Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)
Happy Christmas to one and all here, and to all our constituents and loved ones.
I am very proud that this Labour Government are putting the biggest ever investment into research and development, including a record £38.6 billion for UK Research and Innovation. Alongside continuing to support curiosity-led research, the funding will for the first time focus on key Government priorities, including the eight sectors of our modern industrial strategy. We back our brilliant scientists, researchers, innovators and manufacturers to boost jobs and growth in every part of the country.
Andy McDonald
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. Can I take this opportunity to welcome the passage of the Employment Rights Bill through the Lords? It will deliver the greatest uplift in workers’ rights in a generation.
Less than two weeks ago, I took part in a steel signing ceremony at the new NETA engineering training centre in Thornaby in my constituency, following the opening of Middlesbrough college’s new TTE centre, and all dovetailing with Teesside University’s Net Zero Industry Innovation Centre. With all those new facilities, does the Secretary of State agree that Middlesbrough and Thornaby East is helping to lead the delivery of the UK’s modern industrial strategy, and will she take the opportunity to visit some of our fantastic new industrial and digital facilities on Teesside?
Liz Kendall
I absolutely agree that Middlesbrough and Thornaby East is leading the way in delivering our modern industrial strategy, creating more good jobs that pay a decent wage and building the future economy that our country needs. I would be delighted to see more of that excellent work, and I believe that my office has already been in contact with my hon. Friend’s office to arrange it. This Government are backing manufacturers, including by putting in £800 million for advanced technical education to equip young people with engineering and manufacturing skills in clean energy, artificial intelligence and advanced manufacturing.
Adam Thompson
I thank the Secretary of State for her answers. I used to be one of those research scientists. I worked in metrology for advanced manufacturing, so I am glad that the Government have identified advanced manufacturing as one of the eight sectors with the greatest growth potential.
From the Victorian gentlemen scientists who redefined the way we see our universe to the women driving the fourth industrial revolution, the British have always been able to make the best things. How is the Secretary of State supporting novel technologies through the technology readiness scale to maximise growth for small and medium-sized enterprises in Erewash, such as Atlas Composite Technologies, Status Metrology and R. A. Labone?
Liz Kendall
I am very proud that my hon. Friend sits on the Government Benches, with all his experience in this critical area. As part of our backing for research and development, we are doubling R&D investment in critical technologies such as engineering biology, AI and quantum, with R&D investment in AI alone growing from £600 million to £1.6 billion. Today—in a mere 20 minutes, I believe—UKRI will publish the level of direct support to be given to each of the industrial strategy sectors, and that includes the support we are providing to our vital small businesses. Backing the UK’s leading strength in these areas and backing our world-leading scientists and researchers is the only route to better growth and more opportunities in Erewash and right across the country.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Speaker—what a lovely birthday present.
Last week I met my constituent Kevin, the programme lead for TESTBED Dorset. He told me that although life sciences is one of the key sectors in the modern industrial strategy, none of the seven projects is in the south-west, and there is not a single reference to Dorset. The living science park will create a vast area for academic research based in our landscapes, supported by landowners, universities from Bournemouth, Bristol and Southampton, the National Trust and Natural England, focused on a “one health” approach. Will the Secretary of State meet me and those lead organisations to hear more about the programme and consider it for the future?
Liz Kendall
I also wish the hon. Lady a happy birthday. I am happy for either me or Patrick Vallance—the life sciences Minister in the other place—to meet her and her colleagues. Later today, UKRI will set out future funding for the eight areas of our industrial strategy, which it—and I—will want to ensure is spread fairly across the country. I am more than happy to discuss that with her further.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Secretary of State will know that in my constituency we have an advanced manufacturing cluster and proudly boast over 5,000 high-skilled jobs in defence, maritime and aerospace. She will understand that last week Boeing concluded its deal to become the successor owner of Short Brothers. Will she confirm that the Government will continue to support advanced manufacturing in my constituency, whether it be with Boeing, Airbus, Thales or Harland & Wolff?
Liz Kendall
Yes, I absolutely reaffirm that commitment. The right hon. Member will know that we are increasing our defence spending, and alongside that is the work we are doing in our Department. The defence sector is critical for jobs and backing the research and development that will lead to further demand and further innovation. I really hope that next year I may be able to visit Northern Ireland, and I would very much like to see what is happening in his constituency.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
Online content depicting or promoting animal torture is horrific and—let me be clear—unacceptable. Under the Online Safety Act 2023, animal cruelty is a priority offence, which needs proactive steps from platforms to counter it. We will keep the pressure on to enforce that.
Johanna Baxter
Earlier this year, two teenagers were prosecuted for the torture and killing of kittens in a public park. A BBC investigation has since uncovered a disturbing international network sharing videos of extreme cruelty to cats and kittens, and users here in the UK and those prosecuted have been found to be in possession of that material. Online animal abuse is not a harmless niche; it is a recognised warning sign for escalating violence, including serious crimes against women and girls. I am pleased that the Prime Minister’s Christmas card promotes kindness towards animals. Will my hon. Friend outline what further work his Department is doing to ensure that we address harmful content?
Kanishka Narayan
May I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend—and indeed her cats Clement Cattlee and Mo Meowlam—for being right at the vanguard of campaigning on this serious issue. Animal cruelty is a priority offence in the law, as I mentioned, and Ofcom must enforce it and platforms must act on it. The Government will keep the pressure on, as we have done in our engagements with the platforms, to ensure that our cats—our animals—are safe from cruelty.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Can the Government do more to ensure proactive detection of this vile material, such as by using artificial intelligence tools and human moderators with specialist training in animal cruelty, so that such content is swiftly identified and removed, and put robust measures in place to prevent it from reappearing online?
Kanishka Narayan
I thank the hon. Member for an apt question on this theme. As I mentioned, animal cruelty is a priority offence under the law. Platforms must take proactive steps, including to assess risk before it pertains and to remove content where it clearly falls foul of the law. The Government will keep making sure that enforcement through the regulator and via platforms continues at pace.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
Online harassment has no place in our society. Under the Online Safety Act, platforms must take steps to remove illegal content. These duties apply to abuse, to harassment, to threats and hate crimes, and to disinformation and misinformation that amounts to illegal content. What is more, the Government have already written to Ofcom to accelerate the final phase of implementation of the Online Safety Act. We will continue to ensure that we are empowering users against harassment.
Sarah Smith
The family of my constituent Jay Slater, who tragically lost his life last summer, have been subject to the most horrendous harassment and misinformation online while grieving their son. Sadly, it does not appear to be an isolated case, and there is evidence of the same content creators targeting multiple victims through tragedy trolling. Will the Minister agree to meet victims to explore how we can tackle this horrific abuse and give families the space they should have to grieve in peace?
Kanishka Narayan
I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to Debbie, the mother of Jay Slater, who has had to deal not just with the tragedy of her son’s death, but with all the subsequent harassment that she, family and friends have experienced. After I met my hon. Friend and Debbie, I raised the issue with the platforms. I know that the Secretary of State will meet bereaved families in the new year as well. I am keen to continue our engagement to make sure that we support victims and work hard to ensure that no other bereaved families face what Debbie and Jay’s family have had to face.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
Online harm and harassment amplifies real-world violence. In West Dorset, 14-year-old Isabella was brutally attacked, but the lasting trauma came from the assault being deliberately filmed and circulated online and in group chats in schools across the local area. It was designed deliberately to humiliate her and led to her being further harassed online and in person. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that online safety measures properly address the sharing of real-world violent content that retraumatises victims and leads to further harassment?
Kanishka Narayan
I thank the hon. Member for raising a very important point. The Online Safety Act 2023 already focuses on areas of illegal content, in particular to keep young people safe under the child safety duties. If there are particular instances that the hon. Member wishes to write to me about, I will be happy to raise them. Notwithstanding the fact that Ofcom continues to be the regulator, we are keeping the pressure on both Ofcom and platforms to act robustly.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I join colleagues in wishing you and everyone a merry Christmas, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) a happy birthday.
Alongside online harassment, online fraud is also on the rise. Nobody wants a broken heart for Christmas, and online romance fraud is not only ruining lives but emptying bank accounts. Liberal Democrat analysis has shown that romance fraud has more than tripled in the last decade, but the Government’s fraud strategy has been delayed and Labour’s proposals in opposition, which looked at ensuring that there was joint financial responsibility to victims for social media giants, has now vanished. Does the Minister agree that those online social media giants must do more to tackle the scams and also agree with Liberal Democrat calls that they be financially responsible for the fraud that takes place on their platforms?
Kanishka Narayan
While love might be in the air at this festive moment, we want to make sure that it is financially responsible. In that spirit, therefore, I will continue to engage with both the regulator and platforms to ensure that the existing provisions of the Online Safety Act are robustly enforced when it comes to online fraud and scams, which so many of us experience both directly and indirectly through our constituents.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his fantastic event in Parliament last week on this subject. I am delighted that Queen’s University Belfast is benefiting from £5 million in funding from the programme, which is part of a £13 million wider package from this Government to support making UK supply chains more resilient. The Government are investing a record £86 billion over the spending review period, which is the largest ever investment in research and development, and Ministers regularly discuss a range of issues with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that those programmes align with wider Government priorities on economic resilience and innovation.
Robin Swann
The Minister mentioned our investment event held last week, where I and the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) hosted Antrim and Newtownabbey borough council for its first Westminster economic investment showcase. How do the Government expect that UK Research and Innovation-funded supply chain research will align with city deal investments, such as the Advanced Manufacturing Innovation Centre—AMIC—in my constituency?
Ian Murray
I think the hon. Gentleman acknowledges in his question the amount of funding that is going into the area that he represents and the wider Northern Ireland communities. UKRI plays a key role in strengthening supply chains, supporting regional innovation hubs and aligning research with local economic development goals. This Government’s funding rounds highlight partnership opportunities, including with the Advanced Manufacturing Innovation Centre that he has mentioned, where projects can complement those facilities, boosting regional innovation and productivity. That builds on initiatives such as the local innovation partnership funding, which empowers local leaders to target research and development investment and unleash the full potential of innovation in his and the wider Northern Ireland region.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
This afternoon, UKRI will publish its detailed funding allocations for programmes such as ReImagining Supply Chains. Does the Minister agree with the Office for Budget Responsibility that the bursting of the AI bubble presents a significant downside risk to the UK economy? What steps are his Department and UKRI taking to protect their investment in innovative companies that would undoubtedly be affected by an AI market correction?
Ian Murray
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her question. Of course, technological advancement in AI is going to change the way that the Government work, and the way that all of us work, but the key thing about the publication of UK Research and Innovation’s document this afternoon is that it is implementing a record £86 billion-worth of investment over the spending review period—the largest ever investment in research and development. We have to trust UKRI and this Government to put that money into the places that will benefit the country most, and that means more jobs in more communities all over the country.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)
This Government are determined to ensure that young people can seize the opportunities that AI brings. That is why we are giving 1 million secondary school pupils skills in tech and AI as part of our TechFirst skills programme. It is why we are replacing the currently over-narrow computer science GCSE and exploring a new qualification in data science and AI for 16 to 18-year-olds, so that we can tear down the barriers to success and give young people the chances and choices they deserve to get the jobs of the future.
Tony Vaughan
Research commissioned by DSIT estimates that by 2035 approximately 10 million UK workers will be in jobs where AI will be part of their responsibilities. PwC estimates that 18% of existing UK jobs face a high probability of automation by 2035, so what steps are the Government taking to ensure that young people in my constituency are well prepared for the integration of AI into their daily working lives, so that we can minimise the chances of unemployment in the future?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend has hit on one of the biggest challenges and opportunities we face as a country: how AI is going to transform how we live, earn and learn. We must prepare not only our young people but the entire workforce for the changes that AI inevitably brings. That is why, alongside the changes I have already outlined for young people, we will upskill 7.5 million workers in AI skills over the course of the next five years, so that people in every part of our country and all walks of life can shape their own future, not just be shaped by it.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Science and technology skills are vital if we are to fully realise the economic and social opportunities available to us, and I am sure the Secretary of State would agree that science centres are a vital part of that ecosystem in engaging and enthusing young people in science, technology, engineering and maths—STEM—learning. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government’s funding of science centres has to date, as described by the sector, been piecemeal? Will she take action in support of the Science Centres for Our Future campaign and get science centres into sustainable and predictable funding arrangements?
Liz Kendall
I do not agree that this Government’s approach to supporting STEM has been piecemeal. As I have said, we have announced the biggest investment into research and development by any Government ever. As part of that, alongside supporting curiosity-led research, we are for the first time directing taxpayers’ money towards key Government priorities and key British strengths, including in STEM courses. I want to make sure that everyone in this country has those opportunities, but I am more than happy to discuss with the hon. Gentleman what more he thinks we could be doing.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and Cabinet Office Ministers are working closely to deliver the new digital ID scheme. The scheme will be inclusive, secure and effective. It will give the public more control over their data than they have now, and it will make public services easier to access. A major inclusion programme, backed by £11.7 million, will support those at risk of digital exclusion, ensuring that the system is accessible and secure for all as we modernise our public services.
Alison Griffiths
A very happy Christmas to you, Mr Speaker. More than 5,300 of my constituents have signed a petition opposing digital ID, alongside nearly 3 million people nationally. In my own local survey, two thirds opposed it outright. Digital ID did not appear anywhere in Labour’s manifesto. The Government have no mandate for it and no consent from the public, so when will the Minister explain to the House on what democratic basis the Government believe they are entitled to enact their nationwide digital ID plan?
Ian Murray
Modernising government was at the heart of our manifesto, and the Government are proposing this national digital ID scheme to modernise our public services, improve security and streamline right-to-work checks. Since we introduced the digital veterans card, it has been downloaded 11,000 times, and 260,000 people have already downloaded the gov.uk app and 13.2 million people have started to use One Login as part of the gov.uk service. In the new year, a public consultation will be launched, alongside wider engagement, which has already begun, with expert organisations and wider stakeholders. A major digital inclusion programme will also be rolled out alongside that.
Harriet Cross
The parliamentary petition against digital ID has been signed by more than 3 million people, including many in my Gordon and Buchan constituency. It is the fourth most signed petition in history. Why does the Minister think digital ID is so unpopular?
Ian Murray
It is up to the Petitions Committee to schedule those debates, and I am sure the Committee will schedule that debate in Westminster Hall in due course. I can only reiterate that the Government are proposing this national ID scheme to modernise public services, improve security, streamline right-to-work checks and give the public control over their data. I am not quite so sure why the hon. Lady objects to the government modernising. We have analogue government with a digital population, and we live in a new world where the economy is modernising and digitising all the time, and government has to catch up.
Mr Speaker
I didn’t realise you had changed your name to Gareth Snell, Mr Jopp. I know you are due to be called, but I have to take two questions from each side to get the political balance.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
When the Minister rolls out digital ID, will he give serious thought to engaging organisations like conformity assessment bodies and the public libraries network so that those who need the ID can get help at the point of application?
Ian Murray
One of the aspects of digital ID that is under-debated in this House is the fact that those who are furthest away geographically and economically from digital inclusion will benefit the most from it. That is why we are investing millions of pounds into the digital inclusion programme, which has just announced 80 projects, including many in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We have to make sure that the entirety of the public, wherever they are in the country and whichever economic situation they are in, benefit from digital government and better public services.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Digital IDs have the potential to make life much easier for my constituents in Harlow. However, I have constituents who are concerned about data security. What reassurance can the Minister give them that their data will be safe with this new system?
Ian Murray
The data will be safe. It will be a fragmented system, and it will have the highest possible data security standards attached.
Lincoln Jopp
Last night in the Strangers Bar, I bumped into a very influential Labour Back Bencher who told me with great authority that digital ID simply is not going to happen. That is good news, of course, because it is going to 1.8 billion quid we have not got, and it is deeply unpopular in the country. Why does the Secretary of State not give us all an early Christmas present and simply announce that she is ditching the policy today?
Ian Murray
I can merely give the Christmas advice to the hon. Gentleman not to drink in Strangers Bar and listen to people who are in there.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)
This Government are committed to giving women and girls from all walks of life the chances they need to get the jobs and opportunities of the future. Last week, I met British women tech founders in San Francisco, and this week we held the first meeting of our new women in tech taskforce to give opportunities to women to grow our economy and build a better future for Britain.
Zöe Franklin
The Molly Rose Foundation’s latest report makes it clear that bereaved families are deeply concerned that Ofcom has relied on voluntary measures, such as geo-blocking, to deal with pro-suicide forums. Can the Secretary of State explain what steps her Government are taking to ensure Ofcom moves beyond voluntary compliance and uses its full Online Safety Act 2023 powers to require the removal or blocking of suicide-promoting content?
Liz Kendall
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. This is a serious issue, and we need to make swifter and stronger progress on it. I regularly meet Ofcom and its chief executive; indeed, I did so yesterday. I want to make sure that we do not have the delays and that we have stronger action, and this is a point I will be bringing up in future.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Minister for Digital Government and Data (Ian Murray)
Space is fundamental to many civil and defence requirements. It is vital that we collaborate closely across Government and with our allies. Just last month, the European Space Agency Council of Ministers committed £1.7 billion of funding focused on just that: growth and national security.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Ministers are making very big claims about the pharmaceuticals deal with America, to make up for the billions lost in life sciences investment under Labour. Life sciences firms are telling me that unless the Government reveal what is actually in the deal, those claims are completely hollow. Can the Secretary of State reveal—she could not tell us this two weeks ago—how much the deal is costing the NHS and when she will publish the full legal text, so that we know the details of what the most favoured nation mitigations actually are?
Liz Kendall
I may have to offer the hon. Lady a mince pie because she is talking baubles. This pharmaceutical deal will deliver faster access to new medicines for NHS patients and the security and stability that our world-leading pharmaceutical sector needs, including 0% tariffs on its exports to America for three years. We are also updating the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines for the first time in 20 years. This is a significant deal, which the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry has welcomed. It is a pity that the hon. Lady continues to act like Scrooge.
Julia Lopez
If we are making Christmas jokes, I think this deal is all tinsel and no tree. The problem is that Labour trumpets about these deals and is then completely sketchy about what has actually been agreed—just like the US-UK tech deal: we now find out from President Trump that he has put that deal on ice. Can the Secretary of State confirm that, despite all the golden carriage action in September and the Prime Minister honking on about his negotiating skills, the Prime Minister has actually nailed down none of the key details on pharma, no zero-tariff pact on steel and no deal on tech?
Liz Kendall
We have signed a ground-breaking US-UK tech partnership deal that has delivered over £30 billion of investment to the UK, alongside our biggest ever investment into research and development, with four AI growth zones, delivering 13,000 jobs in north Wales, south Wales, the south-east and the north-east. There is our plan to upskill 7.5 million workers in AI skills and our backing of great British scientists. That is a record that I am proud of; it is a pity that the hon. Lady remains the ghost of Christmas past.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
The antisemitic terror attack on Bondi Beach was sickening. It has had a profound impact around the world, including on Jewish communities here in the United Kingdom. These incidents are not isolated; we think of the appalling attack at Heaton Park earlier this year. These incidents are chillingly focused on some of the holiest days in the Jewish calendar. Over the last few days, I have been in touch with the Community Security Trust, the Home Office and the Chief Rabbi about security for Hanukkah events here in the United Kingdom. Last night, we held a Hanukkah reception in Downing Street, where I reaffirmed our fight against the poison of antisemitism. We will use all our powers to make sure that Jewish communities are safe and secure, as they should be.
Mr Speaker, may I take this opportunity to wish you, all the staff in Parliament, and every Member across the House and their families a very happy Christmas? I have a little festive advice to those in Reform: if mysterious men from the east appear bearing gifts, this time report it to the police.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Melanie Ward
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s condemnation of the horrific attacks in Australia. We must be clear that antisemitic terrorism is always an outrage.
At Christmas time, many across our country will be thinking of Bethlehem, where the situation remains extremely difficult. The Government’s important scheme for students from Gaza with scholarships to study in the UK expires on 31 December, but a number of scholarship holders and their children have not yet been permitted to leave Gaza. If the scheme closes, these brilliant Palestinians will lose their university places and we will lose their talent. Will the Prime Minister extend the UK’s existing scheme into next year to prevent that from happening?
The Prime Minister
I know that Gazan students face huge challenges in taking up their places, and we are considering solutions for those yet to arrive. Let me be clear: I want them to be able to take up their places and continue their education in the United Kingdom. I am proud that we have also created a medical evacuation scheme for children from Gaza, and last week I met some of those who have been brought to the United Kingdom for specialist treatment in the NHS. We continue to focus on aid into Gaza, and I will make sure that my hon. Friend is kept updated on the next steps for students.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for his words on antisemitism. What happened at Bondi Beach was an atrocity, but words of solidarity are not enough. We know the evil we face. Islamic extremism is a threat to western civilisation. It abuses our democracies and subverts our institutions. It is incompatible with British values. It is not enough just to protect Jewish communities—we must drive Islamic extremism out of this country.
I would also like to send my best wishes to our armed forces, the emergency services and everyone who will be working over Christmas. I would like to take this opportunity to wish you, Mr Speaker, the House staff and all Members of this House, including the Prime Minister, a very merry Christmas.
It is the Prime Minister’s second Christmas in Downing Street, and by his own admission he is not in control. He says that nothing happens when he pulls the levers. Does he blame himself or the levers?
The Prime Minister
I will just set out what we have achieved this week. We are setting out our violence against women and girls strategy tomorrow, which will offer specialist support for abuse victims and 999 call experts—
Mr Speaker
Order. Sorry, Prime Minister. Mr Obese-Jecty, I expect better from you, an ex-serving officer. We expect the standards of a good officer.
The Prime Minister
The next lever was 500 jobs protected at Grangemouth, partnering with Ineos to safeguard the plant’s future. The next lever was rejoining the Erasmus scheme from 2027, which will be announced later today. The next lever is the Employment Rights Bill becoming law, with the biggest uplift in workers’ rights in a generation. There is a whole lot more on the list; I could go on for a very long time.
Mrs Badenoch
I am not sure exactly what that had to do with the question. The fact is that the Prime Minister promised economic growth, but the only thing that has grown is his list of broken promises. He promised to reduce unemployment, but yesterday unemployment hit its highest level since the pandemic—it has gone up every single month since he came into office. Why is that?
The Prime Minister
These are the facts: there are 350,000 more people in work this year and we have the lowest inactivity rate for five years. We are taking a number of measures to address unemployment, particularly with the young unemployed. I remind the Conservatives that, under their watch, unemployment averaged 5.4%—higher than it is today.
Mrs Badenoch
I do not know what planet the Prime Minister is living on, but unemployment has gone up every single month under him, youth unemployment is at record levels, and graduate recruitment is at its lowest ever. He promised that he would not increase taxes on working people, but he has. Last year he increased national insurance and last month he froze income tax thresholds, so will the Prime Minister finally be honest and admit that he broke his promise on tax?
The Prime Minister
I am very proud that at the Budget, we had record investment into our public services, we stabilised the economy and we bore down on the cost of living. The Conservatives voted against all those measures, but it is the season of good will, so let me congratulate the Leader of the Opposition, because she has broken her own record since last week. Last week, 21 former Tory MPs had walked away to Reform; this week the number has gone to 22, as the former vice-chair has now gone. The question is, who’s next? It is hard to name anyone because, according to the shadow Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), the shadow Cabinet is full of “non-entities”—that’s you lot. He should know.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister is talking about non-entities. Has he looked at his Cabinet? They are a bunch of turkeys; they could fit right in at a Bernard Matthews factory. He is one to talk. Last week, his MPs were calling him a “caretaker Prime Minister”; after what he has done to the economy, they should be calling him the undertaker Prime Minister.
Let us look at what else the Prime Minister has promised. He gave his word that he would help pubs, yet they face a 15% rise in business rates because of his Budget. Will he be honest and admit that his taxes are forcing pubs to close?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady knows very well that the temporary relief put in place during covid has come to an end. That was the scheme that the Conservatives put in place; we supported it, but it was always a temporary scheme coming to an end. We have now put in place a £4 billion transitional relief. We have also taken other measures, creating hospitality zones and greater licensing freedoms, and tackling late payments. We are also bearing down on the cost of living so that more people can enjoy a drink or a meal out. Freezing rail fares, freezing prescription charges, £150 off energy bills, driving wages up: what did the Conservatives do in relation to each of those? They voted against each and every one of those measures.
Mrs Badenoch
What pubs has the Prime Minister been speaking to? Labour Members have been barred from all of them! [Interruption.] I do not know why Labour Members are shaking their heads; it is not my fault that they have nowhere to drown their sorrows.
Let us look at another broken promise. The Prime Minister promised to end the doctors’ strike. He gave the doctors a 28.9% pay rise. What did he get in return? This morning, they have gone back on strike for the third time, in the middle of winter—in the middle of the worst flu crisis in years. This should not be allowed. We already ban strikes by the police and the Army, so why does he not put patients first, show some backbone and ban doctors’ strikes?
The Prime Minister
Let me be clear about the strikes: they are dangerous and utterly irresponsible. My message to resident doctors is: don’t abandon patients—work with us to improve conditions and rebuild the NHS. The Conservatives left the NHS absolutely on its knees, with waiting lists through the roof and confidence absolutely at rock bottom. I will take no lectures from them on industrial harmony; more days were lost to strike action on their watch than in any year since the 1980s.
Mrs Badenoch
Of course the Prime Minister is not going to ban doctors’ strikes; he does not have the baubles! [Interruption.] Labour Members can shake their heads all they like, but we all know who is running their party, and it is not him. The trade unions did not just buy him for Christmas; they bought him for life. This matters for all those people out there facing a difficult new year.
The Prime Minister has lost control. It is not the levers that do not work; it is him. He is breaking every promise he has made. He promised to bring down unemployment—it is up. He promised that he would not increase taxes—they are up. He promised to end the doctors’ strike—they are on strike, again. He said that his main mission was economic growth, but the economy is shrinking. With a year like that, is it any surprise that all his MPs want for Christmas is a new leader?
The Prime Minister
Mr Speaker, we have “The Muppet Christmas Carol” here. The defections are happening so fast that at Christmas, the Leader of the Opposition is going to be left “Home Alone”. And the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) is clearly dreaming of a “White Christmas”.
We know what the Leader of the Opposition wants for Christmas. Her list to Santa is this: “Dear Santa, please freeze the minimum wage. Please push hundreds of thousands of kids back into poverty and scrap maternity leave.” Merry Christmas from the Tories! What we are bringing is cheaper mortgages, new rights for workers, and lifting half a million people out of poverty. We have achieved more in 14 months than the Tories achieved in 14 miserable years.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I heartily agree with my hon. Friend—British families have shown incredible kindness and hospitality. To support Ukrainians in their hour of need, we have been working with our allies on the issue of frozen Russian assets. Today, I can announce that we are issuing a licence to transfer £2.5 billion—funds that have been frozen since 2022—from the sale of Chelsea football club. My message to Abramovich is this. The clock is ticking. Honour the commitment that you made and pay up now. If you do not, we are prepared to go to court so that every penny reaches those whose lives have been torn apart by Putin’s illegal war.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish you, everyone in the House and the whole country, a merry and peaceful Christmas.
I join the Prime Minister in expressing our horror at the appalling antisemitic terror attacks on Bondi Beach on the first day of Hanukkah. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of all those who have been killed and injured in this senseless act of violence, and our thoughts are with the whole Jewish community. I am sure we have all heard British Jews explain how they no longer feel safe in this country. Many of us have friends who volunteer to put on stab vests and stand guard outside their synagogue, and at Heaton Park in October, we saw why. Antisemitism is real, it is poisonous, and we must all work together to stamp it out. The Board of Deputies of British Jews has called for a comprehensive Government strategy to tackle antisemitism. Will the Prime Minister commit to that today and set out what concrete steps he is taking to make sure Jewish people are safe in Britain?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this really important issue. It is important that we take actions that match the words we have expressed in response to these horrific attacks. The actions we have taken so far include increasing the funding for Jewish security up to £28 million. I am pleased to do that, but I am sad to do it—having to pay more money to provide security for people to be at their place of worship and to go to school is a sad thing for this country to have to do. I have ordered a review of protest and hate crime laws to stop protests breeding hatred; we are looking at new police powers to deal with repeated, targeted protests; and we have launched a review and training to tackle antisemitism in the NHS. There are other steps that we are talking to the community about taking, but all those actions have already started.
Ed Davey
I thank the Prime Minister for that answer, and I hope he will look at the proposal from the Board of Deputies. I think we can work across this House to end the scourge of antisemitism.
Turning to the NHS, even before today’s irresponsible strike by the resident doctors, patients were facing a terrible winter crisis. Thousands have been left on trolleys in hospital corridors for hours, with no privacy and no dignity; some have even soiled themselves because there was no response. There have even been tragic cases of people dying on those trolleys and left undiscovered for hours. The expectation is that this could get worse. Will the Prime Minister make ending this crisis his No. 1 priority, through a mass vaccination programme to stop so many people ending up in hospital with this virus and through funding the social care places that people need to leave hospital when they are ready?
The Prime Minister
May I say how unacceptable the conditions that some are enduring in our hospitals are? There is no excuse, and it is our No. 1 priority. On vaccinations, we have had over 17 million patients vaccinated this year. That is an increase on last year, but I want to drive that up again next year, because vaccinations make such a difference both to patients and to staff within the hospitals, and of course we will take action on social care.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Carers are incredibly skilled workers. My sister is one of them, and I am very proud of them and her for their invaluable work. I am pleased that we have increased the carer’s allowance earnings limit by the largest amount since it was introduced, and we are providing £500 million to fund the first ever fair pay agreement through the Employment Rights Bill that was passed yesterday, to ensure that care workers are properly recognised and rewarded.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
It is indeed the season of good will, so with that in mind, I do not intend to ask the Prime Minister about his broken promises on energy bills, the 1,000 jobs being lost in the North sea, or the fact that Peter Mandelson is still a Member of the House of Lords. I will not even ask the Prime Minister about the chaos that is engulfing the Labour party, his Budget or his own leadership. I simply want to wish him a happy Christmas. How does he intend to spend his final one in Downing Street?
The Prime Minister
I am going to get an update from the Chancellor on Grangemouth in just a minute. The right hon. Gentleman is clearly not interested in Grangemouth. I would have thought, on a day like this, that he would want to welcome the £120 million investment into Grangemouth. It is a landmark investment protecting 500 jobs there and hundreds more across Scotland’s supply chain, and he cannot even bring himself to mention it. That is on top of the Typhoon defence jobs in Edinburgh and the shipbuilding jobs on the Clyde. After decades of SNP rule, its Members are totally out of ideas and they cannot even welcome the Grangemouth news. Scotland deserves change next year with Anas Sarwar.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
May I send the condolences of the whole House, I am sure, to Andrew’s family? It is an awful case and every life that is lost to dangerous driving is a tragedy. The range of measures that we are taking to protect young drivers include penalties for driving uninsured and unlicensed, and measures to reduce the risks posed by unroadworthy vehicles. On her constituents being able to have an influence, I would be very happy to set up an appropriate meeting for them.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right to remind us of what was a terrible scandal, and I will ask the Water Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), to meet him and his constituents to discuss it. He and the public are right to be furious that companies are still polluting our seas, lakes and rivers. We have taken action by banning bonuses for bosses in six polluting companies, changing the law so that those who hide sewage spills can be locked up, and issuing almost £30 million in fines to clean up waterways. We are clearing up the mess that the party over there left, like everything else.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Apparently the leader of Reform is in the “lounge”. I know that he likes an early getaway at Christmas to get to his place in France. He lobbied for economic sanctions against his own country when he was in the United States, with no thought for British workers and zero patriotism. The difference is that our US deal secured the best deal for the car industry, providing certainty for the workforce at JLR—and there is more good news for the car industry this week, because Nissan is now building its new electric Leaf in Sunderland. That is the difference that a Labour Government make.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Prime Minister
It is an important sector. At the heart of this challenge is the end of the temporary relief that was introduced during covid. That is why we put in place the transitional measures and invested half a million in a hospitality support scheme to help rural pubs to diversify. On issues such as the cost of living, we have taken a number of measures to make it easier for people to go out and enjoy themselves in pubs, and we will always look at what measures we can put in place to support pubs.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hub means more regular services for up to 15 stations across the region. That is vital, given that the Lichfield-to-Birmingham service was slashed under the previous Government. The construction will create about 13,000 jobs, and we are delivering them as quickly as possible, with Network Rail awarding design contracts this week. We are also freezing rail fares. It is the first time that that has happened in 30 years, and it will save my hon. Friend’s constituents about £90 a year on the commute to Birmingham.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Happy Christmas! I saw that the hon. Member was asking the public to suggest questions for today. I actually put in a bid—I filled it in—but I assume that he missed my question. I said he should ask about the 6,000 well-paid, high-skilled jobs that we have secured in his constituency to build Typhoons, thanks to an £8 billion deal with Turkey. I am disappointed that he did not want to talk about good, well-paid jobs in his constituency that have been secured by this Labour Government.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
It is deeply concerning to hear about the closure of eight Derbyshire care homes by the Reform-led Derbyshire county council. It will be hugely concerning to residents and their families, while we are making £3.7 billion of extra funding available to councils to fund social care. Let me say to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is relaxing in the lounge, that Christmas is a time for forgiveness. It is never too late to apologise to former classmates.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Prime Minister
We had a mandate for change, because we inherited major challenges across the country. If only the hon. Gentleman had done something to solve these problems when he was working in Downing Street. He left a complete mess.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We are replacing a failed settlement system with one that is fair and that recognises contribution. It is right to apply more stringent controls, and we are currently consulting on the right approach. I recognise the huge contribution of those working in our NHS, and we will not change the rules for those who already have settled status.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Jimmy Lai is 78 and is a British citizen. He has already been in prison in Hong Kong for five years, simply for being a journalist. If he receives a further sentence on 12 January, he is likely to die in prison. Will the Prime Minister make it clear that his visit to Beijing can go ahead only if Jimmy Lai is released?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this really important case. As he knows, we continually raise it with our counterparts, and we will continue to do so. I condemn the conviction. Obviously we await the sentence, but it is absolutely clear that Jimmy Lai has been targeted by the authorities. It is wrongful, and I call it out. It is important that we continue to engage, so that we can raise this issue with those counterparts.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this really important issue. The scale of violence and abuse suffered by women and girls is a national emergency, and the violence against women and girls strategy will be published tomorrow, setting out concrete steps to deal with this. We have already taken action to protect victims, including placing domestic abuse specialists in the first five 999 control rooms, and we are launching a new national policing centre to co-ordinate the police response and target these crimes. I will make sure that Ministers look specifically at the issues that he has raised.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), declined a meeting with the representatives of a number of hunger strikers in prison at the present time. These are all remand prisoners; they have not been convicted of anything. Since then, a further prisoner, Qesser, has been taken to hospital, as others have been. Many people are very concerned about the regular breaches of prison conditions and prison rules in respect of these hunger strikers. Will the Prime Minister make arrangements for the Ministry of Justice to meet representatives of the hunger strikers to discuss these breaches of the conditions that they are experiencing?
The Prime Minister
As the right hon. Member will appreciate, there are rules and procedures in place in relation to hunger strikes, and we are following those rules and procedures.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Yes is the simple answer to that question, and our decisions are already holding polluters to account—new severe fines, banning bonuses, and a record 83 criminal investigations have been launched. We have also secured over £100 billion of investment to upgrade infrastructure to deliver better services to constituents.
Several hon. Members rose—
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
On Sunday at Arlington cemetery, I will have the honour of joining the families and friends of many of the victims of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988—the worst terrorist atrocity in the United Kingdom. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that, especially after all these years, those families and friends deserve both truth and justice, and will the United Kingdom Government continue to do all they can to bring about that outcome?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for raising this matter. Nobody could forget the shocking scenes at Lockerbie, and I know the huge impact it has had on the community that he grew up in, where people have responded with such compassion and strength. He has rightly stood by their search for justice and truth through all the intervening years, and I pay tribute to that. All our thoughts remain with the families and friends of all the victims, who deserve truth, and I urge the Scottish authorities to consider the points that he raises.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
You did not ask a question, so I do not know how you can have a point of order.
Mr Speaker
No, you did not ask a question. Maybe if it came from somebody who had asked a question, that would be better.
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate 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
Mr Speaker
We now come to the urgent question on the draft Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025. I remind the House that on 19 November 2024, I granted a waiver from the House’s sub judice resolution in respect of the related case of Dillon and others v. the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. As such, reference may be made to the case during proceedings. I call the shadow Secretary of State to ask his urgent question.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement on the draft Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. This remedial order is a clear signal of the Government’s commitment to legislation that can command support across Northern Ireland. Its purpose is clear: to formally remove some of the provisions in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 that were found by the courts in Dillon to be incompatible with our human rights obligations. Specifically, this means removing the provisions on immunity from prosecution and the bar on troubles-related civil cases. Although the immunity provisions never commenced, it is essential that we formally remove them from the statute book.
It is the Government’s belief that there are compelling reasons for proceeding with this order, and this is a view shared by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which in its report on 9 December agreed that the Government have such reasons and recommended that Parliament approve the order. The Committee stated that
“in these exceptional and unusual circumstances…the Government has sufficiently compelling reasons to proceed by way of remedial order.”
I want to set out what the Government believe those reasons to be. First, we must provide clarity on immunity and remove the bar on civil claims as quickly as possible. This is essential for all involved—victims, survivors and veterans—and is a prerequisite for building trust. Secondly, providing this clarity is vital to enable the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery to continue its work. It is my view that while immunity, a key plank of the 2023 legacy Act, remains on the statute book, it will be difficult for the ICRIR to obtain the confidence of all victims and survivors.
As the JCHR rightly noted, the legacy of the past continues to have a profound and lasting impact, and we know that families and political parties were vehemently opposed to the immunity provisions. While the repeal of immunity is only one aspect of reforming the arrangements put in place by the 2023 Act, I am confident that its repeal will result in a greater confidence for referrals to be made. Given that many individuals are elderly, they cannot keep on waiting. It is the Government’s view that these changes should therefore be made through the remedial order as soon as possible.
The Government have a clear mandate, compelling reasons and a procedural basis which the JCHR has endorsed, and the House will have an opportunity to debate the order in the new year.
Alex Burghart
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, which I have asked because I think there is a very real danger that the Government may be about to break the law. It is very important that the House is aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights was not in possession of all the facts when it wrote its report. [Interruption.]
Last year, the High Court in Belfast found parts of the legacy Act to be incompatible with the European convention on human rights. At the time of the election, the Conservative Government were appealing that highly disputable decision. The incoming Labour Government, for reasons they have never disclosed, chose to drop that appeal, and have subsequently laid a draft remedial order to amend the legislation.
The problem is that earlier this year the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene in the case before the Supreme Court. On 15 October, Lord Wolfson KC, acting for the movement, did just that and made written and oral submissions that the Court is now considering. Consequently, it is entirely possible that the declarations of incompatibility relied on by the Secretary of State to lay the remedial order will be quashed. The case is very much live. That is very important, because under section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 a Government have the authority to use a remedial order only unless and until all appeals in relation to declarations of incompatibility have been “determined or abandoned”. That test is not met.
If the Government decide to push ahead with their remedial order, not only will they be acting ultra vires, but they will be setting a terrible precedent that will mean that future Governments may use remedial orders in ways they were never intended to be used. To avoid that, all the Government need to do is commit to not pushing their remedial order to a vote until the Supreme Court has finally ruled. Will the Secretary of State make that commitment?
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the point he has raised, but the argument he puts is not correct. The appeal was abandoned by the Government in July 2024—he says for reasons that have never been disclosed, but the Government have been absolutely clear from the beginning that we disagree with immunity, and that we are committed to repeal and replace the legacy Act. Section 10 of the Human Rights Act gives a Secretary of State the ability to make a remedial order when a declaration of incompatibility has been made and any appeal
“has been determined or abandoned”.
It has been abandoned by the Government.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the ongoing Supreme Court appeal in Dillon means that the conditions have not been met, and therefore that we might lack the vires to lay the order. I do not agree with his assessment and have made the position clear to him in the correspondence we have had—I think an exchange of two emails and two letters. I can confirm to the House that in July 2024 the Government formally abandoned their appeal concerning the declaration of incompatibility relating to immunity from prosecution. That declaration was not part of the appeal that is now before the Supreme Court, and the fact that the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene does not alter that legal reality.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
Last month, the House debated the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and we heard many moving contributions about the devastating loss experienced by families, including military families, many of whom are still seeking answers. Does the Secretary of State agree that the voices of those the Government’s legislation is for should be at the forefront of our minds when we debate it and every time we debate it?
Hilary Benn
I do agree with my hon. Friend. It seems that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) and the Conservative party remain wedded to immunity. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) says, as he does in all these debates, “Conditional immunity.” I think the last time we debated it, I reminded him that the previous Government’s legislation said that the commission must give immunity—must give immunity—if the conditions for giving immunity are met, which are, quite clearly—[Interruption.] Opposition Members have not reminded themselves of what their legislation said. All that was required was for somebody to come forward and say what they had done, and if what they had done was an offence, the commission must grant them immunity.
I say to those on the Opposition Front Bench that at some point they need to recognise that that provision for immunity for terrorists—because the last Government said, “We wish to give immunity to terrorists”—had no support in Northern Ireland. I am sorry that they do not recognise that. As I have said on many occasions, we cannot make progress in dealing with the problem of legacy when the provision in the current legislation, which we are committed to repealing and replacing, has no support in the place that suffered more than anywhere else during the troubles.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I remind colleagues that if they wish to ask a question, they should be bobbing, and that we should try to reduce chuntering from the Front Benches. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The introduction of a remedial order is welcome and necessary, even if its timing is potentially vexed. The order promises to finally end the policy of conditional immunity that was integral to the 2023 legacy Act—a policy that may have had benign intentions, but that put us at odds with our international legal obligations and regrettably drew a moral equivalence between UK service personnel and terrorist paramilitaries. I note that the second report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, published last week, recommended the order’s approval. However, I note also the Committee’s concern regarding the unusual sequencing and timing of the remedial order, in relation to the forthcoming primary legislation.
Given the overtly political processes that led to the 2023 Act, I suggest there is an additional responsibility on the Government to ensure that this process is handled properly and that the process, as much as the policy, is seen to be fair-handed. There is broad recognition of the need to repeal and replace the 2023 legacy Act, but we also need to acknowledge that the removal of conditional immunity has created real anxiety, particularly among veterans groups, who fear the risk of prosecution.
I particularly welcome the Secretary of State’s letter, circulated yesterday, at annexe A. If I may, I will ask the Secretary of State three things. First of all, to clarify—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. You had exactly one minute and you have gone over. My apologies—I call the Secretary of State.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he says and for his support for what we are seeking to do in the remedial order. I acknowledge the responsibility that the Government have. These are quite unusual circumstances. The reason why we are debating this matter is because the Joint Committee on Human Rights has acknowledged the unusual circumstances and, despite having made other comments in its report, which we will all have read, has come to the conclusion that it gives its approval to the order and recommends that the House support it. I welcome what the Joint Committee on Human Rights has said.
I will point out one other thing. I acknowledge that the Government did take a bit of time between the report on 28 February and producing the revised draft remedial order on 14 October. That was because we listened to the representations that had been made, particularly by the Opposition, on the subject of interim custody orders in respect of sections 46 and 47, and in relation to the Supreme Court judgment in 2020. After reflecting on that, we found what we think is an alternative way of achieving the same objective, which is to be found in clauses 89 and 90 of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which is currently before the House.
I simply point out that the previous Government tried for two and a half years to find a way of dealing with the Supreme Court judgment in the Adams case and were not able to do so, and eventually accepted the amendments moved in the other place, which became sections 46 and 47. It was acknowledging the arguments that had been made that led the Government to amend the remedial order, which we then put before the House on 14 October.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, published our second report on the Northern Ireland remedial order on 9 December. The Standing Orders of both Houses require the JCHR to scrutinise all remedial orders. The Committee concluded that the vires of the order were satisfied and that all statutory requirements were fulfilled. However, the Committee also felt that, under the circumstances, it was appropriate only because the Government gave compelling reasons as to why it would have to come forward in this way, with a Bill progressing through the House and a Supreme Court case ongoing. Does the Secretary of State agree that although the circumstances and the timing are not ideal, this is the best way forward?
Hilary Benn
I do agree. Although the circumstances are unusual, the Government believe we have a compelling case, and the JCHR has agreed with the Government’s assessment.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
A lot of very complex legal arguments have been alluded to today, but I think what concerns the public—and what concerns me—is the state of mind of our veterans, some of them quite elderly, who sought only to serve their country decades ago. The Secretary of State is a very moderate, clever and reasonable person. Given that there is, in reality, no chance of a successful prosecution, and that people would be horrified if there was one, what comfort can the Secretary of State give to our veterans?
Hilary Benn
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we have only to look at the figures to see that the prospect of any prosecution in any case is increasingly remote, because of the passage of time and the difficulty of obtaining evidence. The Government, having listened very carefully to the representations made by veterans, have set out in legislation the protections—this will return to the House when we consider the Bill in Committee—including protection from repeated investigation, the right to stay at home and to seek anonymity, protection in old age, protection from cold calling, and the right to be heard. I hope that when veterans get a chance to see the protections in the legislation and precisely how they will work, they will be reassured that the Government are looking out for their interests.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
It is always important for Northern Ireland to be discussed on the Floor of the House—we are, after all, one United Kingdom—so I thank the shadow Secretary of State for securing the urgent question. We must never forget the people of Northern Ireland. Can my right hon. Friend say what recent engagement he has had with victims, survivors and the organisations representing them as part of his work to address the legacy of the past?
Hilary Benn
I have had many such meetings. I have met the Victims and Survivors Forum, for example, twice in the recent past to explain the legislation that the Government have published. There is a great lack of trust on the part of victims and survivors in Northern Ireland, who feel they have been let down many times before, and trust undermined is very hard to rebuild. They are taking account of the legislation the Government have passed. It will not surprise the House if I say that I believe it provides a foundation for moving forward, but it is really important, as my hon. Friend says, that the voices of people in Northern Ireland are heard, and heard loudly.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
On 12 November, I raised with the Prime Minister the alarming statement from nine former generals who attacked the Government’s approach on lawfare against our armed forces, which they said would erode trust in the justice system and is a threat to national security. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether the Prime Minister has met with those nine former generals and whether that has changed his approach to attacking veterans?
Hilary Benn
I do not accept the characterisation that the hon. Member puts before the House. The Government are not engaging in lawfare against veterans.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
That’s what the generals said.
Hilary Benn
Well, I have read that letter and many others, and I refute the suggestion that the Government are engaging in lawfare. We have met a very large number of veterans organisations—I myself have met the SAS Regimental Association and others, and Ministers in the Ministry of Defence have met others—and we are listening. When the troubles Bill reaches Committee stage, the House will see the results of our considerations. The Government are absolutely determined to ensure the proper protections, in recognition of the hugely important and dangerous role that those who served in Operation Banner performed in trying to keep the people of Northern Ireland, and indeed the United Kingdom, safe.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
As a member of the JCHR, I am concerned that the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary may have inadvertently misled the House when he suggested that our Committee did not discharge our roles seriously and consider all the evidence in this case when we produced our report.
Peter Swallow
Our report recommended that this remedial order be made in no small part because of the incredible sensitivity around anything to do with the Northern Ireland troubles and the need to make sure that we are building bridges across communities, and in no small part, too, because of the seriousness with which the Committee feels the Secretary of State takes this issue. It is therefore quite right, I believe, that the Secretary of State make this remedial order. Does he agree that it is not right, and not serious politics, to play party politics with such a delicate issue?
Hilary Benn
I say to my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, that I am grateful for the support that the Committee has given for the remedial order and the Government’s assessment of the compelling reasons. Personally, I am not accusing anybody of anything. I want to try to get this legislation right, as I have said to the House many times before, and I will work with all hon. Members who will join me in that task.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Secretary of State is perfectly entitled to pursue a policy desire of removing immunity. Indeed, he knows that my colleagues and I support that position and we found it quite difficult that yet another Government were prepared to offer a different variation of immunity for the perpetrators of terror in Northern Ireland. We found that repugnant, so we support the notion that immunity should not stand.
But that is not the question before the Secretary of State today. The question is whether the Secretary of State should misappropriate a remedial order process, which is about dealing with the incompatibility of human rights law—not incompatibility with his policy objectives. For as long as the question still remains before the Supreme Court—which it does, though it is not his appeal but that of the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement—given that he has acknowledged that there is an issue of trust on this issue, does he not think it would be better if he at least just waited?
Hilary Benn
I would say two things to the right hon. Gentleman. First, I reject the suggestion that I or the Government have misappropriated a remedial order or misapplied section 10 of the Human Rights Act, and I would cite in aid of that argument that the JCHR, whose job it is—[Interruption.] He is shaking his head, but it is the Committee’s job to scrutinise. If it had come the House and said, “We don’t think the case is made”, the Government would of course have respected that. That is not what the JCHR said.
The second point is that time is not waiting for the victims. There are those I have spoken to who say, “As long as it is still on the statute book, even though it has been declared incompatible, we doubt whether we can trust the process.” Having decided to keep the commission but to reform it, I think it is right that we remove that uncertainty as swiftly as possible. That is what the remedial order seeks to do.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I think the whole House can agree that this is a very serious and sensitive topic. I ask hon. Members to be mindful of their language and to ensure that they are not heckling while seated. I call David Smith, a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has already confirmed that under the legacy Act the immunity provisions were never commenced, so it is important to say that nobody was ever granted immunity under those provisions. Sticking with the subject of immunity, the three Veterans Commissioners for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have all said that they are calling not for immunity under the law but for fairness under the law. Does the Secretary of State agree?
Hilary Benn
I agree with that statement completely, which is why I must confess my disappointment that the Opposition are still clinging to the notion of immunity, including immunity for terrorists. The Veterans Commissioners are quite right; they want fairness, and that is what the Government are determined to deliver.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I simply say to the Secretary of State that it does seem like ridiculous haste when the Bill is going through the House right now. Surely to do this when he knows for a fact that there is already an appeal going on does, as has already been said, become abusive of the real purpose of a remedial order. I suggest to him that all the stuff about people being let off and the whole point about immunity is not the issue. The issue today is whether the Government are misusing their powers to rush something through that they could have dealt with through the passage of the Bill.
Hilary Benn
I will make two points to the right hon. Gentleman, who served with such distinction in Northern Ireland. First, as we have just heard, immunity was never commenced. It was declared incompatible, and it was struck down under article 2. Secondly, I reject again the suggestion that the Government are somehow abusing the process. If that was an argument, one might have expected the Joint Committee on Human Rights to have agreed with it, but it did not. The Committee heard all the points that have been put and concluded that in these particular circumstances it was right to proceed, and that is why it recommends that the House should support the remedial order.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
This week’s exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall is a memorial quilt produced my members of the South East Fermanagh Foundation. It is a very moving way to remember the innocent victims of terrorism. The dates on the quilt panels remind us of how long the families have been fighting for justice. Can I ask the Secretary of State what message he wants to send out to every person who has produced one of the quilt panels for SEFF and to all the other families?
Hilary Benn
On Monday night I met the families who had come over for the unveiling of the quilts. I would urge all Members who have not yet had a chance to go up to the Upper Waiting Hall and have a look to do so, because the story that the quilts tell is profoundly moving and a reminder of the continuing search for justice that so many people in Northern Ireland are going through. I would say that those quilts are an argument for what we are trying to do to secure legislation that can help find those answers for all the people who are remembered on the quilts.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Regarding the accusation that the Secretary of State is rushing this through, he will be conscious of an Irish Government who are not rushing anything through with regard to support. Yesterday the Justice Minister in the Republic of Ireland received permission from the Government to draft priority legislation to enable state bodies to give oral evidence to the Omagh inquiry. That was only because the Omagh families are taking legal action. What engagement has the Secretary of State had with the Irish Government about bringing forward legislation that matches what he is bringing forward in this place? Can I also ask him who he is dealing with at the minute? It used to be the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, who has now been promoted. Is it the Justice Minister, who is bringing this forward, or is it the new Foreign Affairs Minister?
Hilary Benn
I have many meetings with Irish Ministers and discussions with the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach. My most recent meeting was with Helen McEntee, who has just taken over from Simon Harris at the Foreign Affairs Ministry. I very much welcome the fact that the Irish Government have announced that they are preparing to draft the legislation, as Simon Harris had committed to do while standing next to me, in time for the next hearings of the Omagh bombing inquiry. That is evidence that the Irish Government intend to fulfil the commitments they made in the joint framework.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I commend the Secretary of State for the care that he is taking to work as fast possible for the victims, survivors and veterans families, who need to hear answers, while making sure that this is legally correct. I echo the comments about the South East Fermanagh Foundation quilts, which remind us of the need to get those answers for families. Can he confirm that he is as concerned as I am that the Opposition are just interested in making political points rather than really building peace, which is what we need to do together as Members of the House? Will he confirm that the remedial order removes what would have been immunity for terrorists?
Hilary Benn
I think that all Members of the House have a shared commitment to trying to ensure that the peace that Northern Ireland has enjoyed since the signing of the Good Friday agreement is maintained—I think all of us do. We have a difference of view in some respects about the right way of seeking to do that, and I am always willing to be challenged on the arguments that I put on behalf of the Government and to challenge the arguments that I hear from the Opposition Front Benches. In the end, we know that we have to deal with this, because the last bit of legislation, whatever its intentions, failed to achieve its purpose. It did not command support in Northern Ireland, and that is why we have to make progress.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I ask the Secretary of State to clarify whether his earlier remarks mean what I think they do, which is that even if it had not been for the guidance of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Government would have wanted anyway to have repealed the legislation of the legacy Act? It is a political decision. Given that he said that he did not believe that there would be convictions at the end of the process, does that not mean that there will be several, if not many, trials? If no one is convicted at the end of the process, how does that help anyone? How does that avoid just torturing the people put through a trial?
Hilary Benn
If I may, I will correct what I think is the interpretation that the right hon. Member has put on what I had said. I made it clear a moment ago that had the Joint Committee on Human Rights reached a different conclusion about the appropriateness of the remedial order, the Government would of course have respected that. I also made it clear in my earlier comments that the Government came into office committed to get rid of immunity—we have been quite clear about that from the start—and the remedial order will seek to give effect to that.
We have discussed prosecutions of veterans. If one looks at the figures, one sees that there has been one successful prosecution of a veteran since the signing of the Good Friday agreement. The point I was making, if one looks at the figures—[Interruption.] Well, there are currently nine live cases before the courts relating to the troubles; seven of them relate to paramilitaries, and six of those relate to the Provisional IRA. I have heard the argument from Opposition Members that, “Oh, none of the paramilitaries are getting prosecuted.” That is not the case. It is really important that we have these debates on the basis of facts.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Secretary of State does not need me to tell him that he and the Government are struggling to command veteran support for his Bill. In order to address that deficit of support, should he not consider an amendment to clause 3 to have the Veterans Commissioner for Northern Ireland serve on the legacy commission? Would that not be a token of making good on his affirmation that this is about capturing the confidence of veterans and not pursuing lawfare against them?
Hilary Benn
As I have indicated, I reject the suggestion that the Government are in any way engaging in lawfare against veterans, in the same way that I reject any suggestion that there are such things as politically motivated or vexatious prosecutions. [Interruption.] I hear “Oh, come on” from the Opposition Front Bench; I have heard that from Opposition Members in previous debates on these questions. There will no doubt be a number of amendments and suggestions made when we come to detailed consideration of the Bill, and we will consider them at that time.
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and Tavistock) (Con)
I wonder whether the Secretary of State can assist me with this problem. The Supreme Court is at the moment seized of the issue as to the lawfulness of the declaration of incompatibility. The fact that the Government have withdrawn their appeal does not prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on it. Let us suppose that the Supreme Court rules that the declaration of incompatibility is void. The legal position is that the declaration of incompatibility would then be void, and therefore the basis on which the Secretary of State is proceeding with the order would be removed. Surely it would be prudent to wait to see if the Supreme Court rules on it. Otherwise, we will be proceeding with an unlawful order. I ask in the spirit of genuine curiosity and inquiry, not political partisanship. It would bring the entire process into disrepute if he is in fact acting on an unlawful basis.
Hilary Benn
Once again, I do not accept that the Government are acting on an unlawful basis. Given the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s distinguished legal credentials and experience, I say to him that I note he encourages me to speculate on a potential outcome—[Interruption.] Well, he does. The Government have to deal with the position as we find it. I have already set out to the House why the Government are absolutely clear in our view that, because the appeal was withdrawn, we are able to make use of section 10 of the Human Rights Act in order to remove conditional immunity.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Yesterday, Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton highlighted the need to recruit people to our armed forces to protect this nation. How does the Secretary of State expect to do that when those who served gallantly in Northern Ireland face prosecution? Why would young men and women join our armed forces with the risk of that happening to them? What message does that send to those young people?
Hilary Benn
I meet many young people in my constituency and on other duties who are keen to come to serve the nation in the armed forces. I am not aware of any figures that suggest there has been a decline in recruitment. If the hon. Member has seen them, perhaps she could draw them to my attention. Trying to deal with the past correctly, particularly given the threats we face in the modern world, should not affect the willingness of young people and others to come forward and serve the nation, as people have done over the centuries.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State has spoken of additional protections in his legislation. Why does he think that Operation Banner veterans, some of whom I represent, remain unconvinced and troubled? Why does he think that the Irish Prime Minister believes there are no additional protections? While he is about it, can he do something to reassure veterans who are feeling very unhappy about this situation, perhaps along the lines of saying categorically that no former terrorists or members of proscribed organisations will serve on the legacy commission?
Hilary Benn
I have already made it clear to the House that as long as I am in this post I have no intention of appointing those who have engaged in paramilitary activity to any of the posts contained in the Bill. On the protections, we all have a responsibility to explain and point out that they are in the draft legislation in clauses 30, 31, 36, 91, 84, 54, 56, 69 and 8. They are real, tangible protections, and they respond directly to the concerns that veterans have raised with the Government. We have introduced them because of our determination to ensure that veterans are treated properly.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Secretary of State, the official Opposition are saying to hold off the remedial order until the Supreme Court judgment. Have you sought any legal advice on that? Can you share it with the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Use of the word “you” is not appropriate. Would the hon. Member like to rephrase and quickly get to his point?
Alex Easton
I apologise. Has the Secretary of State sought any legal advice on the issue, and can he share it with the House? Will he also update us on making sure that the Irish Government produce all legal papers on their role, on the IRA and on the involvement of the Garda Síochána?
Hilary Benn
As the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, there is a long-standing tradition that the Government do not reveal the legal advice they receive. All Governments receive legal advice, but we do not share it, because that is part of the business of government. I have already made reference to the Irish Government’s announcement in respect of legislation to enable witnesses to give evidence to the Omagh bombing inquiry, which I welcome.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Will the Secretary confirm whether the remedial order will have to be voted on in the other place?
Hilary Benn
Yes, it will be voted on in both Houses in the new year.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Despite what the Secretary of State continues to say in the House, the prosecution of elderly veterans has been vexatious. In the Soldier F trial, the judge agreed with the submissions of the defence that the threshold to prosecute was far from being reached; political interference brought that matter to court. If the Secretary of State cannot even accept that there have been vexatious prosecutions, how will he ensure that the remedial order will give a clear distinction between the bomber who presents him or herself as a victim and the ordinary man, woman or child who was murdered or maimed by the actions of terrorists?
Hilary Benn
There is the clearest distinction between the two groups of people that the hon. Member refers to, and I have made that clear from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions. There is absolutely no equivalence between those who sought to protect the public and those who committed the most appalling terrorist atrocities. I have respectfully to disagree with the hon. Member, because if she is arguing that prosecutions have been vexatious, she is saying that our independent prosecutors are working on a basis that is outwith their task, which is, in all cases, to look at the evidence and to ask whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. If we undermine the independence of independent prosecutors—the separation between the Government and the court system—we are sunk as a nation. That is why I am so firm in saying that there is no such thing as a vexatious prosecution.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Notwithstanding the fact that the Secretary of State has said that the chances of a successful prosecution are very limited indeed, the punishment is in the process of investigation and trial in the first place. Will the Secretary of State look sympathetically at appropriate amendments to the Bill to make sure that the bar is raised very high, so that it is almost impossible for one of our brave veterans to be prosecuted in our courts?
Hilary Benn
As I have said to the House before, I will, of course, look carefully at all the amendments tabled when we come to debate the Bill in Committee and on Report. The test for prosecutions, as I indicated in answer to the previous question, is the same now, and will be the same in future, as it has been for the last 30, 50 or 70 years—those who have greater legal experience can tell the House how long that has been the case. It will not change, because it depends on the evidence. We are setting out in the Bill that to reinvestigate things the commission has to be of the view that it is essential to do so. That word “essential” is a very high bar.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
For the final question, I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Kenova report was clear in proving that there was no evidence of state collusion or machinations. Yet the republican drum still bangs to cover the sound of the voices of the innocents calling for justice and to be heard. How will the Secretary of State respond to the lack of protection for the service personnel and the perpetual and deliberate focus on them, and will he look at the 2,057 murders carried out by republicans and the 1,027 loyalist murders that have not received any justice at all? Will there be yet another whitewash over the blood of the innocents that has been shed and the impact that that still has on all those families throughout the Province?
Hilary Benn
I have the greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman. I think that he, I and, I hope, the whole House share the desire to enable answers for all those families who are living with the pain of not knowing what happened to their loved ones. The Kenova report has made an important contribution to seeking to uncover the truth. In drafting the legislation, we have drawn on a number of the lessons of Kenova, including that of the victims and survivors advisory panel, because many people said that that was one of the great things about the way Kenova went about its job. It is in the draft Bill that the House will consider again shortly.
Point of Order
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point I was trying to raise in my question to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was that on any issue to do with the Northern Irish troubles, we must tread with appropriate solemnity and seriousness. It was therefore disappointing to be accused of being an idiot by a Member on the Opposition Front Bench while making that very point. What advice would you give on ensuring that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) apologises appropriately, not to me but to the whole House, for lowering the tone of that serious debate?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
If I had heard any inappropriate language, I would have dealt with it very swiftly and dealt with that Member involved. No inappropriate language should be used in the Chamber. On such a highly charged, emotional and very serious topic, we need to double down and make sure that we are using the most appropriate language. Mr Francois, before you respond, please remember that you are also responding to me in the Chair. No doubt, you will not want to displease me either with any of your response.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am too experienced to try to displease you in any way. For clarity, I was responding to the fact that the hon. Gentleman had accused—[Interruption.] Pardon me. He had accused my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) of saying something that, as Hansard will prove conclusively in the morning, he clearly did not say. If the hon. Gentleman and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, feel that that word was inappropriate, I withdraw it. However, I still believe that the hon. Gentleman was wrong.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I do not wish to prolong the debate, and no doubt that will be seen, by most, as an apology.
Puberty Suppressants Trial
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate 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
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on the pathways puberty blockers trial.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Let me just start by acknowledging the sensitivities around this issue and the strong beliefs held around this House. For all the division and divided opinion, I believe that there is a determination shared by everyone in this House to do the right thing by a vulnerable group of children and young people. It is for those reasons that I am taking the course of action that I am. Put simply, that is to follow expert clinical advice and take an evidence-led approach.
The Cass review found shocking levels of unprofessionalism, a lack of clinical oversight and puberty blockers prescribed to children without sufficient evidence that doing so was safe or beneficial to those children and young people. What Dr Hilary Cass uncovered was a scandal. That is why, on coming to office, I made the temporary ban brought in by my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), a permanent one. Dr Cass also recommended a thorough study to establish how best to support children and young people who suffer gender incongruence. That is the pathways study.
The study has four main parts, one of which is the clinical trial to study the effects of puberty-suppressing hormones on young people’s physical, social and emotional wellbeing. The other aspects of the pathways study will track the physical, social and emotional wellbeing of all young people attending UK NHS gender services. It will look at young people’s thinking and brain development, following both those who are and are not taking puberty-suppressing hormones, and it will gather evidence directly from young people, parents and staff about their experiences of living with gender incongruence.
The bar for the trial to be approved was extremely high and oversight will be rigorous. Children cannot consent to being on the trial, so places will require parental consent, as well as the assent of young people. It is because protecting and promoting the health and wellbeing of affected young people is our primary concern that there are also strict eligibility criteria in place to join the pathways clinical trial. As such, the number of young people who would expect to qualify for the trial will also be low. Participants must undergo thorough mental and physical assessments and will be followed over a number of years with regular wellbeing checks. Puberty blockers have also been used to delay puberty in children and young people who start puberty much too early. Use in those cases has been extensively tested and has met strict safety requirements for that use.
The study is led by King’s College London and the South London and Maudsley NHS foundation trust. It has been carefully checked by independent scientists who advise the National Institute for Health and Care Research and by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and received approval from a research ethics committee. I am treading cautiously in this area because the safety of children must come first.
Dr Johnson
I must first declare my interest as a consultant paediatrician who has looked after children with gender dysphoria in the past and is likely to do so in the future. We must remember that we are talking about vulnerable children.
The first and most obvious question is: why? Why have this Government chosen to fund experiments with puberty blockers on physically healthy children? Despite saying he was comfortable with this trial in a briefing to MPs, the Secretary of State told the media on Friday and the Select Committee this morning that he is in fact uncomfortable with it. Why is it even being considered before the data linkage study is complete?
Some 9,000 children went through the Tavistock clinic, and many of them came out regretting being encouraged to irreversibly damage their bodies. We should look carefully at those outcomes before we make the same mistakes. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to secure the data from the Tavistock and have it analysed? What steps is he taking to hold to account those obstructing access to data linkage information? What assessment has he made of the motivations of those obstructing that data, when this is a study to safeguard children?
And what of the trial itself? We know that 226 children will go through this trial. Is that a limit or a target? Those children will be randomised to get puberty blockers now or in a year’s time, and all will be analysed at two years. They will still be children. They might be only 11 years old. How can the results demonstrate a meaningful outcome? The control group is not properly randomised, but chosen from the Horizon intensive trial group. Is the Secretary of State concerned that this will introduce bias?
The criteria for getting puberty blockers in this trial require just one parent to consent and the clinician to think that it will benefit the child, but on what basis will the clinician decide? The Cass review said that the vast majority of children with gender dysphoria would recover, with only a few persisting with trans identities into adulthood. It is not possible to predict which those children will be, so does the Secretary of State accept that the vast majority of children in this, his Streeting trial, who will be given drugs will be physically healthy children whose distress would get better without any puberty blockers, and that the vast majority of the children in this trial are therefore being unnecessarily experimented on with risky medications under his leadership?
Wes Streeting
The shadow Minister asks, “Why?” There is a simple answer. It is because this was recommended by Dr Cass in the Cass review, which was commissioned by my predecessor, Sir Sajid Javid. I think that was the right thing to do, and it is why, when my predecessor brought forward the Cass review, I supported it in opposition. I certainly did not try to play politics with an extremely vulnerable group of children and young people.
I will tell the hon. Lady why. It is because, under the previous Government, those puberty-suppressing hormones were prescribed without proper oversight, supervision or safety, yet we did not hear a peep about that fact for years until Dr Cass, commissioned by Sir Sajid Javid—who deserves enormous credit—did the study, which was published and widely supported and which contained this recommendation. The Conservatives may have changed their tune in opposition, but I remember what they said in government when they published the Cass review and supported its recommendations, so I think their response now is a real shame.
The shadow Minister accuses me of inconsistency, so let me be clear. Am I comfortable that this clinical trial has undergone the proper process and ethical approval to ensure the highest standards and supervision? Yes, I am comfortable about that. Am I uncomfortable about puberty-suppressing hormones for this group of young people for this particular condition? Yes, I am—because of risks. It is why I was also uncomfortable when I upheld the temporary ban by my predecessor and then put in place a permanent ban. The reason I was uncomfortable with that, too, is because I had to look children and young people, and their parents, in the eye when they told me in no uncertain terms that that decision was harmful to them, as have many other clinicians who have opposed that decision.
Whatever my discomfort in this extremely sensitive area, the reason that I have made this decision is that I am following clinical advice and, as Health Secretary, it is my responsibility to follow expert advice. Had the Tavistock clinic faced such challenge and scrutiny a decade ago, we would not be in this mess. The Conservatives were right to commission the Cass review and they were right to accept its recommendations. I accept that there is now a difference on this particular recommendation, but I would urge Members not to walk away from the cross-party consensus we built behind that approach but to build on the work that Dr Cass has done.
Let me turn to the important questions raised by shadow Minister. There will be two groups within the trial, as well as a further control group of children and young people with gender incongruence who do not receive puberty-suppressing hormones. At least 226 participants are required in order to detect a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups. However, this is not a target and no young person will find themselves on this trial because there is a drive to make sure that a certain number of young people are participating. In order for anyone to participate in this trial, it has to have the most robust clinical oversight from clinicians within the service, as well as national oversight and the consent of parents. It is only where young people will be deemed to benefit that they will be on this programme.
The shadow Minister asks about the data linkage study. That is important. The data linkage study will be undertaken, but when it is completed it will not provide us with the same evidence as this clinical trial. That is why Dr Cass made a distinction between this trial and the data linkage study.
The hon. Lady also asks about the motivations of those who withheld data. That is an extremely important question. It is utterly appalling that anyone in a position of responsibility in the NHS withheld data on a very vulnerable group of children and young people. I accept that there were many well-meaning people involved in these services at the Tavistock clinic, but the fact that Dr Cass found such a lack of rigour, such a lack of standards and such a lack of proper oversight is disgraceful. It is the clinicians who are well meaning and ideologically driven who have given me the most cause for concern in this whole debacle and who have done more harm to children, young people and the trans community than most other people who have taken part in this debate.
I appreciate the work that Dr Cass has done, and I am glad that she is in the other place, bringing welcome scrutiny. Were she not supportive of this approach, I might think again, but she has made her recommendation and given her support. I am following clinical advice. It is not comfortable, but I do believe it is the right thing to do, on balance.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Health and Social Care Committee member Danny Beales.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) asks, “Why?” Well, it is because trans people exist and their health needs exist. As the Secretary of State has clearly outlined, an independent review made a series of recommendations. There were clearly failures of healthcare, and a further recommendation was that a clinical trial should address this issue. I believe that the Conservatives supported the Cass review, but when it comes to implementing this part of it, they suddenly have collective amnesia about what Dr Cass recommended. Does the Secretary State agree that, in the absence of a trial, there will still be access to these drugs? We know that young people are seeking out private provision. They are seeking unregulated providers of these drugs, so is not a clinical trial both appropriate and the best and safest way of managing any potential risks?
Wes Streeting
The risk that my hon. Friend sets out was one of the considerations that I had to when weigh up—first when upholding the temporary ban, and then when making the ban permanent. I do worry that, outside of a trial, we may continue to see unsafe or unethical practice. I think we will be doing a service to medicine in this country as well as internationally if we have a high-quality trial with the highest standards of ethics, approvals, oversight and research from some of our country’s leading universities and healthcare providers to ensure that, for this particular vulnerable group of children and young people, we are taking an evidence-based approach to health and care.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson; you have one minute.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I hope that everyone in this House can agree that medical treatment should always follow the evidence on safety and effectiveness. It is right that expert clinicians are building this evidence base and therefore right that the Government are seeking to run this trial, because it should be led by evidence and not by ideology.
Given that the numbers on the trial will be very small and the waiting list for talking therapies, which are so important for children and their parents, is very long, with hundreds of thousands waiting, can the Secretary of State explain how he will increase access to NHS talking therapies so people can get the help they need and deserve? In a field with so little research, will he confirm if the pathways trial will look at international best practice in order to take learnings from abroad?
Wes Streeting
I can absolutely assure the hon. Member that we are doing that wider research and that of course we will take into account high-quality international evidence, as well as the research we are undertaking domestically. It is so important that we recognise that, for many young people with gender incongruence, even if approved, puberty blockers will never be the right medication. One of the things I have been most saddened by in the discourse among adults in this debate, many of whom should know better, is the elevation of puberty blockers to the status they have received in public discourse and debate; many young people out there think not only is this the gold standard of care, but that it is the only care available, and, of course, that is not true.
NHS England has opened three new children and young people’s gender services in the north-west, London and Bristol, with a fourth planned for the east of England in 2026. We aim to have a service in every region of England in the coming years. These services use a different model with multidisciplinary teams, including mental health support and paediatrics, within specialist children’s hospitals to provide good clinical care. The new services will increase capacity and reduce waiting times so that patients can be seen sooner and closer to home. We have also commissioned additional support for young people waiting to be seen through local children and young people’s mental health services.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his leadership. As a former children’s services manager, I am concerned that credible safeguarding warnings from clinicians and academics about puberty suppression in children are not being heard. Will the Secretary of State meet those experts and review the younger age limit for participation in this trial, given that children as young as 10 are currently set to be involved?
Wes Streeting
Let me reassure my hon. Friend and the House that I am absolutely open to receiving representations and evidence from clinicians involved in the care of children and young people, with insight, expertise and data, including those who might be critical of the approach that the trial team is setting out or, indeed, critical that the Cass review included this recommendation. That is important because the many things that have gone horribly wrong in this area have included the silencing of whistleblowers and the silencing of rigorous debate and discussion.
We have to have this debate with due care and sensitivity for young people in this vulnerable group in particular and for the wider trans community, who feel extremely vulnerable in this country at the moment, including as a result of decisions I have taken as the Health and Social Care Secretary. We have to consider all of that in the round, but we must make sure that at all times we are following the evidence, that we are open to scrutiny and challenge, and that where we are making these finely balanced judgments, we are doing so with rigorous debate, testing the arguments, the evidence and the data. That is why I welcome the urgent question and this discussion.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call Health and Social Care Committee member Joe Robertson.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Secretary of State said earlier that there is an extremely high bar for him stepping in and stopping these tests using puberty blockers. What bar could be higher than a Government protecting children from being tested on with drugs specifically to stop or alter their sexual development? There is not a unified clinical view on this. It is his choice; he is the Secretary of State. These tests are on him.
Wes Streeting
I certainly do not need to be told what my responsibilities are on this. I always take responsibility for the decisions I take. I acknowledge the extent to which the hon. Gentleman and members of his party seek to weaponise this issue, and to personalise it. [Interruption.] We can simply refer back to his question and to the shadow Minister’s reference to the “Streeting trial”—if that is not personalising, I do not know what is.
I’ll tell you what: I will take an evidence-based approach. I have done that on this issue from day one. Had the Conservatives done so, we would never have seen the Tavistock scandal. We would never have seen puberty blockers dished out willy-nilly to children and young people in this vulnerable patient group. I have sought at all times, including when I sat on the Opposition Benches, to treat this debate with the care, sensitivity and humility it deserves, and not to be tribal in my interactions. I only wish this Conservative Opposition would take the same approach.
Madam Deputy Speaker
We are only at the start of this urgent question, so I ask Members to reduce the temperature in the Chamber.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the care and sensitivity he has taken to this subject all along. It has been an undeniably difficult year for transgender people in Britain. I have spoken to young trans people who have been pushed to the brink of suicide by what they hear—that they do not have a right to exist, that they do not deserve rights, that they are legitimate targets for ridicule. We all in this House have a responsibility to lower the temperature and focus on their welfare, health and dignity.
King’s College operates the highest standards of safety. Does the Secretary of State agree that its expertise and rigour will support the wellbeing of participants and ensure that we get the robust evidence we need and that vulnerable children are no longer treated as political punchbags?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we must engage with due care and sensitivity on this issue. I can share with the House that these exchanges, Government policy, what is said by me and others, are followed extremely closely by this group of children and young people, who are extremely online, and by the wider LGBT+ community. My hon. Friend is right that trans people are often at the wrong end of the statistics as victims of hate crime, discrimination and mental ill health. We must always tread carefully when talking about suicide in this context, and bear in mind the warnings of the Government’s adviser on suicide prevention, Professor Louis Appleby, and the way in which that issue has been deployed irresponsibly by critics of the ban on puberty blockers that was put in place—we bear all those things in mind. I do think we have a high-quality trial set up. I do have confidence in the clinicians. We have had a cross-party briefing from the clinical team. I am happy to repeat that exercise, to keep coming back to the House and to arrange briefings for MPs and peers on a cross-party basis so that we can follow this closely, as we should.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I welcome the care with which the right hon. Member has approached much of this, and I appreciate that he has before him some very difficult decisions, especially because of the way the report was written. But I must come back to the simple truth that these are very young children, and decisions will be made for them—I appreciate by parents, taking that element of consent—that are genuinely irreversible. Whatever happens, we will see eight, nine, 10-year-olds grow up to be 18, 20, 25-year-olds—at least we hope we will—who have effectively been experimented on. Some of those children will resent greatly not just the system and their parents, but those who allowed this to happen, and here I identify the Department for Health and Social Care, not necessarily the Secretary of State himself. What provision is he putting in place to ensure that should those children wish to bring legal action against the Department, against those who took these decisions at a time when they were not able to give any form of informed consent, they will be able to have redress and their day in court?
Wes Streeting
I first thank the right hon. Member for the way in which he puts his concerns. I know he is concerned about this trial and that he has stated publicly his opposition to it, and I enormously respect the way in which he has done that. These are finely balanced judgments, and I acknowledge that.
The Cass review found that puberty blockers have been prescribed routinely without good evidence for their safety or effectiveness, and that is why a clinical trial was proposed. They are licensed and used safely in much younger children for precocious puberty or in older adults for certain cancers. For adolescents, the interaction with all the different processes of puberty may be very significant, which is why more evidence and a better understanding of their impact is needed in this patient group. Anyone on the trial can choose to stop taking puberty-suppressing hormones and leave the trial at any time; they do not need to give a reason. If a young person decides to stop taking puberty-suppressing hormones, their care in the NHS, including the gender service, will not change in any other way, and their doctors will explain to them and their parents or guardians what treatment options are available.
I know that there are concerns about the longer-term impacts on fertility. Prospective participants will be given comprehensive information on the advantages and potential risks of the hormones, including details about preserving fertility. Doctors will explain the possible long-term consequences and available options. Young people will also be offered consultation with a fertility specialist. The young person and their parent or guardian must clearly demonstrate a full understanding of all these issues—only then, after that, would a clinician sign off on admission to the trial.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I ask colleagues to keep their questions short and the Secretary of State to keep his responses on point. I call Health and Social Care Committee member, Josh Fenton-Glynn.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I hope we can all agree that the young people involved should not be used by anyone as a political football. Can my right hon. Friend please assure me that the process and trial will be clinically led, not defined by rhetoric—in this place or anywhere else?
Wes Streeting
I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I also welcome the tone and sensitivity that the right hon. Gentleman has taken on this issue—not just today, but throughout. We all recognise that we should be led by evidence, which is absolutely vital. The trans community is a reality. They feel very vulnerable and very attacked. People who have been on the medications for some time are now concerned that they may no longer be available. What can the right hon. Gentleman tell us to reassure those people that they will be safe?
Wes Streeting
As I reported when we put in place the permanent ban, there have been arrangements for people who were previously being prescribed puberty blockers. People who wanted to access them, but could not once the ban came in, have not been able to do so through authorised means.
I recognised when I took the decision, and as a result of representations I have received, both directly and in writing, that it caused considerable pain and distress to a very vulnerable group of children and young people and to the people who care very much about them. I have not been indifferent to that; I have taken it very much into consideration. However, with respect to all the people I have met, no amount of political pressure should move a Health Secretary away from the clinical advice and expert opinion that should underpin these sorts of decisions.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I welcome the trial. I commend the Secretary of State for following clinical advice and the Government for trying to build a consensus for one of the most minoritised communities in our country.
May I ask the Secretary of State—a man who I know to have empathy and thoughtfulness—to speak directly to trans people who will be watching this debate? At this Christmas time, they may be struggling with estrangement from family and with other difficulties. Can he speak to the dignity and worth to which they are entitled, and send a message that this House has their back?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I recognise that the decision I took, within days of coming into this office, was received by trans people in particular, and the wider LGBT+ community, as a negative decision that detrimentally impacted their rights and identity. That is why it was an uncomfortable decision for me to take; I knew how it would be received and had to balance up the risk. I believed—and still believe, by the way—that it was the right thing to do, for the right reasons: a clinically led decision.
When it comes to the care and health of children and young people in particular, I make no apology for exercising extreme caution. I do want trans people in our country to know that this Government respect them and their identity, and want them to live with dignity, safety and inclusion. That is the approach that the Government are taking. I realise that decisions that I have personally taken have not been received in that way. That has not been comfortable for me, but I do believe it has been the right thing to do.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
If we were resting this judgment on purely clinical evidence, we would tell every child that whatever sex they were was immutable and could not be changed, and that if they took these puberty blockers they might well find that they had irreversibly changed the course of their lives. How is a child of 10 or 11 going to be capable of making that judgment?
Whatever the Cass review says, in the end this is the Secretary of State’s judgment. I remember the covid inquiry repeatedly saying that it was wrong for Ministers to hide behind “the science”. Equally, there is no single clinical advice on this question: clinicians are as divided as the rest of society. We rely on the Secretary of State’s judgment. I am afraid that I think he has got it wrong.
Wes Streeting
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and for how he puts his criticism, too. As I said earlier, and for the avoidance of doubt, I know what my responsibilities are. I understand the decisions that I take in this office and that I am accountable for those decisions. I do not resile from that. I am following clinical advice; I think that is the right thing to do in this area.
On the question of sex, the right hon. Gentleman is right: sex is immutable. Even if there has been treatment with hormones or surgery, underlying biology none the less means that trans women, for example, would still need to be screened and treated bearing in mind their biological sex, and the opposite is true for trans men. We have to draw that distinction between biological sex and gender identity.
Whatever my discomfort and personal views about this particular trial or about the notion of young people using puberty blockers in this way, I cannot ignore, and should convey faithfully to the House, conversations that I have had with trans young people and adults. They have described in powerful and unforgettable terms not just the life changing, but the life enhancing experience that they have had. I am thinking particularly of the university student I met; if she walked into this Chamber now, we would assume that she was born female. She is living her best life and described in very powerful and unforgettable terms the impact that treatment has had for her and her quality of life. At the same time, I think of high-profile cases such as Keira Bell’s. That is why we have to tread extremely carefully in this area, to follow evidence and to build an evidence base. It is also why these are such finely balanced judgements and why I can be simultaneously uncomfortable with the permanent ban that I put in place and uncomfortable with the clinical trial. I hope that I have reassured people that I think very deeply about these issues before taking decisions.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
As the Health Secretary has said, this is a deeply troubling time for the trans community; I have heard that loudly from my trans constituents who have come to surgeries and from my postbag, too. When suicide rates among trans people are much higher than among the general population, we know where denying that they exist or denying them life-saving healthcare lead. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give my trans constituents and the families who support them? They are extremely worried that they will not be able to access the healthcare that they need.
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. The reassurance that we can provide trans people in our country is that we are committed to making sure that they have access to the highest quality, evidence-based healthcare. That does not just apply in the case of children and young people; I also hope to report to the House before the Christmas recess the work undertaken in the learning disability mortality review into adult services. We are committed to making sure that we provide high-quality care to a particular vulnerable group of children and young people.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Although I disagreed with the permanent ban, it is to the Secretary of State’s credit that he has been very clear about all the competing issues that he is balancing to make his decisions, and I appreciate that. There are young people who are hoping to be part of the clinical trial and to receive puberty blockers, whether that will genuinely make a difference to their lives or they believe that it will make a difference to their lives. How will he ensure that appropriate support is given to those young people who do not get to be part of the trial, when they have been hoping that it will change their lives?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the hon. Member for the way that she asks her question, as a critic of some of the decisions that I have taken in this space. The reassurance that I can offer is that the study will look at the holistic care that this group of children and young people receives, and ensure that wider evidence-led therapeutic support, including mental health support, is available, so that regardless of whether a young person receives puberty blockers, they will certainly receive that wider range of support.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I appreciate the science-based approach taken by the Secretary of State. We use puberty blockers for many different conditions, so will the trial look at the data that has been amassed from the use of puberty blockers for other conditions? I wish to state on the record that puberty blockers are reversible. The evidence shows that when people stop taking them, they stop working—that is the science behind them. Finally, young people in my constituency are more likely to age out of gender services than to get their first appointment, so what are we doing to shorten the waiting time, not just for puberty blockers but for the whole range of services provided to trans children by the NHS?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. If hon. Members do not keep their questions short, I will not get everybody in. The answers need to be just as short.
Wes Streeting
I will try to do that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We will ensure that young people get good access to wider evidence-led support. I have had to wrestle with the fact that some trans people enter adulthood without ever receiving any sort of healthcare, and I have been heavily criticised by those people in particular for some of the decisions that I have taken. We are working to reduce waiting times, as I have described.
My hon. Friend says that puberty blockers are reversible. We hear contrary views about that from Members across the House, some of whom say that puberty blockers are irreversible. The truth is that the evidence in this area is mixed, which is why we need to build a stronger evidence base.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Secretary of State deserves our sympathy for having to negotiate such an ethical minefield. Will he tell us whether the data exists from all the people who had puberty blockers under the old regime? He mentioned having met one person for whom they had worked well and one person for whom they were a disaster. Surely it should be possible to do a systematic survey of the dozens, if not hundreds, of people who went through that. Might that be a more constructive and less dangerous way forward?
Wes Streeting
The right hon. Member is right that we need that data linkage study. That will happen, but it will not produce the same evidence base as a clinical trial, and that is the distinction between the two. It is frankly a disgrace that people have sought to withhold that kind of data and it is really important that we get this right.
I appreciate the right hon. Member’s sympathy. I have wrestled with this issue probably more than any other ethical decision that I have had to make in this office. I do not seek any pity or sympathy for doing so—it is the job that I signed up to and a job that I love doing. I have taken great care and sensitivity in this area because of the particular vulnerability of this group of children and young people.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
It is fair to say that the recommendations of the Cass review were not welcomed by everyone—not least by all members of the LGBT+ community—but the Conservative party commissioned the review and accepted its findings, and the Labour party supported the review and supported its findings. Does the Secretary of State share my concern that there are those who would now seek to cherry pick which of the findings they agree with and which they do not? Is it not the case that an independent review with such serious and important findings should be accepted in its entirety?
Wes Streeting
When it was published—I was in the Chamber at the time—there was an overwhelming consensus in the House. There were some people who criticised and challenged the Cass review at the time, including some outside the House in the LGBT community. I have always supported the Cass review, which was led by one of our country’s best paediatricians. Because of that, I am proceeding in the way that I am, which is the way that Dr Cass—now Baroness Cass—recommended. I will continue to follow the evidence and implement the Cass review comprehensively.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
A survey published today by Transgender Trend shows overwhelming public support for non-intrusive medical approaches for under-16s with gender dysmorphia. The public want this state-sponsored child abuse stopped, so will the Secretary of State represent the will of the people, stop the trial and instead introduce statutory legislation to access the evidence data from the 2,000 children and young people already given puberty blockers through the Tavistock scandal?
Wes Streeting
I will take the hon. Member’s question in three parts. First, the opinion polling that she mentions shows that people in this country are overwhelmingly kind, and they want to ensure that trans people, and LGBT people more broadly, are treated with kindness, compassion and inclusion. Secondly, I do not dismiss the opinion polling that shows that a majority are against this kind of trial. Thirdly, the reason I am doing this is that I have to think about this extremely small group of people. I do not know what it is like to walk in their shoes and I have to think very carefully about what is in their best interests. The best way to do that is to build the evidence base that we need to provide high-quality healthcare. I strongly, strongly do not agree with her characterisation of this study, which is in itself irresponsible.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
Some of the political debate around this subject has saddened me, not least the way that trans people’s reality and experience has been denied. We even have evidence of British trans people from the 4th century—they have existed forever. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the trial is a real attempt to get a proper evidence base for treatment for young people that is really needed?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is correct that the study is about building the right evidence so that we get high-quality, safe healthcare for this vulnerable group of children and young people.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
Children struggling with gender dysphoria and their families are trying to find their way through very difficult and often distressing times. We should be helping them, not experimenting on them. Should we not be following the example of other European countries, such as Denmark and Finland, which have shifted their policies towards counselling rather than medical interventions?
Wes Streeting
I assure the hon. Member that as part of this study, and as part of the roll-out of services across the country, we are focusing on the therapeutic support that she describes. We are implementing the Cass review, which recommended this particular trial for this particular purpose, and we will follow the evidence. Of course we look at what other countries are doing, why they are doing it and what research emerges.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I have immense respect for my right hon. Friend, in particular for his commitment to equal access to healthcare. Will he say a little more about the mental health support available for children and young people involved in the trial, those who will not be able to be in the trial, those who are currently receiving puberty blockers, and those for whom the ban is causing immense stress or worse?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Regardless of whether people are receiving this medication or not, we need to ensure that they receive the right therapeutic support to enable them to have healthy, happy childhoods and to understand themselves, the world they live in and how they relate to it in a way that does not cause them distress or harm. That is my objective in this process.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
For young people questioning their gender, the pathways trial is currently the only route by which they are allowed to access puberty blockers, which are a treatment that can provide vital respite from the anguish of going through puberty in a body that does not match your gender, before long-term decisions may or may not be made as an adult. I therefore welcome the announcement of the trial, while recognising that significant barriers to entry remain. How will the Secretary of State ensure that as many young people as need to can access the trial, including those who need to access puberty blockers as part of support to improve their mental health?
Wes Streeting
I do not doubt the hon. Member’s sincerity and integrity on this issue, but I say to her respectfully that when she talks about barriers to entry, those “barriers” are safety and clinical oversight, as well as parental consent and the assent of the young person. I do not believe that those are barriers; I believe that those are necessary bars for participation in this trial.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the comments of other Members who have said that we are talking about humans who deserve to be treated with dignity? As a former Crown prosecutor, I firmly believe that evidence is hugely important, and the Cass review said that there is not enough evidence at present that puberty blockers are safe. Does the Secretary of State agree that the responsible thing for the Government to do is not simply to ignore the plight of such young people, but to conduct the clinical trial to obtain the robust evidence needed to direct policy going forward?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Given that I work for a former Crown prosecutor, I could not possibly disagree with her on evidence.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I thank the Secretary of State for his response to the urgent question. One thing we should all agree on is that the human rights of all, including trans people, must be protected and delivered by the Government and supported by us all. The reason we are here today is to discuss the risks and potential adverse consequences of the proposed pathways trial. The trial compares the timing of treatment initiation, rather than using a placebo. There is no arm that provides psychotherapy as a treatment option without puberty blockers, and there is no arm to assess children who do not receive any of those options. Will the Secretary of State consider ensuring that all the various arms and channels are tested as part of this trial to get a complete picture, rather than a partial picture, which may be misleading?
Wes Streeting
May I thank the hon. Member for the way in which he put his question? It is so important to emphasise that right across this House, there are many people who oppose this trial, but who do want to see trans people well supported and protected and to respect their identities. That is important for everyone to bear in mind.
The hon. Member talks about placebo. For obvious reasons in this case, a placebo would not be appropriate, because it would be very obvious whether a young person was receiving the real medication or the placebo, but the trial design has included a control group. The way in which the trial is established will help us to distinguish between the benefits of receiving or not receiving this particular medication, and there will be really close oversight of the impact on development, but he is right that we need to judge these things on the question of risk. That is what led Dr Cass to make her recommendation, and that is why I support it.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s answers today and his ongoing support for the Cass review. From his previous answers, it is clear that he has seen public opinion. Is he prepared to call an independent clinical review, given the high degree of public concern about the trial?
Wes Streeting
I am very happy to receive further clinical representations on this issue and to hear from experts on it. I hope the public will understand why, on this particular issue, I am not simply led by opinion polling. I have to follow the clinical advice and evidence, particularly given the enormous risks that surround these children and young people, including the risks that weighed on my shoulders and conscience when I denied access to puberty blockers by upholding the temporary ban and then making it permanent.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
It is nigh-on child abuse to give children puberty blockers. This trial will take confused little minds and vulnerable children and place them on a medical pathway with profound, life-altering consequences. Childhood is a time of uncertainty, yet the state is intervening with drugs that many former patients now say they were never even capable of consenting to. How can this Government justify experimenting on children, rather than prioritising safeguarding, evidence and psychological support?
Wes Streeting
The hon. Lady has offered a political opinion, not a clinical judgment. By that logic, we would not have any medicine for children and young people; we would never have undertaken clinical trials or studies, because we would have judged that children and young people could not take part in them. That is objectively not a sensible position.
I understand the sensitivity surrounding this issue, and the hon. Lady is right to say that people in our country have received life-changing clinical interventions that they later regretted. As part of that regret, they have shared that they did not feel, at the time, that they were making or could have made an informed decision. That is why this trial is set up in such a way that it has such strong clinical oversight locally as well as nationally. It cannot happen without not just the assent of a young person but the consent of their parent or guardian. Those are important protections and safeguards. I do not share the hon. Lady’s characterisation of the trial.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I support the pathways clinical trial, but it is clear that many, many young people presenting with gender incongruence will not be able to access it, for whatever reason. I am concerned about the mental health of those who will not be able to access the clinical trial. What additional support can the Secretary of State provide for those people, particularly around their mental health?
Wes Streeting
The study includes a lot of research around wider therapeutic support and interventions, including mental health support. We are rolling out more clinics and services across the country to bring that care closer to home.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We need a short question. I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I thank the Secretary of State for all that he does? He deserves credit. A mother from my constituency phoned me this morning and said:
“Why is money being spent on this pathway when my child has been waiting for clinical support for 3 years and the waiting list is so long she may be moved to adult treatment? Why is Government prioritising the tiny few over the many? With our children’s mental health services at breaking point and parents at their wits end trying to get their child diagnosed”,
how do the Government look in the eyes of the parents with rare diseases whose drugs are not funded by the NHS when they are funding this trial?
Wes Streeting
I say respectfully to the hon. Gentleman, whom I like very much, and to his constituent, that it is because I have also had to look into the eyes of people in this community who have not received the right care and seen the deleterious impact it has had on their mental health and wellbeing. I have had to deal with parents who have suffered loss and bereavement. We have to make sure that we are doing the right thing by everyone. This should not be an either/or choice.
Several hon. Members rose—
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
Trans people do not wake up at 18 suddenly trans; it starts before then. When we talk about protecting children, it means protecting trans children so that they can transition into adulthood knowing that they had parents and doctors who advocated for their needs. But this trial is not a prison sentence, so will the Secretary of State talk about whether people are entitled to withdraw from it if they change their mind?
Wes Streeting
They certainly can, and if they withdraw, they will still get the wider therapeutic support they deserve.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
We are talking here about physically healthy primary school-age children being injected with drugs to stop them growing up. There is nothing medically wrong with these children; what they need is love, support and compassion to help them to accept their healthy bodies. They are perfect just the way they are.
The Health Secretary says that he is “uncomfortable” with this experiment, and his instincts are correct. In the haunting words of Keira Bell, a courageous young woman and a victim of the Tavistock scandal:
“I was an unhappy girl who needed help. Instead, I was treated like an experiment.”
When these children who are now going to be experimented on become adults, they will want to know who did this to them. This time, the truth will be that this was state-sanctioned, out in the open and—I am afraid to say—at the Health Secretary’s say-so. I am begging the Health Secretary to use his power as the politician in charge to do what he must know is right and stop this.
Wes Streeting
I wish I had certainty on this issue, and in some ways I envy my hon. Friend for his certainty. Having occasionally found myself to be a lonely voice in my party when sat on the Opposition Benches, I respect the fact that it is not easy to be a minority, dissenting voice, especially when one feels so strongly about an issue. I respect my hon. Friend’s position, even though I disagree with it—I do think this trial is the right thing to do. He is right that we need love, compassion and empathy for these young people; we also need to understand what health and care support will produce the best outcomes for them, which is what the trial is about.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his leadership on this issue. Nobody envies him the decisions he has to make, but he has made the right decision on this.
During my election campaign, I met a fantastic mother—no mother could have loved their daughter more. She told me about how, when her daughter entered puberty, she had to come to terms with her biological sex, and about the impact on her mental health. To delay puberty, she stopped eating. She ended up arriving at hospital in an ambulance, so weak that she had to be treated in that ambulance. I welcome the fact that the trial will look at some of the side effects of puberty blockers, but will it also consider the impact of not taking puberty blockers in some cases? Will the Secretary of State also tell us how the House will be kept up to date on the trial as it progresses?
Wes Streeting
I can certainly promise my hon. Friend that we will keep the House regularly updated. The risks he has described have weighed heavily on my conscience when putting in place a permanent ban on puberty blockers; I have understood the risk involved, and the vulnerability of this particular group of children and young people. I also meant to say, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder), that the parents of trans young people love their children very much. That has been at the heart of so many of the representations I have received, from parents as well as from young people.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The Conservative party welcomed the Cass review on its publication, including its clear recommendation that this trial take place. Eight years ago, the then leader of the Conservative party supported self-ID and declared that trans women are women; now, we have dog-whistle statements such as, “If we leave these children alone, many will get over it,” which the shadow Minister said just yesterday in Westminster Hall. Does the Secretary of State agree that a rigorous clinical trial is the only way we will get the impartial evidence he needs to make informed decisions on gender-affirming care for trans young people?
Wes Streeting
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that we need a strong evidence base, that we need to conduct these conversations with great care, consideration and compassion, and that we need to recognise the vulnerability of this particular group of children and young people, and the fear that so many trans people in our country feel about whether this is a country that accepts and respects them. The political climate has changed since we made all the progress we have made on LGBT equality over the last 20 or 30 years, but do I think the character of this country has changed? Do I think we are less inclusive, less respectful, less loving or less caring? Absolutely not—those are the hallmarks of this country and of the British people. We might be having a debate about the efficacy of this trial, but I think the overwhelming majority of people in this House are doing so in the spirit of wanting trans people to live healthy, happy lives in which they feel safe, included and respected in our country.
UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s strategic partnership with the EU.
The Government were elected with a manifesto commitment to reset relations with our European partners; to tear down unnecessary barriers to trade and cut costs and red tape for British producers and retailers; to increase national security through strong borders and greater co-operation with our closest allies; and to support jobs here in the UK and opportunities abroad.
In May this year, the Government agreed a new strategic partnership with the EU, which the Prime Minister announced at the historic UK-EU summit—the first of its kind. It is a landmark deal that is good for bills, good for our borders and good for jobs. We took that decision, exercising our sovereignty, to strike a deal in the national interest. We had to fix a bad deal passed on to us by the previous Government—the first trade deal in history that made it harder to trade. Just as we have done with the US and India, this Labour Government are striking deals to bring down bills for British people and open new opportunities for British businesses.
Since that summit, I have led negotiations with the European Commission to implement the commitments we made. I am therefore pleased to inform the House that, earlier today, the UK and the European Commission concluded negotiations for the UK’s association to Erasmus+ from 2027. This will open up world-class opportunities for students, teachers, youth workers, sports sector professionals and communities of all ages in our education, training, sport and youth sectors—both for the professionals who work in those sectors and, crucially, for our young people.
For students, this means more chances to study, train, work or volunteer abroad, gaining language skills and experience that will make them attractive to employers; for our teachers, youth workers and those who work in the sports sector, it means greater opportunities for professional development; and for our schools, colleges, universities and providers, it means access to networks and partnerships that will drive quality, encourage research links, and enhance the reputation of the UK’s world-leading education system. This morning, I met students at New City College in Hackney to see the range of benefits there are going to be, including playing basketball.
As part of Erasmus+, participants can travel to any European Union member state, as well as to several countries outside the European Union. It will go further than schemes that have come before, offering a broader scope of activity and a specific focus on unlocking opportunities for all. It is an investment in opportunity for young people from all backgrounds, for our workforce, and for our future. It will open doors for tens of thousands more young people across the UK, renewing our ties with Europe and beyond. This Labour Government have always been clear that we want young people to have access to the best opportunities in life, no matter what their background or where in this country they live. That is what we have consistently delivered, and it is what we are delivering through today’s announcement.
We are pleased that the EU has agreed financial terms that represent a fair balance between the UK’s contribution and the benefits the programme offers. The 30% discount in 2027, compared with the default terms in the trade and co-operation agreement, has paved the way for UK participation in the programme.
We also agreed that there will be a review of the UK’s participation in the programme 10 months after our association, so that we can look at the actual data concerning the demand for funding in the UK. Going forward, any continued participation in Erasmus+ under the next multi-annual financial framework will be informed by that data and our experience of association in 2027. We have always said that we will not sign deals unless they are in the national interest, and in this case I am happy to say that the agreement passed that test.
The Government will now work to maximise take-up across all sectors so that the benefits of Erasmus+ association can be fully realised. We will work closely with institutions and our young people to support this, particularly among disadvantaged groups. A UK national agency will be appointed to administer the programme in due course.
In addition, I am pleased to inform the House that the UK and the European Commission have concluded exploratory talks on the UK’s participation in the EU’s internal electricity market. The details of this will be set out in an exchange of letters between me and Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, to be published next week. Closer co-operation on electricity will bring real benefits to businesses and consumers across Europe. It will drive down energy costs and protect consumers against volatile fossil fuel markets. It will also drive up investment in the North sea and strengthen energy security. The UK and the EU will now proceed swiftly with negotiations on a UK-EU electricity agreement.
But that is not all. I welcome the clarification from the European Commission today that, in practice, there should be no carbon border adjustment mechanism costs levied on UK electricity exports—a welcome development that reflects our extensive use of renewables. Negotiations to link our carbon markets are also under way, which will cut costs, make it cheaper for UK companies to move to greener energy and, once agreed, save £7 billion-worth of UK goods exports from EU CBAM charges.
Negotiations on the food and drink agreement are also under way, which will enable food and agriculture businesses to trade more cheaply and easily by slashing the red tape and costly paperwork introduced by the last Government, which result in businesses facing £200 for export health certificates on every single shipment, or small businesses choosing not to trade with the EU altogether. Our new agreement will put this right, boosting our exports, cutting costs for importers, and bringing down prices on supermarket shelves.
The UK and the EU are committed to implementing the commitments of the May 2025 summit in a timely manner. We are working swiftly to conclude negotiations on the food and drink deal and on linking our carbon markets by the time of the next UK-EU summit in 2026. Across all these areas, the UK is clear that there will be no return to the single market, the customs union or freedom of movement. We will agree deals that are in our national interest. The Government are exercising our sovereignty to deliver for the British people.
We are committed to building this new strategic partnership with the European Union. Indeed, last week I spoke with my counterpart in the Commission, Maroš Šefčovič, and we underlined our shared commitment to implementing the common understanding that the Prime Minister and the Commission President agreed at the UK- EU summit in May. Whether it is through boosting opportunities for young people and educators across the country, cutting energy bills or agreeing a food and drink deal that slashes red tape and cuts costs, I will always negotiate in the interests of this country and our people.
I will continue to lead negotiations with the Commission. I look forward to the next annual UK-EU summit, where the Government will continue to build that new strategic partnership. That is what a grown-up, pragmatic relationship looks like. We work together under shared aims for mutually beneficial solutions to our shared problems. That is the approach the Government are taking and that is the approach that is delivering results. I commend this statement to the House.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
We on the Opposition side of the House recognise the importance of giving young people educational opportunities, but it is vital—[Interruption.] Government Members clearly do not recognise the need for schemes to offer genuine value for money. The UK already had the opportunity to remain a member of Erasmus, but it was precisely because the Conservative Government recognised that the scheme did not offer value for money to the taxpayer that we chose not to.
That is why the Conservative Government created the Turing scheme instead—a global programme for young people in the UK that did not require us, one-sidedly, to hand a blank cheque to Brussels. The Turing scheme delivered 43,000 placements around the world last year, 23,000 of which were to learners from disadvantaged backgrounds, at a cost of just over £100 million. Can the Minister confirm that his statement in no way undermines the future of the Turing scheme? Is that scheme guaranteed, or are those opportunities being sacrificed for a smaller number of opportunities available under Erasmus+?
The Minister has confirmed that the UK will pay £570 million to rejoin Erasmus+. We understand that will be paid from existing budgets, but can he tell us where the money is coming from? Is that £570 million being added to the £6 billion special educational needs and disabilities black hole that the Office for Budget Responsibility identified in the education budget? Does the Minister expect more students to take part in the new scheme than the 10,000 previous participants in Erasmus+, or are we paying £570 million for essentially 10,000 placements a year?
The Minister spoke about a fair contribution being a 30% discount. Of course, it is only a matter of weeks since the Government were briefing that a fair contribution would be a 50% discount. They clearly failed in those negotiations. Can the Minister assure us that while he says that he has a discount for the first year, a discount will be available in subsequent years? If those assurances have not yet been received and the EU does not offer a similar deal in future years, is he prepared to walk away?
The Opposition have set out clear tests to ensure that the Government do not roll back on Brexit, including no backsliding on free movement. Can the Minister outline what protections will be put in place to ensure that rejoining Erasmus does not simply mean a return to free movement by the back door for young people? That is particularly important given his complete failure, when asked multiple times, to set out what size of cap he thinks would be appropriate for youth mobility.
Rejoining Erasmus is the Government’s latest attempt to undo Brexit by stealth. That was clear from the outset of these negotiations, when the Government agreed to surrender UK fishing rights to the EU for 12 years, under the pretence that that would
“pave the way for the UK defence industry to participate in the EU’s proposed new…defence fund”.
Yet six months later that deal has collapsed after the EU’s extortionate demands for billions of pounds to join the fund, with no guarantee of any return on investment in the form of procurement. Can the Minister explain to our hard-working fishing industry why they will not be getting their fish back, even though that deal has fallen through?
The British people made a clear decision to take back control in 2016. Despite the Government’s protestations, their approach shows an increasing disregard for that democratic decision.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
If I have got this right, I chose not to sign up to participate in the SAFE—Security Action for Europe—fund because it did not represent value for money, and the Opposition are criticising me for that, but they are also criticising me for signing up to something that is value for money. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman about fish. A big advantage to our fishing sector, which exports 70% of its catch to the EU, is the food and drink agreement that I am going to secure by the time of the next UK-EU summit. That is what will benefit our fishers.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the Turing scheme, it is important that I say from the Dispatch Box that any person on the Turing scheme in this academic year will continue to be funded. I have to tell him, however, that his numbers are absolutely all over the place. First, the Erasmus+ scheme has changed significantly since the version that his Government walked away from. Furthermore, do we seriously think that that lot could have secured a 30% discount? Absolutely not.
The one figure that the hon. Gentleman did get right was 43,200, which is the number of people involved in the last year of the Turing scheme. Erasmus is a far bigger scheme. We will expect tens of thousands of young people—100,000-plus—and others to have opportunities from Erasmus. But let me tell the hon. Gentleman this as well: Erasmus is a great deal broader than the Turing scheme in terms of opportunities. The Turing scheme is about colleges, schools and universities. Erasmus+ presents wider opportunities, including youth work, sports and the ability of staff to have professional exchanges. Let me just say, before Conservative Members start talking about the fact that Turing is all around the world, that the grant-making bodies for Erasmus+ in the UK can still allocate 20% of the funding if they want to, if people want to go to other parts of the world as well. What this is doing is vastly increasing the opportunities not just for young people, but for adult learners. If the Conservative position is now to oppose a massive expansion in opportunities for young people, I will welcome that debate at the next election.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
Young people have lost so much. The pandemic kept them in their homes when they should have been in the classroom, years of austerity under the Tories saw cuts in the services on which they rely, and a bad Brexit deal stopped the invaluable chance to study abroad in Europe. Rejoining Erasmus opens up real opportunities for young people to study, train and gain experience abroad. Will the Minister say more about how this experience can help young people to grow in confidence and get them work-ready?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is quite right about the wonderful opportunities that this presents, and not just for self-confidence; the young people I spoke to only this morning at a further education college told me that going overseas had helped them to grow as people. However, the House should not just take my word for it: the Association of Colleges says that this is “brilliant news” for further education colleges. Universities UK says that it is
“fantastic news for the UK”.
The Russell Group of universities is “delighted” about this reassociation. But who is opposed to it? The Conservative party.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
We welcome the Minister’s announcement. As a recovering academic—a distinction that I think I share with him—I have witnessed at first hand the impact of our exiting the Erasmus scheme on university student intake. Welcoming students from across the EU into our education institutions and giving our own students opportunities to study abroad have undeniably strengthened our education system, so after years of campaigning, the Liberal Democrats welcome the news that the UK is finally set to rejoin the Erasmus scheme in 2027. However—I am sure the Minister expected there to be a “however”—while this represents an important first step towards building a closer relationship with Europe, I urge him to go further and faster.
Beyond this fixed-term experience of Erasmus+, will the Government commit to a proper youth mobility scheme for the benefit of the next generation, and can he update the House on what progress has been made in such negotiations? How confident is he that our food, drink and sanitary and phytosanitary scheme will be agreed by 2026, and how long thereafter will it take to fully implement the scheme? Agrifood and horticultural businesses cannot afford any further delays.
Finally, on the subject of unnecessary barriers to trade—which is where the Minister began his statement—will his Department commit itself at the very least to conducting a transparent assessment of the potential economic growth benefits of a UK-EU customs deal of the kind that the House voted for last week?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
We are aiming to conclude negotiations on the youth experience scheme by the next summit—which I see in the context of the 13 youth mobility schemes that already exist, many of them signed by the previous Government, although the Conservatives seem to have a collective amnesia about it nowadays—together with the linking of our emissions trading systems and the food and drink agreement. The hon. Gentleman asked me a direct question about the implementation of that agreement. I want to see it implemented by the first half of 2027, which will mean bringing a piece of legislation to Parliament in 2026 and then getting it through Parliament. I hope that, whatever our views may be, we will have support in doing that as quickly as possible in 2027.
Let me, for a moment, speak more broadly about Erasmus+—and, indeed, this applies to the youth experience scheme as well. I want both schemes to be open to people from all backgrounds across the United Kingdom. People often refer to Erasmus+ as a university exchange programme, and of course that is a vital part of it, but it is not just a university exchange programme; it is accessible across the country. I have been looking at, for example, the Welsh Government’s Taith programme, which has done an extremely good job with regard to accessibility. Where there is there are lessons to be learned from that, we will absolutely learn them.
Where I disagree with the hon. Gentleman is, of course, on the issue of the customs union, because the Government has only in recent days signed an additional free trade agreement with South Korea, and we also have the economic deal with the United States and the free trade deal with India. All those would have to be torn up if we went down the path that he has suggested.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the announcement that the UK will rejoin Erasmus+. I had the opportunity to live and work in Europe as a young person aged 18, and it was an experience that has continued to benefit me throughout my life. I particularly welcome the extension of the scheme beyond study, and the Government’s desire to extend that opportunity to young people from all backgrounds. It is one of the very many detriments of Brexit that young people were denied the opportunity to live and work and study through the Erasmus scheme.
Having announced this welcome development, can the Minister confirm that he will now be turning his attention to some of the other detriments that continue to be experienced, particularly by small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency, as a consequence of the inability to trade in Europe because of barriers resulting from Brexit? Can he confirm that work is ongoing in that regard, and that all options that are in the national interest will remain on the table?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is quite right. Tens of thousands more people, many of them young people, will benefit from the accession to Erasmus+, although I seriously think, on the basis of what the shadow Minister said, that the Conservatives will go into the next election opposing those additional opportunities for people. As for my hon. Friend’s second point about reducing trade barriers, since Brexit 16,000 businesses have stopped trading with the EU altogether, and as for the food and drink agreement, she can be assured that work is ongoing to seek to complete those negotiations by the time of the next summit.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
In his white shirt and red tie, the Minister is doing a very good impression of Santa making an early visit. The announcements that he has made this afternoon are—I think—to be warmly welcomed, and he is to be personally congratulated on the good faith and patience that he has shown in his conversations with Maroš Šefčovič and others. That is clearly paying dividends.
Does the Minister agree that those of us on the Opposition Benches who last week voted against the idiotic proposal from the Liberal Democrats for a customs union have been proved right and then wrong, because the evolution of the relationship within the guardrails of the existing arrangement are the way to go, preserving those new free trade deals and seeing them extended while encouraging businesses to trade with Europe?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Absolutely. As always, the hon. Gentleman has made a sensible, well-informed contribution, and I am grateful for his kind words and his personal congratulation, which is deeply appreciated. He is entirely right: there is a set of guardrails that constitute this Government’s democratic mandate not to rejoin the single market or the customs union, or to go back to freedom of movement. We are exercising that independent trade policy, as has been seen in recent days in respect of the deal with South Korea. Within that framework, today’s announcement shows that the negotiations are progressing and delivering tangible results for the British people.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We have less than 45 minutes for this statement, so questions must be short.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his announcement on Erasmus+, which is hugely welcome news for students and for my youngest constituents in Stratford and Bow. Before I came to this place I worked with the Mayor of London in calling for an Erasmus scheme, and the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, of which I am a member, has called for it constantly, alongside our European partners. We want students to have the same chances of opportunity that we had, so that they do not suffer the consequences of a Brexit that they had no say in. Can the Minister outline the next steps in the UK’s participation?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she does in the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, and I am grateful for the work that is done by that group more broadly. Clearly, there now needs to be the appointment of a national agency. I am sure the House will appreciate that it is a commercially sensitive matter, but I certainly hope to be doing that very soon in order to make sure that we have all that we need in place to support those who would like to participate from 2027. There will be great opportunities available, and I look forward to doing all I can as a Minister to support people into them.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Minister’s statement did not seem to say what the contribution to the EU will be, but media reports suggest £570 million. By opening our borders, we will have youth workers and others coming to the UK at a time of rising unemployment. Could he confirm the amount that will be paid? Will it be more than what will be raised through the family farm tax, which the Budget said will only raise up to £500 million a year, even at the end of this Parliament?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
We would expect the price to be £810 million. With the discount, it is £570 million. However, the right hon. Gentleman completely misunderstands the situation, because a substantial amount of that money will come back in the form of grants to our own people who are applying to be on the scheme. On his point about value for money, I have made sure that the argument about having a fair balance is embedded. That is the basis on which we will continue, but after 10 months there will be a review that looks at the balance between contribution and participation. If he wants to do something useful to address that balance, he could encourage his own constituents to participate.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I am a proud Erasmus graduate and the first in my family to go to university. As I was a carer for my late mother, I did not study abroad. I stayed at home and commuted to university, so Erasmus was the first time I was able to experience that. Many years on, I still have connections and friendships that were formed through the scheme, and it is good to know that young people in my constituency will be able to benefit from it. It is so, so vital. Can the Minister outline the timeframe a bit more, so that we can make sure that this is rolled out not just to young people in university but to apprentices, young workers and those studying, to make sure that they get life skills and experiences that are so rich and that will stay with them for life?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend speaks powerfully about the transformative experience that she had. My aim today is to have, in years to come, others who can speak similarly of the transformative experience that they have had. With regard to moving forward, it will first be about the appointment of a national agency. It will then be about doing really important work next year to get the application process up and running, and about making sure that people have the necessary information and are supported to be able to take advantage of the wonderful opportunities that will be coming in 2027.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Hallelujah! It feels like some common sense is finally re-entering this debate, and I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement. So do my constituents in Oxford West and Abingdon who wrote to me at the time. Many were literally in tears because they were worried that they would not be able to participate—in fact, they could not do so. But I do hear what others are saying. They are trying to pooh-pooh how much this agreement is worth. It is not just about the money, but there is money to be recouped here and there will have been an impact assessment. How much is this worth to the UK economy now and going forward?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First, I cannot better the first word of the hon. Lady’s contribution. As we move forward, we will make the kinds of assessments that she talks about, and she is absolutely right to say that the agreement will make a significant contribution to our workforce and, indeed, to our economy. Despite the chuntering from Conservative Members, this is not only about money; it is also about the fact that young people’s lives, and indeed adult learners’ lives, are going to be enriched in so many ways. This is something we should celebrate across the House.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the Minister on doing what many of us have felt has been needed in the relationship between the European Union and the UK: what therapists call “active listening”. He is actually listening to our neighbours, finding out what they are interested in and where we can do a deal, and recognising that those in a relationship who keep making random demands—whether they are about a customs union, rejoining the EU or fish—fail to recognise the importance of communication to negotiation. I note that the original wreckers of this relationship have not turned up today to explain to Britain’s young people, who have borne the consequences of their bad behaviour, why they felt that it was necessary.
The Minister will know that many more people in our constituencies are now looking at the work he is doing to repair the UK-EU relationship, and seeking some Christmas cheer. For all the businesses still facing piles of paperwork and mountains of red tape, can he play Santa a little bit more and tell us what 2026 might bring in resetting the relationship and getting Britain back on track with its neighbours?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I pay a warm tribute to my hon. Friend for the campaigning work that she does on this issue. At the next UK-EU summit in 2026, we will seek to complete the negotiations on a food and drink agreement, which would mean less red tape and less cost for businesses; on the linkage of our emissions trading system, so that we do not have our businesses levied with carbon taxes; and on the youth experience scheme, so that we have even more opportunities for our young people. That will be a positive 2026.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I thank the Minister for the work he did in another capacity on behalf of the victims, and the relatives of the victims, of the infected blood scandal? He did a very good job, and he reached out to us in a much-appreciated, non-partisan way.
This statement is entitled “UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations”. Is it his understanding, as the Minister for EU relations, that the people with whom he is having dealings are still bent on the creation of a federal United States of Europe? [Interruption.] Do I detect some chuntering on the Government Benches to suggest that some people in this House might want to be a part of that?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I think the second part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question is best directed to the European Commission. In relation to the first part of his question, he knows that I have always worked cross-party on infected blood, and it is important that I continue to do so.
On working with our European friends and neighbours—whether it is the work that the Prime Minister is doing in leading the coalition of the willing, or the painstaking work that we have been doing in recent days on Russian assets—the close relationship and strategic partnership between the UK and the EU is crucial for our nation’s security.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
I really welcome the return of Erasmus and the opportunity for young people in Hastings and Rye to study and train in Europe again. As a coastal town, we also want to see the return of our closest link with our European neighbours through bringing back international trains to Ashford International, which this Labour Government support. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I hear many south-east colleagues echoing that call. Could the Minister, in his discussions with European colleagues, encourage discussions with Eurostar and urge Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Trains, which will soon be running trains on the line, to stop at Ashford International?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I think my hon. Friend has managed to create some cross-party consensus, which is pleasing to see. She makes a very powerful case. Whether it is the particular issue of Ashford International or many other transport-related issues, my door is always open for discussions. I would very much welcome her making formal representations to me as well.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I am afraid to say that it is almost 30 years since I made the transformative journey from Dundee to Antwerp for my Erasmus experience. I thank the Minister, because there is some progress in this area. May I ask him a couple of practical questions? First, obviously there is a different higher education system in Scotland, and Scottish universities are very involved in this. How will the financial mechanisms work? Has he worked that out with the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations? Secondly, I want to see all young people have the opportunities that he and I enjoyed. When will we see a return to freedom of movement for our young people entirely?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will disappoint the hon. Gentleman on his last point, because we will not be going back to freedom of movement. However, on his first question, I was talking to the Scottish Government only first thing this morning, and the same issue was raised. Obviously, this does not affect the home fees position, which, by the way, is distinct in England, Scotland and indeed Wales. In the university context that he is talking about, someone would have their home fees position, but, for example, they could take a gap year to take advantage of the Erasmus+ opportunity. I am pleased to hear that Erasmus+ was transformative for him in Antwerp, and I hope we will soon have many more people who can say the same.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I commend my right hon. Friend for his diligent and detailed work on this. It really is proper grown-up politics, as he said. The return of Erasmus will be widely welcomed in Cambridge, where it has helped many young people in the past and will help an even wider group in the future. Could I just press him on the SPS agreement? I think he confirmed that we will see the back of the wretched export health certificates in 2027. If so, it is a fantastic change. Is that correct?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Yes, indeed. There are fees on businesses today—£200 per consignment on export health certificates, £1,400 if a business is selected for sampling, £61 for identity checks—all of which can be swept away when the SPS agreement is implemented. As I said to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), the objective is to implement that in the first half of 2027.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The intentions behind the Erasmus scheme are unobjectionable, but £570 million is an awful lot of money, so I am very pleased that there will be a review after 10 months. Will that review include an assessment of the scheme against what happened in the past, which was essentially to provide a benefit for predominantly middle-class humanities university students, and will he ensure that the opportunity costs to further education, which is tasked with upskilling our young people from a different demographic, are adequately taken into account?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First, to give the right hon. Member some reassurance on further education—by the way, I agree with the point that this has to be open to people from all backgrounds, and I think the Erasmus+ scheme of today is very different from how it was even 10 years ago—the chief executive of the Association of Colleges, which represents our FE sector, has today called this “brilliant news” for staff and students of all ages in further education colleges. I hope that gives him the reassurance that this is not simply about universities, hugely important though our university sector is.
Secondly, on the right hon. Member’s point about the review, it will absolutely be data-led. We have had this debate before about participation versus contribution, and I have always said there has to be a fair balance—that is why I have negotiated the discount in the way I have—but the review will allow us to move forward on the basis of solid data about the numbers of participants. I am always in favour of data-led decision making.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
First, as Chair of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, I welcome the statement. I also commend my right hon. Friend for the stellar job he is doing in showing that this Labour Government are making very good progress on rebuilding our relationships with the EU. Rejoining Erasmus+ is a big win for young people in Battersea and across the country, creating opportunities to study, train, develop new skills, achieve success and, more importantly, thrive. Can he outline a bit more about how young people will be able to access the Erasmus+ scheme?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work she does co-chairing the PPA. In 2026, it is critical that we have both the national agency and the simplest possible process for people to access a very wide range of benefits. I hope that was short enough, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is great to see the Paymaster General at the Dispatch Box, as always, but it would be even better if we could see him at the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which is taking a close interest in the food and drink agreement. May I remind him that Boris Johnson got it badly wrong with the trade and co-operation agreement, because he allowed the political imperative of getting a deal to trump the detail of that deal, and that was because he did not listen to the fishermen, farmers and other food producers? Will he keep them close as he negotiates, and will he come to talk to the Select Committee? We really will not bite him, I promise.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will hold the right hon. Member to that promise. On working with those sectors, he is absolutely right. As we move forward, first, to complete the negotiations for a detailed legal text on the SPS agreement, but also as we move into the implementation phase, everyone understands that we are reducing barriers, cutting red tape and making trade easier. However, we absolutely have to work with our fishers, farmers and all those in the agrifood sector to make that as smooth as possible.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The UK’s return to involvement in Erasmus is hugely welcome not only for my constituents who are at university, but for those learning in schools and FE colleges and working in the sports and youth sectors. Could my right hon. Friend please outline what steps the Government will be taking particularly in relation to those based in sectors not previously involved, so that they can expect to and can plan for their involvement in Erasmus from 2027?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. For example, the first place I wanted to visit this morning was a further education college—the New City college in Hackney—because I am really keen that the FE sector gets the full benefit. She is absolutely right that proactively reaching out to the youth sector, adult learners or staff in professional training will be really important, because people can understand those opportunities if they want to take advantage of them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I have only 20 minutes remaining, so Members must keep their questions short and answers just as short.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Could the Minister just spell out for the House’s benefit how much taxpayers’ money he has signed up to spending next year and in every year of this Parliament? On where Members of Parliament can read about value for money, which line item of the Budget has this money come out of?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
For one year, the figure is £570 million, which is a 30% discount—better than the Conservative party ever achieved—and 10 months in, we will have a full review of both participation and contribution. I say gently to the hon. Lady that, if she is going to go into the next election saying that young people in her constituency who benefit from Erasmus+ should no longer do so, I would welcome that debate.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
As a Member of the UK-EU PPA, I absolutely welcome the statement, particularly that we will be rejoining the Erasmus+ scheme to the benefit of young people in Exeter. We should never have left, and this is the next step in rebuilding relations with our closest neighbours after such a catastrophic period under the previous Government. Does the Minister agree that it is only through co-operation with our closest European neighbours and partners, not isolation, that we will get the cultural, social and economic growth this country really needs?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are mutual benefits and mutual objectives—I am afraid to say that, in modern-day Europe, the UK and the EU also face mutual threats—and closer co-operation to deliver results is absolutely crucial.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
This deal will not give back the futures that were stolen from so many young people by Boris Johnson’s Government, but it does offer such futures to people going forward. It is good work. That said, small, medium-sized and large businesses in Tewkesbury and the economy at large need the Government to stop fumbling around the edges. It is time for the Minister to speak to the Government and get us a customs union with the European Union, is it not?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
It is time to deliver concrete results, and that is exactly what I am doing.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I saw a good joke earlier—a one-liner—that says, “Lib Dem campaigning works!” I do not think so: it is this Labour Government who have delivered the change today.
University of Nottingham staff in my constituency face considerable pressure due to ongoing restructuring. What would the Minister say to those staff, who are under intense pressure, about what this offers at an organisational level for our universities?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. I think this is clearly good news and a good deal for our university sector, which is why both Universities UK and the Russell Group have come out in its support in such glowing terms today.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not being full of Christmas cheer. Although people are welcoming this announcement, businesses in Northern Ireland are being disadvantaged—rising costs, significant trade barriers because of the Windsor framework, delivery not being available a regular problem for online shoppers in Northern Ireland, and the immediate cliff edge for veterinary medicines and import control system 2, as well as type approval for cars. When will this Government stand up for Northern Ireland’s place within the Union and sort out the trade barriers of this internal market?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I spoke to both the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland only this morning to discuss the arrangements around Erasmus+ and the other announcements I have made on electricity. I can assure the hon. Lady, as I am also responsible for the Windsor framework, that it is a top priority for me. It is a top priority as well for the Prime Minister, who has a personal interest in Northern Ireland having been the human rights adviser to the Policing Board. With regard to barriers to trade that the hon. Lady was referring to on the Irish sea, it is precisely pushing forward and getting the SPS deal implemented quickly that will allow us to lower those barriers, which is what I am determined to do.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I also welcome progress on Erasmus, but may I ask about progress on another commitment from the May summit: advance co-operation on foreign information, manipulation and interference, and working together to fight violent extremism including in its online dimension? The UK and the EU do indeed face threats, including threats to our digital sovereignty from the same powerful people, so we need urgently to work together.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, whether in terms of information or, indeed, hybrid warfare. In opposition, I visited Estonia, and other parts of eastern Europe, and I see what is happening on this every day. She is absolutely right about the importance of partnership between the UK and the EU; it is in our national interest.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The news about the reinstatement of the Erasmus scheme is brilliant for our young people. I have heard from language schools in Torbay, particularly International House Torquay, who have taken advantage of the group travel scheme for German students to be able to use just their ID cards to study languages in England. What opportunities does the right hon. Gentleman see of rolling out a similar scheme for Swiss, Italian and Spanish students?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I can update the hon. Gentleman and will write to him on the three specific countries he has mentioned, but I also say that the announcement I have made today on Erasmus+ clearly opens up even more opportunities for schools, which I am sure will be widely welcomed.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call “Christmas jumper” Phil Brickell.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
As a former Erasmus student, I congratulate the Paymaster General on the steely resolve, the pragmatism and the significant progress he has been able to achieve. Only a few weeks ago, two fellow Erasmus students from the UK who I studied with in Germany were in this place. I was with them for the first time in 13 years, and they have messaged me today to congratulate the Government. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is most important to deliver on the concrete commitments agreed with our EU partners at the May summit, as opposed to heeding Lib Dem Members’ siren calls about a supposedly bespoke customs union?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I thank him for his kind words and indeed his two friends and former Erasmus colleagues. I will also, if I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, congratulate him on the Christmas jumper.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I welcome the Erasmus+ agreement as closer ties with Europe are good news for the futures of thousands upon thousands of young people. Since 2022, the Taith programme in Wales has offered life-changing opportunities for people to study abroad after Brexit slammed so many doors shut. Given its implications for Taith, how will Wales’s priorities be reflected in the administration of Erasmus+?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
A Welsh MP negotiated the new agreement, so I hope that is a good start. The right hon. Lady is none the less absolutely right to praise the Welsh Labour Government’s work on the Taith programme; it is great to see her praising the work of the Welsh Labour Government. In November, I spoke to civic society groups and those involved in that Taith outreach and discovered their exemplary work involving students and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, and I am looking at that work in terms of access to Erasmus+.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s focus on jobs, bills and borders as part of a pragmatic and balanced reset of our relationship with the European Union. I have already heard from constituents like Robert in Boscombe, who welcomes the fact that the UK will be rejoining Erasmus. When a Government invest in our children, our country starts to care about our future again. Will the Minister update the House on progress towards a youth mobility scheme, and on what role he sees English language schools playing in our future economy as we bring European students to Bournemouth?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
It is always good to hear from my hon. Friend, and indeed from Robert. As I indicated, we will look to have agreed the youth experience scheme by the time of the next UK-EU summit and my hon. Friend can be assured that it will be a priority for the Government.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Mandatory method of production labelling on animal-derived products could improve animal welfare and increase UK farm profits by over £46 million annually, but we must make sure that the UK-EU SPS agreement is aligned on standards and quality so that British farmers in Glastonbury and Somerton and across the country are not undercut by lower welfare imports. Can the Minister outline what progress has been made on negotiating a comprehensive SPS agreement?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
SPS negotiations are under way and we want to complete them by the time of the next summit. If the hon. Lady writes to me on the specific issue she raised, I will address it in detail.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I refer colleagues to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the Minister for his statement, although I am trying hard to visualise him playing basketball at Hackney college this morning. Perhaps photographs are available to confirm that it actually happened—apologies for that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Some 73% of university-age young people voted against Brexit—they voted to remain in the EU—so Erasmus always felt like a spiteful act, and I am really pleased that we are able to correct that injustice today. I worked in the university sector for almost 30 years before being elected to this place—hard to believe, I know—so I understand the benefits of Erasmus, but I do agree with the Minister that it was not a completely democratic process, and that it was middle-class students who tended to take part. How will he ensure that that changes? Will there be monitoring, perhaps, or will he consider targets?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. A tip for other questioners: the question does not require a preamble.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I may have been putting it a bit high when I said that I was playing basketball, but I did contribute in my own way.
On my hon. Friend’s second point, obviously the Erasmus+ programme has changed so that a wider range of activities is available, from youth work and adult education to sports, but there is also additional support in Erasmus for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. My hon. Friend is right about monitoring it, but my priority for the next few months will be driving that participation in the first place.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I thank the Minister for what is a clear Lib Dem win. I repeat the question from my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), on the need for a transparent assessment of the potential economic growth benefits of a customs deal. In three years, we will all be seeking a new mandate, and if we can really understand the potential economic benefits at that point, our residents and citizens will be able to make an informed decision. Can I please encourage the Minister to give a second thought to that study?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I have a bit of bad news for the hon. Gentleman: it is a Labour win, I am afraid. On his second point, if he wants to discuss the customs union, a good starting point might be the workers at Jaguar Land Rover.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. As he will be aware, my constituency of Harlow has a lower than average number of young people going to university, which is something that I would like to see addressed. However, can he talk me through the benefits of the Erasmus+ scheme for young people in Harlow who do not go on to university education?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When I spoke this morning, I had in my mind someone who wants to do some basketball coaching, or perhaps an engineer on an apprenticeship who has chosen not to go to university but who might well, none the less, want to go on a placement abroad. Those are just some examples of the wide range of benefits that I hope his constituents in Harlow will be able to benefit from.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I warmly welcome the Erasmus agreement that the Minister has announced, which is a Christmas present for young people. Turning to the SPS agreement that he is negotiating, I hope that those negotiations will be just as successful because that is undoubtedly in the best interests of this country. Can he confirm for me and some very invested constituents of mine that bivalve molluscs, or mussels, will be included in the SPS agreement that he is currently negotiating?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First of all, the SPS agreement is a great priority. I am fully aware of the issue with bivalve molluscs, or indeed—from memory—shellfish from class B waters. I am willing to speak directly to the hon. Lady about bivalve molluscs—perhaps she will write to me about that—but I can tell her that the SPS agreement will mean that for products we currently cannot export to the EU, such as British bangers, we will be able to do so again.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend expect the new agency with responsibility for Erasmus+ to work with the excellent Erasmus Student Network UK to promote these brilliant new opportunities for our young people, including in higher and further education institutions in Scotland?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I would certainly expect to see that collaborative approach.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
My constituents will be delighted that the Government are returning the UK to Erasmus+. One of my constituents wrote to me this morning:
“It is a win for those of us who think that international learning should be open to all, not just the children of the rich who can afford international fees.”
But, she said:
“It is too late for me. I was 11 when Brexit happened and I am now 21, and in my last year of university.”
Will the Government undo the wrongs done to such kids by the last Conservative Government, and go further and faster by committing to a youth mobility scheme?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The Government are already committed to a youth experience scheme by the time of the next UK-EU summit. Whether it is through Erasmus+ today or the youth experience scheme, this Government are delivering concrete benefits and opportunities for young people.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Whatever one’s view of Brexit, leaving the Erasmus scheme was unambiguously an act of self-harm, denying the opportunity for thousands of young people across the country to study and learn abroad. I congratulate the Minister on re-securing those benefits, but they cannot just be the preserve of a narrow few. How can we ensure that a far wider group of young people in my constituency are able to benefit from the new scheme?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about spreading these opportunities to people of all backgrounds. I will drive forward work as the Minister, but I say to colleagues from across the House that speaking in favour of this scheme to our constituents is something that we collectively, as Members of Parliament, can do.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I welcome today’s announcement, which will be of huge benefit to students from my constituency. Does the Minister agree that all young people from all backgrounds deserve to be able to work and study in Europe, and that the Conservative party should apologise for snatching opportunities away from an entire generation?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I entirely agree with the hon. Member on the spreading of opportunities. Frankly, I am absolutely baffled by the position of those on the Opposition Front Bench.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
As the son of a Deutschlehrer, may I say danke, because Christmas has come early for the young people and teachers in my constituency? Does the Minister agree that greater co-operation and friendship across Europe and beyond is the best way forward for our world and for our country, and that perhaps that is why those with EU derangement syndrome are so opposed to his policy?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Our co-operative, grown-up approach is delivering results and benefits for people here in the United Kingdom. I am proud of that approach, and it is what delivers.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
This scheme will help countless young people from Wokingham to gain invaluable life experiences and it is to be welcomed. The Minister says that the Conservative Brexit deal was a bad deal. Will he therefore look to correct it and begin negotiations on a bespoke UK-EU customs union, which would cut the endless red tape and free up many Wokingham businesses to do business with their European customers? A bespoke deal could raise £25 billion—far better than increasing national insurance contributions.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The hon. Gentleman is very welcome to continue debating. While he is doing that, I will correct the iniquities in the previous deal every working day.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
It was Christmas eve five years ago when Boris Johnson signed his fateful deal, which took away opportunities for young people and kicked us out of Erasmus. I thank the Minister for exorcising that ghost of Christmas past. Does he agree that the message we have heard in the Chamber today is that the Conservative party wants to keep opportunities locked away from young people, that Reform cares so little it has not even shown up, and that those who want to extend opportunities for our young people need to back a Labour Government?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
One hundred per cent. It is this Labour Government who are delivering for our young people.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister as heartily as everyone else has on bringing the UK back into Erasmus and ensuring that people from all backgrounds, including university students, can once again enjoy the opportunities that the Tory Brexit took away. Part of my Chelsea and Fulham constituency ranks among the 12th most deprived areas in the United Kingdom. I am looking forward, I should tell the Minister, to helping the young people there to seize the new opportunities. May I encourage the Minister to also be ambitious in concluding a youth experience scheme, which would further restore the opportunities that our young people deserve?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Absolutely. Indeed, by the time of the next UK-EU summit, we hope to have concluded negotiations on the linking of our emissions trading systems, on the food and drink agreement, and on the youth experience scheme.
Local Government Finance
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
On 20 November, my Department published a policy statement setting out our approach to the first multi-year local government finance settlement in a decade. Today, we publish the provisional settlement itself and launch our formal consultation on the proposals. It represents the choices we are making as a Government. Unlike the Tories, we will not look the other way as poverty gets worse. We will not ignore the economic and social costs of deprivation. The spending review announced over £5 billion of new grant funding for local services over the multi-year settlement period. That includes £3.4 billion of new grant funding being delivered through this settlement.
Before I give more details, I want to make this point. For 14 years, the Tories decimated local government, asking local leaders to do more with less, and that had consequences. Local high streets are always changing, but deprived towns saw more empty shops, more vape shops and more pawnbrokers than other places. Their councils did not have the resources to do anything about it. In 2019, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy found that nearly 800 libraries had closed since 2010. In 2022, The Guardian newspaper uncovered a real-terms annual cut of nearly £330 million to the upkeep of our local parks, with the biggest cuts in the poorest parts of the country. The last decade and a half of austerity impacted every community, but the very worst effects were felt by people living in the most deprived areas—and that was a choice.
By breaking the link between funding and deprivation, the Tories punished poorer councils. Year after year, they exacerbated inequality. As a result, too many places in this country feel forgotten and left to fend for themselves. The answer is not Reform’s return to austerity or the Tories’ carping from the sidelines; it is to use the best data we have available to redesign the funding system so that deprivation is recognised and addressed within the settlement. That is why the figures we are publishing today are derived using the very latest data from the 2025 index of multiple deprivation released at the end of October this year. It is why, according to our analysis, whereas under the old system deprivation scores could account for only 25% of variation in per capita funding applications, under this settlement it is up to 75%, with other important factors such as coastline, miles of road or visitor numbers making up the rest.
In addition, we are giving councils more certainty with the first multi-year settlement in a decade, allowing local leaders to focus on long-term investment and change. We are addressing the damage of austerity by maintaining the £600 million recovery grant allocations from 2025-26, targeted towards those most impacted by the cuts, and introducing a recovery grant guarantee, providing an above-real-terms increase to social care authorities that received the grant last year.
We are supporting local authorities through change by providing funding floors and phasing in new allocations across the multi-year settlement. We are improving efficiency and value for money by simplifying an unprecedented 36 funding streams, worth more than £56 billion over the multi-year settlement. We are resetting the business rates retention system to restore the balance between aligning funding with need and rewarding local growth, and unlocking the dream of home ownership for more people by boosting real incentives for councils to build new homes. We know that councils are concerned about what will happen at the next spending review, so we will keep working closely with them to avoid cliff edges in funding.
This settlement is our most significant move yet to make English local government sustainable at last. It will take overall core spending power for local government to over £84.6 billion by ’28-29—equivalent to a 15% cash-terms increase compared with ’25-26. The Labour Government have made it clear that we back local government through action. Since coming into power, we have made available a 23.6% increase in core spending power in ’28-29 compared with ’24-25.
However, we have to do more, because the previous Government’s funding system left local government in chaos. Social care costs were soaring out of control, with very little focus on prevention. Children’s social care, the impact of a failing special educational needs and disabilities system, and the spiralling costs of homelessness and temporary accommodation have destabilised council funding, even where councils have acted judiciously to protect the public pound through this difficult era. That is why we need national change to empower local councils to maximise the benefit of this announcement.
The Government are building a national care service based on higher quality of care, greater choice and control and better integration. This is backed by around £4.5 billion of additional funding made available for adult social care in ’28-29, compared with ’25-26. We are changing children’s social care through the families first partnership, funded with £2.5 billion over the next three years, because all children deserve good parenting and a loving home environment—and we know that costs less in the long run, too.
The children’s social care residential market is broken, and we are taking action. Using powers in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the Housing and Education Secretaries will explore how we might implement a profit cap in the children’s social care placement market, which would be a crucial step in ensuring that public money delivers value and care, not profiteering. We will set out further information on our approach in 2026.
On special educational needs and disabilities, in the new year the Government will bring forward the schools White Paper, which will set out ambitious plans to reform special educational needs provision. But we recognise the impacts of the dedicated schools grant deficits on local authorities’ accounts. In future, special educational needs provision will be funded by central Government; local authorities will not be expected to fund costs from general funds once the statutory override ends in March 2028. We will provide further details on our plans to support local authorities with those deficits later in the settlement process.
On homelessness, Members have already heard me acknowledge that temporary accommodation is another growing financial pressure on councils, with spend reaching nearly £3 billion in ’24-25. Last week, we published the national plan to end homelessness—our strategy to prevent homelessness before it occurs. We have set clear objectives to get our children out of costly B&Bs and to help councils to balance the books.
The Government intend to maintain a core 3% council tax referendum principle and a 2% adult social care precept for the vast majority of councils. We are committed to ensuring that the funding system is fair for taxpayers throughout the country. In some areas, council tax levels are radically lower than others. Council tax bills for £10 million houses in some of the wealthiest parts of the country can be less than what an ordinary working family pays in places like Blackpool or Darlington.
The Government plan to lift referendum principles in ’27-28 and ’28-29 for Wandsworth, Westminster, Hammersmith and Fulham, City of London, Kensington and Chelsea and Windsor and Maidenhead. This change will improve fairness, as taxpayers in those councils have the lowest bills in the country, and this year paid up to £1,280 less than the average council taxpayer. It will enable the Government to allocate more than £250 million of funding in the system more fairly, instead of subsidising bills for the half a million households in those council areas. It will also provide greater flexibility for those authorities in deciding how to manage their finances following our reforms. The councils will decide on the level of council tax increase to set and whether to draw on the relatively high alternative sources of income from which a number of them benefit.
We know that adapting to our reforms will take time. We will therefore continue to have a support framework in place next year to help authorities in challenging positions. Following precedent set by previous Governments, councils in significant financial difficulty can request additional flexibility from the Government. In making that decision the Government have been clear, unlike the Tories, that they will not agree to increases where the council has above-average council tax. In recognition of cost of living pressures, each application will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and decisions will reflect the support offered to low-income and vulnerable residents.
In closing, I go back to the libraries that have been closed and the parks that have been neglected. Under this Labour Government not only is our Chancellor of the Exchequer making sure that our schools have libraries, but we are making sure through this funding that councils can ensure that parks are good for our children to play in. We can never turn the clock back—we cannot undo all the past damage to councils—but we can change town hall finances so that councillors battling the consequences of poverty have a Government who are on their side for once.
We said we would restore the link between funding and deprivation, and today we are doing exactly that. There will be no more forgotten people left to fend for themselves and no more forgotten places sneered at by Conservative Members, but a fighting chance for every place in this country. I commend this statement to the House.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is no surprise that the Government sought to sneak this consultation out with the minimum level of attention, proposed, as it was, for simply a written ministerial statement at the last possible second. We can all see that poverty is rising, driven by a shrinking economy and rising unemployment, combined with inflation running at 3.6% and higher energy bills. Rising business rates are crippling our businesses, and local communities everywhere are feeling the pressure created by this Government’s choices.
How does the settlement help our councils to deal with all that? First, it assumes that working people—all people—will pay higher taxes everywhere. We should not misunderstand the Minister’s words on core spending power. The settlement enshrines an assumption that taxes will rise to the maximum possible extent everywhere, with fees and charges for parking, libraries and everything else following the same trajectory. Even if the inflation target of 2% is reached—which seems unlikely given that it is currently at 3.6%—the increase represents a 1% uplift for local government during the whole life of this Parliament, and that sector was left £1.5 billion worse off by the rise in national insurance contributions alone.
Resources at a local level are going backwards. This is a settlement that punishes efficiency, with those councils that deliver the best value for money being raided to bail out the more spendthrift—and I am sure we can guess which parties tend to run those councils. It is a settlement that introduces new, higher taxes on hospitality—voted for by every party in this Chamber besides the Conservatives—bearing down on investment and opportunity. It brings in a homes tax on more expensive homes—money that goes to the Treasury, not councils. In the Red Book, that is estimated to cost the Government a net £335 million due to the damage it does to the housing market. Only this hapless Labour Government could bring in new taxes that actually cost the Treasury money—and here they go again.
This settlement repeats the fallacy that poverty is the only driver of council costs. The average English local authority delivers more than 800 different services. Our rural coastal areas, and anywhere else with lots of retirees, face the high costs of adult social care but do not necessarily score highly on indices of deprivation, despite the costs being driven by statutory duties. The undertaker Prime Minister is ushering many councils towards their financial doom. As this Government hammer Wychavon and Stratford-on-Avon, they are also hammering Ashfield, Dartford, Burnley, Cambridge, Hyndburn, Lichfield and Bolsover, which are among the places worst hit by this financial settlement.
The Government’s detachment from the consequences of their actions is striking, and all while the Prime Minister and the Chancellor dodge the new high-value council tax in their grace and favour accommodation. All this is behind the smoke and mirrors that disguise from our local authorities the financial impact. They have been required to carry out their public budget consultations without having had sight of the impact of this settlement.
Let me conclude with some straightforward questions. Will the Minister tell the House when our locally elected brethren will learn the net impact of this settlement on their council tax budgets? When will we debate the impact of the Government’s cuts to SEND capital funding? When will the House have the opportunity to scrutinise their decision to impose exceptional financial support or higher council tax rises to bail out the consequences of their decisions? When will they provide clarity on the impact of their SEND proposals on council budgets? How will the Government use the budgets allocated to the new devolution areas and now snatched back to mitigate the impact of their decisions?
Will the Minister admit to the House that this is a tax-raising, job-destroying, housing-hobbling, rate-raising, service-slashing, community-crippling, election-cancelling settlement that fails even on its intended purpose of shunting resources to politically favoured areas?
Alison McGovern
I can hardly wonder at getting that purely political response when I made the perfectly legitimate political point that under the Tories a lot of councils were dealt very bad funding settlements indeed. We do not need to trade political insults to see the libraries closed, the parks left unmaintained and the damage done to councils, but I look forward to discussing this issue with the hon. Member across the Dispatch Box as we move forward, once he has talked to his own councils about the funding settlement they will be receiving.
The hon. Member asked some slightly more important questions, particularly on SEND. He will know that this is primarily a matter of getting the absolute best outcome for our children. The Department for Education will bring forward plans in the new year, and I am working closely with Ministers in that Department to ensure that we get it right. I mentioned some of the details in my statement.
I do not recognise the picture described by the hon. Member on devolution, and I feel confident in saying that nor would the Minister for devolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), who is in her place. She announced significant investment for the places affected, and we all look forward to working with areas up and down the country to ensure that our country grows as we wish it to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
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 her statement. I know she has been working really hard on this issue since she took on the role a few months ago. She is aware of the many pressing issues facing councils up and down the country—from SEND to temporary accommodation, housing and adult social care—and 14 years of under-investment will not be reversed by one funding settlement. It is therefore important that we continue to work with councils.
This is the first multi-year settlement in a decade, which will help our local leaders in planning for the future and, most importantly, planning for their local residents. I welcome the inclusion of local housing costs in the new funding formula, but ultimately it does not take in local housing allowance, which the Minister knows has been frozen for many years and is still causing a lot of pressure for councils.
The Minister mentioned that the Government will be looking at the council tax freeze in some areas, and at lifting referendum principles. She knows there is growing consensus on wholescale council tax reform instead of us tweaking it. It is the most regressive form of taxation and there is inequality across the country. Will the Minister look at what the Committee’s report says about a wholescale review of council tax banding, so that local leaders can have funding to spend on their local areas, and make sure that other areas see that funding come through?
Alison McGovern
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for that comprehensive run through all the issues. She is right that we need not just funding but policy change to get councils to financial sustainability. I look forward to discussing that with my hon. Friend and her Committee. She also asked about council tax reform, which was not the subject of my statement, but I have no doubt that she will be asking me about it again in the near future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. The Liberal Democrats welcome the fact that this is a multi-year settlement, which gives councils a greater degree of certainty and the ability to plan ahead. We have long called for that. However, a longer settlement on its own does not resolve the deep financial instability facing local government. The Minister is right to say that social care, SEND and homelessness costs are destabilising council finances—a direct result of years of Conservative neglect—but recognising the problem is not the same as resolving it.
It will take us and council teams time to review the detail of the settlement and understand what it means in reality for local government. However, early conversations with local government colleagues have highlighted a concerning lack of clarity on the SEND debt. The settlement provides minimal information on how councils are to manage SEND costs until 2028, or how existing deficits will be resolved. Can the Minister provide a clear timeline for when councils will receive certainty on the SEND deficit? Without one, responsible financial planning is simply not possible.
I also seek clarity on the issue of social care. Although the statement includes various measures to try to address the social care crisis, the reality is that that will be swept away by the rising scale of need and the costs of social care. When will the Government finally bring forward a fully funded, long-term plan for adult social care reform that ensures that local authority funding settlements are not undermined by the escalating costs of a social care system that is bankrupting councils and placing unsustainable pressure on the NHS?
Alison McGovern
The hon. Lady mentions multi-year settlements alone not being the answer—no, but they do help. That relates to her two other points on SEND and social care, because multi-year settlements allow councils to plan properly and undertake commissioning activities over a longer period of time. That was our objective, which we have achieved with this. She asked for more details on SEND. I mentioned in my statement that local authorities will not be expected to fund costs from general funds once the statutory override ends in 2028. We will have more to say on that throughout this settlement process.
The hon. Lady asked about adult social care. Significant reform is needed there, but I do not think that anybody could say that we have not done anything. We are building a national care service, backed by about £4.5 billion of additional funding for adult social care in 2028-29, compared with 2025-26, including £500 million for the first ever fair pay agreement. I will never forget visiting care homes after they had got through the hell of covid. All that we do on social care has to back those people who did the most when our country needed them.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Members will have seen that many want to speak, so I make a plea to help one another out and keep questions and answers concise.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement. I particularly welcome the restoration of the link between funding for local government and deprivation, and the inclusion of housing costs within the measure of deprivation. It makes no sense to do anything other than that.
Even with the funding settlement, the financial situation will continue to be very challenging for my local authorities of Lambeth and Southwark without meaningful support from the Government with the costs of temporary accommodation. When does the Minister expect to be able to set out more detail on how councils will be supported to reduce the need for temporary accommodation and to bring the costs down?
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend, who chairs the Education Committee, will know that it is not just the cost of temporary accommodation to councils; it is also the cost of children’s schooling. Last week I set out our strategy to counteract that terrible phenomenon and I will talk in detail to councils in the weeks and months to come to do exactly as she asks.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I thank the Minister and her officials for their work—it is the most painful task to have to pull all this together and they are all to be commended. I agree with her that multi-year settlements should lead to smarter commissioning, which should then deliver greater return on the money. She will know that the cost of delivering services in rural areas is higher—everyone across the House recognises that—so can she say what this proposed settlement will do specifically to address that and allow equity of opportunity in access to services, whether one is an urban or rural resident?
Alison McGovern
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight how we have to do things differently in rural areas, and we have tried to take account of that need. That is why we are including a journey times adjustment in our assessment of cost for all services. We are also increasing the cap in the home-to-school transport formula from 20 miles to 50 miles, in recognition of the fact that the original distance cap would penalise local authorities that have no choice but to place children further from home. We are also including a remoteness adjustment in the adult social care formula to address the point that he mentions. Overall, the point cannot be made enough that we have to do things differently in rural areas, and we all need to take account of that.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
The fair funding review is significant. It is the first multi-year settlement for a decade, and the first real attempt at fairly distributing resources based on need, cost and the ability to raise revenue locally. It represents a serious piece of work by decent public servants, and I pay tribute to the finance team in my hon. Friend’s Department. The consultation asked councils to make their case for adjustments. London councils asked for housing to be included in the measure of deprivation, and we can see that in some of the changes that have been made, but that sees a significant shift towards London. The recovery grant has made a significant difference and I am pleased to see it continue, but it shows that fundamentally the formula is not yet picking up the real cost pressures being felt by local government as a result of the previous Government.
Much has been said about council tax, but the inequality goes much further, as the Minister knows: our car parking income is £2 million, but Westminster city council alone generates £90 million. That is more than the entire recovery grant for Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Sheffield and Leeds combined, so there are much wider structural issues that need to be addressed. My hon. Friend will also know that, despite best endeavours, councils will still find this settlement very challenging and that bigger reforms are needed, so can she make the case—I know she will—to her colleagues in the Treasury that, if the Government want the benefit to be felt on every street in every community, in the end local government will need more money put into the pot more generally?
Alison McGovern
First, I must pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on this. I might be putting the ball in the net today, but he was the midfielder who created the goal. It is his work to reconnect deprivation and council funding that we are delivering today, and I pay massive tribute to him. He asked whether we might go further to persuade our Treasury colleagues to invest in local government. I think that the best way to do that—I will welcome his support in this—is to show the results that councils get when they are properly invested in. We see that nowhere more than in his home city region of Greater Manchester and his council of Oldham, which show time and again that they provide value for money and they are growing our economy.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Minister said in her statement that she did not want to look the other way, but in reality this Government are looking the other way when it comes to rural communities. I listened carefully to the answers she gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), but the fact is that, with the exception of adult social care, rurality has been taken out of formula decisions. Can she come to the Dispatch Box and say how areas such as Buckinghamshire, which I am lucky enough to represent, are going to be properly funded, given our rural nature?
Alison McGovern
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman was listening when I gave my earlier answer on rurality. We have recognised where there are extra cost pressures, and I will happily discuss this in detail with him if he wishes. This is recognised in the statement and in the data that we have taken account of. The new deprivation statistics are much more fine-grained, and they can find poverty wherever it is, whether it is in a town, a city, a village, a rural area or wherever.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I do not know whether my hon. Friend is as surprised as I am that the official Opposition could not even bear to mention the word “austerity” when they responded. Before we move on, there was a case of amnesia from the Lib Dems, who forget their role, under the coalition Government, in some of the worse cuts of all that local government experienced. I therefore welcome the Minister’s comments about deprivation. The poorest councils got hit hardest during austerity by the Conservatives. I thank her for putting tackling deprivation at the heart of this settlement.
I have two challenges. The Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), reiterated what we said in the Select Committee in the last Parliament: council tax is regressive and has to be reformed. The Minister mentioned the need for long-term changes to the whole way in which social care is funded. Would she at least begin a conversation across parties to try to get long-term agreement about how this should be done? It has failed over and over again through parties squabbling over the details. We need a long-term settlement. Can we at least start those conversations now?
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend is extremely experienced in these matters and remembers, as I do, the impossible situation that councils, particularly in the poorest areas, were put in under the Tory Government. He is right to point out that the Lib Dems did play a small role in that, too. On his questions, I always read in detail the Select Committee’s reports, and I will do that with the ones he mentions. The Government have set out the pathway, making the immediate change that I said on social care and asking Baroness Casey to drive us towards that long-term vision that he points out. That is exactly what we need to do; we need to fix this for the long term.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Westmorland and Furness is an extremely well-run council and an extremely unusual one as well. It is England’s most rural council. It is the council that accepts the highest number of visitors—non-resident population—as we support everybody else’s constituents, who make up the 15 million who come to our district every year. The council has some of the poorest wards in the country. It is the host of Barrow, which is the centre of the UK’s defence industry, and it has the highest percentage of people in social care. This formula will leave us unusually crippled. We think it will mean a 13% cut to our budgets over the next three years. Given that we are so unusual, will the Minister unusually agree to meet me, her hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham) and local council leaders, so we can work out an unusual solution to this wonderful but unusual council’s problems?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and his description of his unusual and wonderful area. I do not recognise the figures he mentioned just then, but I will happily meet him and any colleagues he wants to bring, and we will go through the numbers together in detail.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement and welcome her commitment to restoring fairness to the heart of the local government financial settlement, giving our councils the long-term certainty they have been crying out for. The Conservatives were a disaster for local government. In both Cheshire authorities, 70p in every pound is now spent on looking after vulnerable adults and children, leaving the remainder to fund every other essential service. That is to say nothing of the ballooning dedicated schools grant deficit. The Conservatives left our communities struggling with deteriorating infrastructure and under-resourced essential services. Can she say more about what this settlement means for my constituents in Northwich, Winsford and Middlewich? Can she possibility provide us with an indication of when councils will get some certainty over what the future holds for the statutory override, so that we can see those dedicated schools grant deficits cleared?
Alison McGovern
It is extremely important that we properly fund authorities in Cheshire to help support those communities. I can confirm that that is what we are doing today, with significant increases in spending power for those authorities. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and colleagues across the county to ensure that we do as he says and get social care back on a firmer footing as we move forward through the years.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I represent a constituency with two district councils with prudently created reserves and a unitary council with high levels of debt. Understandably, residents in the district council areas are concerned that local government reorganisation will see their reserves usurped by any new unitary council areas—if they have not already had to spend that reserve due to decreased funding under the settlement. Can the Minister reassure my constituents that their prudence is not being penalised and that, under the local government reorganisation, any reserves from a council will be ringfenced specifically for the communities that they come from, rather than being used to reduce the debt of the new council?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Lady for her question; she values the prudence and good decision making of local authorities. At their best, that is what we see and it is what I hope to achieve through the local government reorganisation process.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
There is fierce pride in Hatfield, Welwyn Garden City and our villages, but we are a community of contrasts: the gap in life expectancy a few miles down the road is 13 years. I have had an initial look, and it seems that Welwyn Hatfield will benefit to the tune of about £9 million. That is wonderful news for our community.
I thank the Minister for looking at need after housing costs, but will she give me a guarantee that that will continue to be a key part of how our Government look at need? In communities such as Hertfordshire, housing is often such a barrier to people getting on.
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend, who is an impressive champion for his constituency; the people of Welwyn Hatfield should be proud of him. When we are thinking about deprivation, we are determined for it not to be a question of one part of the country against another. It is simply about being led by the evidence: identifying poverty and deprivation wherever it exists—including its cause, which, as my hon. Friend says, can be housing costs. We will keep doing that and take decisions on that basis.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
As an ex-council leader, I welcome the multi-year settlement and am glad that the Government have listened; I have campaigned for it for many years, so thank you.
I welcome the remoteness element. In my constituency of North Devon, we have North Devon council and also the wider Devon county council. Could the Minister describe what percentage the remoteness allocation will represent for places such as Devon and North Devon district council?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman and former council leader for his question. It is nice to have a bit of agreement at Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker—if it is over multi-year settlements, then then so be it. I will write to him with the specific details about his area and how the remoteness formula affects the council's funding.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Government’s investment in Birmingham through today’s fair funding settlement and the £160 million of Pride in Place funding for nine areas, including Bartley Green in my constituency. That stands in stark contrast to the Conservatives’ austerity agenda, which cut £1 billion from Birmingham city council’s budget and placed severe pressure on the public services that my constituents rely on. I have been fighting for eight years in this place for fair funding for Birmingham. Does the Minister agree that only Labour can be trusted to invest in our city?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for that question on behalf of the people of Birmingham. We know that they deserve better. Birmingham is a great city; I was there only recently and always feel welcome and at home. It is right for us to invest in our cities. I am sick to the back teeth of people having a go at places like Birmingham and where I am from in Merseyside. It is time we backed our cities, including Birmingham.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I always like to start on a positive note, so let me add to the cross-party Christmas cheer by welcoming the shift to multi-year funding settlements. I agree with the Minister: local authority funding was decimated under the Conservatives for 14 years and local leaders were asked to do more with less. But I am worried that that might continue for some authorities like mine.
North Herefordshire and Herefordshire council have been facing millions of pounds of funding reductions under the proposals put forward by the Government. We must recognise that a fair funding settlement has to mean fair recognition that providing services in rural areas incurs extra costs, and not just for social care—there needs to be a remoteness adjustment for all the services that we provide. Will the Minister go away, consider that and come back with proposals that fairly recognise the needs of rural authorities like Herefordshire?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Lady for speaking up on behalf of rural areas. In addition to what I have said to a number of hon. Members, I would add that it is not just in adult social care that we recognise the difference that rurality makes. Overturning 14 years of Tory misrule of councils will take time. We will engage with all councils, including her council, and it is my objective to get local authorities back on a sustainable footing.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The reality is that for years the Tory Government relied on formulas that decimated local government and services for the poorest, while giving funding to affluent Tory suburbs, so clearly the Tories will not like the formula set out by the Minister. Today must be a turning point that corrects the grave wrong carried out by the previous Government for 14 years. Will the Minister confirm that the new formula, which I welcome, will mean that places like Bradford, which have some of the highest levels of poverty and deprivation, will finally begin to see their fair share in the settlement?
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend is right to describe the serious and challenging situations that lots of parts of the country face. I am anxious to ensure that we make progress in Bradford, not only because Bradford and places like it suffer from the consequences of poverty, but because Bradford has one of the youngest populations in the country. It is part of our future: we must back our young people, and I want to see Bradford grow and its people do well.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Talking about local government finance, I was shocked to read in The Times yesterday that Reform-led Worcestershire county council has sought permission from the Government to increase council tax by a maximum 10%. Will the Minister take this opportunity to rule that out, and will she tell us if Labour is in cahoots with Reform to whack up council tax?
Alison McGovern
People have accused me of many things, but being in cahoots with Reform is not one of them. I am very, very definitely not in cahoots with Reform. I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. I made some remarks in my speech about the steps that we will take, particularly if people are already paying an average amount of council tax. I am more than aware about the situation that people are facing with the cost of living, so if he wants to write to me with some more details about what he has read in The Times, I will happily respond to him formally.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The Minister mentioned Hammersmith and Fulham council in her statement, so I hope she will not mind my reminding her that it is one of the most efficiently run councils in the country. Despite having had 50% of its funding cut under the Tories, it has made £138 million in savings since 2014. It has pulled most of the levers that it has had available, such as the second homes premium, to deal with that, and it has some of the most deprived areas in the country within it. I invite her to come and visit Hammersmith and Fulham to see how a well-run council works, particularly when it has high levels of need and high-cost areas.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I am sure that the Minister will join me in congratulating Anna Coles, the director of adult and community services at Torbay council, and her team on achieving a “good” rating from the Care Quality Commission this week. The fly in the ointment is that despite Torbay being the most deprived local authority in south-west England, this settlement means that it is set to lose out on adult social care because of the higher than average number of people who are old. Will the Minister explain that?
Alison McGovern
It is excellent to hear that Anna Coles has done so well in providing local services. I do not recognise the figures mentioned by the hon. Gentleman and I would be happy to discuss them with him. Our objective is to get all councils back on their feet, particularly through the Pride in Place programme, in which Torbay is participating.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
May I warmly welcome the announcement today of the linking between local government funding and deprivation and need? That marks an end to the cuts and austerity brought in under the Tory and Liberal Democrat coalition Government. Will the Minister outline how that will benefit the children and young people in my constituency and in Luton, who bore the brunt of Tory austerity?
Alison McGovern
Luton is an extremely important place, with great potential to grow our economy. Most importantly, we want to see those children in Luton thrive, because they are our future. Today’s announcement allocates significant investment in Luton, which I am really pleased to do, precisely because of that relinking to deprivation, and I have every faith in my hon. Friend and her colleagues in Luton to make that money work for our children’s future.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
May I welcome the focus on reducing deprivation in this statement? How confident is the Minister that deprivation in rural areas will not be missed in the funding formula? I should refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because I am still a councillor on Central Bedfordshire council. That council is looking at having to find more than £20 million to balance its budget. That will be a real struggle in central Bedfordshire, which is a high-growth area with high needs and a lot of spending. Will the Minister commit to meet with me and local council leaders to discuss the unique circumstances in central Bedfordshire and what can be done to alleviate the financial pressures and to support them in balancing their budget?
Alison McGovern
I have a much greater level of confidence that we can find pockets of deprivation in rural areas, because the latest indices of multiple deprivation are much better-quality data. I will happily discuss that with the hon. Gentleman as we meet to talk about the finances in central Bedfordshire.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Changes to funding formulas can throw up huge anomalies. The Minister is well aware that Trafford council, which covers part of my constituency, is one of those anomalies. Will she commit to work with my Trafford parliamentary colleagues, Trafford council and me to see if we can iron out some of those issues?
Alison McGovern
Wherever there are challenges as we transition to this new funding formula, I will work really closely with colleagues. I will do that especially with my friends in Trafford, and I look forward to meeting with my hon. Friend again soon to discuss that.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am a sitting councillor in Teignbridge. Looking at the figures—which I have been desperately trying to do, although they are tiny—it looks to me like Teignbridge is getting a negative change in this year’s settlement of -0.07%, while Devon gets a small increase. I suspect that might not adequately make up for what Devon lost last year in the rural services grant. Does the Minister have any hope for our finding a way to solve the problem of delivering services in a rural area, even though we have areas of high deprivation? That is a common thing across the House, and it is clearly hitting everywhere.
Alison McGovern
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers I have already given on rural areas. We have built that into this settlement, and I will work with colleagues in all rural areas to ensure that we can get services improved and make this work.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Over 14 years of the Conservative Government, they cut Hartlepool’s budget in real terms by 40%. That is £50 million missing from that budget every single year. It meant libraries and parks being left behind and child poverty being up by 10% over those 14 years. While some of the Conservatives come here to criticise and others jump ship to Reform, including in Hartlepool, does the Minister agree that they should be ashamed of themselves for their record on local government? This is the start of putting right what they got so wrong.
Alison McGovern
I most certainly agree. Having visited Hartlepool before—I hope to do so again—I know not just what it has been through, but what it has to offer. It has a fine champion in my hon. Friend as its MP, and I look forward to working with him and all my friends in Hartlepool to make good on the promise of the next generation in Hartlepool.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I am really concerned that the Government’s fair funding formula sells many London councils short, such as Richmond and Kingston in the area that I represent. The majority of London boroughs already have lower core spending power per capita than the England average, and several are among the lowest funded councils per capita in the country; additional cuts will impact those councils significantly. London has the highest rate of poverty in the country once housing costs are factored in. According to the Department for Work and Pensions, one in four Londoners lives in poverty, and rising council tax bills will impact those who are struggling the most. With that in mind, what assessment has the Minister made of the impact that rising council tax bills and cuts to services will have on those already living in poverty in London?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I might be a proud northerner, but I was once a councillor in a London borough, so I do not need to be told what poverty in London looks like. In my statement, I mentioned the possibilities for raising income that some councils have access to, and we want to work with local authorities on that. I am determined that we will not make this about geographical division in our country; we will make it a journey for all councils back towards financial sustainability. That is the objective, and I will happily work with the hon. Lady on that if that is what she wants to do.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my officership of an all-party parliamentary group.
In past years, protection uplift funding for Greater Manchester fire and rescue service has been calculated based on inaccurate data, meaning that Greater Manchester receives significantly less money than regions with far fewer buildings. Will the Minister correct this error, so that GMFRS has the necessary resources to carry out essential inspection and enforcement activity across Stockport and Greater Manchester?
Alison McGovern
I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I will happily discuss it with him and with my colleague the fire Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon). If my hon. Friend thinks there are errors, he can by all means send us more details, and we will work on that.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Wokingham is the lowest funded unitary authority in the UK and is struggling to find enough money for adult social care and children’s services. I have three quick questions for the Minister. First, has she protected tier 1 local authorities from real-terms cuts? Secondly, have the Government honoured their commitment to a new fair funding formula by removing the recovery grant that undermines it. Lastly, how does the Minister expect local authorities to afford the dedicated schools grant deficits accrued up to 31 March 2028?
Alison McGovern
I think those three questions have been answered in what I have already said, so I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier answers.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
As a former deputy leader of Milton Keynes city council, I welcome this announcement. As a reminder, Milton Keynes city council faced £200 million-worth of cuts—55% of our grant—while Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire were protected and got bail-outs. This settlement is, for once, going to give us the funding we need to protect Britain’s fastest-growing city, so I thank the Minister. Will she meet us to talk about some of the things we can do to encourage councils to build homes at the same rate as Milton Keynes?
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend is not just a former deputy leader of Milton Keynes city council; she has become a fantastic champion of that great city since coming to this House. If she wants to meet to talk about fast-growing cities and building homes, I will be there all day.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
One fifth of the UK population live in rural areas. They face unavoidable additional costs, including longer travel times, reduced provider competition and workforce recruitment. Those costs have an impact on every single aspect of local service delivery, but funding formulas fail to adequately recognise rurality, putting additional pressure on the vital services that residents in Glastonbury and Somerton rely on. Does the Minister accept that additional cost pressures are linked to geography and sparsity, and will she outline what steps are being taken to support large rural councils such as Somerset to manage these funding gaps?
Alison McGovern
The hon. Lady asked if I recognise that issue, and I have already said several times that I do, as well as setting out some of the steps that we are taking to address it. As I said, I will happily work with hon. Members on both sides of the House to take local authorities, wherever they are, on a journey towards sustainability.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
I am always proud to be in this Chamber, but I am particularly proud to be here today as the Government bang a final nail in the coffin of Conservative austerity. I really welcome what I hope will be significant additional investment in my constituency of Colchester, because that investment will do so much to improve local services for local residents. Can the Minister give us a timeline for that funding—that is, when will we get the cash?
Alison McGovern
I feel like a bit of an old lady in the House these days, having been here in 2010 at the beginning of austerity. I saw the effects of it—
Alison McGovern
Well, you should see the level of debt that the Tories left us with. The global financial crisis was a tough time, but I never thought a Tory Government would leave us with a debt-to-GDP ratio of nearly 100%.
To return to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) and the important work that we are doing to rebuild local authorities after that awful period of austerity, we will be releasing information to councils today so that they can start the budgeting process. We will engage heavily with local authorities over the months to come so that they can set their budgets in the normal way in the spring. I encourage her local authority to be in direct contact with the Department, and I would be happy to meet her to talk about the impact on her constituency.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
Stockport council, along with two other boroughs, missed out on the recovery grant. The grant was not mentioned in the fair funding review or consultation. Why was it not mentioned, and is the Minister concerned that that opens up the whole process to legal challenge?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I have every confidence in the details that we are publishing today. We will be working with local authorities, as I have said, to make sure that they can set their budgets in the normal way and move towards financial sustainability.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I thank the Government for delivering an early Christmas present to my constituents in Bedford and Kempston. The granting of planning permission for the Universal Studios theme park is a landmark moment not just for the eastern region but for the whole UK, as it will bring in around £50 billion of investment and tens of thousands of jobs. Does the Minister agree that Bedford borough council, which is already under significant financial pressure, will need additional Government investment to meet the extra demand on local public services, to support growth and to put our region firmly on the global map?
Alison McGovern
I have to agree with my hon. Friend that it is not just the people of Bedford who are excited about Universal Studios; the excitement can be felt across the United Kingdom. Today’s settlement hopefully helps us on that journey, but I will happily meet him to discuss the impacts on Bedford and the wider area.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I know the Minister is aware that Shropshire council ran out of road this year, having been caught in a perfect storm of 16 years of Conservative mismanagement of the council, surging demand for social care and the failure of the previous Government to recognise the reality of delivering services in a rural area. Can she reassure my constituents that she will not only help us to get through this difficult period with exceptional financial support, but work with me and the other Shropshire MPs to ensure that Shropshire council is put on a secure financial footing for the future?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Member for meeting me recently to discuss that issue, which was really helpful. As I said in my statement, decisions about financial support will be taken in the usual way, and I will of course work with her and other Shropshire MPs to make sure that her area is on a journey towards sustainability.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
When I knock on doors, one thing is said to me repeatedly: Kettering does not get its fair share. I do not have to tell my constituents that the Tories underfunded our local government. The parent taking their child to our rundown swimming pool sees it, the family waiting for a council house sees it, the child waiting for a space at a special school sees it, anyone who drives a car on our roads sees it, and the Tories saw it in 2018 when Northamptonshire county council went bankrupt under their leadership. Will the Minister confirm that this is a Labour Government sending the people of Kettering the message, “You matter, and you deserve your fair share”?
Alison McGovern
I would first say to the people of Kettering that their MP has done a cracking job in making sure that their needs are represented in this place and in the decisions that the Government take. Their MP has spoken up for their future, their children, their council and their needs, and we are doing our best to meet those needs.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I welcome the Government’s announcement of a cap on social care placements, but some special schools are making unreasonable charges. One school in my area that is offering places to neurodiverse children who are struggling in mainstream education but are otherwise without disabilities charges more than £100,000 a year in fees plus transport, while state-maintained alternatives are doing it for £25,000 for the same cohort. Will the Minister commit herself to working with the Department for Education to introduce a cap on charges and profits for specialist schools now? Councils will have collapsed by 2028 and taxpayers will lose out, so this really needs to be addressed before then.
Alison McGovern
The hon. Lady has made precisely the case that I was trying to make in my statement. We must fund councils properly, but if we do not get a grip on escalating costs it will do no good; we will still have unsustainable councils. I am already working with colleagues in the Department for Education, and if the hon. Lady would like to send me details of the case that she mentioned, I will be happy to investigate it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am struggling to get every Member in, given the time, so I ask Members please to keep their questions short.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
After 14 years, the Tories should be ashamed of their legacy in local government. I know that my council, Medway, will welcome the Minister’s announcement about linking deprivation to funding, but we still face other challenges. Will she set out what the changes mean for my local area, and will she agree to come to Medway to meet us and discuss how we can take on some of those other issues?
Alison McGovern
Places such as Medway deserve a lot better, and through her championing of her constituency in the House, my hon. Friend is ensuring that they will get it. We want to see councils invest in high streets, and we want to see those high streets thrive, along with other services. I would be happy to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency and see for myself what we can do to improve it.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Minister constantly says that she does not recognise the figures when presented with what are expected to be the settlements for certain local authorities. That is possibly because we are fumbling in the dark today, as the figures simply are not available. I had to go to the Vote Office, and I have some of the papers here. The fact is that in my own area, the Government have proposed a bespoke arrangement for the Council of the Isles of Scilly, but there is no clarity about what it will mean in the forthcoming years, and in respect of the indices of deprivation, there is no clarity on what it means for Cornwall. Will the Minister meet me, and other local Members, to discuss these issues?
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I declare my interest as an officer of the Special Interest Group of Municipal Authorities team, and as a recovering local government alumnus.
We inherited a system in which 40% of local authorities were at risk of going bust and issuing section 114 notices by March 2026, driven by a rising demand for adult and children’s services and SEND services. Communities such as mine in Calder Valley have faced those pressures every day. This settlement really matters; the new fair funding settlement gives more help to the places that need it most, and gives them long-term stability. However, more needs to be done, so can the Minister confirm that we will prioritise and value local government services and their importance to our economy?
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
The Conservatives have some brass neck when they blame councils like mine for being poor, given that they oversaw 14 years of austerity, underfunding and cuts. The initial figures suggest that by 2028-29 Peterborough city council will be receiving £65 million more from this Government, which will be a life-changer for many people. Can the Minister explain how we can use that money to transform the communities that people like me represent in this House?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for his consistent championing of Peterborough in this House—and, frankly, in my ear—at all times. He always stands up for his constituents, and I have been pleased to visit Peterborough on a number of occasions. I want to see the significant investment that we are making in Peterborough help it to thrive. It has great potential and fantastic young people, and I look forward to being invited back to see exactly what is happening there.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I welcome the multi-year settlement, but I am deeply concerned that the statement made no reference to the particular pressures facing rural areas. Devon has the longest road network in England, so everything costs more—SEND, care, bus services and bin collections—and Dartmouth library is now facing a cut in hours because of funding cuts. Using deprivation as a way to calculate the funding formula does not take account of the older population, and my concern is that hidden pockets of deep deprivation, in an otherwise wealthy area, will not be recognised. Can the Minister reassure me that hidden pockets of deprivation will be recognised by the formula?
Alison McGovern
I have answered a number of questions on rural areas, so I refer the hon. Lady to the answers I have already given. I have real confidence in the latest indices of deprivation. The data quality is much better, so we are able to meet the challenge she sets.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the settlement, which puts fairness at the heart of local government funding. I thank the Minister for the increased funding for Warwickshire, which will benefit people across the county and in Rugby. Would she care to comment on the fact that there is not a single Reform UK MP in the Chamber? Does that not indicate that Reform does not take local government seriously?
Alison McGovern
It certainly does. Our first duties as Members of Parliament are to listen to our constituents and to be in this House. My hon. Friend always stands up for his constituents, unlike others who are not here.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Like others, I warmly welcome the multi-year funding settlement. As a former local councillor, I know the impact it will have on local councils, which will be able to plan when they are tackling some of the thorniest issues that affect our most vulnerable constituents. We in this country are blessed to have remarkable people working in local government, and the best local councillors know their communities, stand up for them and mither their MPs to stand up for them.
At first glance, Stockport appears to be one of the areas that is worse off under this funding settlement, despite containing the most deprived part of Greater Manchester. We missed out on the recovery grant by 0.01%, and the initial indication is that we will be worse off. Will the Minister meet me, the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) so that we can go through this and work out how we will make sure that my most vulnerable constituents are not unduly impacted?
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I welcome the multi-year settlement, and I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for their engagement with me and Members from across the House as we make the case for our local areas. It looks like Devon county council will get a significant uplift over a period of years. If that is true, I am particularly keen to see the Lib Dem and Green-led Devon county council U-turn on its decision to cut 66% of its homelessness budget, get on top of the weeds that it has allowed to grow throughout our entire city, which are engulfing some communities, and go back on its current consultation to cut library hours. Will the Minister set out how she thinks the increase in funding to local authorities will have a positive impact on services and local people?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he has done, as part of our homelessness strategy, to draw attention to homelessness and rough sleeping in his city of Exeter, which is a wonderful place and deserves to have the county council and others look after it properly. This investment in local authorities will make sure that everyone in our country feels proud of the place where they live. We want to see all our places grow, and I expect all councils to do that work. I look forward to meeting him to discuss this issue further.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
I welcome the Government’s funding formula, but I would like to bring to the Minister’s attention my conversation with my local council leader and its chief executive just last week. They are worried that the council cannot afford the spiralling cost of children’s services. For one particular child, the cost is £25,000 a week. Councils often have no choice but to rely on private providers at market rates. Will the Minister commit to tackle the cost of private provision, or look into introducing a cap?
Alison McGovern
I think I answered that question in my statement. I am just as concerned about the cost as the hon. Member is.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement. She is right to talk about play parks, homelessness and libraries. As a councillor, one of my proudest achievements was replacing five play parks, but I have seen how Tory-run Kent county council cut everything to the bone. I am grateful for the multi-year funding settlement; will the Minister share what this will mean and look like for Gravesham residents?
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend is right to point out, as I did, the consequences of council cuts. They are not just theoretical on a spreadsheet—we all saw the effects in our parks and our town centres. We want to turn that around in Gravesham, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend over the weeks and months to come to make that real for her residents.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Between 2015 and 2020, under the last multi-year settlement, the Conservative Government cut Bracknell Forest council’s funding by £500,000. I am delighted that this provisional settlement would see Bracknell Forest’s funding rise by almost £10 million—an increase of over 7%. Does my hon. Friend agree that this shows that Labour will always invest in our local services and the Conservatives will always choose austerity?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for the case he makes, which shows people in Bracknell that they have an effective MP who is prepared to stand up for them, champion them and make sure they get the services they need.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s taking into account deprivation in the multi-year funding settlement. If there was ever a demonstration of what a difference a Labour Government can make, it is this: investment in our poorest communities, not crippling Tory austerity. It looks like in Croydon we are set to get an extra £158 million over this Parliament, which is a game changer for us. Will the Minister outline the timetable for our getting this extra investment? I thank her again for her work.
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for being a brilliant champion for Croydon. She has stood up for the people she represents. We know that poverty in London has changed, and areas such as Croydon have experienced an increase. This funding settlement is a recognition of that reality. We want Croydon to thrive, which is why, after publishing this information today, we will work with local authorities over the coming months so that they can set their budgets in the normal way in the spring. Croydon has a great future ahead and I want to work closely with my hon. Friend to make sure that happens.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
I welcome the additional investment the Minister has announced, and what it will mean for my constituents in terms of local government funding. Firefighters, such as those based at Heywood fire station in my constituency, are attending a massively increased number of flooding and water-rescue incidents, which are up 40% over the last 10 years. Has any consideration been given to introducing a statutory duty on local fire and rescue services, along with commensurate funding to ensure that firefighters are properly resourced and equipped to respond to flooding and water rescues?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point, which is very apposite given the effects of climate change and other things. I am sure that the fire Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), will have heard what she said, and we will all work together to make sure it is addressed.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Five years ago, the Conservative-controlled council in the London borough of Bexley found itself in such a dire situation that it sought a capitalisation order, made 15% of staff redundant and had to sell a building because it could not even fund the redundancy notices. [Interruption.] For the Conservative Members chuntering, that is a real example of there being “no money left”. Will the Minister contrast the announcement she has made today with the approach taken by the previous Government?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for being such a champion for his constituents, and for making sure that their voice is heard in the decisions we are taking. The situation he describes was chaotic and, as he said, people paid the price for that in their job security and in the services we all rely on. The difference is that we are taking a long-term approach, with a multi-year settlement, and funding according to deprivation means that where the need is greatest, the money will follow.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
On behalf of Nottinghamshire county council, I thank the Government for a £234 million—or 30%—increase over the course of this Parliament, which will make a huge difference, and for the 4.6% increase in core spending for my area, Rushcliffe. I previously raised with the Minister in writing the need to avoid cliff edges. The borough council was particularly concerned about the loss of the new homes bonus and similar mechanisms. Will the Minister expand on the decisions that have been taken? I also want to mention rurality, which really matters and drives up service costs; I hope she will meet me and other Nottinghamshire MPs to discuss that.
Alison McGovern
Members will be reassured to know that ample time is reserved in my diary to meet them in the new year, and I would love to meet my hon. Friend to discuss rurality and the other things he mentioned.
On new homes, we are making sure that councils get all the benefit for every new home they build. That is part of the settlement. We want to build 1.5 million new homes and we want councils to feel the benefit of that when they make the relevant decisions. I will happily talk my hon. Friend through the detail when we meet.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
Black Country people are proud and resilient, but 50 years of deindustrialisation and 14 years of Tory austerity have left my borough of Sandwell the fifth most deprived in the country. Does the Minister agree with me that this Government can finally see deprived urban areas—post-industrial areas like mine—and is finally giving us back what we are due?
Alison McGovern
I very much agree. For those places that bore the costs of bad decisions many years ago and have never been able to get fully back on their feet, this is part of turning the corner. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend on that.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I am sure you would like to join me, Madam Deputy Speaker, in thanking the Minister for backing Bradford in her response to our hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain). This Government’s fair funding is finally turning a corner for councils like Bradford that have been at the sharp end of Tory cuts to local government. Does the Minister agree that, with elections in May next year, if residents in my Shipley constituency want to see improvements in local services, they will need a Labour council working with a Labour Government?
Alison McGovern
My announcement today is a massive vote of confidence in the people of Shipley and of Bradford, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to make sure that every penny piece of that investment improves her constituents’ lives.
INEOS Chemicals: Grangemouth
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the agreement the Government have secured to protect vital chemical production and hundreds of jobs at the INEOS ethylene cracker in Grangemouth.
Three quarters of Grangemouth’s ethylene production is consumed domestically by our key industries, and the plant is strategically important for those industries and for UK supply chains more broadly. Its ethylene is essential for critical national infrastructure, including medical-grade plastics used in the health service, and its chemical supply chains are used for water treatment. These materials are also vital to many of our industrial strategy priority sectors, including advanced manufacturing, life sciences and defence, which all depend on a ready supply of them. The plant also links to the Forties pipeline system, which is key for transporting our North sea oil and gas to onshore infrastructure.
Despite the site’s strategic importance, we know that INEOS has faced a number of significant challenges that have had a severe impact on trading. The site, like many chemical complexes in the UK and the EU, has faced the risk of closure. Given the national importance of the plant and its unique contribution to the UK economy, the Government are clear that closure is not an outcome we are willing to accept. That is why I can confirm to the House today that we are stepping in and providing a support package to INEOS of over £120 million, which forms part of a wider £150 million investment with INEOS to help to ensure the site remains commercially viable and sustainable in the long term.
This support package comprises a grant and a Government-backed loan to protect 500 jobs in Grangemouth and many hundreds more within critical supply chains. As part of the agreement, Ineos will continue operations and will invest at least £30 million into the site, on top of the hundreds of millions it has already invested in recent years. The agreement will therefore protect jobs and safeguard taxpayers’ money.
The Government set a very high bar for interventions of this kind. We assess the viability of the business, the economic and social impacts of our investments, and the contributions of the private sector, including shareholders. Where we do intervene, we set clear and strict conditions on how those investments are used. In this case, our funding will secure ongoing operations. It will improve the site’s energy efficiency, decrease carbon emissions and increase productivity. Funding for this support will be covered by existing budgets that have been agreed as part of the departmental spending review settlements.
Interventions of this kind are rare, but when workers’ livelihoods and our strategic interests are at risk, a Labour Government will never hesitate to take action to protect this nation’s assets and economic security. We will work with businesses to build a secure, prosperous future for our industrial heartlands and for the whole of the UK. We are taking bold action today to ensure that the chemicals sector in this country remains strong for the workers and communities who have depended on it for generations. We are also ensuring that this sector can play its part in making the UK a clean energy superpower by the end of the decade. The chemicals sector plays a fundamental role in the supply of parts for wind turbines, for carbon capture and storage, and for our nuclear powerplants. We cannot afford to see those domestic supply chains disrupted, and we will not.
That is why, beyond this agreement, we will improve the business environment for British industries, including our chemicals sector. The industrial strategy is one of the ways we are doing that. Our gas prices remain competitive in Europe, but we are tackling long-standing problems with our high electricity prices. We have already pledged to increase the discount on electricity network charges from 60% to 90% for businesses in sectors such as steel, cement and chemicals. Some 550 of our most energy-intensive businesses will save up to £420 million a year on their electricity bills from next April thanks to that one change alone. Our new British industrial competitiveness scheme will reduce electricity costs for over 7,000 eligible businesses, including chemicals. We want to save them up to £40 per megawatt-hour, or 25%, from April 2027.
Supporting a skilled workforce is also at the heart of the industrial strategy. We are providing an additional £1.2 billion of investment in the skills system by 2028-29. That is because we recognise that a strong economy must rest on strong foundations. That includes our defence capability, energy security and chemicals sector. I say that because hon. Members will know that Ineos is not the only business, and Grangemouth is not the only site, to have experienced challenges over the past few years. That is why we have a vision for Grangemouth’s long-term future that is energy efficient and sustainable.
The agreement we have announced today shows that we will forge the right partnerships between industry, the UK Government and the Scottish Government to make it a reality. As part of those efforts, up to £200 million of investment from our national wealth fund will support new opportunities in Grangemouth. Several projects are already under active consideration. Backed by funding announced by the Chancellor at the Budget, the Scottish company MiAlgae has announced that it will deliver a new biotech project at the site, creating 400 well-paid green jobs.
To support workers at the nearby ExxonMobil Mossmorran plant, which will close early next year, the UK Government and the Scottish Government, alongside Fife council, are setting up a dedicated taskforce. It will ensure that employees affected by that closure will be afforded every chance of securing valuable employment. As part of the agreement being announced today, Ineos Grangemouth has committed to giving those impacted workers a guaranteed interview for available roles at its site. The Grangemouth training guarantee will also be expanded to those employees who provided shared services for the refinery, ensuring that they have the skills and qualifications they need to succeed in the local labour market.
All those measures complement the efforts being undertaken as part of the Grangemouth just transition. That is important, because the agreement we have announced today is not just about supporting a single site or a single company; it is about securing a stable industrial pipeline now and for many years to come. It is about having a clean break from the managed decline of the past and delivering the decade of national renewal that we promised for Grangemouth and for the whole UK. For those reasons, I commend this statement to the House.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I thank the Minister for the advance copy of his statement. The steps announced today by the Government to secure the ethylene plant at Grangemouth are welcome news, especially for the workers at the site who can now look forward to the new year, assured that their jobs will remain at the strategically vital site—and Grangemouth is vital, as the UK’s last plant producing ethylene, a key ingredient in plastics used in advanced manufacturing and the automotive and aerospace sectors. To have lost domestic production capacity for such a core product would have been unconscionable.
However, this move, welcome as it is, demonstrates just how exposed sites such as Grangemouth have become under this Government. This Government’s policies are leading to the deindustrialisation of this country, with unemployment rates soaring and the economy shrinking as a result. From potteries in Stoke to the Prax Lindsey oil refinery in Lincolnshire and, most obviously and glaringly, our oil and gas industry in the North sea, this Government are not just overseeing but engineering the decline of energy-intensive industries in this country.
Of course, I am genuinely glad that 500 jobs at Grangemouth will be protected, but that will be cold comfort for the thousands of workers in and around the wider oil and gas industry who have already lost their jobs, or those who will spend Christmas next week not knowing whether they will have a job next year because of Labour party policy. Last week it was Harbour Energy, and before that it was the Port of Aberdeen, Apache and Petrofac. TotalEnergies has had to merge with NEO NEXT Energy to operate, while Shell has merged with Equinor.
Those businesses all say the same thing: the exorbitant taxation regime, increased and extended until 2030, is driving away investment. Couple that with the utterly astronomical cost of energy here in the UK, pushed ever higher by unnecessary green levies and carbon taxes, and it is no surprise that, in his response to today’s announcement, Sir Jim Ratcliffe said that
“high energy costs and punitive carbon”
taxes were
“driving industry out of the UK at an alarming rate. If politicians want jobs, investment and energy security, then they must create a competitive environment.”
Week after week, more jobs in the sector are lost and critical national assets shut up shop as a direct consequence of policy decisions made by this Government. Since Labour stepped into office, more than 15,000 manufacturing and industry jobs have been lost—that is the scale of the crisis we are dealing with.
Great Britain has a proud manufacturing legacy, but current Government policy towards energy is squandering that legacy, damaging Scottish jobs, and damaging an important national asset.
“There are 200,000 jobs in the UK associated with oil and gas, and they are all at risk unless the government changes course.”
Those are not my words, Madam Deputy Speaker, but those of the chairman of Ineos at Grangemouth.
Today’s announcement is timely, however, as tomorrow I will be visiting Mossmorran to meet the team following the news that the polyethylene plant there will be closing. ExxonMobil’s chairman there has explained that he does not have two of the keys needed for success because of Government policy. He said:
“We’ve had windfall taxes, we’ve had a ban on production licences—I need cheap sources of abundant ethane, and I do not have them, because the North Sea—because of Government policy—is declining rapidly…we paid £20 million last year in CO2 taxes, that will double in the next four or five years.”
What is shocking, though, is that for some inexplicable reason the Secretary of State for Scotland chose today to attack ExxonMobil when explaining why it was not receiving the same support as Grangemouth, saying that the management
“weren’t able to give us a pathway to profitability.”
Of course they cannot do that—at every turn this Government are putting up hurdles, shutting down the North sea and taxing these businesses until they burst. Honestly, this Government just do not get it. They are not listening.
Today’s announcement does not even scratch the surface when it comes to rectifying the damage and pain that this Government have inflicted on industry in this country. Given that this is the second time this Government have launched an unprovoked attack on a leading investor in the United Kingdom, does the Minister want me to pass on an apology from the Government when I visit Mossmorran tomorrow?
Today’s announcement is welcome, but this Government could do so much more. We should scrap the energy profits levy and remove the punitive carbon taxes—we are not getting an exemption to the EU emissions trading scheme anyway, according to the EU Commission. We should incentivise, not punish. A Conservative Government will do all this and more when we return to office in three years’ time—unfortunately, those are three years I do not think British industry has.
Chris McDonald
I start by thanking the hon. Gentleman sincerely for welcoming the support for Grangemouth—it really must be the season of good will. On this occasion, I can assure him that he is correct: this is the last ethylene plant, so we can agree on that this time.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the business environment for the chemicals industry. I thought I had set that out reasonably well in my statement, but perhaps not. I shall just say a bit more. On energy costs, we already have the energy-intensive industries scheme and, as I mentioned, we have increased the level of the supercharger. The British industrial competitiveness scheme will come in in 2027 with an additional 25% reduction. He may be interested to know that our electricity costs are already more competitive than many countries in Europe, but not France and Germany, which are the benchmark for me. That is why we are introducing the British industrial competitiveness scheme. On gas, after policy costs we are already competitive. These businesses trade internationally, and our success in striking international trade deals with the EU, the US and India, and with Korea just this week, means that there are more market opportunities all the time.
The shadow Secretary of State made the contrast with ExxonMobil. I reiterate the point that this Government —the Government would always do this, as I am sure he would expect—are investing in a business with a viable and sustainable future where there is a viable business plan, primarily because the owner of the business has invested in the business over time. As I said a few weeks ago in my statement on Mossmorran, ExxonMobil had failed to invest in that plant, and that is why it said that there was a £1 billion investment gap.
On jobs, in the clean energy sector we are creating 40,000 new jobs in Scotland alone and 800,000 jobs across the whole of the country. This is a transition that the Government are actively engaging in and managing. The shadow Secretary of State says that a Conservative Government would do something different from what they did last time, but they did not do anything last time. When Ineos announced in November 2023 that it was going to close its refinery, the Conservative Prime Minister at the time said, “That’s a commercial decision.” They did nothing about it—nothing at all.
Investment in this area is very important, so I refer the shadow Secretary of State to an article that was published this morning by my noble Friend Lord Stockwood, the Minister for Investment. He talked very carefully about the international investment environment and the performance of the UK economy and lamented the fact that so many people in this country—so many Cassandras, such as the shadow Secretary of State—are constantly talking the economy down and frightening investors away. I think it is about time he recognised the success of our clean energy industries and the success of this Government’s industrial strategy and stopped talking Britain down.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, I thank him and the teams across Government who have worked so hard to secure the deal to protect jobs at Grangemouth. I also want to commend all those in Government who have worked so hard to ensure that Babcock flourishes, Methil stays open, and BAE Systems secures contracts with Norway, and just last week they also secured the MiAlgae deal for the Grangemouth site too. All of that stands in stark contrast to the actions of other parties who had, or perhaps should have had, a role in these matters. Can the Minister reflect on that fact and give us some more information about what other developments we see in Grangemouth in the weeks and months ahead?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is quite right, and I would also like to thank her for her engagement on these subjects as well. She rightly pointed out what a vibrant industrial community there is around the Grangemouth area. Already we have companies, such as Babcock, that are keen to recruit people in that local area and that recognise the skills of the workers who will no longer be employed at Mossmorran from February onwards. With the support that the Government have put in place, including the taskforce led by Fife council, and with the Scottish Government and the UK Government working together in concert, I am confident that we will find new jobs for those people, recognising their very high skills.
My hon. Friend mentions MiAlgae—£3 million of support was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget. This great company will be operating on the Grangemouth site, directly in line with the strategy set out in Project Willow, which was commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and which he spoke about at the Liaison Committee earlier this week. That points directly to the bright future for Grangemouth.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. I welcome the Government’s announcement that they are stepping in to offer support and protect jobs in this vital industry. We have a duty to safeguard our national security and economic prosperity, and to ensure a fair transition to clean energy. This statement is a step in that direction.
We have long been champions of British industry. We are proud of the industrial policies that we introduced in government, and we must never return to the neglect we saw under the Conservatives, who scrapped our industrial strategy. Having said that, we need to see a far more cohesive plan from this Government to support British business, including our chemicals sector.
High energy costs are a fundamental challenge. The industrial competitiveness scheme will support the 7,000 most energy-intensive firms, but it will not launch until April 2027. Will the Government confirm whether the Grangemouth plant will be included in the scheme? Do Ministers acknowledge that if the scheme had been in place earlier, the situation might have been avoided? Does the Minister agree that we need a long-term plan to slash energy costs for households and businesses alike by seriously investing in renewables and decoupling electricity from gas prices?
Finally, I must press the Minister on another huge added cost for which the Government are responsible, which is of course the national insurance increase. Will he tell the House what is the tax hit imposed on the Grangemouth plant through the national insurance hike since last year’s Budget? Is it greater than the £50 million Government grant handed to Ineos today?
Chris McDonald
I thank the hon. Member for recognising the importance of both the site and the Government’s intervention. She mentioned the £50 million grant. It is important that hon. Members look at that in the context of the total package: a grant and an investment from the owner of the business—and, as the owner of the business said today, an agreement in principle for a profit-sharing arrangement.
That points to the hon. Member’s other question about the detail of the industrial strategy. This industrial strategy is a significant break with the past. It is not about last-minute interventions, which is what the previous Conservative Government did or did not do, depending on how the mood took them. It is about a serious partnership and engagement between Government and industry to ensure that we have sustainable industry in the UK.
The hon. Member asked me about energy costs. I mentioned earlier the relative position on energy costs. Of course, we are doing more on that, and I intend to do much more. In answer to her question on whether it would have helped had the scheme been in place earlier, clearly it would have helped if there had been a Labour Government in place earlier. That would be my advice: always vote Labour.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I very much welcome the protection of 500 jobs at Grangemouth and the commitment to making the most of the energy transition through this investment in carbon capture and storage, in components for wind turbines and indeed in nuclear power plants, as the Minister mentioned in his statement. I turn to the very high electricity costs that industry faces. We have talked about this before, and I raised it with the Prime Minister on Monday at the Liaison Committee. What alternative options are available? The British industrial competitiveness scheme is a very good step in the right direction, but many businesses who will not qualify for that scheme also need help with their very high electricity prices. What is the Minister working on that will start to move the dial for those businesses as well?
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for the close attention he gives to this area through his chairmanship of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. He started his question by mentioning the 500 jobs at Grangemouth, which perhaps we have not discussed enough. I really do understand how this announcement from the Government will bring certainty to those workers at Grangemouth as well as their families and their local community. It is incredibly important that we acknowledge that.
On energy costs, my benchmark is how competitive we are in Europe. I mentioned how our electricity costs—particularly our industrial electricity costs—are cheaper than those in some countries in Europe, such as Italy, the Netherlands and Spain, but more expensive than in France and Germany. The British industrial competitiveness scheme will take us a good way towards that, and we are already seeing the benefits of our investment in clean energy. As I have previously said at the Dispatch Box, from 2030 onwards we will see some significant reductions, particularly as we are bringing forward interconnectors that will connect not only the UK with other countries, but wind farm to wind farm—it is always windy somewhere in the North sea—which will help to release capacity and drive down costs. My hon. Friend will see that through both our policy measures and our investment in infrastructure.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
It would be wrong not to commend the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) on this announcement as he has always been such a strong advocate for jobs at Grangemouth. Indeed, owing to his willingness to speak out against his Government, he lost the Labour Whip.
I noted from the photographs issued around today’s launch that workers at Grangemouth did not seem overly happy to see the Chancellor. Perhaps that was because they know that her policies, which continue to attack the oil and gas industry—particularly through the windfall tax—are leading to the undermining of the oil and gas industry across Scotland.
Chris McDonald
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for mentioning my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman). I am sure that he would have liked to be here, but he was invited by the Secretary of State for Scotland to join him on the visit. He and I have spoken over the last few weeks. I assure the right hon. Member that I very much value my hon. Friend’s contributions, his relationship and his support, and I know that he is as pleased as I am by the announcement.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
People in Falkirk, Grangemouth and across Forth valley are delighted to see the decisive action taken by this Government to preserve 500 jobs in our community. The £120 million investment and £150 million deal are Labour’s industrial strategy in action. It protects our industrial community and keeps essential national infrastructure viable. I hope that there is a consensus in this House that that is a welcome, positive step. It is worth noting that, earlier this year, the head of external affairs for INEOS told the Scottish Affairs Committee that prior to the November 2023 announcement of the refinery’s closure,
“Both Governments were given the opportunity, the data and access to the data to make an investment decision, and neither Government chose to do that.”
Both the Tories and the SNP had the opportunity in government to support workers at Grangemouth, but they did not lift a finger. Contrast that with this Government’s approach to the ethylene plant, acting decisively before it was too late.
Our action today and further action support new industry, with the welcome announcement last week of MiAlgae bringing 400 jobs across Scotland. Grangemouth’s industrial future must move forward and the Labour Government are providing substantial further resources towards that. Will the Minister provide us with greater detail on what guarantees the Government have received from INEOS for the long-term viability of the ethylene site at Grangemouth and when Grangemouth can expect further funding announcements from the National Wealth Fund’s £200 million commitment, as well as the additional £14 million secured by Scottish Labour MPs in the Budget last month, to get announcements made soon?
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for his continued support for his constituents and the Grangemouth site. He welcomes the announcement and, quite rightly, he then presses me for more funding too. Further to the remarks that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made to the Liaison Committee earlier this week, on the £200 million committed earlier this year for projects through the National Wealth Fund, those projects are being examined and shortlisted. I hope that they will come forward soon. I also take this opportunity to commend Siobhan Paterson, councillor for Upper Braes on Falkirk council, who has supported my hon. Friend in this work. I hope that when voters go to the polls for the Scottish parliamentary elections in Falkirk East and Linlithgow, they will recognise that and vote Labour too.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I am glad that the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) did not get an invite, because we got to hear his excellent speech then.
Five hundred jobs being saved is incredibly important and, contrary to what the Prime Minister said earlier, everyone will welcome that, but we cannot escape the fact that 500 jobs are being lost every two weeks in Scotland’s North sea—not my figures but those of Paul de Leeuw from Robert Gordon University, and they are emphasised by the GMB trade union, local charities and industry itself. The Chancellor, while at Grangemouth —[Interruption.] I do not know why Labour Members make quips about people losing their jobs in the North sea. How dare they! While the Chancellor was at Grangemouth today, she was asked whether she agreed with that expert analysis. She said no. Does the Minister agree with her?
Chris McDonald
I sincerely thank the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming the announcement. The season of goodwill really is spreading right across the House. He asks a serious question about the transition. We have made no bones about this: oil and gas is an incredibly important industry for the UK and will be for decades to come; but as the oil and gas basin declines, it is important that there is a transition. Fundamentally, that is the difference between this and previous Governments and the point of our industrial strategy.
The right hon. Gentleman mentions Robert Gordon University, which also identified that 90% of workers in the oil and gas sector have skills that are readily transferable into the 40,000 jobs that we are creating in Scotland in clean energy industries. That is in marked contrast with the SNP. In September, Professor Mariana Mazzucato—he may have heard of her because she was an adviser to the Scottish Government—said that the SNP Ministers in Scotland, on industrial strategy, talk the talk but do not walk the walk. This Government are walking the walk.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
Is it not the stark and inconvenient truth for the Opposition parties that for years the Tories and the SNP sat on their hands and allowed the industrial needs of Scotland to go to the wall? Does my hon. Friend agree that, with this £120 million package, this Government are serious about backing our strategically vital industries as well as protecting thousands of jobs on the site and through our supply chains?
Chris McDonald
I do agree with my hon. Friend. It really is astonishing how the previous Conservative Government and the SNP Government in Scotland were prepared just to stand by and let the refinery at Grangemouth close after having been given data for years and deciding not to do anything about it at all. He rightly mentions the supply chains, and the multiplier of jobs in the supply chains is much greater. We recognise that this is a good investment for the taxpayer, not just to secure the vital product that we need in our chemicals and defence industries or because the ethylene plant is important in its own right, but to spread the economic benefits through the supply chains in Scotland and beyond.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
First, like everyone else, I welcome 500 jobs having been secured, but 500 jobs a fortnight are being lost from the oil and gas sector because of this Government’s policies. The Minister has spoken about the supply chain, but those jobs and skills in the supply chain are being lost and will not be there for the transition because of the energy profits levy. The Government have defined what a windfall is. There are no longer windfall prices or windfall profits, but there is still a windfall tax. When will the Government get rid of the windfall tax to protect the supply chain, the oil and gas sector and our vital industries?
Chris McDonald
I thank the hon. Lady for her welcome for the announcement. I think that is something that we can share across the whole House. I would just reiterate the point that the Government recognise the importance of the oil and gas sector. Of course it is important to the UK, to the people who work in it and to local communities as well, but we also recognise that the North sea is a declining basin. We have taken the actions, through our clean energy jobs plan and our clean energy initiatives, to ensure that we secure the supply chains for those clean energy jobs here in the UK. Again, this is a marked contrast between this Government and the previous Conservative Government, who were proud to boast of the UK being the largest market for offshore wind but enabled those jobs to be located in Denmark and other countries around the North sea. We do not think that is acceptable. That is why we are bringing the jobs here and helping workers to transition into those industries.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I strongly welcome this announcement, which, along with the agreement of the Forth green freeport full business case, demonstrates this Government’s commitment to reindustrialising Grangemouth, Leith and the wider Forth area. Can the Minister provide any details on when we will see the £25 million of seed capital attached to that deal being deployed to further secure and create jobs across the area?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend makes the point incredibly well about the need to reindustrialise and create good industrial jobs. It is my mission as Industry Minister to release additional productive capacity in the UK that will increase our manufacturing output and improve our productivity and balance of trade. That is rare—it might be decades since a Government have had this level of ambition for our industrial and manufacturing sectors—but for us it is about not just ambition and words but delivering jobs on the ground.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
It would be churlish of Opposition Members not to recognise the importance of these 500 jobs or welcome their being saved, as it would for Government Members not to acknowledge that we are seeing a sort of self-licking ice cream here—a self-perpetuating system whereby the Government have to intervene in industries that are being damaged by their own policies. Industry that is hanging on by the skin of its teeth will not take well to the news of cheaper energy prices in due course—years down the line—because it is almost at the edge of going out of business. Instead of measuring ourselves against expensive Italy and France, should we not be looking at the much cheaper prices in the United States and China?
Chris McDonald
I enjoyed the analogy about the self-licking ice cream, but it demonstrates a lack of understanding of what a real industrial strategy is on the Conservative side of the House. We all like to think that things are simple, but then we grow up. It is important to recognise that these industries are trading in international markets and need to abide by their rules. What we have done is to create a package that supports a sustainable business plan for that industry. The hon. Member mentions the lower energy prices in the USA—I acknowledge that the USA has lower energy prices, primarily due to its decision to introduce fracking. We have decided not to do that. Is he saying that he would like to do that? If he would, that is fine, but it is a point of difference between us—we will not do that. Our policy is to ensure that our industries remain competitive without that.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the statement and the work his team and the Scotland Office team did in securing the 500 jobs at Grangemouth. I also pay tribute to the former Business Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds)—now the Chief Whip—for the work he did on this deal and on keeping the lights on last Christmas at Harland & Wolff in Arnish, Methil, Belfast and Appledore. Then as now, voters and workers expect the two Governments to work together, but the Minister will confirm that the SNP sat on its hands over Grangemouth. The SNP checked out—as it has checked out today—on standing up for Scotland’s workers.
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is right to mention the hard work of the Chief Whip and former Business Secretary, because deals like this with international businesses require a significant amount of discussion and engagement. That is precisely the point of our industrial strategy: it is a partnership in which the Government work closely together with businesses to secure investment for the long term. Investment like this hangs around for a generation and provides generational opportunities for employment in local areas. We know that the decisions that this Government are making will provide those employment opportunities for people in Grangemouth and across Scotland for generations to come.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Minister mentioned in his statement the £200 million for projects in Grangemouth from the National Wealth Fund. I would like to raise with him a concern that was raised in evidence to the Treasury Committee, which is that the National Wealth Fund has to operate on the riskier end of project proposals because it does not want to crowd out private investment, but that means necessarily that many projects will fail. The worry is that politicians will not be ready to defend projects that fail under the National Wealth Fund. Does the Minister agree with that assessment, and is he willing to accept that, given the risk profile of the National Wealth Fund, some projects will fail as part of the deal?
Chris McDonald
I very much welcome the hon. Member’s question because it gives me an opportunity to talk about risk appetite in investment, which I certainly am interested in—if other Members are not, I apologise in advance.
The National Wealth Fund is doing something special and different, but it is also worth looking at it alongside the other tools that the Government have: the British Business Bank and UK Export Finance. The hon. Member is right that the National Wealth Fund’s job is to crowd in, so it should not be at the easy end of the investment; otherwise, it would be crowding out. It has a target to produce a return on investment. Ultimately, the National Wealth Fund needs to take a portfolio approach that delivers that return. I know that in the past, industrial strategies in this country have suffered from casual approaches around things like “picking winners”—that sort of language is incredibly unhelpful. The point of taking a portfolio approach is that, of course, some businesses will succeed and some will not. Frankly, if every business the National Wealth Fund invests in succeeds, its risk appetite is in the wrong place. Some businesses will fail—we accept that; that is absolutely the point of the approach—but as a result of the National Wealth Fund’s investment partnering with industry in the commercial sector to de-risk projects, we will see some big successes, too.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
This is such welcome news for Grangemouth and Scotland just prior to Christmas. My thanks go to the Minister and all Departments that worked jointly to secure the deal. It is a pity that the SNP could not bring itself to mention the Grangemouth investment earlier today at PMQs—perhaps after decades of failure, the SNP cannot recognise success. Does the Minister agree that both the SNP and the Tories sat on their hands while the future of jobs at Grangemouth was at risk? Does he agree that today’s announcement demonstrates that Scotland needs a Scottish Labour Government in Holyrood to secure more good jobs?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is correct that the Government’s decision here and their previous industrial strategy decisions have been in marked contrast to the decisions of the Scottish National party and the Conservatives previously.
There is something astonishing about this. I know that the Conservatives are hidebound by their free market ideology, which means that they are prepared to let British businesses and jobs go to the wall, but surely they should stand up for things like defence and national security, for which these businesses are so vital? They support our defence supply chains, as well as health and water. It should be natural for the Conservatives to stand up for things like that. The past inaction of the Conservatives and the SNP on this issue has been astonishing. The big message to the voters of Scotland is: vote Labour in the spring.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I know that Government Members forget which Parliament they are actually in—who knows, maybe they would feel better in the Scottish Parliament.
This is a welcome announcement. For months now, the Scottish Government have been calling on the UK Government to intervene to protect jobs at Grangemouth and Mossmorran at a scale seen in other parts of the UK. The news will give some much needed Christmas cheer, at least to the Grangemouth community and the workers at Ineos Olefins & Polymers. Last week the Scottish Government, jointly with the UK Government and Celtic Renewables, announced an £8.5 million investment at the Grangemouth industrial cluster, including in MiAlgae. That will create up to 460 jobs, demonstrating that a long-term industrial future at the site is achievable. We will continue to do all we can within the limited powers that the Scottish Parliament has.
However, the announcement today does not help those at the neighbouring refinery whose jobs have already been lost. Although there may be some crossover support for nearby Mossmorran workers, there is still a substantial gap in support. Will the Minister finally accept that one of the most fundamental causes of the need for support is the fiscal regime being inflicted on oil and gas and the use of the energy profits levy, which make a just transition a near impossibility?
Chris McDonald
The hon. Gentleman mentions the refinery; as I said earlier, Ineos made the final decision to close the refinery in November 2023, having provided data for years to the Conservative Government in Westminster and the SNP in Holyrood, who said and did nothing.
The hon. Gentleman talks about the scale of investment; I am really surprised, to be honest, that he has not raised that even more firmly. We are talking about a complete package of investment in Grangemouth, announced by this Government, that approaches half a billion pounds: £100 million in the summer, £200 million from the National Wealth Fund, £14.5 million in the Budget and £150 million in this package. That is only a rounding error shy of half a billion pounds for Grangemouth. I would have thought that the SNP would at least acknowledge that.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
I pay tribute to all the Ministers across all the Departments who have worked together to get this over the line. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) for not giving up and making sure that it happened.
Grangemouth matters to all of us; we all have constituents who work in the complex or the supply chain. There has been real investment. As a result of announcements over the last few months and again today, we can talk about new highly skilled jobs for a generation. We are again able to talk to people locally about how important it is to get jobs in the advanced manufacturing and chemical sectors. Given that skills are devolved to the Scottish Government, how is the Minister liaising with them to make sure that we are getting that investment for our young people?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend spoke powerfully about how Grangemouth matters to the local area. I was chairing a roundtable of the chemicals industry at the Wilton cluster in Teesside; those who, like me, have worked in the chemicals industry or work there now know that Grangemouth matters to all of us across the United Kingdom. The support of the workers and families in Grangemouth makes a big difference to all our lives.
My hon. Friend mentioned jobs. I have talked about the jobs in the clean energy sector created in Scotland and the rest of the country. Last week, I saw that for myself when I attended a clean energy jobs fair at the port of Tyne. I spoke to apprentices excited about the new job opportunities that this Government are creating. The one thing that they know—they heard it from me and said it themselves—is that Reform are coming for their jobs. They know that firmly, and should certainly take it into account when they vote.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Members know that I want to get everybody in, but I am aiming to finish the statement at around 5.30 pm, so please help each other by asking short questions and giving short answers.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I strongly welcome today’s announcement, which is important not only for workers in Grangemouth but for the wider Scottish economy. Whether it is today’s announcement about Grangemouth, protecting shipbuilding on the Clyde or the supercomputer in Edinburgh, the Labour Government are standing up for workers and for Scotland’s strategic industries. Does the Minister agree that whereas Labour stands up for manufacturing, the SNP can only manufacture grievance?
Chris McDonald
I certainly do agree with my hon. Friend. Given that he represents Edinburgh, he might like to learn an interesting Grangemouth fact: if the Government had not stepped in to support Ineos, the Grangemouth site would be flaring enough gas every day to power the entire city of Edinburgh, such is the scale and importance of the Grangemouth site.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
No pressure, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for his statement and for not giving up on these workers. He was slightly generous in describing the situation inherited from the SNP and the Tories as “managed decline”, but perhaps that was because it is Christmastime. It is great to see my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), on the Front Bench, and I thank him for all his work in saving these jobs as well. On Monday, my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and I were at a meeting with representatives of the aviation sector, where Grangemouth was mentioned repeatedly. The aviation sector is desperate for more sustainable aviation fuel production in the UK and it is targeting Grangemouth as a potential source. Does the Minister agree with the sector about that?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Minister, I need you to lead by giving an answer that is the definition of succinct.
Chris McDonald
I will try to do that, Madam Deputy Speaker. Grangemouth certainly has great potential for the manufacture of sustainable aviation fuel, along with our other clusters. My hon. Friend mentioned managed decline, but it was worse than that: it was complete indifference to industry and manufacturing in the UK.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I will try to keep my question brief. The SNP and the Tories sat on their hands while jobs and livelihoods were at risk, so I warmly welcome the announcement today and I thank the Minister and all Departments involved. The announcement not only protects 500 jobs; it is an investment in our national security. Does the Minister agree that it is only Labour that is backing business, backing workers and backing Scotland?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is right that this is an investment in our national security, our infrastructure, our industry, the workforce and the opportunities for young people in the Grangemouth area.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Today’s news of UK Government investment in Grangemouth is welcome. Following the devastating announcement by ExxonMobil about job losses at Mossmorran in my constituency, the Mossmorran taskforce is now up and running to give maximum support to the workforce and to consider the future of that site. I welcome the news today that the Mossmorran workers will be prioritised for interview for new jobs created at Ineos in Grangemouth. The Minister and I have discussed this, but will he confirm that the Government are exploring investing in possible alternative futures for the site and the workforce at Mossmorran?
Chris McDonald
Industrial sites like the one at Mossmorran are incredibly valuable to the UK. We mentioned the strategic sites accelerator in our industrial strategy, and I would be interested to explore whether Mossmorran could be a part of that. It is important that we do that and that we move fast, because I learned only today that prior to this, the SNP-led Scottish Government have not held a single meeting about planning transition for Mossmorran, so we will have to run fast to catch up.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
In common with colleagues, I thank all the Members on the Government Front Bench for their work on this investment, including the former Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), and the current Secretary of State. Grangemouth can be seen from the Fife coastal path in my constituency, and many of my constituents work at Grangemouth. While the site was totally ignored by the SNP and the Tories for years, this Government have dutifully and quietly gone about their work of finding an effective solution that will not only protect 500 jobs, but create more in the future, showing the commitment that this Government have to the Forth valley. Does the Minister agree that this shows what can happen when we have a constructive Labour Government, and that we could do even more with Anas Sanwar as the First Minister next year?
Chris McDonald
I do agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that with Anas Sarwar as the leader at Holyrood, we will be able to implement the Government’s work on Project Willow, which has identified Grangemouth as the ideal site for plastics recycling, biofuels and other projects that will maximise the local competitive advantage and the skills of the workforce.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
After the Tories and the SNP did nothing for so many years to address the long-term future of Grangemouth, it is hugely welcome that Labour Ministers have made this announcement, which offers opportunities to workers in Fife affected by the closure of the ExxonMobil plant at Mossmorran. What further opportunities will the modern industrial strategy offer for skilled jobs in high-growth industries in Scotland, including at the Methil yard in my constituency, which was saved by this Government?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is right to point out that it is only this Labour Government who have made this decision. This is an appropriate time to identify that the intervention in Grangemouth has a significant impact on securing our ethylene pipeline, which runs across the whole of the UK, as well as on chemical plants in Runcorn and the Forties pipeline. That demonstrates that interventions like this and plants such as Grangemouth work well when we are all part of an integrated United Kingdom.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Members might ask, “What has Grimsby got to do with Grangemouth?” Well, this is great news for Grangemouth, but I am afraid it will be cold comfort to the workers at the Prax Lindsey oil refinery, where 400 directly employed people have already lost or will lose their jobs by March, along with hundreds more in the supply chain. They will be asking, “Why the investment there but not here?” Is there any good news on the horizon for jobs in petrochemicals or energy in the Humber?
Chris McDonald
That is exactly the right question to ask about the Prax Lindsey oil refinery. One of the fundamental differences between the two is the Government’s ability to deal with the owner. The owner of the Prax Lindsey oil refinery left the business in a really terrible state. Of course, we all care very deeply for the workers there and for the families in Humberside; having worked in Humberside myself, I empathise greatly with them.
We are now in the late stages of the process with the official receiver, who has confirmed some redundancies because the offers he has received do not see refinery production returning within the next few years. We hope that process will conclude in the new year. I believe the jobs are guaranteed until March, and the Government have provided significant transitional support to help the workers to move into other jobs in the local area.
Points of Order
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. More than 40 Members of this House, led by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), wrote to the Justice Secretary on Monday urgently requesting that he respond, intervene and meet the lawyers of the Palestine Action prisoners, who have been on hunger strike for over 45 days. Since then, one of the prisoners, 20-year-old Qesser Zuhrah, was not transferred to hospital until just a couple of hours ago, despite her urgent pleas for urgent medical treatment since yesterday afternoon.
Prisoners have the right to humane conditions, to a fair trial and to medical treatment. Given that lives are at immediate risk and that points of order have been raised by Members of this House to no avail, could you kindly advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, what we may do to get an urgent response and intervention from the Justice Secretary before the House rises tomorrow for the Christmas recess?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. I understand that this matter was raised with Justice Ministers yesterday. The hon. Member may also wish to raise this issue during tomorrow’s debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment. In the meantime, if she requires further assistance in raising it with Justice Ministers directly, she may wish to seek further advice from the Clerks.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In a written answer on 9 December 2025 to a parliamentary question that I had submitted, the Treasury stated explicitly that it had not opened any new inquiries into child benefit eligibility in the context of the serious errors in a trial of data sharing between the Home Office and the Treasury. However, I have recently seen correspondence between the press team at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and journalists that directly contradicts the answer given through the Table Office, with HMRC’s press office stating that the programme was not paused and that therefore new inquiries were continuing. As both things cannot be true at the same time, can you give me advice and guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how the official record can be urgently set straight?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. While I am not responsible for the accuracy of responses that Ministers give to written parliamentary questions, I am clear that it is of the utmost importance that Ministers are properly held to account by Members, and that they take their responsibilities to the House seriously. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the hon. Member’s concerns, and I hope they will pass them on to the relevant Minister. The hon. Member may also wish to raise the matter with the Procedure Committee, which is currently undertaking an inquiry into written parliamentary questions.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter relating to access to the House. Unison had arranged, today, a lobby day for migrant care workers to meet their Members of Parliament and discuss concerns around care worker visas, exploitation and support for the sector. Those attending came from across the country, including from my constituency, and some came from as far as the Scottish highlands and Northern Ireland.
The event was originally intended to take place on the parliamentary estate, either in Westminster Hall or in Committee Rooms, giving some of the hardest-working and lowest-paid workers in our country a valuable opportunity to visit and engage in this place of democracy. Many workers took time off at an incredibly busy time and arranged cover to enable them to attend. However, I was shocked to learn that they were informed late on Tuesday evening that they would no longer be permitted to use the facilities in the House. They were instead moved to a venue off the estate, meaning that the majority were not able to visit Parliament at all.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would be grateful for your guidance on how such decisions are made; how Members can raise concerns with the House authorities; and whether you would be willing to join me in apologising to these key workers, and ensuring that they will be able to visit the House and meet Members properly at a future date.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for notice of her point of order, and for raising this important issue. I will draw it to the attention of Mr Speaker and the House authorities so that she may receive a substantive and full response.
Bills Presented
Afghanistan Schemes Data Breaches (Independent Public Inquiry) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
James MacCleary, supported by Calum Miller, Monica Harding, Richard Foord, Helen Maguire and Cameron Thomas, presented a Bill to make provision for establishing an independent public inquiry into data breaches by the Ministry of Defence and other public bodies relating to applicants to the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy Scheme and Afghanistan Locally Employed Staff Ex-Gratia Scheme; to provide the inquiry with the power to question Ministers, former Ministers, officials and other relevant persons about the circumstances surrounding such breaches, including action taken in response to the breaches and decisions taken by the Government in relation to legal proceedings in respect of the breaches; to require the inquiry to report within one year of its establishment; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 January, and to be printed (Bill 350).
Leases (Integrated Retirement Communities) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Dr Andrew Murrison presented a Bill to make provision about leases for occupancy of premises in integrated retirement communities; to make provision about any fees associated with such leases; to make provision about the regulation of operators of integrated retirement communities; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 January 2026, and to be printed (Bill 352).
Youth Services
Wednesday 17th December 2025
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Commons ChamberYouth Services Bill 2024-26 View all Youth Services Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the delivery of youth services by local authorities, including services under section 507B of the Education Act 1996; to require local authorities to specify groups of young people to receive particular services for the purposes of personal and social development of people in those groups; to make provision about the inclusion of youth services in arrangements for the inspection of children’s services and social care services; to make provision about targets for the delivery of youth work and measurement of delivery against those targets; to require local authorities to consult users and prospective users of youth services about the provision of those services; and for connected purposes.
As outlined in the Government’s national youth strategy, every young person deserves a safe place to go, a trusted adult to turn to, and the opportunity to develop skills, confidence and a sense of belonging. For generations, youth services have provided exactly that; they have offered support beyond the school gates, stability when home life is difficult, and early help long before problems escalate to crisis. Today, though, too many young people are growing up without access to those services.
The duty on councils to provide youth services already exists in law. Section 507B of the Education Act 1996 requires local authorities to secure sufficient leisure-time activities for young people. However, the law does not define what “sufficient” means. There are no clear expectations, no common standards, and no effective way to assess whether the duty is being met in practice. This lack of clarity has left youth services vulnerable when councils are forced to balance competing statutory pressures. As a result, funding for youth services has been cut by £1.2 billion since 2010.
Over the same period, the number of council-run youth centres has fallen by more than half. What remains is not only smaller in scale, but increasingly uneven in reach, with spending on youth services ranging from around £1 per young person in some areas to over £130 in others. That inconsistency is the predictable outcome of a statutory framework that is vague, weakly enforced and too easily sidelined.
That matters because youth services do not exist in isolation. When they are absent, pressures do not disappear, but simply resurface elsewhere. In England today, one in five children and young people have a probable mental health disorder. Incidents of youth violence remain at high levels, with 3,000 knife crime offences last year involving children. The Office for National Statistics reports that 16 to 24-year-olds are now the loneliest group in our society. Last year’s “Good Childhood Report” states that the UK’s children and young people are the unhappiest in Europe.
I have seen at first hand the impact that a lack of statutory protection and the defunding of youth services can have on a community. In Croydon, London’s youngest borough, we have lost our council-run youth engagement team. That team of youth workers provided a critical link between the council, the voluntary sector and vulnerable young people across the borough. The lack of statutory protection meant that this vital service was cut without proper consultation with key partners like the local police and the NHS, and without consulting widely with Croydon’s young people. Although Croydon’s voluntary sector is doing all it can to step up and step in where the council has stepped back, without sufficiency benchmarks there is little that our community can do to ensure that Croydon’s youth services are delivered consistently across the borough and in a way that reflects local need.
The purpose of the Bill is to address that structural weakness. It starts with a simple premise: if Parliament places a duty on local authorities, that duty should be meaningful and clear, and should hold local authorities to account. Youth services should not be left to chance and young people should not be left waiting for support that never comes. At present, statutory guidance sets out broad principles but avoids firm expectations. It does not define minimum levels of provision, workforce capacity or accessibility. Over time, this lack of clarity has hollowed out provision and widened regional disparities.
The Bill proposes benchmarks around three core areas. First, on workforce capacity, youth work is a skilled profession, built on relationships, trust and safeguarding, so the Bill sets expectations around access to qualified youth workers, recognising the importance of professional expertise alongside volunteers and community organisations. The expectations are not about imposing a one-size-fits-all model or micromanaging local delivery. They are about setting a clear national floor below which provision should not fall, while leaving local authorities free to design services that reflect local need.
Secondly, the Bill proposes targets and benchmarks for delivery, which could include a per head funding model, the distance that young people must travel to access services, or ensuring that there are enough safe spaces for young people in each area. The benchmarks would bring transparency and comparability to spending decisions, and make it easier for councillors, inspectors and local residents to see whether youth services are being properly resourced. Without a clear sense of what adequate investment looks like, youth services will always struggle to compete with other statutory responsibilities.
Thirdly, the Bill proposes ensuring that young people are consulted, so that services reflect local need and young people’s priorities. Youth services work best when young people help to shape them, and the Bill seeks to embed consultation, participation and the democratic involvement of young people in the design of their services. The good news is that this has been done before. In the early 2000s, national guidance set out clear expectations on leadership, workforce and inspection. Those arrangements have since fallen away, but they demonstrate that it is possible and appropriate for the Government to define what sufficiency looks like.
The Bill also recognises the reality of modern delivery. Local authorities increasingly work in partnership with voluntary and community organisations. That partnership working will be made stronger if it is underpinned by co-ordination, data and accountability. By strengthening reporting requirements and linking youth services into existing inspection and outcome frameworks, the Bill aims to support improvement rather than impose punishment.
The aim of the Bill is to make youth services a core part of the local safety net, not an optional extra that disappears when finances are tight. That is important because youth services sit at the point where opportunity meets prevention.
About 85% of a young person’s waking hours are spent outside the classroom. What happens during that time shapes their wellbeing, their confidence and their future. The evidence is clear: investment in youth services pays off. Research by UK Youth and Frontier Economics shows that every £1 invested in youth work delivers between £3.20 and £6.40 in social value, through improved wellbeing, reduced crime and better long-term outcomes. This is not just a moral investment in our nation’s future; it is a practical one too.
In that context, we must wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s national youth strategy, the political focus that it gives our young people and the extra £500 million of investment that comes with it. The strategy rightly recognises the importance of youth work, and the need to look again at the statutory framework that underpins it. However, a commitment to explore and review, although important, does not in itself restore provision on the ground. Young people who are growing up today cannot wait years for clarity to emerge.
This Bill takes the Government’s stated ambitions and gives them the practical effect that is needed. It replaces ambiguity with clarity, aspiration with benchmarks, and guidance with accountability. It strengthens an existing duty rather than creating a new one, and it builds on mechanisms that are already in place. This is not about dictating a single model of provision; it is about setting a fair and transparent baseline so that no young person is left without support simply because of where they live; it is about giving local authorities the framework they need to prioritise youth services and to work effectively with voluntary and community partners; and it is about ending the often patchwork postcode lottery of provision that young people currently face.
The Youth Services Bill offers a practical and proportionate way to achieve that. It strengthens the statutory duty, provides clarity where there is currently confusion, and helps to ensure that youth services are treated as a core part of our commitment to the next generation. For those reasons, I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Natasha Irons, Dr Lauren Sullivan, Josh Dean, Jim Dickson, Shockat Adam, Vikki Slade, Mrs Sharon Hodgson, Abtisam Mohamed, Gareth Snell, Afzal Khan, Rachael Maskell and Kim Johnson present the Bill.
Natasha Irons accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 January 2026, and to be printed (Bill 353).
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill
Wednesday 17th December 2025
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Commons ChamberNational Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill 2024-26 View all National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:45 - The House divided: - Ayes: 312 / Noes: 165 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a short and simple Bill. It is a stocking filler to yesterday’s Finance Bill. [Interruption.] There are just three clauses for the chuntering Opposition Members to enjoy. They focus on amending the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, and they do so to create a power to apply national insurance contributions to salary sacrifice pension contributions above £2,000 a year from April 2029.
I will focus my remarks on three areas: first, why Government action in this regard was inevitable; secondly, the case for the pragmatic, balanced approach that we propose to take; and thirdly, how this sits with wider, crucial questions about pension savings on which the House rightly focuses.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
My intervention will be very brief. The Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland has told me of its concerns about national insurance contributions, but it has also told me that utility prices are up by 52.7%, labour costs by 51.5%, and taxes by 47.2%. I ask the Minister respectfully how he and the Government can expect small businesses to survive increases at that level.
Torsten Bell
I will come to the exact point that the hon. Gentleman raises. The main answer to his question is that we are introducing this change with a very long implementation period—it will not come in until 2029—in order to give businesses and others time to adjust. Businesses have welcomed that across the board, but I will come on to it shortly.
It is always important to keep the effectiveness and value for money of tax reliefs under review; after all, their cost is estimated to be over £500 billion a year. That is always true, but it is especially true when we see the cost explode. That is why we acted in the Budget to reform employee ownership trust capital gains tax relief, because the cost was set to reach more than 20 times what was intended at its introduction.
That is what we see happening in the case of pension salary sacrifice: its cost is on course to almost treble between 2017 and the end of this decade. That would take it to £8 billion a year. For some context, that is the equivalent of the cost of the Royal Air Force. I will repeat that: the cost of pension salary sacrifice was due to rise to the equivalent of our spending, in real terms, on the Royal Air Force. The growth has been fastest among higher earners, with additional rate payers tripling their pension salary sacrifice contributions since 2017. While those on higher salaries are most likely to take part, many others are unable to do so at all.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I understand the justification for making changes to the salary sacrifice arrangements. The Minister mentions higher earners. Can he explain a bit more about the breakdown of those who are benefiting under the current system as a percentage of the whole? I do not know whether he has that data with him.
Torsten Bell
I will come on to some statistics that might answer my hon. Friend’s question.
While those on the highest salaries are most likely to take part in salary sacrifice, others are completely excluded. This goes to the question from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Torsten Bell
I will make some progress before giving way again.
The majority of employers do not offer salary sacrifice at all, including many small businesses. Workers on the national living wage are excluded entirely, and so are the 4.4 million self-employed people across the UK. On grounds of cost and fairness, it is near impossible to defend the status quo.
Of course, a major part of the job of the Opposition is to oppose some things that the Government are doing. I do not want to prejudge the remarks that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), will offer shortly, but I am confident that we will hear some opposition—maybe a word or two—to the Bill.
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to the Minister for arguing for more money for the Royal Air Force, and I very much hope that his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury are listening. We were told a little over a year ago that we had wiped the slate clean and that the Government would not be coming back to demand more money to fill various non-existent black holes. What has changed over the past several months that means he is now coming back to levy this very large sum of money?
Torsten Bell
I think I have already answered the right hon. Member’s question: it is important to keep tax reliefs under review. The cost of pension salary sacrifice is growing very fast indeed, so we have reviewed this tax relief and think it is important to bring in pragmatic changes, as I will come on to.
As I was saying, I am confidently looking forward—
Torsten Bell
I am going to make a bit of progress, and then I will give way to the hon. Member.
The truth is that reform was inevitable. Although Conservative Members are not saying it now, they know this is true, because it is what they said in government. In the 2015 summer Budget, they said:
“Salary sacrifice arrangements…are becoming increasingly popular and the cost to the taxpayer is rising”—
[Interruption.] I will come on to what the last Government wanted to do in the pensions space in a second. I am glad that the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) is so keen to hear this; he is setting me up nicely for what is coming in a second.
The summer Budget of 2015 went on to say:
“The government will actively monitor the growth of these schemes and their effect on tax receipts”,
which is the same argument that I just made to the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). That monitoring led, a year later, to the then Chancellor—now Baron Hammond of Runnymede—announcing benefit-in-kind restrictions. He told this House:
“The majority of employees pay tax on a cash salary, but some are able to sacrifice salary…and pay much lower tax… That is unfair”.—[Official Report, 23 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 907.]
He was right then, and the same argument holds today.
Former Conservative Ministers should certainly agree, because in government they were planning exactly the kind of change to pensions that we are now introducing. By way of proof, in 2023 the Conservatives commissioned research on restricting salary sacrifice arrangements for pensions, which is exactly the same measure they are opposing today. What was the proposed cap on pension salary sacrifice in that report? It was £2,000 a year, which is exactly the same cap they are opposing today.
Lincoln Jopp
The Minister seems to have co-opted the amount of money spent on the Royal Air Force into his argument. Is he aware that absent the defence investment plan—it was promised in the autumn, and the House rises tomorrow—we have no idea about the size, shape and cost of the Royal Air Force, because the Government are late with their homework?
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Gentleman, as I always do, because he always makes interesting points, but my larger point is this: if the Conservative party refuses ever to support any increases in taxation, increases in such spending—I think there is cross-party support for the Ministry of Defence, as the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire mentioned—cannot be funded and cannot happen.
Almost every tax expert in the country has noted the need for change, and most have called for pension salary sacrifice to be ended entirely. However, we are taking a more pragmatic approach by recognising that change will affect many employers and employees. Our balanced approach has two key parts. The first is time. As I said to the hon. Member for Strangford, nothing will change overnight. We are providing over three years’ notice of the reform’s implementation. What did the previous Government provide to employers? One year’s notice of their reforms to salary sacrifice. This will give everybody involved time to prepare and adjust, which is widely welcomed by firms and business groups. Employers and payroll providers have already been working with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to ensure that this change operates in the most effective way, and that process will continue as we approach implementation.
The second key design choice is the cap of £2,000. This cap protects ordinary workers and limits the impact on employers, while ensuring that the system remains fiscally sustainable. The cap means that the majority of those currently using salary sacrifice will be unaffected. It means that almost all—95%—of those earning £30,000 or less, who work disproportionately for small businesses, will be entirely unaffected, and 87% of affected salary sacrifice contributions above the cap are forecast to be made by higher and additional rate taxpayers. This is a pragmatic and fair approach, as well as the fiscally responsible one.
Some will claim—I am sure we will hear this from the Opposition—that salary sacrifice arrangements drive aggregate levels of pension savings. That is simply wrong. After all, salary sacrifice arrangements existed through the 2000s and into the early 2010s, and what happened to pension savings during that period? There were not rises, but big falls in private sector participation in pension savings. The existence of salary sacrifice did nothing to prevent a situation in which, by 2012, only one in three private sector workers were saving into a pension.
What made the difference was not the complicated national insurance reliefs available to some employees, but automatic enrolment, the groundwork for which was laid under the last Labour Government and which was continued by Conservative and Liberal Democrat Ministers. That reversed the collapse in workplace pension saving, and it means that over 22 million workers are now saving each month.
We also see that contributions have risen in line with regulatory requirements, not with the growth of salary sacrifice. Pension salary sacrifice relief doubled between 2019 and 2023. Was that associated with a surge in average pension contribution levels? No, they have remained entirely stable as a proportion of pay, because all the evidence indicates that it is largely automatic enrolment that drives changes in pension savings. That should not surprise anybody, because the research commissioned by the Conservative party that I mentioned earlier pointed in the same direction. It found that the majority of employers reducing their tax bill by offering pension salary sacrifice did not use the savings to increase pension contributions.
More importantly for any member of the public listening—and it is important for all of us to be clear about this throughout this debate—pension saving will remain highly tax-advantaged after these changes. I have seen some deeply misleading comments in the media and otherwise on wider changes to pension tax relief, saying that people will not be saving as much as they previously were. The public should be clear that we are spending over £70 billion per year on pension tax relief, and that will be entirely unaffected by these changes. Employer contributions will continue to be the most tax-advantaged part of the pension tax system, being made entirely national insurance contribution-free.
These are necessary changes that everyone who has thought about this subject knew would be needed, and they are changes being implemented in a pragmatic and balanced way. They are also consistent with the longer-term approach to reforming the pension system that is now in train.
There is cross-party agreement that the work of the Pensions Commission is important as it examines questions of adequacy and fairness. We all know too many people are under-saving. Many commentators have called for higher minimum saving rates within automatic enrolment, including some on the Opposition Front Bench. The commission is crunching the numbers and talking to employers, trade unions and the pensions industry. We should not prejudge its work so I would now simply note that higher savings rates means pension tax relief costs rising further. If we combine that with the reality that if pension salary sacrifice remains unreformed, the end point could be all employee contributions being funnelled through this route, it implies costs at least doubling again to well over £15 billion a year, which means £15 billion in higher taxes elsewhere or cuts to public services. That is the logical conclusion of the arguments from those opposing today’s Bill.
Then we come to the real problem of some groups disproportionately under-saving, which, again, Members on both sides of this House have rightly raised in debates on pensions in recent months. The Pensions Commission is focused on groups we know are most exposed, including low earners, some ethnic minorities, women and the self-employed. This is a real challenge for our pension system but the data is entirely clear that today’s salary sacrifice is not the answer. That is true whichever group we look at. Let us take them in turn. The self-employed are a top concern, with only one in five saving into a pension, but they are entirely excluded from pension salary sacrifice. Low earners are most likely not to be saving, but it is higher earners who are most likely to be using salary sacrifice. And many more women are under-saving for retirement, but many more men use pension salary sacrifice.
These are fair and balanced reforms. They protect ordinary workers, they give employers many years to prepare, and they ensure both our pension system and the public finances are kept on a sustainable footing. Opposing them is not cost-free: the savings from this measure are equivalent to over 250,000 knee and hip operations every year. The truth is that they are inevitable, which is why at least one party opposite was planning to introduce them. I gently suggest to some Members that they can, of course, take the easy route of opposing this change, but the truth is that they will be doing so with their fingers crossed behind their backs, because many know this change needed to come one day, and I suspect not one of the parties opposite will promise to undo it in the years ahead—but we will see.
The Budget delivered badly needed tax reforms ducked for too long by previous Chancellors. Whether it is the pragmatic reform in front of us today or ensuring that everyone driving on the roads contributes to their upkeep, these reforms are what it takes to keep cutting waiting lists, cutting borrowing and cutting energy bills, and I commend them and this Bill to the House.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I have to say that it is a joy to yet again be locking horns with the Pensions Minister on a topic that is important to us all: saving for our retirement. And it is important to note that there are many things that we agree on. We all acknowledge there is an impending issue with pension adequacy: when 50% of savers are projected to miss a retirement income target set by the 2005 Pensions Commission, we agree there is a problem that needs dealing with. We also all acknowledge that UK pension funds are not investing into the UK equity market to the extent that we would all want, although I would caveat that with a fundamental disagreement: on this side, we want to understand the problem; the Minister wants to tell fund managers what they should and should not be doing in terms of where their investment goes. But we also agree with the noble aim of delivering growth in the UK economy, even if the Government are making a little bit of a mess of delivering that aim— growth slowing, inflation up, unemployment up—but we hope they get the hang of it in due course.
But that is why the Chancellor’s Budget is disappointing. For pensioners, she has flown kites about the tax-free lump sum, frozen the personal allowance threshold, and forced millions of pensioners to start paying income tax. Those are her choices. For savers, she has reduced the cash ISA limit to £12,000, scrapped the lifetime ISA for new investors, and increased tax on dividends and savings by two percentage points. Those are her choices. For hard-working people, this Government have reduced real household disposable income, pulled millions more people into paying the higher rate of income tax, and created perverse incentives that make some better off on benefits. These are her choices. So it is no wonder that this Budget has been dubbed the smorgasbord of misery.
It has now got to the stage where our economy has never been taxed so much, and it will get worse. When coming into office, the tax take was 36.4% of GDP. By the time Labour leaves office in four years’ time, it will be 38.2%. It is worth looking at examples of how it is levied. For example, a basic rate taxpayer earning £100 will pay 20% tax, but they will also pay 12% national insurance—an actual tax rate of 32%. Add to that their employer’s contribution, and for a headline basic rate taxpayer on up to £50,000, for each £100 they earn, the taxman takes £47. For a higher rate taxpayer, the marginal rate goes to 57%. The taxman takes more than the employee.
Given the hit to payrolls, both at the employee and employer level, it is no wonder that saving into a pension through salary sacrifice has become popular. Even the Government think it is a brilliant idea, using it for 10% of government employees. It is no wonder, therefore, that people use incentives such as salary sacrifice to make the most of their money, to do the right thing, to save a little bit more, to take responsibility for their futures, and to not rely on the state in their retirement. It is no surprise then that 7.7 million people take advantage of that.
Here we are with something that is popular and that incentivises the right behaviour, and the Government say, “No, we don’t like it.” The Government’s proposal, which we are discussing today, is a tax on 3.3 million people and 290,000 employers—those in the highest levels of pay. How much are they being asked to contribute? How much are we going to whack savers? Some £4.48 billion. That is right—if you do the right thing, if you work and save, this Government will come after you. The Office for Budget Responsibility gets it. It realises—unlike, apparently, the Government—that this will change behaviour and so the tax take drops to £2.6 billion in the second year because people will change their behaviour. Even the Government lose out.
The Government’s contradictions are legion. The financial inclusion strategy, published recently, stated very clearly:
“Our aim is to create a culture in which everyone is supported to build a savings habit, building their financial resilience in the long term.”
A brilliant idea. [Interruption.] Thumbs up from the Pensions Minister! But even after that very clear message, the Government reduced the cash ISA limit, scrapped lifetime ISAs for new investors, and introduced a 2% increase to dividend tax and, the icing on the cake, a £4.8 billion tax on pension savers.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
To the hon. Gentleman’s point about changing behaviour, we have already seen reports that two out of five people are less likely to save if the salary sacrifice scheme goes. We have already seen a reduction in contributions because of the cost of living crisis. Are we not just moving the pain somewhere else? Will we not end up with fewer people able to support themselves in old age and it will be back on the state again?
Mark Garnier
Absolutely. The Government are really keen to get people to save for their futures and then they do everything they can to try to stop them doing that. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are just going to kick another problem down the road. By the way, when the Minister talks about hip replacements and so on, it is savers’ money. It is just that they are taxing them less.
At the same time as the Government look to improve pensions adequacy, they will be taking £4.8 billion from savers and employers. They identify a problem, say they will work to make it better, and then make it worse. Surely, when they were writing the Budget—I know the Pensions Minister has been a significant penholder in that process—they must have seen the extraordinary contradictions in their proposals?
The House would expect me to bang on about this—I am the shadow Minister and that is my job—but let us listen to the verdict from a few experts about the policy we are debating today. Pensions UK stated:
“Any change to salary sacrifice would inject uncertainty into a system that needs long-term trust, not sudden shocks…Introducing a cap would weaken incentives to save when we are facing a generation retiring with inadequate retirement savings.”
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales stated:
“This cap will make it more complex for employers to offer a simple and flexible solution for retirement savings.”
The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries stated:
“The decision to impose a £2,000 limit…will undermine current efforts to improve retirement outcomes for individuals. In doing so, the act of saving into a pension will now be more expensive, more complex and less attractive to both employees and employers.”
Evelyn Partners stated:
“Restricting this sensible tax benefit that makes private sector saving more attractive adds insult to injury in a two-tier pension system”.
PwC stated:
“In a bid to bolster the public purse…Budget risks reducing employees’ take-home pay while placing additional pressure on businesses through rising employment costs”.
Hargreaves Lansdown stated:
“Restricting salary sacrifice on pension contribution could cause long-term damage to people’s retirement prospects. We could see employees less likely to increase pension contributions beyond auto-enrolment minimums”.
The Society of Pension Professionals—it goes on and on. Are the Government proud of this rousing endorsement by the industry? It is absurd.
When I was quizzing the Minister about this last week at oral questions—he will remember it well—he proudly held up the report that was commissioned under the previous Government—
Mark Garnier
Indeed—our report, though it was published in May this year. It is a weighty tome. Even its title is pretty dry: “Understanding the attitudes and behaviours of employers towards salary sacrifice for pensions”. The Minister proudly told us that this document underscored the rationale for—[Interruption.] Oh—because it is important stuff. He told us that it underscored the rationale for capping salary sacrifice. However, having read the report, I can tell the House that it actually concludes that:
“All the hypothetical scenarios explored in this research”,
including the £2,000 cap, “were viewed negatively” by those interviewed. The changes would cause confusion, reduce benefits to employees and disincentivise pension savings. The report the Minister is using tells him not to do this.
The report also goes into why salary sacrifice for pensions is used by employers in addition to the incentive of paying into a pension, stating that extra benefits include: savings for employees, so that they have more to spend on essentials, tackling the cost of living crisis; savings for employers, which they can then invest back into their business and staff; and incentives for recruitment and retention. These are all good things—this is the stuff of delivering growth and the basis of creating a savings and investment culture. Why would this Government want to take it away?
The report came to the conclusion that of the three proposed options for change, the £2,000 cap is no more than the least terrible option. [Interruption.] The Minister talks about it being a secret plan—it is a published document. What is he talking about? It is the most extraordinary thing. He refers to it in terms that none of us recognises. But he has brought this in—this is the point. Is the Minister chuffed that his choice comes down to the least worst option for everyone? Here is the truth: it was the Chancellor’s choice to introduce this policy, and this Government are the ones implementing it—they are the ones who are in government.
Let us get to the measures and the impact of the Bill. To be fair, it is a very even Bill; there is something in it for everybody to hate. Take middle-income earners, who are typically in their 30s, and who earn on average a touch under £42,000 a year. This is the target area where the attack on savings starts. This is right at the point in life where people should be doing their very best for their future retirement. It is a perfect target market for the Government’s savings ambitions. However, it does not stop there. In total, at least 3.3 million savers will be affected, which is 44% of all people who use salary sacrifice for their pension. These are all people who work hard—people on whom the Chancellor promised not to raise taxes.
In fact, middle-income employees will be affected more than higher earners. According to the Financial Times, under the Bill, an employee who earns £50,000 and sacrifices 5% of that will pay the same amount in national insurance contributions as an employee on £80,000. If the contribution rate is doubled to 10% of their salary, the disparity grows even further, meaning that an employee earning £50,000 will pay the same amount in national insurance contributions as an employee on £140,000. How is that fair? The Government keep telling us that this policy will affect top earners, but the reality is that those on middle incomes will be disproportionately hit—the very people we should be encouraging to save more.
The Bill will also potentially hit low earners. Somebody who is lucky enough to get a Christmas bonus will not be able to add it to their salary sacrifice, taking advantage of any headroom, because the accounting looks at regular payments, not one-offs. [Interruption.] I am slightly worried, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the pairing Whip has a rather bad cough; I hope he gets better. This will potentially hit the 75% of basic rate taxpayers the cap supposedly protects.
Finally, the Bill hits employers. In the previous Budget, the Government absolutely hammered business. They increased employer national insurance contributions to 15% and, at the same time, reduced the starting threshold to £5,000. Businesses reacted and adapted. They were reassured by the Chancellor’s promise that she would not come back for more, yet here we are discussing further tax rises on businesses.
Let us look at the actual impact this raid on pensions will have on employers. According to the Government’s own impact assessment, it will hit 290,000 employers. A business highlighted in the 2025 report that
“If salary sacrifice were to go away, it would be additional cost of £600,000 to £700,000 per annum to the company in national insurance”.
While the Government are not abolishing it altogether, 44% of people currently using salary sacrifice—[Interruption.] I am worried; the pairing Whip is coughing. Anyway, there is going to be a cost, and that money will be taken away from businesses. This is going to be—[Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position; he is obviously proud of what he is doing to the pensions industry.
Furthermore, the change will create administrative burdens for employers. With the current system, there are few administrative issues; the only thing that businesses have to bear in mind is ensuring that their employees’ pay does not fall below the national living wage—that is it. So what do the Government do? They go for the most complicated option that the report considered. That was explicitly stated by those involved in the research. As a pensions administration manager for a large manufacturing employer said,
“We’d have to reconfigure all our payroll systems and all our documentation. It would be a big job.”
The National Audit Office estimates that the annual cost on business just to comply with this Government’s tax system is £15.4 billion, yet the Government feel that the time is right to put more costs on businesses. I have to ask, what happened to the Chancellor’s pledge to cut red tape by a quarter?
I think I will move on to my conclusion in order to save people. [Laughter.] There was some great stuff in this speech, but I understand that people want to get away and wrap their Christmas stockings—particularly the Pensions Minister who, like the Grinch, is taking a lot of money away. To conclude, the Government should think again on this policy. People are simply not saving enough for their retirement. We need to do more to encourage them to save for their retirement. I know that the Minister would agree with that, so I hope that he hears the genuine concerns I have raised on behalf of a lot of people. Many people and businesses and are very worried about this policy, and he needs to take it away and think carefully about it.
Fundamentally, we are taking away something that is beneficial to the individual while also being tax efficient for business. Instead of encouraging the creation of incentives such as salary sacrifice or pensions, we are reducing the number. It is the wrong policy, and it sends the wrong message at the wrong time. All it does is add to the ongoing narrative that, “If you work hard to make a decent income, you will lose out. If you work hard as an employer to grow your business, you will lose out. If you try to save towards dignity and retirement, you will lose out.” It is the wrong policy to pursue and we will definitely vote against it tonight.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I remind Members that the knife will fall at 7 o’clock.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
The Chancellor’s Budget, delivered at the end of November, enables the Government to deliver on the priorities that we set out clearly in our manifesto last year. I pay tribute to the work that the Chancellor and the Ministers on the Front Bench tonight and across the Treasury team have done on that.
As the Minister said, this is a very straightforward Bill. It means that from April 2029, there will be limits to NICs relief that higher earners can take advantage of through salary sacrifice. Importantly, it protects lower earners with a £2,000 threshold. It is always a challenge for any Government to find the right balance in their policies. This change ensures fairness in a system where we could otherwise have seen the costs of salary sacrifice schemes triple between 2017 and the end of the decade. That would undermine vital public service and investment priorities, such as the armed services, the NHS, SEND, our prison system and a vast number of other public services that everyone in this House would want to see properly funded.
The greatest burden in this change is therefore being borne by those with the broadest shoulders. It is right that we have kept our manifesto pledges on tax, and it should only be in the most challenging of circumstances that we step back from those commitments. This change has enabled us to keep those pledges. It is good to see the Government getting on with delivering the change we promised, with inflation coming down; a sixth cut in interest rates coming soon, we hope; gilt prices moving in the right direction; and growth forecast to rise next year.
As a Member of the Treasury Committee, I have not had a chance to speak in the Chamber since the Budget. With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to welcome the lifting of the two-child benefit cap. It was clear from the evidence we heard on the Committee that this change will transform thousands of young lives—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I will make exactly the same point I made yesterday. Yesterday’s debate was about the Finance Bill, and this debate is on the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill. It is not on the two-child cap or on spending commitments.
Jim Dickson
Thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I will conclude simply by saying that when the Chancellor appeared before our Committee last week, she was clear that this was a Budget of necessary and fair choices on tax—of which the Bill is one—so that we can deliver on the public’s priorities of rebuilt public services and fair growth. This change enables us to do that.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
What we see here is the tune remaining the same from the Budget, but perhaps the words changing a little. We see short-term gain for the taxman and long-term pain for the taxpayer, and particularly for those who wish to save for their pensions.
The Minister was right to highlight how we need to be driving more people to save for their pensions: in fact, we see about 12 million people falling short. Scottish Widows shared a report in the not-too-distant past showing that up to 40% of people are set not to have a comfortable retirement, and the figures have been going in reverse in the last couple of years. The Association of British Insurers highlighted that 40% of people would be less likely to invest in their pensions if these measures were taken forward, so there is a double whammy on those wishing to save. I ask the Government to reflect on the impacts that these measures will have.
The Federation of Small Businesses suggests that a number of small businesses use this mechanism as a way of enhancing their offer to employees in order to retain them. There is a suggestion that there will be higher national insurance costs for some of its members if and when the allowance is withdrawn.
One has to reflect on what businesses have had to suffer. The Ukraine war has led to higher energy bills, the national insurance hike that kicked in in April has put a cold hand around the heart of our businesses and, of course, business rates are set to go up significantly over the next few years. Our economy is in a parlous state. As Liberal Democrats, we really want to see a jump-start for our economy, and we have clear proposals—I will not go over them again for fear of getting in Madam Deputy Speaker’s bad books—for the way forward. We do not want to see our economy go into reverse gear, so we call on the Government to reflect again on these proposals.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
It strikes me that it should not be particularly controversial that a Government should be encouraging people to save for their retirement, to take responsibility for their future and to feel secure in later life. Therefore, although we are dealing with a short Bill that appears to be purely procedural in nature, its practical consequences are profound, because it takes us in precisely the wrong direction.
Beneath the layer of technical language lies a troubling choice. It is a choice to tax aspiration, penalise prudence and chip away at the very habits that ensure financial security in our later years. The Government have sought to assure us that this only affects high earners and that most will not be affected, but that is not how it will feel to the majority of people in the real world. One in five people—approximately 20%—rely on salary sacrifice. Those are people who are doing the right thing; they are choosing long-term security over short-term consumption. Yet under the Bill, to save means to pay more. That is not positive pension reform; it is a stealth national insurance rise, dressed up in the cloak of technicality.
At a time when businesses are struggling under huge wage bills, regulatory uncertainty and sluggish growth, the Bill quietly imposes on them yet another burden. I remind Government Members that fairness cuts both ways. It is not fair to tell people to save for their future and then tax them more for doing so, it is not fair to talk of fiscal responsibility when penalising prudence, and it is not fair to build long-term public finances on short-term revenue grabs.
There is a moral component to this, because women will be disproportionately affected. Many women, on returning from maternity leave, increase their contributions to cover for that career break. The proposals as drafted will result in those who plan responsibly being encumbered with higher additional national insurance charges.
Torsten Bell
I am reluctant to intervene, but I just want to pick up on two points that the hon. Member has just made. Men are much more likely to use salary sacrifice than women, so I offer him the chance to reconsider his last point about women being disproportionately affected. Before that, he said that the Bill meant that people were being encouraged to save but that they would be penalised if they did so. Given that there are members of the public listening who will make choices about their savings, I invite him to remind everyone that saving into their pension is still a very tax-advantaged thing to do. All Members on both sides of the House should encourage people to save into their pension, as the tax system will continue to do.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
The Minister is right that people should be putting into their pensions and we should encourage them to do so, but we should not put forward legislation that disincentivises that. In respect of women, it is a fact that they are more likely to take career breaks and, by virtue of that, they may want to make up their contributions. This legislation will disadvantage those individuals.
The salary sacrifice scheme has become the bedrock of the modern pension system in the workplace. By decreasing gross pay, it decreases employer national insurance contributions and allows firms to invest more in their people. That is a positive step. My fear is that, as a consequence of this piece of legislation, many employers may scale back those contributions, cut other benefits associated with work or even discontinue schemes entirely. If we want a country that values responsibility and rewards work, and in which people make long-term plans for their economic security, I am afraid that the Bill takes us in entirely the wrong direction.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
While businesses are still reeling from last year’s national insurance increase, with this Bill the Labour Government are set to increase tax again by making salary sacrifice pension contribution schemes worse for workers.
What has the Labour party said previously? In its 2024 manifesto, on page 79, it stated:
“Our system of state, private, and workplace pensions provide the basis for security in retirement…We will also adopt reforms to workplace pensions to deliver better outcomes for UK savers and pensioners.”
It gets even more ridiculous when we see that the same manifesto also stated on page 21:
“Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance”.
That is exactly what the Bill does.
Recent survey data from the Confederation of British Industry showed that three in four employers will have to decrease pension contributions as a result of the measures in the Bill. As the CBI has said, it is
“‘a tax on doing the right thing’”.
It goes on to state:
“Ultimately, this unwise move will only damage growth, investment and pension saving rates.”
It is not just the CBI that has voiced alarm at the Bill. The Association of British Insurers stated:
“Capping salary sacrifice for pension saving is a short-sighted tax grab which will lower pension saving and undermine people’s retirement security.”
The Minister said in his introduction that
“everyone who has thought about this”
will come to the same conclusion. He might not wish to refer to the CBI and ABI coming to different conclusions, but they have clearly thought about it.
It is not even clear that the measure will raise the money that the Chancellor expects. A former pensions Minister from the coalition era has said that he expects it to raise “a fraction” of the intended amount, as firms will restructure payments to evade it. In addition to the likelihood of payments being restructured, even the OBR has made it clear to the Chancellor that it expects employers simply to pass the cost on to employees through lower wages and less generous schemes. It will be working people who ultimately pay for this short-term thinking, with a lower standard of living and less spending power in their retirement.
As we have seen with the maladministration of pension changes for 1950s-born women, politicians cannot and must not change the goalposts on retirement planning without giving significant advance notice. Any approach otherwise, such as in the Bill, is deeply unfair to savers. This move will land businesses with yet more administrative costs, disproportionately hitting small to medium-sized employers who are still absorbing the increased NIC costs from last year’s Budget. Is this muddled policy really from a Government who stood on a pledge of growing the economy? This is yet again another Budget with another rise in national insurance by Labour.
There are numerous unanswered questions, but the following are top of the list. What assessment has the Minister made of likely behavioural changes to pension savings as a result of this policy? What is the estimated increased cost to businesses as a result of this policy? Does the Minister anticipate lower pensions for workers as a result of this policy, and if so, how much would the decrease be? Can the Labour Government seriously make a commitment in this Chamber not to increase national insurance in next year’s Budget, given the rises in both their Budgets since coming into power? This Bill is deeply flawed and the SNP will not support it today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
As there are no further Back-Bench contributions, I call the shadow Minister.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
For a Bill that proposes to raise taxation on working people by such a large amount, this has been a remarkably brief debate. But I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), who correctly said that this was yet another anti-aspiration measure from this Government, and the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter), who made it clear that this was yet another example of Labour breaking its manifesto pledge not to raise taxes on working people. He also asked one of the key questions, which I hope the Minister will address in his reply: as this measure is due to come into force in three years’ time, what assessment have the Government made of behavioural changes, and can the Minister be assured that the amount in the OBR forecast is robust on a dynamic accounting basis?
This is the final economic Bill of the year to be voted on in the House of Commons, and it is another Bill that targets people who are trying to do the right thing. The Bill is a bad measure. It is an anti-savings measure and it is an attack on prudence, so of course the Conservative party will oppose it. This final Bill, at the end of this full-on year of Labour government, leaves me with one fundamental question: why do the Labour Government hate the private sector so much? If you are a family farmer, the Labour Government will snatch your farm away from your children when you die. If you believe in private education, the Labour Government will put up a barrier at the school gate. If you save for your retirement, Labour will tax your every effort to achieve security in retirement. Why do the Labour Government take every opportunity to punish people who are trying to do the right thing?
The Bill makes a mockery of the Government’s own Pensions Commission, set up in July this year, when it wrote:
“Put bluntly, private pension income for individuals retiring in 2050 could be 8% lower than those retiring in 2025—undermining a central measure of societal progress.”
Back in June, the Government recognised the problem of a secure retirement. Now, they are adding to the problem.
I have a question about the numbers. It is interesting that this measure is scored by the OBR in that crucial year of 2029-30 at £4.845 billion, falling the following year to £2.585 billion. That is an important year, because that is when the Chancellor says she has put in all this headroom—how interesting. Does the Minister agree with the director of Willis Towers Watson, one of the world’s biggest advisers on pensions, when he said:
“While earlier introduction would be unwelcome, the change appears to have been timed to maximise revenue in 2029/30—the year that counts for the Chancellor’s fiscal rule. £1.6 billion of revenue in that year is a temporary gain which will be returned to taxpayers who pay employee contributions instead and claim back part of their tax relief”?
On the £4.845 billion—the full amount—is any of that actually a fiction that will be returned the following year, as experts suggest it will be?
The Bill makes it less attractive for employers to contribute to private sector pensions. We all know that there is less certainty in the private sector, because that is where defined contribution schemes predominate, whereas in the public sector, greater certainty is given by a defined benefit scheme. In the public sector, there is also benefit because the contribution from the employer to employee pensions is much higher than in the private sector. In the public sector, employer contributions are equivalent to 27% of earnings, on average, according to research by the Taxpayers’ Alliance, but in the private sector the average contribution is only 8%. Why are the Government proposing to make it harder for private sector employers to contribute to the pensions of their employees? The Bill actively exacerbates the differences. By the way, it does nothing to tackle the unfunded £1.5 trillion liability of unfunded public sector pensions, which will fall on taxpayers.
The Bill is yet another example of the lack of private sector experience on the Government Front Bench. This Government are the least business aware Government in our country’s history. They are taxing and regulating growth out of our economy. Labour Ministers are punishing workers who want to save more for their retirement, and making it harder for their employers to help them to do so. While they can rely on their cushy, gold-plated public sector pensions, private sector workers are worse off.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before I call the Minister, I want to put on the record that the behaviour I have seen on both Front Benches this evening has been about the worst I have ever witnessed. The debate should take place across the Dispatch Box, not from a sedentary position. [Interruption.] No—not “He started it!” This is not a classroom.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for bringing the Front Benchers on both sides to heel at just the right time, before I make the closing remarks. It is a pleasure to close this Second Reading debate, and I thank all Members on both sides of the House for their contributions. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) for his contribution and his brief foray—and it was brief—into broader points around the Budget, which I did appreciate. I will try to minimise doing so in my remarks.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), raised a few points. While he is whispering over there, I will confirm to him that the costing provided by the OBR accounts for the dynamic effects of this policy. The costing itself has been certified by the OBR. The reason why the change does not come in for a number of years is because it will give businesses time to plan, which we think is an important thing to do when we are making significant changes to the pension system.
This is an important Bill, if small. This is an important debate to have, although it has felt somewhat rushed given that it has come after the many final-week statements and urgent questions today. But that has given me a bit more time to prepare some remarks, which I have hastily cut down from the 30 minutes I was planning; we will see whether we can make faster progress than that for the sake of all concerned.
In my extra time this afternoon, I thought I would attempt to shoehorn a Christmas theme into my closing remarks, given that this will be the last time the House divides before Christmas. Very briefly, I present “The Twelve Numbers of Christmas: the Salary Sacrifice Edition”. I start with 12 words from Baron Hammond of Runnymede on how some employees are, in his words,
“able to sacrifice salary…and pay much lower tax….That is unfair”.—[Official Report, 23 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 907.]
The Whips can count, and I can see that they have counted that as 12 words—very good. It is clear that even 10 years ago the Conservative party was aware of issues with salary sacrifice schemes. They knew that we must ensure that significant tax reliefs totalling £75 billion a year are properly targeted. That is why we are capping pension salary sacrifice contributions at £2,000.
Let us be clear: we are not removing pension tax relief, just the ability for unlimited relief via salary sacrifice, which many people cannot access in any case. That brings me to my No. 11. Those earning £11, £12 or £13 an hour at the national minimum wage or the national living wage cannot make use of salary sacrifice schemes because if they sacrificed their salary, they would be paid less than the minimum. It is the richest who benefit the most from these schemes.
Chris Vince
It’s Christmas! I have been here the whole time, by the way, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Minister talks about the impact on different earners. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury mentioned that only one in five self-employed people actually gets a pension, and there was another statistic about low earners. Can the Minister reflect on that? We need to get more people signing up for a pension.
Dan Tomlinson
Some 4.4 million of the self-employed are also not able to save into salary sacrifice schemes; it is right that we make the scheme fairer for all.
Let me continue to run through my numbers. Some 10 million people have signed up to a pension since auto-enrolment, which has limited the need for salary sacrifice. There are more than 900 tax reliefs; this is one of a number that we are reducing to raise revenue fairly at this Budget. Without intervention, salary sacrifice would have cost £8 billion a year by the end of the decade. Instead, we will now raise £7 billion from this change over the course of the scorecard.
The change will affect those on higher earnings more: 60% of the contributions come from the top fifth of employees and just 5% of those earning less than £30,000 will be affected. We will give businesses time to plan—this is not coming in for a bit less than four calendar years.
Dan Tomlinson
We should make progress.
I step back for my final three numbers. Let me briefly set out how some of the long-term decisions the Government are taking are paying off. Figures today show that inflation has fallen to nearly 3%, with wages up more under this Government than in the first decade under the Conservatives. In the past two Budgets, the Government have made the right decisions for the good of the British people. We have focused on improving public services because we know that we were elected to put them right. We have focused on getting living standards up because we were elected to end decline. We have focused on making the right decisions for the long term because we were elected to put to bed the short-term chaos of years gone by.
To conclude, my final number is not a partridge in a pear tree but this fantastic country—my No. 1. We are all here to represent and improve this one great country of ours. It is a land full of hope and wonder, particularly at this time of year, with families and friends looking forward to seeing each other over the coming weeks, neighbours who look out for one another, communities who come together at Christmas—which we all want to get to in good time—and people who work hard and who want the state and the economy to work for them in return.
Although we disagree on much, I know that right hon. and hon. Members from across the House care deeply about this country of ours, and it deserves our best. Although the Bill is short and has only a few clauses, it is part of a bigger story about a Government who love this country and its people and want the best for it, a Government who are making the right decisions for the national interest, and a Government who are working every day to help everyday Brits get a fairer deal, in every way that we can. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Business without Debate
Petitions
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I am pleased to present this community petition on behalf of Kathy Allday. Alongside it, there were over 2,300 online signatures. It calls to save Knaresborough castle, which is in a poor state of repair but is vital to our town’s history and our thriving tourism industry. The petitioners therefore request
“that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage North Yorkshire Council, which is responsible for Knaresborough Castle’s maintenance, to work with the Duchy of Lancaster to prioritise the maintenance of the Castle and its estate, by creating a comprehensive restoration plan and securing a dedicated funding stream to help preserve the integrity of the castle and its history.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of North Yorkshire,
Declares that Knaresborough Castle is an important local asset, providing space for residents and visitors alike to discover local history, participate in community events and enjoy fantastic views of Knaresborough Riverside; and further declares that the Castle has been left to deteriorate, causing erosion of its structure and other signs of neglect.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage North Yorkshire Council, which is responsible for Knaresborough Castle’s maintenance, to work with the Duchy of Lancaster to prioritise the maintenance of the Castle and its estate, by creating a comprehensive restoration plan and securing a dedicated funding stream to help preserve the integrity of the castle and its history.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003152]
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
I begin by offering my deepest sympathy to the family of Ethan McLeod, who died tragically in a car accident yesterday. He was a brilliant footballer and an inspiration to young people across Macclesfield.
I am proud to present to the House a petition signed by 7,200 residents on paper, complemented by a further 11,714 online—totalling nearly 19,000 people—who express their clear opposition to this proposal. That is a view I wholeheartedly share. Residents and local councils are united in concern about the loss of green-belt and agricultural land; the strain on already stretched roads, schools and services; and the impact on local wildlife and the rural character of our communities.
I thank the volunteers who worked tirelessly to raise awareness, collect signatures and make their voices heard. The petitioners therefore request
“that the House of Commons urge the Government to abandon the proposal for a new town in Adlington”.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Macclesfield and neighbouring boroughs,
Declares that the small village of Adlington, Cheshire (with a population of approximately 1,250) has been highlighted by the New Towns Taskforce as a potential site for large-scale development; further declares that, while the plans are only in the early stage of consideration, the scheme would risk inflicting significant, large-scale and irreversible harm to a cherished area of Green Belt on the edge of a National Park; further declares that the construction of the indicated minimum of 14,000 homes there would completely change the nature of Adlington village and the surrounding area, and put immense strain on already stretched local services; and further declares that Cheshire East Council has met its housing targets in the past and would do so again under a democratically agreed local development plan, which would ensure that development happens in the right places, with the right infrastructure.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to abandon the proposal for a new town in Adlington, Cheshire.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003154]
Window Cleaning Industry: Workplace Safety
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
On 6 April last year, my constituent Jason Knight was cleaning the last window of the home of a regular customer in Westbury when he was electrocuted by 33,000 V from an overhead cable. He was blown 7 feet across the garden, waking up on a patch of scorched grass with catastrophic injuries. Found by his customer, he was airlifted to hospital in Bristol in 12 minutes and placed in a coma. He woke up surrounded by his distraught family. He was very lucky to survive.
Jason was left with life-changing injuries. He has lost his left arm below the elbow, several toes, and a great deal of leg musculature. He has undergone over 20 sets of surgical intervention, suffered severe burns all over his body, and can walk or stand only with the utmost difficulty. Now he is losing his sight as a delayed effect of the electrocution. He is just 34 years old with three small children. He had started his own business that was growing and he was providing for his young family. He is a real doer, but his injuries are such that it is going to be extremely difficult for him to work again.
What happened was this: 33,000 V leapt, without physical contact, about 2 metres from an overhead power cable to Jason’s telescopic water-fed cleaning pole. The Health and Safety Executive made inquiries, of course, but concluded there was no breach of regulations that warranted investigation. Indeed, an HSE spokesperson told the BBC that the overhead powerlines involved in this incident met national safety standards. In the UK, we tolerate high tension power cables that are slung surprisingly close to commercial and residential buildings.
However, it was not the overhead powerlines that failed Jason; it was the cleaning pole. As Jason said to his father, John, shortly before he was taken to theatre to have his forearm amputated, “I don’t understand, Dad—I bought an insulated pole.” It should not have mattered that he was close to a power line, because the pole should have been fully insulated, but it was not. Jason was using a telescopic pole that could extend and retract. The handle section at the bottom was insulated, but the extended section was not. He was electrocuted when he reached up to retract the extended section.
I have to say that before Jason came to see me, I knew very little about window cleaning. As he and John recounted the story, I assumed that it was the water from the water-fed pole that was the culprit, since tap water, being impure, conducts electricity perfectly well. Jason and his dad put me right: window cleaners, including Jason that day, use pure water, or what is often called “zero water.” This kind of water has been filtered to remove all or nearly all dissolved solids, so that it leaves no watermarks on windows after cleaning. Ordinary tap water does not have that property. At that moment, I realised why my own attempts at window cleaning at home invariably left the glass looking worse. The crucial point is this: pure water is non-conductive, so the water in Jason’s pole was not the culprit. What caused this accident was inadequate insulation in a tool designed to be used at height, even in proximity to overhead power lines.
This is not a new, unforeseeable risk. The first water-fed poles, developed in the United States in the 1950s, were made entirely of aluminium. When window cleaners started to be electrocuted, the manufacturers simply slapped on some warning labels. At that time, the greatest hazard to window cleaners in Britain was falling off ladders, but when pole technology crossed the pond in the 1990s, its safety issues came with it. One British manufacturer, Craig Mawlam, head of Ionic Systems in Swindon—whose expertise I have drawn on extensively—recognised that danger early. He sought out non-conductive materials, developing composite glass-fibre and carbon-fibre poles. He prioritised insulation in the handle, and worked with the Health and Safety Executive to introduce training and guidance as the industry moved away from ladders and towards working from terra firma. Critically, however, this was voluntary, not required. There was, and remains, no mandatory British standard governing the electrical insulation of telescopic cleaning poles.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for raising this subject. I was sitting here and thinking to myself that years ago I lived on a farm, and years ago farmers were not aware of the dangers of telescopic hydraulic lifts touching cables, just as they were not aware of the dangers of falling off roofs. A campaign was started to ensure that farmers took greater care of themselves by following health and safety regulations. My sympathies, concerns and thoughts are with his constituent as he deals with the challenges of the life he is now leading. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that a campaign might now be necessary to protect those who could be affected by workplace safety issues—such as those who use water-fed poles in the window cleaning industry—like the campaign to protect the farmers many years ago? Today, farms are very safety-conscious.
Dr Murrison
The hon. Gentleman is, of course, quite right. Occupations that are not predictable are particularly dangerous. Agriculture is clearly one, as is construction, and window cleaning is plainly another. The window cleaning industry, as its association will say, is a particular issue, because many in the industry are essentially start-ups. They are often one-man bands—they are usually men—and they do not necessarily undergo training. They are probably not aware of the need for it. That is why it is so important to make the changes that I am suggesting we make, and to engineer out the problem so that people are not exposed to the hazards that I have mentioned and to which, sadly, Jason has fallen victim.
The omission of any recognition of the issue in British standards matters now more than ever, because the poles that I have described are no longer specialist equipment; they are used everywhere. They are used on residential streets beneath overhead cables; they are used near rail infrastructure; they are used in airports, hospitals, schools and industrial sites. They are used not just for window cleaning but, increasingly, for solar panel cleaning, gutter clearing, roof treatment, camera inspections, and building maintenance. They are available online relatively inexpensively, and they are available for use by amateurs and DIY-ers. Moreover, they are increasingly imported cheaply from overseas, especially from China, meeting no enforceable UK electrical safety standards at all.
In 2011, a British standard was published that could have changed everything: BS 8020. This standard governs insulating hand tools used near live electrical conductors up to 1,000 V. It requires rigorous construction standards. It requires batch testing at 10,000 V, providing a 10:1 safety margin. It mandates clear marking and verification. As an example, it covers narrow bladed shovels that might be used close to where underground cables could be—they are the ones sold at builders’ merchants or DIY shops, typically with a yellow or orange plastic section in the shaft or handle. Some pole manufacturers chose to apply BS 8020 to the handle section of their poles. Since 2017, at least one UK supplier has done so as a matter of course: Ionic Systems in Swindon, Wiltshire. But here lies the problem: BS 8020 is not mandatory for cleaning poles, and it does not require insulation of the section immediately above the handle. That is why Jason Knight was injured.
The UK remained free of fatal water-fed pole electrocutions until 2022. In that single year, two window cleaners were killed while working at residential properties. In 2024, Jason was very lucky to survive. Window cleaners now account for a significant proportion of overhead powerline electrocutions, yet unlike in agriculture, construction or scaffolding, there is no targeted awareness campaign, no mandatory training requirement and no enforced equipment standards for this trade. That is why I have brought this matter to the House.
The Federation of Window Cleaners, the Health and Safety Executive, the British Standards Institute and representatives of the energy networks have begun discussions on what to do. Some suppliers have engaged constructively, but others have refused entirely. The manufacturer of the pole that Jason was using when he was electrocuted claims that its products are “tested to 5,000 V”, without reference to any recognised standard. That figure is arbitrary; it is meaningless without methodology, certification, or context. A pole tested informally to 5,000 V may be vastly less safe than one certified to British standard 8020 to 1,000 V but good for 10,000 V with a 10:1 safety margin, yet the higher number sounds more reassuring to a sole trader or DIY-er choosing equipment online. That is exactly why British standards exist, and why we need one for telescopic water-fed poles.
This debate is not about banning water-fed poles. They have made the industry safer, because they have reduced the need to use ladders and to work at height. Nor is it about blaming workers, many of whom are sole traders operating on tight margins, without access to formal training or industry bodies. This debate is about designing danger out of tools in the first place, not just warning people to be careful while continuing to sell sub-optimal equipment.
The remedy is simple, proportionate, cheap and immediately available. First, British standard 8020 should be amended or extended to cover telescopic cleaning poles explicitly, and to require that both the handle and the first telescopic section above it meet the insulation standard and are marked accordingly. That single change would ensure that an operator’s hands remain on verifiably insulated material throughout normal raising, lowering and operation of the pole. It would create a safe clearance of 3 metres to 4 metres in most real-world situations.
Secondly, compliance with the standard should be mandatory, whether through regulation, conditions attached to limited liability insurance, or the procurement requirements imposed by major building occupiers. It is worth admitting that products would become about 70 grams heavier and slightly less rigid, but that is completely tolerable. On the flip side, glass-fibre insulation is cheaper than the carbon fibre it would replace.
I am pleased to say that the British Standards Institution, after a bit of encouragement, has seen the merit of the case. Its director general, Scott Steedman, kindly wrote to me earlier this month to say that he is working up proposals that will determine if there will be an amendment to the relevant British standards, drawing from the guidance published by the British Window Cleaning Academy. However, I remain concerned that the right British standard is amended. BS 8020 is an equipment-based British standard. It appears to me to be the more appropriate target, rather than the BSI’s current suggestion, which is BS 8213, a British standard which deals largely with safe systems of work. It could be that both standards need to be amended. Nevertheless, Mr Steedman’s news is most welcome, as is his assurance that a draft of the proposed changes will be published for public consultation in accordance with the BSI’s normal practice.
Britain has led the world in industrial safety by setting clear, enforceable standards. Given British manufacturers’ global exports, a UK standard in this could well become an international benchmark, saving lives, limbs and livelihoods across the world. Jason Knight, his father John and Craig Mawlam are not campaigners by choice. They have become campaigners because they do not want what happened to Jason to happen to others, and I pay tribute to them today. We cannot accept a system in which warning labels are seen as a substitute for a simple engineering solution that removes risk at source. I feel sure that the Minister will agree with all this, and I hope he will use his good offices to encourage the BSI and the HSE to bring forward the changes I have outlined as quickly as possible.
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) for securing this debate on this important subject, and for his very thoughtful speech. The Government place a great deal of importance on workplace safety, and I want to seek to reassure him and the House that we have an effective regulatory framework in place to secure the health, safety and wellbeing of those who work in window cleaning. Let me also offer my sympathies to his constituent, who suffered those life-changing injuries that he described while cleaning windows at a regular customer’s home last year. I do hope he is receiving the support that he needs.
Health and safety in window cleaning is covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and a number of regulations, such as the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, the Work at Height Regulations 2005, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989. Section 6 of the 1974 Act places duties on the manufacturers of articles for use at work, including ensuring the equipment is designed and constructed so that it is, so far as reasonably practicable, safe when being set up and used; doing adequate research and testing to prove the safety of the equipment; and providing users with adequate information so that they can use the equipment safely.
Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and the associated regulations, all employers undertaking window cleaning are required to identify risks to their workers and to the public from those activities, and to take action to manage those risks. Those who are self-employed, which, as the right hon. Member said, is most of the industry, are subject to these duties only where their activities place others at risk. Where self-employed window cleaners are not subject to the regulations, they nevertheless should obviously look after their own health and safety. They should check work locations for hazards such as overhead power lines and/or use safe equipment. One way of doing that is to carry out a fit-for-purpose assessment of the risks. The areas of focus in the legislation are those that self-employed people should give particular attention to when considering how to work safely.
The Work at Height Regulations 2005 cover one of the most significant risks to people cleaning windows, because the vast majority of window cleaning obviously takes place above ground level. Working at height is always high risk. Whenever somebody leaves the ground to carry out an activity—up a ladder, on a platform, in a cradle—there is the potential for harm, most likely from a fall. The HSE’s recently published health and safety at work statistics reported that falls from a height continue to be the biggest type of fatal workplace accident, accounting for over a quarter of fatal injuries to people at work in 2024-25. Over the last five years, falls from a height have caused 28% of all deaths at work, while contact with electricity or electrical discharge accounts for 5%—a significant proportion, but a good deal smaller.
The HSE records for the last five years include eight incidents involving falls from height in which window cleaning was the main activity, and five of those resulted in fatal injuries, so the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the use of poles has made this activity safer. Employers and self-employed people can eliminate the risk of a fall by removing the need to work at height, and here is the advantage of water-fed poles for cleaning windows.
Poles can be designed to reach up to 25 metres in height and can be made from a variety of lightweight materials—the right hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of them. Depending on the material and weight of the pole, they can cause back and shoulder injuries through continued use. There is often a balance to be struck between weight, reach and cost. Prices start at around £100 for a very basic, budget, short-reach pole but can be over £700 for high-reach ones, while mid-range poles cost around £200.
I cannot comment on the efficacy of these poles for cleaning, but there obviously are safety benefits from using poles from the stable footing of a ground-level position, and certainly the view of the HSE is that they are safer than ladders. However, there are risks, and using a pole to carry out an activity at elevation in the presence of overhead power lines does carry the risk of electric shock, as the tragic experience that we have heard about underlines. If there are overhead power lines close to a property, the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 would require a risk assessment to be carried out. If there is a danger of electrocution, the HSE advice is not to carry out the work on that part of the building or to find another method that reduces the risk, particularly one that does not involve water-fed poles.
Other risks associated with water-fed poles, and window cleaning in general, include musculoskeletal injury from the handling of the pole, slips or trips, injury from falling poles, and the spread of Legionella from water systems. It is a legal duty under health and safety law for employers to identify and manage all those risks and, in doing so, to protect their workers and the public from harm. As I have said, the self-employed are subject to those duties only where their activities place others at risk, but it is nevertheless a good idea to observe them.
I understand that in the tragic accident we have heard about, as the right hon. Member has said, the power line was compliant with statutory clearance distances and those set out in industry guidance but the pole manufacturer’s guidance was to avoid touching overhead power lines, including by having a warning marked on the pole itself. From the account the right hon. Gentleman has given, my understanding is that the pole did not in this instance touch the overhead cable but got quite close to it without touching it.
Enforcement of the duties in law is carried out by the HSE and by local authorities, which have powers to inspect workplaces, to investigate accidents and to take action to address non-compliance up to and including prosecution. To help employers comply with these duties, the HSE produces general guidance on a range of topics relevant to window cleaning, such as manual handling, control of hazardous substances, and slips and trips. In addition, guidance specific to working safely when cleaning windows is available from the window cleaning industry itself. That includes two pieces of guidance on the safe use of water-fed poles, produced in collaboration with the HSE, and guidance on the use of window cleaning equipment near overhead power lines, produced in collaboration with the Energy Networks Association. The latter is called “Safe use of window cleaning equipment near overhead power lines” and it is jointly branded by the Energy Networks Association and the Federation of Window Cleaners.
I just want to read part of what it says. I appreciate that this is no comfort to the right hon. Member’s constituent, but it may be helpful to others to quote from it:
“Be aware of the dangers of working near or underneath Overhead Power Lines (OHPLs). Always assume they are live and beware that electricity can jump gaps. Plan ahead and note the location of OHPLs. Consider your position at ground and the extent of your equipment (i.e. Telescopic devices) and ensure that when extended it will not encroach or breach the exclusion zone as a minimum. Generally remain 5 metres away to be safe. If you are in any doubt about whether the lines in question are power or telephone (this is a very common mistake) always assume that they are power lines and are live.”
It goes on:
“It is not normally practical for electricity companies to shroud high voltage conductors and even when low voltage conductors are shrouded, the shrouding is not designed to protect against contact by Tools or Equipment—again, Keep your Distance! If unsure, always contact your local electricity network operators”.
That is available on the website of the Federation of Window Cleaners. In the specific case of a 33 kV line, which the right hon. Member told us was the case here, the Energy Networks Association advises a clearance distance of 3 metres to be maintained. I should perhaps also point out that the federation provides a training course on “Using water-fed poles and portable ladders”, which is approved by the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health. It is a one-day course, and it costs £175 plus VAT per person for members.
The right hon. Member referred to the product introduced by Ionic Systems of Swindon. I know that Ionic Systems, in pursuing the case the right hon. Member set out this evening, met the relevant British Standards Institution committee, PEL/78, on 22 July this year to discuss including water-fed poles in standard BS8020 on tools for live working. The idea was to include fully insulated water-fed poles to avoid an incident like that which befell Jason Knight. As the right hon. Member said, the system uses de-ionised water, which will not conduct electricity.
The committee concluded that the standard on tools for live working is just not suitable for water-fed cleaning, because it is intended to cover tools used by people who have been trained in working on, or near, live electrical conductors in the electrical industry. Industry training is generally three to four years to become competent to work on live conductors. The committee’s view was that a water-fed pole is not a tool for live working, and that window cleaners should not be encouraged to carry out live working near a live electrical cable. On that basis, the industry experts on the committee and the BSI rejected the application.
I note from the what the right hon. Gentleman has told us that the BSI may be looking at making a change to another standard. The BSI is independent of Government and makes its own decisions, so I will certainly follow with interest the outcome of the work he has referred to.
I should also make the point that British standards are not routinely made mandatory. If they are followed, they can be used to demonstrate compliance with the law; however, as they are set independently, legislating for them to be mandatory would introduce the risk of falling behind technical advancements. I think there are consumer uses where there is some mandation, but in an instance such as the one we have been talking about this evening, BSI standards are not generally made mandatory. The right hon. Gentleman may wish to correspond with me on that.
To conclude, the Government continue to take the health and safety of people cleaning windows very seriously. We have heard this evening of serious accidents—in some cases fatal—that can befall people engaged in this work. I hope I have been able to reassure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that we have a regulatory regime and framework in place that are sufficiently robust to protect the health and safety of those workers, as we must. I will certainly follow with great interest the developments he has indicated to the House, and the thinking that is under way at the moment, and see where that gets us in the coming months.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I will begin with the context in which we are bringing forward this statutory instrument. The life sciences industry is vital to this country. It provides crucial research, particularly in the medical sphere, and plays a central role in pandemic preparedness capabilities. The experience of recent years has demonstrated that that risk cannot be ignored, and we must be prepared at all times to respond to such a crisis.
The Government’s goal is for the UK to become a global beacon for scientific discovery. The life sciences sector employs more than 350,000 people and generates almost £150 billion in turnover annually. It is integral to the development of new treatments and, crucially, the safety-testing of new medicines and vaccines. The importance of that activity in responding to the covid-19 outbreak cannot be overstated.
Recent protest activity has deliberately targeted the life sciences sector, threatening the UK’s sovereign capability to produce vaccines and therapies, and disrupting supply chains vital to research and national health protection. The legislation before the Committee will address that by amending section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023, to add the life sciences sector to its list of key national infrastructure. That will make it a criminal offence to deliberately or recklessly disrupt life sciences infrastructure or interfere with its use or operation. Anyone convicted of that offence will face a penalty of up to 12 months’ imprisonment, a fine or both. In turn, this change will strengthen the ability of the police to respond to disruptive protest activity that is undermining our national health resilience.
The legislation will cover infrastructure that primarily facilitates pharmaceutical research or the development or manufacturing of pharmaceutical products, or which is used in connection with activities authorised under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That will include, for example, pharmaceutical laboratories, medicine and vaccine-manufacturing facilities, suppliers of animals for research, and academic laboratories carrying out research involving animals.
Hon. Members may be aware of the Government’s recently published strategy setting out a vision for a world in which the use of animals in science is eliminated in all but exceptional circumstances. We are absolutely committed to that goal, but at the same time we will not hesitate to fulfil our duty to protect the citizens of this country and our national health infrastructure and resilience.
Peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our democracy. We have debated it many times in this House and will continue to do so. We will always defend that right, but where disruption threatens medical progress and risks undermining our sovereign capability to prepare for and respond to a public health emergency, we must take action to protect key infrastructure and supply chains. As a Government, we have a duty to protect the UK’s ability to innovate, respond and save lives. This instrument will aid us in that effort, and I commend it to the Committee.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I recognise that any changes linked to animal testing will always be an emotive topic. Every effort must be made to prevent the unnecessary suffering of animals. The Minister will be well aware of the feelings expressed by many campaigners in advance of today’s debate, and of the strong views on the changes that the Government intend to implement. I welcome the fact that the number of scientific procedures in Great Britain involving living animals decreased between 2023 and 2024, and were at the lowest level since 2001.
Under the last Conservative Government, through the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research, £90 million was invested in research, and a further £27 million was invested in contracts, through the “CRACK IT” challenges innovation scheme for UK and EU-based institutions. Furthermore, last year, the then Science Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), announced that UK Research and Innovation would double its investment in research to £20 million per annum in the fiscal year 2024-25 in order to achieve the 3Rs and develop non-animal alternatives.
It is important that we acknowledge and take further steps to reduce the use of animals in research—this statutory instrument is inexorably linked to such procedures—but, as the Government noted in their recently published strategy, the use of animals is still needed in certain circumstances. Given the continued protests around those sites, and the importance of maintaining a world-leading life sciences sector, that undoubtedly poses difficult questions. Finding the right balance between respecting people’s right to express themselves freely and maintaining law and order is complex. As I am sure the Minister recognises, such decisions should never be taken without serious consideration.
Although there was disagreement at the time—some continue to disagree—I believe that the Public Order Act 2023 has broadly struck a fair balance between those rights. It is therefore essential to ensure that any additions to section 7 of the Act remain proportionate and in line with the original intention of ensuring that key national infrastructure is protected. It is self-evident from this debate that the life sciences sector was not in scope of key national infrastructure provisions under the Act. In fact, I understand that the Minister, who was then in opposition, said in the Bill Committee of that Act that she and her colleagues had problems with the scope of the clause relating to such infrastructure on the basis that much of what was listed was already protected in law under existing police powers, and that there were loopholes and inconsistencies.
Furthermore, although there is some explanation in the accompanying documents to the draft regulations, such as the assertion that the police believe powers under the Public Order Act 1986 and the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 are insufficient, it does not go into great detail on why those powers are unable to address the challenge identified by the Government. Accordingly, will the Minister explain what steps have been taken to use those powers in practice, and what analysis has been done of the differences that this legislation would make for the life sciences sector? Can she point to any examples of how specific protests may have been treated differently?
The economic note estimates that there could be around 40 charges, but it also acknowledges that that figure is highly unpredictable, so can the Minister share any more in-depth analysis of the impact of the proposals? It also notes that, without such measures, the life sciences sector risks withdrawal—that is a significant risk. I would therefore appreciate an understanding of what the sector has said to the Government about the extent to which that could happen.
Ultimately, the ability of businesses and organisations to go about their activities lawfully is essential in our society, and we must find an appropriate balance in protecting public order. As such, I would be grateful if the Minister set out any further detail.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Alec.
I will start by talking briefly about the underlying issue of animal testing, before making more general comments about restrictions on the right to protest. I think I am right in saying that the only commitment made in the 1997 general election manifesto that was not implemented by the Blair Government was the pledge to establish a royal commission on vivisection, which was scuppered by opposition from the life sciences sector. As I recall, they justified their stance by saying that if there were more transparency around what scientists were doing, they would be at personal risk. As I understand it, one of the reasons we are here today is to consider restrictions on the right to protest about animal testing. I want to make it clear from the outset that I totally condemn any abuse or harassment of individuals working in the sector, but laws are already in place to deal with that. Indeed, some activists, whose behaviour in the past went far beyond the pale, are currently serving very long prison sentences as a result.
I welcome the Government’s publication of the road map for phasing out animal testing, but I am sad that so much time has been wasted since 1997—time with which we could have made progress—and that so many millions of animals have suffered as a result. I am not opposed to all animal testing, but I believe that the vast majority of experiments are unnecessary, ineffective and inhumane, for reasons that I think my hon. Friends will set out. I hope to see the day when we have developed humane alternatives to all animal testing, so that it ends.
To give one example, I have in recent years met scientists at the University of Bristol in a bid to stop them using the forced-swim test. They were looking at the stress that mice experienced when drowning, and whether giving them antidepressants made them feel a bit more zen about the whole thing. The scientists told me that they had done that test over and over again, but had yet to observe anything interesting. That sounds to me like Einstein’s definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I am very glad that there is a moratorium on that test now.
In 2015, I attended a meeting in the Commons at which the main speakers were Stanley Johnson, father of Boris, and the eminent zoologist Professor Michael Balls, father of Ed. It was a rather unlikely pairing, but they were joining forces to call for an end to beagle breeding for the purposes of animal experiments. A decade later, the sector involved in testing on beagles is still calling for more time to find replacements. I just do not think that that is acceptable. We need to shine a light on what is happening and question whether such tests are needed. I grew up seeing images of beagles with cigarettes strapped to their mouths to test the effects of smoking. That has rightly been stopped, but I do not think that the public realises that testing on beagles—indeed, testing on dogs—continues.
To what extent will these measures, if implemented, prevent peaceful protest against animal testing? If Will Young—whom I have also heard speaking in Parliament about MBR Acres—was thinking of peacefully handcuffing himself to the fence at MBR Acres once again, would the Minister think he’d “better leave right now”? [Laughter.] Thank you. Somebody was going to make that gag— I thought it might as well be me.
Let me turn to the more general issue. I fiercely defend the right to protest. I am a Bristol MP; we have quite a reputation for it. I went out to Russia under my own steam to observe the end of the Pussy Riot trial, and the powerful speeches from Nadya, Maria and Katya from their cage in the courtroom. However, I accept that there should be limitations to the right to protest. I accept that we cannot have the country grinding to a halt; we must appreciate the impact on people’s lives, and sometimes protesters do not.
A few years ago, a protest by Extinction Rebellion in Bristol blocked the M32, causing a five-mile queue. I remember vividly that there was a woman in a car in that queue who was in labour, trying to get to hospital, and her husband ran to the front of the queue. One of the activists was quoted in the press as saying, “It’s all right, we allowed her through.” I thought it was quite shocking that they should feel entitled to give somebody in labour permission to get to hospital.
I have also defended the Government’s plans to curb the cumulative impact of protests. We have a number of hotels housing asylum seekers in Bristol, and of course people should have the right to express their views—however much I might disagree with some of them—but it is not right that people are targeted week after week, and that the communities around them have to live in fear of possibly violent protests. I accept that; and I have defended that, but I also believe that people have the right to choose to break the law. However, they should also be prepared to accept the consequences of doing so.
I do not accept, however, that what we are talking about today constitutes “key national infrastructure”. I do not think that the country will grind to a halt if MBR Acres, is occasionally obstructed from supplying beagles to laboratories for testing. The fact that we do not know what tests are being carried out makes it rather more difficult to make such judgments, so I return to my earlier point: transparency about what testing is going on is important—the public have a right to know.
Transparency is also important when it comes to business in this place. We should not seek to place limitations on fundamental democratic rights—in this case, the right to protest—through a small Committee such as this. I therefore ask the Minister to facilitate at the very least a deferred Division on the motion, so that all MPs may vote, but ideally we would have a proper debate on the Floor of the House of Commons.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The UK life sciences sector is something that this country should cherish. It is vital to our national wellbeing, from lifesaving research to pandemic preparedness, and it must be protected. But misguided and misdirected efforts to protect this essential industry risk further undermining many of our fundamental democratic freedoms.
Time and again, the Conservative Government undermined the right to peaceful protest by passing sweeping and unnecessary powers that went far beyond what was needed to maintain public safety. The Public Order Act was one of the most troubling examples of criminalising peaceful dissent and expanding policing powers in ways that we Liberal Democrats consistently opposed. It is deeply worrying to see Labour choosing to follow the same authoritarian path, rather than to revise those damaging restrictions. Rebranding research and manufacturing sites as key national infrastructure risks turning legitimate protest into a criminal offence. Peaceful campaigners, including those raising ethical concerns, should not be treated as threats to national security.
The police already had strong powers to deal with dangerous or obstructive behaviour long before the Conservative Government imposed new laws; these powers are now even stronger. Further restrictions on the democratic right to protest are deeply worrying and illiberal, and it is disappointing to see the new Government pursuing them.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. People often say that delegated legislation Committees are ones that Members loyally troop into between other meetings. They discuss uncontroversial things, and some hon. Members might even check their emails during the sitting—although that is probably not very courteous. There is no Division, and then Members leave.
When I was asked to serve on this Committee, I said yes thinking that it would be another uncontroversial matter, but having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East, and having been contacted an hour or so ago by various campaign organisations and received their briefings, I am very concerned about the change this instrument makes. The oft-used phrase, “The House at its best,” is illustrated today by hon. Members fully engaging on this serious matter.
I echo much of what my hon. Friend said in relation to animal rights and the importance of the democratic right to protest. I am worried by this legislation; I am worried about where it ends. Hon. Members understand the current definition of key national infrastructure, but I think that many outside the Committee would be very surprised were the definition to be extended to pharmaceutical or testing facilities, and when the public find out about this, many will ask, “What next? Where does this stop?”
People are concerned about the authoritarian drift seen under both my own Government and the last. My hon. Friend made an important point: there are existing criminal laws that can deal with criminal behaviour. This move, which could result in peaceful protesters serving prison sentences of 12 months, worries me greatly.
I do not know whether the Liberal Democrats will divide the Committee, but even if there is a Division and the legislation passes, I would welcome—as would the public and hon. Members both on the Committee and outside it—the regulations being put before the House in the new year. There should be a full opportunity to debate and discuss the intended and unintended consequences, and an opportunity for every Member of the House of Commons to vote on the regulations.
I share the concerns that have been raised. Members have been involved in the campaign for Herbie’s law, and plenty of us, myself included, are concerned about animal rights. Regardless of people’s views on animal welfare and rights, a lot of members of the public will be concerned about what the legislation means for civil liberties, what the intended consequences are, and what the unintended effects may be.
As this Committee sits, a number of prisoners are on hunger strike in jails in our country. It feels as though there is an authoritarian drift. We have also seen the proscription of an organisation, which myself and others voted against, because we were concerned about where it would lead in practice, and its implications for civil liberties. We quite rightly speak out against infringements of civil liberties and freedom of speech in other countries, and we speak out against draconian laws. Our ability do so, as a country and as a Government, will be severely weakened if we accidentally or otherwise start treading down that path ourselves.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
Thank you for calling me, Sir Alec. As you are aware, I am not a member of the Committee and I therefore have no right to vote, but I do have the right to speak, which I am now exercising. My interest in this topic, in parliamentary terms, goes back a very long time. I am not and never have been an animal rights activist; I am an animal welfarist, and in my mind there is a fundamental difference between the two. I do not, and never will, condone any illegal activity, including violent demonstration of any kind—I want to place that firmly on the record.
In my constituency, I have Discovery Park, the former Pfizer establishment at Sandwich. It is an absolutely excellent life sciences establishment, embracing some 100 to 150 small and medium-sized life sciences businesses. The Minister said in her opening remarks that life sciences are vital to the future of this country, and she is absolutely right. I have no desire to impede the work of our life sciences sector—far from it; I would like to enhance it, particularly at Discovery Park in Sandwich.
Some 40 years ago, I was the founding chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for FRAME—the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments. I had the huge privilege at that time of working with Professor Michael Balls, to whom the hon. Member for Bristol East referred. who then led the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods. Our commitment and desire was to seek—bear in mind that this was 40 years ago—validated alternatives to the use of animals. It has always been my view that animals have no place in a laboratory.
Having said that, we also recognised that we do not solve a problem by moving it from A to B. As some would have done then—indeed, as some would do now—simply shutting down animal experimentation in this country might give people a warm glow, but it would only move the problem from the United Kingdom to other countries, where the research would be carried out under worse conditions. There would be no animal welfare gain. The commitment has to be to validate alternatives, and to move as swiftly as possible to in vitro and other methods of research, rather than in vivo. That is what we should be heading for.
It therefore saddens me that, having made a commitment to animal welfare, this Government should, as their first practical measure of any kind, seek to diminish animal welfare, rather than enhance it, by trying to include in national infrastructure an item that has no place in that legislation at all. By the way, I do not share the view of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Cheltenham, about the 2023 Act; it was a good and necessary piece of legislation. There are arguments to be had about its scope; nevertheless, the fundamental principle was correct. What the Committee is being asked to do this afternoon is not correct.
The road map has been referred to—great, we apparently have a road map, when the engine has not even started. There has been no significant animal welfare gain under this Administration since they took office, and their very first measure is one that seeks to dimmish the welfare of animals. That cannot be right. I therefore urge the Committee to reject this measure this afternoon. This instrument has to have a full and proper debate on the Floor of the House of Commons. That is a debate in which I would like to participate and then be able to vote.
In conclusion, I am and always have been wholly wedded to the validation of alternative methods. That is what is needed, not this half-baked measure.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I have to say, I was a tiny bit anxious about speaking on this issue today, because of the risk of being painted a hypocrite or a traitor to my scientific comrades. I am a biomedical scientist and have worked in premises licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. I have worked in labs where animal models have been used—primarily fish embryos under five days. None the less, I will speak on this instrument because I am very concerned about a number of issues, and well-versed in the arguments about the necessity of animal models and testing versus investment in alternatives. I am disappointed that, instead of further regulation in this area, we are seeking to punish protesters.
I am probably right in saying that I am one of the few MPs who has ever grown human cells in a flask or replicated DNA in a lab, but it is important that we can bring some of these arguments in, because there is a desire within the science community to move away from animal models. I do not think that anyone wants to use animal models where they are not necessary.
It is undoubtedly true—undeniable—that advances have been made using animal models, but the fact remains that accuracy has always been a concern when using animal models, because to get closer to our biology, one would have to use animals that are no longer used in research, such as rhesus monkeys and other primates. That is why we need alternatives, and investment in alternatives. I did most of my research through in vitro models in Petri dishes, and it was incredibly frustrating that we were not yet at a point where we could have full confidence in those models. That is why we will always need some form of human testing at the end of the process when it comes to pharmacology.
With the advent of AI and the tools that are now available to scientists, we should be at the forefront of finding alternatives if we want to remain at the forefront of biological and life-sciences research in the UK. If we do not, I fear we will be left behind by other countries, which are also trying to speed up research. Animal models are slow; it takes a long time to get to the answer. They are also a messy environment: a scientist does not know whether the thing they are changing is ultimately what is making the difference; there is always the chance that something else is going on. So animal models are not the silver bullet that some people might think they are.
I have a real problem with the definition of “key national infrastructure”, because I think this measure makes a mockery of it. We are not talking about a source of water or electricity, or a main road or transport hub; we are talking about the ability of scientists to go about their daily business. I know of the abuse that scientists have suffered, but we have to balance that against the democratic right of people in our country to say, “Actually, no, this isn’t good, and we should be looking to alternatives.” Calling these premises “national infrastructure” is, quite honestly, hilarious, because a protest at a local site is not going to disrupt the whole country, or even a region. Yes, it might slow things down in the long run, but the reality is that the UK got the vaccine off the ground incredibly quickly in response to the last pandemic. I therefore find it a little distasteful that the main reason given in the briefing notes for this legislation is the protection of vaccine production and research. I do not think that is an accurate portrayal of how we managed during the pandemic.
With the definition being stretched so far, will it cover every single premises with an Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act licence? That would mean a huge number of laboratories and institutions being protected, which would become almost unpoliceable. At a time when our criminal justice system is on its knees, further criminalising protests will only add additional pressure on those stretched services, whether that is the police, the law courts or the prison places that will be taken up as a result of these criminal sanctions.
I know that this is a difficult and controversial topic, but this is too significant a change to make through a statutory instrument or delegated legislation and to debate in this room today. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that and consider bringing something to the House, or at least allowing us to have a vote on this.
I believe that this measure runs counter to what we want from a democratic society. It is fair enough that we have developed a policy on phasing out animal testing, but that is being completely undermined by the draft regulations. If people no longer feel able to stand up and protest for what they believe in, where will the pressure come from for companies in the pharmaceutical industry to change their models?
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chair
Order. Members’ speeches have been excellent, but they have skated close to the line of what we are discussing today. May I ask that Members keep within the scope of the legislation? Members will also be aware that the Committee will be called to order at 4 pm. Many questions are being put to the Minister, so I urge Members to bear that in mind if they want answers. I am sure that all those points will now be demonstrated admirably by John McDonnell, a senior Member of Parliament.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I will do my best, Sir Alec. I want to relate my remarks to the Minister’s introductory statement on the quite significant extension to the definition of premises as national infrastructure. She said that in doing this the Government are upholding the right to protest. To be frank, all the evidence so far points the other way. I will give an example from my own constituency.
Once something is defined as national infrastructure, it has an almost unlimited reach in its vicinity. In my constituency, we have been campaigning against the third runway for nearly 40 years now, and our tradition is sitting down in the road. Now that Heathrow is defined, in an undefined way, as national infrastructure, even roads that lead some distance from the airport are within the remit of this legislation. Let me put it this way: those wonderful blue-rinse ladies from Harmondsworth village who regularly sit in the road, and who almost certainly vote Conservative, are now at risk of serving 12 months inside as a result of the way in which they protest.
What worries me is that it then becomes a slippery slope. To use the most recent example of protests, people were arrested and interviewed under terrorist powers. Someone then had the brilliant idea that an organisation would be proscribed as terrorist, and we now have six people on hunger strike in Bronzefield prison near me. This is a slippery slope that we should not be going down in any way whatever.
With a change this important, I would at least have expected it not to be made through a simple piece of delegated legislation. I do not think that even the super-affirmative procedure has been engaged, after which there is much wider-ranging consultation. I reiterate the concerns that have been raised across the Committee: this warrants a debate on the Floor of the House. It is very rare that this number of Back Benchers turn up, so there is obviously interest across the House in having it properly debated.
I ask the Minister not to put the draft regulations to the House tomorrow. If that happens, I will stick around and shout “Object!”, or whatever. It will be much better, in the interests of the standing of the House, if the Government withdraw them now and came back in the new year for a proper debate. I am sure that many more Members have constituents writing to them in large numbers to express their concerns. This needs more discretion and debate. Otherwise, it will be another step on the slippery slope that undermines the Government’s credentials of upholding the traditional right to protest.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I will commence by looking at some of the paperwork accompanying the draft regulations. The fact that the explanatory memorandum says that consultation “took place informally” highlights some of the challenges with this legislation. We know that when the Government have adhered to their manifesto they have done incredibly well, but these measures were not in the manifesto, and then they moved forward with an informal consultation. From what I can see, there does not seem to have been much scope behind that informality. It has meant that the public have not had the opportunity to engage. That is deeply regrettable, and I think that is why the Government are coming unstuck on this measure.
I really urge the Minister to reconsider, not least in order to do things in the right way, trusting the British public to be able to respond to these measures, but also clearly because of the distaste for this. I am really grateful to my constituents who have alerted me to this measure in their correspondence, and to the campaigning organisations that have highlighted the risk.
I disagree with Opposition Members: I do believe that the Public Order Act was a massive overreach of the state, and I have serious concerns about the suppression, as our party did in opposition. I have to question what changed, because clearly something has changed to trigger the Government into believing that that Act should go even further. I have deep concern about that, because at the heart of that legislation was suppressing the right to protest. That has serious consequences for our democracy, for this place and how it operates. We have been able to achieve so much because of protest in Parliament.
I stand for animal welfare protectors—for those people who have deep concern for the welfare of animals. I have certainly campaigned on many such issues; I have led some of the work on the forced swim test, which was referred to earlier. Our time today would be better spent working on how we could perhaps better legislate against that. I note the levels of distress to animals in a pointless exercise, but those licences will continue until 2028. That would have been time better spent.
We must also ask what the urgency is. We know that the average time for a pharmaceutical product to come online is 12 years. We are not talking about something urgent in that respect. It can take up to 30 years for a new pharmacological product to come onstream. The fact that we are talking about a protest over perhaps two or three days will hardly stall the process. The Government are making a mockery by saying that this is an urgent requirement, to the point that they could not even carry out a consultation, as they say in the documentation. It seems slightly dystopian, given that Lord Vallance came forward just last month with a faster phase-out of animal testing programme. For some time now we have been following the replacement, reduction and refinement strategy—the three Rs—to switch from animal-relevant science to ensuring that we use the new technologies available to reduce the use of animals in experimentation. The faster we do that, the better. Again, that is a better use of Government resource.
I also want to raise with the Minister the issue of protesting outside such infrastructure. Supposing the workers within voted for industrial action, and supposing that they chose to strike outside that infrastructure, would that also be unlawful under the Act? Could trade unionists end up with a sentence of perhaps 12 months because they were standing up for their own rights? Of course, the legislation does not state the implications of that. I think it is badly written legislation and should be withdrawn on those grounds as well.
We have existing law to protect against criminal damage, against harassment, against threats and intimidation, against violence, against trespass and against blocking the highway. We also have health and safety legislation. I have to ask the Minister: what is the purpose of this legislation, if we already have that whole framework? Will it be targeted at the peaceful protester who is holding up a sign with a picture of a bunny rabbit on it, saying, “Don’t inject disease into this animal”? If that is where we have got to, it is a really sad day for this Government. Quite frankly, I believe that we are better than that. It is a massive overreach of the state.
I also want to raise my significant concern about the implications for the criminal justice system. I know from informal discussions with the police during the passing of the 2023 Act that they were deeply concerned about the overreach of the state. They prefer fostering a cordial relationship with protesters, because it helps them in their work and in being able to keep order. Having to move into the space of criminality is an overreach. Our prisons, as we hear daily from the Government, are full to the brim. Why are we introducing more legislation to put people behind bars? There seems to be a lack of join-up between the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office. We need police officers on our streets as well.
I really do urge the Government to withdraw this measure. If they do so, there will be no need to bring it to the Floor of the House, but we should at least give this House an opportunity to vote these measures down.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec—even today, on my birthday. There is obviously nowhere else I would rather be.
The right to peaceful protest is fundamental to our democracy and must be protected even as we balance legitimate security concerns. As an officer of the all-party parliamentary group for life sciences and a pharmacist, I understand that this statutory instrument is designed to prevent disruptive protest activities and protect key national infrastructure, but the classification of life sciences infrastructure such as animal testing facilities as key national infrastructure could set what some would consider a concerning precedent for protest rights.
What specific safeguards will the Minister implement to prevent overreach with this designation? Will there be any regular parliamentary review of which sciences qualify? What provisions will there be to ensure that peaceful protest remains possible at appropriate distances?
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Thank you for allowing me to speak, Sir Alec, although I am not a member of the Committee; it is much appreciated. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
As a new MP and a new chair of the all-party parliamentary group on phasing out animal experiments in medical research—the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich chaired its predecessor APPG some 40 years ago—I feel that I must make my feelings on this matter known. When we speak about key national infrastructure and life sciences, it is really about the beagles and all the other animals that are tested on in laboratories. I have received many emails from constituents and organisations who are extremely concerned.
By reclassifying animal testing facilities as key national infrastructure and by increasing the powers available to respond to protest activity viewed as disruptive, this proposal will oppress the public’s right to protest about animal welfare. In my view, the argument that that is necessary to protect the UK’s pandemic preparedness and its ability to produce vaccines is not valid. An estimated 92% of drugs fail human clinical trials, despite having passed pre-clinical tests, including animal tests. Our bodies are not the same as animal bodies, so it is not surprising that our drugs are not translating well from one species to another.
Only 14% of the UK public think it acceptable to use dogs in medical research to benefit people, which means that 86% of people think it is wrong. In 2017, the Home Office released figures showing that 1.8 million additional animals, including 97 beagles, were bred for animal research but were never used. We do not know what happened to those animals and there is no trace of the outcome, but I think we can all guess.
As we have heard, the strategy for replacing animals in science came out only last month. I feel that the proposal contradicts its goals by calling animal testing facilities key national infrastructure. Surely the SI hinders our Labour manifesto commitment to supporting scientists to transition from animal-based to human-specific medical research and work. The disappointing defence of animal experimentation runs counter to both public opinion and scientific evidence.
I realise that, sadly, the proposal may go through, but I wanted to voice my concerns about the implications of restricting public scrutiny of animal testing and allowing facilities that use animals in research to receive protection under the auspices of key national infrastructure.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec.
A significant number of my constituents have contacted me recently with their concerns about today’s statutory instrument. They believe—and I support them—that reclassifying animal testing facilities as national infrastructure will allow the use of sweeping injunctions and protest restrictions that are designed for airports, major roads, utilities and energy networks. Those powers were never intended to shield private industries from lawful public dissent.
Animal testing facilities do not meet any reasonable definition of key national infrastructure. As other Members have said, the country would not grind to a halt, nor would national safety or economic stability be threatened, if protests took place outside such sites. Treating them as equivalent to the M25, power stations or airports is clear and unjustified overreach.
There is no legislative gap that the statutory instrument needs to fill. As others have said, existing laws provide robust protection against criminal damage, harassment, threats, trespass and intimidation. Police already have extensive powers to intervene when protests become unsafe or disruptive, including new powers that were introduced to cover persistent or cumulative disruption. This amendment to the Public Order Act 2023 is therefore unnecessary as well as disproportionate.
I am particularly concerned that the measure appears to be targeted at specific facilities, rather than addressing any genuine national risk. Using secondary legislation to quietly expand protest restrictions undermines parliamentary scrutiny and public trust.
I want to pick up on the comments of the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich about timing. In November, the Government published their long-awaited strategy for phasing out animal testing, which was welcomed as a step towards greater transparency and ethical progress. Restricting protest and public scrutiny of animal testing at the same time sends out a contradictory and deeply concerning message.
The objections are not about condoning unlawful behaviour, but about protecting the long-standing democratic right to peaceful protest, especially on issues about which public information is tightly restricted and ethical concerns are significant. That is why I believe that the whole House should debate and vote on the measure. I hope that the Minister will consider that in her response.
Sarah Jones
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I am not surprised that there is so much interest in the debate. Animal welfare and the right to protest are two of the most fundamental values of being British, and two things we fight for: we love our animals, and nobody wants unnecessary animal testing—indeed, it is against the law—and of course the right to protest is absolute. As the shadow Minister said, when was were in opposition, much legislation went through about protest, and there was much debate. There is more debate to come on how we manage protest.
I want to consider the two issues separately. The first, animal testing, is obviously a Home Office matter where it involves protest, but I will veer into topics about which hon. Members who have had many years of work in this area will know more than I do. The Home Office is responsible for the licensing of testing; there are 135 places around the country where we allow testing, and there is a very rigorous regime.
As some Members have mentioned, the three Rs system operates under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. There is also a three-tier licensing regime whereby we license the establishment itself, we license the project—the thing that that establishment is doing—and we license individuals. Across the country, thousands of people are licensed. In licensing a project we do a harm/benefit analysis. If it is possible to use any testing other than on animals, it is the law that that should be done. We are really clear on that.
It was mentioned that we have some of the strongest legislation in this space, and we have some of the strongest animal welfare legislation in any country. I am very proud of that, and this Labour Government will continue to protect and defend animal welfare. The reality at the moment, though, is that testing is done on animals in order to produce medicines or vaccines. During the covid pandemic, dogs—which have been mentioned a lot—were not tested for the vaccine, but monkeys, rats and mice were. In that moment of national crisis, we had to produce a vaccine that saved lives. As hon. Members can appreciate, ensuring that we are prepared for a second pandemic is very high on this Government’s risk register. We must ensure that we have what we need in this country; as has been said, if we do not, those things will be done elsewhere—potentially in countries where there are not the stringent rules and laws around animal welfare that we have.
Rachael Maskell
It is my recollection that we were locked down during the pandemic when much of this science was being undertaken, so people would not have been able to protest anyway. When we face such extreme circumstances, I think the country understands, but this provision is far broader in scope, and if that is the Government’s intent, I have to press the Minister on why that is not written in the legislation.
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and for her powerful speech, which I respect; I understand where it is coming from. During the covid pandemic there was separate legislation that stopped people gathering, which is why people could not protest at the time. We have had conversations—I know that Lord Vallance in his work has had multiple conversations—with industry in which it has explained that it cannot, in some cases, function and do the things we currently need it to do because of the levels of protest. Some protests are more high-profile than others, but all 135 sites potentially are subject to protests of different degrees.
My fundamental point on animal welfare is that we only use the testing where we absolutely have to. The research that this Government are funding to deliver alternatives, and the strategy that Lord Vallance has brought in, will take us towards a virtual dog that we can use. There is new technology that will get us to where we need to get to, but we are not there yet, and in the interim we need to protect those who are working, so that we can continue to do what we need to do in terms of the production of medicines.
The second element is protest and rights.
Kerry McCarthy
As I mentioned, 10 years ago in this place there was a high-profile piece of campaigning particularly about testing on beagles, and I seem to remember that it got quite a lot of press coverage. Assurances were given then that we were on a journey to phasing that out, but we have no idea what has happened in that interim decade. That is the problem. The Minister can reassure us now that we are on that pathway again, but how can we have any confidence that it will not take another decade—or several? As the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) said, it has been 40 years since he started pushing for this.
Sarah Jones
I hope that my hon. Friend sees that we have had a change of Government; this Labour Government have published a document about replacing animals in science, which is a serious piece of work. As she will know, our manifesto stated that
“we will partner with scientists, industry, and civil society as we work towards the phasing out of animal testing.”
That is what we want to do; we want to do this together with scientists and civil society, and this is our opportunity to do so. I know that Lord Vallance is absolutely committed to getting this right and to going as fast as we can, obviously within the parameters of ensuring that we can still produce the medicines we need.
Irene Campbell
I very much welcome the strategy, but it contains no timeline whatsoever for when testing on dogs will end, so I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.
Sarah Jones
It is important that Members help us with the strategy; if they have not done so already, I suggest that they sit down with Lord Vallance to talk about this.
Sarah Jones
I am sure my hon. Friend made her points with the same passion that she has spoken with this afternoon.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I am a fierce defender of animal welfare— I always will be—and I believe that we are not moving quickly enough to phase out animal testing, but does the Minister agree that the pace is not what the draft regulations are principally about? They are quite tightly drafted Home Office regulations on the powers for police to respond to disruptive and illegal activity at our vaccine sites, which affects our pandemic preparedness.
We in Teesside have a Fujifilm facility near Stockton— the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West will know it well—and Teessiders were very proud to produce the vaccine there during the covid pandemic. As we phase out animal testing, we must not hamper that ability—that is what today’s debate is all about.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; perhaps he is telling me to get a move on with my speech and address the public order aspects, which I want to cover, as they are so important.
The draft regulations were laid on 27 November. Members have raised concerns about that, saying that we are going too fast. I wrote to the Home Affairs and Science, Innovation and Technology Committees, as is the right thing to do, so we are following a process. The draft regulations will also go to the Lords, after which they will be agreed, if Members vote for them.
We are amending the 2023 Act, but we are not changing the thresholds of anything; we are just adding an additional category to the list of key infrastructure. We are not changing what can or cannot be done under the existing law, or the level or threshold of police intervention. We are just adding life sciences to the list.
Olivia Blake
Given that many of these institutions are universities with licences, and hundreds of scientists and labs work under the 135 licences that the Minister has described, many of which have nothing to do with vaccines, is this not a knee-jerk reaction to a concern that is yet to be fulfilled, given the extra emergency legislation that was brought in when we needed the vaccine?
Sarah Jones
I do not think it is knee-jerk at all. It is right and proper that this Government make sure that we are prepared for a future pandemic and that we have sufficient resources in this country. Also, we must protect the life sciences sector and the huge contribution it makes to our national wealth. A vast number of people work in the life sciences sector, which brings huge innovation and leading-edge technology to the UK.
Where the Public Order Act has been used to date, most of the cases where people have been charged are ongoing. We are carrying out a post-legislative scrutiny process, in which we will send a Command Paper to the Home Affairs Committee that sets out how the legislation is being used. The process started in May, and we will publish the paper next year. Hon. Members will be able to read it, and of course, we will always continue to debate the boundaries of public order legislation. The Home Secretary asked for a review of our existing legislation, and that is being done at the moment, as there are other huge debates ongoing about the right to protest and how we make sure we get the balance right. We are not on any level stopping people peacefully protesting through this change; we are responding to a challenge in which legitimate industries are being prevented from producing the medicines and vaccines that we need. That is the change that we are introducing.
To be clear, section 7 of the 2023 Act makes it a criminal offence to interfere
“with the use or operation of…key national infrastructure”.
That is the defined scope. It does not include, for example, intimidation as a threshold. Interference is defined as an act that prevents or significantly delays the infrastructure being used or operated to any extent for its intended purposes. People will not stop protesting. They are absolutely within their rights to protest. It is absolutely a fundamental right that this Government will always allow. We are responding to an issue where people are being stopped from developing the medicines and vaccines that the country needs.
John McDonnell
Sorry, but I am slightly bewildered. If the Minister is saying that the Government are undertaking a review of existing powers, I welcome that. That will not be published for a number of months, but this is how the police are exercising their powers at the moment. To be frank, many people who have been involved in protests and negotiations with police are critical about how the police have interpreted those powers, and we believe they have sometimes gone well beyond the legislation. The Minister is saying that the Government share some of those concerns and are reviewing the use of those powers, but at the same time, in advance of the publication of that review, we are extending powers to the police in other areas. I find that baffling. All that I think hon. Members are asking for is for this to be properly debated before we rush ahead with giving police powers that could result in people being imprisoned for 12 months and having a criminal record for the rest of their lives.
Sarah Jones
My right hon. Friend has debated these issues for years, and he is right to defend the right to protest. I know that there have been many years of protests at Heathrow, and that is a way for people to get their voices heard. We are introducing this legislation now because our sovereign capability needs to be protected. We are adding life sciences, but we are not changing any of the thresholds. We are also reviewing legislation across the board on protest and hate crime. Lord Macdonald is doing that for the Home Secretary. That review was prompted in part by recent protests and the conversations we have had with many different groups, including the Jewish community, about protests and how we police them in a measured way.
Members are concerned about how this measure will be implemented and where it will end. That has been raised quite a lot, but this is a relatively small amendment to the legislation. We are not curtailing the right for people to protest peacefully. There will be operational guidance on how it will work through the authorised professional practice from the College of Policing and guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council.
It is important to say that we want to work with our police colleagues on this legislation, and that the vast majority of protests are policed brilliantly. Ministers have said in this place before and we will say it again. Where there is interaction between the police and the community groups that are protesting, it is agreed what the route will be, what the parameters will be and what the timescales are. The vast majority of the many protests that happen across the country are peaceful.
There are contentious protests, and it is problematic when where a protest will go has not been agreed with the policing community, but our police are very well trained in this. They will take this legislation and interpret it, but they will be trained to interpret it as well. Public order training is very comprehensive, and I will be monitoring—as will Parliament—how this legislation is implemented.
Rachael Maskell
I have to say that, after listening carefully to her speech, I now have even greater concerns about trade unionists taking legal industrial action outside facilities. That would clearly disrupt the infrastructure and the operation of that infrastructure, which would fall under the wording of this legislation. Therefore, we could end up criminalising trade unionists for taking legitimate industrial action because of the disruption it causes—protest does cause disruption, after all.
As a result of that, I think that, as the Labour party—the party of the trade unions—we need to take this incredibly seriously. I am sure that is an unintended consequence, but that is a problem that comes with poorly drafted legislation. I therefore really do ask the Minister to review the detailed wording of the legislation to ensure that that situation could never occur.
Sarah Jones
That would not occur. The right to strike is protected in legislation, and it is a defence for a person charged—as it is under the existing legislation. As I have said, this has not changed the parameters of the existing legislation; it has just added a definition. It is a defence for a person charged, and the right to strike is one that people have. I am very happy to write to my hon. Friend with more detail about the specific way that this legislation will work, but I want to reassure her that that is not what would happen in that context.
The two aspects of this debate are the testing of animals and peaceful protest. The parameters of this statutory instrument are about protest. To reiterate, peaceful protest is completely fundamental to our society, and a right that this Government will always defend.
Matt Vickers
When in opposition, the Labour party said that this stuff was already covered by the legislation. Now, Labour is saying that we need to extend that legislation. Are there any examples of protests that will be covered by this measure that are not covered by existing legislation?
Sarah Jones
Yes; that is why we are introducing it. The powers that the police have now, and the powers that they will have when this is added to section 7 of the 2023 Act, will mean that it will be a criminal offence to interfere with the use or operation of key national infrastructure in England and Wales. That is not a power that we had before. Where disruption or interference risks undermining our sovereign capability to prepare for and respond to a pandemic, we have a responsibility to act. The life sciences industry is of vital importance to this country, and it must be protected. That is why we have brought forward this instrument, which I commend to the Committee once again.
Question put.
Sunday rail services in Congleton
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
Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics
(1 day, 18 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
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential impact of proposed asylum reforms on people with protected characteristics seeking asylum.
There have been a lot of announcements in relation to immigration policy in the year and a half since this Government came into office. There has been a startling lack of equality impact assessments alongside those announcements, and I want to draw the House’s attention to the disproportionate and negative impact on people with protected characteristics of some—in fact, most—of the announcements the UK Government have made since July 2024. I am going to focus on certain groups of people with protected characteristics: women, queer folk and disabled people, and I will also touch on very young and very elderly people.
Some of the changes to asylum policy announced by the Home Office, particularly in the “Restoring Order and Control: A statement on the government’s asylum and returns policy” in November 2025, have failed to take account of the fact that the negative impacts are not felt uniformly across the board. They have failed to take account of the fact that many people in groups with protected characteristics already face a level of discrimination and increased barriers simply as a result of being a member of a group with protected characteristics.
Before I come to the substance of my speech, I want to thank a number of organisations that have provided a significant amount of information and done a huge amount of research. Those are Women for Refugee Women, Rainbow Migration, the Helen Bamber Foundation, whose briefing was truly excellent and really heartbreaking, and the Scottish Refugee Council.
As I say, many of the changes made will have a significant negative impact, such as the change to the length of time that people have to stay and the requirement to contribute in order for people to be granted leave to remain. The requirement to contribute is not well defined and has a disadvantaging impact on those who are not able to work or study in the normal sense. For example, a disabled person might struggle to access full-time employment, and therefore the UK Government might consider that they have not contributed in the same way as other people, so they might be more likely to be refused leave to remain.
The same issue applies to women, particularly those with caring responsibilities. For a woman who has come here from Afghanistan, for example, who could not learn when they were in Afghanistan because they were banned from education—certainly further or higher education—or because of the circumstances they were living in, with an abusive family or a requirement for women to stay in the home and not do any learning, it is even more difficult to get into work or study, because they simply do not have the skills due to those gaps in their education.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. I agree with the point she is making. She mentions Afghanistan. One constituent of mine arrived here under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, having served with British armed forces in Afghanistan. We have worked incredibly hard to bring her sisters over—thankfully, successfully—both of whom were under threat of being forced into marriage with members of the Taliban, but her brother, who is in hiding in Pakistan, is currently not able to join them. Does she agree that when it comes to people who have supported British troops, worked with us and helped us in Afghanistan, we have a duty and a responsibility to bring them here and take care of them?
Kirsty Blackman
I absolutely agree, and there was a very similar case in my constituency. There was a woman here with her young child, and it had been agreed that her husband was eligible for reunification with his family here under the ARAP scheme, but he was in hiding in Pakistan. No matter how much we pressed the Home Office, the woman and her young child were left here without their husband and dad. He was unable to come over, because the Home Office refused to take action. Part of the issue is the lack of humanity and consideration for individual circumstances created by the Home Office machine. Blanket policies discriminate against people in protected groups, not taking into account that there are nuances, differences and family circumstances that need to be in place.
Going back to the requirement to contribute, that will cause particular issues for those who cannot, or find it difficult to, contribute in the classical sense. The UK Government said there would be special consideration of vulnerable groups, but have not laid out what those will be and what the consideration looks like. Not making clear who those vulnerable groups are and how those considerations will work risks significantly disadvantaging people.
It is worth noting that, eight years on from receiving asylum and the right to work, the average income of refugees in Scotland is only £13,000, which is significantly lower than the median income. That is partly because refugees, by their nature, have suffered trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder and are unable to work full time in many cases, through no fault of their own. Due to that level of discrimination, and partly because they may not have long-term settled status, employers may be less keen to take them on. People who are trying to work, or have even been working full time for eight years, are earning significantly less than average. If we try to measure contribution, compared with people who were born here and have had a settled life—white men, for example—it will be difficult for any refugee from a protected characteristic group to meet that bar.
Other issues include regular reapplications and a reduction in appeals. There will be a 30-month period to reapply for status. We know that 50% of appeals from women win. A reduction in the number of appeals, allowing only one and no subsequent appeal, will entrench the fact that the Home Office makes wrong decisions. If 50% of appeals win, the Home Office has clearly made wrong decisions in half the cases that go to appeal. The people more likely to appeal, whose cases are negatively looked at, have more complicated pasts and issues with disclosing what they have faced.
Regarding trauma and violence against women and girls, the UK Government have suggested that not disclosing trauma early in the process will likely have a negative impact on their case. If people do not disclose their protected characteristics, there will likely be a negative consideration from the Home Office. People born here who have experienced sexual violence can take 20 years to come to terms with the situation and raise it with the authorities. We are expecting refugees, who have been through significant trauma, to disclose that information to a legal aid lawyer they do not know. He could be a man from their community who looks like an authority figure or the person who abused them, or might be part of the religious community that perpetrated the abuse. We will punish them for not being able to disclose the sexual violence they faced, or their sexual orientation to someone they do not know.
We also know that when it comes to legal aid, for example, the increase in the number of appeals will significantly gum up the system, and the system is already significantly gummed up. The UK Government inherited a system that was a mess in terms of the length of time that asylum decisions took. Adding in a significant number of extra reassessments at 30-month periods is simply unworkable. We are already waiting years for people to get decisions—even children who are supposed to have special consideration and who are supposed to receive decisions more quickly.
We got an email from a constituent this week whose children have still not received a decision. We have had a number of emails from constituents about asylum decisions, but the one that struck me came in yesterday. We had spoken to the Home Office about it and the email said, “Could you please tell us what is happening with this case?” And the Home Office said, “No. If you have not heard anything by December, get back to us.” The person still has not had a decision, despite the fact that children are supposed to be considered more quickly. If the UK Government cannot meet their obligations now, how will they meet their obligations within a 30-month period? What will they do about legal aid to ensure that legal aid lawyers are willing to take on the more complicated cases, the cases of sexual or domestic violence, or where the individual presenting is LGBTQI? At the moment, legal aid lawyers often look at those cases and say, “No, it is too complicated. The legal aid money does not cover it. Why would I bother doing that when I can do an easier case?” There is a significant problem. If the Government are going to make sweeping changes, especially the significant number of reassessments, they need to fix the legal aid system, or people with protected characteristics will be negatively impacted even more than the people without protected characteristics.
Going back to the family reunification changes that are being suggested, Home Office figures tell us that 92% of the people who receive grants under family reunification are women and girls—92%. On the massive reduction in the number of family reunification applications that are accepted or in family reunification routes, 92% are women and girls. I do not understand how the Government can suggest there is not a disproportionate impact on people with protected characteristics when just this one specific measure has a massive impact on women and girls specifically. I understand why the Government have not produced an equality impact assessment. They do not want to see what is in such an assessment, but they should produce one. They have a public sector equality duty to do so. The Home Office is still bound by the public sector equality duty. It does not not apply to the Home Office. It applies to the public sector and it has not published one.
On the length of time and the possibility of people being required to wait 20 years to receive leave to remain, we know that the lack of stability adds a significant negative impact on people. We know that that lack of stability is multilayered in the impacts that it has. I have already touched on the issues with employment. Employers are less likely to take people on if they do not have permanent leave to remain. Employers do not necessarily understand the immigration system. Good employers can be terrified of falling foul of the Home Office. If they can see that somebody was born in another country and does not have citizenship yet, they decide not to employ them. That means people are stuck in limbo for a significantly longer time because of the Government’ s decision—much longer than in some other countries, by the way.
Not enabling people to work at 12 months makes us an outlier in Europe. In some EU countries, people can work from day one. In many countries they can work from two months. That gives an increased level of stability than if requiring people to be out of work for 12 months, and then only able to access jobs on the occupation shortage list or immigration list. Some of those jobs are not as acceptable or not as possible for people who have protected characteristics. A disabled person may not be able to access some of those roles. If we are more flexible in the roles that people can access, we are more likely to have people able to contribute, because they will be more able to do jobs that work for them.
That lack of stability also means, potentially, that people will have no recourse to public funds for a significant length of time. No recourse to public funds is horrific and should be cancelled, particularly for those people with dependants. I never again want to see a family come in to my office whose children are malnourished because the UK Government have said that they have no recourse to public funds, or who are being threatened with homelessness because they are unable to claim anything. I had a family come in whose four children had not eaten fruit for days. How is it acceptable that the UK Government can decide that people have no recourse to public funds, and then keep them in limbo for such a long period?
Women for Refugee Women looked at the number of destitute women and spoke to them about what destitution meant for them in the asylum system. Of the women in the asylum system who had no recourse to public funds, 38% had stayed in an abusive relationship because of their inability to access public funds and the fear that they would be homeless or destitute as a result of leaving that relationship. A further 38% of those women who stayed in abusive relationships were raped as a result. The UK Government’s policies are forcing women into destitution and unsafe situations and relationships. Among women in that group who were destitute as a result of the UK Government’s policies, 8% were forced into sex work to get enough money to feed themselves or their children, or to clothe their children. How is this a humane situation when it is negatively impacting women more than men and where those protected characteristics are not being protected?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. There have been incidents in the last year, which I am sure the hon. Lady is aware of, where women have been trafficked into the United Kingdom. They have been brought in illegally and when they are sometimes able to escape from their captors or kidnappers—their pimps or whatever they call them—they then find themselves in an unbelievable circumstance where they are here illegally. However, that is not by their own choice but through the coercion of others. Does the hon. Lady feel that there must be some methodology to help those people who are victims and find themselves in unbelievable circumstances?
Kirsty Blackman
There should be some methodology, but the Government are going the wrong way on this. They are looking to tighten up the modern slavery and trafficking regulations and make it more difficult for women to claim that they have been trafficked—even when they have. We know that there are women that have been held in Yarl’s Wood or detention centres after being trafficked because they do not have the correct paperwork. Of course they do not have the correct paperwork; they have been trafficked, used in sex work and forced into these horrific situations, and the Government are putting them in a detention centre and then saying that they will not get a visa because they did not have the right documentation.
We have a responsibility to protect people. It says in “Restoring Order and Control” that there are some rules in relation to the European convention on human rights and the Refugee convention around which there are not discretionary powers. For some—for example, in relation to family life—the public interest can be balanced against that requirement. However, when it comes to trafficking, the Government do not have that discretion. If they refuse to believe trafficked people, and it is later agreed that those people have been trafficked, the UK Government are putting them through more trauma. They are putting people who have experienced worse things than most of us could ever imagine through more trauma because they refuse to believe them. Then, because they may disclose this late, as they do not want to talk about the sex work that they have been forced into and the rapes they have suffered—because it is very difficult to talk about those things—the UK Government say to them, “Well, you didn’t disclose this in time, so you can’t be a true asylum seeker. You can’t be a true refugee because you didn’t come forward and talk about the most horrific moments in your life to a man that you don’t know.” That is in relation to legal aid support.
There are major issues with the continuing lack of stability. The changes away from hotel accommodation to some of the accommodation at barracks can mean that people are more isolated and less able to access support. In Aberdeen, we have little in the way of lawyers who can cover asylum cases—and immigration lawyers in general, actually—and people are having to travel significant lengths in order to get that, on their £7 or £9 a week. Someone cannot get from Aberdeen to Glasgow on seven quid a week—it cannot be done for less than about 30 quid, unless it is on a Megabus, and even that can be quite dear.
Accommodation does not take into account the fact that provision is not there. If people are going to be put in Cameron barracks in Inverness, for example, it is even more difficult for them to get to Glasgow or Edinburgh in order to speak to the right lawyer who will be able to help and be willing to take on their immigration case. Creating that extra level of isolation for people who are already struggling—putting people in an isolated community in the Cameron barracks, rather than in a community setting where they can integrate—means that people who are isolated will become even more so, and people who are at risk will become even more at risk.
We know that even in hotels, people suffer as a result of their protected characteristics, and who are at risk of harm as a result of unsafe situations. That is multiplied when people are moved out of hotels into places such as barracks.
I have a few more things to cover. In relation to the assessment of safe countries for removal, the blanket designation of a country as safe is inherently incredibly risky. It may be safe for some people to be in Syria right now, but it is not safe for everyone. It is not safe for a Syrian woman who came here as a result of gender-based violence to go back to her family in Syria—or to go back to Syria at all—because of the likelihood that her family would take action against her. It is not safe for a gay person who fled because they were correctively raped to go back to Syria.
The decision about blanket designations is really difficult, considering the Government are saying that they are looking at vulnerable groups and talking about individuals. Creating a blanket safe designation that can be changed at any point in that 20-year period means they can suddenly say to someone, “You are going to have to go back to this country where you were correctively raped, because the UK Government have now decided—with very little in the way of parliamentary scrutiny—that this country is safe.” The problem is that we have not got that information. The Minister may feel that there will be special categories in place, but we have not been told that. We have not been given the impact assessment for how that will look. We have not been told what those provisions will be. Somebody who is living here, who is terrified about being sent back, has no comfort right now, because they do not know whether their case will be considered separately or whether their country will just be deemed safe and they will be sent back.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The hon. Member speaks very passionately about this issue. Does she agree that the same can be said of those who have been engaged in rape and criminal activity in Northern Ireland and the UK as a whole, but that they should be sent back? It is a real bugbear for people that there seems to be some protection for people who engage in those types of activity, so that they are not sent back to where they came from.
Kirsty Blackman
The UK Government have said that they are looking at increasing the number of countries they have returns agreements with, so that people who have committed crimes can be sent back.
Let me talk once more about the LGBT issue. If a trans or gay refugee is here, and it is illegal for them to be trans in their country—they are likely to be beaten up or correctively raped as a result of being, for instance, a lesbian in their country—the UK Government expect them to live openly here, in the sexuality that they are, but with the threat of their country becoming a safe country and their being sent back. People will now know that they are gay, because they have had to live openly here, and that threat of return will now continue for a significantly longer period of time. Gay and trans people are now in a horrific Catch-22: they are forced to live openly here to have their refugee status agreed, but if their country is designated as a safe country, they may be sent back.
Pakistan is apparently safe for trans people because, according to the UK Government, people face only discrimination, not persecution, for being trans in Pakistan, despite the fact that somebody can come here as a trans refugee having been persecuted in Pakistan. The UK Government say, “It is okay, because it’s a discrimination thing, not persecution thing; don’t worry—you’ll be fine.” The Government expect them to live as an out trans person here—knowing that their cousin might see them on Facebook, or that somebody might hear about them living their real life and being themselves here—but, as a result of the UK Government’s policies, they will be forced to go back to somewhere where they are at an even higher risk of persecution.
On the Equality Act 2010, the public sector equality duty says that public sector organisations must have due regard to protected characteristics and try to ensure that people are not discriminated against because of those characteristics, despite the fact that the Government’s policies will more negatively impact people with protected characteristics. I have asked questions about the special consideration of vulnerable groups, because we need significantly more information about that. I do not expect the Minister to provide all that today, but I would like a commitment that that information will be forthcoming; otherwise, people will be terrified because they will have, hanging over them, the possibility that the Government will not take into account whether someone is trans or has suffered from gender-based violence in other places.
On the length of time before disclosure, I just do not believe that we can set a time limit when it comes to violence against women and girls or gender-based violence. We cannot tell people that they have to disclose things within a certain period of time or they will not be granted refugee status. That is not something we can force on victims. Changes need to be made in that regard.
There has been no impact assessment. I asked written parliamentary questions about equalities impact assessments, and we were told that they would come in due course. When? When will we get the equality impact assessments? I would love the Home Office to act in a trauma-informed way, but it seems that we are not going to do so. For some reason, the public interest—which is, apparently, in deporting as many people as possible—cannot be balanced with the need to look after people who, through no fault of their own, have gone through unimaginable horrors. That will have a detrimental impact on all those who are seeking asylum.
On the legal aid crisis, I would love reassurance from the Minister that the Government are going to make changes to legal aid. I do not understand how they are possibly going to manage a 30-month time period when they cannot manage the current time period.
I finish with a statement from Layla, who spoke to Women for Refugee Women about why she came to the UK and what her experiences were here. The UK Government talk about removing the pull factors, but the pull factors are not the economy or the fact that people can get jobs. Layla puts it better than I ever could. She said:
“I didn’t see the UK as a cruel type of country. The idea is that the UK is a Great Britain: we will save you, especially women’s rights, human rights. We initiate all the law, international law, you name it. The UK is a very outstanding country. But when I came here, I feel like it’s a fake, because why do you need to show that you are so good in the eyes of the world, but you are treating asylum seekers like this? It’s hypocrisy.”
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
I remind Members to bob if they wish to speak, so we can calculate the time limit on speeches. I call John McDonnell, with no time limit.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I have no time limit, Dr Huq, but I have only a limited number of questions. This debate is sparsely attended, but I do not think the Minister should interpret that as a lack of interest in the issue. It might well be because of where we are at in the parliamentary cycle—it is the day before our break, and there might not be the whipping on this penultimate day that there is on other days. In addition, people might not have understood the breadth of the potential of this debate when we talk about protected characteristics.
I want to talk about the protected characteristic of age, which includes children and young people. We identified age as a protected characteristic and we have signed up to the UN convention on the rights of the child. A group of 100 organisations, the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, have come together to provide an excellent briefing—I will send to the Minister, if he has not received it. Their main objective is to protect the rights and safety of young migrants and refugee children. I do not think I can get across the depth of concern among those who have been engaged in dealing with refugee children in particular over the years.
I have to say—I am trying to be as diplomatic as I can on this—that some of the language used by Ministers has been a disgrace. A Minister putting out tweets saying, “Deport. Deport. Deport.”, does not reflect what we are about across the House and all parties. That is not what we are intending to do. We are trying to uphold the British tradition of welcoming people here who seek sanctuary and to put in place a system that deals with their needs. Many of us have argued that the best way of doing that is safe routes, fast processing and more support for integration. I am not sure, and I think many people are anxious about this, that some of the statements made by Ministers reflect the view of the House overall—as I say, across all parties. I regret that. I was shocked even by some of the language used by the Secretary of State on the day that the statement on asylum policy was made.
Maybe I have repeated this too often, but in my constituency, I have two detention centres, and I have been dealing with them now since when I was a councillor in the Greater London Council—40 years. There are 2,500 asylum seekers in hotels in my constituency, and I welcome them. My community has held together very well on that; we rub together pretty well. There have been some recent demonstrations in one small area of my constituency, but that has largely been provoked by outsiders pursuing their own political ambitions. Overall, we have welcomed asylum seekers.
I congratulate my community on the work that they have put in. Various local community organisations and religious groups, across the whole field of religion, have provided support. From that experience, when we have discussed over the years those who have suffered the most, in many instances it has always been the children. I welcome Government Ministers to sit down with some of the professionals who are working with these children. I declare an interest: my wife is an educational psychologist and she works in the schools in our community that asylum children go to. Many of these children are deeply traumatised by their experience in their country of origin and by their journey here. Now they are being traumatised by some of the treatment they are receiving as a result of some of the political campaigns going on in our society.
There can be nothing worse for a child or family than to look out of their hotel window and see baying crowds outside, demanding that they go or that they be evicted. A few weeks ago, we even had a group of masked men who turned up at one of these hotels and tried to break into it. The police valiantly addressed that situation, but some of them were injured as a result.
Those children have gone through experiences that none of us would ever want our own children to go through. I am worried that we are in the process of introducing reforms that could retraumatise them in a way that some of them will never recover from.
The Government are on the first steps of the path of the new system that they are proposing, but a lot more debate and discussion needs to take place. I think this debate is about trying to make it clear to the Government some of the issues that we need more information about and that need to be addressed in a much wider-ranging consultation, not only with MPs, but with those on the frontline who have to deal with them.
Basically, I have five specific issues that I want to raise today. The first is indefinite leave. The second is family reunion and the third, linked to that, the review of article 8, which we have been told will happen. The fourth is financial support and the final one is appeals. I am sorry if some of what I am about to say repeats anything that has already been mentioned by other hon. Members.
On indefinite leave, the Government are now introducing this core protection status. I chair the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group. PCS includes the civil service workers who process these claims, and I have not yet met one of them who thinks we have the ability or resources in place to conduct a review of every case every two and a half years, because that is what we are talking about. We cannot process the cases as they are now.
I congratulate the Government on the work that they are doing to speed up the processing. The reason we are in such difficulty is that the previous Government had started to speed up the process—I actually went on to the Floor of the House and congratulated a Tory Minister on doing so—but then they introduced the Rwanda scheme and everything stopped. It is no wonder that we now have a backlog. This Government are speeding up the processing, which I welcome, but then to load on to that system a new review every two and a half years—it just cannot be done. No one believes that it can be done. The proposal has no credibility
There is also the issue with regard to the individual country reviews. Exactly as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said, it is about more than individual countries; we are talking about case-by-case reviews, which will be necessary. In addition, some of the Foreign Office assessments of individual countries are either out of date, or do not reflect the reality of what is happening on the ground there now. As a result, the system will place people here in positions of immense vulnerability.
We should try to walk in that child’s footsteps. What will it be like for that child to know that, every 30 months, they will not necessarily be going to the same school, living in the same place, or having the same friends, but will risk being shipped back to a country of origin that some of them barely know? We need to think.
The hon. Member talked about working with those who are trauma-experienced. It is vital that the Government now do that, and sit down to discuss with professionals in this field the worries and fears that they have. Indeed, it is also worth the Government sitting down with some of the asylum seekers themselves, just to get an understanding of what they have gone through: the trauma that they have experienced is not only caused by what happened in their country of origin; the traumatising journey that they have had to make is also bad and, as I have said, when they get here they have been faced, under previous Governments in particular, with a “hostile environment”. That insecurity has led to deep psychological concerns. For us to revisit all that on children on a regular basis is cruel as well as unworkable.
Regarding the process itself, I still have not got my head around the way people can qualify for reduced routes—the five-year route, or the 15-year route. There is real anxiety that, if anyone receives any form of public assistance by way of social security, benefits or even accommodation, they will somehow be debarred from the 20-year route. There was even an example reported in the press a few weeks ago where someone had been trying to borrow money to pay back the benefits that they thought they had received because that would disqualify them and force them into the 20-year route. There needs to be a great deal more clarity about how that works.
As the hon. Member said, 92% to 93% of family reunion visas—I think about 1,200—in the last year were for wives and children. In my experience of dealing with asylum seekers over the years, the family has simply sat down and taken the decision that it will be the male who will seek refuge first because they are concerned that the female and the children will not survive the route. If we consider our own families, that is exactly what we would do: we would try to get at least someone to safety, and often it would be the one who has the best overall chance of surviving. Once that person is here, they want their family to join them. That is not exploiting the system; that is how the system should work. That is how refugee systems work across the world. By denying any element of family reunion—I look forward to the detail of the review on that—we are penalising the child by preventing them from being with their parents in the future.
Carla Lockhart
I have to disagree with the right hon. Member. I believe that if he were fleeing a war-torn country, he would want to see his wife and family—particularly his family—brought to safety first. Sadly, we do not see that. We see young males making that trip. That is not right and they should be sent back.
John McDonnell
The hon. Lady and I will have to disagree on that. In my experience, the decision for the male to come here is often made on the basis of the family itself asking, “Who can get here? Who can survive that journey? Who can get through?”. That provides some hope that the family can join them. There is a difference with those that move into the next country in close proximity—but, again, we have to fulfil our responsibility to the whole family. I am concerned that if we start in any way undermining that right to family reunion, the people who will be penalised most will be the children deprived of being brought up with their parents.
We are told that the article 8 review will take place in 2026. It would be invaluable to have the earliest and broadest consultation possible. Exactly as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said, we need early impact assessments on all the decisions being made so that we have the detail of what the impact could be. We can consult the wider public. A lot of false information goes out into communities about the whole asylum process and causes resentment. If we are going to review article 8, we need to explain how it operates now, what its intentions are, what changes could be made when it is reviewed and what impact that would have. I am hoping that the review is about beneficial impact, rather than being a prejudicial attempt to prevent family reunion from taking place overall.
Let me explain very crudely my anxieties about financial support. The Government are going to revoke the legal duty to provide housing and financial support and make it discretionary for some bodies. I have a Conservative council. Its housing policy at the moment has changed the length of time that someone has to be within the area. It was five years; it is now 10 years to be able to even get on the housing waiting list. As a result, I have families who wait 10 years and, by the time a property is allocated to them some of their children have grown up and they no longer qualify as a family. We go through that process. If we make it discretionary, we need to know from the Government what happens to the organisations, such as my council, that are not willing to fulfil some basic duties and responsibilities.
I have one final point—I can see, Dr Huq, that you are getting anxious about time. On the replacement of judges with adjudicators in appeals, we need to see the detail, such as adjudicators’ qualification and training, and how they will be selected and monitored. The adjudicator is only one process, however. Unless there is proper representation and resourcing, particularly of legal aid access, the system will grind to a halt, there will be bad decisions and we will be back to appeals. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said, the bulk of victories will be on appeal because the system is not working effectively. I hope for a response from the Government and for detailed consultation, as rapidly as possible, on all these matters.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Order. I am obliged to call the Front Benchers at 10.28, so if Members keep their remarks to seven minutes, everyone will get in.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair again, Dr Huq. You can be assured that I plan to be brief. I am horrified by the proposed changes to the asylum system set out last month, which seem to be performative cruelty, and I am deeply concerned about their impact on all asylum seekers. I welcome this opportunity to focus on how the Secretary of State’s reforms will affect those with protected characteristics, and thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for securing the debate. I will focus on women and LGBTQ people especially.
I will start with women asylum seekers, who are often survivors of sexual and gender-based violence. Tomorrow, the Government will proudly publish their strategy to tackle violence against women and girls, and I look forward to it, but their asylum reforms are putting refugee women at risk. Requiring refugees—not asylum seekers who are waiting for their decision, but refugees who the Government have certified as legitimately fleeing persecution—to wait 20 years before they can apply to settle permanently, with their refugee status subject to reviews every two and a half years, alongside a ban on working and meagre weekly allowances, leaves women in an extremely vulnerable situation. As we heard earlier, research by Women for Refugee Women found that, shockingly, 38% of women in the asylum system were pushed into or stayed in an unwanted or abusive situation or relationship, and 8% were forced into sex work. Given that appalling data, will the Minister reconsider the 20-year wait for settlement and give all asylum seekers the right to work?
We also need more transparency to help us to tackle the vulnerabilities that survivors of sexual violence face in the asylum system. I wrote to the Minister in the last few days—I understand that he will not yet have had chance to act, but I take this opportunity to highlight it—to ask that his Department publish disaggregated asylum statistics for claims based on sexual and gender-based violence. Similar data is already published on sexual orientation so I hope that that request is non-controversial and that the Minister can take it forward—I think it will be constructive.
LGBTQ people also face unique impacts from the proposed asylum reforms. The new safe return reviews of refugee status make it harder for people to integrate. The Home Office expects those seeking asylum because of gender or sexuality to be living openly, yet it simultaneously dangles the constant threat of being returned to the country that they were persecuted in. Some claim that asylum seekers need to integrate better into British society, but how can they? How can they build lives, friendships and communities when creating an authentic life in the UK puts their safety at risk, given the prospect of being returned home?
I want to highlight a specific issue in my constituency that has been brought to my attention, though I am certain it does not exist in Bristol alone. Refugee organisations in Bristol have told me that they are seriously concerned about the state of accommodation and support for LGBTQ+ people seeking sanctuary in our city. Some individuals have faced hate crime while in asylum accommodation, and have attempted suicide as a result. What are the Government doing to ensure that LGBTQ+ asylum seekers get the specialist support that they need? Will he consider providing separate, safe accommodation for particularly vulnerable LGBTQ+ asylum seekers?
In this debate, we have heard heart-wrenching stories about how asylum seekers with protected characteristics are hit by the Government’s callous new policies. However, I will conclude on a small but hopeful note by thanking those who are working tirelessly to defend the rights of asylum seekers, including Women for Refugee Women—which has been mentioned multiple and times and does fantastic work—Rainbow Migration, Praxis, and Stand Against Racism & Inequality, which is based in Bristol. Their advocacy inspires me in my role here, and I will continue fighting alongside them for a compassionate, just and workable asylum system.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I say a big “thank you” to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for securing this debate. She has—I say this with great kindness—a wonderful, warm heart. I always enjoy her contributions, and today is another example of just that.
It is always a joy to see the Minister for Border Security and Asylum, the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), who is a good and dear friend to us all. I know that he understand the issues incredibly well. It is in his very nature to endeavour to give us the answers he can, within the confines of his departmental brief.
Members will have no doubt about my views on immigration, about which I have great concerns. I chair the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, so I understand that many people across the world flee persecution and human rights abuses, and look for a country of sanctuary. I believe that our country can be that sanctuary, but I have genuine concerns about the abuse of the asylum system—my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) referred to some of them.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, whether on straightforward illegal immigration or on protected characteristics, part of the problem is that there are concerns in wider society about the United Kingdom’s stagnant economy and expanding population. That lead to protests and to demands that we close our borders so that we do not further exacerbate the problems of a growing population and a shrinking economy.
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend and colleague is absolutely right—I will refer to those matters shortly. There is no use saying that what he refers to is not happening or that there is a small number of asylum seekers—that is not the case. The images of small boats show overwhelmingly that they carry young men. They are more economic migrants—most of them look extremely fit and well. They are illegal immigrants coming by the backdoor to seek greater help in the benefits system, rather than the families I want to stand up for, who are fleeing oppression and threat to life.
Carla Lockhart
I thank my hon. Friend for his speech; he is doing an excellent job. Does he agree that people are concerned about spiralling costs? Asylum seeker accommodation costs are set to rise to £15.3 billion across the UK over the next decade, including from £100 million to £400 million in Northern Ireland. When our services are already at breaking point, that is frustrating people. Surely the Government have a duty to look after the people who are born and raised here before committing to that spend.
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend and colleague is right. I know that the Minister will consider all these matters, and I hope that he will give us an answer to that question. I can understand why so many are outraged that we would take winter fuel payments away from our own hard-working pensioners while doing nothing about migrants who seem to want an easy way of life. People have that perception about those who come along on plastic boats from Calais to Dover. I want us to put those migrants aside very quickly.
I try to be compassionate and understanding in everything I do in this House—although I am no better than anybody else—but I see a very clear difference between an economic migrant who wants to use the benefits system and a family who have no safe place to be. That must be highlighted. As a member of APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, Dr Huq, you will understand only too well that many Christians are persecuted in Syria and across the middle east, and in India, Pakistan, Nigeria and Myanmar. All being well, on 8 January we will have a Westminster Hall debate on the persecution of Christians in Myanmar.
The previous Government had a Syrian resettlement scheme, and six Syrian families came to Newtownards. They did not have a big grasp of the language, but our community drew together and supported them. Those six families are still there. They have had children there, they have jobs, they have learned the language, they have children at school, and they have houses. They did so by their own bootstraps, so to speak, and that should be recognised as something good that happens.
I believe that the Government must make changes to the system and take a hard line, returning those young men back to France or wherever they have travelled from or through, but I have a genuine fear that these changes may prevent those who are truly in need of asylum from claiming it. By the end of 2024, 132 million people had been forced to flee their homes. I have a large number of figures here, and I do not have time to mention them all, but there are 42.7 million refugees, 5.8 million people in need of international protection and 4.4 million stateless persons. It is clear that we cannot take them all in. That is why we must have a robust system in place to provide foreign aid to help where we can and take those who specifically need our help.
We cannot and must not allow the abuse of the system to end the system in its entirety—the goodness of the system that the Minister and the Government are trying to bring in—in the same way that we do not allow the abuse of drugs to prevent doctors from using the rules and regulations to prescribe them. Across the world, there are almost 74 million internally displaced people and 8.4 million asylum seekers. Again, we cannot take them all, but we can take some—I think we have a duty to do so.
We need a fit-for-purpose system that allows those who are persecuted for their faith to find a refuge and build a life with their families, such as those Syrian families who came to Newtownards eight or nine years ago. They are integrated—part of us—and contributing to society there. They want to assimilate, become British and espouse our values. We must remind ourselves of our all-important British values of tolerance and compassion as we address this problem without literally throwing the babies out with the bathwater—or English channel water, as the case may be. I thank the Minister in anticipation of his answer. I also thank the two Opposition spokespeople, who I know will make valuable contributions. I wish you, Dr Huq, and all colleagues a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for securing this important debate and for the passionate way in which she introduced it; it is clear that this matter is close to her heart.
Refugees are some of the most vulnerable people on the planet. They are often fleeing their home following a civil war or being targeted by an authoritarian regime. Refugees with protected characteristics, such as disabled people, those who are pregnant, children and women, are especially vulnerable. That is why the Liberal Democrats believe that people seeking protection must be treated with dignity and humanity, according to their individual situation. Many asylum applicants already face hostility in the process, and disbelief from decision makers can have serious consequences for their safety if they are returned to the countries where they face persecution. No one should ever be expected to hide elements of their identity, like their sexuality, in order to avoid violence or discrimination. There are far too many countries in the world that are openly hostile to some protected characteristics.
This debate is calling for disabled people, those who are pregnant, women and children never to be detained or deported. Although I have a lot of sympathy with that, the entire detention system needs thorough reform. In previous debates, my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have outlined what reforms we want in the system. Immigration detention should only be used as a last resort for anyone—absolutely anyone. It should be subject to clear time limits. We support a maximum of 28 days, with judicial oversight after 72 hours. We tabled amendments to the Conservatives’ Illegal Migration Bill to secure such reforms, including a ban on child detention and an end to indefinite detention. The Conservative Government rejected those amendments, but the Liberal Democrats remain committed to them.
The detention of children is particularly controversial. In the summer of 2010, honouring the Liberal Democrats’ election manifesto, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg announced that the UK would end its practice of child detention after years of strong criticism from current and former detainees, the voluntary sector, medical professionals, politicians, academics and legal professionals. My party and I are very proud of that.
There are particular risks for women and survivors of gender-based violence in the proposals that the Home Secretary announced recently. The plan to remove the legal duty to provide accommodation while asylum seekers remain banned from working risks pushing vulnerable people into destitution. Women fleeing persecution and domestic abuse are at heightened risk if support is unpredictable and, worse, if it is withdrawn entirely. The Liberal Democrats are committed to fully implementing the Istanbul convention, which Britain has signed, which contains a commitment to protect women and girls, regardless of their nationality or immigration status. Will the Minister tell us if and when the Government will sign up to the Istanbul convention? Women seeking asylum who have experienced gender-based violence need a system that understands the trauma that they have been through and responds according to that need. Any reforms that prioritise speed over safety will worsen the harm for those vulnerable people.
The Government’s plans to overhaul modern slavery rules also create serious dangers. Forcing victims to disclose everything at the point at which they arrive risks playing directly into the hands of traffickers and organised criminal groups. Many victims remain under gang control when they first come forward. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that. Has he met domestic worker charities to understand the impact that the proposals could have on vulnerable hidden workers in our society?
Recent announcements from the Home Secretary include temporary refugee status, more frequent reviews, restrictions on rights-based appeals and the removal of guarantees on housing, benefits and support. Those changes will fall hardest on those with protected characteristics and those already facing discrimination. People fleeing persecution due to race, religion or nationality may find themselves at increased risk before safety is secured. Disabled applicants and those with serious health conditions may struggle with the accelerated deadlines that the Government want to introduce. Women with children, and pregnant women in particular, may face hardship if safe accommodation is no longer guaranteed—yet again, it could be withdrawn entirely. The proposals also include controversial tools for age assessment and a reduction in access to legal aid.
Those changes risk harming children and young people, and will make the system even harder for them to navigate as they cope with their mental health and the trauma issues that they bring with them. A shift to long-term permissions with no clear path to settlement will entrench insecurity for already vulnerable people and will completely undermine the Government’s integration plans. The Liberal Democrats believe that there is a better way forward. The previous Conservative Government allowed our asylum system to fall into ruins and permitted a backlog to grow. The answer to the crisis is competent decision making and efficient administration, not punitive actions against some of the most vulnerable people on the planet.
The Government are clearly concerned about trying to persuade Reform voters back into their fold. The fact that there is not a representative of Reform here today suggests that they want to shout about immigration, but they have no solutions. There is an immigration problem in this country: the Conservatives wrecked the system and deliberately ran up an asylum backlog of 90,000 to put people off. That has cost taxpayers dearly and is hurting people, but the solution is not going after the vulnerable and chasing hateful rhetoric. I hope the Minister is sympathetic and understands that, and is a quiet voice in his Department trying to change his bosses’ minds.
The Liberal Democrats have set out a practical plan to fix the system while protecting vulnerable people with protected characteristics. We would clear the backlog within six months by using Nightingale-style processing centres. We would allow asylum seekers to work after three months. We would maintain our commitment to the European convention on human rights, which protects dignity, fairness and the rule of law. Above all, we would focus on accurate and timely decisions so that people are not left in limbo for years.
In this debate, we are discussing individuals with protected characteristics who are at real risk if the system fails them. These reforms must not weaken rights or increase harm; they must not create barriers for women, survivors of trauma, children, disabled applicants or victims of trafficking. I urge the Government to reconsider their approach. A safe and functioning, humane asylum system is achievable, and they must deliver it.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Thank you, Dr Huq, for chairing this debate. As we approach the end of the calendar year, I would like to acknowledge the work of Members who have participated in today’s debate, and those across the House who scrutinise the Government’s proposals on immigration and asylum. In the main Chamber, Westminster Hall and the various Committees I have been part of, there have been numerous robust debates considering the Government’s proposals. That has included significant work to put pressure on the Government, for example to ensure that the settlement period for those on British national overseas visas is continued.
I recognise those contributions because what has typically defined those debates is the question being examined today: what does it mean to have a migration and asylum system that is fair to both the British people and those who want to claim asylum in the UK? Members will find it unsurprising that the Opposition’s view of what is fair to the British people is very different from some of the arguments passionately put forward today.
We need an asylum system that ensures consistent and fair treatment for all those who present claims, and for all those who wish to claim asylum in the UK. To focus on one protected characteristic that has been mentioned today, sexual orientation, data from the Home Office in 2024 showed that the 2023 grant rate for claims where sexual orientation was part of the claim was 62%, similar to the grant rate for non-LGB asylum claims in that period. I believe that the country rightly expects us to treat these people as individuals and to ensure that our asylum system works for everyone.
That means we must take steps to make changes to our existing system so that it acts at speed and provides answers for all people, including those with protected characteristics. That matters because, after almost a year and a half of a Labour Government, we have seen small boat crossings up nearly 50% on the same period before the election, asylum cases at an all-time high, and increases in asylum accommodation.
At last, the Government have decided to set out some detailed proposals to crack down on illegal immigration. It is a necessary step, but one taken only after the problems in our immigration system have become much worse. To respond to comments that these problems emerged during the last Government, let me be clear: the Leader of the Opposition has stated from the outset that we are not only learning from the mistakes that were made in the past, but putting forward a new approach. That recognises that far more needed to be done.
To quantify the impact of those changes, we can observe the scale of the challenges that emanate from illegal migration. The number of small boat crossings since the election has been well over 60,000 people, and this year has already seen 40,000 cross. In addition, 110,051 people claimed asylum in the UK in the year ending September 2025, which was 13% more than in the previous year and 7% more than the previous peak of 103,081 in 2002. For context, between 2004 and 2020, there were between 22,000 and 46,000 people claiming asylum in the UK each year.
Members may imply that we should be cautious about tying illegal migration to the challenges facing our asylum system; however, they are clearly linked. Government statistics show that claims from small boat arrivals were at a record high in the latest year, with more than half of asylum seekers in the latest year having arrived in the UK through irregular routes, which typically means those who arrived in the UK in small boats. Another 38% of asylum seekers had previously entered the UK on a visa or with other leave with relevant documentation. Therefore, we as an Opposition agree that there is a case for significant reforms.
When reforms were put to the House, my colleague the Leader of the Opposition said that the Home Secretary
“seems to get what many on the Labour Benches refuse to accept, and she is right to say that if we fail to deal with the crisis, we will draw more people to a path that starts with anger and ends in hatred.”
The current system
“is not fair on British citizens, it is not fair on those who come here legally”,
and it is often not fair on the many people we are discussing today:
“those in genuine need who are pushed to the back of the queue because the system is overwhelmed.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 513.]
That is why the Opposition have promised our support to the Government to get elements of the proposals passed. It is also why our own borders plan sets out systematic changes across our asylum system, which would apply a consistency, so that all individuals who cross the channel and those who are in the UK illegally will be removed at speed. In doing so, we will go back to the original principles that we signed up to in the 1951 refugee convention, so that the Home Secretary will grant refugee status only to those whose countries’ Governments are trying or threatening to kill, torture or persecute them for a reason set out in the convention. It would not, for instance, apply on the basis that the welfare state in a country is less generous than the UK’s. It is a tough plan, but one that I believe is truly fair to the British people and would still allow the UK to create a much more effective asylum system.
If we could end the mass scale of illegal migration, we could look at implementing limited discretionary non-asylum humanitarian schemes such as the Ukraine scheme, which the last Government created. We have said clearly that any such scheme would prioritise women and children who are in genuine need. That would be in stark contrast to today’s data, where over 72% of asylum claims in the past year were submitted by men. That overrepresentation should be a clear sign that our asylum system is skewed in the wrong direction when it comes to protected characteristics, with many women and children being pushed aside.
Ultimately, I think we can all recognise why people want to come to the UK. Our policies towards Ukraine and Hong Kong demonstrate how open and welcoming the UK can be to those under threat. I want our country to be able to demonstrate those values, but they must be accompanied by an end to illegal migration. The number of asylum applications are in excess of historic trends, and we should support changes that adapt our system to deal with the problems we continue to face. Although the Government have often said they will take no lectures from the Opposition, it is clear they have moved towards many of the ideas set out by our party and rejected by the Government during the passage of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025. As we move forward, the most positive impact the Government can make is to implement proposals that create changes to our asylum system as quickly as possible.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for securing this debate, which has been very interesting. Colleagues have spoken with real passion and purpose, which reflects how strongly they and their constituents feel about the UK being a nation that is able to provide people with sanctuary, treating them with dignity and ensuring a fair balance so that we can sustain our obligations in the long term. That has been a theme throughout the debate. She and colleagues raised many points, which I will seek to cover shortly. I just want to set out where we are starting from today and perhaps demonstrate the objectives of the reforms that we are pushing.
I think it is a point of consensus that the system we inherited in 2024 was a broken one. Reflecting on that any further in the time available is probably undesirable, but it is understood. It is an expensive system and, for the individuals in it, not a good one. It helped and pleased nobody, so fixing it is a top priority for us. That is why we have doubled the rate of decision making, which has resulted in a record high number of decisions. We have already reduced the number of people awaiting initial decision by 39% in the last year alone.
Hotels are a very visible sign of failure. We have reduced the cost of those by some £500 million, and £1 billion overall has been taken out of the system in the process of improving it. That is really crucial for public confidence. Parliament recently passed the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, which will give us more tools to make sure our border is strengthened, improving our asylum and immigration system. In the last 12 months alone we have removed 37,000 people who have no right to be here, including 5,000 foreign offenders. That degree of pace shows our intent, but this is a big piece of work. We still live with the signs of failure, which is why last month we published “Restoring Order and Control”, our blueprint for the asylum system.
I will talk about that in due course, but in simple terms, the heart of the plan is to do what the public expect, which is to reduce the number of those coming here illegally and increase the removal of those who have no right to be here. That is vital for public confidence and the only way to have a fair, effective and functioning system that maintains our long and proud tradition of helping those fleeing peril.
A theme of the hon. Member’s contribution was a fear that in our plans the Government are insufficiently reflecting on protected characteristics. I know that she will need to see in concrete terms that our policies pass her test, but I think she will find that they do. There is no system of Government more concerned, at its root, with protected characteristics than this one; it is the whole point of assessing someone’s claim for asylum.
The hon. Member said that I might not be able to give her the assurances she sought on safe countries. I can, actually, in the sense that an individual’s case will always be assessed on its individual merits. Syria, which colleagues have mentioned, is a good example: the grant rate in relation to Syria has gone from about 90% to about 10% because of significant and profound changes there. Nevertheless, a country changing from unsafe to safe will not mean that a blanket decision is made about a collective group of people and their claims. Every claim, and any reassessment of a claim, will be based on the individual’s circumstances. I am aware, as a white and probably now middle-aged cisgender heterosexual man, that parts of the world might be safe for me but would not be safe for a colleague who might look, sound and be like me in every way except for, say, their sexuality. The system will always have that at its heart.
The hon. Member is right to remind us that the Home Office is very much within the scope of the public sector equality duty. We are very mindful of that, and it is considered throughout the policymaking process. We will always comply with that duty; similarly, we will always comply with our responsibilities with regard to equality impact assessments. As we bring forward the concrete policies that sit within the frame of “Restoring Order and Control”, colleagues will have access to that information so that they can be part of Parliament’s crucial role of scrutinising the plans of the Government of the day.
The point about appeals is really important. Many colleagues have talked about effective and swift decision making, of which appeals are a big part. At the moment, the average wait is about 54 weeks. As is to be expected, as we have rapidly increased the initial decision making, more stress is being created in the appeals system because there are more cases in which decisions are being appealed. Our intent, in the policy package that we set out, is to have the most streamlined system possible.
As a trade unionist who has sat countless times with members and helped them with their issues at work, I know that the fullest statement of case as early as possible is always in their interests, because that is the best way to get the treatment that they are afforded under the law. I accept the hon. Member’s point that that is sometimes hard for an individual; if the basis of a claim relates to sexuality, say, that is a very individual journey in respect of what someone is or is not comfortable saying.
The challenge, which I hope the hon. Member accepts, is that we can only make assessments based on the information in front of us. We cannot foresee future disclosures. As a result, we have a system in which a lot of extra information appears later in the process. I accept that there can be good reasons for that, but there is a danger that the system may be gamed with the constant addition of new material. It is about trying to find the balance whereby we get the fullest information as early as possible, but an individual has opportunities to disclose later in the process.
I cannot agree with the point that the hon. Member and other colleagues have made about work. We know—not least because we see it in the marketing materials of the traffickers—that the sense that people can work illegally in Britain is already a significant factor in people finding it an attractive country to come to illegally. Simply allowing that would only turbocharge it, so that is not something that we plan to do.
The hon. Member and others also made an important point about core protection status. I will return to that point once I have dealt with some other issues raised.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made a characteristically thoughtful contribution. I always listen to what he says about the issue, because I know that he and his community are at the sharp end of it. He speaks with a lot of experience, informed by the experience both of the individuals who come to this country and of the communities who live with the impact, so I listened very carefully. He said that he wants a system with safer routes, faster processing and better integration. Actually, we can have that system. The ability to have that system, with safe and legal routes and community sponsorship, is there in the policy document—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made thoughtful remarks about that, to which I will return shortly—but I say gently to my right hon. Friend that we cannot have one without the other.
We have to be intolerant on dangerous journeys across continents and across channels for children. The right number for that is nil. The right number of children in hotels is nil. The one thing missing from this debate—
Alex Norris
I will take an intervention from my right hon. Friend before I go off on a tangent.
John McDonnell
It is nice to be buttered up, but that usually means that the Minister is ignoring me. On safer routes, the Government have put forward sponsored routes. Those are different from some of the proposals put forward by the PCS and others for specific visa routes, but we can debate the detail of that.
One issue that I did not raise, because I got an answer from the Secretary of State, was the detention of children. I gave the example of how I used to visit Harmondsworth to see children there, which was distressing, and the Secretary of State gave an assurance that there would be no detention of children. There needs to be more clarity on the removal of families in particular and on how that process will be dealt with. That was happening under the previous Government, and at one point it drifted into the detention of children for long periods.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Order. I remind the Minister that Kirsty Blackman needs time to conclude the debate.
Alex Norris
Thank you, Dr Huq. I have a lot of things to say today, but I am basically not going to say any of them. I will try to respond instead to what colleagues have said, because I think it makes for a more interesting debate.
There are no children in detention. We have no intention to detain children. I take pelters in the main Chamber when I say what I am about to say, which is that the best level for voluntary returns is 100%. I would happily have every return be voluntary, and that is particularly true in the case of families—that is why we are seeking to improve the support for that—but detention is not in our plans. I hope that that gives my right hon. Friend a degree of assurance.
What I am most surprised not to have heard in this debate is that the people who have the most agency in our system at the moment are human traffickers. The worst people on the planet—the people who have the most callous indifference to harm, the people who will exploit any pain to monetise it—have the most agency over who comes to this country. We should be really angry about that, and we should be resolute in changing it. Of course our important work around organised crime and the provisions in the Act will help us in that regard, but we have to change the demand. That is at the root of the changes to the protection model, which I will come to momentarily.
The hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) made a point about the 20-year period. I will come back to that point, because my carriage is going to turn into a pumpkin shortly.
The hon. Member for Strangford made an interesting contribution about the experience of people in Newtownards. I know only a little about Newtownards, mostly from our conversations about it, but I know that it is not that dissimilar to my community, and that it can therefore be at the crunchy end of the immigration conversation. What he points out is exactly the same for my community. When the schemes were ordered and controlled—be that the Syria scheme, as in his example; Afghan resettlement, which other colleagues have mentioned; Homes for Ukraine, as the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) said; or the Hong Kong BNO scheme—my community leaned into them because they were confident that we knew which people were coming and that they needed our protection. They stepped up.
We want to capture that spirit outside individual country circumstances, because there are other people around the world who would benefit from such protection. I think my community will step up to that, but they will not do that while they feel that the people with the greatest agency are human traffickers and there is a lack of control over who comes and crosses our borders. I think that that is right, which is why I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and to colleagues that we cannot have one without the other.
We cannot have a new, orderly, humane, dignified system with safe and legal routes and maintain public confidence if we are not willing to say that we have zero acceptance of people coming through trafficking routes and across the channel on dangerous journeys, and that the right number for that is nil. That informs our point around protection in “Restoring Order and Control”.
The 20-year route is for a person who comes to this country illegally and then chooses not to learn the language and not to work or contribute. We want everybody to switch out of that core offer and on to a protected work and study route. If people learn the language, work or contribute, they will be able to earn a reduction in that period to 11 years. Moreover, if they enter the system through safe and legal means, their starting point is 10 years, and they can earn a reduction to five years. Those numbers are not coincidental. At all points, the goal is to dissuade people from making dangerous irregular journeys and instead ensure that doing the right thing—whether that is contributing in-country or coming via regular means—is always in their best interests.
Alex Norris
I am happy to give way, but I remind the hon. Lady that we are very short on time.
Carla Denyer
I just want to inquire exactly what the Minister meant when he spoke about those who “choose” not to contribute. How does that relate to disabled people, for example, who the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) raised in her opening speech?
Alex Norris
That is a really important point, which I was coming to. There will be cases in which, whether because of the nature of the trauma that people have suffered on their journey or because of other issues such as disability, they are not able to work in those ways. There are other ways to contribute, and that is reflected in our earned settlement consultation, which is ongoing. That will look at how to do that right, but of course there will be protection for people in those cases.
What I cannot agree with in the opening speech by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North is that because some people will struggle to make that contribution and will need a different type of support within the system, nobody should therefore have to contribute. Under the system we have at the moment, no matter what someone does, they can come to this country and get protection. No matter whether they break the law or sit at home instead of going to work or learning the language, they are treated exactly the same as someone who goes to work, learns the language and integrates into their community. I do not think that is right. I accept that that may well be a point of difference, but I do not believe that it is right.
I hope that what hon. Members have heard from me today, and from the Home Secretary when she introduced this package, is that individual policies will come forward, with all the equality impact data that colleagues would expect, but that there is time and space to shape it. If we had published our final policy position some four weeks ago when the Home Secretary stood up, colleagues would rightly have said, “Who did you talk to? Why did you not have people helping to craft it who are experts by experience, or organisations that work with them?” It is slightly challenging to have people say, “There’s not enough detail here.” That is the whole point of developing policy and seeking to work with people in doing so. It is right that we have set our framing for what we are seeking to achieve, but we will have those conversations in this place and I will be very happy to engage with any and all colleagues who are interested in telling us how they feel about the issue.
I hope that I have given a degree of comfort to colleagues on some points. There is a lot more to do, and I have no doubt that we will have many more opportunities to discuss it. I will always do so with the fullest candour.
Kirsty Blackman
Thank you for chairing this debate, Dr Huq. I thank all Members for contributing.
I did not say that nobody should have to contribute—I will thank the Minister not to put words in my mouth in that regard. I do believe, however, that worthiness as a human being should not be determined by the ability to contribute economically. We are talking about humans who have been broken, those who have been persecuted and, specifically in this debate, those who have protected characteristics and have been through absolutely unimaginable horrors.
I appreciate the Minister giving some level of clarity that there will be special considerations. We will be looking very closely at what comes forward in the equality impact assessment and on the special considerations. I believe that the Minister did not quite answer the question about improvements in legal aid; if he could write to us about what will happen on that, it would be appreciated.
I thank all Members for their contributions today, and those who are standing up for people who have suffered unimaginable horrors.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential impact of proposed asylum reforms on people with protected characteristics seeking asylum.
Palliative Care: North Derbyshire
(1 day, 18 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
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Ashgate Hospice and palliative care in north Derbyshire.
In late June of this year, my fiancé Amanda and I found ourselves, along with 3,000 others, dressed in bright-pink t-shirts, wearing flashy-pink bunny ears, setting out from Chesterfield football stadium on the annual Sparkle Night Walk, a fundraiser for Ashgate hospice in north Derbyshire. Fundraisers raised over £385,000 that night—another reminder of the precious place that Ashgate hospice has in the hearts of the people of north Derbyshire.
It is often said that everyone in north Derbyshire knows someone who has been helped by the hospice. It is impossible to overstate the affection for it, or the commitment that local people demonstrate to raising funds for it. Ashgate is a charitable hospice providing specialist palliative and end-of-life care for about 2,600 people each year across north Derbyshire. In October came the devastating announcement that Ashgate was consulting on making as many as 52 posts redundant, and planning to close 60% of its in-patient beds.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
I have received so many emails from really concerned constituents about this issue. There was one that stuck out: it was from a serving member of the armed forces, who wrote to me about her elderly mother who recently passed away at Ashgate. She was stationed abroad, but flew home to be with her mum, and was able to spend five days and nights with her—her mother’s last moments. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should all be extremely thankful for the high-quality care that Ashgate hospice gives to our constituents and others, and that we should all be concerned about the reduction in beds and the loss of jobs?
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a reason why Ashgate holds a dear place in people’s hearts. It is because at the lowest ebb, Ashgate has been there to provide love, care and support when all else is lost. This is a story that we hear so many times.
While the announcement caused shockwaves across the community, it did not entirely come as a surprise to Derbyshire MPs, who had for many weeks been attempting to get clarity between the then Derbyshire integrated care board and the hospice on a number of issues.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned other Derbyshire MPs. Many of my constituents have told me how Ashgate hospice has been there for them in their darkest moments. Paula Reeve told me that what Ashgate did for her mother, Joan Dempsey,
“felt nothing short of miraculous...That time was a very precious gift and my family remain in the debt of all the staff at Ashgate”.
Does my hon. Friend agree that we owe it to individuals like Paula to ensure that Ashgate hospice gets the funding it needs to continue these valued and vital services?
Mr Perkins
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is important to say that a half-hour debate is primarily an opportunity for a single Member to raise something with the Minister, and to get a ministerial response, but as my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) and for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) made clear, it is an issue that is felt incredibly passionately right across the north Derbyshire community. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones) would also have been here if she was not on Ministry of Defence duty in Gibraltar. It is an issue that many of us feel passionately about.
It is important to get across that, in those meetings, we wanted to establish what exactly the ICB’s current funding was paying for and how that benchmarked against the overall level of funding that hospices were receiving in other areas, and to get an agreement on an interim level of funding to enable the hospice to continue providing the current level of care while a more detailed investigation into the current cost of care was commissioned.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I spoke to him beforehand to suggest a helpful intervention. He rightly said that fundraising is important for the hospice, but NHS funding never covers more than a fraction of the cost. There are four distinct hospices in Northern Ireland that provide instrumental support in terms of end-of-life care for those who require it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there must be a national minimum NHS funding level for hospice care to ensure that services across this whole nation are not depleting as a result of lack of funding?
Mr Perkins
I absolutely agree. One of the frustrations that many of us in Derbyshire have felt is that there is no clarity on what a reasonable level of funding is and what the expectation is. There are rumours flying left, right and centre. In the middle of all this, the staff, the patients and the fundraisers are left wondering who to believe and what the situation is. I hope that, when we hear from the Minister, we will learn more about that.
In the summer, the ICB produced a comparison with NHS-funded care in the south of the county in an effort to show MPs that Ashgate hospice was too expensive, but has now disowned that comparison. After several months of pretty unsatisfactory discussions at which the two sides never reached a settled position even on what was currently being spent, the move from Derbyshire to a three-county ICB model saw a sudden withdrawal by the ICB of any suggestion of interim funding, forcing the hospice to go ahead with plans to make redundancies.
Our hospices receive an average of just a third of their funding from Government via the NHS and are reliant on fundraising for the rest. The Government contribution fell dramatically under the 14 years of the previous Government, leaving the gap for charitable hospices to make up even larger. Year on year, hospices such as Ashgate have expended any fat in reserve and are now faced with intolerable financial pressures. In today’s debate, I am seeking to make the case for a more equitable funding settlement for all hospices to gain greater clarity about the particular situation in Derbyshire and see whether anything can be done to stave off these terrible service closures and nurse redundancies in an institution that provides outstanding palliative care.
Let me touch on the national context. Hospice UK published research last month showing that 57% of hospices ended the last financial year in deficit, with 20% recording a deficit of over £1 million. That is actually a slight improvement on the staggering 62% of hospices that recorded a deficit a year before, thanks to the emergency £100 million of additional funding provided by this Government. A health system that relies on a sector so chronically underfunded that 57% of hospices are in deficit to provide care is simply not functioning. The Government are right to make it a priority to assist hospices such as Ashgate to get back on their feet.
Although it is true that this crisis evolved under the previous Government and sat there on the ballooning list of things to do when this Government came to power, many hospices like Ashgate had spent year after year dipping into their reserves and had no fat left to cut when the Government’s welcome increase in funding was accompanied by the rising employer’s national insurance, the minimum wage increases and the NHS pay increase, which is obviously relevant to the wider health community. Many hospices are on the brink. I join the call of many other MPs from across the country for a more generous funding settlement that recognises the crucial role that hospices play in our health system.
Turning to the local situation, it is immensely frustrating to all the Derbyshire MPs, to staff, to unions and to local fundraisers that even at this stage there seems to be a lack of clarity about the current cost of care and how that benchmarks against hospices nationally. A letter I received yesterday from the ICB repeats the suggestion that it has offered to commission an independent review and provide some financial mitigation linked to specific and agreed service mitigations, funded up to £100,000. Indeed, the ICB repeats its view that those financial investigations will be necessary if sustainable solutions are to be found to funding palliative care. Ashgate’s view is that there is no lack of clarity about what money is being spent on, and that it demonstrated that to the ICB’s director of finance at a recent visit.
The situation seems largely unchanged since late October, but many staff face the threat of redundancy, and in the run-up to Christmas some have reluctantly and heartbreakingly chosen to leave the hospice. For any member of staff in any profession, a job being under threat before Christmas would be deeply worrying, but it is important to stress that nurses in the in-patient wards at Ashgate hospice are not just any members of staff. As we have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover and for Derbyshire Dales, they provide support for patients and families at their very darkest hour, when all else is lost and all that remains is the comfort provided by the knowledge that a dying loved one is comfortable and cared for in a beautiful, high-quality and caring environment. The emotional strain on those nurses is huge, and the public empathy and affection for them is widely felt. Their professionalism and compassion is renowned, and the effect of the threatened job cuts on them has been devastating.
Although in-patient wards deal with far fewer patients than out-patient and at-home services, many see them as the front door of Ashgate hospice, but they face the biggest cuts: there is a plan to reduce palliative care beds from 15 to six. In response, there has been an outpouring of support for Ashgate hospice from the community. Nearly £250,000 was raised in just two weeks, including an incredible £50,000 from the owner of a Chesterfield-based business, Peter Kelsey. Those funds will allow the hospice to keep open two additional beds for another six months, and care for perhaps another 25 patients near the end of their lives.
Hundreds of my constituents have contacted me and my colleagues to voice their concerns about the situation at Ashgate hospice, and many have also written directly to the ICB to make the case. Despite the claims and counter-claims, there is now widespread distrust that urgently needs clearing up. The ICB continues to imply that Ashgate services are too expensive, although there has been no formal update following the director of finance’s visit to the hospice on 1 December. Staff and unions have been left confused and concerned about the implication that the finances are not straightforward, and remain frustrated about the process. They have questions about whether every step has been taken to reduce costs.
Staff at Ashgate have been alarmed at communications coming out of the ICB, which they believe undermine their reputation for professionalism and financial prudence. If trust in Ashgate’s ability to run its operations is diminished, it will have grave consequences for future fundraising.
What is not in question is that the care that Ashgate provides is outstanding and that, as of this new year, dozens of north Derbyshire’s most gravely ill patients, who would previously have been able to obtain a bed at Ashgate, will die either at home in less comfort, with family members put in intolerable situations, or in an acute bed in the local hospital sector, possibly at greater cost and in less comfort than was the case last year. I want all my constituents to receive the best end-of-life care possible, so it is hugely disappointing that palliative care patients in north Derbyshire will lose access to those beds, and that nurses at the hospices will be worrying about whether they still have a job.
I want to shed light on the distressing and unacceptable situation of service cuts and redundancies at Ashgate hospice, and I seek further clarity and transparency about the funding situation for palliative care in Derbyshire to see whether anything can be done to hold at bay cuts to services at Ashgate.
Although charitable income will always play a vital role in hospice care, allowing hospices to deliver holistic care that goes way beyond NHS provision, hospices need fair and consistent Government funding, which needs to be transparent and clearly linked to contracts. Crucially, it must reflect local need. Whether a person lives in Chesterfield, across wider north Derbyshire or elsewhere in the country, they and their family should have access to quality palliative care when they need it most. I would therefore appreciate hearing the Minister’s response on several points.
First, will he join me in lamenting the devastating cuts at Ashgate hospice? Does he agree that this situation, whereby in-patient palliative care services in north Derbyshire are being reduced, is unacceptable? Will he or his office intervene to ensure that Ashgate hospice and the local ICB reach a transparent and agreed position on the current funding situation, and examine how that position compares with national expectations about funding of palliative care?
More broadly, will the Minister set out the Government’s plans to ensure sufficient and sustainable funding for hospices in the future? Can he confirm whether he has any concerns about the cost of care at Ashgate hospice? If he cannot, will he get this matter on the public record, so that people across north Derbyshire can be confident that the money they have raised through fundraising—hard-earned money—is being prudently spent?
Does the Minister agree that, six months after the beginning of discussions locally, it is completely unacceptable that there is still a lack of agreement about exactly how much is being spent on care by the ICB and how much commissioned care the ICB is funding? Can he do anything to provide clarity about this situation?
Since 1988, Ashgate hospice has provided exemplary care to thousands of dying patients in north Derbyshire. It must go on. Its nurses deserve better than to lose their jobs and to worry about whether something else could have been done. I implore the Minister to ensure that the hospice sector is given the support it needs to play its crucial role, and that locally in north Derbyshire every avenue is explored to save jobs and beds at this wonderful institution.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq, and I really thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) for raising this important issue.
This year, I have seen at first hand—at the Wigan and Leigh hospice, the Noah’s Ark Children’s hospice in Barnet, and Katherine House hospice in Staffordshire—the vital role that hospices play in our communities, so I completely understand why my hon. Friend speaks so passionately about Ashgate hospice. And I will take a moment to thank everyone working or volunteering in the hospice care sector over Christmas, especially those who are spending Christmas day away from their own families just to bring a bit of joy to the people they care for.
This Government want a society where every person receives high-quality and compassionate care, from diagnosis through to the end of life. Hospices and wider palliative and end-of-life care services will play a key part in our efforts to shift more care out of hospitals and into the community. However, we inherited a palliative and end-of-life care system that is under pressure and we absolutely recognise the financial challenges that hospices face as a result of rising costs and reduced charitable income.
Let me echo what my hon. Friend said by also commending his constituents who came together to put their time, effort and money into fundraising. The fact that they managed to save two beds at Ashgate hospice from closing shows how important the hospice is to the wider community, even if challenges clearly remain.
Most hospices are charitable and independent organisations that receive some statutory funding for providing NHS services. The amount of funding that charitable hospices receive varies, both within and between ICB areas. Such variation can often be explained by the level of demand in a particular area, but it can also be explained by the totality and the type of provision from both NHS services and non-NHS services, including charitable hospices, within each ICB area.
Although the majority of palliative and end-of-life care is provided by NHS staff and services, of course voluntary sector organisations also play a vital part in supporting people at the end of their life. That is why a year ago, almost to the day, we announced a £100 million capital funding boost for adult hospices and children’s hospices, in order to ensure that they have the best physical environment in which to provide care.
Ashgate hospice is receiving over £845,000 of that money over the two years of funding and Blythe House hospice, another hospice in north Derbyshire, is receiving just under £160,000. All of this capital funding is a once in a generation investment into hospices in England, which will guarantee future savings by making them more sustainable, including by fixing draughty windows, repairing old boilers, installing solar panels, fixing roofs, etc.
We are also providing £26 million in revenue funding to support children and young people’s hospices that serve north Derbyshire. This year, Bluebell Wood children’s hospice is receiving £986,000, and Rainbows hospice for children and young people is receiving £1,462,000. Our priority was to protect children’s hospices from facing a cliff edge of yearly funding cycles through multi-year settlements, so we were delighted to confirm that this funding would be in place for the next three financial years. This money will be at least £26 million each year, adjusted for inflation, allocated via ICBs to children’s hospices in England, or around £80 million over the three years in total.
Having said all that, I do not for one second want to give the impression that I am downplaying the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield has raised, nor do I believe that this money is a silver bullet for all the issues we face. As he points out, integrated care boards are responsible for the commissioning of palliative care services to meet the needs of the people they serve. My understanding is that what NHS Derby and Derbyshire ICB calls its core contract value—the baseline funding in the contract with Ashgate hospice—has increased by 55% since 2022, which represents a higher share compared with uplifts the ICB has provided for other NHS services through its hospital trusts and other providers.
I am aware that the ICB has been working with the Ashgate team over several months to understand why their costs have risen significantly over the last financial year. It has also offered £100,000 towards an independent review, which would be linked to a future service specification—in other words, the way in which the ICB provides funding to the hospice in future. Derby and Derbyshire ICB has committed to develop a new service specification for palliative and end-of-life care to inform its contracting going into 2026-27, and to engage on a new model of palliative and end-of-life care across the ICB cluster, aligning to the three shifts set out in the 10-year plan and delivered through the neighbourhood health model of delivery.
However, it is clear from my hon. Friend’s speech that there are two sides to this story. It appears that there is a gulf in understanding between the ICB on the one hand and the management team of Ashgate and the community on the other—that is clear from everything my hon. Friend has said and from other interventions. I would therefore be more than happy to broker a discussion between the ICB, concerned Members of Parliament and the hospice to get to the bottom of what is going on, so that everyone is on the same page as to what is happening with the costs, where the problems lie in terms of provision and ensuring we do everything we can to retain this vital service. It feels like the dialogue between the ICB and the management team at the hospice is not working, and I am more than happy to intervene, to help to make that work. Perhaps I could sit down and discuss that further with my hon. Friend and other colleagues.
As I said earlier, the delivery of healthcare is largely devolved in England, and ICBs are responsible for the commissioning of palliative care services to meet the needs of local people. Beyond the £100 million of capital funding and the £80 million of revenue funding for children’s hospices, we are not able to offer additional funding from the centre as things stand, although we are looking at and exploring other opportunities. As I told the sector in a speech to the Hospice UK conference in Liverpool last month, I know that this is not the message the sector wants to hear, and it is certainly not the message that I want to deliver. But with the public finances in the state they are in—the state that we inherited them in—I have to recognise that the Chancellor has made some tough trade-offs to support our public services, especially the NHS, in the context of our debt interest payments surpassing the entirety of our education budget as things stand.
In these challenging circumstances, we are trying to support the sector in other ways. We are developing the first ever palliative care and end-of-life care modern service framework, or MSF, for England. That will be aligned with the ambitions set out in our 10-year health plan. We will closely monitor the shift towards strategic commissioning of palliative and end-of-life care services to ensure that services start bringing down variation in access and quality. While there is a lot of diversity in contracting models across the hospice sector, we will consider contracting and commissioning arrangements as part of this framework. In the long term, this will aid sustainability and help hospices to plan ahead.
The MSF will not just drive improvements to services that patients receive at the end of life; it will start helping ICBs to address challenges and variation in access, quality and sustainability. Further support is being provided to ICBs through the recent publication of NHS England’s strategic commissioning framework and medium-term planning guidance, which set out in black and white how ICBs should understand current and projected demand on services and associated costs, creating an overall plan to more effectively meet these needs through neighbourhood health. The medium-term planning guidance acknowledges the importance of high-quality palliative and end-of-life care. The guidance makes it clear that, from April next year, ICBs and providers must focus on reducing unnecessary non-elective admissions and bed days from high-priority cohorts—which include, importantly, people with palliative care and end-of-life care needs—and on enabling patients who require planned care to receive specialised support closer to home. That will be at the heart of the neighbourhood health service that we look to build. It is important to emphasise that the cohort of people who are reaching the end of life is a prioritised cohort within the framework of the shift to a neighbourhood health model.
I hope that those measures will reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield of this Government’s commitment to the sustainability of the palliative and end-of-life care sector, including hospices such as Ashgate hospice. We will continue to work with NHS England in supporting ICBs to effectively commission the palliative and end-of-life care that is needed by their local populations. The work that our hospices do to support people in the sunset of their lives, to support families in their grief and to give such families bereavement counselling at their most vulnerable moments is utterly priceless. It is a sad reflection of the dire fiscal position that we inherited and the dire state of our public services in general that we cannot give more than the extra support that I have outlined, but we are doing everything that we can to support the sustainability of the sector in the long term while tackling inequalities and unwarranted variation in the quality and quantity of service provision.
To sum up, strategic commissioning of palliative and end-of-life care services is not working anything like as well as we want, frankly, across the country. It is clear that where there are gaps in an ICB’s understanding of the totality of the health and care needs of its population and in the capacity of partners and stakeholders in its ICB area to meet those needs, that process is not working as well as it needs to. That is what the modern service framework for palliative and end-of-life care seeks to address. We do not have many MSFs—we have commissioned, I think, three or four in total across the entirety of what the Department of Health and Social Care is doing—so that MSF reflects the importance that we attach to palliative and end-of-life care.
In the medium-term planning guidance, we have also emphasised that the palliative and end-of-life care cohort will be a top priority for our neighbourhood health strategy and the shift from hospital to community. That is what is happening at the strategic level, but I understand that at the constituency level, it also matters what is really happening for the community of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield and the worrying issues around Ashgate hospice. On the detail of what is going on there, I would be very happy to work with him to see what we can do with the ICB and other key players and stakeholders to address the specifics of that issue. There is a strategic challenge, but also an opportunity, for us and a more specific issue on which I would be happy to work with him. Dr Huq, I am happy to give the floor back to my hon. Friend for any closing remarks he wishes to make.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
This is a 30-minute debate so, as I said in the preamble, a wind-up speech is prohibited, but the two of you can confer after the debate.
Mr Perkins
I welcome tremendously what the Minister said. It is important to get on record the 55% increase since 2022 because many people contact me to say, “Why have you made cuts?”. Actually, though Ashgate has a £250,000 a month shortfall in what it is spending, there have not been any cuts—it is important that people understand that. I welcome the Minister’s intention to broker a discussion; I am keen to take him up on that offer. Neither staff nor fundraisers are sure of what they know on this issue. They would welcome someone independent coming in to provide that space between the ICB and the hospice. I welcome what the Minister said about the neighbourhood funding model and his recognition that the sector is in crisis, but right now we need, on a local basis, to address the matters that he has raised. I thank him for his commitment to do so.
Stephen Kinnock
We have a plan for next steps and I look forward to discussing those with him further.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Housing Development: Cumulative Impacts
(1 day, 18 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
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the cumulative impacts of housing development.
It is good to see you presiding once again, Mr Twigg. Let me start with the obvious statement that in this country, and in all of our localities, we need more housing. There has been population growth, and in our constituencies we want there to be customers for shops and people to work in them, and places for people growing up locally to be able to move into. We also recognise that people move, which is important for labour mobility. Part of the population growth is about net immigration, but a big part is about increasing longevity—people living longer—and part of the need for more housing is the tendency of people to live in smaller households.
Overall, the record of housing delivery for both Labour and Conservative Governments has had its ups and downs. Both Labour and Conservative Governments suffered from major disruptions—in the case of Labour, the crash of 2007-08, and in the case of the Conservatives, covid-19. However, the peak of the modern era in net additions to housing was the 249,000 achieved just before covid under a Conservative Government, against the peak of 224,000 under Labour just before the crash. The target the new Government have in place is one that has not been achieved since the 1970s, and they are falling far short right now. The provisional number for 2024-25 is 209,000, which is a 6% fall on the previous year of 2023-24.
There are aspects of what the Minister outlined in his announcement yesterday that could help to address the shortfall, but I believe that it is inconsistent with the way that the formula currently skews development towards rural areas. What do I mean by that skew and how does it come about? Overall, the Government require a 50% uplift in housing numbers, but in the 58 mainly or largely rural local authorities, the average increase was 70%. In East Hampshire, which I represent, the target doubled, from 575 a year to 1,100.
Meanwhile, urban and major conurbations saw a much lower increase, at around 16% to 17% on average, and quite a few places saw a fall, including much of London and Birmingham. To be clear, that is not correcting a historical imbalance. Looking back over 20 years, the proportionate addition of dwellings per 1,000 households has been greater in predominantly rural areas than in predominantly urban ones. We also know from analysis by the Resolution Foundation that tilting development towards cities is good for economic growth.
Why is it a problem to have a skew towards rural areas? First, let us acknowledge that when we talk about rural land, this is not land that is typically sitting there doing nothing. It is not idle; often, it is farmland. Of course, these days we are more acutely conscious than ever of the necessity for food security. It is also the home for nature, and important to biodiversity. The countryside is an amenity for everyone, whether they live in the countryside or in a town. We will be back in Westminster Hall tomorrow to debate the legacy and significance of Jane Austen. The countryside of the constituency that I represent is what inspired Jane to write her great novels, and it still brings many people to the area.
Yes, there are protected areas of countryside, but it is not only about areas of outstanding natural beauty or national parks—the majority of rural areas are not in one—nor is it about the green belt. In East Hampshire there is a lot of green, but there is no green belt. We have a further complication, in that the district of East Hampshire is shared in Parliament between myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford). The South Downs national park represents 26% or 27% of pre-existing housing and population in the district, but represents only 15% of housing completions in East Hampshire since it came into being. That creates extra pressure just outside the national park, in places such as Alton Holybourne, Four Marks and Medstead, which I will come back to, and in Horndean, Clanfield and parts of Rowlands Castle.
The Minister and I have had an opportunity to discuss this issue previously and I am grateful to him for his constructive engagement with it. I think that East Hampshire district council is right to assume that in the future there will be a split in housing development, reflecting where the pre-existing population and housing were. There is a 74% and 26% split. However, the council cannot do that for affordability. Unaffordability is significantly more acute inside the national park than outside it. However, I am not here today to talk about the national park primarily, because the bigger problem that is driving these issues is the total target.
We now also have effects of the duty to co-operate. It is possible that even with that split between 74% and 26%, the part of East Hampshire that is outside the national park might still get asked by the part that is inside the national park to take on more of its burden, and it is obliged to engage in those discussions constructively. However, we also now have other nearby authorities asking East Hampshire, and by the way a couple of other more rural authorities, to take on more of their housing numbers. So, we have this crazy situation whereby, with all the targets having gone up, people are looking to a district such as the one I represent to take more of their housing. But I should also say that none of those authorities have had an increase in their housing target as large as the one that East Hampshire has had.
We also have looming over us the effect of local government reorganisation. I think that some people see local government reorganisation—the merging of districts and boroughs into larger unitary authorities—as an opportunity and a way to address some of these problems. I fear that that might be a false hope. In fact, the creation of these large authorities might deepen or even embed some of these issues, with more housing being moved into countryside that will then be lost forever.
I will briefly give a case study of one area; it is not the only area where this situation applies, but it is a particularly striking example. It is Four Marks and Medstead. There is a grouping called Four Marks and South Medstead—it is called that in the planning document—and it is in tier three in the settlement hierarchy. It has already had a great deal of housing development. In the 2014 local plan, Four Marks and South Medstead had 2,030 houses and the target in the plan for the period to 2028 was 175 houses. The total number of new houses that have been built since 2014 is in fact 592, which is three times the original target. However, with further permissions and applications, there could be a great deal more houses. Indeed, there could be up to eight times the target and a two-thirds increase in the size of the settlement, and we even hear of further applications on top of all that.
What are the effects of that extra development? It takes a lot for a single housing development to change a local environment, but cumulatively a number of smaller developments can change the whole character of an area, which is at odds with paragraph 187 of the NPPF. And this is not just about character and landscape. It is also about practical matters, such as the A31 and being able to turn right on to it, or the capacity of the waste water treatment plant and the electricity substation at Alton.
I have talked about Four Marks and South Medstead. In the other part of the parish of Medstead, Medstead village itself and its surroundings are in tier four in the settlement hierarchy. There was no specific target for it in the plan, because Medstead village was put together with other villages. However, I have seen speculative applications for a number of sites in that area, particularly in the new land availability assessment.
So why is cumulative impact not being considered in all these developments and proposals? The main time that cumulative development is taken into account is, of course, at the time of plan-making. With speculative developments, when the cumulative effect is not considered, there is a risk that the developments do not meet the economic, social and environmental objectives set out in paragraph 8 of the NPPF.
The East Hampshire district local plan was adopted in 2014 for the period up to 2028, and the update process started in 2018. There have been some delays, including most notably as a result of covid. The key point is that under the old, pre-2024 housing targets, East Hampshire had a five-year housing land supply and the 5% buffer. We then got a rapid doubling of the housing targets. There is now no five-year housing land supply—there is a 2.9-year housing land supply. Given that we have doubled it, the only way we could still have a five-year land supply is if we had previously had a 10-year land supply, and I doubt that many local authorities can say that. That is why, although I am talking about East Hampshire, other colleagues may mention other areas; East Hampshire is clearly not alone.
Since the big increases in a number of the targets for different areas, I understand that most councils do not have both an up-to-date local plan and the five-year housing land supply. Speculative development is therefore probably happening in lots of places around the country, but it is especially concentrated in our rural areas, because they have had the biggest increases in targets.
East Hampshire is currently developing its new local plan. It expects to reach regulation 19 stage in the summer of 2026 and for the plan to be operational in August the following year. Until the local plan is finalised, the tilted balance principle means that the council is required to approve sites unless they can be said to be not sustainable development—a high bar indeed. Each application can be considered only on its own merits and in relation to its individual impact on traffic, sewerage and the rest of it. The council cannot consider the cumulative effect of, say, five smaller developments that might together be the equivalent of one big one. It cannot say, “Because we have already allowed these four, we are not going to allow the fifth.”
While I have the floor, I want to mention something that I have mentioned in passing to the Minister before: that the way the formula works does not encourage a change in the housing mix towards more actually affordable homes. To be clear, in areas like mine, we want more affordable homes. When I say “affordable”, I mean it in both senses of the word. What I call “capital-A Affordable” is the sense known to the public sector: social rent and part ownership. There is also “affordable” in the common English sense of the word—the affordability of housing as it is often expressed to us by our constituents in our surgeries, which is to say homes that young families can afford. Although not everybody does, most aspire to home ownership; I would wager that most hon. Members in the Grand Committee Room today had that aspiration to become home owners and did so.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
On affordability, I was at an open event for a development plan—a large development, as it happens—north of Dorchester, which will fundamentally change the natural characteristics of the town. On the display presented by the developers, the phrase “affordable housing” was actually in quotation marks. That was almost an acknowledgment of how ludicrous that statement is in relation to what is actually affordable for local people. Does the right hon. Gentleman think we need a better definition of what is affordable that is based on what is locally achievable?
Damian Hinds
I know the hon. Gentleman’s constituency quite well—he is my mother-in-law’s MP. I know what a fantastic and beautiful area it is, as well as some of the challenges with the local economy. He makes a very good point.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that affordability is linked to supply and demand? That is part of the reason why the Government wish to increase the supply, which in turn will bring prices down.
Damian Hinds
Of course, I agree. It is sometimes frustrating to talk to people who say there is no link between aggregate supply and the price of housing. Of course there is, but there is also the question of the mix, which is what I want to come to.
Other things being equal, the best returns for developers tend to be on larger, costlier homes, and new builds are generally more expensive than the existing stock of housing. In East Hampshire, the median price of the current housing stock is an expensive £430,000, but the median price of new houses is £530,000. With development and the increase in stock at a local level, median house prices therefore go up. The formula then calls for more of the same because of how it measures and treats affordability, so it becomes a cycle in which we still do not get the lower-cost homes we need. It could even be said that developers have an incentive to keep the unaffordability ratio increasing, because that extends the pipeline further into the future. I ask Ministers to look again to create incentives for quality, lower-priced housing.
I have three straightforward, reasonable asks of the Minister. The first and most important is, of course, to rebalance the formula away from rural—not so there is no rural, but so the balance is right and we do not have targets that mean an unrealistic amount is put into the countryside. It is about having that balance, which requires changing the formula.
I asked that of the Minister yesterday, and he was good enough to give me a pithy and clear single-word answer, which was no. I get that, unless and until it changes, the policy is what the policy is, so the answer is no. However, I ask him to reflect further and think about it, not to conflict with Government policy but to complement and support Government policy. A change in the formula—moving back towards the urban, from the rural—would actually support what he is trying to do, including the spirit of what he outlined in yesterday’s statement.
My second ask is to change the way the formula works on affordability, to remove the perverse affordability factor I mentioned. Affordability looms large in the overall formula, as it has had its weighting increased, but this is specifically about removing the perverse effect I just mentioned, whereby building more actually makes an area more unaffordable in the eyes of the formula, which therefore increases the target. I think the Minister will say that local authorities can do that in their plan making, but we need it to be systematised to find a way to require a change in the mix of housing so that we get homes that are more in reach of people growing up in rural areas.
Finally, in the meantime, as the targets have increased so much and so quickly—the five-year housing land supply in many areas could not possibly have increased nearly so quickly—we have a lot of speculative development. Therefore, pending the change in the formula, will the Minister give guidance stating that local authorities should consider the cumulative impact of all developments together?
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate.
First of all, the right hon. Gentleman spoke about supply, and eventually land prices will drop, given supply and demand. House builders are having to keep house prices up because they bought in at a higher land price, and we hope that supply increases will drive prices down. In my experience, there will always be compromise in development. It will need pragmatic and collegiate teamwork between local authorities and, I dare say, Members of Parliament.
I will focus on a particular aspect of house building, which is jobs. The country needs more homes, more of the jobs that will be created, and the investment, infrastructure and services that come with that. The Environmental Audit Committee reported last month on its investigation into cumulative impacts, and I was privileged to participate in its comprehensive and cogent analysis.
I particularly want to focus on the importance of jobs and careers in the house building sector. As well as jobs for tradespeople, there is also a need for planners, surveyors and ecologists. As many in this House know, I spent my career before Parliament as a surveyor, latterly involved in large, mixed-use sustainable brownfield development as a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. I have spoken before of the importance of skills, training and, especially, apprenticeships, which is unfortunately an area that the previous Government allowed to decline. Although the need for housing is urgent, it is clear that meeting that need comes with many challenges. Solving those challenges begins with understanding them and refocusing our effort to overcome them.
I know from visiting West College Scotland in my constituency that local colleges are enthusiastic to meet the challenges of training and skills. They are ready to adapt and deliver, and they are resourceful and innovative. They will rise to the challenge of delivering the new skills and emerging approaches needed to assess and address the cumulative environmental impacts, managing data and collaborative working. Employers need confidence to recruit apprentices across the board, including many trade apprentices. I hope to see many more level 7 apprenticeships in planning, ecology and surveying skills.
I have seen at first hand the value to employers of apprenticeships over traditional routes into surveying. I have seen young apprentices thrive in the workplace while making a real contribution to real projects alongside their learning. With the foundation of a good apprenticeship, the lives of hundreds of young people will be transformed. Although I appreciate how much more needs to be done to ensure that we protect the environment while building the houses our country needs, the rewards to the United Kingdom go well beyond building homes. Let us not forget the significant beneficial cumulative impacts of housing development.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair today, Mr Twigg.
We all recognise the need for genuinely affordable housing, but progress cannot be measured in house numbers alone if it leaves communities worse off. Wing Commander Ian Derbyshire from Payhembury recently contacted me after his wife, who is in her mid-70s, received a letter from her GP surgery in Cullompton to inform her that she had been removed from registration. She had been registered as a patient at Payhembury for over 20 years. Wing Commander Ian and Mrs Derbyshire had written twice to the Cullompton practice to find an explanation for why they had been removed from the surgery’s list, and they were advised to register with a practice that would perhaps be more distant from them. The reason they had to move was simply that new housing had been built between them and the GP surgery to which they were registered.
This is not a unique case. Another resident of Payhembury, aged 89, received an identical letter. It was only after my office made contact with the GP practice that the surgery explained the reason for these residents being reallocated. Mrs Derbyshire has significant memory problems. She finds comfort and reassurance in familiarity, and the prospect of moving GP surgeries, having to retell her medical history, navigating new systems and building trust from scratch fills her with dread. Indeed, this is where joined-up government has to come in, because the NHS knows it is good practice in primary care for patients to see the same doctor over time.
Wing Commander Derbyshire served as an RAF officer for decades. He and his wife moved around the world for 34 years, repeatedly being uprooted by service to our country. Now in later life, when they look for some stability, they are being displaced once more, not by a posting or indeed war, but by a lack of anticipation.
When houses are approved, built and occupied, GP provision lags behind. When surgeries reach breaking point, their current patients pay the price. That cannot be right, particularly in places that have been identified for significant additional housing, as in Cullompton, where we anticipate that over 5,000 new homes will be built as part of Culm garden village in the decades to come.
Under the current planning system, house builders are not automatically required to meet the capital costs associated with additional GP capacity. Local authorities can negotiate section 106 planning obligations with developers to secure financial contributions, but that is not built in. Indeed, these obligations are not obligations; they are discretionary and must meet strict legal tests of relevance, necessity and proportionality. In practice, that means housing growth outpaces the delivery of new or expanded GP facilities in places such as Cullompton.
We must not allow new housing to undermine the provision of healthcare, nor can we allow it to undermine the natural spaces that play a role in keeping people healthy and easing pressure on the health service. A report in The Guardian in October put the UK down as the fifth worst country in Europe for access to green space, because of the loss of it due to development. New housing must not come at the expense of nature or of protected landscapes, and any attempt by the Government to dilute these safeguards will be met with firm and determined opposition. We can and must build new homes for this country, but not by forcing the elderly from their GPs, by eroding our green spaces or by displacing the very communities those homes are meant to serve.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), my constituency neighbour, for securing this debate.
Housing and planning are among the issues I hear about most from my constituents across Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages. I do not hear about it in the abstract or as a theory, but in the very practical terms of pressure on schools, GP surgeries, roads and the character of their towns and villages. As my right hon. Friend said, this debate is not really about whether we need more homes. Of course we do; it is about where, how and at what cost.
Targets that ignore local reality do not solve the housing problem; they export it. In my constituency, which spans East Hampshire and Waverley councils, housing targets have more than doubled under the Government’s planning framework. Councils are left with a stark choice: rewrite their local plans at speed or have them overridden by the system. In East Hampshire, the annual requirement has jumped from around 570 homes a year to well over 1,100. In Waverley, it has risen from over 700 to nearly 1,500 homes a year. That is not gentle growth; it is a near doubling of development in a predominantly rural or semi-rural area.
The consequences are entirely predictable. Schools are already full. GP practices are struggling to recruit. Hospitals are under strain. Roads designed for villages and market towns are now expected to function like urban arteries. Yet the infrastructure is simply not there. We are being asked to build the homes first and hope that the roads, schools and GP surgeries turn up later.
What makes matters worse is the sheer imbalance in where this pressure is being applied, as has already been mentioned in this debate. In London, housing targets have been significantly reduced, in some cases by around half, despite London facing the greatest housing demand in the country. Cities are best placed to absorb growth—higher density, established public transport, major hospitals and universities, and the ability to scale infrastructure alongside development. By contrast, market towns and rural districts are being told to carry a disproportionate burden. That does not fix the problem; it just shifts it on to communities that are least able to cope.
Take East Hampshire. Around 57% of the district lies within the South Downs national park, which means the remaining land outside the park is absorbing an ever-greater concentration of development. Places like Liphook in my constituency are being stretched to breaking point, and even towns that are ripe for development, such as Whitehill and Bordon, are under pressure because housing development is accelerating faster than services can keep up. Protected countryside on one side, relentless development on the other—that is not planning; it is pressure cooking our communities.
If we are serious about meeting housing need, targets must be fair, realistic and aligned with local capacity. Growth should go where infrastructure already exists, not where it is weakest.
There is also a serious issue of public confidence. Where councils cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, the Planning Inspectorate almost invariably sides with the developers, regardless of the strength of local objection. In those circumstances, residents rely on their local authority to defend them robustly. I was deeply concerned when a controversial development in Haslemere was approved on appeal, despite well-documented objections and its location within the Surrey hills national landscape. What compounded that concern was the response of the Liberal Democrat leadership of Waverley borough council, which wrote to residents telling them to “move on” before all reasonable avenues to challenge the decision had been explored. That is simply unacceptable. When residents are fighting for their community, “move on” is not leadership; it is surrender.
Labour’s new targets risk collapsing trust in the planning system, rather than restoring it. Councils that claim to stand up for local people must actually do so when it matters. We will not build the homes we need by riding roughshod over communities, overwhelming infrastructure and eroding faith in our local democracy. We need a planning system that is credible, balanced and rooted in reality—one that builds homes in the right places and at the right pace, with the infrastructure alongside them. If we fail to do that, we will not just fail to meet the housing need, we will leave communities paying the price for decades to come.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for bringing attention to this important issue. As far as local planning authorities are concerned, what matters is not the national target for housing but the local target as set by the standard method. At heart, the standard method compares local house prices with local wages. With a little jiggery pokery, that produces a number allegedly related to local needs. Unfortunately, the standard method is an especially bad way to devise a housing strategy. It was bad when the Conservatives invented it, and it is no better now under Labour, now that the numbers have been tweaked to produce even higher results. Far from solving the housing crisis, the standard method is the direct reason why we now have 1.4 million unbuilt permissions—wrong permissions in the wrong places at unsaleable prices. The more we load further badly allocated permissions on to what is already there, the worse it will get.
My constituency of Horsham will be granting new fantasy permissions on the edges of estates that do not exist yet and may not do so for decades to come. Multiple new estates will be attempting to attract customers within a few miles of each other. Of course, each new estate slows down the build-out rate for what is already there, so the net gain in housing delivery is questionable. It is also the most wasteful way to use land that one could possibly come up with. Most local planning authorities, like Horsham, are obliged to choose from whatever sites private developers promote to them. As a result, we are plagued with edge-of-town suburban developments that cost too much when they are built, and take up too much land in the process. Relying on private developers to bring down house prices always was a grossly over-optimistic strategy. And guess what? It is not working.
In Horsham, we have also been faced with a unique additional circumstance called water neutrality. This started with a ruling by Natural England that came out of the blue, prohibiting any increase in water abstraction from our main source in the Arun valley, in case it compromised a rare wetland habitat. For a four-year period, Horsham district council was not allowed to approve any new development at all if it increased water consumption by so much as a single litre. Needless to say, that was a stiff challenge to meet. As a result, the council slipped from being one of the best in class for housing delivery to one of the worst today. Extraordinarily, throughout this whole period, planning inspectors continued to assess HDC against its centrally mandated house building target of a little more than 900 a year. They took no account at all of the reason why the houses could not be built. It was literally against the law for Horsham to obey the law, and that was a gross injustice that remains uncorrected.
A few weeks ago, just as abruptly as the water neutrality was imposed, it was lifted. Horsham has now been left exposed to almost unlimited speculative development because we are so very far from being able to show a five-year land supply—it is probably under one year now. The immediate major consequence has been the approval at appeal for 800 houses at a site known as Horsham golf and fitness village. That development was not included in the emerging local plan, because it was judged to fatally undermine the green gap between Horsham and Southwater. It has no school or clinic and is on the wrong side of a dual carriageway. It is also barely half a mile from a much larger potential site for 1,200 homes, known as West of Southwater. The Southwater site is in the local plan and does have the relevant facilities. That is the site that should be built on.
Because the Government have thus far refused to help Horsham out of its unique problem, we have a chaotic situation of planning by appeal. The whole strategic logic of plan-led development is in jeopardy in my area. There is no present way for Horsham district council to argue the impact of cumulative housing development, because there is always a presumption in favour of development for almost anything that comes forward, as previous speakers have mentioned.
In the worst case scenario, it could be several years before Horsham has an approved local plan, by which time untold damage will have been done to our strategic planning and countryside. Under the previous Government, Ministers seemed to confuse water neutrality with nutrient neutrality and nothing was done. To his credit, the current Minister understands the situation perfectly well. We still do not have a solution, however.
That is very disappointing because a solution would be easy to implement and could be done without compromising the Government’s overall housing ambitions. In fact, I believe it would deliver the Minster’s intentions more completely. The Minister has already kindly agreed to meet me in the new year. I hope we can have a satisfactory conversation and find a solution to this problem, which is grossly unfair to the people of Horsham. There has to be a way forward.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for setting the scene so well. I will obviously bring a Northern Ireland perspective on the impacts of housing development. I want to be fairly positive about how we do things; it is important to understand what we are doing in Northern Ireland and for us to understand what is happening here across the water.
Housing developments are foundations for social stability and improving the economy. I have a close working relationship with many of the developers back home, especially in Newtownards, where there is substantial development in Comber and Ballynahinch at present. There will always be difficulties. By their nature, housing developments bring imponderables to the local communities and associations. It is about how we address those things. I have often had meetings with the developers and local community groups to try to iron out some of the problems. We understand that the planners are independent; they sit between and make the decisions. Representations can also be made to planners as an individual. By and large, we have found those meetings to have gone well.
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on healthy homes and buildings, which is committed to ensuring that homes are healthy, better environmentally and more efficient, and that they have green areas, playgrounds, car accessibility and charging points. All those are part of building somewhere that people can have as a family home for a lifetime, which is what we are trying to achieve. I make that point because there is a real need for social housing, which I want to illustrate. Housing should never be for private development alone. There has to be a social housing trend, portion or section.
As of March to September 2025, there were 49,000 applicants on the Northern Ireland Housing Executive waiting list, with 38,000 in housing stress with immediate need. That gives an idea of the situation. I have been fortunate to have 400 social housing units built in my constituency, although that does not really reach the need. When we have developments, there needs to be an understanding that there must be some commitment from the developer for social housing needs within that. I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts here on the mainland about what is being done to ensure opportunities for those who are more likely to rent a house than to buy one.
The other issue in Northern Ireland, particularly in my constituency, is that house prices have risen more than in other parts of the United Kingdom. In my constituency of Strangford, house prices are among the highest in the whole of Northern Ireland. I can speak for my constituency, and the house price increase is shocking. The other issue I have found is that mortgages are quite clearly almost beyond the reach of those who want to buy a house. I know that the Government have committed to ensuring that there is help for first-time buyers, but in Northern Ireland I do not see much of that help. I ask the Minister, respectfully as always: what can be done to help first-time buyers to get on the first rung of the ladder?
I bought my house back in 1987, which is when I finished it. When I tell Members how much I built it for, they will say, “My goodness me. Is that possible?” It cost £27,000 then and today it is worth over £325,000. That house is no longer mine—it is my brother’s; I have moved to the farmhouse—but the point is that there were opportunities to build a house at that price umpteen years ago. I remember very well that when I left school, there was a man who came to Ballywalter to live. He bought my father’s coal business, and I got to know him—I was only 16, so the couple were “Mr and Mrs”. He built his house—in 1971, so not yesterday—for £3,750. A four-bed house—my goodness. I remember saying to him—as we did in those young days, at 16 years old—“Mr Dowds, how will you ever be able to pay your house back?” How wrong was I? In 1971, the price of houses was much smaller, and if he had been able to buy two of them, he would definitely have been quids in.
Alison Taylor
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. When it comes to young people wanting to get on to the housing ladder, does he agree that five cuts to interest rates is a good start for this Government?
I also totally agree with the hon. Gentleman about more positivity in terms of working with local authorities to find solutions. After a 30-year career in property development, I know that development is never easy. It is about finding pragmatic solutions and working together, and there is a role for the MP to get involved, working with our local authorities.
Jim Shannon
I intervened on the hon. Lady in the Chamber yesterday and she has returned the compliment today in Westminster Hall. I recognise what she say—and by the way, I do not take anything away from the Government. I support their target of 1.5 million houses, whether or not they reach it, because it is important to have housing and opportunity, whether for social housing or first-time buyers. I welcome the Government’s commitment. It is not about negativity; it is about how we can take it forward in a positive way.
There are many positive impacts of housing developments, including job creation, local economic growth and investment attraction. However, there are some other crucial aspects that must be taken into consideration. For example, with new housing, there will be a loss of green space. I understand that, but I also understand that people need to have housing to live in. There will be water and air quality issues, pollution, traffic congestion, new infrastructure in the form of roads, clinics, schools and maybe small shops as well. They are all part of this, but if we work with developers and have that in our plans and work with councils, then hopefully we can agree a way forward.
Multiple new developments can overwhelm roads, junctions and parking, leading to congestion and increased travel times. A whole new ring road is being built outside my town, Newtownards, which will open up housing on both sides and create opportunity. Another development in Newtownards, which will have 670 houses, will connect to the last part of that ring road, which is really important —[Interruption.] Sorry, Mr Twigg. I am coming to an end. We also have to get water, electricity, gas, broadband and waste disposal.
Although housing development is essential to meet the needs of a growing population and support economic growth, we cannot overlook the cumulative impacts of multiple developments. Only by balancing the benefits of new homes with careful consideration of their combined impact will we create resilient, thriving communities where people want to live, work, grow and play.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts. He is very assiduous and always gives us good answers to our questions. I am keen to hear whether he has had an opportunity to talk to the Minister back home in the Northern Ireland Assembly—I know he does not have responsibility for what happens here in England—to see whether we can learn from each other.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Before I call the last two Back Benchers, let me say that I will be calling the Lib Dem spokesman no later than 3.30 pm.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing this debate.
We have heard several contributions about the cumulative impacts, which is an important term. Although the impacts come within the planning remit, they are often not given the priority that they ought to have. In fact, they ought to be the prime consideration in any new development.
I welcome the Government’s proposal to develop more than 1.5 million homes over the next five years, because in the city of Birmingham and my constituency, Birmingham Perry Barr, the housing shortage is an enormous problem. Somewhere in the region of 25,000 families are living in temporary accommodation. I often hear about split families, with the husband and some children living in one part of the city and the wife and some children living in another part, so housing is an important and desperate need.
Building new homes is not just about the bricks and mortar. Other hon. Members have eloquently set out the other important infrastructure necessities, so I will not repeat that, but I want to talk about a development in my constituency. The athletes’ village was meant to be a legacy project. It cost somewhere in the region of half a billion pounds, and it was meant to deliver 1,200 to 1,400 family units. It was originally meant to be used by the athletes arriving to participate in the Commonwealth games, and after that the properties were, in tranches, going to become social and affordable homes.
Hon. Members have already talked about the word “affordable”. When I graduated, I started my first job on an income of, I think, about £14,000. I purchased my first home at the cost of £30,000, and I was able to pay off the complete mortgage within a number of years. Developers now give people the option of purchasing 50:50, so they get a mortgage for half the value of the property. “Value” is the buzzword, because the value of the property is determined by the area in which it is built. Affordable homes are not really affordable; that word often gets used to make it seem like people can get on to the property ladder, but they are not really offered much.
The athletes’ village was, at first sight, an extremely welcome development. It would provide extra units that we desperately needed in that inner-city area, but the problems are now emerging. It was not planned very well. In London, it is acceptable for tower blocks with many units to be built because there is the transport infrastructure, and people are used to going out and doing small amounts of shopping—that is the lifestyle—but for residents of Birmingham it is an enormous challenge. The families who live there were essentially blackmailed into taking on those properties. If a band A homeless person is given the option of taking on a new home, they will bite the council’s hand because they would rather be living in a permanent new home than temporary accommodation. Some of that temporary accommodation is absolutely awful.
The families are now struggling, because they have no parking spaces. Residents on one neighbouring street are up in arms, because some of their parking spaces have been taken. It is becoming very toxic, and a number of vehicles have been vandalised. It is causing serious problems in the local community. I have taken the issue up with the acting chief executive of Birmingham city council, and we are looking at ways to deal with the matter.
I will not take up much more time, but I would welcome a meeting with the Minister, or a member of his team, to see how we can resolve this issue in Birmingham Perry Barr. It will require additional support—perhaps to acquire some land so that we can resolve parking issues. This is just one of the issues we get when we do not think properly about the cumulative impact. That should be paramount. Once again, I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire for securing this valuable debate.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing the debate.
The subject of cumulative development has reared its head in my constituency very recently. On Saturday, I hosted a public meeting about plans by Martin Grant Homes to build more than 200 homes on the area known as Saunders Lane—green-belt land between Hook Heath and Mayford in Woking. The venue for the meeting was Mayford village hall, and people were queueing out the door. There were hundreds of people—standing room only. The response was overwhelming, and the message from my community was clear: people are united in not wanting to lose these green-belt fields forever.
The area is already poorly connected and struggling with weak infrastructure as it is—let alone with significant housing development. My residents are deeply concerned about the impact on the local environment, the transport system, wider public services and the character of the area.
On top of the objections to the Saunders Lane plans, there are concerns about the cumulative impact. Only on the next road, Egley Road, 86 homes and a 62-bed care home are under construction, and there is a planning application for 74 new properties. In the very same village, about half a mile down the road, there is planning application for 200 retirement homes and a further care home on Sutton Green golf club. Because all the applications are speculative, the cumulative impact has not been considered.
My local authority, Woking borough council, has started to draft a new local plan, in which locally elected councillors and local people can decide where we build the homes we need. The developers, including Martin Grant, are wrong to pre-empt that fair and democratic process and take away the right of my constituents to shape the future of our area. Because they are pre-empting it, we cannot assess the cumulative impact.
I will be writing to the council and the developer to summarise what happened at Saturday’s meeting and urge everyone to put forward their views. It is blindingly clear that local people feel strongly about where they live. The community is very much alive and well in Mayford, and I am proud that I could respond to and lead the community in such a manner.
Woking is keen to build homes. We have given planning permission for well over 2,000 properties, which are not being built. Planning permission is not the problem in Woking and many other constituencies; the problems are in the construction sector. Will the Minister reassure me and my constituents that we in Woking can be allowed to shape our area, agree which green fields the local plan will protect, and say where development should happen, without being overturned by decisions from Whitehall?
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this important debate. It is a truth universally acknowledged that an MP in possession of a majority, however big, must be in want of a debate, so I am full of admiration for the right hon. Gentleman staying tomorrow to debate Jane Austen in Westminster Hall. As for myself, I am hoping to get away before that, so this will be my last appearance before Christmas. I therefore take the opportunity to wish hon. Members, the House staff who look after us so amazingly well, the officials, yourself, Mr Twigg, and even the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) a very merry Christmas, although I know he would prefer that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) were here instead of me.
I say with some hesitation that I am hoping to go home before that, because it has been something of a week for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I am not quite sure how the Minister is still standing—he is sitting down now, but must need a break. Knowing the Minister’s prodigious amount of activity this week, perhaps tomorrow we will have three Bills and two White Papers coming out and I will be brought back here, but hopefully not. Yesterday, we were debating quarrying and planning—it was a blast. I did not know that I would be getting up and sitting down so many times on MCHLG business this week, but one could say that the Chairman of Ways and Means shapes our destinies, rough-hew them as we may.
I will move on to the more serious points of the debate about the cumulative impact of housing development. I fear that it is worse than the right hon. Member for East Hampshire surmises, because although I remember from my A-level economics that, in a perfect market, increasing supply should reduce price, we need to remember that in any locality in the country, we do not have a perfect market in house building. We have usually one supplier, maybe two, controlling the supply of homes to the market, drip-feeding them to sustain their prices. Any private house builder that went into business to reduce prices would rightly be punished by their shareholders. Putting private house builders in charge of reducing house prices is a bit like putting Herod in charge of childcare. As another seasonal reference, I am forced to consider what would be the cumulative impact of stables being used under permitted development for change of use to emergency temporary accommodation for young mothers.
The point that I think the right hon. Gentleman is really getting to with cumulative impact is the prolific number of permissions that are coming about outside the plan-led process. The plan-led process is so important because it is where cumulative impacts can be properly gauged and established. Any development that is not in the local plan, unless it has an environmental impact assessment, is not going to carry out a cumulative impact assessment. That is why we are so concerned that the Government’s recent announcements will undermine that plan-led process, with so many loopholes. To take one example, there is the abolition of the town centre-first approach for retail development, but there are many others that will undermine that plan-led process.
There is a particular need to look at the cumulative impact when it comes to flooding. The Environmental Audit Committee has recommended that the Government revise the guidance on the cumulative impact for flooding for this very reason. Many of the developments being discussed will not carry out cumulative impact assessments because they are outside the local plan or are sub-EIA development. I ask the Minister whether and to what extent the Government will carry out that review. Flooding is a massive issue for Rockwell Green and Hilly Head in my Taunton and Wellington constituency, which has been flooded twice in the last five to 10 years. We need to see a proper cumulative impact assessment of flood impact and flood risk.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
The cumulative impact of development in Tewkesbury is nothing less than a threat to the continuing viability of Tewkesbury as a permanent settlement. The Environmental Audit Committee recently produced a report on flood resilience in England. Would my hon. Friend join me in asking the Government if they will implement recommendation 89 to make water bodies statutory consultees on development?
Gideon Amos
My hon. Friend makes a massively important point—absolutely, they should be statutory consultees. He gives me the opportunity to raise an even more serious concern. From careful reading of the Government’s snappily titled consultation on statutory consultees, alongside the ministerial statement of 10 March this year, it appears—I hope the Minister can put me right—that they are considering cancelling and withdrawing the direction that prevents councils from granting planning permission, against the advice of the Environment Agency, in flood risk areas. They are certainly consulting on that basis, so I hope the Minister will clarify whether that is the intended approach and how many homes in flood risk areas he expects will be permitted, against the advice of the Environment Agency, if they go ahead with that change. It is a very serious matter and could affect areas across the country—not only Rockwell Green in my constituency, but places far further afield.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) made excellent points about the need for cumulative impact to be properly considered. My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) felt that plan-led development in his constituency was in jeopardy. I agree: after yesterday’s announcement, I feel that plan-led development is in jeopardy everywhere. The Saunders Lane development in Woking is a classic example of where proper consideration of cumulative impact is required.
The Liberal Democrats would pursue a different approach. Cognisant of the market conditions that exist in relation to private house building, we would focus on public investment in a programme of 150,000 social and council rent homes. In fact, we have never met the housing figure of 300,000 per year, except when we have had a big programme of council and social housing. With that element missing, private house building has bubbled along at more or less similar levels; third sector housing has increased somewhat. The big missing element has been council and publicly funded social homes.
For the reasons that I have set out, without a massive injection of such homes, we cannot rely on private house builders to increase supply in any meaningful way, however many permissions above and beyond the 1.4 million homes that have planning permission already, but are not being built, are given out. That figure, as my hon. Friends have explained, so clearly and starkly demonstrates why the challenge is not the issuing of planning permissions, but how to get those permissions built out. We urge the Minister to use much stronger “use it or lose it” measures to tackle unbuilt permissions. I welcomed the statement that he made in the summer about taking forward such measures, but we have yet to see anything really happen in that regard.
We need to remember those who cannot afford homes, and that however many private house builders provide more private homes, 99% of them will be out of reach of people who cannot afford a first home. That is why we need there to be social homes, but we also need a new generation of rent-to-own homes, so that people can get on the home ownership ladder at an early stage in life.
With that, Mr Twigg, I once again wish you a merry Christmas.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on raising this important issue for debate today. He and I—as well as our hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) —represent stunning Hampshire constituencies, with renowned countryside walking routes and picturesque towns and villages. I still reckon I have the better deal, as my constituents have the “Costa del Hamble”, but I know that my right hon. Friend would definitely say the same about his patch.
May I briefly respond to something that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), said? I do not know whether he planned it as an early Christmas present for me, but the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) walked in while he was speaking. That was a good thing to see.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire has instilled in me a sense of déjà vu, which demonstrates the length of time that he has been campaigning on these issues for his constituency. We had a Westminster Hall debate before, and he is right that he cross-examined the Minister, who gave a very pithy response yesterday in the NPPF statement. I know that my right hon. Friend works very hard for his constituents, to make sure that he can get them the acquiescence that they seek from the Government.
I congratulate East Hampshire council on developing a local plan and, now, taking the responsible step of renewing it. That shows the kind of leadership that is needed. However, my right hon. Friend raised a number of important points, and I hope that the Minister will answer them. First, he asked about affordability, and about the rise in speculative development because of the lack of five-year housing supply, but the new targets have completely ripped up and undermined the plan-led approach to spatial planning, which the Government are rightly seeking and which I would argue forms the backbone of the planning system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon said that planning is a huge issue in his postbag. I, too, have that issue, and I suspect that Members from across the House who made brilliant speeches this afternoon also have that issue in their constituencies. It is love of our communities and respect for their unique characters that brought us all here to the Chamber today.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire and I know that our constituents are not against building more homes in principle—there is a clear need to build many more houses up and down the country; that is a simple fact—but people are asking for the right houses to be built in the right places, and for community resources and infrastructure to be invested in to sustain a growing population, a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon made in his contribution. That is why it is so important that we properly assess the impacts of housing development. When multiple housing developments are lumped together, they overwhelm communities, stretch scarce resources and dilute the character of our towns. Over time, people begin to lose their vital sense of belonging and communities lose their identity.
The house building sector makes a substantial contribution to the economy. In 2023, new house building generated £53.3 billion in economic output across Great Britain, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs in house building firms and their contractors, as well as the wider supply chain. But economic benefit depends on stability, confidence and deliverability, and an approach that relies on unrealistic targets, rising costs and declining affordability risks undermining the very industry the Government claim to champion.
The impacts of housing developments manifest in numerous key areas. One huge concern, which I receive countless emails about from my constituents—no doubt all Members present can say the same—is the environmental impact of housing developments. The Government had the chance to address such concerns through Lords amendments 38 and 40 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which my Conservative colleagues in the other Chamber supported. However, the Government chose to ignore them, leaving unanswered questions about the environmental harm of their planning process.
We know and agree that ripping up the green belt is not the answer. Once the green belt is lost, it is lost forever, and that is why my Conservative colleagues and I have called for the swift redevelopment of brownfield sites, something that—to give the Minister credit—he did address yesterday in the NPPF update. The Campaign to Protect Rural England’s “State of Brownfield” report showed that we have more brownfield land now than in previous years. It highlighted that in a substantial number of local authorities, there is enough brownfield land with planning permission to meet the housing targets set by the Government’s standard method for calculating housing need for at least the next five years.
The Government’s plan for new homes disproportionately places the responsibility on rural communities to reach their target, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire outlined. The 2024 reforms to the national planning policy framework, introducing mandatory housing targets and a new standard method for calculating local housing need, redistributed top-down housing targets to rural areas from urban areas by Government diktat. As my right hon. Friend outlined, East Hampshire council’s targets doubled, while London’s housing allocations were cut by 11%, Birmingham’s by 38% and Coventry’s by 55%. In Eastleigh in my constituency, which has already built more than is required, the allocation is up by 42%, and in Fareham in the other half of my constituency, it is up by 62%.
That is particularly concerning given that, as my right hon. Friend outlined, many younger people whom we want to achieve and get on the housing ladder want to live in metropolitan urban centres. I am pleased that the Government listened to the calls of the Conservative Opposition on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Committee. We called for an incentive for densification in urban centres; it was rejected by the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), but now the Government have come forward with one, which we welcome.
The point that my right hon. Friend made is that Government regulations and Government legislation are competing against each other. I hope that the Minister will answer my right hon. Friend’s challenge. The new NPPF will designate and allow urban densification, but housing targets in rural areas have massively increased, acting as a competing objective. Which is more important—the NPPF or the housing targets? If housing in towns, in which it is much easier to regenerate and to increase housing numbers, is to be increased, housing targets cannot be uplifted greatly in rural areas but reduced in urban centres.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
In my constituency we have had a 113% increase in our housing targets. A seven-year land supply has now dropped to little over three and a half years, making us susceptible to the very speculative developments that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Does he share my concern that in the circumstances in which speculative developments come forward, we lose the opportunity to plan strategically the infrastructure upgrades that a community needs, and each development brings only a small, incremental increase?
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon made that point, I was about to make it, and the hon. Gentleman’s Liberal Democrat colleagues also made it, so there is universal acclaim for his claim, but it is also absolutely correct. I hope the Minister addresses that.
As the amount of housing increases, community infrastructure and resources must be expanded accordingly. That means more schools, GP surgeries, train and bus stations, hospitals, paved roads, bin collections and street lighting, to name just a few of the essentials. The list goes on and on; those are just some of the things we need to consider when looking at where to build. We must get better at prioritising those vital services, while recognising that not every development is right for the area it is proposed for.
We all know that under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended, local authorities can secure investment to fund new services and infrastructure in the local area, but the system is struggling to keep up with demand. Over a third of all section 106 agreements took longer than 12 months to finalise. Some 76% of local authorities reported an average timeline exceeding a year, and in over a third of councils it was over 500 days. In 2024-25, 45% of local planning authorities had agreements finalised that had taken over 1,000 days to complete. Dose the Minister agree that in order to unlock some of the housing that is needed, we need a simplified and standardised method for section 106 notices across the country? [Interruption.] He says yes from a sedentary position. I look forward to his affirming that in his comments shortly, but we would support that.
John Milne
I very much agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the lack of infrastructure provision and with his previous comments on the failure to prioritise brownfield, but does he recognise that all those errors were inherent in the previous system under the Conservative Government? The problem is that they have not been corrected. They were always there, and that is why MPs across the country have been complaining.
Paul Holmes
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman slightly. I remember that in the last Parliament, under the Conservative Government, there absolutely was a commitment from Planning Ministers and Secretaries of State to prioritise brownfield development. That was announced during our time in government by the former Prime Minister but three, and by a number of Ministers in the MHCLG.
Paul Holmes
Well, I believe the hon. Gentleman will have watched the news. I would be the first to acknowledge that we had quite a few in the last Parliament, but there absolutely was prioritisation of brownfield sites first. We prioritised building houses where they were needed, not where they were not.
What steps do the Government plan to take to protect rural communities feeling the adverse effects of increased housing development? If the Government are serious about building homes and maintaining public confidence in the planning system, they must take cumulative impacts seriously, plan infrastructure properly and ensure that developments work with communities, not against them—something that the Liberal Democrats and my party have been very clear will be removed by the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and the English devolution Bill.
I have been very clear about my concerns regarding the Government’s housing targets and the credibility of the 1.5 million homes ambition, which is now being questioned by a number of experts. If the Government are serious about supporting the house building sector and securing its economic benefits, they must ensure that housing delivery is realistic, properly planned and supported by the necessary infrastructure. Crucially, this requires a far greater focus on the cumulative impact of development so that growth is sustainable, communities are supported, and the long-term economic and social benefits of house building are not undermined.
Finally, Mr Twigg, I wish you, the Clerks and staff, the Minister, and even the Liberal Democrats a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this important debate today, and for introducing it with his customary clarity and civility. It has been a thoughtful and considered debate and I thank all other hon. Members for the contributions they have made. Whether it is simply the result of good fortune or the product of the right hon. Member’s powers of persuasion, this is not the first time we have debated house building in his constituency this year. We also had—as he made reference to—what I hope he will agree was a useful meeting back in March with officers from East Hampshire district council to discuss the challenges his local planning authority faces in setting housing requirements, given the proportion of it covered by the South Downs national park.
In the time I have available to me I intend to address the main points raised by the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members, with the usual caveat that I am unable to comment on individual local plans or planning applications, given the role of MHCLG Ministers in the planning system.
I will start with some general comments on housing targets, given that the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly clear in his remarks that they are at the heart of his concerns, but I will also touch on the interesting points made on affordability more generally and on tenure mix. In the NPPF published on 12 December last year, we restored mandatory housing targets that were abolished by the previous Government. We restored them, as our manifesto committed us to doing. It means local authorities must use the standard method as the basis for determining housing requirements in their local plans.
However, we have almost always made it clear that a mandatory method is insufficient if the method itself is not adequate to meet housing need. That is why the NPPF, published last year, introduced a new standard method for assessing housing need that is aligned to our stretching plan for change target of building 1.5 million new safe and decent homes in England by the end of this Parliament. I gently say to the shadow Minister: if he calls that number unrealistic, in his own manifesto, in the bidding war that was pursued during the general election, his own party came out with a 1.6 million number. How a Conservative Government would have set about achieving that is a question for another day.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned affordability with both a capital and a lower case “a”; in its lowercase sense, I say to him that boosting the supply of homes of all tenures has to be at the heart of any strategy to address affordability. There is a wealth of evidence that building more housing for private market sale makes other types of housing more affordable now. Such is the mismatch between housing supply and demand—the result of successive Governments not building enough homes of all tenures, and I include my own party as well as his in that. Tenure obviously still matters. We look primarily to local planning authorities to set the tenure mix in their own local areas, but the draft framework that we published yesterday includes firmer expectations in relation particularly to housing sites over 150 units. We want to see the right type of housing come forward.
Damian Hinds
The Minister is very good to give way; I thank him. To be clear, when I was talking about the mix, I was not talking solely or even mainly about the tenure mix, but about the price points and the way that the formula works—he gets the point.
Matthew Pennycook
The point was well made and well understood, and I will address it shortly. The new standard method that we introduced relies on a baseline set at a percentage of existing housing stock levels to better reflect housing pressures right across the country. It uses a stronger affordability multiplier to focus additional growth on the places facing the biggest affordability challenge. In general terms, it is a vast improvement on the standard method it replaced, which was based on household projections that were volatile, subject to change every few years and subject to unevidenced and arbitrary adjustments, with the result that local planning authorities found it extremely difficult to plan for housing over their 10 to 15-year plan periods.
I did, in response to the question put to me yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman, give a pithy and straightforward answer. The Government have no intention of withdrawing or modifying the standard method that is now in operation. On the specific point he raised, where affordability ratios fall, the uplift would also fall because it applies over an affordability ratio of 5:1—that is the Office for National Statistics affordability threshold.
I think I understood the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the short-term impact, but the only way to bring the affordability ratio down is to build many more homes of all types, and that is what the target is intended to do. However, it is a complex and technical point and he may wish to write to me on it.
Damian Hinds
I will write to the Minister in more detail—but if, in adding to the stock, we raise the median house price, that has an adverse effect on affordability. We get this ironic situation where the more we build, the less affordable it looks.
Matthew Pennycook
I do not think that is correct—at least not in the medium to long term. Going back to the point I just made about supply and demand, we have to build sufficient volumes of homes to arrest the steady rise over many years in house prices and start to gently bring them down over time. We are some way away from that, but the affordability uplift should respond over time if we start to build, in a high and sustainable manner, the large number of homes we need.
I will now address the rural-urban balance, which was raised by a number of colleagues. We have had this debate before. We recognise that the targets we have introduced are ambitious and they do mean uplifts in many areas, but such is the severity of the housing crisis in England that all parts of the country, including rural areas, must play their part in providing the volume of homes the country needs.
However, it is not the case that the new formula directs housing growth away from large urban areas. We scrapped the arbitrary 35% urban uplift that the previous Government applied to the 20 largest cities and urban centres—and the core of those centres, as was mentioned. However, across city regions, the new standard method increases targets by 20%. Through it, housing growth is directed to a wider range of urban areas, including smaller cities and urban areas as well as larger city areas.
London was referenced; under the previous Government, housing targets in London were deliberately set at entirely unrealistic levels because that arbitrary 35% standard method was applied not just to the core of our capital city, but to every London borough. We have revised that number down, but London still has a stretching house building target, which we increased in response to feedback to the consultation we received.
In the draft framework yesterday, as the shadow Minister and other hon. Members recognised, we also gave more support for a brownfield-first approach to housing. We welcome responses to the draft framework, through which we now have in-principle support for development within settlements, subject to specified exemptions where there could be unacceptable impacts. We have built on that with the announcement of a default “yes” for development on land within reasonable walking distance around train stations.
Local plans have been mentioned a number of times; in some ways, this gets to the heart of the matter. I would first say to the Liberal Democrat spokesman that, far from undermining the plan-led system, the announcements we made yesterday will strengthen the plan-led system. The clear, rules-based policies in that new draft framework will make it easier for local authorities to come forward under the new system of local plan making and get those plans in place more quickly and effectively.
Why do they need to be in place more quickly and effectively? Because authorities with an up-to-date local plan will typically meet the five-year housing land supply, which is what is required to pass the examination in the first place. Having a local plan in place supports a much more comprehensive approach to considering cumulative impacts of development, so we need those local plans in place across the country. It is not my party’s fault that we do not have universal coverage of local plans. I remember standing for years where the shadow Minister is now, telling Conservative Housing Ministers on this side of the Chamber to take effective action to use the full range of their intervention powers to drive up local plans. We are not there, but this Government are committed to doing that.
The right hon. Member for East Hampshire knows about this, as we have discussed it before: local authorities are able to justify a lower housing requirement than the figure that the standard method sets, on the basis of local constraints on land and delivery, such as natural landscapes, protected habitats and flood-risk areas.
Cameron Thomas
I thank the Minister very much for giving way, and I wish him a merry Christmas. Nothing would empower my local authority more than the Government implementing recommendation 89 of the EAC’s report into flood resilience in England. Will his Department do that?
Matthew Pennycook
We will respond in due course to that report, in the usual way. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about flood risk; I am trying to set out that local constraints can be taken into account in the context of local plans. Government provide flexibility in policy for areas that have such local constraints when calculating housing needs and setting targets, and we provided further guidance on the matter alongside the December 2024 NPPF.
East Hampshire district council is availing itself of that flexibility through the use of a locally determined method, as part of its efforts to progress towards submitting its plan for examination. My officials have been actively supporting that process, including by facilitating an advisory visit for the Planning Inspectorate, and I will continue to meet with officers to discuss any further support.
Several hon. Members mentioned the duty to co-operate. Local authorities often face pressure from neighbouring authorities to meet unmet housing needs under the duty. I recently announced that the duty as a legal provision will cease to exist once the new planning system regulations come into force early next year. However, East Hampshire and neighbouring authorities will still be expected to show that they have collaborated across boundaries, including on meeting unmet need, in line with the current and draft NPPF, which set out policies on maintaining effective co-operation.
I understand hon. Members’ long-standing concerns about infrastructure. The Government are aware that there is more to do across Government and with the sector to ensure that the right infrastructure gets built. I draw hon. Members’ attention to the remarks I made in the statement yesterday. The previous NPPF, from December 2024, strengthened the support for infrastructure —particularly essential infrastructure such as health services and schools—and the latest draft, which we published yesterday, consolidates and strengthens that. On top of that, through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which should receive Royal Assent this week, we are streamlining the delivery of nationally critical infrastructure, from rail to roads to reservoirs, across the country.
The shadow Minister asked me about section 106. We want to see a simpler, more transparent and more robust section 106 system. That should include standardised templates. As the NPPF published yesterday shows, we think that, in the first instance, that should be rolled out on medium sites.
To conclude, I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire once again for giving the House an opportunity to discuss this important range of matters. As in our debate earlier this year, I appreciate that I will not have convinced him of the merits of the Government’s approach to planning reform or the standard method, but I hope that I have provided him and other hon. Members with sufficient reassurance in respect of local plans, infrastructure and other important matters. I too wish all hon. Members, you, Mr Twigg, House staff and officials a merry Christmas. I hope that everyone has a well-deserved break.
Damian Hinds
I thank the Minister for his considered remarks and for his constructive approach to date—the cumulative effect, one might say, of the Minister’s approach. However, I hope that after today he will think further. The Government should issue guidance to local authorities to the effect that, at least in circumstances where they face huge increases in their housing targets in short order, and it is not viable or realistic to suddenly have a five-year land supply available, they should be able to consider the cumulative impact of speculative developments that come along.
The Government should also change the way the target itself is set, so that we get the affordable homes we need, but with the totals rebalanced among local authorities—back towards urban areas and away somewhat from rural ones—so that we end up with reasonable and realistic targets for East Hampshire and areas like it. That would be entirely consistent with—indeed supportive of—what the Government are trying to do on overall housing supply, but it would be a sustainable way of providing the services and infrastructure that people need, fostering community, promoting economic growth, and maintaining the public amenity and productive capacity of our countryside.
I conclude, as others have, in the spirit of the season by wishing you, Mr Twigg, all colleagues from across the House, and House staff a very happy Christmas.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the cumulative impacts of housing development.
Neurodiversity in the Workplace
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
I will call Sarah Hall to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of both the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered neurodiversity in the workplace.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. Neurodiversity is still too often misunderstood, overlooked or treated as a marginal issue, when in reality it affects millions of people across our workforce, across every sector and across every part of the country. This debate is about fairness, dignity at work and whether our workplaces are genuinely designed for the people who work in them.
I also requested this debate for a more personal reason. I was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as an adult, and like many people who are diagnosed later in life, that diagnosis did not change who I am, but it clarified things. It helped me understand why some environments drained me, why others energised me, and why I had spent years adapting myself to systems that were never designed with people like me in mind.
Since I became a Member of Parliament, many constituents have written to me with experiences that echoed that same story. This included people who have spent years masking, people who have been labelled difficult or unreliable, and people who have quietly left jobs they were good at because the barriers became too much. So when we talk about neurodiversity at work, we are not talking about abstract theory; we are talking about real people, real workplaces and real lost potential.
Around one in seven people in the UK are neurodivergent, including autistic people, and people with ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia and other conditions. Many neurodivergent people will qualify as disabled under the Equality Act 2010, which means that they are legally entitled to reasonable adjustments at work.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this matter forward, and I spoke to her beforehand. By way of encouragement, in Northern Ireland, we have done a lot of work on this issue, and I am very impressed by what we have done. There has been a significant push towards neuro-inclusion through governmental toolkits and specialised training programmes. That fits in well with our legal landscape in Northern Ireland, as it should, but there is one thing that we fall short on, and the hon. Lady might wish to ask the Minister about it. Small businesses do not have human resources sections and, as such, they are unable to do the work that HR departments do. Does she feel that that is something we could improve on, not just here but back home?
Sarah Hall
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; I absolutely agree. I echo his comments about the fantastic work that is being done in Northern Ireland on inclusion, and I am sure that the Minister will address the points he made in her closing remarks.
It is also important to say this clearly: not all neurodivergent people have a diagnosis, and many are diagnosed far later in life. In some parts of the country, people wait years for assessment. During that time, they are still expected to work, cope and perform, often without any understanding of why things feel harder than they should. We cannot design workplace support around a system that is already overstretched and inconsistent. Support has to be based on need and not on paperwork.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate and for her very personal testimony. Does she agree with me and PACT for Autism, which is based in my constituency, that we should not only support people in work, but support people into work? The application process for some roles is often so complicated that people who are neurodiverse are put off even applying for them, which means that they cannot realise their potential.
Sarah Hall
I could not agree more. My hon. Friend makes a very good point.
Research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has found that one in five neurodivergent workers have experienced harassment or discrimination at work because of their neurodivergence.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that, in the workplace, the way that neurodiverse traits are observed and received can vary between men and women? Women can suffer the consequences of unconscious bias. As my constituent Zaphira recently explained, decisiveness and spontaneity in men can be viewed as emotional or impulsive in women.
Sarah Hall
I agree and feel that the hon. Member is describing me a little bit in that. So yes, I absolutely agree with that characterisation.
Just as concerning is the fact that nearly a third of neurodivergent workers have not told their manager or HR department at all, not because they do not need support, but because they fear stigma, stereotypes or the impact that disclosure could have on their career. That tells us something fundamental: the problem is not difference, but the environment that people are expected to work in. Neurodiversity describes the natural differences in how people’s brains behave and process information. We all think, learn and act differently and have different strengths and challenges. That is normal and human, yet the world of work is still too often built around a very narrow idea of what is typical. When workplaces are designed around that narrow norm, barriers are created.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Merry Christmas to you, Mr Twigg, and all the House staff. I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate on a topic that is close to my heart, and close to the hearts of many of my constituents. My union, the GMB, has done a lot of work on this issue through the “Thinking Differently at Work” campaign. Does my hon. Friend agree that when workplaces are inclusive by design, and there are clear routes for reasonable adjustments to be made, employers benefit because they get the best out of all the talents in their workforce?
Sarah Hall
I could not agree more. I will come on to some of the work that GMB, Unison and USDAW—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers— are doing in this area.
The barriers that I mentioned are what disable people. Too often, neurodiversity is still approached through the medical model of disability, focusing on what is wrong with the individual, what they cannot do or how they fall short of an assumed standard. That approach creates low expectations and leaves people feeling pitied, patronised or quietly excluded. The social model of disability offers a different and more honest lens. It recognises that people are disabled not by their impairment or condition, but by barriers created by society: inflexible systems, poor understanding and rigid attitudes.
Let me ground that in a practical example. An autistic retail worker struggled with constant changes to their working hours not because they did not want to work, but because of unpredictability, increased anxiety and sensory overload. What they needed was a stable shift pattern. Predictability gave them control and made work possible. Under the medical model, the problem would have been framed as the worker. Under the social model, the problem was the demand for unlimited flexibility. When the employer agreed to a stable shift pattern, it meant the difference between staying in work or having to give up their job altogether. There was no grand intervention, just a reasonable adjustment.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The number of education, health and care plans for children with autism has more than tripled over the past decade. When we combine that with rigid recruitment procedures and inflexible working practices, as my hon. Friend outlined, it creates a significant challenge. Does she agree that the Minister should address how the Government are working with employers, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Business and Trade to make workplaces genuinely neuro-inclusive, supporting individuals and helping more young people into work?
Sarah Hall
I agree, and I will come on to that point in my asks of the Minister.
Something that I hear repeatedly from constituents is the lack of consistency around reasonable adjustments. Support agreed with one manager often disappears when roles change, teams move or a restructure happens. People are forced to re-explain themselves, re-justify their needs and start again. That is not dignity at work. Adjustments should travel with the worker and not depend on who happens to be in charge that month.
A constituent who contacted me described a stark contrast between workplaces that created barriers and those that removed them. In early roles, including in a warehouse and later in a café, my constituent was keen to work and learn, but support was minimal. Tasks were not adapted, opportunities to build skills were restricted and they were left without support. In more recent roles, they now volunteer as a radio presenter and at the Lowry theatre, and are also employed as a trainer delivering the Oliver McGowan mandatory training programme. My constituent tells me that she loves the reasonable adjustments that they have put in place for her, compared with the very little that was in place in earlier roles.
Another constituent, a new mother, contacted me about her attempt to return to work following maternity leave. She is autistic and requested reasonable adjustments to support her return. Instead of support, she was met with suggestions, including from HR, that needing reasonable adjustments meant that she is not fit for work at all. That response is deeply concerning, and it speaks to a wider problem about how disabled workers are too often treated.
Cameron Thomas
I have spoken before about how neurodiversity is still an opportunity to be fully exploited by the workplace and that it is significantly inhibited by the education system. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Disabled Children’s Partnership “Fight for Ordinary” campaign presents an opportunity to create educational and working spaces that fully harness diversity?
Sarah Hall
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I am passionate about inclusion in the workplace and for children in schools. I would be happy to work with him on driving that forward.
The response to my constituent was not inclusion, but exclusion, and it shows how neurodivergent women can be pushed out of work at exactly the moment that they most need understanding and flexibility. Many neurodivergent people are still met with damaging assumptions that they lack empathy, cannot understand humour, struggle socially or are somehow less capable or reliable. None of that is true, but those assumptions shape recruitment processes, performance management and workplace culture in ways that quietly exclude people before their abilities are ever recognised. The National Autistic Society has been clear that the biggest barriers that autistic workers face are a lack of understanding, negative stereotypes and failures by employers to adapt.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
I left school at 16. I did extremely badly at school and seem to have been fine ever since, largely. It is now very clear to me that people who are neurodiverse in many ways contribute far more than normal people. If they were given a chance, they would succeed. Just 30 seconds on the internet produces the names Bill Gates, Greta Thunberg, Richard Branson, Emma Watson, Steve Jobs and many other people who have clearly excelled, all of whom would describe themselves as extremely neurodiverse. Employers should understand what they can contribute to an organisation.
Sarah Hall
I absolutely agree. Some neurodiverse people would describe it as a superpower; some do not like that term, but there are so many wonderful assets and abilities that we in the neurodiverse community have. If only we were given a chance, we could make a real difference and be fantastic in whatever we choose to do.
Recruitment processes often reward confidence over competence, eye contact over ability and social performance over skill. Vague job descriptions, ambiguous questions and high-pressure interviews screen people out before they have had a chance to show what they can actually do. We also need to talk about masking. Many neurodivergent people hide parts of who they are at work to fit in. Sometimes, they do not even realise they are doing it, but masking is exhausting. It contributes to anxiety, isolation, burnout and poor mental health. I recognise that experience myself, and I know from constituents how common it is. People might not need to mask so much if workplaces were designed with difference in mind.
Although this debate rightly spans all sectors, I want to be clear that the public sector must lead by example. Unison has been clear that, despite legal protections, many public sector workplaces still lack awareness and fail to implement inclusive practices. Rigid recruitment processes, inflexible performance systems and delays or refusals in reasonable adjustments cause stress, sickness absence and employment disputes that could be avoided. There is also a gendered dimension to this. Neurodivergent women often face compounded discrimination. Unison has called for neurodiversity to be embedded properly within equality and diversity frameworks, backed by training for managers and reps, stronger enforcement of Equality Act duties and better access to support schemes such as Access to Work. Those calls matter, because without enforcement, rights are theoretical, and without adequate funding, inclusion becomes optional.
Trade unions have been vital in driving this agenda, and I want to highlight the role of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—the retail trade union. Across the UK, thousands of shop workers, warehouse staff and reps are having conversations about neurodiversity. Many USDAW members are neurodivergent themselves. Many others are parents or carers of neurodivergent children and adults, juggling paid work with caring responsibilities in sectors where flexibility is often in short supply. USDAW talks about neurodiversity in the same way that we talk about physical difference. Some people are taller, some are stronger, some have more stamina. We accept those differences without question, and our brains are no different.
I also highlight the work that the GMB has done through its “Thinking Differently at Work” toolkit on neurodiversity, which I value because it is practical and designed for real workplaces, covering understanding neurodivergence, good employment practice, the law, reasonable adjustments and more.
Clear, accessible guidance is what too many workplaces are missing. It shows how much progress can be made when knowledge is shared early, rather than after problems escalate. Without neurodivergent minds, the world would be a poorer place. We would miss out on different ways of seeing problems, spotting patterns and challenging assumptions. That is true on a shopfloor, in a hospital, in a classroom and here in Parliament, which is why I have joined other MPs who are neurodivergent or disabled to support work on modernising Parliament, not just to make it more accessible for those of us already here but to encourage more people from different backgrounds to come into politics in the first place.
Neurodiversity should never be a barrier to ambition, public service or opportunity. Earlier this year, the TUC passed a motion calling for stronger national action on neurodiversity at work, calling for: clearer rights to reasonable adjustments, including for those waiting for a diagnosis; recruitment reform that assesses ability rather than social performance; investment in inclusive apprenticeships and work experience; better workforce data; and a national neurodiversity strategy co-created with disabled people. Those serious, practical proposals are grounded in lived experience. Supporting neurodiversity early is not a “nice to have”. It is a prevention that benefits everyone.
I have six asks of the Minister. First, will she commit to strengthening compliance mechanisms for how the Equality Act duty to make reasonable adjustments is understood and enforced in practice? Secondly, will she set out what the Government will do to make sure that people can access support at work, based on need not paperwork, including those who are waiting for or do not have a formal diagnosis? We cannot build workplace inclusion around a system where people may wait years for an assessment.
Thirdly, will the Minister commit to improving Access to Work, with clearer signposting for employers and employees, a simpler process and faster decisions, so that support arrives when it is needed and not months later? Fourthly, will she ensure that the public sector shows leadership by adopting consistent neuroinclusion standards, including manager training, so that reasonable adjustments are not left to chance or the good will of individual teams?
Fifthly, will the Minister commit to collecting and publishing workforce data on neurodivergent employees, so that progress can be tracked? At the moment, too much of the conversation relies on anecdote rather than evidence. Transparency matters and what gets measured gets improved. If we are serious about accountability, workforce data must be part of the picture.
Finally, will the Minister commit to ensuring that neurodivergent workers’ voices are central to this work, based on the principle of “nothing about us without us”, so that policy is shaped with people and not done to them?
Neurodivergent people should not have to work harder than everyone else just to stay afloat. They should not have to mask, explain themselves repeatedly or wait until they are in crisis before support appears. We should design work that works for people, not expect people to endlessly adapt to systems that were not designed with them in mind. If we want our workplaces and our Parliament to reflect society as a whole, neurodivergent people must be able to see a future for themselves. I hope today’s debate helps to push us towards inclusive workplaces, where difference is expected, supported and valued, and not tolerated as an exception.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Dame Diana Johnson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) on securing the debate and her powerful and eloquent speech. A number of excellent interventions made important points. I have noted them, even if I do not have the chance to respond to them all.
My hon. Friend has previously spoken about her ADHD diagnosis and her determination to use her platform to make Parliament, and politics more generally, more welcoming for neurodiverse people. I am pleased that she has given us the opportunity to talk about how we can achieve that in other workplaces across the country too. At the moment, only 34% of autistic people, for example, are in any sort of employment, compared with around 55% of disabled people overall. As a country, we can and must do better.
My hon. Friend is living proof that neurodiversity does not have to be a barrier to achievement, but as she has previously highlighted, the right support makes a huge difference, whether in education or the workplace. It is important that good practice becomes standard practice—not only does everyone deserve the chance to fulfil their potential, but a more inclusive labour market is a stronger labour market. I will endeavour to answer her questions, but if I miss anything, I am very happy to write to her with further details.
This January, we launched an independent panel of academics, chosen because of their expertise and lived experience of neurodiversity, to consider why neurodivergent people can have poor experiences in work and a low overall employment rate. I am grateful to the panel for their dedication and the evidence they gathered, which will help us—both the Government and employers—to understand how we can improve the workplace experiences of neurodivergent people. The panel was led by Professor Amanda Kirby, who I am pleased to be meeting tomorrow to discuss her recommendations.
I am also pleased to hear about the excellent work that unions have been undertaking in this area, the GMB and USDAW in particular, to expand the understanding of neurodiversity in the workplace.
Laurence Turner
One problem experienced by neurodivergent workers is that, when reasonable adjustments are put in place, the manager changes and they have to start again. The TUC did some very good work on a reasonable adjustments passport, as did the civil service unions. I encourage all colleagues to look at that work to see if it can be adopted more widely.
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge of this area. Showing our commitment to raising awareness of neurodiversity, ACAS will be offering free masterclasses to small and medium-sized employers in early 2026, which goes to the point that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made about small businesses being able to access information.
As we all know, ACAS specialises in providing free, impartial advice on workplace rights, rules and best practice. Earlier this year, we worked closely with its campaign to improve understanding and support for neurodivergent workers. The new free masterclasses will go further, helping small and medium-sized employers to build confidence, acknowledge the skills and expertise needed to support neurodivergent employees, and address the challenges those employees can face, such as barriers in recruitment, workplace adjustments and retention.
We are also setting in motion a broader mission to deliver change through the “Keep Britain Working” review, led by Sir Charlie Mayfield, which represents a pivotal moment in our mission to create genuine opportunity for all, fundamentally reshaping how we support people to stay healthy, stay in work and build better futures for themselves and their families.
We know that successful businesses and healthy workers go hand in hand, and the vanguard phase of “Keep Britain Working” is seeking partnership with employers to establish what good looks like. “Keep Britain Working” recommends developing a healthy working life cycle of best practice accompanied by a certified standard. Although it is not condition-specific, it will include best practice for early conversations between employers and employees about specific needs, and supporting all parties to navigate making the best adjustments where reasonable.
We know that supporting employers is central if we are to see real improvement in this area. That is why, in addition to our work with ACAS, we also have a suite of measures in place to support managers. We want to start making changes to ensure that we are maximising the opportunities to create accessible and inclusive workplaces for all.
We continue to oversee the voluntary Disability Confident scheme, which encourages employers to create disability-inclusive workplaces, including for people with hidden disabilities. My colleague the Minister for Social Security and Disability is leading work to strengthen that scheme to help it realise its full potential.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South raised Access to Work. We absolutely agree that it needs to work better, and we are doing something about that. We recently concluded the Access to Work collaboration committees, in which we engaged with a range of stakeholders, including representatives of disabled people’s organisations and people with lived experience, to provide discussion, experience and challenge to the design of the future Access to Work scheme. Although the committees have now ended, we will seek opportunities to engage with stakeholders as we move forward with policy development in recognition of the value of their input and experience.
I want to say a few words about the support in place for neurodivergent people who face barriers to getting into work. We know that disabled people and people with health conditions are a very diverse group, so the right work and health support in the right place at the right time is absolutely vital. We therefore have a range of specialist initiatives to support individuals to stay in work and get back into work, including initiatives to join up employment and health systems. They include our new voluntary, locally led supported employment programme for neurodivergent people, the Connect to Work scheme, which has a specialist pathway that is dedicated to supporting those facing particularly complex barriers.
In our jobcentres across England, Scotland and Wales, since August there have been more than 1,000 full-time equivalent Pathways to Work advisers, who provide one-to-one, personalised support to disabled customers and those with health conditions to help them move towards and into work. That intensive support aims to enable disabled people, including neurodivergent people, to gain access to employment, wider skills support and Department for Work and Pensions employment programmes.
My hon. Friend asked about strengthening the Equality Act duty. That is a matter for the Cabinet Office, but I am of course very happy to relay her points to ministerial colleagues.
My hon. Friend also raised diagnosis for neurodivergent people. The Equality Act is clear that an employee does not need a diagnosis to meet the definition of disability. Our digital support with employee health and disability service helps employers to understand these legal obligations. It includes guidance on making reasonable adjustments, and links to other helpful services and sources of guidance. It also includes questions of disclosure, equipping employers to feel confident in having conversations to better understand their employees’ needs.
We are deeply concerned that many adults, young people and children with mental health conditions, ADHD and autism have been let down by services and are not receiving timely or appropriate support and treatment. I am therefore very pleased to welcome the independent review, launched by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on 4 December, into prevalence and support for mental health conditions, ADHD and autism.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South also asked about neurodiversity in the public sector. I absolutely agree that the public sector should lead the way in raising awareness of neurodiversity. I am pleased to say that more than 700 public sector organisations are signed up to the Disability Confident scheme, and that all main ministerial Departments have achieved Disability Confident leader status at level 3. We are also committed to ensuring that our frontline staff have the skills and awareness to support neurodivergent people appropriately. There is a range of other commitments in place, and I am happy to write to my hon. Friend about them.
My hon. Friend raised workforce data. Our main source of data is the annual population survey, which does not contain detailed breakdowns of neurodivergent conditions beyond autism and learning difficulties, so we have limited data on employment outcomes for specific neurodivergent conditions. I will write to my hon. Friend with further details about that.
On self-advocacy, my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the new independent disability advisory panel will provide that lived experience and make sure that policies take it into account. Zara Todd was appointed the chair of the panel in August. I am keen to show that this Government are taking action. We hear what people are saying about the need to address the particular concerns of neurodivergent people.
Finally, I wish all hon. Members and House staff a very merry Christmas.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Membership-based Charity Organisations
(1 day, 18 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
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for membership-based charity organisations.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
Membership organisations play a central role in protecting and enhancing the things that we consider important to our national character. The great British countryside is maintained and safeguarded for future generations by conservation charities such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Wildlife Trusts and the Woodland Trust. The most iconic landscapes, sold around the world as the backdrop of British soft power—reminding visitors of the iconic settings for Jane Austen, Dickens and Harry Potter, as well as the paintings of Constable and Turner—are kept open to the public by membership charities such as the Youth Hostels Association and the Canal and River Trust.
Speaking of Turner and Constable, membership charities are the stewards of our country’s heritage. They look after the artefacts, artworks and architecture that make us proud to be British. Between them, charities such as the National Gallery, Tate, the National Trust and English Heritage have millions of members. If I were to ask everyone in this room and in this building whether they have ever been a member of one of these charities, I would be surprised if anyone could say truthfully that they had not. The National Trust, for example, has nearly 6 million members. English Heritage and the RSPB have 1.2 million each. Those are numbers that political parties can only dream of.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The hon. Member mentioned the National Trust and preserving our national heritage. West Dorset’s most famous feature is the Cerne Abbas giant. The National Trust, which looks after it, has just launched a fundraiser to raise £330,000 to buy the land around the Cerne Abbas giant to improve access. Does she agree that membership-based organisations and charities preserve such institutions?
Dame Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Gentleman has done beautifully to put that on the record. He is absolutely right that these incredible membership charities preserve our national heritage.
If we were to ask people why they support such charities, I expect they would not say that they do so just to get access to some of the venues and the fantastic historic treasures they promote. They would probably say that they value the mission of those charities, whether conserving the countryside, protecting our heritage or serving the vulnerable. They want to support those missions; they are members because they value what those organisations do.
In doing those things, the charities provide significant benefits to the Government. All told, the voluntary sector delivers £14 billion of public services to the Government and directly contributes £70 billion to the UK economy. Much of that is delivered by membership organisations. All that is without mentioning the indirect benefits that many membership-based charities provide: for example the health benefits to the public of maintaining hundreds of thousands of hectares of land, the demonstrable mental health impact of engaging with arts and culture, and all the educational enrichment they offer.
But all that is under threat. Charities are under more strain than ever. It is a question of time and money. Telegraph readers were recently outraged that the National Trust, in order to save on costs, is replacing homemade scones—however one prefers to pronounce them—at some of its properties, but this is just the tip of the iceberg, or the jam on top of the cream, depending on which way one prefers one’s scones.
Billions of pounds of additional financial pressure has been put on charities at a time when the demand for their services is rising and income streams are drying up. The biggest impact, as we know, is through national insurance contribution changes, which have collectively added £1.4 billion to the charity sector’s bills, but our art institutions are set to see huge rises to their business rates as well, and many heritage organisations have seen the cost of maintenance far outstrip inflation.
Meanwhile, so many are seeing demand for their services skyrocketing. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, for example, tells me that rescues are operating at 120% of their capacity, and Cats Protection says that, in the last three years, it has seen a 71% increase in the number of cats being abandoned. The wider trend is clear. Around 83% of charities recorded an increase in demand for their services over the last 12 months, but even those pressures might be bearable were it not for the fact that the stability of the funding model itself is being called into question.
Fewer people are donating to charity, and while the average donation is increasing, this highlights the narrowing of the base from which membership charities can secure funds. Those donations are not coming from the places one might expect, such as the wealthy London constituencies of Kensington and Bayswater, Chelsea and Fulham or Holborn and St Pancras, all of which form the three least generous constituencies as a percentage of their income in the UK. In real terms, the amount donated by British businesses has declined as well, with the number of FTSE 100 companies donating more than 1% of their profits falling by 14%.
Money is not the only thing that charities rely on; they rely on people donating their time. However, long-term trends in hours spent volunteering are in decline as well—from 45% in 2013-14 to 28% in 2024-25. People put that down to a whole range of things, such as the bureaucracy and paperwork involved in volunteering and the cost of living pressures that people are under. I will not attempt to understate it: this is a full-blown crisis in the charity sector.
It is no wonder a majority of charity leaders say they would not be confident that they would be able to cope if they saw a decline in their income streams. However, and I know the Minister is aware of this, a decline in their income streams is exactly what we will discuss today, and it is why I asked for this debate.
Membership charities at the moment are able to claim gift aid on memberships that are currently deemed donations by the Government. That settlement is a direct expression of the way that charity members regard their relationship with charities. It is one of the supports that people can give to the aims and the work of the fantastic charities, many of which I have already discussed. They are not private services; their work supports the public good and, in many cases, saves a lot of money for the Government.
I know that the Government see it that way too and the Minister will tell me how much he values the work of membership charities and how much store the Government put into that value, but the truth is that the Government have been very slow to tweak well-meaning and necessary consumer protection legislation despite the imminent impact of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 on membership charities’ cashflows.
Fundamentally, the Act alters the way that membership charities process memberships and the benefits of them, leading to a potentially huge loss in revenues at a time when charities’ finances are already overstretched. The provisions of the Act move us away from a place where we view a charity membership as an expression of support. If, for the purposes of the DMCCA, refundable memberships are no longer considered to be donations due to the Government insisting on applying a 14-day cooling off period, the result is that gift aid can no longer be claimed.
Let me provide a bit of perspective on that: national insurance contributions added more than £10 million to the National Trust’s wage bill. That has been devastating. Gift aid is worth five times that for the National Trust. The story is the same for English Heritage, on which I must declare an interest as I am a member. While it has seen a £1.7 million cost increase due to national insurance contributions, the impact of losing gift aid on their memberships would be more than five times that—valued at around £10 million.
I am no fortune teller, but I have an idea of what the Minister might say. She might say the Government have issued guidance that means membership charities will continue to be able to claim gift aid. But the fact is, as things currently stand, that is not what the law says, and that is creating confusion not just for the big players but for the small ones as well, because charity practice is currently at odds with the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 and at odds with consumer law. Due to the widespread confusion of three very conflicting pieces of legislation, the Chartered Institute of Fundraising has written to the Department for Business and Trade. I know that is not the Minister’s Department, but I hope that she will convey this message. The institute has written to the Department offering to draft legal advice for small charities so that the Government can just sign it off, but it has had no response to that letter. Will the Minister speak to her colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade to chase that up, please, because small charities are very worried?
Perhaps the lack of response is because there is no clarity about who is affected. The CIF has told me that even it does not know the exact number of membership charities that could fall foul of the change. What is concerning is that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs believes that only primary legislation can really sort out the legal contradiction between current consumer law, charity practice and the provisions of the DMCCA. Again, I do not want to put words in the Minister’s mouth, but I expect she might tell me that the Government have committed to passing legislation about this in the future. However, we know that the wheels of Government can move quite slowly, so when she says that, she probably means establishing certainty for charities by 2027 at the earliest, but it needs to be sooner than that. So, working with colleagues across Government, can the Minister find a suitable legislative vehicle to provide the certainty that the Government say they want? I am not asking her to do anything the Government have not already articulated a need for. And that has to start with reconvening the roundtable of membership charities that was cancelled due to the reshuffle. I would welcome that being reconvened, and I know the sector would, too. Will the Minister commit to that today?
Membership charities have told me that the best possible solution lies in classifying charitable memberships as excluded contracts in secondary legislation. In recognition of their unique nature, their charitable membership should be placed in that category. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that today if she can. It is not unprecedented. Streaming subscription services, for example, have been given waivers from the 14-day cooling-off period. Membership charities should at least be able to expect the same support as users of streaming subscription services.
I will give an example of how this could work perversely for membership charities. Why should someone buy membership of something like the National Gallery? It has sell-out exhibitions such as the very popular Van Gogh exhibition. We could potentially buy ourselves membership, skip the queue, be able to get into sell-out exhibitions, receive a discount for the ticket while we are at it, and then cancel the membership once we have seen the exhibition and received an almost total refund.
The same could be said of the National Trust or English Heritage sites. As things stand, I could purchase membership, visit half a dozen sites for free over a week’s holiday, and then cancel my membership for almost a total refund. English Heritage told me that its membership works out at around 22p a day. Is that the rate at which the membership charity should reimburse a departing member? Will the Minister say on what basis she wants charities to offer proportionate refunds in such instances? If not, maybe she could commit to giving membership charities the freedom to calculate themselves what a proportional refund might look like.
The National Trust believes, for example, that based on current guidance alone, every 1% of its membership that takes advantage of the loophole will lose it £3 million. Even if a tiny number of its members takes advantage of the new loophole in the law, that is a huge and significant impact on its finances, and that means less money spent on its core mission, which is to conserve our heritage.
We expect our charities to do so much. They provide so much for our nation and they do it really well. But membership charities need a vote of support from the Government now. They need this albatross removed from around their necks. And in light of the billions of pounds of tax rises that charities have already seen, there is an incentive for the Government to provide legal clarity. I hope that that is what the Minister will be able to provide in her remarks today.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg, for the third time this afternoon—I enjoy your company so much. You are kind and patient as a Chair—thank you very much.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) on securing us the opportunity to sow into this debate. She made an excellent speech and presentation. I learnt something from her—I always do, of course—and I have a better idea of her ask of the Minister. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I thank her for all her hard work and all the answers she has given us over the past year in her role.
When we bear in mind that some of the UK’s most well-known charities are member-based charitable organisations, it is clear why we must ask, and ensure that, the Government work alongside such organisations that offer so much to our communities. The hon. Member for Gosport clearly outlined the issue. I am a member of the National Trust and the British Legion, and a past member of the Scouts—those are the three I would be aware of. The point I am making is that those are partnerships that I believe the Government can work better with, although I think the Minister recognises the good work that the organisations do. The hon. Lady for Gosport referred to English Heritage, and its work on houses, land, and preserving our history and our culture. All those things are incredibly important. All such British institutions operate from a charitable position, to effect change in individual and community lives.
I am going to give a wee bit of information about the National Trust in Northern Ireland and what it does, just as an example. Such organisations do not simply stand in shopping centres shaking a tin at passers-by; they are more than that. They are intricately involved in the lives of constituents, their aim to enhance those lives effectively throughout the Province and the United Kingdom as a whole. The National Trust, for example, provides employment for some 500 people across Northern Ireland in all the estates, lands and places that it looks after.
I think right away of the incomparable Mount Stewart in Strangford. It is definitely—not just because it is in my constituency—the jewel in the crown of the National Trust. It is the gateway to the Ards peninsula, where the National Trust has other places such as Kearney in Portaferry and Saintfield, where the headquarters are. It also has places further down, across Northern Ireland, and right over as far as Enniskillen in the west of the Province.
Mount Stewart has one of UNESCO’s top 10 gardens in the world. That does not happen just by clicking fingers and seeing how it grows; it happens because the volunteers—the workers—work hard in the gardens. That is why Mount Stewart is so well renowned: the hard work that individuals put in to plant the trees and preserve the gardens. The volunteers have also undertaken projects such as rewetting peatlands and planting native trees to help absorb carbon emissions, build climate resilience and protect the surrounding landscape from flooding. Those are all things that have been done by the National Trust, by volunteers and by contributions from individuals.
The trust has planted hundreds of thousands of trees in Northern Ireland, with a goal of establishing half a million trees by 2030. That is not that far away. That goal will help this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to be good stewards of our planet and our environment. The trust works towards our environmental goals, which must be welcomed. Those are all things that the Government and the Minister want to see achieved as well. We should work together to make them happen.
The trust seeks to educate, to inform and to involve all who come. It is about not simply preserving the past, although that is incredibly important, but protecting the future. I always think that what we have today is in trust for those who come after. What the National Trust and others do is important because of that. All within the charitable confines help the Government to achieve their aims without the need for Government control or Government responsibility. It is one of those win-wins for the Minister and for Government.
Clearly, organisations such as the National Trust and the British Legion—just two—are foundational ones in the United Kingdom. Their relationship with Government is a two-way street, one that works well when both work well together.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for allowing me to intervene. I wonder if the Minister would consider the following. I was the vice-president of the National Trust for Scotland for the majority of 10 years and I know the senior management there very well. They have been extremely hurt by the national insurance increase, particularly on people who do part—
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. It is an intervention on the Member, not the Minister.
Mr MacDonald
Yes—sorry. Does the hon. Member agree that when the Government introduce legislation on, for example, national insurance and people doing part-time work, and now this gift aid issue, they should consider charities as separate organisations?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. The knowledge that he has developed over the years is an important addition to this debate. I know that the Minister is listening when we make our asks, as the hon. Member for Gosport has done and as I will do now.
The service that these organisations provide needs the support that the Government can give, from charitable taxation to gift aid facility. However, there now seems to be a question mark over how gift aid will work. I seek clarification about how the Government can ensure that it continues in some way, so that charities can enjoy the advantages it brings. I did not know the figures involved, which the hon. Member for Gosport referred to. The gift aid facility gives massive help to charities, but I never knew that the amount raised was anywhere near the amount that she mentioned in relation to charitable taxation.
Such support by Government is essential to allow these charities to operate and to make a difference, so it must be enhanced. I understand the need for transparency and openness, and I agree with Government scrutiny when that is necessary. Such scrutiny must continue. However, we must always be aware that for every penny lost in tax, so much more is gained in local economies making an investment, which is a worthwhile investment.
As the reach of these organisations extends so far, it is wonderful for us to work in a mutually beneficial partnership. I ask the Minister for assurances that the work carried out in the charitable and voluntary sector will be fostered, supported and encouraged by Government. If that happens, the concerns of the hon. Member for Gosport, of the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald), and indeed of all of us who are here today can be alleviated in some way. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the debate.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) on securing this important debate. It is also a pleasure to serve with her on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
I begin by paying tribute to some of our fantastic membership-based charities, including the National Trust, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and English Heritage, which play a central role in our national story and do so much to enrich the country’s cultural, social and environmental life. Liberal Democrats recognise that membership-based charities safeguard our cultural and natural heritage, strengthen community life, and provide vital service that the Government alone cannot deliver.
Last month, in response to my question at the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s pre-appointment hearing for the chair of the Charity Commission, the successful applicant, Dame Julia Unwin, said that the hike to employer national insurance contributions was:
“a crushing blow for many charities.”
We are already seeing the consequences. In July, the National Trust announced plans to cut 6% of its current workforce, or around 550 jobs. At a time of sustained financial pressure across the charity sector, the Government should not be adding additional burdens and barriers.
As we have heard, gift aid for membership-based charities is crucial, supporting organisations in increasing their fundraising income and financial stability, and enabling them to have a greater impact. In the tax year ending April 2025, UK charities received £1.7 billion in gift aid, but only around half of the value of gift aid payments went to charities that received less than £1 million each.
There is concern among membership-based charities that the implementation of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Act 2024, which was introduced by the previous Government, risks jeopardising the ability of those charities to claim gift aid on membership subscriptions. Organisations including the Tate, the Royal Horticultural Society, the Royal British Legion and the Wildlife Trusts have penned a letter to the Prime Minister stating that risking charities’ ability to claim gift aid on membership would increase cost pressures and could lead to them having to reduce their services. Will the Minister commit to bringing forward the necessary secondary legislation without delay to close the loophole in the Act and guarantee that eligible membership subscriptions continue to qualify for gift aid so that charities can plan ahead and protect the services our communities rely on?
Before concluding, I would just like to take this opportunity to give a shout out to some of the amazing charities in my constituency, such as the Pavilion on the Park, Citizens Advice, YMCA Eastleigh, Age UK, Two Saints housing, Guide Dogs, the Asian Welfare and Cultural Association Eastleigh, the Blue Cross and 1Community. I urge the Government to look again at what more they can do to support those charities, including reversing the increase to employer’s national insurance contributions.
Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s commitment to greater engagement with civil society as part of the civil society covenant. However, we urge the Government to make that covenant a reality and look again at policies that run counter to its spirit. I hope that the Minister will engage in further discussion with organisations such as the National Trust, which is facing a potential cost of around £50 million in income if it can no longer claim gift aid on membership subscriptions.
At a time of rising costs, pressures and increased demand, the Government must do all they can to avoid adding additional burdens and barriers on our incredible membership-based charity organisations. Protecting gift aid, fundamentally addressing the crisis in charity funding, and honouring the commitments set out in the covenant are essential steps forward. Small and large membership-based charities safeguard our cultural and natural heritage, support vulnerable young people and families, strengthen community life and provide the services that the state all too often fails to cover. I urge the Government to take all necessary steps to support charities so that they can maximise their impact for the people and communities who depend on them.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. It is also a pleasure to take part in this important debate on Government support for membership-based charity organisation. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) for securing such an important debate and for her opening remarks. It was apparent on hearing my hon. Friend speak just how important some of our national treasures are, what it is to be British, and how those treasures are entrusted to—and very often in the care of—membership-based charities.
As someone who used to work for a charity for six years before entering this place, I know the amazing work they do in all aspects of life. Many charities, particularly those in the cultural and heritage sectors, continue to be some of the largest membership-based organisations in the UK. Museums, galleries and libraries also contributed over £1.1 billion in gross value added to the UK economy in 2023 and employed nearly 100,000 people in 2024, while civil society contributed £18.5 billion and employed nearly 1 million people.
However, many membership-based charities are now facing growing financial challenges because of impending regulatory changes, the knock-on effect of Government cuts to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s budget and the continued effect of Labour’s increases to employer’s national insurance contributions.
One of the most immediate challenges facing membership-based charity organisations is the impending changes to subscription contracts as a result of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—as we have heard—and the Government’s failure so far to close a loophole that was identified when that Act was taken through Parliament. The introduction of a 14-day cooling-off period jeopardises the future value of membership as a sustainable income as it will create a loophole allowing people to gain access to venues, exhibitions or creative content and then cancel their membership after enjoying all the benefits within the first 14 days. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport articulated that problem perfectly. Those cancelled memberships also mean that charities will lose their ability to claim gift aid on membership income.
As I said, that problem was identified when the Act was going through Parliament and the last Conservative Government committed to solve it by introducing regulations to close that loophole. Multiple times throughout the year, Ministers in the current Government have announced their intention to amend Gift Aid rules to ensure that charities can continue to claim it on membership subscriptions after the DMCCA comes into force. However, it is disappointing that legislation to that effect is still yet to materialise a year and a half after the change of Government. Can the Minister therefore confirm whether new legislation will in fact be necessary? If so, when we can expect to see it?
In July, some of the UK’s most prominent charities and cultural organisations, including the National Trust, the Tate, the Victoria and Albert Museum, Historic Royal Palaces, the Royal Horticultural Society, the Royal British Legion and the Wildlife Trusts, wrote to the Prime Minister to highlight the impact of the problem on their valuable work. Has the Prime Minister replied to the letter, and what action have the Government outlined to remedy the issue?
Although the Government have consulted on the implementation of the new subscription contracts regime, the consultation closed almost a year ago and those who contributed are still waiting for a response. The uncertainty for charities and cultural organisations, which need to set their budgets and make plans for next year and beyond, is having a chilling effect on some of the most cherished organisations in our country. Can the Minister therefore confirm whether the Government intend to waive the cooling-off period for cancelling a subscription for membership-based charities? When will they introduce legislation to do that if they consider it necessary?
Shortly before the Chancellor’s jobs tax took effect—which the National Council for Voluntary Organisations warned would cost charities £1.4 billion—we in the Opposition warned about the crushing effect of these new taxes. It is disappointing that the Government chose to press on with them, which has forced charities to reduce their staff numbers and scale back their services. Ministers have so far declined to outline what assessment, if any, the Government have made of the effect of their tax increases insofar as they affect the charity sector.
I urge the Minister to use this opportunity to provide much-needed and long-overdue certainty for membership-based charities on how the Government will support them and ensure they are not taken advantage of as a result of the new subscription rules. I endorse all the questions put to the Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and I am glad to respond to this debate. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) on securing this important debate. The hon. Lady’s support for membership-based charities is evident from her speech and through her work as the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Of course, it is always a pleasure to hear from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I thank him for his kind words. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who work, volunteer and donate to charities across the country.
The UK has many notable membership charities, including our great national museums and galleries, such as the V&A and the Tate, the caretakers of our heritage, including the National Trust and English Heritage, and our celebrated arts organisations, from the National Theatre to the English National Opera. The hon. Lady gave so many powerful examples, as did other Members. She rightly highlighted the huge number of people across the country who are supporters and members of these organisations.
The Government highly value the work that the sector does and the social value it delivers. It is an incredible force for public good. Over the past year, I have had the opportunity to visit and meet with many charities, including the Samaritans, Citizens Advice, London Plus and the NCVO, to name just a few. Each has reminded me of the vital and inspiring work that charities do each day.
I will address the main concerns that the hon. Lady has rightly and understandably raised, and then talk about some of the broader support that the Government are offering the sector. I recognise, and I am very sympathetic to, the concerns raised by the hon. Lady about the implications of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act for charities with membership schemes.
Just two weeks ago, I spoke to some of our national museums about that very issue. I know that funds raised from membership schemes are a vital source of income for membership-based charities. Earlier this year, the Department for Business and Trade consulted on the secondary legislation that would be required and has since been engaging regularly with the sector to understand its concerns better and make sure its voices are heard. I am very grateful to the charitable sector for its engagement so far with the Department for Business and Trade on those proposals. I reassure hon. Members and charities that the Government continue to carefully consider these issues, particularly the cooling-off period and the additional administrative costs.
It is important to say that I did meet and speak to the relevant Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), and I would be very happy—she would be as well—to meet the hon. Member for Gosport to discuss this issue further. She will understand that this is not my policy area, but I have relayed the concerns to the DBT. I am confident that we will be able to find an acceptable solution, because the DBT will shortly publish the Government response to the consultation on subscription regulations, and we are committed to continuing close engagement with charities. Although I acknowledge that it is not my Department, I want to specifically address the point about the response to the letter, and a date for the roundtable, that she references. I will endeavour to get both those issues dealt with as soon as possible, to get her a date and a response. There is also the offer of a meeting with me and the relevant Minister.
On a related note, I hope that the charity sector will be reassured by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ guidance, which has been changed to set out its interim position, so that charities can continue to claim gift aid on eligible membership subscriptions. The Government’s intention remains that eligible charities can continue to claim gift aid on the same basis as now.
I acknowledge the concerns that Members have raised about the impact of national insurance contribution increases on charities. I have met representatives from the sector to discuss the NICs changes on more than one occasion, and of course we debated the issue in this Chamber in January. As part of last year’s Budget, the Government took a number of difficult decisions on tax, welfare and spending, to fix the public finances, fund public services and restore economic stability. In her open letter to the voluntary sector on the issue, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that raising the rate of employer national insurance contributions for charities was one of the most difficult decisions that she had to take in that Budget.
The Government recognise the need to protect the smallest businesses and charities, which is why we more than doubled the employment allowance, taking it from £5,000 to £10,500. That means that more than half of employers—including charities—with NICs liabilities will either gain or see no change this year, and eligible employers will be able to employ up to four full-time workers on the national living wage and pay no employer NICs. In addition, we expanded eligibility for the employment allowance by removing the £100,000 eligibility threshold, to simplify and reform employer NICs so that all eligible employers now benefit, and all charities are eligible for the EA, even if they are wholly or mainly carrying out functions of a public nature.
I will now move on to some of the broader support that the Government are giving. I know that in recent years charities have faced significant challenges, including a difficult funding situation. I have seen that at first hand in my own constituency, where I am a patron of BIADS—Barnsley Independent Alzheimer’s and Dementia Support—which is a charity supporting people across the area. I recently met its representatives, alongside my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis)—the Minister for Security—to discuss its challenging circumstances. It is one of a number of brilliant Barnsley charities that support local people; its challenges are reflected across the borough.
The Government are committed to supporting the sector in a number of ways, including direct funding to aid its vital work. That includes the £270 million arts everywhere fund, which delivers on the Government’s “Plan for Change” to support growth and increase opportunities. It can provide support for organisations in need of urgent financial support and infrastructure work. In June, the DCMS published the Government’s first ever dormant assets strategy, setting out our ambitions for boosting participation, ensuring its continued good governance and illustrating how the next £440 million of funding will be distributed. In July, the Chancellor announced £500 million for the better futures fund—the largest outcome fund of its kind in the world—to support 200,000 struggling children, young people and their families through innovative impact funding projects.
Alongside direct funding, the Government continue to support charities via tax reliefs and exemptions. Charities and their donors received about £6.7 billion in tax reliefs in the 2024-25 tax year. The long-running gift aid scheme paid out more than £1.7 billion during that timeframe alone, benefiting more than 67,000 organisations. Charities also benefit from a range of VAT reliefs, estimated to be worth more than £1 billion annually. The Government are committed to removing tax barriers where possible. The Chancellor announced in the Budget that we are introducing a new VAT relief for business donations of goods to charities for onward distribution or use in their services. The new relief will boost the supply of essential items to charities, enabling them to reach the people and communities who need them most.
Cultural organisations, many of which are charities, also benefit from tax reliefs, which help to ensure that they can share their world-class productions, performances and arts with more people across the country. Since April 2025, theatres, orchestras, museums and galleries have benefited from higher tax relief rates of 40% for non-touring productions, and 45% for orchestral and touring productions. Finally, museums and galleries exhibition tax relief was also made permanent.
Charitable giving is one of the most commendable characteristics of British society, and the Government recognise the importance of fundraising to the charity sector. It would be remiss of me not to highlight the remarkable work being done across the impact economy sector and the vast potential for increasing funds for civil society. Charitable giving and philanthropic investment build on the British spirit of generosity. A remarkable £15 billion was donated to charities last year.
I have often heard that more can be done to grow philanthropic investment. That is why earlier this year I outlined how the Government will better connect, unlock and partner with philanthropists. As part of this work, the Secretary of State has committed to the development of a place-based philanthropy strategy. It will set out how the Government can create an environment that encourages philanthropists to support local communities and ensure that the benefits of philanthropy are felt nationwide.
We are going even further to promote investment in civil society. The recently launched Office for the Impact Economy provides a front door for investors and purpose-driven business to partner with Government to extend their social impact across the nation. DCMS will be working closely with the office to build capacity and capability, driving cross-Government strategy at all levels of government to make every pound of public funding go further.
As well as providing funding to the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector, the Government have committed to reducing administrative burdens on businesses, including charities, by 25% by the end of this Parliament. That is why in October I set out a series of changes that we will make next year to the financial thresholds for charities. Updating the financial thresholds will save charities an average of £47 million each year, while ensuring that the regulation of the sector remains proportionate and effective.
All that work is underpinned by the civil society covenant, which represents a fundamental shift in how the Government work with the sector. It is a recognition of the value that civil society brings, and a commitment to work in partnership to deliver better for citizens and communities. I was pleased to meet a number of civil society organisations at London City Hall a few weeks ago to discuss how the civil society covenant can help the Government to connect across the whole sector.
I am delighted that No. 10 this week announced plans for the civil society council, which will work in partnership with Government at the highest level to drive and oversee implementation of the covenant. Kate Lee, the chief executive officer of NCVO, will chair the council, and an expression of interest process, which opens this week, will identify members from across the diversity of civil society.
I again thank the hon. Member for Gosport, the Chair of the Select Committee, for securing this important debate and giving us all the opportunity to raise the profile of this important subject. I want to continue to further Government support for membership-based charities, whether that is direct or indirect financial assistance, improving the philanthropic environment, or bringing in charities to work more closely in partnership with the Government. I have heard the serious points she made, and I am happy to follow up with her after the debate.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I am also grateful to her for advocating on my behalf, and on behalf of membership charities, with the Department for Business and Trade on the issue, which we have been wrestling with today, of trying to get clarity about the roundtable and the response to the letter.
The Minister talked about the Government carefully considering, but what the sector needs is action. It needs certainty and clarity, and it needs them fast. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act will start impacting them next year, and they cannot wait till 2027 for this to be solved. They are facing a perfect storm: the real unintended consequences of the national insurance rises, which are impacting charities and the amazing work they do, and now the impact of the Act.
The Government say that they care deeply about this issue, but they need to follow up those words with action. I am grateful to the Minister for helping to try to deliver that action. When she advocates for us with DBT, she needs to be in the room. The silos of Government and things falling between the stools are one of the biggest issues in trying to resolve these issues for charities, which our constituents and our country depend on.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for membership-based charity organisations.
Written Statements
Ineos Chemicals: Grangemouth
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
The Government have agreed a landmark partnership with Ineos to secure the strategically important ethylene cracker in Grangemouth, Scotland. This agreement ensures that the future of this vital site is protected and demonstrates the Government’s commitment to support workers and their communities in Scotland and across the rest of the UK.
The plant, like many across Europe, has faced challenging market conditions. Three quarters of the plant’s output is used domestically by our downstream manufacturing sectors. This includes supporting our industrial strategy growth sectors who depend on ethylene supply, and downstream uses ranging from advanced polymers for defence and medical grade plastics in our life science sectors, to advanced manufacturing sectors such as automotive. The Grangemouth plant is crucially important to our critical national infrastructure given the interconnected assets operated by Ineos—the ethylene pipeline system and the Forties pipeline system. This is why we have acted decisively and stepped in to ensure that it is secured.
The agreement consists of more than £120 million in UK Government support and at least £30 million of investment from Ineos. This package will save jobs, reduce emissions and increase productivity, helping to secure the site’s continued operations and long-term competitiveness. It will reinforce the hundreds of millions of pounds of investment that Ineos has already made over the last few years in maintaining operations at the site. We are also creating the conditions for Grangemouth’s long-term future. Through Project Willow, up to £200 million from the National Wealth Fund will support new jobs and projects subject to meeting usual assessment criteria.
This agreement strengthens the resilience of our foundational sectors and their supply chains within the UK, which underpins our industrial strategy. It will ensure that the site remains operational for the foreseeable future and continues to support the commercial strength of the Grangemouth cluster.
Funding for this intervention will be covered by existing budgets that have been agreed as a part of the departmental spending review settlements. The Government set a very high bar for interventions of this kind. This includes assessing the viability of the business, the economic and social impacts of potential public support, and the contributions of the private sector—including shareholders. Where the Government do intervene, they sets clear, strict conditions on how the money is used. We are taking bold action today to support this site, recognising its strategic importance.
We are also backing the wider chemicals sector through the industrial strategy with targeted support to bring down energy costs, including through the British industrial competitiveness scheme—which will slash costs for businesses in sectors including chemicals by up to 25%—and the British industrial supercharger, which will save Britain’s most energy-intensive firms money on their electricity costs.
[HCWS1190]
National Savings & Investments: Contingent Liabilities
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
I am today laying a departmental minute to advise that National Savings & Investments is retrospectively informing Parliament about two new contingent liabilities not previously disclosed, due to procedural oversight by NS&I.
These contingent liabilities have arisen from NS&I’s transition from a single-supplier service delivery model to a multi-supplier model. They relate to operational losses and fraud losses. Operational losses are compensatory payments made to customers due to error, default, fraud or change in the administration of NS&I’s products. Fraud losses are a subset of operational losses and in this instance relate to customer compromise through no fault of the suppliers.
In 2020, NS&I launched a transformation programme to modernise its operational systems, transitioning from a long-standing, single-supplier service delivery model to a multi-supplier model. This transformation introduced new service delivery partners and redistributed responsibilities across the entire customer journey.
Due to multiple handovers within NS&I and increased complexity of processes, it became necessary to redistribute loss liabilities among suppliers and assign them based on fault. Unlike the previous service model, no single supplier has end-to-end ownership of the service. Consequently, suppliers have limited or no control over certain stages and the associated risk management. Each supplier is therefore accountable only for the areas they directly manage. Where a customer is compromised through no fault of any of the suppliers, liability rests with NS&I, who may then seek recovery from third parties such as the customer’s nominated bank.
Following the delivery of a major programme milestone at the end of September 2025, the number of processes split across multiple suppliers has reduced as of October 2025. This will lessen the complexity associated with establishing and apportioning liability. However, some risk will remain in allocating responsibility. This is because multiple suppliers continue to deliver elements of the end-to-end service with underlying processes measured by their customer outcomes rather than by their individual components.
A key benefit of NS&I’s revised delivery model is that, unlike the previous single-supplier arrangement where potential losses were built into a risk premium, NS&I will now only bear actual losses that occur. This change ensures greater transparency and delivers better value for taxpayers. Under the new framework, NS&I will determine liability based on clear evidence of fault across multiple suppliers, reinforcing accountability and improving cost-efficiency.
A small portion of the estimated operational losses has been identified for the 2025-26 financial year; however, no disbursements have yet occurred pending HM Treasury consent. Where investigations subsequently identify a responsible supplier, NS&I will seek recovery of costs under contractual provisions.
It is normal practice, when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 for which there is no specific statutory authority, for that Department’s Minister to present a departmental minute to Parliament giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from incurring the liability until 14 sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.
However, at the time the potential liabilities were initially assessed, NS&I concluded that they constituted part of its “normal course of business” as described by “Managing Public Money” and the contingent liability approval framework. This was on the basis that the occurrence of such liabilities was considered to arise from its core function of raising cost-effective financing for Government by issuing and selling retail savings products to the public. Following a more extensive review and discussion with HM Treasury, NS&I has subsequently determined that the new service delivery model resulted in NS&I taking on liabilities that were previously retained by a single supplier, giving rise to the two contingent liabilities.
Given the initial assessment of the nature of the expense, it is regrettable that NS&I was unable to provide the House with the normal period for consideration prior to the contingent liabilities being entered into. NS&I therefore acknowledges that Parliament was not informed earlier and apologises for this procedural non-compliance. Steps have been taken to strengthen internal assurance processes to ensure full compliance with parliamentary expectations and “Managing Public Money”.
The lifetime potential exposure for operational losses excluding fraud losses is estimated at £460,000, with only a small portion currently identified for clearance. Actual costs are expected to be materially lower, and some may be recoverable from suppliers. In addition, the lifetime potential exposure for fraud losses is £1.6 million bringing the total combined lifetime exposure to approximately £2.06 million.
NS&I has sought retrospective consent from HM Treasury.
If any of these contingent liabilities crystallise, provision for payment will be sought through the normal supply procedure.
[HCWS1201]
Sale of Chelsea FC: Frozen Funds
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
Today, at my direction, the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation issued a licence permitting the transfer of over £2.5 billion from the sale of Chelsea football club to a new charitable foundation. The foundation will spend these proceeds for the benefit of the victims of the invasion in Ukraine.
The Government would have preferred to take this action with the co-operation of Roman Abramovich and his company, Fordstam Ltd. However, that has not materialised, and it is unacceptable that the funds remain frozen while Ukraine continues to suffer.
The Government are urging Mr Abramovich to act without delay. We will consider any proposal from Mr Abramovich to make use of this clear legal route to establish the foundation and transfer the funds under the terms of the licence. I confirm the Government commitment to use all tools within their power, including pursuing the matter in court if necessary, to release the proceeds.
[HCWS1196]
Telegraph Media Group
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
I wish to update the House on the sale of the Telegraph Media Group. As I noted in my statement on 24 November, under the terms of the order made in January 2024, transfer of the ownership of the Telegraph Media Group is only permitted with the prior written consent of the Secretary of State. In my statement I said that I expected a submission of a request for my written consent to take no longer than three weeks.
I can confirm that I have received a formal request from the representatives of RB Investco Ltd, the current owners of the call option to purchase Telegraph Media Group Holdings. The request is to allow RB Investco Ltd to derogate from the order to sell its call option to Daily Mail and General Trust. I will now give the request thorough consideration.
My priority remains building a constructive path toward a timely sale, without further delay, that is in the public interest.
As I set out in my previous statement, I will also consider the potential new merger under the public interest and foreign state influence regimes in my quasi-judicial role as set out in the Enterprise Act 2002. I will act independently, review the evidence with which I am presented and follow a process which is scrupulously fair, transparent and impartial.
I will update Parliament at the earliest opportunity.
[HCWS1193]
Dedicated Schools Grant
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
Today the Department for Education has published local authorities’ allocations through the dedicated schools grant for schools, high needs, central schools services and early years for 2026-27. Overall, core schools funding is increasing by £1.7 billion in 2026-27 compared with 2025-26, bringing total core schools funding to £67 billion next year.
For mainstream schools funding, the DSG allocations update the provisional national funding formula allocations that were published on 19 November 2025 with the latest pupil numbers from the autumn 2025 school census. Nationally, mainstream school funding in the DSG is increasing by 2.6% per pupil in 2026-27 compared with 2025-26. This will support mainstream schools with ongoing costs and deliver an excellent education for all, including pupils with special educational needs and disabilities.
High-needs funding for local authorities was increased by over £1 billion, or 11%, in 2025-26, and funding will continue at this increased level in 2026-27. This follows the announcements earlier this month of targeted funding for SEND specialists in Best Start family hubs to provide earlier intervention and support for children and families, and the Department’s announcement on 12 December of at least £3 billion of capital investment between 2026-27 and 2029-30 to deliver 50,000 specialist places, in addition to 10,000 places to be delivered through special and alternative provision free schools or alternative funding for local authorities.
Alongside the DSG allocations, pupil premium funding rates for 2026-27 have been published today. These rates are increasing by 2.23%, in line with the GDP deflator measure of inflation, as the Government continue to invest in closing attainment gaps and breaking the link between background and success.
The Government will publish the Schools White Paper in the new year, building on the work already done to create a system that is rooted in inclusion, where every child receives high-quality support early on and can achieve and thrive in their local school. The Government are undertaking a period of co-creation with families, teachers and experts from across the sector to hear their views and test proposals for reform. The White Paper will set out further details on the investment provided for SEND reform at spending review 2025—on top of the DSG allocations published today to deliver excellent, inclusive education for every child.
In setting their budgets for 2026-27, local authorities will need to continue to ensure that they fulfil existing statutory duties to secure appropriate provision for children with education, health and care plans in both mainstream schools and specialist settings, as well as support moves to make the education system more inclusive, in the run-up to wider reform.
We recognise that the size of deficits that councils are accruing while the statutory override is in place may not be manageable with local resources alone, and will bring forward arrangements to assist with them. The Government will provide further details on our plans to support local authorities with historical and accruing deficits, and on conditions for accessing such support, later in the local government finance settlement process. Support provided to local authorities will be linked to assurance that they are taking steps to make a reformed, inclusive education system a reality, in conjunction with the Government confirming the detail of SEND reform. Local authorities should not wait for these details to assess their current plans to ensure they are realising best outcomes and value for young people. Like all areas of spending, we continue to expect local authorities to make sure they are doing all they can locally to manage their system effectively, ensuring the money is being spent in line with best practice. This is a joint effort, with shared responsibility between Government, local authorities, health partners and schools.
Indicative allocations for the 2026-27 early years block of the DSG have also been published. The early years block funds Government-funded childcare hours, which are crucial to delivering our ambition for a record proportion of children to be starting school ready by 2028, as set out in the “Giving every child the best start in life” strategy. In 2026-27, we expect to spend over £9.5 billion on the early years entitlements—an increase of over £1 billion compared with 2025-26 that delivers an above-inflation increase to entitlements funding rates. Early years allocations are updated based on the numbers of children taking up the entitlements, with final allocations available in July 2027. This investment, alongside the hard work and dedication of early years educators, providers and local authorities, has ensured the successful expansion of Government-funded childcare, with the 30-hours roll-out saving working families an average of £7,500 a year.
The dedicated schools grant allocations are available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dedicated-schools-grant-dsg-2026-to-2027
[HCWS1197]
Marine Recovery Fund
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I am pleased to confirm that the marine recovery fund, one of the major reforms in the clean power action plan, has launched today.
This underlines the Government’s clear commitment to making Britain a clean energy superpower to cut bills, create jobs and deliver energy security. We are delivering cheaper, zero-carbon electricity. A key part of this mission is accelerating the deployment of the UK’s offshore wind capacity. The launch of the fund will unblock 19 GW in the immediate term, showcasing the support it can provide for future projects. Britain’s seas play host to extraordinary, diverse and precious ecosystems. We will accelerate offshore wind while protecting our marine environment, delivering on our domestic and international commitments to do so.
The MRF is a voluntary fund into which offshore wind developers can pay to deliver environmental compensation for their project’s unavoidable impacts on our marine protected areas. Clean energy is essential but so is ensuring nature’s recovery—both are needed to conserve our environment for future generations. Any unavoidable impacts from offshore wind on our MPAs must be compensated for appropriately.
The MRF is established by the Secretary of State under section 292 of the Energy Act 2023, and in accordance with the Marine Recovery Funds Regulations 2025 (SI 2025, No. 1230). The MRF operator will use the funds from developers to deliver strategic compensatory measures that can be delivered across multiple offshore wind projects and/or at scale. This represents an important shift from the current system, in which compensatory measures are assessed on a project-by-project basis.
Identifying suitable measures in the marine environment can be challenging due to limited evidence and the dynamic nature of marine ecosystems. Our intention is that the MRF will enable greater benefits for nature. Pooling contributions from developers and delivering compensation strategically and at greater scale has the potential to achieve significantly better outcomes for seabirds, marine wildlife and habitats. The fund will support the extension and designation of new MPAs to protect our seabed and could address factors impacting our wildlife, such as controlling rats to support seabirds and creating offshore artificial nests for kittiwakes. This co-ordinated approach will, therefore, help accelerate the consenting process for offshore wind projects, while providing high quality, ecologically meaningful compensation for our protected areas.
The MRF will deliver value for money and wider fiscal benefits. For developers, it will increase certainty around securing compensation through pre-approved measures, expediting decision making and reducing lengthy case-by-case negotiations. It will also discharge their liability at the point of payment into the fund through a transparent price. The MRF will be cost neutral to Government. The fund’s effectiveness will be regularly assessed including through a non-statutory review by 2032.
The MRF will operate in England and Wales. The Scottish Government will be managing their own fund to reflect their specific priorities and circumstances. We are committed to working together to help us achieve our shared goals. This collaborative approach will maintain alignment where appropriate, while respecting the distinct responsibilities and decision-making powers of each Government.
This marks a key step forward in the Government’s ambition to make Britain a clean energy superpower, unblocking offshore wind projects in the consenting pipeline and supporting future projects in our journey to net zero.
[HCWS1191]
South and South-east Asia Storms
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
Today, I am updating the House on the UK Government’s response to the recent storms in south Asia and south-east Asia. These storms have caused devastating floods and landslides, killing thousands of people and displacing hundreds of thousands. They have destroyed homes, infrastructure and essential services affecting millions.
The UK has responded quickly to support those most affected. The UK has provided £3 million in bilateral support: £1 million each to the Philippines and Sri Lanka, and £800,000 to Vietnam. This funding is delivering lifesaving interventions and early recovery, including emergency shelter, clean water, sanitation and other essential relief items for around 160,000 people.
UK-backed global funds have also stepped in. The United Nations Central Emergency Response Fund has provided £4.5 million to the Philippines, £1.95 million to Vietnam, and £3.4 million to Sri Lanka. The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies’ emergency fund has provided approximately £930,000 each to Indonesia, Philippines and Sri Lanka, and £570,000 million to Vietnam, and Start Ready has provided £1 million to non-governmental organisations in the Philippines.
In the countries with the greatest need, British embassies and high commissions are in regular contact with the local authorities, the UN and humanitarian agencies to ensure that our assistance reaches the areas of greatest need as quickly as possible.
Alongside our humanitarian response, our consular teams are working tirelessly to support British nationals affected by the devastating storms. Travel advice for British nationals is updated regularly to reflect the evolving situation.
We remain committed to working closely with the Governments in the region, as well as international partners, to ensure that our assistance reaches the people most in need and supports recovery efforts effectively.
[HCWS1197]
Foetal Anomaly Screening
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
I would like to inform the House that I have accepted the UK National Screening Committee’s recommendation to add the quadruple screening test to the foetal anomaly screening programme pathway for Edwards’ syndrome.
Edwards’ syndrome, also called trisomy 18, is caused by an additional—third—copy of chromosome 18 in some or all cells and affects one in 1,500 pregnancies. This is a genetic life-limiting condition and results in physical and severe learning disabilities. Sadly, most babies with this condition will die during their first year of life; only 13% survive past their first birthday.
Under the current screening pathway, eligible women are offered a screening test called the combined test, which combines the results of a blood test and ultrasound scan taken in the first trimester, plus maternal age, to determine the chance of a baby having Down’s syndrome, Edwards’ syndrome or Patau’s syndrome. Sometimes it is not possible to complete the combined test—for example, if a woman is more than 14 weeks’ pregnant, or the baby is lying in an awkward position during the ultrasound.
The quadruple test, which is a maternal blood test offered in the second trimester, already provides pregnant women an additional point in the pathway to screen for Down’s syndrome. Accepting the UK National Screening Committee’s recommendation means that pregnant women who have not completed the first trimester combined test can be offered the quadruple test to screen for Edwards’ syndrome.
Where an increased chance for Edwards’ syndrome is identified, pregnant women are offered a referral pathway, information and options, therefore supporting informed choice.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the UK National Screening Committee for continuing to provide invaluable expert advice on screening programmes, and pay tribute to all those who work to deliver high-quality screening across the country.
[HCWS1199]
Victims of Abuse: NHS Specialist Support
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
It is a shameful truth that some of the most alarming health inequalities are those faced by victims and survivors of domestic abuse and sexual violence. They can find it harder to get help from NHS services and have a higher risk of poor health. This cannot continue. As this Government launch our violence against women and girls strategy, the health commitments within it set out how the NHS will play its part in keeping the most vulnerable in our society alive, safe and well.
The Prime Minister and the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), are leading a robust cross-Government approach to tackle the scourge of child sexual abuse and exploitation, which are among the most devastating crimes that any child can endure. They sit at the crossroads of violence against women and girls, safeguarding and public health, and the consequences are profound. The trauma inflicted can echo throughout a child’s life, affecting their mental health, relationships, and overall wellbeing. Protecting children from these abhorrent crimes, and supporting those who have suffered them, is not only a moral duty but a collective responsibility that rests with all of us.
Child house model
In April, as part of our response to recommendation 16 of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, we set out ambitious proposals to strengthen therapeutic support for victims. Today, I am pleased to announce a further step in delivering on that promise. The Government will provide up to £50 million in new funding to expand the child house model—the Barnahus model—to every NHS region in England. This internationally recognised model, which is rightly viewed as the gold standard for supporting children who have experienced sexual abuse, will ensure that, wherever a child lives, they can access the specialist, trauma-informed care they need to begin recovering and rebuilding their life.
The child house model puts children, regardless of gender, at the heart of the support they receive, bringing mental health professionals, social workers, police, justice services and specialist advocates together under one roof. Instead of being passed from service to service, children receive holistic, compassionate support in a safe, welcoming environment reducing trauma and strengthening justice processes to hold perpetrators to account.
By creating a single place where services come to the child, the model prevents repeated retelling of experiences and offers wraparound support for families. Non-abusing parents and carers also receive counselling, practical help and guidance, enabling them to be strong, supportive pillars in their child’s recovery. Currently, England has just one child house in north London. By expanding the model across every NHS region, we are addressing this inequality head-on and treating child sexual abuse as the healthcare priority it is.
This investment sits alongside our wider work to transform children’s mental health services. We are committed to reducing waiting times for CAMHS—child and adolescent mental health services—support, accelerating the roll-out of mental health support teams in schools and colleges, and investing an additional £13 million to pilot enhanced training so that school-based teams can better support young people with complex needs, including trauma.
Steps to safety
As health services are often the first place people turn to for help, it is vital that survivors are able to access the specialist support they need when it matters most. We are also training NHS staff to spot the telltale signs of abuse—and, to help victims and survivors take the first steps to safety, we will roll out a new referral service across GP practices nationwide.
From April 2026, we will begin a phased roll-out of this initiative to make sure that support services are established in every region before expansion. Regions will offer: training to all staff in the GP practice so that they can identify and respond to domestic abuse and sexual violence; a specialist support worker linked to a group of general practices to support GP practice staff and support and advocacy for victims; clear links with local specialist services to refer people into. This builds on innovative approaches already operating in England, and we will aim to ensure that dedicated referral services exist in every area of England by 2029. This phased roll-out will end the current postcode lottery where support depends on location.
In addition, we will be launching a new mandatory safeguarding learning programme for the entire NHS workforce in 2026. It will cover all aspects of domestic abuse and improve support for victims across the health system. This will help me ensure that, whenever and wherever a victim or survivor contacts the NHS, it is there for them and treats them with compassion, care and dignity.
I am also delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) is bringing her considerable expertise to bear as an adviser to my Department on treating violence against women and girls, so that we deliver on this plan and seize opportunities to go further, faster.
We are clear: the full power of the state will be deployed in the largest crackdown on violence perpetrated against women and girls in British history. These actions mark a decisive turning point: recognising child sexual abuse as a critical healthcare priority and ensuring victims and survivors of violence and abuse receive the best support to rebuild their lives.
[HCWS1203]
Grenfell Tower: Progress on Recommendations
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
The Grenfell Tower fire in 2017 was a national tragedy that highlighted profound failures across systems, safeguards and oversight, and led to the avoidable deaths of 72 innocent people.
Eight years on, the bereaved, survivors and immediate community continue to campaign for justice, truth and accountability. We are committed to delivering the substantial reforms needed to make sure that such a tragedy never happens again.
In February, the Government accepted all the inquiry’s findings and are taking action on all 58 phase 2 recommendations to build a more robust and trusted regulatory system and to deliver safe, quality homes for everyone.
Today my Department has published our third progress report. Alongside this update, we have published: a prospectus and consultation on creating a single construction regulator; the fire engineers authoritative statement and next steps document; and results of the Building Safety Regulator’s initial review of the definition of higher-risk buildings and plans for an ongoing review.
These are significant steps to deliver the reforms we committed to in the Government response to the Grenfell inquiry to tackle fragmentation and complexity in the regulatory system and to ensure those responsible for building and fire safety are competent.
Grenfell Tower inquiry Government progress report
This progress clearly demonstrates the Government’s determination to act decisively to deliver meaningful reform of the built environment. Since the progress report in September, we have completed a further five recommendations related to the construction industry, fire and rescue services, and protecting vulnerable people.
Single construction regulator prospectus: consultation document
The first recommendation from the inquiry’s phase 2 report was for Government to introduce a single construction regulator to tackle complexity and fragmentation in how the industry is regulated. In our response to the inquiry, we committed to consulting on our next steps this year. Today we have published the single construction regulator prospectus consultation document. This is a significant milestone in delivering this recommendation.
The prospectus lays out the Government’s vision for a better regulatory system. We will tackle fragmentation by integrating the regulation of buildings, construction products and professionals so that they work as an effective system. At the heart of the system will be a single construction regulator, who will consolidate the delivery of regulatory functions. The prospectus also sets out next steps for this Government’s wider programme of regulatory reform, including reforms to the construction products regime, which is to be set out in a White Paper by spring 2026, and a new overarching strategy for the built environment professions that goes beyond the areas highlighted by the inquiry, which is to be published in spring 2027. The purpose of this reform is a more effective regulatory system, which means better outcomes for residents and building users, clarity and certainty for industry and investors, and a fairer system that benefits those who prioritise safety and quality and sets clear accountabilities for all actors with a stake in the built environment.
Progress towards the single construction regulator has begun through significant reforms to the Building Safety Regulator. In June, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government announced a new phase for the BSR, including strengthened leadership and steps to address operational challenges. Work is now underway to establish the BSR as a new arm’s length body sponsored by MHCLG. The new body and dedicated leadership will provide a singular focus for this complex area of regulation, clearer lines of accountability to Ministers and Parliament, and greater operational flexibility, while retaining its regulatory independence. Further reform, including integrating additional responsibilities, will be managed through a carefully phased approach to ensure the current regulatory regime is not destabilised and to set the future regulator up for success.
The prospectus and consultation can be found here www.gov.uk/government/consultations/single-construction-regulator-prospectus The consultation will run until 20 March 2026, inviting views on the proposals. We encourage as many responses as possible, to shape the future direction of the regulator and wider building system and to make sure these reforms lead to real change for residents and building users.
Fire engineers authoritative statement and next steps document
The fire engineers advisory panel, established in April, brings together leading experts to strengthen the Government response to the inquiry’s recommendations concerning fire engineers. In September, we committed to publishing an authoritative statement—recommendation 17—on the knowledge and skills to be expected of a competent fire engineer.
Today we have published the fire engineers authoritative statement, alongside a next steps document. This paper will set out MHCLG’s approach to recommendations 15,16 and 18. Together, these publications provide clarity for the sector and signal the start of wider reforms to make sure the fire engineering profession is fit for the future.
Higher-risk buildings review publication
Today we have published the results of the Buildings Safety Regulator’s initial review of the definition of higher-risk buildings as well as the regulator’s plans for an ongoing review.
The initial review found that the current definition appropriately reflects the available evidence on risks to individuals from the spread of fire and structural failure. Although no changes are to be made to regime scope at the present time, the ongoing review will ensure the data and evidence is regularly assessed to determine whether the categories of building subject to the higher-risk regime should be amended in any way. The presence of vulnerable individuals within designated building types will remain central to any assessment of risk.
Approved document B consultation
We will shortly launch a public consultation on proposed updates to approved document B, the statutory fire safety guidance within the building regulations. The consultation will seek views on targeted clarifications and technical changes, including new provisions for evacuation lifts in residential buildings above 18 metres, alongside measures to improve clarity and strengthen confidence in the guidance. These updates will be an important step in supporting inclusive design, safe evacuation strategies, and maintaining robust fire safety standards across the built environment.
[HCWS1195]
Local Government Finance: Provisional Settlement
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
Today, the Government have published the first multi-year local government finance settlement in a decade, through which we will deliver the long overdue fair funding review 2.0 reforms. In partnership with local government, we are keeping our promises and building a fairer, more sustainable system for everyone.
A decade and a half of austerity has impacted every community across the country, but people living in the most deprived areas were worst affected. The link between funding and deprivation has been broken, and services were slashed in the poorest places in England, creating a downward spiral of poverty and poor life chances. We will fix it—giving councils the funding to reinvest in those neighbourhood services that saw the biggest cuts in the last 14 years, such as libraries, street cleaning and youth clubs. We will introduce an evidence-led system of determining need that properly recognises local circumstances and the costs of delivering services in deprived communities. We will compensate councils that are unable to generate as much funding through council tax, so no one is punished for living in an area with a weaker tax base.
A year ago, we outlined our intent to fix the foundations of local government. Since then, we agreed our approach to transformational funding reform, consulted three times and published a policy statement in November. We are acting on reforming the services putting the most pressure on local government, including through launching a landmark cross-Government strategy to prevent homelessness before it occurs and investing over £2.4 billion to the families first partnership programme to reform children’s social care. We have committed to reforming special educational needs provision to deliver a sustainable system that supports children and families. We are pressing forward on our commitment to 1.5 million homes, including through supporting local authorities to build. We are devolving power to the right level—empowering mayors to drive economic growth through the visitor levy on short-term stays and to use funding flexibly to deliver local priorities through the integrated settlement, and providing £6 billion over the next 30 years for the devolution priority programme. We have also committed to the once-in-a-generation reform to simplify local government by ending the wasteful two-tier system.
We said that we would deliver on our promises, and we are. We invite all stakeholders to respond to the consultation on the provisional settlement.
Provisional local government finance settlement 2026-27
We recognise the challenges local authorities are facing from higher demand and costs for critical services, and are investing in local government to build a better future. The spending review in June 2025 announced over £5 billion of new grant funding for local services over the multi-year settlement period, including £3.4 billion of new grant funding delivered through this settlement.
The provisional 2026-27 settlement makes available over £77.7 billion in core spending power for local authorities in England, a 5.7% increase compared to 2025-26. This increases to over £84.6 billion by 2028-29, by the end of the multi-year period—a 15.1% increase compared to 2025-26. This means that in total, under this Labour Government, we will make available a 23.6% cash-terms increase in core spending power in 2028-29 compared to 2024-25.
The multi-year settlement will provide more certainty for councils, enabling them to better plan local provision with stability into future years. We know councils are concerned about what happens at the next spending review and we will continue to work closely with them to avoid cliff edges in funding.
The fair funding review 2.0
This Government believe in treating every area fairly. The previous Government’s irrational funding system benefited some authorities disproportionately. We will act where they did not, taking the tough decisions to create a fairer, evidence-led system.
As set out at the policy statement present at www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-government-finance-policy-statement-2026-27-to-2028-29/local-government-finance-policy-statement-2026-27-to-2028-29 we are giving councils more certainty with the first multi-year settlement in a decade, and putting local authorities on an equal footing to better enable them to reinvest in neighbourhood services. We set out that we would undo the damage of austerity by maintaining the £600 million recovery grant allocations from 2025-26, targeted towards those most impacted by the cuts, and confirmed we are introducing a recovery grant guarantee, providing an above real-terms increase to social care authorities who received the grant last year—subject to a £35 million cap.
We are providing more financial protection for councils and consistent services for local people by supporting local authorities through the change with funding floors, and phasing in new allocations across the multi-year settlement. We also committed to improving efficiency and value for taxpayers by simplifying 36 funding streams worth over £56 billion over the multi-year settlement, and by resetting the business rates retention system to restore the balance between aligning funding with need and rewarding local growth.
Our reforms mean that the top 10% most deprived authorities will see an average increase in core spending power per head of 24% from 2024-25 to 2028-29, compared with an increase of 6% for the 10% least deprived authorities. No more will deprived places be punished for their poverty. This Government will act as an equaliser to protect local services.
Social care
We recognise the strain on vital services that people rely on. That is why we are driving long-term reform to make our public services efficient, more sustainable and focused on prevention.
This Government are building a national care service based on a higher quality of care, greater choice and control, and better join-up between services, backed by around £4.6 billion of additional funding made available for adult social care in 2028-29 compared to 2025-26. This includes £500 million for the first ever fair pay agreement—the most significant investment in improving pay and conditions for adult social care staff to date.
We have already begun the full-scale transformation of children’s social care through the families first partnership programme, funded with £2.4 billion over the next three years. This investment will help councils move from firefighting crises to preventing them, delivering the right help at the right time.
We know local authorities are being pushed to the brink while some private children’s social care providers continue to make excessive profits. This cannot continue. The Government’s ambition is to reduce reliance on residential care, reshape the market for care placements, and move towards a system rooted in family environments through fostering. This is better for children and better for councils.
We are taking action through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Using these powers, the Housing Secretary and the Education Secretary will explore how we might implement a profit cap in the children’s social care placement market. This would be a crucial step in ensuring that public money delivers value and care, not profiteering. We will set out further information on our approach in 2026.
Special educational needs and disabilities
We recognise that local authorities are continuing to face significant pressure from dedicated schools grant deficits on their accounts. In June this year, we announced a two-year extension to the DSG statutory override to support local authorities to manage these impacts. The Government have also confirmed that they will bring forward a full schools White Paper early in the new year. This will set out substantial plans for reform of special educational needs provision to deliver a sustainable system, which first and foremost supports children and families effectively, and which is also financially sustainable.
We recognise that the size of deficits that some councils may accrue while the statutory override is in place may not be manageable with local resources alone, and will bring forward arrangements to assist with them as part of broader SEND reform plans. Although we do not expect local authorities to plan on the basis of having to meet deficits in full, any future support will not be unlimited. Councils must continue to work to keep deficits as low as possible. We will provide further detail on our plans to support local authorities with historical and accruing deficits, and on conditions for accessing such support, later in the settlement process.
Homelessness & temporary accommodation
We inherited a homelessness crisis. We recognise the pressure that temporary accommodation costs are putting on councils’ budgets. Last week we published a national plan to end homelessness: our cross-Government homelessness and rough sleeping strategy, which sets out the action we are taking to get back on track to ending homelessness. This includes tackling the root cause of homelessness, as well as supporting a shift to prevention and taking immediate action to support households in temporary accommodation and experiencing long-term rough sleeping. The strategy includes action to help councils invest in good-quality and lower-cost temporary accommodation, reducing the use of expensive B&Bs and nightly paid accommodation.
As announced on Monday, funding for the domestic abuse support in safe accommodation duty will see a £19 million uplift to £499 million over the multi-year settlement. This funding is part of the Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, with improved support for victims.
Council tax & exceptional financial support
Fairness for taxpayers is at the heart of this Government’s decision making. Over the multi-year settlement, the Government intend to maintain a core 3% council tax referendum principle, and a 2% adult social care precept, as they were in 2025-26 for the vast majority of local authorities.
Decisions on council tax levels are a matter for local authorities.
The Government are committed to ensuring the local government funding system is fair for taxpayers across the country. In some areas, council tax levels are radically lower than in others. A small number of places with many expensive properties can set far lower council tax and raise as much or more. The reality of this is that the council tax bill for a house worth £10 million in Westminster can be less than an ordinary family home in places like Blackpool and Darlington.
To increase fairness for taxpayers, provide better value for money, and enable areas to rebalance disparities in their council tax levels should they wish to, the Government propose not setting referendum principles for six authorities in 2027-28 and 2028-29: City of London, Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea, Wandsworth, Westminster, and Windsor and Maidenhead. These councils are all upper tier, will receive 95% income protection and have the lowest council tax levels of any upper tier authorities in the country—this year band D taxpayers paid between £450 to £1,280 less than the average in England. By choosing not to subsidise very low bills for the 500,000 households in these places, we will provide £250 million more funding for public services in places with higher need.
Decisions on council tax levels are a matter for local authorities. The flexibility will give greater choice to these authorities in deciding how to manage their financial position in the most appropriate way for them, including deciding whether to draw on the relatively high reserve levels, income from the second homes premium and reduced pension contributions from which a number of them benefit.
Alongside the new high value council tax surcharge, expected to be implemented from 2028, these changes will make the tax paid on homes fairer and more progressive.
The Government are under no illusions about the pressures councils are facing. Following precedent set by the previous Government, we will continue to have a support framework in place next year to help authorities in the most difficult positions, including considering requests for additional council tax flexibility. In recognition of cost-of-living pressures, the Government will not agree to requests for additional flexibility to increase bills from authorities where council taxpayers are already paying more than average. Any support or flexibility provided should be a time-limited and temporary measure and we will continue to expect local authorities to be doing all they can to manage their finances and protect vulnerable taxpayers. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government continues to offer any council a discussion, in confidence, about its ability to manage its budget.
We expect any authority that decides to make additional increases to their council tax to ensure that appropriate support is put in place for vulnerable households.
Mayors
This Government are committed to giving locally-elected strategic leaders the powers and funding they need to deliver jobs, new homes and new transport. For the first time, every mayoral strategic authority will receive funding through the local government finance settlement to create greater alignment of the funding at a local level, avoiding needless duplication and waste. We will continue to work on integrating funding for mayoral strategic authorities further into the settlement where relevant, including through the consideration of options to allocate mayoral strategic authorities a direct share of business rates from across their region as set out at the autumn Budget.
We have also taken steps into a new era of fiscal devolution in England, giving mayors the power to raise and invest money into projects that improve their local areas, raising living standards and driving growth through a new visitor levy power for mayors of strategic authorities.
Outcomes framework
We will introduce the new outcomes framework for local government in the new year, operational from spring 2026, It will enable outcomes-based performance measurement against key national priorities, delivered at the local level and driven by councils as local leaders of place.
Conclusion
The consultation on the provisional local government finance settlement 2025-26 will be open for four weeks, closing on 14 January. We welcome views from the local government sector and beyond through this consultation.
This written ministerial statement covers England only.
[HCWS1202]
Third-party Litigation Funding
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
I would like to inform the House that the Government intend to take action to mitigate the impact of the 2023 Supreme Court judgment in PACCAR and implement proportionate regulation of third-party litigation funding agreements.
Third-party litigation funding plays a vital role in ensuring access to justice. It enables people to bring complex claims against better-resourced organisations that they could not otherwise afford. Sir Alan Bates, for instance, has spoken openly about how without such funding he could not have brought his claim against the Post Office. The Supreme Court judgment in PACCAR introduced significant uncertainty about whether LFAs remain valid and about the regulatory regime that applies to them. This uncertainty could be preventing significant numbers of claimants from accessing justice.
LFAs are also used in high-value commercial cases where there is a power imbalance between parties or where parties do not wish to use limited capital resources on legal proceedings. Therefore, this uncertainty also risks undermining the competitiveness of England and Wales as a global hub for commercial litigation and arbitration, both of which bring significant benefit to the UK economy.
However, concerns have been raised about whether LFAs are always fair and transparent for the claimants using them. This has led to calls for greater regulation of the litigation funding market, which currently operates under a system of voluntary self-regulation. This is why, while it is crucial to act swiftly regarding PACCAR, I have taken the opportunity to consider litigation funding in the round.
I would like to thank the Civil Justice Council for its comprehensive and wide-ranging review of litigation funding, published earlier this year. Since its publication, my officials and I have carefully considered its recommendations.
I am pleased to announce the Government’s intention to accept the CJC’s two primary recommendations. First, we will legislate to clarify that LFAs are not damages-based agreements, with prospective effect. This will mitigate the effect of the PACCAR judgment and improve access to justice by reassuring funders that LFAs can be used to fund cases. Secondly, we will introduce proportionate regulation of LFAs. This will improve transparency and fairness for claimants. We will introduce legislation when parliamentary time allows.
It is our priority that legislation removes the uncertainty introduced by the PACCAR judgment and ensures that the litigation funding sector works fairly and efficiently for all. Once we have implemented these two changes, we will consider the CJC’s wider litigation funding recommendations in detail and announce any further changes in due course.
[HCWS1192]
Paul Thompson: Supreme Court Judgment
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I would like to make a statement to the House regarding the Supreme Court judgment today in the Thompson case.
The Government welcome the unanimous judgment handed down by the Supreme Court. This is a highly complex case with wide-ranging implications.
The Government will therefore take time to fully consider all aspects of this judgment, including those relevant to the request made by Operation Kenova for the Government to name Stakeknife.
I will return to the House on this as soon as the Government have come to a final view.
[HCWS1194]
Machinery of Government
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
I am making this statement to bring to the House’s attention the following machinery of Government change.
I am today announcing that overarching policy and response responsibilities for severe space weather will move from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology will be responsible for co-ordinating across Government to ensure that appropriate capabilities are in place, so that impacts from severe space weather are minimised. This will bring about efficiencies by centralising the management of space risks, including their assessment, response, recovery, and mitigation in a single Department.
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero will retain its responsibilities for mitigating the impacts of severe space weather events on the energy sector. The responsibilities of the Met Office and UK Space Agency, the latter of which will join the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology by April 2026, will be unaffected by this change.
This change will be effective immediately.
[HCWS1200]