are MSC.520(106), MSC.532(107), MSC.550(108) and MSC.555(108). The amendments come into force from 1 January 2026 and introduce new requirements for ensuring the flashpoint of fuel oils, prohibition of the use of firefighting foams containing perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), new requirements for fire detection on cargo ships, and significant new requirements for fire detection, fire containment and fire suppression on roll-on/roll-off passenger ships along with corresponding amendments to the fire safety systems code.
The amendments to the IMO high speed craft code (1994 and 2000 revisions) align the requirements with SOLAS chapter II-2 regarding the maritime ban on PFOS, which is a persistent organic pollutant, in aqueous film forming foams, which are used as a firefighting medium on some ships. These amendments will come into force on 1 January 2026 and can be found in IMO resolutions MSC.536(107) and MSC.537(107). These will be enacted through the ambulatory reference provision in the Merchant Shipping (High Speed Craft) Regulations 2022 (SI 2022, No. 1219).
Amendments relating to SOLAS chapter III and the lifesaving appliances (LSA) code have been introduced via IMO resolutions MSC.535(107), MSC.554(107) and MSC.559(108). These provisions fall within scope of the Merchant Shipping (Life-Saving Appliances and Arrangements) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020, No. 501) and are therefore subject to the ambulatory reference provision. Resolution MSC.535(107) introduces new requirements for totally enclosed lifeboats
“installed on or after 1 January 2029”,
mandating the provision of a ventilation system capable of achieving a defined airflow for 24 hours, with technical specifications for opening and closing mechanisms across lifeboat types. Resolution MSC.554(107) strengthens performance standards for lifejackets by requiring them to reliably turn an unconscious casualty into a safe orientation in the water, removing any tolerance for failure in testing. It also sets out design safeguards for lifeboat and rescue boat release hooks to prevent inadvertent activation, and defines safe maximum and minimum lowering speeds for launching appliances used with survival craft or rescue boats. Resolution MSC.559(108), while not amending SOLAS chapter III or the LSA code directly, introduces consequential changes to the annual thorough examination and operational testing of lifeboats following the adoption of MSC.535(107). It requires verification of the condition and operation of the ventilation system as part of routine lifeboat testing. As MSC.402(96) is mandatory under SOLAS chapter III, these consequential amendments are binding under SI 2020, No. 501 and the associated ambulatory reference provision. These amendments take effect from 1 January 2026.
SOLAS chapter V focuses on measures which improve safety of navigation and is implemented in UK law by the Merchant Shipping (Safety of Navigation) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020, No. 673). To address the growing concern over container loss and bulk cargo damage caused by excessive vessel roll motions, the IMO has adopted a new requirement under resolution MSC.532(107). Effective from 1 January 2026, SOLAS regulation V/19.2.12 mandates the installation of electronic inclinometers on newly built container ships and bulk carriers of 3,000 gross tonnage and above to determine, display and record the ship’s roll motion. This regulatory advancement is expected to significantly enhance operational safety, reduce cargo-related incidents, and support more informed decision-making during adverse sea conditions.
The international grain code, which provides the mandatory standards for the safe stowage and shipment of grain in bulk, is made mandatory by SOLAS chapter VI on the carriage of cargoes and oil fuels, and is implemented in the UK by the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Cargoes) Regulations 2024 (SI 2024, No. 637). This code is amended by IMO resolution MSC.552(108) to improve safety by making provision for a new class of loading conditions for ships with specially suitable compartments. This amendment enters into force internationally and in the UK on 1 January 2026.
The international maritime solid bulk cargoes (IMSBC) code provides the international regulatory framework for the safe stowage and shipment of solid bulk cargoes other than grain and includes mandatory carriage requirements specific to each solid bulk cargo covered by the code. The IMSBC code is made mandatory by chapter VI of SOLAS and is implemented in the UK primarily by the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Cargoes) Regulations 2024 (SI 2024, No. 637). In order to ensure that the IMSBC code remains up to date and relevant to the cargoes being shipped, it is amended in the IMO every two years. The next edition of the IMSBC code will become mandatory on 1 January 2027 and can be used on a voluntary basis from 1 January 2026. Amendment 08-25 includes the addition of a number of new solid bulk cargoes in order to permit and facilitate their safe transport by sea, and amendments to some existing cargo schedules. These amendments were adopted by IMO resolution MSC.575(110).
The international code for the construction and equipment of ships carrying liquefied gases in bulk (the IGC code) is the international standard for the safe transport in bulk by sea of liquefied gases. The code is made mandatory by SOLAS chapter VII on the carriage of dangerous goods and is implemented in the UK by the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Harmful Substances) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 (SI 2024, No. 636). Two amendments to the IGC code will enter into force internationally and in the UK on 1 January 2026. These are the acceptance of high manganese austenitic steel as a material of construction for gas carriers, along with consequential amendments, as adopted in IMO resolution MSC.523(106), and amendments which enable the use of other liquefied gas cargoes, in addition to methane, as fuel onboard gas carriers, which will facilitate efforts to decarbonise global shipping and reduce emissions. These amendments were adopted by IMO resolution MSC.566(109).
Protocol 1 of MARPOL sets out provisions concerning the mandatory reporting of incidents involving harmful substances. Protocol 1 is amended to reflect an amendment to SOLAS chapter V which makes it mandatory for ships to report the loss of freight containers, including containers containing harmful substances. The UK will implement these amendments through the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Harmful Substances) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 (SI 2024, No. 636). This amendment to MARPOL protocol 1 will ensure that the amendment to SOLAS chapter V does not result in duplicated reporting requirements for industry. This amendment was adopted in the IMO by resolution MEPC.384(81).
The Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) Regulations 2008 (SI 2008, No. 2924) implement the 1997 protocol to the international convention on the prevention of pollution from ships (MARPOL 73/78). The 1997 protocol provides for the establishment of international regulations for the prevention of air pollution from ships by adding annex VI to MARPOL 73/78. Annex VI includes a technical code on the control of emissions of nitrogen oxides from marine diesel engines (NOx technical code) and the amendments will update the procedures for controlling nitrogen oxide emissions from marine diesel engines. The code amendments will come into force on 1 September 2026 and can be found in MEPC.398(83).
The Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) Regulations 2008 (S.L 2008, No. 2924), transpose the energy efficiency design index (EEDI), energy efficiency existing ship index (EEXI), carbon intensity indicator (CH), and ship energy efficiency management plan (SEEMP) regimes into UK law. These regulations implement the 1997 protocol to MARPOL 73/78, which established annex VI on the prevention of air pollution from ships. Annex VI includes regulation 26 of SEEMP. These amendments introduce clearer planning and reporting requirements to help ships reduce fuel use and emissions. SEEMP is now structured into three parts: part I covers operational energy efficiency measures; part II outlines fuel oil data collection procedures; and part III sets out a carbon intensity improvement plan linked to the ship’s carbon intensity indicator (CII) rating. Ships will be required to report fuel use by engine type, use of shore power, distance travelled with cargo, and any installed energy-saving technologies. Flag administrations must verify and approve SEEMP parts II and III, ensuring ships are actively working to improve their environmental performance. Amendments to SEEMP, adopted by IMO resolution MEPC.395(82) will come into force on 1 January 2026.
IMO resolution MSC.560(108) amends the mandatory standards of competence in personal safety and social responsibilities for seafarers in chapter VI of the STCW code to include mandatory training on prevention of and response to violence and harassment, including sexual harassment, bullying and sexual assault. The amendment is to table A-VI/1 which specifies the minimum standard of competence in personal safety and social responsibilities (PSSR). This is implemented through the ambulatory reference provisions in the Merchant Shipping (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping) Regulations 2022 (SI 2022, No. 1342). Guidance has been issued to all UK-approved training providers to incorporate these amendments into courses delivered from 1 January 2026. Therefore, all new seafarers undertaking basic training after that date will receive the updated PSSR content.
Further information and guidance on all amendments referred to in this statement has been published by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and is available on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS1184]
Roads Infrastructure: Variable Speed Cameras
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I wish to inform the House about a technical anomaly that has impacted how some variable speed cameras interact with signs on a limited number of A roads and motorways for a number of years. I would like to apologise to all who have been affected.
On 10 September, National Highways informed the Department for Transport of an anomaly on the M5 following a challenge to a speeding offence. Ministers were informed of the anomaly and that National Highways was expanding its analysis to additional sites. On 13 October, Ministers were informed that National Highways had identified that this was a national issue, whereby a technical anomaly with the way some variable speed cameras interact with signs was affecting some enforcement on parts of England’s strategic road network.
National Highways identified that on rare occasions there can be a slight delay between the two systems, meaning drivers had not been given sufficient time to respond to a change in speed limit, or were detected as speeding when the variable speed limit had already changed. This issue began when cameras were upgraded under the previous Government.
This issue has led to incorrect enforcement action being taken in a small number of cases, which I recognise will have been frustrating for those involved. National Highways confirms that this technical anomaly has occurred approximately 2,650 times on the impacted cameras over four years since 2021. To place this in context, during the same period there were approximately 6 million camera activations in total on the affected cameras, meaning that fewer than 0.1% of activations were impacted. Not all of the erroneous activations will have resulted in enforcement action, so the numbers of those actually impacted will be smaller still. These cameras are used on only 0.2% of roads in England.
National Highways has provided data to the police to enable them to begin to contact those impacted, and to allow the process of redress for cases affected by this issue to get under way. I understand that the police will prioritise the most serious cases. I can confirm that the Government will provide financial redress. Anyone who has been wrongly fined will be refunded, and where points on licences have been incorrectly applied, these will be removed. Steps will be taken to remedy any incorrect prosecutions.
A Home Office approved solution to this issue has now been agreed. National Highways will be working with the police to allow them to implement this solution as a priority. Interim measures, such as increased traffic patrol officers, will be put in place by National Highways. The police have a range of tactics to enforce speed limits on the strategic road network, including mobile camera deployments, roads policing patrols and average speed sites.
I have instructed National Highways to continue its investigations back to 2019, when the upgrade of cameras began. This will ensure that we can be fully confident that anyone who has been impacted is identified.
As soon as I was alerted to the issue on 13 October, I worked to ensure that there would be no further incorrect fines, points, or prosecutions. On 17 October, National Highways’ executive was able to instruct its camera supplier to pause the transfer of variable speed data to police forces, in order to ensure that no further individuals were incorrectly prosecuted.
Independently, the National Police Chiefs’ Council took action to instruct all affected police forces to cancel wider prosecutions related to infringements in progress, regardless of whether they were impacted by this issue. As a result, tens of thousands of people’s speed awareness courses are being cancelled, and thousands of historical fixed penalty notices and criminal justice prosecutions are being discontinued.
Throughout this process, I have been clear with all partners that we must ensure that our road network remains safe. We therefore took the decision, following a safety assessment from National Highways, not to undermine public confidence in enforcement and risk impacting driver behaviour before we had a solution to this issue approved and ready to roll out.
We will ensure that there is an independent investigation into how this technical anomaly came about, to ensure that lessons can be learned. Compliance with the law is being enforced in a variety of ways across our roads, as has always been the case. If you break the law, you can expect to be punished.
We have provided further information online at:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-highways-variable-speed-camera-anomaly
I will keep the House updated on this issue where necessary.
[HCWS1183]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
Good afternoon, my Lords. I remind the Committee that, if there is a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes from the sound of the Division Bell.
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill
Lord Teverson
“Prevention of avoidance by offshoring of activities(1) This section applies where—(a) a United Kingdom person (“P”) arranges for relevant research and development or commercialisation involving marine genetic resources of areas beyond national jurisdiction, or digital sequence information on such resources, to be carried out wholly or partly outside the United Kingdom, and(b) the effect, or likely effect, of the arrangement is that utilisation which would otherwise fall within section 3(1) does not do so.(2) Where this section applies, the utilisation is to be treated, for the purposes of this Part, as if it were a utilisation project to which section 3 applies and were carried out in the United Kingdom by P.(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision—(a) requiring United Kingdom persons to take reasonable steps to ensure that arrangements with non-United Kingdom persons for the collection or utilisation of marine genetic resources of areas beyond national jurisdiction, or digital sequence information on such resources, are not entered into for the purpose of avoiding, or frustrating the operation of, this Part;(b) requiring United Kingdom persons to keep, and to provide to the Secretary of State on request, such records and information as may be prescribed about such arrangements;(c) for the application, with or without modifications, of enforcement provisions made under section 9 to failures to comply with regulations under this section.(4) In this section, “United Kingdom person” and “relevant research and development” have the meanings given by section 20.(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative resolution procedure.” Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause is intended to prevent UK companies and other UK persons from avoiding the information-sharing and benefit-sharing obligations in Part 2 of the Act by offshoring marine genetic resource research and development or commercialisation to non-Parties to the BBNJ Agreement.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I was feeling quite confident that we would wholly outnumber the government Benches, but then I saw all the people at the back and thought maybe not. We will get good answers to our questions anyway, that is for sure.
As we all said at Second Reading, this is an important, good treaty, around which we need an implementing Bill. I will move Amendment 1 but will also speak to Amendments 11 and 20, to make matters easy for the Grand Committee.
Amendment 1 is very much a probing amendment. From our Benches, we very much welcome the information- sharing and benefit-sharing aspects of the treaty, particularly around marine genetic resources and digital sequence information. This principle covers the sharing of those physical, biological and information resources to all nations. That is important and something we would very much agree with.
However, a number of nations will not ratify this treaty. At the moment the non-ratifiers include the United Kingdom—I am pleased to say the Government are soon to put that right—China, India, Turkey, Malaysia, Brazil, just to mention a few, and not least the USA. All those nations have signed the treaty, but the United States Administration have made it pretty clear that it they not going to ratify it, perhaps not surprisingly given that they have not even ratified UNCLOS. My concern is that there are ways of bypassing these provisions on information-sharing and benefit-sharing by offshoring, if I could use that phrase, to non-ratifying states, particularly the United States, which has a huge history and a good reputation on innovation, venture capital and all the other areas making sure that human progress moves forward.
My concern is that organisations or persons—whether companies or individuals—that would otherwise be British based will perhaps find a way to capture intellectual property and knowledge within other jurisdictions. My question is: have the Government thought about this and is there a way of approaching it? I am not saying that it is necessarily easy, but I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on how that might move forward.
My Amendments 11 and 20 are about flags of convenience. Let us look at some of the issues. I am concerned about enforceability. As noble Lords will be aware, 45% of total marine tonnage—vessels above 100 gross tonnes in weight—are registered to just three nations: Panama, the Marshall Islands and Liberia. All of them have already ratified the BBNJ treaty, so that gives me some consolation. However, as to enforceability, the irony of this treaty, in some ways, is that it relies on UNCLOS, one of the core values of which, throughout the history of marine commerce on the high seas, is that you cannot intervene on vessels with flags other than your own unless you have the permission of those flagged authorities. That is almost impossible to do, so enforcement on the high seas is extremely difficult. We may not be talking about supertankers or the big freighters in terms of biodiversity, but we are talking about research vessels, which are still subject to the same restrictions for intervention on the high seas. Those remain despite the treaty, unless there is a broader agreement, but I cannot see that the treaty allows for the boarding of vessels of other nations on the high seas.
One of the areas that came out a couple of years ago from the International Relations and Defence Committee was that the UK had not signed or ratified the UN Convention on Conditions for Registration of Ships. I am not saying that that is an answer to everything, but it would be a great service if the United Kingdom, with its influence through the IMO and other organisations, were able to revive that treaty, which only has some 15 ratifications but needs 40 to come into effect. What I am looking at here is for the United Kingdom to take this forward. We are 27th in terms of internationally registered tonnage, so we are a small fleet despite being an international, global and maritime nation. Can the Minister say whether there is a way that we can start to repair this situation, because enforceability, under the current rules of UNCLOS and even under the BBNJ treaty, is going to be extremely difficult? I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
I will speak to Amendment 3 in this group on the UK’s capacity to comply with Article 5 of the BBNJ, which is about capacity building—building the international capacity to understand the problems and issues and to develop solutions.
The UK is particularly well placed to do that because we have the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton and Liverpool, which is a centre of excellence, providing all sorts of leadership and national capabilities in ocean research. We have the Plymouth Marine Laboratory, which is leading in its field of marine science research and is recognised as a centre of international excellence in marine ecosystems. In Scotland, we have the Scottish Association for Marine Science and the excellent Sea Mammal Research Unit at the University of St Andrews, which is the UK’s main centre for marine mammal science. I have not included an absolutely full list of all the centres, so it might be a bit invidious, because there are other places that do a lot of work in this area and are excellent—those are just three examples. We have a special responsibility to share our capacity with the geographical locations that will be making an effort to comply with the BBNJ treaty but do not have anything like the history and knowledge base that we have.
One example I could give would be the Sargasso Sea, which is 4 million square kilometres in area—when I read that, I thought it unlikely to be so large, but I double-checked and it is—with Bermuda at its heart. It would be hard to overstate the importance of the Sargasso Sea in biodiversity terms. It is globally significant and is threatened in lots of ways, particularly by overfishing, obviously, but also by mining. Bermuda, for which the sea is critical, has worked hard to achieve, for example, the Sargasso Sea Commission in 2014. As the treaty implementation gets under way, the UK has not only to help capacity-build the science there to start solving some of the Sargasso Sea’s issues but to set the agenda internationally, because although the treaty affects Bermuda so crucially, as an overseas territory it has no direct voice at the UN. We need to use our voice and scientific capability to help not just Bermuda but all those overseas territories that are so critical, given the fact that the ocean and its currents are global.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for leading this group. I will start by speaking to my own Amendments 2 and 17, before addressing Amendments 4 and 5 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, who sadly cannot be in the House today.
Amendment 2 is a straightforward probing amendment which seeks to understand what steps the Government will be able to take to prevent genetic samples being accessed by hostile state actors. We know that much of the deep ocean has yet to be researched, and the impact of future discoveries on key sectors such as the life sciences may well be significant. In certain circumstances, we would not want discoveries shared with state actors who may use them against us and against our interests. Can the Minister set out the contingency powers that Ministers have to prevent the sharing of critical genetic samples in those circumstances?
My Amendment 17 follows on closely from the debates that were had in the House of Commons. The Bill contains a large number of regulation-making powers to allow the UK to remain compliant with the decisions made by the Conference of the Parties under the treaty. This amendment simply seeks to improve transparency and parliamentary accountability by ensuring that there is a regular update on core metrics, such as the details of regulatory changes and the impact of them on relevant sectors. When Parliament grants Ministers wide-ranging powers in legislation, it is only right that we put in place the appropriate transparency and accountability requirements. While the Minister may not be able to accept this amendment today, I hope that she will be able to set out more fully the Government’s plans to ensure that Parliament, and consequently the British public, have access to information on the way that Ministers are using the powers that the Bill has granted them.
Amendment 4, in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, seeks to probe the impact of the treaty, including the imposition of marine protected areas over the deep ocean, on the economy and on infrastructure. As the Minister knows, we signed this treaty when we were in office, and at the time we were satisfied that the treaty struck the right balance. However, it would be interesting to hear what further work the Government have done more recently to assess the projected impact of marine protected areas on the economy, in particular through restrictions on certain shipping activities. Can the Minister please expand on that?
Amendments 5 and 5A relate to craft that are not members of the class societies for shipping. My understanding of my noble friend’s amendments in this regard is that they are designed to facilitate a debate on the so-called dark fleet. According to a February report from the Institute for Human Rights and Business, some estimates claim that there are now 1,400 vessels in the fleet, which would be up to 10% of the world’s tanker fleet. The Kyiv School of Economics estimates that Russia alone has invested nearly $10 billion— €9.26 billion—to set up a ghost fleet of several hundred vessels, estimated at nearly 600 ships in July 2024. These, of course, are the ships that transport Russia’s oil, helping to support its illegal war in Ukraine.
Can the Minister set out the Government’s thoughts on how this treaty might help us tackle the dark fleet, as well as what steps the Government are actively taking to prevent the operations of illegal shipping? I hope that the Minister will be able to take our concerns on board across these amendments; I look forward to her reply.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, this set of amendments relates to the operation and enforcement of the BBNJ agreement. This Bill establishes the core domestic legal framework required for the UK to be able to ratify and implement the treaty, while recognising that more detailed compliance and enforcement arrangements will be developed and set out over time—including through future international decisions taken by the BBNJ Conference of the Parties.
I turn to Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, which would require UK persons conducting research and development or commercialisation involving marine genetic resources from areas beyond national jurisdiction outside of the UK to abide by the notification and other requirements of the Bill where they have arranged to carry out these activities outside the UK to evade such obligations. We think that this amendment is not necessary because we do not consider that seeking to regulate persons outside of the UK in this way is required to meet our treaty obligations; it may be a nice thing to be able to do, but we do not think that we can do it within the obligations of the treaty.
If the collection and utilisation activity does not fall under UK jurisdiction, the obligations set out in the Bill do not apply. We do not consider that the Bill should be extended to such activity, which would be beyond the treaty agreement. Where other countries have ratified the BBNJ agreement, they will, like the UK, have domestic obligations in this area; we encourage others to ratify where possible. Ultimately, the BBNJ Bill is about ensuring that the UK can fully meet its obligations under the BBNJ agreement in relation to activity that falls under UK jurisdiction.
I turn to Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on any threat that would arise from foreign state actors accessing samples of marine genetic resources from UK repositories. The report would have to be published within six months of the Act being passed and be laid before Parliament. The purposes of the BBNJ Bill are to enable the UK to comply with its obligations under the BBNJ agreement and, therefore, to allow the UK to ratify it. The requirements under this amendment would go beyond the intent of the Bill. Clause 7(1) of the Bill provides that access to repositories of marine genetic resources
“may be made subject to conditions consistent with paragraphs (a) to (d) of Article 14(4) of the”
BBNJ agreement. That article covers factors that may affect access, including preservation of materials, reasonable costs and other reasonable conditions, in line with the objectives of the agreement. Further details on reasonable conditions will be provided in guidance for repositories, including, if necessary, in relation to dealing with potential threats.
Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, would require
“the Secretary of State to create and publish a Strategy outlining the UK’s compliance with Part 5 of the BBNJ Agreement, relating to Capacity-Building and the Transfer of Marine Technology”.
This amendment is not necessary in this Bill because domestic legislation is not required for the UK to meet its obligations under Part V of the BBNJ agreement on capacity-building and the transfer of marine technology; those will be implemented through existing mechanisms, such as academic placements and working-level dialogues. I can confirm to the noble Baroness that a committee on capacity-building and the transfer of marine technology is established under the BBNJ agreement and will be constituted under the direction of the Conference of the Parties; the committee’s role will include monitoring and reviewing these activities.
Amendment 4, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, would require the UK Government to have regard to economic and infrastructural consequences of regulations made to implement area-based management tool decisions of the BBNJ Conference of the Parties. It highlights specifically the impacts of such regulations on submarine communication cables and shipping lanes. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, that consideration of such consequences and impacts would be required before a decision is made by the Conference of the Parties on an area-based management tool.
Article 19 in Part IV of the BBNJ agreement provides detail on what elements must be included in an area-based management tool proposal. This includes identifying human activities in the area, which would include details on shipping lanes, submarine cables and other infrastructure in the proposal area. Article 21 of the BBNJ agreement also ensures that consultation on the proposal is inclusive, transparent and open to all relevant stakeholders, states and other bodies. Through that consultation process—as well as through our role in the International Maritime Organization, which regulates shipping globally—the UK can directly express views on any economic and infrastructural consequences of the proposed area-based management tool. As a state party, the UK would also have the opportunity to express views on such impacts when the final proposal is being considered by the Conference of the Parties, including whether or not we could support it.
Furthermore, the BBNJ agreement provides that parties to the agreement should strengthen and enhance co-operation with relevant legal instruments, frameworks and bodies. The International Maritime Organization is already well aware of the BBNJ agreement and is increasingly devoting resources to considering how it will engage with the process of the agreement, including through active involvement at the current BBNJ preparatory commission meetings.
On Amendments 5 and 5A from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, which concern shipping insurance, I can confirm that the BBNJ Bill is concerned with implementing the UK’s obligations under the BBNJ agreement—I will repeat this point frequently throughout our considerations—and is not a vehicle for regulating shipping insurance or insurance markets more generally. In any event, UK ships are already required to carry appropriate insurance under existing domestic and international maritime frameworks. The issue that the amendment seeks to address is better dealt with through established merchant shipping legislation. For those reasons, we do not think that this amendment is necessary for this Bill.
I turn to Amendments 11 and 20 from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. Amendment 11 proposes a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to conduct, within six months—and to be repeated every Parliament, as well as reported to Parliament—a review on the use of flags of convenience, their impact on biodiversity and the UK’s enforcement against such ships. Amendment 20 is a consequential amendment that defines “flag of convenience”. Again, these amendments are not strictly necessary for the UK to meet its obligations under the BBNJ agreement, but I can see why the noble Lord has tabled them.
The nationality of ships and the duties of flag states are covered, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, by Part VII of UNCLOS. This has a broader application than the BBNJ agreement; the BBNJ Bill is, therefore, not a suitable vehicle for addressing these issues. The UK’s recent International Maritime Organization audit, where it was rated as “excellent”, shows the importance to the UK of meeting its flag state obligations and responsibilities. However, this Bill is about meeting the UK’s obligations under the BBNJ agreement, and these amendments are not required for that specific purpose.
Finally, Amendment 17 from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament every two years on the effect and enforcement of the Act in relation to several areas: access to marine genetic resource samples and digital sequence information data; enforcement actions taken; the impact on business, scientific research and the fishing industry; and any regulatory changes made under the Act. As my ministerial colleague said when this same amendment was considered in the other place, the various reporting requirements included in this amendment are disproportionate to the value that they would provide. There is also a risk that they could duplicate existing processes, misalign with the international reporting cycle and increase the burden on entities providing the information for the reports. However, I can confirm that the Government already intend to conduct a post-implementation review within five years of the Act being passed, in order to assess its effectiveness.
The Bill provides for powers to make regulations on enforcement. When any such regulations are made in future, they will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and consideration at that point. When they are introduced, regulations to establish an enforcement regime under Part 2 will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure, ensuring full parliamentary scrutiny without the need for additional statutory reporting. Subsection 2(d) of the proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of the Act
“on business, scientific research, and the fishing industry”.
The impact assessment published by the Government indicates that the likely effect of the Bill on business will be minimal; no significant impact on the fishing industry is expected. Fishing is exempt from the notification and other requirements in Part 2 on marine genetic resources.
In relation to Part 3, for activities such as fishing, we expect that measures relating to area-based management tools will be implemented by existing means. It is therefore unlikely that we will need to create new regulations under Clause 11 for this purpose.
Part 4 does not make express provision in relation to fishing activities. It provides for the legislative changes necessary to implement the provisions in Part IV of the BBNJ agreement regarding environmental impact assessments only as they apply to activities within the remit of a domestic marine licensing regime. Engagement with scientific stakeholders suggests that the notification and other requirements in Part 2 of the Bill are unlikely to impose a significant burden. The BBNJ agreement will benefit the scientific community by encouraging information sharing and by supporting scientific and technological development.
For these reasons, we do not think that these amendments are necessary.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for responding. I understand why the Minister and the Government do not want this fairly simple Bill to become a Christmas tree of legislation; most of the amendments are probing amendments and not things on which we are ever going to vote, so I think we all agree on that. However, I am somewhat disappointed that the Government’s view is to make the Bill incredibly narrow in just getting it to the point of ratification, whereas, at Second Reading, there was a general feeling that there be ambition here. I do not sense the ambition. Even if the Government and the Minister do not want to put anything in the Bill—I would probably agree with that—do they think that offshoring is going to be an issue? Have they even thought about it?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are cognisant of what the noble Lord is alerting the Committee to; we just do not think that this is the right Bill to consider those things. Additionally, it is difficult to think about how we would legislate here in the UK for activities that happen under another jurisdiction. The noble Lord knows what this Bill is about, but it is important to raise these things; the only way to get a debate is to table an amendment, and the noble Lord has used that tool effectively. It is good to raise this issue and remind us that this agreement is limited: it does not do everything that we might wish to do around the protection of the oceans. We should be open about that; the way in which the noble Lord has tabled and spoken to his amendment achieves that.
“Plastic pollution and marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction(1) The Secretary of State must, in exercising functions under this Act, have regard to the risks to the marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction arising from plastic pollution, in accordance to the preamble to the Agreement.(2) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a statement (“the plastic pollution statement”) setting out—(a) the Government’s assessment of the actual and potential impacts of plastic pollution on the marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction,(b) the measures the Government proposes to take, through the exercise of functions under this Act and other enactments, and through co-operation in relevant international organisations and bodies, to prevent, reduce and monitor such pollution, and(c) how those measures are intended to contribute to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction and to the objectives of the Agreement.(3) In particular, the statement must address—(a) how the United Kingdom will, as appropriate—(i) co-operate with the International Maritime Organization and other competent international organisations to promote the adoption and effective implementation of mandatory measures to prevent and respond to plastic pollution from ships;(ii) support the development of regionally and globally coordinated monitoring, reporting and data-sharing on plastic pollution, including its presence in areas beyond national jurisdiction;(iii) encourage best practice standards across the plastic supply chain, including in relation to the containment, packaging, labelling and handling of plastic intended for transport by sea;(b) any proposals to support capacity-building, technology transfer and scientific research related to the detection, tracking and mitigation of plastic pollution in areas beyond national jurisdiction, in co-operation with developing States.(4) In preparing and revising the plastic pollution statement the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland; (b) such persons as the Secretary of State considers representative of the scientific community, civil society, affected coastal communities and industry sectors involved in the manufacture, handling, shipping and use of plastic;(c) such international organisations and bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(5) The Secretary of State must—(a) publish the first plastic pollution statement within the period of 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, and(b) lay the statement, and any revised statement, before Parliament.(6) The Secretary of State must, at least once in every Parliament, review the plastic pollution statement and, if appropriate, revise it.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to assess and respond to the risks posed to marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction by plastic pollution arising from activities under UK jurisdiction or control.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, this amendment and Amendment 10 are concerned with plastics pollution. Amendment 6 would require the Secretary of State to assess and respond to the risks to marine biodiversity of plastics pollution that arise from activities that are either under UK control or within UK jurisdiction. This is especially important given that the global treaty on plastics is stuck in dispute.
Plastics pollution in the oceans is subject to ocean currents and the polluter, the originator of that plastic, is often in a very different part of the world from the polluted seas and beaches that result from it. The first time this struck me with such force was when I was in Mexico in the biosphere known as Sian Ka’an, in Yucatan. There were incredibly unspoiled, amazing beaches and very little population. I could not understand why the beaches were covered in plastic, especially plastic shoes. They were sweeping up from South America on the currents.
As the BBNJ comes into effect, besides an effort to lessen what goes into the ocean, it will need, and has provision to include, remediation and removal activities. The agreement sets out the process for the submission of proposals by states and the review of the same. Does the UK yet have proposals that it intends to submit? What is the UK doing on ocean plastics and what does it need to do?
The UK is very active in the International Maritime Organization talks working towards future mandatory rules to reduce risk from nurdles—plastic pellets that are transported by sea in freight containers. The Government have also supported the global plastics pollution treaty, which I referred to earlier, are seeking commitments to reduce all sorts of plastics entering the oceans and have developed standards through the BSI.
All of that is very positive, but they have not yet introduced binding national legislation to prevent nurdle loss. This is very topical, because of that huge loss that ended up on Camber Sands from a sewage plant. The UK has no binding laws that specifically regulate the transport, storage, reporting or mandatory spill prevention of plastic pellets in the way that the EU’s new plastic pellet regulation does. I know that UK Ministers have said that there are no current plans to align UK regulations with the EU’s stricter pellet transport regulations and storage requirements, but will the Government rethink this in the light of joining this treaty? That is another example of where we could take much better action now that we are part of a treaty that concerns the oceans.
Ultimately, we have to switch from using so much fossil fuel-based plastics to using biodegradable plant-based products, and renewable energy in place of fossil fuels, so that our oceans stop warming and acidifying. The two things are incredibly linked. It is a multi- generational challenge, but this treaty is a terrific step on the road. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I very much support Amendment 6. In fact, most of the amendments in this group are sensible. Forgive my ignorance, but surely if we pass the criteria for the international treaty, what is to stop us adding things to the Bill? Is there anything? We could, could we not? It would be irrelevant for the international treaty, but relevant for our Government. Quite honestly—I am looking around the table at all these plastic bottles—our plastic use is horrendous. That is what this amendment is about. It is within the scope of the Bill and speaks directly to the aim of what we are trying to do.
The agreement’s preamble is clear. It recognises the need to address biodiversity loss in the ocean caused not just by climate change but by pollution, specifically plastic pollution. In other words, plastic is not just a side issue here; it is identified as one of the core pressures driving the destruction of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
Plastic pollution is now found throughout the ocean, from the surface to the seabed, in some of the most remote parts of the seas. It causes injury and death, enters the food chain as microplastics and adds further stress to ecosystems already under strain. One floating patch of plastic out on the remote sea is three times the size of France. It is not the only giant patch. We are producing roughly the same weight of plastic each year as the weight of humans on the planet, and that is projected to keep going up. I do not know who put these plastic bottles here, but can we please complain about that? What is wrong with refilling glass bottles? I do not understand why we would add to the problem.
Amendment 6 is about making sure that, when we have a chance to make a difference and improve our sea, we can do so. The Government need to set out how they will assess and respond to the risks that plastic pollution poses and how the UK will work with international partners to reduce and monitor that harm. The amendment would help ensure that the UK takes every opportunity to lead rather than leave a recognised threat unaddressed.
Having suggested that the UK could lead on this, I feel it is rather undermined by the fact that most of our own marine protected areas are barely protected at all. There is bottom trawling, dredging and overfishing. We need to sort that out for ourselves. Signing up to international treaties is brilliant—it is good to work with other countries—but not if we cannot even manage our own resources. The five-year review is fantastic, but what about a five-year review of our own marine protected areas? The human use of plastic and fossil fuels is driving our destruction. I do not understand why the whole House cannot see that—in fact, the whole population.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 19 but very much support the amendments around plastic. When I was in the Pacific, I too found myself on a quite deserted desert island full of old fishing nets and, weirdly, a whole lot of stuff manufactured by Unilever. It is very scary.
On Amendment 19, we have had conversations about this issue and I am still completely confused as to why the Government will not adopt this incredibly simple amendment. It would strengthen our implementation of the whole BBNJ Bill by ensuring that our existing duty to have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement that we passed in the Environment Act 2021 applies to any of our activities in the high seas.
The 2021 Act was a landmark piece of legislation, which enshrined in law five environmental principles—integration, prevention, rectification at source, the “polluter pays” principle and the precautionary principle—and it required Ministers to embed them in all policy. However, the Act, and thus those principles, apply only to us domestically. As I understand it, there is no plan to extend them now or ever beyond our national jurisdiction. This amendment would close that gap. It would make clear that when we develop policies relating to activity on the high seas—as we are bound to do, as we may be involved in licensing, marine scientific research, environmental impact assessments or, in the future, anything to do with deep sea mining—Ministers must apply the same environmental protections and principles that guide our domestic policy in the UK. I cannot understand why the Government do not just say that that is completely fine.
I would be very happy if the Minister, in her answer, could assure me and others that this will be perfectly okay. I believe that we all want the same thing. Therefore, if she believes that this issue is already covered, can she point out how and where? How does she have absolute certainty that it cannot be legally challenged in the future without this change? Alternatively, does she think that there is another way that we can do it? I do not think that anyone wants to see a disconnect between how we behave on the high seas and how we are obliged to behave here.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has just said. As the Minister knows, I very strongly support the Bill and welcome it, but it seems that there is a gap here.
I do not want to repeat what the noble Baroness said, but I strongly identify with her views. I very much hope that, when the Minister replies, she will be able either to accept the amendment or tell us why it is not needed and give us the assurance that the noble Baroness asked for. I asked about this at Second Reading, but I did not receive a reply when the Minister was winding up—perhaps she did not have enough time to do so—so it would be nice if we could hear from her on that today.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 7 and 7A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, even though he has not yet introduced them.
The Chagos Islands are a globally important area. This is the first time in the documented history of the human race that a marine protected area of this importance and scale has changed hands, so we have to get this right. The treaty on the Chagos Islands makes remarkably little reference to the fact that this major marine protected area exists and is hugely environmentally important. Mauritius does not recognise the marine protected area in its current format and has drafted its own. It accords with the IUCN principles, which is a step in the right direction, but there is a long way to go before we have a final version of it.
The biggest problem is that Mauritius has no means of monitoring or enforcing this marine protected area. It has two ocean-going vessels and two small aircraft. Neither of the aircraft is large enough to reach the Chagos Islands and, even if they could reach the islands, they would not be allowed to refuel, and therefore they could not come back. That is a flaw in the monitoring arrangements.
I declare an interest as vice-president of BirdLife International. We have had considerably good relationships with the Mauritian Government about some recovery important endangered species. The first was the Mauritius kestrel, which was virtually down to single figures but is now thriving to the point where it is predating the second species that we worked with them on, the Mauritius pink pigeon. I always think that when two endangered species start living on each other, that probably means that they are out of the danger zone.
However, the record of the Mauritian Government on marine issues is incredibly poor. We know how difficult monitoring and enforcement is in that part of the world. If you have boats and planes, they run up against Chinese influence. In the Indian Ocean, the South China Sea and the wider Pacific, fisheries enforcement is already extremely difficult, so I very much support what I think the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, will say on his Amendments 7 and 7A.
However, will the Minister tell us what proportion of the UK funding to Mauritius under the treaty has been earmarked for environmental protection? What do we, as a Government, intend to do about knowledge transfer where we have traditional links to build up biodiversity science and expertise in Mauritius? We will need to do that in bucketloads in order to look after the Chagos Islands properly. Will the Government communicate with and exercise influence over Mauritius to ensure that legislation is passed to prevent the commercial exploitation—whether through fishing or mining or for other reasons—of these incredibly important waters and the archipelago that exists within them?
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 8, 9 and 15. Amendments 8 and 9 would do a similar thing to my noble friend Lady Miller’s amendment, in that they would add to the licence conditions not just plastic—I agree entirely with my noble friend’s comments on that—but the proper protection of populations beyond national jurisdictions and the deep seabed. These amendments are the least probing ones to this clause. It would be very straight- forward to apply them to the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. A lot has moved on over the years, but these three areas—plastic, fisheries and the deep seabed—are hugely relevant now. These amendments would save the Government having to amend the 2009 Act on another occasion.
My Amendment 15 is more probing. Having said that, I feel very strongly about how we manage fisheries on the high seas. That is a huge problem. It is estimated that something like 40% of all stocks on the high seas are currently overfished. We have huge problems with by-catch of non-target species. Then there is something I used to know as Klondiking, which is the transfer of fish from smaller vessels to large factory vessels in the open sea; it is a method usually employed by illegal, unreported and unregulated—IUU—fisheries. This is a big issue.
The irony is that anybody outside this area of knowledge would probably be surprised that fisheries do not really appear in the BBNJ. What does it do? In effect, it says that we are going to delegate this issue to the management regimes that are out there now—that is, the regional fisheries management organisations—and let them get on with it as they have done in previous years. We are a member of five of those organisations: two to do with tuna, two to do with the Atlantic and one to do with salmon.
That work is important. The fact that the organisations are there is good, but their processes are rather weak, certainly in terms of enforcement, by-catch and data, because they can deal only with single species, rather than the biosphere or ecological systems as a whole. On trans-shipment and the lack of observers, there are no rules for any species other than the specific ones on which nations are agreed. There is a real issue here. If we want this treaty to be successful, and if we want our high seas to reflect our slightly better management of fisheries in our own EEZs, this area needs to be improved.
How do we do that? We could do it through better-supported state control and flag state control, providing enforcement and expanding their remit. As a maritime nation, the UK has an obligation to try to make these organisations work hugely better, in the spirit of international agreements on biodiversity beyond national boundaries.
This is particularly the case with IUU. I was privileged to be a board member of the Marine Management Organisation over six years. I remember an IUU case to do with tuna off west Africa. Proving it and getting what you needed to bring it to court was so complicated and difficult—though I understand why—that the regulator, the MMO, just did not have the money to do it. The potential offenders had much deeper pockets than the enforcers and regulators. In the end, as so often happens with these things, it went to HMRC under money laundering regulations.
I have one question for the Minister. How many successful prosecutions of IUU have there been recently? She could come back to me in writing. This is a really important issue. We are all in favour of stopping illegal, unreported and irregular fisheries, but the resources to do so are difficult to get. I would be interested to hear what success we have had on that recently and how the UK might strengthen the work of at least the five regional fisheries management organisations that we are a member of.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I support Amendments 6, 8 and 10. I pay tribute to the Minister for the commitment that she is giving to the Bill. It is absolutely right that we align ourselves with the treaty and are able to be participants at the first Conference of the Parties. I thank her for the thoroughness with which she is going through it.
I do not want to repeat the excellent speeches that have been made, but on Amendments 6 and 10 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and Amendment 8 from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I think there is a role for the UK here in international thought leadership. I suspect that the Minister will resist these amendments, but I am keen to understand the Government’s ambition and what they want to see happen. If not within this Bill, where might areas, such as mineral extraction from the deep sea and plastics, play a part in their ambition to be a global leader on the environment?
On plastic pollution, we know that its durability means that it persists in the ocean. Noble Lords have mentioned seeing, on their holidays, bottles and other bits of marine plastic washed up on the shore. They take ages to break down, so it is vital that we prevent plastics going into river courses and oceans. According to the World Wide Fund for Nature, almost every species group in the ocean has encountered plastic pollution, with scientists observing negative effects in almost 90% of assessed species. It is vital that plastic pollution, because it is trans-boundary and moves within ocean currents, is included within international agreements, so what might His Majesty’s Government do to try to bring influence to that, so that the scourge of plastic pollution might be eliminated in our lifetimes?
Secondly, I speak in support of Amendment 8 from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, which looks at the deep seabeds and how they are protected through the use of marine licences. We need to remember that the deep sea is the oldest and largest biome on earth, and of crucial importance. We have to stop the irreversible damage before it is too late. It is full of remarkable biodiversity, much of it still unknown, uncharted and awaiting the wonder of discovery. The marine sediments lock up carbon; they are great carbon sinks that need to be protected as well. Where is the Government’s ambition around the prevention of damage to the deep seabeds, particularly with the demands for extracting materials? Where is the thought leadership that is going to be provided?
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, Defra is attached to about 160 global treaties regarding various aspects of the environment, several of which have been discussed today. I want to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, regarding environmental principles. I am hoping the Minister will say that these will automatically apply—not regardless of whether the amendment happens, but because they are already in effect—because my interpretation of the Environment Act is that it should not matter where the policy is being applied. If it is UK government policy, then Ministers are supposed to be bound by the duties as set out. I cannot remember whether they were set out in 2022 or 2023.
I do not need to add anything to what the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said on her support for the MPA around the Chagos Islands and that territory. I recognise the importance, but it is worth thinking about some other issues that have been raised. Noble Lords may be rightly aware that multiple treaties already cover a number of these issues; they may be in place but not enforced as widely as we would like, particularly on EU fishing. They already extend to our international waters, not just what is within the economic zone.
One thing that may be helpful is a brief update on where we are with the plastics treaty, because the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, should be covered in that comprehensive new treaty. I know that negotiations got somewhat stalled in Geneva. I expect all parties are still trying to find a way forward, but it should deal in particular with disposal. With that, I hope that the Minister can give us assurances on a variety of issues.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for leading this group, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for making me feel guilty for drinking from my plastic water bottle. I hope my cardboard cup is okay—but probably not, because it has plastic on its inside.
I have a number of amendments in this group touching on the issues of marine biodiversity in the seas around the Chagos Archipelago, the impact of industrial fishing practices used by the Chinese fishing fleet and the sustainability of our own domestic fishing fleet. In the debates on the Chagos Bill, we debated at length the marine protected area that will, we hope, be established under the UK treaty with Mauritius. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and my noble friend Lady Coffey for their support.
That treaty will allow the UK to influence decisions about marine biodiversity beyond the extent of national jurisdiction, so can the Minister confirm whether the Government plan to propose an MPA for certain parts of the Indian Ocean? Have Ministers undertaken any assessment of the benefits that might be achieved for biodiversity around the Chagos Archipelago if an MPA were implemented on the deep ocean around the islands, to complement the existing one?
This leads on well to the question of which areas are expected to be subject to an MPA first. Can the Minister confirm what conversations the Government have had with their counterparts representing other co-signatories to the treaty about establishing future MPAs? Where do we expect the first MPAs to be located?
Lord Teverson (LD)
As this is Committee, I very much welcome the amendment around the Chinese. It is not just the Chinese, as the noble Lord will know, since a lot of east Asian states have a real issue over this. On the deep-sea fisheries, all the Norwegian, UK and EU agreements are purely within EEZs, which this treaty does not cover. The sad thing is that, as far as I am aware, the UK has only one deep-sea fishing vessel. It operates out of Hull into the Barents Sea. That one vessel shows where we are these days in terms of our fishing ability as a nation.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his insight. The Committee benefits hugely from his knowledge and experience on this.
This group of amendments relates to environmental protection and the sustainable management of activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Let me start by restating that the BBNJ agreement represents a significant step forward in the conservation of the global ocean, enabling stronger protection for the two-thirds of the ocean that lies beyond national jurisdiction. I accept everything that noble Lords said about what more could be done and what they would like the Government to consider. That is not what we are doing today, but that does not mean that the arguments being presented are wrong or even that the Government disagree with them.
The Government’s intention is to make sure that we get this legislation done as quickly as possible in order for us to be able to participate in the Conference of the Parties. We do not yet have a date for that, but it could happen very soon. Some of the issues being raised can be thrashed out in that context, and we think that that is the way to make more progress internationally. That does not mean that the things being raised, particularly on plastics, transshipments and all the rest of it, are not important. It is good that we raise them at every opportunity, but the Bill will play an important role in supporting delivery of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, including the global target to effectively conserve and manage at least 30% of the ocean by 2030.
The Bill provides the domestic legal framework needed to implement fully the agreement in the UK. It includes provisions to support the designation and management of area-based management tools, including marine protected areas, establish robust environmental impact assessment requirements, and ensure the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the collection and use of marine genetic resources. Taken together, these measures will strengthen environmental protection, promote the sustainable use of marine biodiversity and reinforce the UK’s leadership in the stewardship of the global ocean. I thought the points made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich about thought leadership were important. I do not know whether I will be able to assure him today about that, but I very much welcome what he had to say.
I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Jones, for Amendment 6, which would require the Secretary of State to publish—and, subsequently, to review and revise—a statement regarding the impact of plastic pollution on marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. We think that a separate plastic pollution statement would duplicate provisions already embedded in the BBNJ agreement, providing limited additional value while increasing legal complexity.
The impacts of plastic pollution are already considered under existing UK processes. For example, under Section 69(1) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009,
“the … licensing authority must have regard to … the need to protect the environment”
when considering marine licence applications. Preventing plastic pollution is an example of such an environmental consideration. In addition, under the IMO, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships is the main international convention covering the prevention of pollution of the marine environment by ships. However, a separate process is under way to agree a global plastic pollution treaty.
Plastic pollution is a transboundary issue, and prevention at source is key. A treaty that addresses the full life cycle of plastics is what we need to address this issue. The UK fully supports the plastic pollution treaty having robust monitoring and assessment procedures, as well as collaboration between future parties to this instrument, to monitor and assess plastic pollution in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Ultimately, the BBNJ agreement focuses on conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction; it is, therefore, not the best place to address plastic pollution across the life cycle.
I turn to Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, which would require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament, within six months of the BBNJ Act being passed, a report on the potential impact of the introduction of marine protected areas in parts of the Indian Ocean that are beyond national jurisdiction on marine biodiversity in the area around the Chagos Archipelago. The purposes of the BBNJ Bill are to enable the UK to comply fully with the legal obligations under the BBNJ agreement that require domestic implementation and, therefore, to allow us to ratify the agreement—noble Lords are going to get really fed up with me repeating that. The requirements under this clause go beyond the intent of the Bill. However, the UK and Mauritius attach great importance to the need to protect marine biodiversity across the Chagos Archipelago. Both have committed to protecting one of the world’s most important marine environments.
The development of future marine protected areas under the BBNJ agreement is a matter for the BBNJ Conference of the Parties. This process has several steps—including initial proposal review, consultation and scientific review—before a proposal goes to the Conference of the Parties for a decision. These proposals will be developed by parties in collaboration and consultation with relevant states and stakeholders, as appropriate. They will be formulated based on the best available science and, where available, on relevant traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities. Once established, these MPAs will be monitored and periodically reviewed by the BBNJ’s scientific and technical body.
As a party to the Conference of the Parties, the UK will be part of the decision-making process and will be able to agree on measures including marine protected areas. We expect that the first area-based management tools will not be established until the second Conference of the Parties meeting at the very earliest, due to the need first to establish the BBNJ’s scientific and technical body, which will review proposals, and to allow for other important aspects of the process, such as consultation, to take place. For the reasons above, we think that this amendment is not necessary.
Amendments 8 and 9, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and Amendment 10, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, are similar in intent. These amendments would require the licensing authority to have due regard to protecting the deep-sea seabed and sustainable fishing and to preventing plastic pollution when determining an application for a marine licence. These amendments are not necessary, because Section 69(1) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 already requires the licensing authority to have regard to the need to “protect the environment” and
“to prevent interference with legitimate uses of the sea”.
Protecting the deep-sea seabed and preventing plastic pollution are examples of environmental considerations to which licensing authorities would have due regard when considering marine licence applications. Sustainable fishing would be considered a legitimate use of the sea and would therefore be given due regard by licensing authorities when considering an application.
Amendment 15, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, would require the Government to develop and regularly update a published strategy setting out how they will conserve and sustainably use marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction in relation to fishing activities. Amendment 7A, from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, would require the Secretary of State to publish, within six months of Royal Assent, a report on the impacts of Chinese industrial fishing on marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction and the potential role of marine protected areas in addressing those impacts.
The requirements of these amendments go beyond the intent of the Bill. They are already covered elsewhere, or can be implemented via other appropriate means, and are therefore not necessary. The Fisheries Act 2020 governs UK fishing activities and provides the legal framework for licensing and regulating fishing and fishing-related activities. Preventing, deterring and eliminating illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing is addressed under the UK’s IUU control regulations. These regulations establish a framework for the monitoring, inspection and enforcement of fisheries, and ensure that seafood entering the UK is not linked to IUU fishing.
Furthermore, the UK is a party to the UN Fish Stocks Agreement. Parties to this agreement are required to ensure that the
“conservation and sustainable use of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks”,
including in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Parties are required to collaborate to achieve these objectives, including via regional fisheries bodies, and must ensure that fisheries do not seriously threaten wider ecosystems and biodiversity.
The BBNJ agreement creates a stronger ocean governance framework that supports and encourages co-operation with other relevant legal instruments, frameworks and bodies. It provides that parties
“shall endeavour to promote … the objectives of this Agreement when participating in decision-making”
under such organisations. These include regional fisheries management organisations and the Agreement on Port State Measures, which directly target unsustainable fishing practices—including illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. We are working across departments to ensure a consistent UK position on interactions between the BBNJ agreement and relevant instruments, frameworks and bodies to which the UK is a member.
Amendment 18, from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, would require the Secretary of State to publish a report, within six months of the BBNJ Act being passed, on the potential impact of the introduction of marine protected areas under the BBNJ agreement on the UK fishing fleet. To require a report to be published six months after the BBNJ Act is passed is disproportionate. As I mentioned previously, we expect that the first area-based management tools will not be published until the second Conference of the Parties meeting at the very earliest.
Timings for the Conference of the Parties meetings are still to be decided but may be every one to two years. The first Conference of the Parties meeting must take place by 16 January 2027. Once it has ratified the BBNJ agreement, the UK, as well as relevant stakeholders, such as the fishing industry and regional fisheries management organisations, will have the opportunity to consider any impacts of a potential BBNJ marine protected area on fishing activities before any decision is made by the Conference of the Parties. Any impacts on the UK fishing fleet would be better raised through the process, rather than after a marine protected area has been established. The UK can also express views on such impacts when the final proposal is being considered by the Conference of the Parties, as well as whether we would support it. We will carefully consider any future proposals to understand any potential impacts on the UK fishing industry.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 19 from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. In the future, if required, the UK will give effect to decisions made by the future Conference of the Parties. Those decisions will reflect the principles and approaches in Article 7 of the BBNJ agreement. Individual decisions, such as those on marine licence applications, are not within the scope of the environmental principles duty, which applies only to Ministers of the Crown when making policy; that includes proposals for legislation but does not include an administrative decision taken in relation to a particular person or case. In any event, under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, the Marine Management Organisation must not grant a licence to carry out any activity that is contrary to international law; the MMO applies the precautionary principle when determining licence applications. For these reasons, we do not think that this amendment is necessary.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
May I ask the Minister something? I am so sorry if she already responded to this; if she did, I did not catch it. We could simply pass this Bill—I understand the urgency here—but we could also add something to it. I do not accept that a lot of the things we have talked about are included anywhere else. Those things are simply put and explicit in the amendments here. I do not understand why the Government would not think about just adding them to the Bill.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right; I did not reply to that point. She will be neither surprised nor pleased to hear that that is not the Government’s intention. We want to get this Bill through in order to get on with being able to participate in the Conference of the Parties. The view of Defra Ministers is, I think, that we ought to consult on or consider any additional measures in the light of other decisions being made. I know that that is not what the noble Baroness wants to hear today—I hope that she does not interpret this as any disinclination from the Government to move forward on the things that I know matter so much to her—but that is not what we want to do with this piece of legislation.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has spoken and brought their insights and expertise to the debate. I am very glad that it emphasised the issues around overfishing; it will be quite a task for the BBNJ treaty to get anywhere with that, because it is such an issue. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, mentioned the sheer size of the Chinese fleet.
I thank the Minister for listing the actions that this country is taking on domestic plastic, particularly on its reduction. She will forgive me if I missed it, but I think that there was a question on what is happening now with the global plastics treaty. I take it that there is nothing further to say on that because it is still in discussion; we await some news on that.
On overfishing, we often talk about the fish stocks that we eat, such as tuna or salmon, but one that often comes up when you talk to experts is krill, because it is at the absolute bottom of the food chain. I hope that, if there is a chance to take issues to the next COP, the UK might choose to raise the issue of krill, on which the whole food chain depends.
In the meantime, I thank the Committee for this debate and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Screening and procedure(1) The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 (S.S.I 2017/115) are amended as follows.(2) In regulation 2 (interpretation)—(a) in paragraph (1), after the definition of “application website” insert—““area beyond national jurisdiction” has the meaning given by Article 1(2) of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement; “BBNJ works” means the carrying out of a regulated activity that engages the United Kingdom’s obligations under Part 4 of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement (environmental impact assessments) in respect of an activity in an area beyond national jurisdiction;“the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement” means the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, opened for signature at New York on 20 September 2023;”;(b) in paragraph (1), in the definition of “EIA project”—(i) in the words before paragraph (a) omit “either”;(ii) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (a), and(iii) at the end of paragraph (b) insert “; or(c) BBNJ works where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the works may cause—(i) substantial pollution, or(ii) significant and harmful changes to,the marine environment;”;(c) in paragraph (1), in the definition of “environmental information”—(i) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (c);(ii) at the end of paragraph (d) insert “; and(e) in relation to BBNJ works that are an EIA project, any other matter necessary to give effect to Article 31(1)(b) and (c) of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement;”;(d) in paragraph (1), in the definition of “regulated activity”, at the end insert “(see also paragraph (1B))”;(e) after paragraph (1) insert—“(1A) Terms used in paragraph (c)(i) and (ii) of the definition of “EIA project” have the same meaning that they have in the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement (see in particular Article 30(1)(b)).(1B) Where the requirement for a marine licence, or variation of a marine licence, under Part 4 of the 2010 Act for works in an area beyond national jurisdiction depends on the application of these Regulations (including the doing or not doing of anything under these Regulations), these Regulations have effect as if such a licence or variation were required unless and until the application of these Regulations produces a different result.”(3) In regulation 8 (exemptions)—(a) in paragraph (4), in the words before sub-paragraph (a), after “apply” insert “in respect of schedule 1 works or schedule 2 works”;(b) after paragraph (4) insert—“(4A) The Scottish Ministers may direct that these Regulations do not require an environmental impact assessment to be carried out in relation to BBNJ works if they are satisfied that an equivalent assessment has been carried out, is being carried out or will be carried out in relation to the works.(4B) The Scottish Ministers may not grant a regulatory approval for BBNJ works in respect of which a direction under paragraph (4A) has been given unless they have determined that to do so would be compatible with the United Kingdom’s obligations under Part 4 of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement.(4C) For the purposes of paragraph (4A), an assessment is an equivalent assessment if it is sufficient to meet the requirements of Part 4 of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement.” (4) In regulation 9 (general provisions relating to screening)—(a) in paragraph (1), in the words before sub-paragraph (a), after “works” insert “or BBNJ works”;(b) omit the “and” at the end of sub-paragraph (a)(ii);(c) at the end of sub-paragraph (b) insert “; and(c) in the case of BBNJ works, have regard to any other matter necessary to give effect to Article 30(1)(b) of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement.”;(d) after paragraph (2) insert—“(2A) Where the Scottish Ministers adopt a screening opinion in relation to BBNJ works to the effect that the works are not an EIA project, the screening opinion must also contain provision stating whether the Scottish Ministers consider that—(a) the works may have more than a minor or transitory effect on the marine environment, or(b) the effects of the works are unknown or poorly understood.(2B) Terms used in paragraph (2A)(a) and (b) have the same meaning that they have in the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement (see in particular Article 30(1)).”(5) In regulation 12 (application without prior screening)—(a) in paragraph (1)(a), for “or an application to carry out schedule 2 works” substitute “schedule 2 works or BBNJ works”;(b) for paragraph (2) substitute—“(2) Where it appears to the Scottish Ministers that the application relates to proposed schedule 1 works or schedule 2 works, the Scottish Ministers must adopt a screening opinion in relation to the proposed works.”(c) after paragraph (2) insert—“(2A) Where it appears to the Scottish Ministers that the application relates to proposed BBNJ works, the Scottish Ministers must adopt a screening opinion in any case where the Scottish Ministers consider that—(a) the proposed works may have more than a minor or transitory effect on the marine environment, or(b) the effects of the proposed works are unknown or poorly understood.(2B) Where the Scottish Ministers decide that paragraph (2A) does not apply in respect of proposed BBNJ works, they must give the applicant a notice stating that the proposed works do not require an environmental impact assessment.(2C) Terms used in paragraph (2A)(a) and (b) have the same meaning that they have in the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement (see in particular Article 30(1)).”(d) in paragraph (3), after “works” insert “or BBNJ works”.(6) In regulation 13 (EIA application made without an EIA report), in paragraph (3)(b), after “12(2)” insert or “12(2A)”.(7) In Schedule 4 (information for inclusion in environmental impact assessment reports)—(a) after paragraph 9 insert—“(9A) In relation to BBNJ works, any other information that is necessary to enable the Scottish Ministers to give effect to Article 31(1)(c) of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement.”;(b) in paragraph 10, for “9” substitute “9A”.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would make changes to Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 that are necessary for the purpose of implementing the United Kingdom’s obligations under Part 4 the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, this set of amendments relates to the scope and exercise of regulatory powers under the Bill, including the making of regulations. Government Amendments 12, 13 and 14 tabled in my name relate to Clause 18, which was originally included in the Bill to give Scottish Ministers the power to amend the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 for BBNJ purposes. Following work with officials from the Scottish Government and given the timeline for ratification, we would prefer to make the necessary changes directly in the Bill.
These changes will help ensure that the UK meets its obligations under the BBNJ agreement in relation to Scottish marine licensable activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The UK Government will be amending their EIA regulations with Clause 15 and officials from the Scottish Government have worked closely with UK counterparts to draft corresponding provisions. Accordingly, the amendments also limit the Clause 18 power to implementing only Article 38 standards or guidelines, reflecting that a wider power is no longer required as other changes will be made directly through the Bill. We continue to work with the Scottish Government to secure the legislative consent Motion for this Bill, which we would expect to be passed prior to the final amending stage in the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have amendments in this group that are pretty straightforward. In essence, it is somewhat frustrating to see that further regulations or commencements need to be made. Candidly, these would have to be done before ratification anyway, so why do we not just get on with it? We have been waiting a long time for this Bill. The clock is ticking and these amendments could be made, hopefully by Report, so that we do not have to keep revisiting this situation.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I can also be brief because this side of the Committee has no concerns about the Government’s amendments. I thank the Minister for introducing this group.
My single amendment in this group would require the Secretary of State to publish a report, within three years of the Act coming into effect, on the exercise of powers granted under this legislation. As I said in the first group, when we are granting wide powers to Ministers, it is important to have transparency and accountability. This is a simple and measured amendment that simply asks for a report after three years, when enough time has passed to see the treaty operating properly. I hope the Minister will either accept it or commit the Government to publishing the same details in due course.
Finally, I turn to the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Coffey. These are eminently sensible and seek to remove the need for further regulations. I hope the Government will look at them favourably and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 16, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the exercise of powers conferred on them by the Bill. A report would be required within three years after the Act has passed. As my ministerial colleague said when this same amendment was considered in the other place, the amendment is not necessary as any regulations created under the powers in the Bill would already be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. There will also be a post-implementation review conducted five years after the Act is passed.
As we currently do not know when or if the powers in the Bill will be used, this approach of a post-implementation review after five years provides the necessary flexibility to review implementation of what is by then the Act at a more appropriate point. The proposed three years in this amendment may well be slightly premature. We are not expecting the powers conferred by the Act to be used to create many new regulations, especially not in the first few years. If the Secretary of State exercises the powers conferred on them by the Act to make regulations, these regulations would already be subject to scrutiny in Parliament through either the affirmative or negative procedure.
In response to Amendments 21, 22 and 23, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, I get the “hurry up” message, but these amendments would remove the power for the Secretary of State to commence the operative provisions of the Bill at a later date or dates, so that all provisions of the Bill would come into force immediately on Royal Assent. I am afraid to disappoint the noble Baroness, but the Government cannot support these amendments. The current position allows the Secretary of State to ensure that the obligations imposed by the BBNJ Bill come into force only when the BBNJ agreement obligations become binding on the UK as a matter of international law, 30 days after the UK has ratified the BBNJ agreement.
The UK will ratify the BBNJ agreement only once all relevant legislation has been passed. This includes secondary legislation passed under powers conferred by the BBNJ Bill. The suggested amendments would not speed up the UK ratification of the agreement. Instead, they would just mean that domestic legislative requirements are imposed before the corresponding international obligations become binding on the UK. This would create disparity between the international and domestic regimes, leading to legal uncertainty. However, I take her amendments as a mark of encouragement and we are grateful to the noble Baroness for that.
Commencement regulation-making powers are standard provisions in Bills, as the noble Baroness knows, giving effect to the long-standing convention that there should be a two-month interval before the commencement of operative provisions of any Act, to give those affected by the new legislation time to acclimatise and adapt. In short, these powers ensure a smooth and legally robust transition from Royal Assent to the point at which the BBNJ agreement obligations bind the UK, which is why the Government are resisting these amendments today.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I understand what the Minister is saying: that sometimes, not everything can come into effect. However, it can be written into the Bill that it comes into effect two months later. We do not have to go through the various bureaucratic processes—never mind PBL but JCSI and all the other elements—which just take time, as she is finding out. I am surprised to hear that it will not affect our delaying of a ratification date of the treaty overall. I have heard what the Minister said but just encourage her to make progress before Report.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I will consider it further. We are unlikely to change our position, but I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her constant support for getting this done. That is very much the spirit in which the Government intend to proceed as well.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment inserting a new clause after clause 17, which would mean that the power conferred on Scottish Ministers by clause 18 can be limited to implementing Article 38 standards or guidelines (as with the power conferred on the Secretary of State by clause 16(1)).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 18, page 16, line 10.
Free School Meals
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Boycott
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that schools’ core budgets in more deprived communities are not disproportionately used to meet the costs of providing free school meals.
The Minister of State, Department for Education, and the Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government already spend £1.5 billion annually supporting the provision of free and nutritious meals for around 3.4 million children. We have set aside a further £1 billion over the multi-year spending review period to fully fund our significant expansion of free meals to all households in receipt of universal credit from September 2026. This new entitlement will mean that more than 500,000 disadvantaged children will begin to access free meals.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Government very much for extending the remit of free school meals—that is excellent news. I declare my interest as chair of Feeding Britain. One of our trustees, Professor Greta Defeyter, does a lot of research into how the economics of free school meals work. She has found that the caterers are charging so much that schools are being forced to raid their teaching and learning budgets—literally the budgets they need to buy books—to pay for this. In Wales and Scotland, the budget for school meals is 60p to 70p more. What will the Government do to close this gap, given that the bill will get much higher next September, as she just alluded to?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As I have outlined, we are fully funding the expansion, with £1 billion additional funding over the next spending review period. We provide the funding for free school meals through the national funding formula, and it is within the ability of schools to be able to shift money around in order to fund this. I understand the noble Baroness’s point about the pressures that food inflation may be causing, but it is right to prioritise additional funding on broadening the entitlement rather than on funding caterers.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is time that we brought back in-house catering to schools, so that children can benefit from knowing about food? Would it not be beneficial to also bring back home cooking to schools?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
There are many schools that, in thinking about the sourcing of their free school meals, see the benefits of having those responsible for buying and cooking the food in the school itself. It is up to schools to determine how they procure their free school meals, although I recognise that the last Government provided support for schools in procuring that as effectively as possible. There are already opportunities for children to learn cooking within school—and at home as well. That will always be an important thing for young people to be able to do.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is nice to see that the Opposition have now accepted that privatisation of school meals was not a good thing and that it has led to some of our problems?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend. This Government, in providing the additional commitment to children and the additional investment to expand free school meals, have recognised that, wherever it comes from, in-house provisions can often have a range of benefits for the school. More children will be able to benefit, with all the changes that that brings, such as the ability for them to concentrate on their learning and to have the food and nutrition that all children need to be able to succeed.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
I welcome the child poverty strategy, which commits to no child in school going hungry. However, I am deeply concerned to hear that many schools, particularly in deprived areas, are having to use teaching budgets to fill this gap. Can the Minister provide a list, not in the Chamber now but to me, of how many schools are topping up free school meal provisions from their teaching budgets?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As I have outlined, the national funding formula already includes provision for the funding of free school meals. It quite rightly targets funding to schools on the basis of those with the greatest numbers of pupils with additional needs. I will investigate whether it is possible to provide those figures. I am not sure that it will be, given how school meals are funded, but I will have a look.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
Can the Minister explain further why the allocation is less in England than in Wales and Scotland, particularly the allowance for adolescents aged 14 to 18? There is clear evidence that secondary schools are supporting meals out of teaching budgets. If the numbers who are entitled increases, which I welcome, that subsidy will have to increase.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It is the nature of devolution that different Governments make different decisions on how they fund and how they distribute that funding. Since this Government came into power, we have seen a considerable increase in the core schools budget, which increased by £3.7 billion in 2025-26. That benefits the teaching and learning that noble Lords are concerned about, as well as general health and the provision of free school meals, as this specific Question is about.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, in addition to worrying about how to fund free school meals, the Minister will be aware that there are concerns emerging about the funding of future teacher pay awards following the Treasury’s statement that there would be no additional funding for public sector pay awards outside departmental budgets. Can she reassure schools that the 6.5% recommended increase over three years which the department made to the STRB can be met through their budgets?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We have been clear with schools about the 10% increase in teacher pay that we have delivered since we came into government. Additional funding has been provided but, of that, we will support schools to find approximately 1% through efficiencies. I am sure that the noble Baroness supports the focus on efficiencies, even if she does not support the additional investment that this Government have been able to find.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I very much support the Government on the free school meals issue—it is incredibly important. We are facing an obesity crisis, so the better children eat, the better it is from the start. Can the Department for Education give some advice to schools about moving from caterers to in-house catering if they need it?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As I suggested earlier, the Department for Education is already providing advice to schools on how to procure their provision of school meals, and how to do it effectively and efficiently. We have to give schools the ability to make their own decisions about how they provide the free school meals that they are responsible for providing. Alongside that advice, that is the current position.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a teacher at a state secondary school with over 50% pupil premium. I assure noble Lords that the food I taught my year 8 students about was nutritious and was taught to a budget. Students are taught food in year 7 and year 8—it is part of the national curriculum —so they are very well-taught at that stage. I welcome the free school meals news, but I have heard a lot that breakfast clubs are very much a top-down, one-size-fits-all, cookie cutter approach, whereas heads are saying, “Could you just give us the money and we’ll sort out how it’s done?”
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am sure the noble Lord provided excellent food education for the pupils he was responsible for. The rollout of breakfast clubs started originally with the 750 early adopters. That was precisely about being able to identify, in a range of different schools, how we best delivered and funded breakfast clubs. While I understand the noble Lord’s call for more flexibility, and we would certainly want to maximise that where possible, we are clear that there are standards around breakfast clubs for the quality of the food provided and the period of time that club operates for. This is about food, but it is also about childcare and a good start to the school day, which have to be set centrally. Within that, I am sure as much flexibility as possible will be offered.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned procurement advice that the Government are giving with respect to free school meals. Can she update the House as to what advice they are giving to ensure that the produce consumed is locally sourced, sustainably grown and provided by identifiable local farms that the schoolchildren can interact with for their own learning benefit?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am sure the noble Earl will realise that that would not necessarily be possible in every school. I refer him to the good food cycle, the food strategy produced by my colleagues in Defra, which sets out the Government’s vision to drive better outcomes from the UK food system and particularly supports children in ensuring that there is more affordable food, good growth, a sustainable and resilient supply, and a vibrant food culture. As we have already discussed, although it is not always possible, where children’s cooking skills or school meals can be linked to local food providers as part of their education, that can only be beneficial.
Asylum Accommodation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord German
To ask His Majesty’s Government how, in expanding the use of large-scale sites for asylum accommodation, they will ensure that lessons learnt from the operation of Napier Barracks and the RAF Wethersfield sites will be applied to new facilities from the outset.
Lord German (LD)
In begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I draw attention to my interest in that I am supported by the RAMP organisation.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The Government are confident that the level of due diligence carried out on sites has improved since 2024 and that value-for-money assessments now take place at the appropriate stage. I can assure the noble Lord that lessons have been learned from large site acquisitions that occurred under the previous Government and are now being implemented to inform our future accommodation procurement.
Lord German (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. A previous Permanent Secretary to the Home Office told a Select Committee of the House of Commons that there were a thousand lessons to be learned. I am not going to ask the Minister to outline the answers to all those thousand lessons, but can I specifically ask him about the practice of transporting people long distances to Croydon and other places, simply to have video conferencing interviews? It is an absolute waste of money; surely provision could be provided on-site.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
One of the improvements that the Government intend to make is to ensure that interviews take place on-site. That is good for cost, for the people being interviewed and for the taxpayer as a whole.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the Government are proposing to spend over £1 million refurbishing the Cameron barracks in Inverness to house asylum seekers. Will he promise that there will be a similar amount of money to refurbish other barracks that are currently occupied by our soldiers?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I think the noble Baroness will know that the UK Government, with this Labour Party now as the prime mover, have invested a considerable amount of resource in improving accommodation for troops across the country, including the biggest-ever engagement in improving accommodation for service men and women in their communities. That is one thing we are trying to do. We are, at the moment, looking at Cameron barracks as one of the options. We are undertaking due diligence, and no final decisions have been taken. In the event of any decision being taken, we will make sure that the accommodation is up to a decent standard, which I think is only fair to those who are using it.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, on the question of barracks, Crowborough barracks in East Sussex is routinely used for the Kent and Sussex Army Cadet Forces as well as the local school CCFs, but it seems that the Home Office will now be turfing them out and using the barracks for accommodation for asylum seekers. At the same time, the Government say they want to support young people. Do the Government really think that this is a good example of how to treat and invest in tomorrow’s UK citizens?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As the noble Lord will know, we have announced that we wish to examine the opportunity for Crowborough barracks. We are under- taking due diligence at the moment. That involves discussions with a range of authorities, including the police, local authorities, the local health service and, indeed, the local Member of Parliament. No final decision has been taken as yet.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that servicemen’s accommodation is in the terrible state it is in because the last Government privatised it?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I say to my noble friend what I said to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering: this Labour Government have invested more money in servicepeople’s housing than any Government previously over the last few years. We have done that to upgrade housing that was left to go to wrack and ruin by the previous Government. I am proud of the fact that my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence have committed to that, have seen it through and are improving standards for service men and women across the country.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will know my view that the best barracks for sailors are ships. I am sure he would agree that the way of getting around it from that side of life is that we should order as many ships as possible as quickly as possible. Does he agree with that?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am afraid these are turning into defence questions, but I shall do my best. I simply say to my noble friend that the previous Government did invest in putting people on ships; it was called the “Bibby Stockholm”. As a result of the failures of the “Bibby Stockholm” to provide a decent standard of accommodation, one of the first actions that this Government took was to scrap it and to provide better-quality accommodation for people who were arriving in this country in large numbers, largely as a result of the failure of the last Government to achieve stopping the boats in the first place.
Women’s Health Strategy
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to improve women’s healthcare as part of their renewed Women’s Health Strategy for England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government are committed to prioritising women’s health as we reform the NHS and have been clear that women’s health will never be neglected again. The renewed women’s health strategy will reflect on delivery since 2022, address gaps and go further on totemic issues, including health inequalities and women not feeling listened to, particularly when experiencing pain. The strategy will set this out in the context of the 10-year health plan.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that answer and for her championing of women’s health in her role. She will know that women’s health hubs have been shown to be successful in reducing gynaecological waiting lists and speeding up women’s access to care, and were highlighted as a real success in the 10-year plan. The Minister is a strong supporter of the hubs, but, while most areas now have some form of provision, the rollout has been patchy, meaning that not all women can access their services. Given the removal of the mandatory requirement for ICBs to establish hubs, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that the women’s health strategy maintains a clear commitment to the long-term sustainability of women’s health hubs as part of their improved neighbourhood health services?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I very much share the noble Baroness’s assessment of the value of women’s health hubs. She will know that I have taken a considerable personal interest in this. The target to establish a women’s health hub in every ICB was the purpose of a time-limited pilot established by the last Government, and that target was met. Women’s health hubs are absolutely effective when it comes to improving access to and experiences of care for women. I have promoted them as the best example of community-based and joined-up healthcare. That is why, as the noble Baroness will have seen in the 10-year health plan, the women’s health hub in Tower Hamlets was specifically highlighted as a best-practice example of neighbourhood health, and we continue to support ICBs to improve their delivery of women’s health hubs.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, the latest data from October this year shows that there are over 576,000 women on gynaecology waiting lists and there were 130,000 new referrals in October. How will the Government address this unacceptable wait in the refreshed strategy?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My examination of the gynaecology waiting lists shows a gradual decline since August 2023. However, I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness that the waiting lists are far too long: it is unacceptable. We are now seeing 57% of gynaecology referrals being seen within 18 weeks, compared with 62% across all specialities. I do not want to hide behind improvement, welcome though it is, but we also know that almost nine out of 10 women on the gynaecology waiting lists are waiting for an outpatient appointment. That is why the big change through the 10-year plan is absolutely crucial, as we move from hospital to community. In the women’s health strategy renewal we will be focusing very much on improvement of gynaecology care. I share the noble Baroness’s view on that.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, looking beyond gynaecology at women’s healthcare overall, do the Government recognise the importance of public health messaging? Breast cancer is the leading cause of mortality in 30 to 50 year-olds. Often it is diagnosed late, yet there are some important public health initiatives such as good diagrams in women’s changing rooms in large stores. I hesitate to mention the name of one chain —although I am tempted to—where there are excellent diagrams to help women understand that, if they have any symptoms at all, they should seek help. There are similar messages about mental health in places that women go. It means we are dealing with women in a more holistic way, irrespective of age.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right, and we are taking every opportunity to find the right ways to communicate with women about their healthcare. If I had to give a big message, it would be, “Don’t not put up with it”. That is a basic challenge to get across, because so many women do put up with health challenges when they should not. Many women’s health challenges have become normalised—“It’s just part of life, it’s your age” and so on—and I am very keen that, in the renewed women’s health strategy, we will take on that myth and also take on the services to match that.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for this Question and pay tribute to her consistent championing of women’s health issues. I also thank her for discussing the particular concerns behind this Question with me. I am sorry to return to gynaecology, but the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has raised concerns that cervical screening coverage remains well below NHS targets. Cancer Research says that low attendance is particularly evident in particular groups: the youngest as well as the oldest age group, and women from poor socioeconomic and ethnic minority backgrounds. Can the Minister update the House on how we can reach those women and encourage them to come forward for screening, particularly by working with local charities and community organisations that understand their communities far better?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
This is a very important point. The 10-year health plan restated the aim of eliminating cervical cancer by 2040 through the improved uptake of cervical screening and HPV vaccination. To the specific point, which is such an important one, in June—not many months ago—we announced that screening providers can offer home testing kits to underscreened individuals in the exact groups that the noble Lord refers to. I believe this will help tackle deeply entrenched barriers that keep some people away from life-saving screening. I am sure the whole House will reflect on the wise words and advice of His Majesty the King in imploring us all to take up the screening opportunities that there are. I certainly agree with that.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, as noble Lords will know, women over the age of 50 are particularly susceptible to fractures as a result of osteoporosis. The Government have announced that they are going to have fracture liaison services throughout the country by 2030. I wonder whether, as part of the women’s health strategy, the Government could begin the rollout of the fracture liaison services urgently.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As my noble friend rightly observes, the Government have committed to rolling out fracture liaison services across every part of the country by 2030. We already expect musculoskeletal services to be fully incorporated into integrated care planning and decision-making. I am also glad that, since 2022, NICE has recommended two new drugs for treatment. The women’s health strategy will look at what gaps there are in the original strategy, but this is one area in which progress is already committed to.
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the women’s health strategy should be clear that female genital mutilation is an abhorrent practice and a crime? Has she seen the article in the British Medical Journal suggesting that it should be rebranded as “female genital practices” and somehow normalised? Will she be clear that the Government will have no truck with this and that the Department of Health will produce a proper rebuttal, so that this argument does not gain any traction in our country? It is a worry that this is happening to young British girls, whether here or overseas. We have to stop the practice and carry on the good work that the Government I led put in place.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his clear and powerful points. I certainly agree about the abhorrence of this practice and its total unacceptability and illegality in our country. I can say to him that this is a cross-government matter. I work closely with Ministers in other departments and will continue to do so to ensure that policies across many departments deal with the matter of FGM in the way that he describes. We cannot allow it to have any continued existence in this country.
National Plan to End Homelessness
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, last week the Government launched their £3.5 billion national plan to end homelessness, a bold initiative informed by the voices of those with lived experience of homelessness and rough sleeping, as well as councils, mayors and homelessness organisations. Over £3 billion of that funding will go to local government through the local government finance settlement, with prevention at its core. The strategy is designed to tackle the root causes of homelessness alongside immediate action to help those experiencing homelessness now. It will bring an end to the current tension that forces councils to choose between investment in prevention and meeting temporary accommodation costs.
Lord Bird (CB)
With £2.8 billion spent on temporary accommodation in the last year by local authorities, forcing many of them towards bankruptcy, the £2.5 billion the Government have allocated, even if you look upon it as trying to cover the costs, is 28% short of the actual cost of temporary accommodation for local authorities. Are the Government going to do anything about allocating enough resources so that we do not have this situation where people are left on the streets because there is no temporary accommodation, and do not have the problem of our local authorities going bankrupt?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful for all the work the noble Lord has done in this area. The Government are very aware of the challenges councils face due to the rising demand for temporary accommodation; it has been growing in recent years and is a real challenge for them. We are committed to considering the best way to sustainably fund good-quality temporary accommodation and reduce reliance on poor-quality provision. To support this, we are working across government, including with our colleagues in the DWP, in the interministerial group on homelessness and rough sleeping to explore the impacts of subsidy rates on local authorities. This week we will announce the local government finance settlement—the first multi-year settlement in a decade—giving councils the certainty they have repeatedly asked for to enable more spending on prevention and less on crisis management. That is the answer to this in the long term.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, the welcome national plan identifies newly recognised refugees leaving asylum support accommodation as being particularly vulnerable to homelessness, yet says nothing about the 28-day move-on period, although local authorities and voluntary organisations have criticised it as a key cause of homelessness because it does not give newly recognised refugees long enough to find independent accommodation. Will my noble friend therefore impress on the Home Office the importance of reverting to the 56 days it piloted and emphasise the importance of this to the Government’s homelessness strategy?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
What my noble friend says is indicative of the issues we have in this area of making sure that we work across government to solve some of these problems. The Home Office has committed to strengthening data-sharing processes with councils for 100% of newly granted refugees at risk of homelessness within two days of a discontinuation of asylum support notification. This supports early intervention by enabling councils to commence homelessness assessments. We will continue to monitor the impact of all the policies, including refugee move-on, hotel occupancy, asylum accommodation costs, local community impacts and pressures on local authorities and public services. It is important that we work across government and with our partners to improve that move- on support and reduce the risk of homelessness.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister will know, one of the groups hit hardest by homelessness has been young people. Many charitable groups, such as Centrepoint, are trying to look at a different size standard so that it can be developed at a lower cost. I want to be very clear that it is only charitable organisations. What work have the Government done to support this work to see whether it is viable?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We had some long debates during the planning Bill about the size of accommodation and the stepping-stone type of accommodation provided in some parts of the country. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, initiated those discussions. We are still discussing those issues because they are very important, as the noble Lord says. Specific content within the homelessness strategy focuses on the issues of young people, building on the national youth strategy, and will give young people the skills, connections and opportunities they need to thrive, with a key focus on prevention of homelessness among young people. We want to develop a cross- government action plan with measurable targets to reduce homelessness, particularly among care leavers under 25. We are working on this. The noble Lord makes an important point about the size of accommodation. It is still under discussion, and I will keep him in the picture on that.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, there is a real issue around the allocation of funding for homelessness prevention. While the strategy helpfully recognises this and commits to some adjustments, we still have no published needs-based formula. When will we get one? Will it set out how rent levels, housing supply and market-measured pressures are weighted? Does the Minister agree that without this it is really hard to judge whether allocations are fair and transparent and genuinely reflect local need?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is very important that we continue to work with local authorities in tackling this problem. Under the new strategy, every council will publish a tailored action plan alongside its local homelessness strategy, with local targets and key outcomes. That will feed into the national picture so we can make sure that we are targeting the funding where it most needs to go. The new formulas we have devised for the local government finance settlement, which will be published later this week, are focused on making sure that the money goes where the need is and where there is less ability to raise additional funds through council tax. We are working very hard on making sure that the funding goes where the need is, and we will continue to do that. With councils now being able to set their own targets on this, we will be able to feed those into some more national targeting.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I welcome the continued investment of £185 million allocated to the rough sleeping drug and alcohol treatment programme from 2026 to 2029. But what progress has been made towards this Government’s safer streets and opportunity missions to improve support and early intervention, particularly for children and young people who are struggling with the dual crises of substance abuse and experiencing homelessness? Is this work one of the factors being used to determine which additional councils will receive this new funding?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Two pieces of work are going on here around the homelessness strategy and the child poverty strategy. Having set up a Housing First scheme in my local authority when I was a council leader, I know it is very important that you do not tackle just one issue. The roof over the head is key but so is support for complex needs. That is why homelessness is such a complex issue—you have to tackle the underlying issues. Those issues can be drug and alcohol abuse, poor mental health, financial capacity, chaotic lifestyles or any combination of those factors. All these things have to be worked on at the same time, which is why it is crucial that we have the interministerial working group. It is working across departments to tackle all these issues together so that we can make a real impact on homelessness.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, homelessness is a scandal in all parts of these islands. Is there not more scope for taking unused or underutilised buildings within local or central government and using the capital value of them to release the funds necessary to modify them and find an urgent answer to a problem that, at Christmastime, we should all be aware of?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord about the scandal of homelessness. That is exacerbated in the wintertime. Of course, we want to see both more homes and more buildings generally brought back into use. The Government’s strategy on delivering more housing is looking at this from a number of different angles. Local authorities already have a wide range of powers available to help tackle long-term empty homes. We are committed to empowering their use. We outlined in the English devolution White Paper the intent to strengthen the ability to take over the management of empty homes. We will review how effectively social housing providers use their properties. This is really important. There can be nothing more demoralising if you have not got anywhere to live than to walk along streets and see empty homes. We have to tackle this; we were left with an absolute crisis and this Government are determined to make a real difference in this area.
Retirement and Participation Committee
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That: (1) It is desirable that a Select Committee be appointed to consider and make recommendations on— (a) a retirement age, and (b) a participation requirement, for members of the House of Lords. (2) In relation to these issues the Committee shall consider and report to the House on— (a) the impact of a retirement age on the House and, in particular, its size and functioning, (b) the impact of a participation requirement on the House and, in particular, its membership and functioning, and (c) options for the implementation of a retirement age and participation requirement including without primary legislation and that these options should include transitional measures, where appropriate. (3) The Committee do report by 31 July 2026.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, in July I informed the House of my intention to set up a formal mechanism by which the House could consider the issues in the Government’s manifesto regarding retirement from the House and participation in our proceedings. The debates on these matters formed a significant part of our discussion on the hereditary Peers Bill and led to many noble Lords from all parties beating a path to my door, and to those of other noble Lords, with some constructive—and at times creative—suggestions for reform of the House.
In listening to that debate and those representations, I have formed the view that the House should be given the opportunity to take some ownership of how these issues could be taken forward. Following discussion and debate, I propose that a Select Committee be set up to make recommendations on retirement and participation, and to consider what steps can be taken on these measures without primary legislation and what would require primary legislation. The Motion gives effect to the commitment I made to your Lordships’ House, and I am pleased to inform the House that this has been agreed in the usual channels. I hope that this is self-explanatory, but I would like to stress three points that may be helpful.
First, the committee is time-limited. As many noble Lords noted during the debate and since, Lords reform has a rather long and impressive history of making progress quite slowly. I have therefore sought to give the committee a tight but realistic timeline for its work.
Secondly, the committee will consider the impact of these measures not only on the size of this House, but also how it functions. For example, the committee could consider the cliff edge of retirement provisions as well as other impacts.
Thirdly, the Motion specifically asks the committee to look at non-legislative solutions, as well as those that will require primary legislation. This will allow the House to move forward with consensual and pragmatic reform in good time. I look forward to hearing the committee’s recommendations. I beg to move.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I do not think that this is the occasion for a lengthy intervention, but I would like to make it clear to the House that this has been discussed in usual channels, as the Leader said. These are matters that potentially touch upon hundreds of our Members, and the consensual and pragmatic approach that she has spoken about is one that will commend itself to the House generally. The Opposition will give full support to the Select Committee in its work.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am not sure that there is much more to say, but I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way that the usual channels across the House have conducted these discussions. I do not suppose that we will get everybody agreeing with everything all the time, but if there is a willingness to make progress, we can do so, and I am grateful for the support on that.
Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 30 October and 24 November be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 15 December.
Building Safety Regulator (Establishment of New Body and Transfer of Functions etc.) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 11 November be approved.
Relevant document: 44th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 15 December.
US National Security Strategy
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the new US strategy makes it even more vital that the UK remains a key part of European and global defence. As the new head of MI6 reminded us yesterday, threats to us and our allies are increasing, and it is surely abundantly clear that we need to step up against the threat posed by both Russia and China. We should be serious about spending 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament, so can I ask the Minister whether she can confirm whether it is the Government’s ambition to reach 3% and whether the Treasury has a funded plan to do so?
Secondly, the US strategy is particularly clear about the nature of the Chinese Communist Party regime threat. That contrasts with this Government, who cannot seem to decide whether or not China is a threat. We have seen recent reports that the Government are poised to approve China’s new super-embassy spy hub, presumably when the House is in recess. Could the Minister confirm whether the US Government have expressed any concerns to this Government about the potential approval of that application?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington)
My Lords, the Government’s ambition is to spend 3% of GDP on defence and 5% on security by 2035. On China, our position is clear and has been consistent, unlike that of the previous Government, where we will compete, co-operate and challenge as appropriate. The US Administration, to my knowledge, have not expressed an opinion on a planning application.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who lived in the United States for four years and has spent a lot of time since then working on US-UK and transatlantic relations. The Government should not underestimate the seriousness of what is behind this. We have three more years of a Trump presidency. In terms of the ideas behind it, can I recommend to the Minister the piece that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Belgravia, wrote for Policy Exchange the other week, defending Churchill against those on the MAGA right in the United States who now see Churchill as a warmonger who should have made peace with Hitler in 1940 and who dragged the United States into an unnecessary European war? In view of the isolationist, back-to-the-1930s, “America first” moves going on within the American right, with the echoes of white supremacism and Christian nationalism of the southern states, do the Government not need to be a great deal braver to start the national conversation that the SDR called for about the new circumstances for national security, in which we are to move earlier with an increase in defence spending than it has so far said, and to be much more positive about closer links with our European neighbours and the European Union, both in security and economics?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My view on Churchill is very straightforward: we are immensely grateful, proud and in awe of the way he led this country through an incredibly difficult period in our history. Obviously, there are complexities and people have views, and there are many people far better placed to give an opinion on Churchill’s legacy than me, but that is my view and I think it is consistent with the view of the Government.
The noble Lord urges us to be closer to our European allies and partners. He is right to do that, and we have reset our relationship with the European Union, I think quite successfully. It has its own positions, and we are rebuilding what was quite a fractured relationship. It is now much more constructive, and we are working together on some very difficult issues, not least the defence of Ukraine. But I do not see it as a question of having to choose between the US and the EU. It is important—indeed, it is our responsibility and our global duty, actually—to step up, as the UK is, and act as a bridge between the EU and the United States and to make sure that we maintain the very best of relationships with both.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, last week the US Congress, on a bipartisan basis, passed the National Defense Authorization Act, which was signed by the President on Thursday night. That Act commits US troops to Europe, highlights that it sees Russia as a threat not only to Europe but to the United States, and commits the US to providing the senior military figure for SACEUR, the commander of NATO. Does my noble friend agree that we should be looking at actions rather than some of the wild statements coming from the White House?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that. While we must not disregard, of course, statements that are made, I do think it important that we focus on the work we can do together in a pragmatic way. As he says, let us focus on the things we do, not just the things that are said.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while we might strongly contest some of the claims made in this strategy, it would be wrong to dismiss it totally out of hand, not least because it reflects deeper shifts in American opinion, not just an aberration of a single presidency, and that it clearly demonstrates that the Government are not doing nearly enough quickly enough to improve European defence capabilities? Taking the strategy at its own words, have the Government inquired of the White House how it squares the assertion:
“It is a core interest of the United States to negotiate an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine”
with its earlier claim that
“we stand for the sovereign rights of nations”?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are very close to our friends in the United States on the issue of Ukraine. We support the efforts to bring about the peace that President Trump is currently leading, and the progress that may be being made in that. We will continue to work incredibly closely alongside them to bring about the peace that we all want to see.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I was in Washington DC last week with other members of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and when the national security strategy was discussed with our fellow elected members in the US, their message was clear: that NSSs come and go, sometimes they are implemented and sometimes not, but we should judge by what Congress passes. Last week, the National Defense Authorization Act delivered an extra £8 billion to European defence and put a floor of some 76,000 US troops in Europe. While the Minister will not have done an assessment of the NDAA, will she write to me with that assessment and put a copy in the Library?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am sure that my friends and colleagues at the MoD will be undertaking such an assessment, and I will pass that request on to them. I think they are best placed to do that, but as the noble Lord said, there are many complex things going on in politics in any country, and the US is no different.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister admit that there is a really rather sharp discrepancy between the lack of virtually any mention in the national security strategy of relations with Russia, and what was said by the head of MI6 and the Chief of the Defence Staff here yesterday, with which I strongly concur: that Russia, having invaded a European country, is a genuine threat to this country? Should we not be discussing this rather wide discrepancy with the United States?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Clearly, it is for the United States to make its own assessment of risks to the US. We have, as my noble friend says, made our own assessment of the threat Russia poses. We do of course discuss these things constantly with the US, but as I say, it is for the US to make its own judgments about the threat to it.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I would not expect my noble friend to pass public judgment on the national security strategy of the United States—that is a matter for the US—but it is a remarkable document. Although I am reassured by what my noble friend said about what happened in Congress last week, nevertheless, the UK and Europe must react to it. Will my noble friend reassure the House that the Government will look even more urgently at preserving certain sovereign capabilities in critical areas such as defence, space and critical national infrastructure? This is a new world to which we must adapt accordingly.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is right that the world has changed, and it had changed before the most recent strategy was published. Decisions had already been taken by this Government and others to increase spending on defence and security more generally. Principally, that has of course been driven by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, but we must also take into account the words of and decisions being made by other allies and partners.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, what work are the Government doing with the United States to secure the freedom of Jimmy Lai?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Jimmy Lai ought to be freed, and freed immediately—we are clear about that. We will take any diplomatic steps that we need to take to reinforce that message. The Foreign Secretary is clear about that; the Prime Minister is clear about that.
NHS: Winter Preparedness
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I want to ask the Minister about two cohorts in respect of which there are concerns about vaccination levels. The first is front-line health workers. Is the Minister aware of what percentage have been vaccinated and what action is being taken to improve the uptake of vaccinations, particularly among those front-line health workers? I know that there are stories and concerns expressed in the press about the rate of vaccination. On the second cohort, will the Minister tell the House which socio-economic or ethnic groups have the lowest update? What targeted plans does the department and NHS England have to increase uptake rates in these groups?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
First, we have started earlier and done more than ever before to prepare for the winter pressures. The good news is that the flu vaccines are working well to protect people against severe disease, and they are certainly working well in comparison to how they used to. In fact, we are the first country in the world to show vaccines working this well. On the uptake of vaccinations, 60,000 more NHS staff have been vaccinated this year than last year, which is extremely welcome. We have delivered over 17 million flu vaccines, which is tens of thousands more than we had delivered this time last year. We have a particular programme of communication and support and availability to those groups which are less likely to take up vaccinations. Vaccinations are our best line of defence against RSV and flu. I will be pleased to provide more detailed information to the noble Lord.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, given that not all babies are currently able to benefit from protection under the two-pronged approach to the RSV programme, what efforts will be made to ensure that other babies, such as those born to unvaccinated mothers, who remain at risk, will be included in any extension to the RSV vaccination programme?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I know my noble friend is very familiar with the maternal RSV programme, not least because of her campaigning, for which I pay tribute to her. It only began in September, and it is already proving successful. We want to see more pregnant women being vaccinated; we have updated and made available information resources in 30 languages for better access to vaccinations. We encourage maternity services to have early discussions with pregnant women about vaccination, and we ensure that training is in place to allow staff to have the knowledge and confidence to address concerns and build confidence. I hope that this answer is helpful not just to my noble friend but to the noble Lord.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I do not believe for one moment that the Minister is complacent. In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, the reason why the staff vaccination rate is up from last year is because it was at an all-time low of less than 30%, down from 2020 when it was 75%. There are still 750,000 healthcare workers who have not had the flu vaccine and who are unprotected. Based on that figure, what extra steps will the Government take to further incentivise take-up by NHS staff to prevent the crippling of service delivery when it most needed?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord is quite right. We have to protect our staff, who are under immense pressure and are not just at risk from flu but seeking to tackle the extra pressures of industrial action. We are focused on making vaccines available to staff in the easiest way possible. We will continue to do so. I should add that we are considering options on implementing advice to expand vaccinations to the over-80s and, in particular, older adult care residents to ensure that any change has the best possible impact. It is important that we continue to drive vaccination rates up. That will protect staff who are providing the care. As the noble Lord said, we also have to continue our programme to encourage NHS staff to take up the vaccine.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, one of the biggest winter pressures on the NHS is the forthcoming strike, which will have an impact on patients, of course, but it will also have a further extremely damaging impact on the crucial consultant cohort which has to cover throughout these periods, many of whom are now simply looking for a way out. What is going to be done to improve the morale and retention of this vital resource?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
In my view, the BMA has chosen Christmas strikes to inflict damage on the NHS at a moment of maximum challenge. It has refused to postpone them to January, which would have helped patients and other NHS staff, as the noble and gallant Lord referred to, to cope over Christmas. At present, our position is that the offer that we made to prevent those strikes happening has not been accepted, as the noble and gallant Lord will know. We are now reviewing where we are going to go. We completely understand the effect on morale and the exhaustion among staff who are covering. We are managing that to the best of our ability. I am most grateful to NHS staff in supporting us to be ready for winter and tackling the industrial action’s effects.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, can I press the Minister a little on the reasons why NHS staff are reluctant to get vaccinated? The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, drew attention to the very low vaccination rate. What are the top reasons for those barriers? What is the Minister doing about it as a matter of urgency, given the significant numbers of people contracting flu this season?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Among NHS staff, as in other groups, there is a vaccine hesitancy. It is not specific and particular to NHS staff but, as we have discussed a number of times in this Chamber, there is perhaps a misunderstanding about vaccines’ efficacy. We also have to acknowledge that conspiracy theorists across the internet continue to have a hold. We saw that throughout Covid. Our job with NHS staff, as with members of the public, is to make it easy and possible to get vaccinations, and to make people feel confident and informed about why they need them and how they support not just them but the people around them. That is particularly important for NHS staff. The noble Lord will be aware that we cannot demand that people have vaccinations, but we absolutely want to encourage maximum take-up.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, many parents shielding their children who have had serious illnesses are having to pay up to £90 each for a Covid jab. Many of those families do not have those resources, so their children are put at risk. Will the Minister look at that?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend will be aware that we take advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation about to whom, when, and where jabs are available on a range of matters, including Covid. The committee keeps that constantly under review. Our immediate threat is in respect of flu and RSV; in particular, flu cases are rising, which is why we are closely monitoring the situation, as well as having prepared more extensively and providing more additional support than we have ever done before.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, when it comes to influenza, the focus is often on droplet transmission, but there is also evidence of aerosol transmission, with the deeper lung deposition resulting in greater potency in initiating infections. That means that ventilation and air filtration are hugely important. How would the noble Baroness assess the levels of air ventilation and air filtration in hospitals and other medical settings, and, more broadly, in schools? Are the Government looking to improve that to help deal with all the respiratory infections that we face?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I cannot give the noble Baroness a specific answer, but I will be very happy to write to her. She will know how much improvement needs to be made to the estate. She will also be aware of the extra money that the Government have committed. Those decisions are local matters, but she raises a much wider and national matter, and I will be pleased to write to her further.
Employment Rights Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 120N and 120P to 120S, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 120T.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving this Motion, I will also speak to Motion A1. Throughout the passage of this Bill, which arrived in your Lordships’ House nine months ago yesterday, we have scrutinised, deliberated and debated all areas. Once again, I thank noble Lords for fulfilling their scrutiny role and, in the course of doing so, providing their invaluable insight.
However, we are now in round 4 of ping-pong on a Bill that the Government have a clear electoral mandate to deliver. We cannot be accused of attempting to push the Bill through without listening to the concerns raised by noble Lords. We are immensely grateful for the more than 60 occasions on which noble Lords have engaged with us, offering rigorous scrutiny and thoughtful challenge. It is because of this valuable feedback that the Government have been able to act and make changes where appropriate, including through technical amendments in Committee and on Report and the publication of an implementation road map outlining what the Government will consult on, when, and at what point new rights are expected to go live.
The Government are pleased to have found commonality in the three previous rounds of ping-pong on 11 of the 12 issues the House asked the Government to look at again. The contributions of noble Lords from across the House have helped bring forward solutions on a range of specific issues, from heritage railways to paid time off for special constables. On a number of other issues, such as the right to be accompanied, the Government have made non-legislative commitments which noble Lords have recognised as important progress. Most recently, during ping-pong, the Government brought forward amendments to the Bill on zero-hours contracts, seasonal work, trade union ballot thresholds and trade union political funds, which will help to ensure that stakeholders’ views and insights are represented in the final policy outcomes as we shift into the implementation phase for this Bill.
On the final issue of unfair dismissal, in the face of successive Lords votes against day-one rights to protection from unfair dismissal, itself a manifesto commitment, the Government took the extraordinary step of convening a series of constructive conversations between business representative organisations and trade unions, which reached a workable agreement on the unfair dismissal provisions. Yesterday, those representatives—from the British Chambers of Commerce, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, Small Business Britain, the Federation of Small Businesses, and the Confederation of British Industry—wrote to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, stating that the outcome of the dialogue
“represented a significant step forward which will have a positive impact on growth and opportunities”.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 120U as an amendment to Commons Amendment 120G, in lieu of Amendment 120N, and Amendments 120V to 120Y as amendments to Commons Amendment 120H, in lieu of Amendments 120P to 120S—
“(3) In section 124 (limit of compensatory award etc.), for subsection (1ZA) substitute—
“(1ZA) The amount specified in this subsection is £118,223.
(1ZB) Within three months of the day on which the Employment Rights Act 2025 is passed, the Secretary of State must conduct an impact assessment of the change to the limit specified in subsection (1ZA) made by that Act in order to assess whether the limit specified in subsection (1ZA) is the appropriate amount.
(1ZC) An impact assessment under subsection (1ZB) must consider the effect of the change to that limit on—
(a) the ability of claimants to obtain fair compensation,
(b) the operation and capacity of employment tribunals,
(c) the willingness of parties to settle claims without recourse to a tribunal, and
(d) public sector employers and public expenditure.
(1ZD) An impact assessment under subsection (1ZB) must include a consultation with—
(a) employers’ organisations,
(b) trade unions,
(c) organisations representing employment law practitioners, and
(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.””
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister has just said, yesterday a letter was sent to Members of the House by six major business organisations, setting out precisely what many of us said in the Chamber last week. That letter makes one thing abundantly clear: the Government did misrepresent when they claimed that the abolition of both compensation caps was agreed between businesses and the trade unions.
The agreement—I choose that word carefully—was to remove the 52-week salary cap while retaining and increasing the overall monetary cap, which is currently just over £118,000. That was the compromise that was understood by the business community, but the Government have now chosen not only to abandon that agreement but to misrepresent it to the House. To prove that point, I will quote from the same letter from the six business organisations, which states:
“Unfortunately, we have not been able to reach a compromise that satisfies both the unions’ request for removal of the cash cap and our position of retaining it while raising the overall limit”.
This is made all the more serious by the Government compounding the error by behaving unconstitutionally. The removal of the compensation cap was introduced at ping-pong, having been debated at no previous stage of this Bill, neither in your Lordships’ House nor in another place. This House exists to scrutinise legislation, not to rubber-stamp late-stage surprises, still less ones accompanied by misleading assurances.
Let me be clear about the Conservative Motion that is tabled in my name. It reflects precisely the agreement that business groups believed they had reached with the Government: the removal of the 52-week cap, coupled with the retention and review of the overall monetary limit. There is no credible reason that the Minister can give for the Government to not accept it.
The Motion also provides for a formal review and proper consultation. I remind the House that, when the cap was increased under the Labour Government in 1999, that change followed consultation. When the coalition Government introduced a 52-week gross salary cap in 2015, the same approach was taken. There is no reason whatever why the Government should not proceed in the same careful, evidence-based manner again.
It is the Government’s choice, and theirs alone, to delay this legislation by introducing an entirely new issue at this final stage and then attempting to justify it on the basis of an agreement that did not exist. It is also wholly wrong for the TUC, the Minister in another place and others to attack hereditary Peers for doing precisely what they, like all noble Lords, are here to do: scrutinise legislation. It is also worth noting that the criticism of hereditary Peers was unfairly universal. No thanks were offered to at least one Liberal Democrat hereditary Peer who backed the Government.
If the 65 Labour Peers who were absent last week had attended, the Government would have likely prevailed. However, I rather suspect that some of them might have developed cold feet once they realised that they were being asked to support multimillion-pound payouts to water bosses and failed senior executives in financial institutions. Perhaps absence in this case was a mercy.
Over the weekend, the latest employment tribunal statistics were published. They are stark. There are now over 515,000 open cases, and that figure will rise, not fall, as a result of this decision. Why? Because well-resourced senior executives advised by the very best lawyers will now enter the system in greater numbers, clogging up tribunals, prolonging hearings and consuming judicial time. The inevitable consequence is that ordinary working people, many of whom have a legitimate and modest claim, will wait longer for justice or be denied it altogether.
This debate does not take place in a vacuum. Unemployment has risen again this month, as it has every month under this Government. Nearly 2 million people are now unemployed, this Christmas there will be 192,000 fewer in private sector payrolled employment than last Christmas, and young people are bearing the brunt. At a time when their futures are already being crushed by rising costs, weaker growth and dwindling opportunities, the Government choose to inject yet more uncertainty into the labour market. What on earth do Ministers think they are doing? Instead of encouraging job creation, they are creating incentives for litigation, delay and risk—precisely the opposite of what a fragile jobs market requires.
I say to the Liberal Democrats that it is a curious position to demand that water company bosses be dismissed while simultaneously supporting a policy that could hand such individuals eye-watering compensation. Something does not add up. What we are seeing instead is the Liberal Democrats choosing to form a coalition of chaos with the Government and abandoning British business, working people and the constitutional role of your Lordships’ House. In fact, according to data published by the Liberal Democrats themselves just last year, executives of water companies in England collected some £70 million in remuneration between 2021 and 2023, including nearly £41 million in bonuses. One is therefore entitled to ask why, in the space of a single week, their position appears to have shifted so dramatically. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Fox, can explain this sudden change of heart.
The Government have claimed that removing the compensation cap will not affect the level of awards. The Ministry of Justice’s own data shows that the median award of just under £7,000 is derived from just 650 tribunal awards. Yet each year there are many thousands of potential unfair dismissal claims, the overwhelming majority of which never reach the point of an award because they are settled long before they reach that stage. The reason those cases settle is the existence of a statutory maximum. The cap provides a known endpoint and encourages realism from both parties. Remove that ceiling and settlement becomes vastly more difficult. Claims run longer, positions harden and costs escalate—and tribunals, which are already overwhelmed, are left to pick up the pieces.
Even President Macron recognised that the absence of such a cap was harming French competitiveness and introduced one in 2017. It is a sorry state of affairs when France has something to teach a British Government about competitiveness. The only country in Europe without a statutory cap on unfair dismissal compensation is Luxembourg, which has a youth unemployment rate of 20%.
I have a few questions for the Minister. What conversations have Ministers had with the financial services sector, where concern about this change is profound? Will the promised impact assessment be serious, comprehensive and honest, and will it include the risk of opportunistic and speculative claims, the increased burden on the public sector and the likely cost to the taxpayer? The original Employment Rights Bill impact assessment was, frankly, inadequate—a fact recognised by the Regulatory Policy Committee, which issued a red rating. Will the Government now guarantee that the impact assessment on abolishing the compensation cap will not meet the same fate and that it will be detailed, rigorous and transparent? If it becomes clear, as many of us fear, that the removal of the cap leads to tribunal congestion, rising costs and injustice for ordinary workers, will the Government commit to reintroducing a cap, as President Macron did? Finally, will Ministers undertake to consult properly with employment law practitioners, the majority of whom oppose this decision, alongside businesses both large and small?
In conclusion, because of the Conservative Party a six-month qualifying period has been secured. However, that alone does not remedy the fundamental flaws of the Bill. The £5 billion cost remains. The costs of a raft of 1970s-style trade union reforms have not been properly identified, let alone accounted for, by the Government, and I repeat that all this is against a backdrop of rising unemployment. Let me be completely clear: the next Conservative Government will repeal every job-destroying, anti-business measure in this unemployment Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, mentioned part of the letter written to the Business Secretary yesterday by six business groups including the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce. What he did not mention is that the letter from those groups also said that
“now is the time for Parliament to pass the Bill”,
despite their concerns. That seems to be a much wiser approach than that adopted by the Conservative Front Bench—not least because Motion A1 raises no great issue of principle. It raises a request for an impact assessment.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, at Second Reading in March—nine months ago, although it feels longer ago—I said that
“the Bill will damage growth and, most importantly, the employment opportunities of the most vulnerable people”.—[Official Report, 27/3/25; col. 1907.]
After nine months of debate and scrutiny, it is less damaging, but I still believe it is not a good Bill. It still piles cost and regulation on businesses and on the public sector at a time when we should be doing exactly the opposite.
But this House has done its job well and responsibly. We have pointed out the unintended consequences that the Bill may have, the potential damage to the employment prospects of the young and others, and the disproportionate impact on the backbone of our economy—smaller businesses. We have given the other place several opportunities to think again and, to be fair, it has done so in a number of areas. In particular, the Government have compromised on what I believe was the most damaging aspect, day-one dismissal rights.
We have also quite rightly registered our constitutional disapproval of the introduction of a material change at the very last minute—the abolition of the cap on unfair dismissal, which is the subject of Motion A. The Minister stated last week that the amendments were “context- and Bill-specific”. I take this and her reference to
“discussions with the Leader of the House on how she and other Members would like to conduct business more regularly”—[Official Report, 10/12/25; col. 276.]
as confirmation that the Government accept that this should never be seen as a precedent. This House would be right to reject it if it were ever used as a precedent in the future.
I have a lot of sympathy with the Motion proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, but I am afraid I will not support it at this stage. We are in danger of over- egging the impact of the removal of the cap. I do not support it, but the water bosses, for example, will be remunerated if they are fired for contractual reasons, which is unlimited anyway. It is not going to be under the unfair dismissal rules. I am not convinced that it makes an enormous difference, but the noble Lord is quite right that we do not have an impact assessment yet.
Despite our giving it the opportunity to think again on many aspects, the other place has disagreed with our changes and decided that it wants to go ahead. That now also includes the cap on unfair dismissal claims. The time has come for us in this House to respect the will of the elected Chamber and let the Bill pass, regardless of any remaining concerns that I and many others still have. I will vote against the amendment for that reason.
I end with a final plea to the Minister. She will be aware of the latest employment figures and the worsening trend. She will also be aware that what the ONS described as this “subdued labour market” is disproportionately affecting young people. We should all be very concerned about that. The Resolution Foundation is also clear on this:
“As is typical in economic downturns, young people have been hit hardest. With unemployment expected to stay elevated, Government should be cautious about any further increases in labour costs”.
Much of the implementation of this Bill will be by regulation, which will follow over the coming years. I urge the Minister to ensure that the concerns that have been raised in this House and elsewhere are kept front and centre, and that the unintended consequences that may arise, especially for young people, are thought through very carefully while the regulations are being created.
It was encouraging that the Government listened to business organisations in the later stages of the Bill, especially around the unfair dismissal question. I urge the Minister to ensure that the Government continue to listen constructively to the concerns of those who will create the growth and jobs that will drive the economy, and especially that they make a much greater effort to hear the concerns of smaller businesses which are feeling rather ignored and concerned at the moment. That said, it is time to let the Bill pass.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this time last week I said that much had happened in the preceding interval. Today, the opposite is true. We are now down to one issue, but the arguments on that issue remain as they were last week. For that reason, unlike last week, this speech will be short.
There remain concerns about the removal of the cap on compensation, as we have heard. As he did last week, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has taken those concerns and amplified them, to the seeming exclusion of the wider strategic position of what we are discussing. I understand the motives, and those motives became ever clearer just now. If the noble Lord would like to have a face-off on the water industry, I would be very happy to discuss with him the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of sewage that went into the rivers under the Conservative Government and the compensation terms that he very helpfully enumerated, which happened on his watch. However, this is not the arena for that argument, and I will pass without comment. My critique of the noble Lord’s amendment to the Motion is unchanged. We believe there are better ways of dealing with the cap than derailing the package that got the key concession with which we are all very pleased.
As set out last week, reiterated in the Minister’s letter and by the Minister just now, the Government will publish an enactment impact assessment for the Bill. They will do so prior to commencement regulations which would put in place the dismissal package. That was what we on these Benches were asking for and we were pleased to receive that assurance. Further, the impact assessment will be publicly available, and I was pleased to hear the Minister say that we will be engaging the community of business in the process of developing that impact assessment.
Many UK business associations and organisations share the feeling that there is nothing to be gained from the opposition amendment today. They are asking the opposite. As the Minister set out, six of the major organisations have sent a letter. It is a longish letter, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, demonstrated by selectively picking elements out of it. But as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out, the conclusion is clear and actually unambiguous, in saying,
“we believe that the best way forward is to keep working with the government and trade unions to find balanced solutions through secondary legislation. To avoid losing the 6 months qualifying period, we therefore believe that now is the time for Parliament to pass the Bill”.
I said that last week, and it is truer this week.
I also pointed out last week that, as the business organisations said, the key to enacting the Bill will be through secondary legislation. If His Majesty’s loyal Opposition care about how the Bill is brought into life, it is on those statutory instruments that they should focus their attention. Their critical actions must extend to include the possibility of fatal Motions to vote down secondary legislation and keep the Government focused on the needs of British business. That is the real arena that we should be working in.
If the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is put to a vote and he seeks to extend ping-pong to yet another round, that will clearly be against the advice of the business groups which have been cited. I urge your Lordships to heed the advice of those organisations, and the advice of the noble Lords that we have heard opposite, and pass the Bill now.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My Lords, I again thank your Lordships’ House for its attentive scrutiny throughout the passage of the Bill. There can be no doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, mentioned, that this House has discharged its duties as a revising Chamber. Your Lordships’ House asked the Government to look again, and we have worked collaboratively with noble Lords to reach this agreement. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Pannick and Lord Vaux, for their speeches in favour of the compromise proposed by the Government.
I turn to a number of the issues raised, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. I remind noble Lords that negotiations are successful only where there is compromise, as was so eloquently put in the previous debate by my noble friend Lord Barber of Ainsdale, the former chair of ACAS. The Government and worker representatives moved considerably during negotiations to agree to retaining a six-month qualifying period. Without similar compromise from business representatives on the removal, this deal would have been one-sided and undeliverable.
On the question of the impact of the cap, I do not think I can do better than the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who said last week that
“the concerns that have been expressed about the impact of the removal of the cap are perhaps … exaggerated”.—[Official Report, 10/12/25; col. 276.]
Just now, he mentioned that he does not believe it will lead to the chaos that the noble Lord outlined earlier. It is not our view, but, in any case, as I mentioned, we will publish the enactment impact assessment as soon as the Bill achieves Royal Assent. It will be public and transparent, and will include an assessment of the impact of removing the compensation cap.
I remind noble Lords of our commitment to convene meetings with shareholders so that those from the City, law practitioners and others can feed into that. Those findings will be taken into account by the dispute resolution task force that we are setting up—it will have all that information to hand. We are obviously very keen to improve the functioning of the dispute resolution system. We inherited something that was not in a good state. We are providing ACAS with over £65 million in resource funding, which is a significant increase. We are working actively to make this a system that works extremely well.
I hope that this afternoon will mark the end of the Bill’s journey through Parliament. I reiterate the Government’s commitment, mentioned by other noble Lords who spoke today, to continue talking to and genuinely engaging with interested parties in the way we have recently about the full range of issues discussed today. The Bill will deliver a generational shift in employment rights. It will do so by working with businesses and trade unions in a collaborative manner. These changes to the qualifying period and the compensation cap are proportional and practical. For those who are concerned about business impact, the joint letter should provide noble Lords with reassurances that businesses support this workable agreement. As they have stated,
“now is the time for Parliament to pass the Bill”.
I hope noble Lords will recognise the progress made over the past nine months, oppose the amendment tabled by the Opposition Front Bench, and, in doing so, support the package to deliver certainty for businesses and fair rights for workers. It is indeed time for Parliament to pass the Bill. I commend it to the House.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I have a right to ask questions. What is most concerning, at least for me, is not the limit or the reducing of the compensation package—that is not the question—but the use of ping-pong to produce a new clause that has never been debated in your Lordships’ House or even in the Commons. That is a constitutional question that bothers most of us.
I have not heard a word saying, for example, that we reached an agreement, we felt we had to bring it in and we will not do this kind of thing again. As more Bills come, how do we know whether ping-pong will be used in a way that, in my book, it should not be? No one should introduce new clauses that have not been canvassed in both Houses of Parliament. Because that has not happened, some of us are arguing about not the actual amendment but whether we will know that rules that have been established in your Lordships’ House for years will be followed. I have been in the House since 2005, and ping-pong has never been used to introduce a new clause that has not been debated in both Houses. Will we know?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his question. As I mentioned last week, the context here is Bill specific and the changes that have been proposed and have been put in terms of this tripartite agreement were in response to issues that had been raised in your Lordships’ House. We went away and convened a particular mode of operating, and we have brought it back as a Bill-specific package. As I also mentioned last week, there are many discussions in the House about how we want to take business forward. The Leader of the House has set that out very clearly. That is the way we intend to proceed more generally.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this very brief debate. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is of course right—I did not quote that bit of the letter because the Minister did. The House generally does not like needless repetition, so I am following the rules.
I am very grateful to the Minister for those assurances, and I am somewhat reassured. I am grateful—correct me if I have any of this wrong—that the impact assessment will be published before commencement and will be public and transparent and include a dispute resolution mechanism, that the tripartite agreement will endure going forward in further discussions around the Bill, and that all stakeholders will be consulted widely. That is, in effect, what we were asking for. The simple fact of the matter, though, is that we on these Benches will continue to hold the Government to account on behalf of the wealth creators, the businesses, the employers and their workers in this country.
I have heard what has been said and will emphasise a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, which I should have made in my speech: we are particularly concerned about the impact of the entire Bill on small businesses. We will return to that theme unless their interests are very carefully protected going forward.
As to the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, regarding the strategic position, I am not entirely sure what the strategic position is. But I am grateful for his comments.
I am also enormously grateful to all those on His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition’s Benches and the many on the Cross Benches who stuck to their principles. We have achieved a great deal and made a bad Bill marginally more palatable. I beg leave to withdraw Motion A1.
Victims and Courts Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Levitt
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Welsh legislative consent sought.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, at the heart of this Bill are measures aimed at ensuring that victims are treated with dignity, compassion and respect throughout the justice process. This legislation represents a significant step forward in strengthening the rights of victims and improving the efficiency and fairness of our courts in a fair and proportionate way.
A number of noble Lords have spoken to me about some of the provisions in the Bill, and I am grateful to them for their measured and constructive approach. I had hoped to be able to answer some of their questions in advance of this debate; in the end, time constraints meant that this did not prove possible, but I shall do my best to address some of them during this short speech. That said, as ever with issues about the justice system, I and the Government welcome the opportunity to work with Members of your Lordships’ House, from all parties and none, to ensure that we get these provisions right.
I begin by addressing the issue of defendants who refuse to leave their cell in order to attend their sentencing hearing. This happens too often and causes great distress to victims and their families, many of whom have sat through a difficult trial. The sentencing hearing provides an important opportunity to tell the defendant exactly how the crime has affected them, usually done through a victim personal statement. For many, it is important to be able to look the defendant in the eye as the sentence is passed, so when the defendant chooses not to attend court, that can feel like the final insult. The Government agree with victims and their families that defendants should not have that choice.
Judges have always had the power to order defendants to attend their sentencing hearing but, if the defendant refused, the judge was very restricted as to what she or he was able to do. The Bill will change that by putting the power on a statutory footing. I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the families of Jan Mustafa, Henriett Szucs, Olivia Pratt-Korbel, Sabina Nessa and Zara Aleena. Their courage and tireless campaigning have brought about this change, and for that we thank them.
On the specific provisions, first, the Bill makes clear that reasonable force may be used to get the defendant to court, but that has to be balanced against the risk to prison and security staff so there are three issues that the judge will take into account: necessity, reasonableness and proportionality. Secondly, in addition to the use of reasonable force, judges will have the power to impose up to two years’ imprisonment in addition to the sentence for the offence and/or an unlimited fine. Thirdly, concerns were raised that, because many of these defendants will be receiving very long sentences, an additional period of imprisonment might not have much effect. To meet that concern, Crown Court judges will also be given the power to impose meaningful sanctions that will have an impact on how the defendant serves their time in prison. If defendants attend court but are disruptive or disrespectful, and as a result have to be removed from the hearing, the judge will be able to impose the same penalties. This Government are clear: victims’ and their families’ voices matter, and defendants should be sentenced with those voices ringing in their ears. The Bill will help to ensure that happens.
I turn to the automatic restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility. Protecting children is an absolute priority for this Government, and these provisions are part of a wider exercise to ensure that the interests of children remain paramount in all proceedings. Having children is a privilege but also a responsibility, and the justice system must always ensure that these children are right at the centre of what we do. As part of that, the Bill provides that where a parent has been convicted of a serious offence involving child sexual abuse and has been sentenced to four or more years’ imprisonment, there will be an automatic restriction preventing them exercising parental responsibility for their own children. This measure will protect the children of child sex offenders, whose convictions will provide clear evidence that they pose a risk to children, including their own.
The Bill will also restrict the exercise of parental responsibility for children of rapists where their crimes have led to the conception and birth of the child in question. There will be two routes. First, where the Crown Court is satisfied to the criminal standard that the child was conceived as a result of the rape, this mandatory restriction must be imposed at the time the defendant is sentenced.
Secondly, where rape has occurred as part of wider domestic abuse, and the court is satisfied that the child may have been conceived as a result of that rape, but cannot be sure, the court must refer the case to the family court via the local authority. This sends a clear message that we will protect all children conceived and born as a result of rape, no matter the circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, asked me when we met about the number of offenders this will capture. Our belief is that up to 20 offenders will be affected by this measure each year.
Thirdly, non-disclosure agreements—NDAs—should not be used to silence victims or cover up crimes. The Bill will make sure that they cannot be used in this way. It makes it clear that NDAs will not be legally enforceable to the extent that they seek to prevent victims —or those who reasonably believe they are victims—from disclosing information about relevant criminal behaviour. In addition, we want to make sure that victims can provide the full context and circumstances when speaking about crimes. The Bill will also ensure that such a victim will be able to speak about how the other party reacted both to the criminal conduct itself and the victim speaking out about it.
Of course, we recognise there may be situations where both parties genuinely wish to have the closure offered by an NDA. To accommodate that, the measure includes two powers. The first will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to set out the criteria for an excepted NDA. Such NDAs would not be voided under the measure. The second power allows the Secretary of State to specify that speaking about the crime to some people, for specific purposes or in certain situations, will always be allowed, even if an excepted NDA exists. For example, a victim who wanted to speak to a victim support service in order to get support may be able to do so, despite being party to an excepted NDA.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, asked me about some of the exceptions set out in the clause. I am sorry that I was not able to answer their questions in advance of Second Reading, but I will do my best to do so now. The measure will not apply to a narrow cohort of specified agreements. This is in the interests of national security. Unlike with excepted NDAs, victims of crime who sign such agreements will not always be able to make the disclosures specified by the Secretary of State in regulations made under the second power because the relevant bodies have their own appropriate arrangements for ensuring that victims and direct witnesses of crime can speak up and seek support.
During the development of the clause, extensive engagement was undertaken with relevant government departments about which bodies an exemption should apply to. An exemption for agreements entered into by the National Crime Agency in the interests of national security was not considered necessary. Legislation that binds the Crown does not ordinarily apply to the sovereign unless there is a specific policy justification for it to do so. For the purposes of this measure, the Government do not consider that there is a specific policy justification for the measure to apply to agreements entered into by the sovereign personally.
Fourthly, we will be strengthening the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner. I start by paying tribute to the late Baroness Newlove, who will be greatly missed in your Lordships’ House. All of us have a great deal for which to thank her. The Bill will enable the Victims’ Commissioner to hold the system to account more effectively, which we hope and expect will boost the confidence of victims. The Victims’ Commissioner will have a number of new tools, which we intend should be used to achieve systemic change.
First, for the first time, the commissioner will be able to exercise their functions in relation to individual cases where such a case raises public policy issues that go beyond that particular case and are likely to be of relevance to other victims and witnesses.
Secondly, local authorities and social housing providers will have a duty to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner in relation to anti-social behaviour. As a result, the commissioner will be able to get the information they need to identify systemic issues, make informed recommendations and examine how the system responds to anti-social behaviour.
Thirdly, the Bill will place a new duty on the Victims’ Commissioner to produce an independent assessment as to how public agencies are meeting their duties under the victims’ code. The report will be provided to Ministers, who will then be required to consider it as part of preparing their own report on code compliance under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.
Some of your Lordships have raised with me at meetings whether the commissioner will have sufficient resources to take on this additional work. We have worked closely with the Victims’ Commissioner’s office to understand the impact of the measures, and we have identified a small additional resource requirement amounting to £150,000 a year. That is outlined in our impact assessment. This will be accounted for as the measure is commenced and implemented.
The victim contact scheme plays a critical role in communicating information about the release of offenders to be given to those who need it most, but the legislation governing it is more than 20 years old. This Bill will simplify and update the current system. It will bring victims currently served by different operational schemes into the single victim contact scheme. As we implement this measure, we will make sure that the updated scheme works for the victims it is designed to serve. The Bill will also provide all victims with one clear route to request information about an offender.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, asked about interactions with clinicians’ obligations. The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, raised issues about when an offender is detained under the Mental Health (Discrimination) Act 2013. We will consider how best to support victim liaison officers and hospital managers to provide this information to victims where it is appropriate to do so. This requirement reflects current practice, where the release of information must comply with data protection legislation and the convention rights. We also would not provide information that would put either the offender or the victim at risk for any reason. Where information is not disclosed, victims can seek a review through existing independent HMPPS complaints processes or make a complaint to the relevant NHS service provider. If they are unhappy with the outcome, victims can escalate their complaint directly to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.
For mentally disordered offenders, this includes information about discharge, leave and any other information as appropriate. Furthermore, the Bill will allow victims to request information about an offender, which will be delivered via a new dedicated helpline. This means that eligible victims of mentally disordered offenders will receive information on request. Our intention is to ensure that those who are eligible receive the right information about offenders at the right time. In addition, but outwith this Bill, we will consult on a new victims’ code in due course.
I turn to prosecutors. I declare not so much an interest as experience in this area, as I worked for the Crown Prosecution Service for five years. I am sure that all will agree it is essential that we ensure that the CPS can recruit and retain sufficient qualified Crown prosecutors. Having inadequate numbers means that important decisions about, for example, who to charge with offences, choice of charge and evidence requests to be made from the police cannot take place in a timely way.
In England and Wales, there are the members of the two well-known branches of the legal profession, namely solicitors and barristers. What is less widely known is that there are other routes by which a person may qualify as a lawyer. The biggest of these is CILEX, the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives. At present, as the law currently stands, it is difficult for the CPS to appoint lawyers other than solicitors or barristers to work as Crown prosecutors. This Bill will remove those barriers, by enabling further suitably qualified and experienced legal professionals to be appointed to these important roles.
A number of noble Lords have raised with me whether this will involve lowering standards, and I am happy to reassure your Lordships that it will not. At present, the law requires Crown prosecutors to have what is known as the general qualification. The general qualification requires the lawyer in question to have very wide rights of audience, namely in all proceedings in the senior courts, in the county courts or magistrates’ courts. In practice, not all these rights are necessary for their role as a Crown prosecutor, so the Bill will remove that requirement. What will remain is that Crown prosecutors from whichever professional background must have the necessary rights of audience and authorisation under the Legal Services Act 2007 to appear in the courts relevant to their role, and they will have to meet the necessary CPS competency standards to conduct prosecutions at the appropriate level. The CPS will retain full discretion over whom to appoint.
This will widen the pool of eligible prosecutors, and support greater flexibility in staffing. The hope is that, in the longer term, this will shorten waiting times for prosecutorial decisions to be made. The measure supports, in a proportionate way, the intention underlying the manifesto commitment. Rather than giving more powers to associate prosecutors, these measures will increase the pool of prospective Crown prosecutors.
On private prosecutions, once again I declare that I have experience in this area, having been a partner in a firm of solicitors and head of a department that brought a number of private prosecutions. I was also one of the founding members of the Private Prosecutors’ Association and was heavily involved in the drafting of the code of practice and conduct for private prosecutors. The Government are committed to reforming the private prosecution system, so that it is fairer and has the necessary safeguards in place. While that will require more extensive and long-term change, the Bill is taking the first step as part of that plan for reform.
A number of your Lordships raised the question of whether this reform would have a chilling effect on private prosecutions. That is not the intention underlying these measures; the Government agree that private prosecutions play an important role in our justice system.
When a private prosecutor applies to the court for their costs to be paid by the public purse, there are no fixed rates. This is not satisfactory for two reasons: first, costs determinations can be protracted, taking up valuable court time; and, secondly, there is a lack of certainty for those who would like to consider bringing a private prosecution as to the amount that they may be able to recover. That is why the Bill will give the Lord Chancellor the power to make regulations which set the rates at which private prosecutors can recover their costs from central funds. This will save court time when it is required to determine cost orders, reduce the number of appeals and give private prosecutors a better degree of certainty. We believe that it will ensure the best use of public funds.
This measure is purely an enabling power. I am aware that reservations have been expressed about the effect of setting the rates too low. I have been assured that there will be extensive engagement with stakeholders, and a full consultation will be held before any regulations are introduced. The defendant’s costs order will not be the starting point, and I will be monitoring closely the progress of the consultation. This engagement will help us determine the most appropriate rates, including whether higher rates should be preserved for some more complex private prosecutions. In doing so, we will retain the central aim of this measure, which is to safeguard the right of an individual to bring private prosecutions, while making the best use of public funds.
I now turn to the measures on the unduly lenient sentence scheme. As many will know, when the Attorney General believes that the original sentence does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence, the scheme provides a power for the case to be referred to the Court of Appeal. There is a strict 28-day statutory time limit, which mirrors the time limit defendants have in which to appeal their sentence. In a not insubstantial number of cases, they are not brought to the attention of the Attorney-General until the end of the period, sometimes on the 28th day. This has proved problematic for the Attorney-General, because it makes it difficult to be able to give the case proper consideration in the time remaining. The 28-day period will remain unaltered, but the Bill will give the Attorney-General 14 days to consider any request that has been made within the second half of the window. We believe that this is a proportionate response, respecting the need for fairness to all victims and balancing that with the need for certainty and sentencing.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, asked me about the unduly lenient sentence scheme and engagement and the shorter window for victims. Many noble Lords may be aware of the commitment made in the other place by my honourable friend the Victims Minister. She has committed to looking at the length of the time limit as this Bill progresses, and I, too, am happy to make that commitment in your Lordships’ House—namely, to listen to and consider any thoughts that noble Lords may have as to the length of the time limit for the ULS scheme. In doing so, I remind your Lordships that the unduly lenient sentence scheme is not a mechanism to provide an appeal for victims or members of the public; rather, it is a legal safeguard that exists to correct sentences that fall outside the reasonable parameters for the sentence in question.
Finally, the Bill introduces a modest but important amendment to magistrates’ court sentencing powers in respect of six specific offences. As your Lordships will know, this Government have increased magistrates’ sentencing powers from six to 12 months’ imprisonment for all offences that are triable either way, other than these six. For technical reasons, all these six require primary legislation to make the magistrates’ court sentencing powers consistent with those of all other either-way offences; doing this will reduce the risk of confusion or error in sentencing.
This Bill is about ensuring trust and confidence in our justice system—one that is fair, efficient and takes the needs of victims into account—and it reflects our commitment to ensuring that courts meet the demands both of today and of tomorrow.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, this Bill has been laid before us in the name of victims, so we must grasp the opportunity to ensure that the Bill fully lives up to its name. The Bill strengthens the measures proposed in the predecessor Bill, which fell before the last election and was lost. I thank all those groups and organisations that have made valuable contributions so far.
The first important matter that I address is the attendance of convicted persons at their sentencing hearing. If the courts cannot compel attendance by criminals, justice is undermined; it is vital that the courts have power both to compel attendance, by reasonable force if necessary, and to punish criminals who resist or fail to attend their sentencing hearings. I shall expand on that in a moment.
Next, I turn to those guilty of child sex offences. We welcome the provision that parental responsibility is now to be restricted for child sex offenders who have committed offences against any child, not just their own child or children. It is also paramount that victims are given more information about the release dates for their offenders and are kept informed about their whereabouts and the risks, if any, that they may pose to their safety. That is particularly necessary, because it was revealed that 91 prisoners may have been released by mistake between 1 April and 31 October this year.
We are pleased with the provisions to address non-disclosure agreements, but we will need more time to consider the detail of the proposed exemptions, and we look forward to hearing about those.
The Bill before us has some shortcomings, and we must address these if we are to make the most of this opportunity and of precious parliamentary time. For example, we on these Benches believe that courts should order offenders to pay compensation that truly reflects the victim’s financial loss when penalties are imposed. More broadly, there have been justified calls for greater transparency, following the crimes and subsequent cover-up of grooming gangs across the nation. These calls will grow louder and more urgent as victims demand justice, and we need more transparency.
I turn first to the provisions for unduly lenient sentences. The current deadline for applications to the scheme for a review of sentence is 28 days from the date when sentence is passed. In the months before her untimely death, the former Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, my much-missed noble friend the late Lady Newlove, highlighted that victims are often unaware of this deadline because the prosecution has not brought it to their attention. The Government’s election manifesto committed to
“ensuring victims can access the information and support they need”.
That is why we recommended an extension of the time for an application to be made from 28 days to 56 days. This will give victims more time to process an application. In addition, the Crown Prosecution Service should be obliged to notify victims that the scheme exists—they have to know about it if they are to do something—and to provide information, within 10 working days of a sentence being passed, explaining the application process and the relevant deadlines for making victim impact statements.
Many victim impact statements have faced difficulties. Victims must be able fully to express in their personal statements the impact that crimes have had on them. Victims deserve a platform, but such statements are evidence in the case and as such are subject to strict rules. We accept that what they say must not be contrary to any statutory limitations on free speech—they must not make allegations of untried criminal conduct or be offensive or inappropriately provocative—but victims must have their voices heard. At the heart of these calls is a call for greater transparency in the system: transparency about the courses of action available to victims after sentence, and allowing victims themselves to explain their suffering without inappropriate censorship. We must take this opportunity to help enhance trust in the courts and the process, and to bring accuracy to our public discourse.
At present, we do not know enough about the backgrounds of those who commit offences. Too often, the public is left to speculate. In the other place, the Opposition tabled an amendment to set the record straight. It would require courts to collect data on sentenced offenders in relation to a number of factors: nationality; sex at birth and, where applicable, country of birth; method of entry into the United Kingdom; and visa route, visa status and asylum status. The Government should then publish these statistics every three months. This will ensure that both policymakers and the British public have an accurate debate and can reach informed decisions when it comes to criminal justice, integration and border control.
There are clear and legitimate concerns about integration and social cohesion. It is imperative that the Government do not dismiss these or overlook them. Accurate data is important. Its absence allows misleading statements to be made, sometimes deliberately and malevolently, but even if innocently made, they can have a damaging effect. We implore the House to take this opportunity to make a profound impact on our current policies through this Bill.
As for the implementation of the Bill as it stands, there are also practical issues which the Government must consider. How exactly will offenders be compelled to attend sentencing, when prison officers already find themselves ill-equipped to handle violent or disruptive offenders? What provisions will be put in place? Officers should be enabled to use reasonable force, so long as it is not disproportionate. This must include the power to restrain and to quieten disruptive offenders during hearings. As for child sex offenders, now that sex offences against any child will result in a restricted parental responsibility order, what provisions will the Government take to ensure that the family courts are not overwhelmed by appeals once the Bill passes into law?
We fear that, until these questions are addressed, the Bill will not fulfil its aims, nor be satisfactory for the victims in whose name the Bill is being put forward. We support the aims of the Bill, but there remain real gaps and real missed opportunities. We are fortunate enough in this House to have the chance to correct them. We must prove our worth by making necessary changes in the interests of victims and the public, so that there is trust in the system as a whole. Only then can we deliver real justice for victims, improve confidence and improve trust in our courts and the justice system. We need to be able to enjoy informed debates across our political life. I look forward to engaging constructively with the Government and with noble Lords across the House to help the Bill live up to its name.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her clear introduction to the Bill this afternoon. The Liberal Democrats broadly welcome the principles behind the Victims and Courts Bill: strengthening support for victims, strengthening the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner and improving the court system. The current system is not just under severe stress; it is close to collapse. There are important changes that we believe need to be made for the courts service to be fit for purpose in this current era.
Because we do have some concerns and proposals to improve the Bill, some echoing amendments to it were laid by our Liberal Democrat colleagues in the Commons. I suspect that we will be discussing in minute detail the technicalities of improving systems for victims, as we did with the Crime and Policing Bill, the Sentencing Bill—currently going through your Lordships’ House—and the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. That Act was saved in the wash-up in the run-up to the 2024 general election, but most of it was not commenced, other than the infected blood compensation arrangements. I wondered whether this was the legislation the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, was referring to, and I apologise if I have that wrong. But it was saved, and I have a question for the Minister, which I will come to in a minute.
We do not often hear enough about what victims, survivors or complainants—however they may choose to describe themselves—face, and how long it takes to recover. That is why I am so grateful that the many victims, NGOs and charities keep their voices in front of us.
The definition of a victim in Section 1 of the Victims and Prisoners Act is someone who suffers
“harm as a direct result of … being subjected to criminal conduct, or … one or more of the circumstances mentioned”
in a subsection. The key thing for me is exactly what “harm” entails. In the Act,
“‘harm’ includes physical, mental or emotional harm and economic loss”,
and
“‘criminal conduct’ means conduct which constitutes an offence”.
That is a good definition, a helpful starting point and a reminder to us that victims will have suffered physical, mental or emotional harm or economic loss, or been the victims of criminal conduct. Neither this nor the previous Government have commenced this section of the Victims and Prisoners Act, which remains disappointing. Do the Government intend to bring in this section of that Act?
In Section 1(4)(a) of the Victims and Prisoners Act, the clinical description of harm covers a wide range of experience. For example, harm can lie dormant in victims for many years, as with children sexually abused when young. We know it can take decades before they face up to what has happened, and that period, however long it is, can be mental agony, as well as physically distressing. Adults abused as children often say that their life remains irreparably changed by the experience. For some victims, the chance to see their perpetrator in the dock, and convicted, can be cathartic; but, for too many, the mental and physical anguish of this type of severe crime on and to a person just means that that experience continues to live on long after the court hearing.
We on these Benches’ starting point is that we have long called for more support for victims and survivors of crime. This Government are saying many of the right things and tomorrow, or on Thursday, we will see the strategy for VAWG, which is much welcomed and will be a key pillar in that support.
However, over the course of the last 18 months, we have seen that many good and worthy principles have not been followed through with priority or, worse, that there has been a lack of money to deliver the change that is actually needed. So I ask the Minister, will the Government guarantee to deliver the resources in order to make the ideas and words in the Bill and in the VAWG strategy, when it comes, happen?
Above all, there must be strategic and consistent planning and funding of the victim support service, for, without that, the service will not have victims at the heart of it, and it is likely that it will remain inconsistent across the country.
We welcome the strengthening of the Victims’ Commissioner role and the restriction of parental responsibility in certain heinous cases.
The areas of the Bill that we have particular concern with include an extension to the victim contact scheme to include victims of offenders sentenced to less than 12 months for violent and sexual offences; victims of coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking or harassment; and bereaved families in cases of manslaughter or death by dangerous driving. Access to free court transcripts for victims of criminal offences is increasingly important. This is broader than the original pilot and early proposals, but we believe it would be the right thing to introduce.
Other areas of concern include the provision of support for victims of online and technology-enabled crimes and the application of the victims’ code in respect of victims of murder, manslaughter or infanticide abroad. We have laid amendments on this subject in the past. The families of those killed deserve access to the same victim support back home in the UK as those whose family members were killed in the UK.
The Liberal Democrats have long sought to get restorative justice implemented broadly across the criminal justice system. When delivered with care and willingness on both the victim’s and the offender’s side, it can make a real difference to both parties. We laid amendments in the Commons on a victim’s right to referral and a duty to report on the use of restorative justice services, and we want to continue to make progress on this.
The government proposal to increase the period in which the Attorney-General may receive a request to challenge an unduly lenient sentence to 28 days, and the extra 14 days if submitted in the second half of the 28-day period, in our view remains too short. We supported the Official Opposition in some of their amendments in the Commons. Critically, it is unworkable unless a victim is notified when a sentence has been given, because the window to apply to the Attorney-General is too tight. I note, with regret, that the Minister said that the ULS was not an appeal mechanism for a victim. But many victims, on the rare occasion it might be used, should have access to it. One reason for that is that, too often, victims are encouraged by the CPS and the police not to be present at the end of a trial of the perpetrator, and they often miss the sentencing. Shockingly, too many are not even told about the unduly lenient sentencing arrangements and, within a very short number of days, cannot even submit a request to the Attorney-General. I have been laying amendments and proposing changes to the ULS scheme for some years now. We will continue to do so in your Lordships’ House on the Bill.
While the court proposals are in the main sensible, we remain concerned that there are very limited proposals to tackle the courts backlog. The announcements by David Lammy MP in relation to reducing the number of cases in front a jury has not helped. This Monday, 60 courts sat empty because of a lack of judges, barristers or other experts needed for court hearings.
There is little empirical evidence, proof or pilot, that shows that reducing juries alone will ease pressure on the courts system. The real problems are the poor buildings, court closures and legal aid cuts that penalise barristers and solicitors. A long-term commitment for investment is needed, with both restored funding to legal aid and capital investment in the courts of the future.
These are some of the key issues that need to be addressed in the Bill, but they are set in the context of giving a broad welcome to most of the Bill, while wanting to strengthen it.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I join in welcoming the Bill. The Long Title states that it is to
“make provision about the experience of victims within the criminal justice system”.
In that context, it is strange to be considering such a Bill in the absence of Lady Newlove. A good test of what can be achieved by the Bill will be whether she would have approved of it. I am sure we all hope that our final product would meet with her approval.
I will focus on two topics: the power to order an offender to attend court for sentencing and the proposed restrictions on parental responsibility. The problem of convicted criminals in serious cases who refuse to attend court for a sentencing hearing is relatively new, but regrettably it has not gone away, and the Government are now right to deal with it by involving deterrent measures.
Sentencing judges are well used to dealing with attention-seeking misbehaviour by some offenders, but the Bill gives a clearer framework for the powers available to the judge, not just when the offender fails or refuses to attend, but when he does attend and interrupts the hearing or otherwise misbehaves and has to be removed.
A sentencing hearing is important, because it is when the offender is made publicly accountable for his criminal action and has to confront the disapproval of society for what he has done, and to hear the evidence of the impact on the victim and the victim’s family. A refusal to attend adds insult to injury and highlights the lack of any remorse. It was in one such case rightly described by the judge as “spineless”.
Clearly, when a very long sentence is inevitable, a relatively short additional sentence may not persuade such a defendant with little or nothing to lose to co-operate or to behave. There is a limit to what can be expected of prison or custody officers in manhandling a resistant offender into the dock. There can in those cases be a risk of making a bad situation look worse. However, clarification in the Bill that reasonable force may be used if necessary and proportionate is welcome.
The important point of these new provisions is that victims can be reassured that they will be heard and that offenders will know that if they think about not attending there will be consequences, not just in the longer term with a further sentence that may have little or no real meaning, but in the short term with the new prison sanctions order.
Turning to Clauses 3 and 4, it is clearly right and necessary to introduce an effective mechanism to curtail any exercise of parental responsibility by fathers who commit sexual offences against a child. That must mean a sexual offence against any child, not just a child for whom the man may have had parental responsibility: that is what I now understand the Bill to intend, as the Minister has been good enough to confirm. I welcome that confirmation, because paragraph 176 of the Explanatory Notes accompanying the Bill suggests that it might still be restricted to offences against the children for whom the man holds parental responsibility. I understand that not to be correct.
I suspect that none of us has any reservations about the essential principles underlying these proposals. The chair of the Bar Council has said:
“Parental responsibility should not be regarded as an inalienable right which is retained regardless of parental behaviour and actions … Restricting parental responsibility for perpetrators of child sex offences is a strong protective measure for those left behind after acts of violence and abuse within a family”.
I suggest that this should also apply to any such serious sexual acts committed outside the family context which are wholly incompatible with the retention of parental responsibility.
Without getting too involved in the details of the current law, it is important to appreciate that not all fathers automatically have parental responsibility. If not married to the mother, a father would acquire it only with her agreement for him to be registered and named as the father on the birth certificate, or by later agreement or order. It is also important to appreciate that the family court can and does already terminate, suspend or restrict parental responsibility when there is a risk of significant harm to the child or siblings, and when the father’s conduct and retention of parental responsibility have become an intolerable concern to the mother. But there have been cases in which obstructive fathers, out of malice or lack of insight or empathy, force a mother into protracted and costly litigation to protect the children and herself, as their mother, and to remove the need for her to involve the father in decision-making about their future care and upbringing.
At least, in the cases covered by this Bill, a more summary mechanism will be made available. The Bill builds on Section 18 of the 2024 Act—Jade’s law, which is not yet in force. It will prevent the exercise of parental responsibility but without actually altogether terminating parental responsibility. Clause 3 requires a sentence of at least four years before it operates. That leaves the cases of those with lesser sentences remaining to be dealt with in the family court, as now. I accept that there is a need to draw lines so as to make best use of the resources, expertise and powers of both courts without overburdening either, but where lines are drawn may need more exploration during the passage of the Bill.
I will briefly raise some other procedural and evidential points. First, has consideration been given to any mechanism to restrict applications for, or the exercise of, parental responsibility during what is now likely to be a long period between the initial charge and the final sentencing? Is that to be left to bail conditions or to the family court on a separate application by the mother or a local authority, or could the Crown Court now be given power to make an interim order?
Secondly, assuming that the Crown Court will be making orders covering all children for whom the defendant has parental responsibility without later review by the family court, how will the Crown Court get reliable information about who those children are and about their status and circumstances, particularly if the defendant is unwilling or unable to assist and the court has no access to existing court orders concerning those children? Regrettably, some men have selective memories about their offspring. How will the mothers of those children be identified, located and then informed about what the Crown Court is doing or may have done?
Finally, as to children who have been or may have been conceived as a result of rape, it may be difficult at the time of sentencing to ascertain whether the child was in fact so conceived, if there was a pre-existing relationship between the couple continuing at least until the rape. The difficulty no doubt already exists if the Criminal Court has to decide whether the mother’s enforced pregnancy was an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes in rape cases.
Broadly, however, in cases of uncertainty, I welcome the measures in the new Section 10F. This requires the Crown Court to notify the local authority, which will have to assess the likely co-operation or otherwise of the mother and any possible need for orders from the family court. This may require further fact-finding. In this regard, I consider that the Bill goes as far as it needs to in such situations. Subject to those comments, most of the Bill’s provisions are welcome.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I was at St Thomas’ at 8 am and will return to Guy’s at 8 am tomorrow re my lack of balance, but I was determined to speak on this important Bill. I have informed the clerks that I will do so sitting down.
I welcome the Bill warmly and applaud the work of my noble friend the Minister and her team. I consider this House to be so lucky to have somebody of such relevant experience leading this work. The Bill marks a really important step forward in rebuilding our much-shaken justice system—a system to serve victims, who in recent years have so often been failed. Imagine if the victim was your daughter, cousin, granddaughter or niece.
As my noble friend clearly said, the justice system must serve victims rather than subjecting them to further trauma on top of what they have already suffered. The Bill strengthens victims’ rights, forcing offenders to attend their sentencing hearings. Where was the justice for Louise, Hannah and Carol Hunt when Clifford was a no-show at sentencing? Those who refuse to comply will be liable to an additional custodial penalty of up to 24 months and restriction of social visits and removal of privileges—in my view, quite rightly so.
I also welcome the protection of children of sex offenders, and that NDAs should not prevent victims disclosing relevant information. Because of this important Bill, cowardly offenders who try to avoid facing the consequences of their actions for victims and insult victims’ families will no longer be able to get away with it. I ask my noble friend the Minister: given that one of the sanctions for non-attendance at sentencing is an additional prison sentence, will that have an impact on prison capacity? I welcome the Bill and look forward to further discussion with all noble Lords.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin, in her place, and I wish her a very speedy recovery. I also congratulate her on her precision and the brevity of her remarks. I wish I was going to be as brief as she has been.
Lord Garnier (Con)
So does my noble and learned friend; that is a free drink that he is not going to get.
Unusually for a modern criminal justice Bill, which was ably introduced by the Minister, this is, relatively speaking, a remarkably short one. It has only 18 clauses. It is rather spoiled, however, as there are 53 pages of schedules. I dream of the day when any Government decides to stop producing criminal justice Bills of voluminous length, but there we are.
I understand the political and moral basis for the provisions about defendants who refuse to appear in court to be sentenced. I listened with great care to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on that. However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Sandhurst’s scepticism about whether they will work in practice. We will see how those arguments develop in Committee.
I do, however, welcome the proposals with regard to the ULS scheme. I had to operate it myself as a law officer when the Minister was at the Crown Prosecution Service. I think it is fair to say that we suffered together in that struggle. There will be more to say in Committee about the NDA provisions, which amend the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.
This afternoon, I want to address a point about overseas victims not mentioned in the Bill. I spoke about this on 7 February 2024, on the fourth day in Committee on the then Victims and Prisoners Bill. I make no apology for doing so again, and I will table the same amendment to this Bill that I tabled to that Bill. In introducing these remarks, I refer to my interest as a barrister whose practice includes corporate crime cases.
Multinational companies have been fined more than £1.5 billion over the past 10 years or so after investigations by the Serious Fraud Office into corruption abroad. But only 1.4% of those fines—about £20 million—has been used to compensate victim countries or communities abroad. In my view, this needs to change.
Much of this corruption occurs in African countries that are already suffering terrible economic hardship, food and energy crises, and inflation. They are in dire need of economic support to repair the damage caused by corruption.
United Kingdom Governments have been vocal in their support for compensating foreign state victims of corruption. But the action actually taken to compensate foreign states tells a different story and leaves us open to charges of hypocrisy. Most corruption cases brought before the English courts involve foreign jurisdictions. We step in as the world’s policeman, investigating and prosecuting crimes that take place in other countries, but keep all the fines for ourselves. This is important because corruption causes insidious damage to the poor —and the not so poor—particularly in emerging markets. The United Nations says that it
“impedes international trade and investment; undermines sustainable development; threatens democracy and deprives citizens of vital public resources”.
The African Union estimated in 2015 that 25% of the continent’s gross domestic product was lost to corruption. Every company convicted of overseas corruption in this jurisdiction should be ordered to compensate the communities it has harmed. That would be both just and effective. Compensation should come through investment in programmes targeted at decreasing corruption and benefiting local communities; for example, by building and resourcing more schools and hospitals.
At first glance, English law encourages compensation. It is required to take precedence over all other financial sanctions—so far, so good. But, as with many noble ambitions, problems lurk in the detail. Compensation is ordered in criminal cases only where the loss is straightforward to assess, even though the trial judge is usually of High Court or senior Crown Court level and will deal with complex issues every day.
For example, in 2022, in a case in which I appeared for a victim state, Glencore pleaded guilty to widespread corruption in the oil markets of several African states. Although it was ordered to pay £281 million, not a single penny has gone back to the communities where the corruption happened, largely because it was held that the compensation would be too complicated to quantify. The Airbus deferred prosecution agreement tells a similar story. The company was required to pay €991 million to the United Kingdom in fines, but compensation to the numerous Asian countries where the corruption took place formed no part of the agreement.
The process for compensating overseas state victims—and particularly overseas state victims—needs simplification so that real money can be returned to them. An answer perhaps lies in incentivising the corporations that commit the crimes to pay compensation voluntarily on the understanding that it would not increase the total amount, including penalties and costs, that they would have to pay. The company could be given further incentive by receiving a discount on the fine it would still be required to pay to the United Kingdom Treasury, or an increase in the fine if it refuses or fails to make redress.
The required changes are, I suggest, straightforward and would cost the taxpayer nothing. It could create a standard measure of compensation, which would ensure consistency and transparency, as well as avoiding the difficulty of calculating a specific amount of loss or damage in each case. The compensation figure could equal whichever is the higher of the profit made by the company from its corrupt conduct or the amount of the bribes it paid to obtain the profits. This already happens when companies are sentenced, save that all the money goes to the Treasury. The defendant company would pay nothing more, but at least some of the money would benefit the victim state or the communities harmed within it.
Of course, it would be naive to think that compensation paid to a foreign state could never lead to further corruption. That is clearly a risk. To address this, defendant companies would be encouraged or required to enter into an agreement with the relevant state, which would include obligations to comply with United Nations guidance on the treatment of compensation funds and to identify projects for which the funds would be used, possibly with the involvement of a local non-governmental organisation.
To encourage states to enter into these types of agreements, corporations would be permitted to donate the compensation funds, for example, to the World Bank or International Monetary Fund for projects in the region instead, or to pay down a country’s debt, if an agreement cannot otherwise be reached.
The benefit of this approach is that, unlike at present, where there is no disadvantage in doing nothing, it puts the onus on the defendant companies to take restorative action—something that will appeal to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. It also addresses the difficulties in quantifying losses by creating a simple approach that gives companies early sight of the amount that they will have to pay.
The Bill is, I am sure, full of wonderful provisions, but it does lack this wonderful diamond which needs to be added to the ring around the Minister’s finger— I do not know how far I can go with that one. But let us do this. We can then hold our heads high and enhance our national reputation in the fight against international corruption. This is not a matter of party politics. It is a matter of simple justice.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her persuasive introduction to the Bill and hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin, is soon dancing around the Chamber again.
I start before the beginning of the Bill. The Long Title tells us that, among other things, it is to make provision
“about procedure and the administration of criminal justice”.
There is a lot going at the moment in relation to the administration of criminal justice, including the first part of Sir Brian Leveson’s review and the Government’s recent response. I have been asked—no doubt other noble Lords have as well—whether the Government might use this Bill to introduce the major reforms they are proposing. I am in no position to give any assurances, although I have said that there would be a hell of a row if this House, with all its expertise and strong views, did not have the opportunity of a Second Reading debate if the Commons, the elected Chamber, was excluded from initial debate and scrutiny. The Minister is already shaking her head—that is now in Hansard. I was going to say that I trust that she will give us an assurance on this. I raised it because if it is around as gossip, it needs answering.
There is much to welcome in the Bill, but our role as a revising Chamber does mean that many of our comments may come over as opposition or criticism. I hope not to sound too much like Scrooge. When I heard that there was to be a victims’ helpline, I was interested in what it might cover and hoped that it would be more than a signposting exercise pointing victims to where they might get help. However, it is not that. The victim contact scheme may suggest more than it is to provide. Many victims need support as witnesses. I am aware of the issue of coaching or the suggestion that a victim witness, however he or she wishes to describe themselves, has been coached. The postponement of support and treatment for some badly affected victims is another argument for dealing with delays in the courts. A victim’s experience—I hate “journey”—does not end with the verdict, so there must be support before and following a trial, often for a long period, as a survivor.
This Bill is part of a Rubik’s cube of criminal justice legislation. This Second Reading comes not just during public debate about juries but partway through the Sentencing Bill, when the issue of resources for non-custodial sentences and for purposeful activity in custody is being discussed. Resources to support victims—survivors—are needed too. The position of so many organisations in the third sector is precarious. Appreciative words are no substitute for services and funding.
As we know, too many victims and alleged offenders have a long wait for the trial. Some of the alleged offenders are not on bail but released under investigation—an alternative to bail but without set timeframes or conditions attached. It has been suggested that for the police this is a cop-out—no pun intended—as it reduces the load on them. The Leveson recommendation was to return to the pre-2017 system of conditional or unconditional bail.
What priority does the Bill have? It was introduced in the Commons in May and there has been a sort of hiatus. In this House, it is to go to Grand Committee, rather than having its Committee stage on the Floor of the House—presumably, though one should not assume anything, in time for it to be through by the end of the Session. I appreciate that timing is not a matter for the Minister, but she may wish to comment. She may not, of course.
I will turn to some specific points. I know we will spend some time on the first two clauses. While the failure of a convicted offender to appear at a sentencing hearing can cause a lot of distress to the victim, who then cannot look the offender in the eye while he or she hears victim statements, I confess to wondering whether it would be better to rely on and perhaps use more the existing powers held by custody officers, prison governors and, of course, judges—although I can see why there is a concern not to use contempt of court powers other than sparingly. There are risks associated with the sanctions and impacts on prison capacity and the Crown Court backlog. It is a difficult balance.
We will also discuss the transcripts of sentencing remarks, an issue which for some time has been pursued by my honourable friend the Member for Richmond Park, and to which my noble friend Lady Brinton has referred. At a meeting in early September of the Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, I asked the then Lord Chancellor, just before she became Home Secretary, about progress in this area. She said:
“I do not believe we are far from having a tech solution that meets the test of accuracy … we are testing market solutions for speed and accuracy. Then we will need to take a view on operational viability and how quickly it could be rolled out”.
She also said:
“It is a long process, and it has a cost attached to it”,
and went on to emphasise that
“accuracy … is the problem at the moment”.
If the Minister could update the House, that would be very welcome. I appreciate this is not as straightforward as some of us would like to think, but every day in this job we are aware of how quickly the Hansard writers record and reproduce what we say. Mind you, they do tidy it up as well, which is certainly not what is wanted in the courts.
In addition, can the Minister update the House on when the prohibited steps provisions restricting parental responsibility are likely to come into force? As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, Section 18 of the Victims and Prisoners Act is still “prospective”. What discussion has the MoJ had with local authorities which will have to take on additional responsibilities, and will they have additional funding?
It is inevitable that I keep coming back to resources. I am sure that the Victims’ Commissioner will need to be better resourced, given her new powers and duties. Baroness Newlove would undoubtedly have taken the opportunity to make the point that she could have used much more than £150,000, whatever the agreement made. We all miss her, and we will welcome Claire Waxman to the position when she takes it up.
The length of Schedule 2, mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier—it is longer than the aggregate of all the Bill’s clauses—is, I suppose, a reflection of the way our statute book develops. I do not want to sound churlish. Clause 7, “Victims’ rights to make representations and receive information etc”— et cetera is doing some heavy lifting—is important out of all proportion to the clause’s two lines, but proportionate to the schedule. How much heavy lifting can be done by
“issues of public policy of relevance to other victims or witnesses”?
We will see.
I am pleased that victims’ rights to make certain disclosures are not to be precluded by NDAs. I hope the relevant regulations will be made with as little delay as possible, so that this comes into effect. This is one of those occasions when seeing the regulations in draft during the course of the Bill would be particularly helpful, given that not all NDAs will be covered.
It is not just what is in the Bill; it is also what is not. I am, as we all are, grateful to the organisations that have briefed us on the introduction of a duty to commission victim support services: 16 major organisations coming together to urge us to urge the Government to drive change in the commissioning of specialist services for victims of exploitation and abuse, and for victims with specific needs, is not to be ignored.
I should declare an interest: many years ago, for quite a number of years, I was a trustee and chair of the domestic violence charity Refuge. Much that is in the Bill, and much else, to quote the Long Title,
“about the experience of victims within the criminal justice system; about the functions of the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses; and about procedure and the administration of criminal justice”,
lends itself—indeed, calls for—consultation with those affected and those working in the sector. But—or “and”—I know that we have a group of Ministers who understand this very well.
I have said that there is much in the Bill to welcome. What I have been saying should not detract from that, but we do want the Bill to be as good as it can be.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, as always, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Today, it is an enormous pleasure to congratulate my noble friend the Minister on bringing the Bill forward and introducing it with the style and clarity that we are fast becoming used to—no pressure.
In particular, the Bill addresses a number of concerns that many of us had about flaws and deficiencies in the Act of last year specifically, and our regime for supporting victims of crime in general. So this Second Reading has felt, at times, a little like a reunion. It was a pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Russell, in his place before—I think he will return—and to hear in particular from the noble Lord, Lord Meston.
Of course, I have to say it one more time: we all miss Lady Newlove so much. Those of us who worked quite hard on attempting to improve last year’s Bill tabled a large number of amendments and sat for a number of days with her advice, support and strategy. It is therefore very heartening to see so much of the spirit of some of those amendments reflected in this new Bill.
I hope my noble friend was able to take real pride in making what may have been her first Section 19 statement on the cover of the Bill. This is, of course, Section 19 of the Human Rights Act, which requires Ministers to state their view of a Bill’s compatibility with human rights. Noble Lords will notice that my noble friend felt able to do this on this occasion. I hope she took pride in that, not least because, as a criminal barrister and, indeed, a judge of some distinction, she will be very aware that it is perhaps in the realm of victims’ rights in particular that the European Convention, by way of the Human Rights Act, has made the most positive difference here in the United Kingdom.
Briefly, on defendants’ rights, I was heartened to see my noble friend’s body language in the face of the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the proposals on jury trial. Panto season is upon us and the SW1 rumour mill is working with full force, so I had heard the same rumours about this preposterous suggestion that limitations on jury trial would be dropped into the Bill at Lords Committee. I was, and am still, heartened to see the body language and, no doubt, we will have it from my noble friend’s mouth in her summing up.
Of course, defendants’ rights were well developed in this jurisdiction long before even the European Convention. The drafters of that convention referred to Article 6 as the “English article” because of things such as the presumption of innocence in particular—but this was far less the case in the context of the rights of victims of crime.
I remember that, when I was a young Home Office lawyer in the early 1990s, rape complainants were routinely cross-examined in person by their alleged assailants, sometimes for days on end, at the Old Bailey. They were cross-examined about their sexual history, with judges understandably nervous about interfering, until the commission, as it then was, in Strasbourg, suggested that it might be degrading and inhuman treatment and a new torture for the victim, who was usually a woman—it need not be, but it usually was. It took Article 3 of the convention and a Labour Government’s response to make sure that that should never happen. That is just one example of the many ways in which positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights have animated and accelerated the development of victims’ rights in this country like never before. I put that on the record because it is so infrequently discussed in all the heat and noise around human rights debates in this country at the moment.
In a similar vein, I welcome Clauses 3 to 5, on restricting the parental responsibility of sex offenders who have abused children. There were similar attempts last year, but these measures go further. The House, and in particular my noble friend, will be very comforted by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who is distinguished in that area, as is my noble friend in the context of criminal trial. So, that is very much to be welcomed. I agree that the Explanatory Notes are incorrect but, mercifully, Clause 3 is very clear that it is a crime against any child, not just a crime against one’s own child, that meets the test and triggers the new mandatory requirement to make a prohibited steps order in relation to parental responsibility.
I also welcome the provisions on the victim’s right to make disclosures in the face of the abusive NDAs that have been so much in the public consciousness on both sides of the Atlantic in recent years, and to make representations and receive information. These provisions seem to go further than before, which is important. Perhaps in summing up, my noble friend could comment on my comparison between Section 17 of the 2024 Act and the new provision on non-disclosure. It seems to me that the presumption is now much more in favour of disclosure, and not just to a very limited collection of individuals such as lawyers. The new provision is more open and in favour of public interest disclosure of criminal conduct against victims, which is more in line with amendments that I tabled and supported, along with others. I hope that my noble friend will be able to clarify the comparison between the old and the new provisions. I see this as an improvement and more presumptively in favour of disclosure.
I particularly welcome more teeth for the Victims’ Commissioner and the victims’ code. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, nodding in her place. She will remember that we went to enormous lengths last year to plead for a victims’ code with teeth. Maybe we could seek even more teeth—who knows? At one point I even tabled an amendment that would have created a new consolidated victims’ code. It took a lot of careful typing on my part and a lot of patience from the Public Bill Office, but it was rebuffed by the last Government. What I am particularly heartened by is the duty in this Bill on the Victims’ Commissioner to report on compliance with the victims’ code. A code with no teeth would be in danger of cruelly raising victims’ expectations that were then not met.
I wonder if my noble friend could explain whether, like me, she thinks that the new ability of the Victims’ Commissioner to engage in individual cases that have a broader public policy interest could on occasion involve intervening in high-profile cases, at least on appeal, in the higher courts. That would be a good use of the Victims’ Commissioner’s time. If a very serious point of law that affected victims’ rights were in the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, is it anticipated by my noble friend and the Government that the Victims’ Commissioner might, as part of her functions, be able to intervene in that case? That would be incredibly helpful as part of giving teeth to both the commissioner and the code.
I support the provisions on unduly lenient sentences. I know there is some debate about whether they go far enough, but I support them.
I noted my noble friend’s comments on private prosecutions. Obviously, the provisions in the Bill are about costs in certain cases, but I noted—I wrote this down quite carefully—that in her introduction she talked about the right of an individual to bring a private prosecution. That is of course an important right. I think of our friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence of Clarendon, and how important it was not just for her and her family but for the whole country that she persevered not just with campaigning but with a private prosecution. That demonstrates graphically the importance of the right of an individual who has been wronged and neglected by the authorities, in the context of policing and prosecution, to bring a case.
However, the other side of the equation is some corporate private prosecutions, about which I am concerned. The Post Office is the most obvious example. That was not an individual who had been wronged; it was a corporation prosecuting for private profit. I have been slightly sceptical about whether it is a right that should be afforded at all to private corporations as opposed to individuals. I just throw that into the air for consideration, but it is not in any way to distract or divert from my support for the Bill. I hope we can give it a safe and speedy passage while allowing enough time for adequate scrutiny and, if necessary, enhancement.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, it is always a bit daunting to speak after one of the lawyers in this place. I am not a lawyer. I, as always, will speak to the Bill from the perspective of poor communities. My first plea to the Minister is to remember that in this country there is a great myth that poor people are the perpetrators of crime, whereas most poor people’s experience of crime is as a victim. It is from that point of view that I come to this debate.
I welcome the Government’s intention to put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system; I think I can safely say that that is an objective that we on the Conservative Benches share. However, good intentions are not enough. The test is whether the Bill strengthens public confidence, delivers justice in practice and protects victims, not whether it simply moves more cases through the system. A lot of poorer people are hearing, “The prisons are full and the courts are full, so we won’t bother doing it properly. We’ll just put them through quickly”. I want to be clear that the single greatest driver of crime is the idea that you are going to get away with it. I spent over three decades working in the poorest communities, so I know that crime is committed by a small number of people very regularly, who have the conversation about what risk they are taking. If you are going to put victims at the centre of this, that is one of the key questions you have to answer.
Ministers will say that the system is backed up or clogged up. I accept that the backlog is serious, but removing juries does not fix the cause of this delay. It does not create more judges, more courtrooms or more capacity. Jury trials are not the problem; they are a safeguard. Faster justice can be seen as less legitimate and will weaken confidence. I was one of the people who did the Lammy Review with David Lammy, and he was very strong at the time that poorer communities, particularly non-white communities, feel much safer in front of a jury. If you remove that now, you could be removing the confidence of those communities in our system in its entirety. These are the sections of our public most exposed to criminal behaviour, so we need to think very carefully about what we do on that.
Clause 3 restricts parental responsibility only where a sentence is four years or more. I expect that Ministers will say that they had to draw a line somewhere, and I accept that, but why here? An offender with a sentence of three years and 11 months still remains a serious risk; victims will struggle to understand why safeguarding suddenly applies at four years. If the Government do not explain this logic carefully, public confidence will suffer. The reason I made the comment about speaking after a lawyer is that lawyers have this in their thinking, and they look at the world through the rules they have learned; most poor people are trying to make ends meet. Things need to be simple. Simplicity is fairness, and I want to be clear about that. Most people do not have the time to pore over the fine detail in the way we do in your Lordships’ House.
I welcome improvements in the unduly lenient sentence scheme, but for victims the issue is not intent but access. The current 28-day limit is simply unrealistic for many victims and their families who are grieving, traumatised and trying to navigate a complex legal process. I know Ministers will say that they will keep this under review, but can I gently suggest that victims need certainty not future monitoring?
I want to end on this idea of court backlogs. I return to my theme that getting away with it is the single biggest driver. I expect that Ministers will say that this Bill is not intended to solve every problem in the justice system—of course that is reasonable—but the court backlog is a central problem facing victims today. One of the biggest problems is seeing the perpetrator, as far as you are concerned, walking around “free as a bird”, to use the expression that one young man used with me this morning. That has to be addressed, but this Bill contains little to address it directly. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, was very clear about what goes on in court and I think that needs looking at, because the jury system and the speed at which we get people through is why people think the British criminal justice system is the best—particularly people who, in their life experience, may find themselves in front of it.
The Bill contains measures that I welcome, but it also raises serious questions. If the Government’s aim is to rebuild confidence in the criminal justice system, reforms must be logical, coherent and visibly on the side of victims. I look forward to scrutinising the Bill as we go through the process, because I truly believe that the Minister wants to do the right thing. I want to be part of helping that happen, because I believe this is far beyond party shenanigans. This is about what it means to exist in Britain today.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this important Bill to the House, as it gives me the opportunity to speak about the vital specialist support services that victims of abuse and exploitation so desperately need. The picture we see before us with regards to this is a bleak one, far worse than any nation should accept, but with this Bill we have a precious opportunity. We can turn despair into hope and ensure that victims and survivors are finally met with compassion and understanding and get the support they need when they need it.
The Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, which is hosted by Barnardo’s—I declare an interest as vice-president—estimates that 55,000 children and adults are currently on waiting lists for support for child sexual abuse. Alongside this, 23 specialist services have closed in the last 18 months, with only 363 remaining. This leaves, theoretically, a case load of around 16,500 victims per service, which is simply unimaginable.
For so many victims and survivors of child sexual abuse, just seeking help is an act of bravery, yet most will discover that services that can truly understand or empathise with their trauma are few and far between. It is shameful that this has been allowed to happen. Much of the time, victims and supporters are left on a painfully long waiting list and their healing is put on hold. They wonder whether they can bear to reopen old wounds by the time help finally comes.
For domestic abuse, the picture is not much brighter. In 2025, a report by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner revealed that thousands of children are being left with nowhere to turn after experiencing abuse. More than a quarter of these vital services are having to turn children away because they simply do not have the resources to support them. Between 2023 and 2024, over a third of organisations were running an area of the domestic abuse service without any dedicated funding. This is not a system that is putting victims first and certainly not a system that is putting children first.
Some groups, such as women and children and minority individuals, need specialist trauma-informed support which is tailored to their unique needs. It is essential that they have someone there who understands them, believes in them and can help them when they need it most. The specialisms of these services are often a lifeline for victims, as they have the expertise and knowledge to meet their needs, but, unfortunately, many are struggling just to stay afloat.
Children who have experienced unimaginable harm need specialist support which recognises their unique experiences. Instead, they are met with services that cannot offer them the tailored help they require. Victims tell us at Barnardo’s time and time again how crucial it is to speak with counsellors who truly understand their trauma and relevant experiences of abuse and exploitation. Those counsellors need to be commended for their commitment and dedication to making a difference to vulnerable children’s lives, because such child-focused specialist knowledge can transform the direction of a child’s life.
However, research has shown that most mental health services available to child victims are very generalised, leaving them without the expert guidance they need to rebuild their lives. That is why this Bill must include a clear duty on local statutory agencies to commission high-quality specialist support services for victims and their families in line with local needs. These services must also ensure that those with specific requirements, such as women and children, receive support that is tailored for them. Only then will we be able to deliver the national guarantee of support that the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse so rightly called for.
No survivor should face a postcode lottery of support. They should not be left holding their pain alone while they wait for help that may never come. When they finally find the courage to speak their truth, we should respond with compassion, understanding and unwavering support. Let us ensure that survivors are never again left to carry their trauma in solitude, but are instead supported to step forward with hope and dignity. As I always say, childhood lasts a lifetime, so let us do everything in our power to eliminate pain and trauma from the lives of all children, which so often can be passed down to their children.
This Bill has the power to help achieve this goal, and we at Barnardo’s are happy to work with the Government to ensure that the support and provision we are calling for become a reality, for the sake of the nation’s children’s happiness and well-being. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this Bill aims to enhance the rights of victims within the criminal justice system, introducing measures to ensure that their voices are heard and offenders are held accountable. As we have heard, it is a brief Bill at only 18 clauses long. As we have also heard in today’s debate, in a number of ways it is not a party-political Bill, because everyone taking part wants to get the best out of the Bill and to move as constructive amendments as possible.
The first point I want to discuss a little more widely is compelling offenders to attend sentencing hearings. For the first time, judges will have the statutory power to order offenders to attend their sentencing hearings. Those who refuse without reasonable excuse may face additional custodial sentences of up to 24 months and additional meaningful sanctions. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and as anyone who has sat in a court knows, it is frequently very difficult to find a balance between making sure that the interest of victims is properly catered for, with the reading of the victim personal statement, and making sure that the offender does not kick off and make the situation much worse. The changes put forward in the Bill are a better framework within which judges can operate, but we need to be frank that judges need to be given discretion where it may not be appropriate, and there should be suitable sanctions if offenders are not turning up for the sentencing hearings.
The powers of the Victims’ Commissioner will be enhanced, allowing them to investigate individual cases, request information from local authorities and publish annual reports on compliance with the victims’ code. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti’s question about whether the Victims’ Commissioner may be able to intervene in Court of Appeal cases, or something like that, was very interesting. I will be interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say about that suggestion. Like all other noble Peers in this debate, I want to pay my tribute to Baroness Newlove; I hope she would see some of the fruits of her work in this Bill. I have no doubt that her successor, Claire Waxman, will do a sterling job as well.
On expanding victim support, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, we have all received letters from 16 organisations working in this sector. As the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said, they are asking for specific things through this Bill: first, requiring local statutory agencies to commission sufficient specialist support services; secondly, ensuring that victims with specific needs, such as women and children, receive high-quality specialist services; and, thirdly, guaranteeing that agencies commission support in line with local victims’ needs. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, put these points with her usual passion, and I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to say something about those specific requests.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raised a very interesting point when she talked about the dovetailing of the Bill with the Government’s VAWG strategy. This is something that I know my noble friend and her colleagues in the Home Office will be talking about a great deal. It is resource intensive, of course, but it really goes to the heart of the Government’s intent in trying to halve the level of violence against women and girls over the next 10 years.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about transcripts of sentencing remarks. I really fail to understand why this is such a difficult problem to get over the line. I understand that there is a cost to it and that there are sensitivities, but it is something that the Government should be able to sort out.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, raised a subject that he has raised on other Bills—that is, effectively encouraging some sort of restorative justice at the international corporate level, if I can put it like that. I look forward to him pursuing that, because it is a very interesting idea. To be frank, there was not much take-up of that idea by the previous Government; we will see whether the current Government are more interested in his ideas.
I want to say something about the issue of addressing parental responsibility. The Bill automatically restricts parental responsibility in cases where a child is conceived through rape or where a parent is convicted of serious sexual offences against any child, ensuring that perpetrators do not have a say in critical decisions regarding the child’s welfare. I noted the point that my noble friend made—that up to 20 offenders may be captured by this change in the law, after it goes through. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, gave a number of examples, which I know from my own experience as a family magistrate, where parental responsibility has not been given in the first place or has been withdrawn, usually from fathers. This takes the existing provisions a step further, which I welcome, specifically in cases where the father has been convicted of serious sexual offences. Nevertheless, I look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, pursuing the practical difficulties of doing this in Committee.
The Bill also seeks to improve transparency and accountability. It introduces measures to modernise the criminal justice system, including flexibility for the Director of Public Prosecutions in appointing Crown Court prosecutors and updating sentencing powers in magistrates’ courts. I have only one point on this, regarding the CILEX members to whom my noble friend referred in her introductory remarks. We should be very clear about this: CILEX members are from more diverse backgrounds than lawyers who are either solicitors or barristers, and that is to be welcomed. I am sure there is an ambition to have more diverse people acting as prosecutors, and this is a route to achieve that. It is not just about increasing the numbers, which of course is welcome in itself; it is also a route to achieve greater diversity. I noted my noble friend’s assurance that there will be no dilution in standards, so it is a welcome move by the Government.
In conclusion, this is a good Bill, and I hope that it will increase trust and confidence in the criminal justice system as a whole. I look forward to taking part more constructively when we move to Committee.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, I always find it slightly daunting, when speaking towards the end of a debate, to follow so many eminent noble Lords. In my short time in this place, I have learned that your Lordships do not like needless repetition, so I will absolutely attempt to abide by that stricture.
The first observation I make, while broadly welcoming the Bill, is that nobody really expects to be a victim of crime. It is not something that ever really appears in our political debates, that politicians major on when they make election campaign promises, or that appears in the media with great regularity. But when someone is a victim of crime they very often find themselves being badly failed by the services that are supposed to be there to support them and which they assumed would be there. Until they need to use them, they do not understand what is actually going on in the system.
I served as a Minister in the Home Office and in the Ministry of Justice, and it is a huge privilege to hear from victims who are brave enough to come forward and speak about their experiences. I and, I know, many others welcome the Government’s work on strengthening support and services for those victims. When victims come forward to speak about those things, they exhibit a huge amount of bravery. We can learn a lot from that. That is how we go forward, tailor the services and get it right for them in the future.
As people have said, this is not a party-political point. We made some progress towards improving services for victims under the previous Government. We quadrupled legal aid for victims, enshrined the victims’ code in law and began the task of unpicking automatic halfway early release for serious offenders, but there was always more to do. It was the start point, not the end point, of a journey.
I have a couple of key concerns about the Bill, particularly around rape and serious sexual offences. I will add my comments to what others have said about the window for victims to apply to the unduly lenient sentence scheme. I do not think that 28 days is enough. Will the Government please look again at the issue of court transcripts? As so many others have said, those really need to be provided in cases such as that of the grooming gangs. It will give confidence to everybody in the system.
Attendance at sentencing is so important. It is just fantastic that the Government are doing this, taking forward some of the early steps that we took in the previous Government. I too have some knowledge of Zara Aleena’s case. Her family said that when their niece’s killer did not appear in court, it was a slap in the face to them. They wanted the killer, McSweeney, to face his actions. They felt it was so important for them. They wanted him to hear what impact his despicable actions had had on their family and how he had destroyed them as a family. I really hope that, in the name of them and so many others, we can get that done as a Parliament and help those people.
There are some operational difficulties around this that we will look forward to working with the Government on. If police officers are required to enforce attendance, they should be issued with stab vests and tasers. They need to have the right kit so that they can do it, otherwise there is a worry about the use of the defence of reasonableness and appropriateness. We have all seen that people sometimes use that to get away from actually doing what they need to do, which is facing justice in open court.
Before I conclude, I ask the Minister to reflect on some really important work that the previous Government did on rape prosecutions. It might be slightly outwith the scope of the Bill but, against the backdrop of the work that the Government are doing on the VAWG strategy and on the court system as a whole, we introduced an operation called Operation Soteria. We worked with the Crown Prosecution Service, with police forces across the country and with the courts. We were improving the experience of rape victims when they went into court and the pace at which those trials moved through the court system. By the time I left the role, we had City St George’s perform an objective study, which found that that operation had objectively improved both the time it takes for those cases to come to court and the experience of victims. I would be really interested and grateful if the Minister could touch on that when she comes to sum up, or else write to me about how that work has been taken forward and how it fits into the wider plans.
The Government are completely right in their ambition to tackle the backlog of 74,000 cases at the Crown Court, but I think the public will find it extraordinary that we are looking at getting rid of jury trials, or even magistrates’ trials, when we know that there are courts sitting empty. The Minister shakes her head, so perhaps she will address that when she responds. As I have said, I look forward to seeing the Bill go forward and to working with the Government and others. I very much hope that victims outside here will see that we are doing our job and standing up for them.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I will say a few words in the gap; I have notified the clerk. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, because I spoke in the gap very recently just before he was about to speak. I ask for his tolerance.
I did not put my name down for this debate, because I thought other speakers would cover all the essential features. The Minister did a marvellous job to cover all the major issues in the Bill in her opening speech, so I was right about that. Led by the Minister, this House has done very well to cover all the major points of the Bill. However, while I sat and listened to this debate, my attention was drawn to Clause 3, in which the Crown Court is under a duty to make a prohibited steps order where a serious sexual offence has been committed. Effectively, that means that contact is prohibited between the offender and the damaged child or their family. When one contemplates it—for example, when a father commits a vile sexual offence on a son or daughter—one can see exactly why the introduction of this offence in Clause 3 is to be greatly welcomed.
However, my concern is the stipulation that the offender must have had a life sentence or a term of imprisonment or detention of four years or more. Surely this clause should be drafted differently; it should be when a sexual offence has taken place and the offender has been convicted for that. There is a loosening up in new subsection (5), which states that the prohibited steps order can still be made when
“the offender is acquitted of the offence on appeal, or … the sentence is reduced, on appeal, so that it is no longer a life sentence or a term of imprisonment … of 4 years or more”.
There is a loosening up. It seems that the straightforward principle is that, when an offender has been convicted of a serious sexual crime, it should be sufficient to trigger the right of the Crown Court to introduce prohibited steps.
I end by saying that this is a very difficult area. I am heavily involved in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, in which there is a provision preventing a parent, under certain circumstances, having contact with the child. In that case, the party who approached me explained that the father is the offender but he has not yet been convicted because the DPP’s decision has not yet been made to make that conviction. There is always a difficulty of proof when a young child has been molested. I wonder whether this provision should not be further extended when there has not been a conviction.
Lord Gove (Con)
My Lords, I speak in the gap to acknowledge that the Bill has many virtues; I cannot enumerate them better than the Minister and my noble friend Lord Sandhurst have done. We have heard many valuable contributions in this debate, and I cannot begin to respond to them as elegantly as my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie will. I cannot bring the front-line experience of dealing with violence against women and girls as effectively as my noble friend Lady Maclean has done to this debate. But I can bring one thing: an appreciation, from my time in the Ministry of Justice, that the single most important thing for victims is not the advocacy of the Victims’ Commissioner, welcome as that is, or the support of victims’ services, valuable as that is; it is effective, speedy justice, with high-quality prosecutions of those who deserve to face the highest sanctions for their criminal acts.
We know that the area where the justice system most poorly serves our citizens is rape and serious sexual offences, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out. We know, from the most recent report by the inspectorate looking at the work of the Crown Prosecution Service that early contact with victims made by the CPS is still tragically far from the level that the CPS and victims would like to see. We know also that the CPS faces constraints in the quality of people whom it can employ, and above all, the criminal Bar—those experts who deal most effectively and most sensitively with these cases—is facing a drought, with a quarter of people at the criminal Bar having departed and a further quarter potentially likely to depart.
That is why I am concerned that in the Bill the CPS is given the power to increase the number of those working as prosecutors by potentially diluting the quality threshold and bringing in, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, pointed out, those who have other qualifications. That change may be justified on the basis of diversity. I want to see changes justified on the basis of efficiency.
What are the Government doing to ensure that we can reverse the flight from the criminal Bar and that we can continue to make it an area where our very best lawyers see their careers developing? When there are vital questions of guilt or innocence, or horrific crimes such as those my noble friend Lady Maclean mentioned, nothing is more important than ensuring that we have the best possible prosecutors as well as the accused having the best possible defence. There is no question but that the criminal Bar provides it. Whether or not there are gifted solicitor advocates and CILEX-trained individuals have skills, no one is as well equipped as those who are either called to the English and Welsh Bar or who are advocates in Scotland. Unless and until we can have that guarantee, I fear that we once again have another measure to dilute quality and cut costs, with justice, unfortunately, being the victim.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I say at the outset that, as far as the speakers in the gap are concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, need not fear to intervene in the gap, as he has done on other occasions before my speaking. He is always very welcome. It was very good to hear the noble Lord, Lord Gove, speaking in the gap, with his experience and showing above all that this is very much a non-party-political debate. We are all worried about the concerns he expressed.
From these Benches, as my noble friends Lady Brinton and Lady Hamwee in particular have said, we broadly welcome the Bill. Just by way of introduction, for too long, victims in our criminal courts were largely ignored and unprotected by the system and were, frankly, shamefully treated as bit-part players in the business of criminal justice as no more than witnesses. When offenders pleaded guilty, they were often not even informed about the date and place of trial. Certainly, they were not given an opportunity to make any meaningful contribution to the procedure of the case.
Recent years, however, have seen a great deal of welcome change. The introduction of victim impact statements and the attention that is now paid to them; the establishment of the office of the Victims’ Commissioner, given statutory authority in 2004; and the formal introduction of the victims’ code and its statutory strengthening by the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 have all been important milestones along the way. Now we genuinely have a system that seeks to put victims of crime at its heart, but in many ways this important ambition is not achieved in practice. It is hoped that the measures in the Bill will close some of the gaps, but certainly not all of them.
I join everyone else in paying a warm tribute to Baroness Newlove, with whom I worked on a number of important measures to improve our system. She had such an important influence on the criminal justice system and on public awareness of the importance of victims and of looking after them in society as a whole. I welcome the appointment of Claire Waxman to the post; she has done a wonderful job as Victims’ Commissioner for London, and I believe that she will do a wonderful job as Victims’ Commissioner.
The Bill takes forward the Government’s intention to strengthen the position of victims, and it fits particularly with their ambition to halve violence against women and girls. Among the most important and welcome provisions of the Bill are those in Clauses 3 to 5, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, pointed out, and Schedules 1 and 2 that go with them; they include restricting parental responsibility for convicted sex offenders committing offences against children and requiring the court to make a prohibited steps order. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, about the good sense and the likely utility of these measures. We welcome them and the general valuable protection of vulnerable children who are at risk of violence or abuse from convicted offenders.
I am bound to add one note of caution, however: on these Benches we would prefer to see greater discretion in the courts about the making of prohibited steps orders. Sometimes we resort too quickly to mandatory requirements where those may not be necessary or appropriate in every case.
I turn to non-disclosure agreements and the measures in Clause 6 for avoiding unacceptable provisions in such agreements. It is clear that NDAs have often been misused—often, but not always, in the context of employment—and used to prevent victims and direct witnesses from reporting behaviour that is patently criminal. Kinds of behaviour that should be reported but where NDAs can be used to silence victims are abuse, including sexual abuse, bullying, and racial, religious or sex discrimination. Some protection of victims has been offered by the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, but Clause 6 will strengthen the protection for victims and direct witnesses, and it is welcome.
It is a major step forward that the victim contact scheme is to be strengthened. This will make it easier for victims to be kept informed about the release of perpetrators; in particular, it will introduce a dedicated helpline for victims. Victims of stalkers, for example, shamefully have been ignored too often in the past. They have had good reason to complain about the lack of information they have been entitled to receive. I note the important contribution of my noble friend Lady Brinton in the past.
It is right that the definition of victims should be widened, as it will be by Schedule 2, to include bereaved family members and children who have witnessed domestic abuse. We would like to see a reporting obligation on the working of the victim contact scheme to include reports on its accessibility to victims and on its uptake. We would like to see proposals for improvement of the scheme made public on a regular basis.
Strengthening the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner to give the commissioner the power to act in the general public interest where particular cases or circumstances or the plight of particular victims raise questions of general importance will broaden the commissioner’s office to enable her to work more effectively in the public interest.
I have not so far mentioned as particularly important the powers in Clauses 1 and 2 to compel the attendance of defendants at their sentencing hearings. Of course I agree with the Government that defendants should be obliged to attend sentencing hearings, and I recognise the importance to victims of obliging offenders to look them in the eye, as the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, mentioned in opening. Victim impact needs to be understood by the public and by defendants, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said. So of course the court should have the power to order defendants to attend such hearings, and it is right that they should do so and right that those who fail to do so should be penalised.
But is there any real point in including a power, as the Bill does, for a prison or custody officer to use reasonable force to compel such attendance? What force is reasonable for that purpose? We have read press stories of offenders being likely to be bound and gagged to bring them to court. Indeed, these were fuelled and reinforced by amendments the Conservatives introduced in the Commons to sanction such treatment—a concept that may have been supported today by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, although I am not sure he meant to go as far as perhaps he did.
I question whether we wish to risk giving offenders the chance of appearing publicly as martyrs and making the criminal justice system into a public spectacle of what could be seen or portrayed as oppression, whether fairly or unfairly. Far better, I suggest, to make the order to treat non-compliance as contempt, as the Bill suggests; to allow judicial discretion, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, suggested; and to sanction it with reasonable but not excessive extra time in custody or financial penalties as appropriate, just as we would for other contempts of court. Unusually, in this case I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that extra sentences would not act as a deterrent to defendants thinking of avoiding their sentencing hearings. I suspect I share the doubt of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, about the use of force.
I turn to a number of amendments to the Bill that we wish to see and propose to introduce. First, we need to be sure that victim support services will be improved by these measures and adequately funded. My noble friend Lady Hamwee made some important points on victim support services and the degree to which provision needs to be made, increased and properly resourced. We would want to see not just national government but local authorities required to produce victim support strategies for meeting the needs of victims of offences relating to domestic or family-related abuse, sexual offences or child criminal exploitation in their areas. My noble friend Lady Benjamin talked of trauma-informed support for victims, particularly child victims. We want to see reports on support services for victims as they are developed, especially for child victims. But such reports should also include the carers for victims, whether they be for children or for elderly or disabled victims of crime.
We will also introduce an amendment seeking a commitment to make transcripts of sentencing remarks and summings up available to victims. I agree with those who suggested that a solution based on new technology and AI may make it easier, but the availability of transcripts is very important and should not be put off by a supposed lack of resources. I welcome the agreement of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, both on the importance of transcripts and on the lack of validity of the excuse that the cost is a justifiable reason for failing to address this issue.
No one who heard the sentencing today of Paul Doyle by Judge Menary, to more than 21 years’ imprisonment for the dreadful road rage attack on the Liverpool Football Club victory parade, could fail to realise the need for public awareness of sentencing and its justification. While public awareness is vital, victim understanding is just as important—even more so. The provision of transcripts and of sentencing hearings is therefore a crucial service.
I look forward to considering the important amendments to be moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, on improving our provisions for compensation in a corporate context. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, put that in the frame of restorative justice. I agree with him that that is an interesting and sensible way of introducing this topic and of taking the approach that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, suggests.
We also support the amendment proposed in the House of Commons by Joshua Reynolds MP to amend the victims’ code to ensure that it will apply to assisting relatives of victims of murder or manslaughter committed abroad.
On the unduly lenient sentence scheme, my noble friend Lady Brinton outlined the degree to which we do not believe that the short extra time to be given to the Attorney-General to introduce an application goes far enough. There is, I suggest, no reason in principle why the unduly lenient sentence scheme should not ensure that questioning the leniency of sentences is as available as appeals against excessive sentences are available to offenders.
Before closing, I say this: for all the merits of this Bill, as my noble friend Lady Brinton and others have highlighted, it exposes a glaring failure in the Government’s approach to the criminal justice system: the failure to take sufficient measures to address the delays in the criminal justice system which have led to the current appalling court backlogs. As the last speaker in the gap, the noble Lord, Lord Gove, said that the most important thing for victims is speedy and effective justice, and he emphasised the importance of the qualified criminal Bar in providing that.
The delay in court hearings has been the starkest denial of victims’ rights to justice that we can imagine, as the depressing prevalence of abandoned cases in the face of delay attests, and that is particularly so in the case of sexual offences. For every victim in a case that is abandoned because it is not brought to trial in a reasonable time, that is a denial of justice. It is a betrayal by society of that victim, who justifiably loses any confidence that the system or the state is on the victim’s side.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, in what was an important speech, said that no one expects to be a victim of crime. She highlighted the lack of political attention that crime therefore attracts. That also means that she highlighted the lack of resources allocated by government to criminal justice as a result.
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, said about the importance of not just cutting but ending these disastrous delays. Like him, I do not accept that the only way of cutting delays is by restricting jury trials, which I regard as extremely important. It is a question of resources, of efficiency, and of being more adventurous in the ways we deal with this. It is a question of more court sitting days and more hours; of better repair and refurbishment of disused and decrepit buildings; of ensuring that we do not have courts standing empty; and of ensuring that we have more barristers, solicitors, judges, all properly remunerated and attracted to continue the work they do in their professional lives.
On efficiency, we need to improve prison delivery services and all those wasteful things that cause endless adjournments. Prosecutors need to avoid overcharging when that will make no difference to ultimate disposal or sentence. We need to make more use of new technology for listing, for pre-trial hearings and for evidence preparation and presentation, making cases more economic. We need to have an overall inventive approach. If we do that and cut the delays, we will be doing more for victims than what we do in the Bill. Meanwhile, what we do in the Bill is of course extremely important, and that is why, generally, we welcome it and will seek to improve it.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, victims demand effective and speedy justice, and we should deliver effective and speedy legislation.
We welcome many measures in the Bill which build on the previous Government’s efforts in the Criminal Justice Bill and in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. Clearly, this Bill is intended to put victims first when addressing issues of justice and to enhance their voice in the criminal justice process. It is vital that victims are heard and that the justice system is transparent and accessible to victims. That includes, in particular, how offenders are sentenced and how victims can access the information given by the court on that issue.
We are grateful for many of the provisions in the Bill and for the fact that the Government have been open to constructive suggestions during its passage, resulting in new clauses and clarifications that have now been added to it. Indeed, we are supportive of the steps taken by the Government to strengthen the Bill’s approach to parental responsibility so that restrictions apply to offenders who have committed offences against any child rather than just their own.
There are, however, certain areas where we believe that there is further scope still for the Bill’s provisions to be improved, and there are several important points upon which the Bill is silent. In particular, that touches upon the issue of justice delayed being justice denied—a point made by a number of noble Lords.
There is also the parallel development of legislation going through this House that was touched upon by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee: in particular, the Sentencing Bill. It is important to be clear that, although this Bill puts victims at the centre of justice, there is concern that the Sentencing Bill currently passing through this House tends to do the opposite. Under the suspended sentence presumption in the Sentencing Bill, many offenders who would previously have gone to prison will now remain in the community. For victims, this often means living alongside the offenders, seeing them in the street, in local shops and in shared public spaces. This is not an abstract policy choice but in fact a daily reality for the victims of crime. Can a system that leaves victims to live with the consequences of offending in this way really claim to put victims first? This is perhaps a tension between the Government’s victims Bill and their proposed sentencing provisions.
Turning to the clauses of the Bill itself, we are broadly supportive of Clause 1 on sentencing. Sentencing is not a purely administrative act but a moment of public accountability. For victims, the sentencing hearing is often the first and only opportunity to see an offender confronted with the true consequences of their actions, and their physical presence in court matters to victims. Indeed, the absence of an offender at sentencing, particularly where it is deliberate, can no doubt exacerbate the victim’s trauma arising out of the original offence.
With regard to the specific provisions, there is a reference to reasonable force being employed to bring an individual into court. That raises question marks of onus. Will it be for the police officer to prove that only reasonable force was employed? It might be more appropriate to approach this on the basis that such force as is necessary will be employed, provided that it is not disproportionate. That would be a safety net for police officers, who might very often be accused of using unnecessary force in the situation that they are faced with. There is also a need to ensure that police and prison officers, who are already under significant pressure, are provided with the appropriate instruction, training and means to carry out this task. That will need to be addressed in due course.
Turning to Clauses 3 to 5 on the restriction of parental responsibility, we generally support the Government’s steps in this area, as I indicated earlier. It is, as the Government consider it, an important child protection measure. But there is a question mark as to the four-year threshold provision, touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. Are we otherwise to throw the onus back on the family court to address this issue? Equally, are interim measures to be left to the family court to determine and deal with? We hope these issues will be addressed going forward in discussion with the Minister. I look forward to that opportunity.
On Clauses 6 and 7 on victims’ rights, again we are broadly supportive of these measures. It is essential that we extend these measures in order that victims can be confident that their interests and concerns are being properly dealt with.
Some criticism was made of the length of Schedule 2. It is only fair to observe that Schedule 2 is of such length because of the attendant number of existing statutory measures that are required to be amended, which maybe does not reflect very well on our existing statutory provision but is the necessary consequence of having so many diverse provisions that touch on this very issue. There are one or two issues that we want to raise with the Minister in due course. For example, Schedule 2 requires certain parties to take such steps as they “consider appropriate”, which seems rather open- ended. We hope that in time the Minister will have an opportunity to address that sort of issue in Schedule 2 so that we can be reassured as to the effectiveness of these measures going forward.
On Clauses 8 to 10, with respect to the position of the Victims’ Commissioner, we are broadly supportive of all these measures and acknowledge the very considerable contribution that was made in this regard by the late Baroness Newlove. We look forward to her replacement with the experience that she has had as Victims’ Commissioner for London.
Clause 11 deals with the extension of the right to prosecute to those other than qualified solicitors or barristers. I acknowledge the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, that by extending this to those with CILEX qualifications we will increase diversity. That is to be welcomed. The noble Lord, Lord Gove, is also undoubtedly correct that the provision will dilute qualification. The question is whether it will dilute the quality of prosecution. That will have to be monitored with very conspicuous care going forward. I look forward to the Minister explaining to us how the Government will seek to monitor that. It is important that we have Crown prosecutors available, but equally they should be of a quality and standard to ensure fair and effective prosecution. That is a matter for the interests of victims and for society as a whole.
I turn briefly to Clause 12, which deals with the introduction of regulations to set rates of remuneration in the case of private prosecutions. Let it be noted that private prosecutions are a very significant and important aspect of overall prosecutions within our courts. Such matters as shoplifting, for example, which are a scourge upon society and the high street, are generally taken up as prosecutions privately by major institutions. Indeed, in the case of fraud, again private prosecutions play a very important part, not just in respect of minor fraud but very often in the case of major fraud, which is extremely expensive to prosecute.
The Minister said that what would be introduced would be fairer, with safeguards and so on. I wonder if she is being a little economical when she describes the matter in that way. I take as my guide the Explanatory Notes, which
“have been prepared by Ministry of Justice in order to assist the reader”—
in this case, myself. If we look at the Explanatory Notes, we are reminded that, in the case of a private prosecution, it is provided by the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 that there will be “reasonably sufficient” compensation to the prosecutor as required. The Legal Aid Agency monitors this matter, and it employs the Senior Courts Cost Office guidelines for solicitors in respect of such costs. Those particular costs have been the subject of review by the Master of the Rolls, pursuant to a recommendation from the Civil Justice Council, so that in 2021 those rates were increased for the first time in 11 years. There is now a provision for them to be reviewed annually in line with the services producer price index.
Consequently, those reasonable rates of remuneration are now about five times higher than the criminal legal aid rates. That has nothing to do with the reasonableness of remuneration for those undertaking private prosecution; it has everything to do with the poverty of the criminal legal aid rates that are in place at the present time. You do not encourage the very formidable burden of private prosecution by trying to bring down a reasonable level of remuneration to what is, frankly, a poverty level of remuneration that has had, and continues to have, a very significant impact on the prosecution of criminal offences in our courts. It is not just physical buildings; you have to invest in people as well as property. We have failed singularly to invest in people, and that has to be improved. I would rather see a victims provision that said we are going to pay a reasonable rate to those undertaking criminal prosecution, so that we can get adequate prosecutors and so that we can get adequate defence counsel, than to say that, in order to try to remove this embarrassing disparity, we will try to impoverish those who take up the burden of private prosecution.
Of course, the Minister said this will have no chilling effect on private prosecutions. I merely raise the question: where is the impact assessment? Perhaps we will hear in due course.
I move on to Clauses 13 and 14, which deal with sentencing reviews. With regard to unduly lenient sentencing, a number of noble Lords have observed that there is a need for transcripts to be available to victims in order that they can understand how a sentence was arrived at and, if necessary, make a request to the law officers that a ULS review should be carried out. In that context, I have no difficulty with the suggestion that the Attorney-General should have 14 days from the time of the request in order to deal with that matter. But, while I accept that the unduly lenient sentence mechanism is not an appeal mechanism for victims, it is a means by which victims can make a request of the law officers, and they have to be given a reasonable period of time to do that. I acknowledge the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that, for that to be effective, there has to be a more realistic time limit available.
I turn briefly to matters which we say should properly be in the Bill but are not yet there, although I look forward to their introduction in due course, possibly at the instigation of the Minister herself.
First, there are no provisions to address the courts backlog. Let us be clear that, without any doubt, that is the greatest barrier to victims achieving justice, disposal and closure. We know that there are many Crown courtrooms that are not sitting on a single day, indicating that there is at least the property capacity to deal with it. I equally acknowledge the need for not just property but personnel. It would be good to see that fundamental problem addressed in the Bill as well. I also note that, where offers of additional court sitting days have been made by the Lady Chief Justice, they have not been fully taken up by the Government. It would be helpful to know why not, given the enormous backlog that we face at the present time.
Secondly, there is no real provision for increased transparency. Again, we come back to the issue of court transcripts. It appears to us that there is at least perhaps a halfway house: I appreciate that, very often, the Government will come up with the cost implications of transcripts as well as the time implications, but surely there is scope for a mechanism whereby, if victims request a transcript of sentencing remarks, the court should be able to request that transcript as soon as the request is made. It would not be in every case, by any means, and it would curtail both costs and delay.
The third area, touched on in the other place, is data on who actually commits crimes. The Bill contains no provision that mandates the collection and publication of data on offenders’ visa status, asylum status or related immigration information. That is important from the point of view of public perception and victims’ perception. To what extent is crime going to be committed by those who have come into this country unlawfully, for example? You have to satisfy public concern on that issue, and the appropriate way to do that is by collecting the appropriate data.
There is then the question of the need to recoup outstanding fines. I understand that at the present time there is something in the region of £1 billion in outstanding fines, and recovering that could only help the Ministry of Justice in its improvement of courts services and of legal aid rates, surely. But the scale of unpaid fines is “truly astounding”. Those are not my words: I am quoting the London Victims’ Commissioner. Surely some further steps need to be taken in that regard.
That question of fines then comes to the issue of overseas corruption, which was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. I listened with interest to the point he made, and has previously made, about the need to ensure compensation for the countries that are the victims of corruption. I look forward to considering the amendments which he has made it clear he intends to bring forward in that regard.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, mentioned the possible concern that the issue of jury trials would be dropped into the Committee’s amendments. My understanding is that, as a matter of precedent, that never, ever happens, and what happens is that, if someone wishes to see an amendment, they indicate that they will bring it back on Report. In any event, I do not anticipate that the premature and perhaps ill-thought-out proposals that have emanated from the Ministry of Justice on the limitations to jury trial will come before the House any time soon—but, if they do, I have no doubt they will meet with the most robust response.
Before closing, I thank the Minister for the clarity with which she presented the Bill. I look forward to further engagement with her on its terms.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I thank your Lordships for the helpful and constructive approach taken to the Bill—and I really mean it when I say that. Many of those who have spoken this evening have enormous expertise in this area and the contributions are very welcome. Many of the points made have given us food for thought and we will reflect on them. I hope to answer most of the matters raised but, if I do not, I will write to the noble Lord in question.
I hope that I shall be forgiven if I single out one of your Lordships for the matters he raised—the noble Lord, Lord Bailey. He spoke very movingly in reminding us about the disproportionate effect of criminal offences on poorer communities. It is good to be reminded of that, and also of how important it is that there is clarity for citizens. I am often acutely aware that sometimes when I am trying to explain one of the provisions in a piece of legislation, even to those in this House with the enormous expertise they have, I do not explain it very well. It was a very well-made point and one that I shall take away.
I will deal first with non-attendance at sentencing hearings, which was spoken to by many of your Lordships, including the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Meston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. My noble friend Lady Griffin of Princethorpe, who I thank for her kind words, asked whether the power to add additional custodial sentences would have an impact on the issue of prison capacity. We envisage that any impact would not be immediate, because any additional time in custody would be served at the end of the offender’s existing sentence. We estimate that the measure would result in five additional prison places, at a steady state around 12 years after implementation.
Also, my noble friend Lord Ponsonby spoke about balance and proportionality in requiring defendants to attend their sentencing hearing. We agree with that because, although we are doing our best to compel defendants to attend, if they do attend, we cannot compel them either to behave properly or, indeed, to experience or express contrition for what they have done. For some victims, a defendant who turns up and laughs or is disrespectful or shouts discourteous things can add to a victim’s problems. So, we need to make sure that we strike the balance between forcing them to attend and ensuring that there is no bad behaviour that will simply make things worse for victims.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, among others, raised the question of risk to those who are dealing with the question of reasonable force. Let me make it clear that it is not police officers. It will be prison staff and PECS —Prison Escort and Custody Services—staff. They already have training and experience in dealing with the question of reasonable force when it comes to getting offenders to court. It will be their assessment that counts. It will not be the judge who decides what kind of force will be used, or whether it will be used: it will be down to the assessment of the staff as to what the risk is. We have made it absolutely clear that we do not expect any additional risk to staff. That is not the purpose of the exercise. This is why it has to be proportionate. We are certainly not binding and gagging defendants to bring them to court. That would not be appropriate and we are not turning this into some kind of sideshow, which was the expression that somebody used.
Turning to the automatic restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility mentioned by numerous noble Lords, I make the point in response to my noble friend Lord Hacking that parental responsibility is not the same as parental involvement. The removal of parental responsibility does not mean that those parents will never see those children again. That would be a matter for the family courts to decide. What it does mean is that, for example, a defendant who is serving a very long sentence of imprisonment cannot simply interfere with questions such as which school the child will go to, and so on and so forth.
I thank noble Lords for the broad welcome given to these provisions. A number of points were made, including by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, about the Explanatory Notes. I am sorry about that. We will check that we have got them right by Report.
On the question of four years, a number of noble Lords made the observation about a line having to be drawn somewhere. These are new and radical provisions, and we want to balance the seriousness of an automatic restriction with the seriousness of the crime and the impact it will have on the child. We made the assessment that, as this was not a decision to be taken lightly, it should be done only in tightly restricted circumstances, and four years seems to us to strike the correct balance regarding the seriousness of the offence. The other issue is that we want to make sure that the system is not overwhelmed by the number of cases. However, these are certainly matters upon which we can reflect.
A number of noble Lords raised interim orders. My immediate response is that they would pose difficulties for the Crown Court. First, what is the evidence upon which it would act? Secondly, they would drag the Crown Court into decisions that are properly those of the family court. However, we can certainly reflect on this matter, and we will be happy to discuss it with as many noble Lords as wish to do so.
I am grateful to those who broadly welcomed the non-disclosure agreements. I was asked where these differ from those brought in under Section 17 of the Victims and Prisoners Act, which came into force on 1 October. The new measures go further. Basically, they mean that those subject to a non-disclosure agreement can speak to anyone, not simply to categories of individuals. The most important thing is that this aligns with and complements the legislation in the Employment Rights Bill. That is the purpose of it.
On strengthening the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti asked whether the commissioner would be able to intervene in individual cases. That is not anticipated at present because really that is the function of the Crown Prosecution Service; if there are points of law to be made on behalf of victims, that is part of the function of the CPS. Again, though, we can reflect on this question, and if she would like to meet me to discuss this, she would be welcome to do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, spoke about never expecting to be a victim. As the noble Baroness was saying that, I reflected that of course that was the experience of the late Baroness Newlove; she never expected to be a victim but the events of one evening meant that she was propelled into a situation that she had never envisaged at all. However, when it comes to the idea that victims do not get a lot of attention, there are a number of Bills going through both Houses of Parliament that deal with law and order, so I suggest that this Government are giving a lot of attention to the question of victims.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that victims used to be seen simply as a special category of witness. In fact, he and I are both probably old enough to remember a time when prosecuting advocates were not even allowed to go and introduce themselves to the victim of a crime, far less explain anything about what was going on. I am happy to say that that is not the situation any longer. Successive Governments, and I pay tribute to all those involved, have sought to put this right, and I pay tribute to the party opposite for the part it has played in ensuring that victims have been brought more centrally into the system.
As far as Operation Soteria is concerned, which the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, mentioned, many of its provisions are being taken further. We announced recently that we are going to firm up the rules of evidence about what victims can be asked regarding their previous sexual experience and so forth.
I turn to the victim contact scheme in Schedule 2. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, complained how long Schedule 2 was. I was going to say that the reason is that it tidies up a load of other provisions but then the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, made that point for me.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised support for victims, and that was echoed by a number of noble Lords, including, in her customary passionate fashion, the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. We will reflect on this point. I issue an invitation to any Members of your Lordships’ House who would like to discuss any proposed amendments with me. I will be happy to do so and see where we can work together to ensure that there is appropriate provision to be made for victims.
On Crown prosecutors, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby for raising the point that CILEX members tend to be more diverse than barristers and solicitors. I deliberately did not make that point because that is not the primary objective; it is a happy side effect. I make it absolutely clear that this will not reduce standards. I invite noble Lords to reflect on their comments that suggest that CILEX lawyers are somehow less good than barristers or solicitors. They simply qualify via a different route. I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, shaking his head and remind him that people used to say that solicitors were inferior to barristers; I do not think anybody is going to say that any more.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Gove, did not say it now, but in the past that used to be said. We have moved on.
Lord Gove (Con)
There is absolutely no doubt, when it comes to the exercise of the prosecutorial or the defence function in court, that someone who has served at the criminal Bar will provide a higher level of service in the most sensitive and most important cases. A misplaced respect for the role that solicitor advocates can play and have played should not take away from the fact that the criminal Bar is under siege. It is losing members. It needs support and it is vital that we recognise that, without a healthy criminal Bar, not just prosecution and defence but the future of the judiciary are threatened.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I have tried very hard to keep this non-partisan, but I have to say very gently to the noble Lord that it is a bit rich to hear from a member of the party opposite about what has happened to the criminal Bar, when pretty much everybody who was working there at the time—that includes me—knows it was the considerable cuts made to legal aid under the previous Administration that put the criminal Bar into the parlous state it is now in. But I say no more about that contentious subject, because this is not an opportunity for us to fall out. The noble Lord and I can debate the respective merits of barristers, solicitors and CILEX lawyers in due course.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti about the importance of private prosecutions and entirely understand her concerns. I hope she is aware that the Government intend to look at some of the issues, for example, that surround disclosure in private prosecutions. We all know the cases to which I refer. She said she has reservations about corporate private prosecutions. I was about to say something, then the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, rather made the point for me that some very important commercial organisations have brought private prosecutions in relation to quite big frauds—sometimes very big frauds indeed. Economic crime is one of the scourges of our society. The investigation and prosecution of those crimes consumes a huge amount of public resource. The Government are certainly of the view that there is a place for private prosecution to help to ensure that economic crime is prosecuted successfully.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, drew my attention to the Explanatory Notes—again—as did the noble Lord, Lord Meston. If we have got them wrong, we will correct them by Report.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
I was not suggesting for a moment that the Explanatory Notes are wrong; they just happen to contradict the Minister.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I would, of course, always say that I am right, would I not? In that sense, they are wrong.
The noble and learned Lord made the point about needing to invest in people. I will give another gentle reminder about who was in power for the past 14 years.
Turning to the question of the unduly lenient scheme, I entirely agree with noble Lords that there is no point in having a right that nobody knows they have, and we plainly are not getting this right in terms of information. It needs to be more broadly known about. The question of whether 28 days is the appropriate period is one to which the Government are giving urgent consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, said that it should be made the same as for defendants. It is: they have 28 days. That is where the period came from: there is parity between the two. But that does not necessarily mean it must remain.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
As the noble Baroness knows, the period for appeal is extendable in certain circumstances. That is quite an important provision.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
That is very rare. If you appeal out of time, you have pretty much had it. You need to have a really good reason to do so. I now turn to—
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
It would be my pleasure to hear from both my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My noble friend is very gracious, but I fear there is a new trend which is not the practice of your Lordships’ House: to have an extended back and forth at Second Reading. I know this may be the practice of another place not far from here but, with all due respect to noble Lords and to my noble friend with her good humour and fortitude, I am not sure that that is something that we should innovate this evening.
Lord Garnier (Con)
I was only going to support the Minister. One of the differences between an appeal by a defendant in a criminal matter and the unduly lenient sentencing system is that anybody can write to the law officers to complain that a sentence is unduly lenient. Many of the people that the Minister and I may have dealt with in the past wrote in having read an article in a newspaper saying that a particular defendant had been given what they thought was a lenient sentence. Nobody does that to appeal a criminal sentence as a defendant.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
Turning to what is not in the Bill, I of course recall that the Crime and Policing Bill—the Ministry of Justice has some of the clauses in relation to that—has been extensively criticised for being too long. This Bill is now being criticised for being too short—so there is a slight sense of being criticised whichever way we do it.
I will deal with some of the matters that were raised in relation to this. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked whether we intend to bring in the sections in the Victims and Prisoners Act dealing with definitions. I hope that I may write to her in relation to that, because some parts have been implemented and some others are planned to be implemented. I do not want to give her an answer that might turn out not to be entirely accurate.
On the question of homicide abroad, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, we are conscious of this being an issue. As I am sure the noble Baroness knows, we are working on a code to give assistance to families abroad. The question of whether the victims’ code is going to apply is difficult, because many of the provisions in the victims’ code deal only with cases that can be prosecuted in this country and therefore would not apply. Again, it is a matter that we are considering and reflecting on and we will be very happy to engage with her and other noble Lords in relation to that.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, raised the question of compensation for economic crimes abroad, such as corruption. I entirely agree with him about the importance of not forgetting about the effect of these cases on other countries. In the circumstances, it might be best for me to suggest that we meet to discuss it, because it is an important matter to which I would like to give some serious thought.
Transcripts were raised by many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks. Transparency is really important to the Government. That is one of the reasons we are now going to make the magistrates’ court a court of record: there will be recordings of all proceedings in order to shine a light on what is happening. If you are recording something, obviously your intention is that at some point it may need to be turned into a transcript. I am old enough to remember the days of the shorthand writer in court. The transcript used to be phenomenally expensive, because you had somebody sitting there typing it out and then it had to be ordered and checked. We are hopeful that artificial intelligence is going to help by bringing down the cost of transcripts: we are all familiar with dictating to our computers these days, so the costs may be in checking rather than actually transcribing.
In the meantime, as far as the victims of rape and serious sexual offences are concerned, the transcripts of those sentencing remarks are free to victims in those cases. We conducted a pilot and, following that, those transcripts will be available free of charge to victims.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, raised the question of victim personal statements, and said that there are anxieties about censorship. This is a tricky one, because as the noble Lord will know, sometimes victims misunderstand the purpose of a victim personal statement and do not quite understand why they cannot include a number of things in it. Again, this is important to us. No victim should feel that their words have been censored. They should be able to say what they want to say—we are going to think about that one.
I turn finally to the issue of backlog and delay. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti raised the question of a rumour about what is to happen to the proposals in the review conducted by Sir Brian Leveson. I think that it could be seen from the expression on my face that it was the first time I had heard of that rumour. Our intention is that proper consideration be given to the important matter of how we deal with the backlog and delay. Speaking for myself, I want to persuade people and take them with us where we can do so. These matters are to be discussed, and I hope that people will listen to each other. Nobody thinks that the status quo is acceptable; the question is how we deal with it. The Government are proposing a package of measures, one aspect of which, as noble Lords know, is the suggestion of slightly moving the line, as other Governments have in the past. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not engage in this and debate it today. I am absolutely confident that there will be other opportunities to do so.
This Bill will help strengthen our justice system. It used to be, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, that victims were treated as mere witnesses and had very little by way of rights. That is no longer the case. This Bill continues the journey of putting them where they should be, at the heart of the justice system. I beg to move.
Baroness Levitt
That the bill be committed to a Grand Committee, and that it be an instruction to the Grand Committee that they consider the bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 3, Schedule 1, Clauses 4 to 7, Schedule 2, Clauses 8 to 18, Title.