Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
As this House knows, Baroness Batters is a long-standing champion of British farming. Today, the Government have published her independent farming profitability review 2025, which we commissioned earlier this year. We will set out a more detailed response in the new year, but I can confirm today that, following her recommendations, we are establishing a farming and food partnership board to give farmers a stronger voice in Government. We will take forward sector plans to build profitability in sectors with great potential, and we will seek to boost private finance into farming.
Sam Rushworth
Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker.
As we are all sleeping in or children are opening their stockings on this Christmas morning, farmers in Teesdale and Weardale will be up tending to their sheep and cows, and we thank them for that. As the Minister knows, at the moment only 25% of subsidies go to just 4% of farms. Smaller upland farms in areas like those I represent have done particularly badly under the transition. There are so many issues I could raise, but to avoid Mr Speaker’s cough may I just ask this? I am bringing a delegation of farmers from my constituency to Parliament in the new year. Will the Secretary of State meet them to hear their wisdom?
Emma Reynolds
I echo my hon. Friend’s thanks to farmers working hard over the festive season. Upland communities face unique challenges. I or the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs will be delighted to meet his delegation. We are reforming the sustainable farming incentive to make it simpler and easier for farmers to apply to. We want more farmers to benefit from these schemes, and under this Government we already have a record number of farmers in these schemes.
Mr Dhesi
No farmers, no food. That is why, as the son of former farmers, I believe it is imperative that we support our farmers. After the last Conservative Government sold out British farmers with their substandard trade deals with New Zealand and Australia, our farming and food sector has been held back from its full potential abroad. What exactly are this Government doing to ensure that our farmers can get their products on to international shelves and grow their businesses abroad?
Emma Reynolds
I am proud that this Government, unlike the previous Government, are protecting and promoting British farming in our trade deals, including with India and the USA. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may chunter from a sedentary position, but they sold them out on their trade deals with Australia and New Zealand. We are also making progress with the EU on a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, which will make agrifood trade with our biggest market cheaper and easier, and our global network of agrifood attachés has already brought down 46 trade barriers this year, worth £127 million.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Obviously, one of the biggest challenges to farming profitability is the market fact that farmers are price takers. The farming campaigner Olly Harrison was this week highlighting that Lidl and Aldi are selling carrots at 8p per kilo, well below the cost of production. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that when supermarkets sell under the cost of production, that cost is borne by the supermarkets, not the farmers?
Emma Reynolds
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, we have already introduced fair dealing regulations for pig and dairy farmers, but I agree with him that we need to look to go further.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Sustained profitability requires sustained investment, and investment has collapsed as a consequence of the family farm tax, hasn’t it?
Emma Reynolds
I am very determined that we leverage in more private finance into farming. I visited a landscape recovery project in north Buckinghamshire a couple of weeks ago. It is really fantastic to see the innovative practices in these schemes that are levering in private finance in part of the compliance market, and part of the thriving and nascent nature credits market.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Here we are, at the 11th hour, on the very last day before Parliament rises for Christmas, and the Secretary of State has left it until now to publish Baroness Batters’ profitability review —48 days since it was handed to her. She has tactically left it buried in her Department until well after the Budget and purposely until after the crucial Finance Bill vote earlier this week, in which 333 Labour MPs backed the implementation of the family farm tax—all in the knowledge that whatever the recommendations in the profitability review, the Government’s financial assault on our farmers was locked in. What message does that say to our hard-working farmers?
Emma Reynolds
I am proud that this Government commissioned Baroness Batters to do the review into farm profitability, which is a lot more than the Conservatives managed to do in 14 long years. We will be taking forward a number of her recommendations, but, as I said, we will reply in full in the new year. We commissioned her because she has great experience and expertise. There are many ways in which we are unlocking profitability, not least the planning reforms that myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government are introducing to make it easier for farmers to build on-farm reservoirs, polytunnels and various other things that will diversify their farms. We are bringing down the barriers, which is something that they long called for, but they saw none of that action under the previous Government.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
If farm profitability is so important to the Government, I find it utterly peculiar that the review was released only today as a written statement at the last minute. It is an insult to this House and indeed the excellent Baroness Batters herself.
England is now the only country in the United Kingdom, and indeed in Europe, that does not provide financial support to its farmers. England’s farmers, therefore, have been uniquely abandoned by this Government, by their Conservative predecessor and by those whose madcap ideology took us out of Europe without any kind of a plan. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether food security will be counted as a public good, as the Liberal Democrats propose, and funded through environmental land management schemes? When will the SFI be reopened, and how much money will be in it? Will she ensure that this time the money does not mostly go to the wealthiest, as the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) just referred to, and when will she stop making English farmers the worst supported in the whole of Europe?
Emma Reynolds
The hon. Member asked a number of good questions. I have said that the new iteration of the SFI will be out in the first half of next year. My hon. Friend the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs and I are looking very carefully at how we get this right, and I can reassure the hon. Member that we are looking at the distributional analysis on who is getting these schemes at the moment. We do want to make it easier for smaller farms to gain access to the schemes—I can reassure him on that.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton and Winchmore Hill) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
Poor air quality harms health, and it does not affect all communities equally. Our new environmental improvement plan sets a new target to cut exposure to harmful particles by nearly one third by 2030. We will deliver that by modernising industrial permitting, consulting on tighter standards for new wood-burning appliances, streamlining the assessment of harmful particles in the planning system, and exploring options to reduce emissions from small industrial combustion plants.
Kate Osamor
The Government’s policy to strengthen standards for new waste incinerators to receive planning approval was a step in the right direction. However, it was no comfort for my constituents, whose health will be impacted by the massive new Edmonton incinerator, which is currently being built. Can I urge the Government to take further action to reduce the incentive for waste authorities to continue to rely on incineration for decades to come?
Mary Creagh
Our future circular economy growth plan and interventions will seek to go beyond recycling and drive circularity in our waste streams, reducing the amount of waste that is sent for incineration and, crucially, to landfill. That is on top of the reforms we are delivering to simplify recycling for all households and businesses, including introducing food waste collections from next April and encouraging reduced and recyclable packaging.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister referred to wood stoves. Many people use wood stoves, especially those living on farms, where trees fall. It seems logical to give them the opportunity to use that resource in a sensible way. The policy that is being followed may not be fair to those who have committed themselves to using wood stoves. Has the Minister any thoughts on how their concerns can be addressed?
Mary Creagh
The hon. Member is absolutely right; wood burners are an important way for some households to heat their homes. Our upcoming consultation will focus on tighter standards for new wood-burning appliances to help reduce health impacts.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
As I may not get another chance, may I take this opportunity to wish you, and all Members and House staff, a happy Christmas, Mr Speaker?
We are committed to promoting fairness across the food supply chain, including achieving a fair price for sugar beet that benefits both growers and processors. There is a well-established independent process in place to agree the sugar beet price. We continue to keep it and the regulatory framework under review.
Rachel Taylor
A merry Christmas to you and all your staff, Mr Speaker.
In the summer I visited Boultbees farm in Baxterley in my constituency, where I met Andrew and his team. Like all farmers who grow sugar beet, they are obliged to sell it to British Sugar, as the sole processor of British sugar beet in the UK. Common market organisation regulation exists to ensure fair negotiations on price, but British Sugar has sought to circumvent it. What are the Government doing to strengthen protections for farmers like Andrew to ensure that they get a fair deal in the combinable crops sector?
Dame Angela Eagle
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, which is an acute one. I agree that growers too often bear disproportionate risk, which is why the Government have launched a public consultation on fairness and transparency in the combinable crops supply chain. The consultation is open for eight weeks, and I encourage all interested parties to engage and share their views.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and to all.
Of course, in team DEFRA, we are dreaming of a dry Christmas, but just in case we do not get one, we are investing a record £10.5 billion into our flood and coastal defences, and the Environment Agency has reprioritised £108 million into urgent maintenance, halting the decline of our assets. If we have flooding over Christmas, dedicated teams will be on call across the country, ready to support and respond to those in need. I want to express my deepest gratitude to the Environment Agency and all our emergency services for their unwavering commitment and tireless effort; I thank them all for their hard work.
Munira Wilson
Happy Christmas to you and all your staff, Mr Speaker.
Recently, out of the blue, the Environment Agency’s flood risk map was updated to include an extra 3,800 homes in Teddington in my constituency at flood risk. There has been zero engagement with residents or elected representatives, and this is causing a lot of alarm and concern about how people and their homes can be protected. It has an impact on insurance premiums and those buying and selling homes in the area. What assurances can the Minister give my constituents about engagement in future and, more importantly, what mitigations and protections are being put in place?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Lady raises an important point. Part of the purpose of that mapping is to inform people and the wider community. For the very first time, the mapping under the new national flood risk assessment—NaFRA 2—includes the risk from surface water flooding, which was never included in previous maps; previously, only tidal and river were included. It is part of informing people. It is not that they have an increased risk; it is that, for the first time, that risk has been displayed to them. Of course, it is very important that all of this is articulated carefully and considerately with elected Members of Parliament. If she would like, I can put her directly in contact with the EA area director, who can talk a bit more about the detail that is available on these maps and how they can better inform residents and local communities about the level of flood risk they could be subjected to.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
Mr Speaker, I am sorry; I forgot to wish a happy Christmas to you, your staff, everyone in the Chamber and all the House staff who look after us so well.
Extended producer responsibility moves recycling costs from taxpayers on to packaging producers, making businesses pay their fair share. In October 2024, the Government published a full assessment of the impact of the scheme. It supports systematic change and is part of our reforms, which will create 25,000 new jobs and see £10 billion of investment from the waste sector over the next 10 years.
Peter Fortune
Mr Speaker, I would never forget to wish you and your exemplary staff a merry Christmas—I thank the Minister for the reminder.
The British Beer and Pub Association has estimated that because of EPR, the cost to brewers just for glass bottles alone is somewhere near £124 million annually. That is the equivalent of a 12% rise in beer duty. This, coupled with the Government’s disastrous jobs tax, is leaving pubs in my constituency in a perilous position, wiping out any profit on a bottle of beer. What will the Minister do to resolve this issue and other issues around EPR, to help protect the nearly 1,000 jobs in the 36 pubs across Bromley and Biggin Hill?
Mary Creagh
We have had some very good news on food inflation and the cost of living being reduced, so inflation is down. I am concerned that the hon. Member has some memory loss, because under the Conservatives a pub or bar closed every 14 hours. We are working closely with the industry to tackle concerns around the dual use of packaging, and we have held workshops with them. EPR fees only apply to drinks sold in bottles; they do not apply to pints of beer poured in pubs or wine sold by the glass, so I do hope that this will not stop the pubs in his constituency enjoying a festive Christmas.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
We will restore our waterways to places communities can be proud of, where nature flourishes. Our environmental improvement plan outlines actions to reduce the volume of rainwater and pollutants entering the sewerage system, and we are rebuilding the water network through a record £104 billion investment. That includes over £10 billion to reduce sewer discharges from over 2,500 storm overflows in England and £4.8 billion to reduce phosphorus pollution.
Lauren Edwards
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and merry Christmas.
Will the Minister outline how the Government are delivering a fairer system to clean up waterways such as the River Medway, which runs through my constituency? It saw over 200 sewage outflows in 2024 and the estimates for this year are even higher, while consumers are also facing rising bills over the next five years. Will she set out the support that will be available for consumers? A polluter should pay, and the water company should be diverting profits to improve its ageing infrastructure.
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I thank her for raising that important issue and for her work on it and her passion. She is right to point out as well that the Environment Agency budget was cut by half under the previous Government, which left it powerless to clamp down on polluting water companies. We have been clear that the amount of sewage discharged into our waters is unacceptable. That is why we have already banned unfair bonuses for water bosses, introduced tougher automatic penalties to clamp down on pollution and secured money to upgrade storm overflows across England.
But we are not stopping there, Mr Speaker; we don’t want to give you only that! We are going to give you more treats in the new year with our water White Paper, which will set out long term reforms to strengthen regulation, tackle pollution and accelerate the delivery of water infrastructure.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The River Otter in Devon is classified by the Environment Agency as “poor”, with twice the phosphate levels of other rivers in Devon. We hear from the Environment Agency that that is because of agricultural runoff. That is incorrect. Citizen scientists from the Otter Valley Association have proved that it is because of sewage discharges. Will she make sure that whatever succeeds the Environment Agency is a regulator with teeth?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Gentleman is quite right: of course we want a regulator with teeth, able to identify the exact source of pollution. As we have already said about our water White Paper, there will be a regional element it order to be able to in more detail at those particular catchments to identify the main source of pollution in each catchment and, therefore, the best actions to take to address it.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
While the Conservatives failed to spend £300 million of the farming budget, we are backing farmers with the largest nature-friendly budget in history, and 50,000 farm businesses and half of all farmed land are now managed under our schemes. We have today published our initial response to Baroness Batters’ recommendations on farm profitability, and we are developing our 25-year farming road map.
Matt Vickers
I have met many farmers from my part of the world who have shared with me the horrific consequences of the family farm tax on food prices, on food security and on families who have farmed for generations. This morning’s farming profitability review identifies that that is the single biggest issue affecting farm viability. I believe that if the Minister heard at first hand from farmers in my part of the world, she might think again. Will she meet them?
Dame Angela Eagle
I meet farmers all the time, and I intend to spend the early part of next year, and hopefully many years thereafter, continuing to do so.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
Merry Christmas to you and your team, Mr Speaker.
Christmas is coming and the goose is getting fat—or it would be if we had not had such a terrible year for avian influenza. The poultry sector is worth £1.5 billion gross value added to our UK economy. As much as I welcome the investment going into Harlow for the national biosecurity centre, will the Minister tell us what action we are taking to make sure that we have more veterinary surgeons located in the area where the problems are being found?
Dame Angela Eagle
I pay tribute to the farmers in my hon. Friend’s constituency in the awful situation they face. We are closely monitoring the outbreak and have taken action to eradicate disease by putting in place control zones, tracing movements and issuing a proactive housing order. I am more than happy to talk to him about what we can do to ensure that we have the appropriate level of veterinary response. Avian flu is now endemic in the wild bird population, and we will have to get increasingly sophisticated at dealing with it.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
Merry Christmas to you and your team, Mr Speaker.
The Government must enact policies that benefit farming communities. They have a chance to do that now with another critical issue that impacts our farming, food security, animal welfare and biosecurity. A recommendation was made this month by the council of the School of the Biological Sciences to close the University of Cambridge’s vet school. I declare my strong personal and professional interest as a graduate of that school and as a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. We do not produce enough vets in the UK. We face threats to our food security and our biosecurity, both of which vets are pivotal to. The health and welfare of animals depends on vets, as indeed does public health. Will the Government act now to press the University of Cambridge to block this closure proposal and save Cambridge’s vet school, for the benefit of animals and people here in the UK and across the world?
Dame Angela Eagle
This is a matter for the University of Cambridge, but having visited the veterinary school at Harper Adams University, I am all too aware—as clearly the hon. Gentleman is—of the importance of having enough well-qualified vets in our country. We need to ensure that the supply and the opportunities to train are there, but this particular decision is one for the University of Cambridge. I am happy to talk to the university, but I am unsighted on the reasons. If the hon. Member wants to talk to me afterwards, I would be more than happy to hear what he has to say.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
Modelling has shown that food prices are driven by the interaction of domestic and international considerations, including farm gate prices, import prices and exchange rates. Modelling from industry and Government expects food price inflation to fall gradually over the next two years.
Nick Timothy
Happy Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and to all Members and staff of the House.
At the Liaison Committee this week, the Prime Minister admitted that some farmers will take their own lives because of the family farms tax, but he repeated the claim that three quarters of farms will not be affected. According to the National Farmers Union, the opposite is true: three quarters of commercial family farms will have to pay it. The big idea now is to drive up profitability, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said, the family farms tax is killing investment. Does the Minister think that Baroness Batters was wrong when she said in her report, on page 4, that the closure of the sustainable farming initiative and the family farms tax have left farmers
“particularly in the arable sector… questioning viability, let alone profitability”?
Dame Angela Eagle
I do not think that the hon. Member’s characterisation of the Prime Minister’s remarks to the Liaison Committee is entirely accurate, but I am working on introducing and making available in the first half of next year a sustainable farming incentive scheme that will hopefully be more available to smaller farmers, easier to engage with, and much simpler than the mess delivered by the Government of which he was a part. Let us face it: 25% of the money in the SFI scheme goes to the top 4% of farmers. I want to see a different distribution.
Katie Lam
Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker.
The cost of food in this country increased by 4.2% year on year last month, yet farming profitability is on the floor and has been hit repeatedly by this Government, whether that is in national insurance contribution increases, the family farm tax or energy taxes. Will the Government consider easing their terrible tax burden on farmers to solve both the cost of living crisis for food and the farming profitability crisis at the same time?
Dame Angela Eagle
I am puzzled by the hon. Lady’s view that the issues she talks about are somehow having a bad effect on food prices, since yesterday’s figures demonstrate that there has been a 0.7% decline in food price inflation, and estimates assume that inflation will gradually come down over the next two years.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Merry Christmas to you and your crew, Mr Speaker.
Food prices from farm to fork are particularly tough on coeliac sufferers. Their shops are 35% dearer, and a loaf of bread costs six times the standard price. Will my Front-Bench colleagues look into Italy’s allowance system, in order to replace our outmoded subscription model, which is bad value for the taxpayer?
Dame Angela Eagle
I am more than happy to look at how Italy does things, but that can be a bit of a double-edged sword. I sympathise and empathise with coeliacs, who have to deal with much higher prices. Some of that is to do with production and the need to ensure that there is no cross-contamination of foods. It may well be that it is more expensive to produce food that is safe for coeliacs. I absolutely accept my hon. Friend’s point, and I am happy to talk to her about it.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
On Monday, the Prime Minister admitted that farmers are considering taking their own lives for fear of the family farm tax—a tax that he described as a “sensible reform”. The next day, I was given a letter for the Prime Minister from 90-year-old farmer and grandmother Mrs Denton. It contains one chilling question that I expect the farming Minister to be able to answer. Mrs Denton asks:
“My husband and I now need to know as soon as possible the date we need to die by to avoid the totally unfair inheritance tax that will be forcibly put on our offspring to have to sell or split up a food-producing farm—and do what?”
Dame Angela Eagle
This is a highly sensitive issue. The reasons for someone contemplating taking their own life are often very complex. My heart goes out to every family who is devastated by such events. I understand the pressures that farmers are under, but I have to say that the right hon. Lady’s way of making her point is very distasteful indeed.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
Dairy farmers are facing a difficult period of market adjustment. The new fair dealing regulations ensure fairness and greater transparency, creating a more resilient dairy supply chain that supports farmers and strengthens national food security.
Wendy Chamberlain
Happy Christmas to you and your staff, Mr Speaker, and to everyone here.
Despite the agricultural supply chain adjudicator having a remit over fair dealings for milk prices, it appears that contracts are essentially a one-way street, with milk processors dictating prices. A constituent of mine, a dairy farmer, has recently been notified of a 2p per litre cut, which equates to a loss of £11,000 and makes it unviable for him to continue. What steps is the Minister taking to urgently redress that imbalance? Farmers are scared to speak out because it will have an impact on their contract.
Dame Angela Eagle
I understand and empathise with the experience of the hon. Lady’s constituent. A global glut of milk is driving prices down; prices had gone up because there was an undersupply, so there are market corrections going on. The Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024 now apply to all dairy supply contracts. If her constituent feels that he is being unfairly dealt with, he can contact the agricultural supply chain adjudicator, who was appointed to carry out enforcement of the fair dealing obligation regulations. He can now do so because those regulations have been in place since July of this year.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Merry Christmas to you and your fantastic staff, Mr Speaker.
I note that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) obviously has better things to do than turn up and speak for farmers. I want to speak up for dairy tenant farmers. Tenant farmers manage a third of all farmland in England. As well as running her dairy farm, Rachel at Low Springs farm in Baildon also runs Baildon farmers market and is the director of the Great Yorkshire show. Will the Minister set out how this Labour Government are implementing the recommendations of Baroness Rock’s review to help tenant dairy farmers such as Rachel?
Dame Angela Eagle
My hon. Friend raises the important point that a third of all farmland in England is managed by tenant farmers, so a fair and sustainable tenant farming sector relies on positive landlord, tenant and adviser relationships. To help deliver that, we have appointed Alan Laidlaw as England’s first commissioner for the tenant farming sector. We will continue to look particularly at how tenant farming agreements are working, to see whether there is any need for reform in the future.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and to your tip-top team.
Dumfries and Galloway is the land of milk and slurry. We lack not for grass and dairy cattle, but we do lack for people. We are heavily reliant on immigrants to milk the cattle, so the loss of occupation code 5111 from the immigration salary list is causing huge concern. Can my farmers count on the Secretary of State to speak to the Home Office and head off what appears to be a looming crisis?
Dame Angela Eagle
We have a close relationship with the Home Office, and I have old contacts there too. I promise that we keep a close eye on these things and look at what we can do about emerging shortages. Given that we want to reduce the number of people who come into this country and that we want to create job opportunities for people here, it is important that the sector looks at how it can train people locally to do those jobs.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I had the opportunity to meet a dairy farmer in my constituency, who explained just how financially challenging things have been. They have diversified, they have a farm shop and they do raw milk vending, but it is simply not enough for them to make a profit on other activities to subsidise their milk production. Will the Minister outline how dairy farmers, who are critical to a vibrant food and drink sector, will be supported in the long term?
Dame Angela Eagle
The global glut of milk has led to instability in price, which is difficult as many of our food prices are reliant on global markets. We have put in place the Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024, and we will be keeping a close eye on the sector to see what else we can do to ensure that we continue to support it.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
Our animal health and welfare pathway scheme provides funding to farmers to improve the health and welfare of their livestock. It also supports veterinary visits to discuss health and welfare, and it provides capital grants for equipment and infrastructure to improve animal welfare. I am pleased that 7,000 farmers have already signed up to receive funding.
Adrian Ramsay
Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker.
The Animal Law Foundation’s report “The Enforcement Problem” shows that only around 2.2% of farmers were inspected in 2024 and only around half of complaints about farmed animal welfare led to any inspection. Even when non-compliance is detected by local authorities, only 2% of cases lead to prosecution. Allowing those breaches is terrible for animals and terrible for the farmers who do comply with the rules. How will the forthcoming animal welfare strategy ensure that credible complaints are consistently investigated, and that enforcement bodies have the resources and duties needed to act when animal welfare concerns are raised?
Emma Reynolds
I can confirm that further details on this issue will be set out in the animal welfare strategy, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising it. He is right that we need to have a closer eye on enforcement and work more closely with councils to ensure that there is better enforcement.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
We know how much you love your pets, Mr Speaker, and we are a nation of animal lovers. We intend to publish our animal welfare strategy very soon, taking forward our manifesto promises with the most ambitious reform in a generation. This commitment to animal welfare sits alongside our wider ambitions for nature. Earlier this month we launched our environmental improvement plan, which sets out how we will protect our environment for future generations.
Finally, Mr Speaker, I wish you, your family, your many pets, your staff, the House staff who look after us so well, and all hon. Members, a merry Christmas. As many of us prepare to spend time with loved ones over Christmas, I want to thank the farmers, the emergency workers and many more who will continue their vital work throughout the festive period.
Sir John Whittingdale
While wishing the Minister, and indeed all hon. Members and staff, a very happy Christmas, may I tell her that many of my farming constituents will not be celebrating as they gather with their families, because their hopes of passing on their farms to their children, just as their parents and grandparents did before them, have been made impossible by Labour’s family farm tax? She has already heard from some of them when she and I did “Any Questions?” in Essex a few months ago, but will she now, once again, try to persuade the Chancellor to withdraw this punitive and damaging measure?
Emma Reynolds
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. We did debate this issue on the radio together. The reason we are making these changes is that the top 7% of estates account for 40% of inheritance tax reliefs—that is £219 million for the top 37 landowners—and we think that is unfair.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Emma Reynolds
I am pleased to confirm that the animal welfare strategy will be published before Christmas, and I will have more to say about that shortly in the House. We are giving this country of animal lovers the legislation to match. The strategy will set out our priorities until 2030 and take forward the manifesto commitments on which Government Members stood.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
May I wish you, Mr Speaker, the House staff and Members across the House a very merry Christmas? I thank the farmers, the food producers, and the pubs, restaurants, hotels and others that will look after us all and ensure that we enjoy a very merry Christmas.
We are in a food and farming emergency, with rising food prices, record farm closures and two pubs or restaurants closing every single day. A month ago, the Conservatives held an emergency summit to ask farmers, fishermen and food producers for the urgent solutions they need to survive the next 12 months. Those included launching their sustainable farming incentive scheme, rolling over the fruit and veg scheme, and setting up a scheme to ensure that livestock farmers can afford to feed their animals over winter, as well as axing the family farm tax. I sent those solutions to the Secretary of State hoping that she would do something, but I have still heard nothing back a month later. There has been no action or response from her to that letter.
Mr Speaker
Order. [Interruption.] One of us is going to sit down, and it is not going to me, is it? We are in topical questions, and I have let the session run a little bit to get everybody in. We must have short questions. If you are going to come in on topicals, your question has to be short; it cannot be a long list. Please finish your question now.
Victoria Atkins
This is a quick question. Does the Secretary of State think that she is capable of organising a knees-up in a brewery this Christmas?
Emma Reynolds
Well, Mr Speaker, it was not really worth waiting for. In the first instance, I urge the right hon. Lady to check her emails, as I sent a detailed response to her letter. I also urge her to stop talking the sector down. We are ensuring that we are helping farmers to be more profitable, which is why we have published the Batters review today. We are setting out in the new year our next iteration of the SFI, in close collaboration with the farming sector, and we will also set out our 25-year farming road map.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Merry Christmas to you and your team, Mr Speaker.
Alongside many colleagues on the Government Benches who are passionate about farming, I will continue to argue for a rethink on inheritance tax, but I back this Government and their mission to improve the profitability of our farms. We are speeding up planning, tackling unfair supply chain practices, unlocking finance and boosting exports. Does the Minister agree that the findings of the Batters review mean that we can finally turn a page on dwindling farm incomes and unleash benefits for farmers, the rural economy and our nation’s food security?
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
That is absolutely true. Stepping forward with confidence into the future using new agritech techniques, diversifying farm income and seeing what we can do in partnership with the industry, as Baroness Batters’ report says this morning, is the way forward; talking down the industry and covering it in doom and gloom is not.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker, and I hope you get to enjoy a turkey from Norfolk.
Water availability is increasingly important for my farmers, and Conservative austerity and cuts to the Environment Agency made obtaining water abstraction licences and permits painfully slow and often expensive. Can the Minister provide an update on work to speed up that process so that farmers are not kept waiting for important decisions?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. I was delighted to meet a number of water abstraction groups— who might not be the WAGs most people think of—to talk about some of the work they are doing as farmers to make farms more resilient. It is a hugely important issue, and just this week, the Minister for Housing and Planning has talked about how we are going to make the rules for farmers creating their own reservoirs simpler and more straightforward, so that we can build resilience. We know what a difficult time farmers have had, with a particularly wet winter and a very dry summer, and we want to do everything we can to help them become more resilient.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
Absolutely not. This is a very new policy, and BNG remains a legal requirement. These changes are targeted and proportionate and have been consulted on, and what the hon. Gentleman omits to say is that we are introducing BNG into nationally significant infrastructure projects for the first time. On a net basis, we think the market will continue and thrive.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
Merry Christmas to all, Mr Speaker.
Over the Christmas break, many of us across the constituency will enjoy getting out for a good walk in nature. I am particularly pleased that our Labour Government have confirmed that the first new national forest for 30 years, the Western forest, will be planted across our region, making it even easier for more people to do that in future. Will the Minister please set out how the early stages of the programme are progressing, and share more about the plans for this new forest and the benefits it will bring for local people?
Mary Creagh
The hot news is that the Secretary of State has planted an oak tree there and I have planted an apple tree there, so I feel that as a Department, we have done our bit. It is a brilliant forest providing lots of different ecosystem services, from agroforestry to increasing access for local people and, critically, preventing flooding. The initial sites include Pucklechurch in Gloucestershire, and when it is completed, the forest will serve over 2.5 million residents, bringing trees much closer to where they live.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker.
A recent outbreak of avian flu near Wetheral in my constituency affected 43,000 birds and required the culling of the entire flock. Although I welcome the turkey vaccination trial, I am concerned that it will not conclude in time for the vaccine to be rolled out for the next avian flu season. Will the Minister set out what steps she is taking to remove the regulatory barriers that might prevent a roll-out in time for the next avian flu season?
Dame Angela Eagle
We have to get the science right on vaccination trials. The turkey trial is being carried out because this is one of our most valuable stocks, so we cannot rush it. I would not want to get our turkey industry into a situation where the vaccination trial was rushed and we were not sure of the response, because if there is not international recognition of vaccinations, it destroys the trade.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Dame Angela Eagle
We have already brought forward some sectoral regulations to improve fairness, but there is a built-in difficulty when there are small suppliers and very large buyers. The fairness regulations that the hon. Gentleman talks about have been put in place to try to redress that difficulty.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Many constituents, including my own, were shocked to see that 24,000 homes and businesses in the south-east were without drinking water for two weeks. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that residents get the compensation that they deserve?
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend raises a hugely important point. It was outrageous that those residents had to wait such a long time for water. We are putting customers first by more than doubling the compensation that they receive for water company failings, such as supply interruptions, low pressure, sewer flooding and meter company issues. It is because of changes under this Government that, for the first time, customers will receive compensation for boil notices. The recent incident in Tunbridge Wells is the first time that boil notice compensation has been issued. The changes will rightly increase the amount of compensation that customers receive. We are clear that, under this Government, customers come first, and we are going even further by introducing a water ombudsman as part our wider reforms.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Emma Hardy
The hon. Lady has raised this important point with me, and she will know my commitment to the River Wye following my visit. One recommendation is to explore the feasibility of a water protection zone. This would be a complex undertaking, and the Environment Agency is currently considering it. In the first instance, it might be wise to meet the Environment Agency, but if that it unsatisfactory, and she wants to meet me, I can arrange that.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Last week I visited Ball Corporation, the leading global manufacturer of sustainable aluminium packaging, at its head office in my constituency. What steps is the Department taking to improve recycling of prime aluminium in the form of cans in the UK, to help support jobs in the UK’s circular economy?
Mary Creagh
Our simpler recycling reforms are all about creating clean streams of recyclable material. I was delighted to see some of the investment that is going in when I opened a new chemical recycling facility for plastics in Amber Valley, which can produce food-grade plastics. I hope that much more investment is to come, because aluminium is infinitely recyclable.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Ellie Reeves)
This Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record caseload of 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard in the Crown court. Doing nothing was not an option. Let me be clear: jury trials remain a cornerstone of our justice system, but justice delayed is justice denied. Too many victims are being let down and too many defendants are being denied a fair and timely trial due to the ongoing crisis in our courts. That is what the reforms are about.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
The Government have cancelled elections and are scrapping jury trials, and now we hear that they are limiting the right to appeal to a Crown court, despite the fact that such appeals have a 40% success rate. The Solicitor General talks about justice denied; surely, that is a case in point? Given that her job is to uphold the rule of law, would she push back against some of her colleagues’ more authoritarian tendencies?
The Solicitor General
Justice delayed is justice denied. The previous Conservative Government allowed this crisis to develop in our criminal courts, with rape victims waiting up to three years for their cases to be heard. On appeals, Sir Brian Leveson recommended a permission stage on appeal, which would mean that appeal claims with merit will have the opportunity to be heard.
Mr Francois
Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker.
I am sure the Solicitor General is aware of Operation Nova, which is funded by the Department of Health and Social Care and assists veterans who come into contact with the criminal justice system, so may I set her a theoretical challenge? Let us assume that an Op Nova veteran who fought in Afghanistan goes out one evening and is assaulted in a bar, perhaps by someone who does not like soldiers very much, but the situation is confused, and the soldier—the veteran—ends up in the dock. Should not that person, who fought for his country in a war zone and in this country’s uniform, be entitled to put his defence in front of a jury of his peers?
The Solicitor General
Jury trials make up 3% of cases currently heard in the criminal courts. It is important for both victims and defendants that they are not waiting years and years for their cases to get to court, which is happening as a result of the crisis that the previous Government left us in. The most serious cases will still be heard by juries—for example, rape, murder and grievous bodily harm cases—and it is important that justice is delivered swiftly.
Nick Timothy
I am going to do my best to get an answer, but I am not sure I will get one, based on the two we have just heard. Without any kind of mandate, the Government want to do away with jury trials and to extend the powers of magistrates to sentence people for up to two years, without any right to appeal the conviction or the sentence. Will the Solicitor General confirm that, of the 5,000 cases appealed from magistrates courts last year, more than 40% were upheld? Is it the Government’s policy simply to live with that number of miscarriages of justice?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that we are getting rid of jury trials. I will say it again: less than 3% of cases are currently heard by a jury. Under the proposals, some cases would be heard by a Crown court bench, or by the magistrates courts. When we are facing backlogs of up to three years and rape victims are not having their cases heard, doing nothing is not an option.
In relation to the hon. Gentleman’s point about appeals, Sir Brian Leveson has recommended introducing a permission stage for appeals. We are not doing away with appeals. Appeals that have merit will still be heard.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Restricting jury trials may help to reduce the Crown court backlog, but there is no evidence that the use of juries caused the current delay. However, there is evidence, starting under the previous Government, that a lack of advocates—prosecution and defence—is a significant cause of delay. What steps is the Solicitor General taking to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service is decreasing, rather than increasing, the wait for trial, which is such a blight on our criminal justice system?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend makes an important point. He will know that Sir Brian Leveson, in his report, said that investment on its own is not enough; radical reform is also needed. This Government have provided record funding for sitting days in the Crown courts—5,000 more this year—funded a £150 million boost for court maintenance, committed £34 million more a year for criminal legal aid advocate fees, and delivered a package of support for victims. Reform and investment, hand in hand, will hopefully start to tackle the backlog left by the previous Government.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
For any victim of rape or sexual assault, to wait years for justice to be delivered is horrific. The mental toll on victims, who are unable to see their perpetrators have their day in court, is unimaginable. It is a stain on our justice system. Will the Solicitor General confirm that victims will be kept at the heart of our justice system, and that this Government will deliver timely justice for victims of rape and serious sexual assault?
The Solicitor General
I am delighted that the Minister for Safeguarding, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), will today announce a landmark cross-Government strategy to halve violence against women and girls. This Government are introducing structural reforms as well as investment, including half a billion pounds-worth of support for victims—including victims of rape and serious sexual assault—so that we can support victims and deliver swifter justice.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
The Solicitor General is absolutely right to say that justice delayed is justice denied. My constituent Qesser Zuhrah has been on remand in prison for over a year. Two other constituents, Heba Muraisi and Lewie Chiaramello, have also been on remand, awaiting trial. None of the offences of which they are accused are offences of violence against the person. All three are now on hunger strike. Would it not make much more sense, be much more efficient for the criminal justice system and, quite honestly, be a humanitarian gesture to allow these three to be released, with tagging and appropriate monitoring, to face trial in due course?
Mr Speaker
Order. The point has been made, and it is on the record. Can I just tell the Solicitor General that because this is sub judice, I will move on to Helen Grant, the shadow Solicitor General?
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I wish you and your brilliant team a very happy Christmas?
The 2017 Lammy review looked at prejudice in the criminal justice system. Our now Justice Secretary said:
“Juries are a success story of our justice system… juries are representative of local populations—and must deliberate as a group, leaving no hiding place for bias or discrimination”,
and
“This debate and deliberation acts as a filter for prejudice”.
In 2020, he said,
“Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea. You don’t fix the backlog with trials that are widely perceived as unfair.”
What advice has the Minister given on how to avoid the discriminatory outcomes that the Justice Secretary warned about?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Lady will know that in the judicial oath, judges swear to act
“without fear or favour, affection or ill will”,
and they decide cases in line with the law and the facts of the case. That underpins our democracy and our criminal justice system. Our reforms will not impact the outcome of trials; they will affect only the mode of trial. We are working to bring in new and diverse magistrates over the next 12 months, ensuring that our benches reflect the communities that they serve, and we will continue to recruit high numbers in the future.
Helen Grant
I am not too sure that answered my question; I shall have another go. This month, the Minister’s colleague, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), wrote:
“The erosion of jury trials not only risks undermining a fundamental right, but importantly, will not reduce the backlog by anything like enough”.
He went on:
“If this ever comes to the House of Commons, I will rebel and vote against it…The House and the public will not stand for the erosion of a fundamental right”.
It would seem from X that at least 38 of his colleagues take a similar view. Is the Solicitor General, who is charged with upholding the rule of law, also concerned about the Justice Secretary’s proposals?
The Solicitor General
I take very seriously the proposals put forward by Sir Brian Leveson, which made it clear that because of the crisis in the justice system, and the backlog of 80,000 cases left by the previous Conservative Government, investment alone is not enough; radical reform is also required. Jury trials are not being got rid of, but some cases will be heard by magistrates, or by the Crown bench division. Justice delayed is justice denied. People are waiting far too long for their case to get to court. That is no justice. It is no justice when rape victims wait three years—and 60% pull out of their case before it gets to court as a result. Doing nothing is not an option, so it is important that we implement these measures.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Speaker; I also wish you and your excellent team, and everyone across the House, a very merry Christmas.
Following on from my question on the legal aid means test for domestic abuse victims, I want to highlight the danger that scrapping jury trials for sentences under three years poses for domestic abuse cases. It is highly questionable that this will bring the backlog down, as has been claimed. A Cornish legal aid clinic got in touch with me to detail a judge’s deeply troubling conduct towards a woman seeking justice against her abuser; the judge reportedly described her as “difficult” and effectively blamed her for the abuse she endured.
The complex nature of domestic abuse cases requires the breadth of perspective and understanding that jury trials provide. What assessment will the Solicitor General make of the impact that reducing jury trials will have specifically on domestic abuse cases heard in the Crown court?
The Solicitor General
The Government are committed to supporting survivors of domestic abuse and ensuring that they have access to justice. I recently visited the brilliant specialist domestic abuse court based at Westminster magistrates court, and saw at first hand the work it is doing to support survivors and help cases get through the courts as quickly as possible. When survivors of domestic abuse bravely come forward and report crimes, it is important that they receive help. Alongside the reforms, we are introducing a package of support for victims. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government’s cross-party strategy to tackle violence against women and girls will be published today.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
The Solicitor General
It is this Government’s ambition to halve violence against women and girls. As I have said today, we are launching our cross-Government VAWG strategy. I will not pre-empt it—there will be a statement in the House shortly—but I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that this national emergency needs a truly cross-Government approach. The Crown Prosecution Service recently launched its own complementary strategy. Under its victims transformation project, adult victims of rape now receive an enhanced service that provides access to a dedicated victim liaison officer and a pre-trial meeting with the prosecution team.
Lauren Edwards
I thank the Minister for her response. Earlier this week, I attended a local multi-agency roundtable on tackling violence against women to discuss how we can work together better to support victims, and I have reflected on what I heard from a very brave constituent who shared her story. Will the Minister set out how the Government will improve the experience of women like her, who need not only better support to access legal aid and bring the perpetrators to justice, but longer-term support as they navigate custody issues, mental health challenges and the significant impact that domestic violence has on children?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the devastating impact that VAWG has on victims and their families; it can affect every aspect of their lives, and I commend her brave constituent for coming forward with her experiences. That is why the strategy being announced today adopts a truly whole-system approach and unites action from every area of Government, including the criminal justice system, as well as health, education, housing and more. However, action must be backed with investment, and that is why in May we announced almost £20 million to provide vital support for victims of VAWG.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Happy Christmas to you and your team, Mr Speaker.
Earlier this year, I was successful in my campaign to increase the ridiculously short sentences handed down to three vile grooming gang members in my constituency. However, I spoke to at least one victim in my constituency who has told me that she did not know that the sentences of her abusers could be referred as unduly lenient. As the VAWG strategy is released today, will the Solicitor General meet me to discuss introducing a new statutory duty on authorities, mandating that victims of crimes must be informed about the unduly lenient sentence scheme?
The Solicitor General
This year I expect to have received in the region of 900 referrals to look at sentences under the unduly lenient sentence scheme. It is an important part of our criminal justice system that some cases can be referred for a review. I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the issue further.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
The Solicitor General
Every community deserves to feel safe and protected. Our rural and farming communities face distinct and often targeted threats from criminals, which is why the Government are taking decisive action to address these challenges, with tougher powers for the police to tackle antisocial behaviour and prevent farm theft and fly-tipping. Additionally, the Crown Prosecution Service has revived its community engagement forum on rural crime and will be bringing together key stakeholders to discuss the action required in January 2026.
Claire Young
Merry Christmas to you and all in Parliament, Mr Speaker.
What work is the Attorney General undertaking through their superintendence of the Crown Prosecution Service and in collaboration with the Home Office to reduce delays in prosecutions for rural crime and to ensure that prosecutors are equipped to support effective enforcement in rural areas?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Lady is right to raise this important issue. It is important that we look at all the ways to tackle rural crime and that those crimes are successfully prosecuted, such as by implementing the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023, which aims to prevent the theft and resale of high-value equipment, particularly for use in an agricultural setting. We are also committed to funding the national rural and wildlife crime units with more than £800,000, to allow them to continue to provide their important work on intelligence, analysis and investigation to assist forces and other law enforcement agencies across the UK in investigating rural crime.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Merry Christmas and happy Hanukkah, Mr Speaker.
The chief constable of Suffolk has informed me that much rural domestic violence is simply unreported, with one reason perhaps being the feeling that trials are very long delayed. Would my right hon. Friend agree that we have an absolute duty to address this urgently?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for tackling violence against women and girls in his constituency and beyond. He is right that we need to see swifter justice, which is why we are investing in the criminal courts with £500 million extra funding to support victims, 5,000 more sitting days and a package of support and reform to ensure that these cases get to court quickly so that justice can be served.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton and Winchmore Hill) (Lab/Co-op)
The Solicitor General
I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that a fair and just legal system, which must work for everyone, must also reflect society as a whole. The Government Legal Department has expanded early career routes and is running a national law placement scheme for students from deprived backgrounds. The Crown Prosecution Service runs initiatives such as the Anthony Walker bursary scheme, which supports students from minority backgrounds and provides legal work experience for black undergraduates and graduates.
Kate Osamor
I thank the Solicitor General for her response; I know she has done a lot of work in this area. I need to read out a quotation in the Chamber from the Lammy review:
“A fundamental source of mistrust”
in the criminal justice system among black, Asian and minority ethnic communities
“is the lack of diversity among those who wield power within it.”
What impact will the proposed judge-only trials and the empowering of legal professionals have on the trust of under-represented groups in our legal system?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is vital that the judiciary and the legal profession continue to reflect the society they serve. We are working to bring in new and diverse magistrates over the next 12 months and will continue to recruit. It is vital that our judicial benches reflect the communities we serve. Judges swear a judicial oath to act without fear or favour, which is a cornerstone of our justice system.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
The Solicitor General
The most granular data that I can provide is for the Dorset police area, where the crime with the highest prosecution volume is shoplifting, followed by driving under the influence and then assault by beating. To keep communities safe over the Christmas period, the Government have launched the winter of action. Police will use hotspot patrols, and will work closely with businesses and communities to clamp down on shop theft and street crime across hundreds of town centres, including Bournemouth.
Tom Hayes
Mr Speaker, may I wish you and your team a happy Christmas? What the Solicitor General found on looked into this does not surprise me. Chris has said that he cannot stomach shoplifting, particularly at the Asda petrol station in Charminster, and Jackie is putting up with antisocial behaviour and shoplifting at the Co-op on Christchurch Road. Does the Solicitor General agree that businesses need easier ways to report crime, and that no shop worker or constituent should have to put up with fear of harm or abuse on their high street?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I know that he has convened a meeting in his constituency on retail crime with high street businesses, and he has been vocal, both in the Chamber and with me, about the scourge of shoplifting. The Government are introducing new measures in the Crime and Policing Bill to tackle retail crime. That includes removing the £200 low-value limit for shoplifting, as well as introducing a new offence of assaulting a shop worker.
Royal Assent
Mr Speaker
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the King has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measures:
Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act 2025
Mental Health Act 2025
Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025
Space Industry (Indemnities) Act 2025
Employment Rights Act 2025
Armed Forces Chaplains (Licensing) Measure 2025
Abuse Redress Measure 2025.
Animal Welfare Strategy
(1 day, 7 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 Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government’s animal welfare strategy.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
We are a country that cares deeply for animals, and we have a proud history of being pioneers when it comes to ensuring the very best for them. We had the world’s first known animal welfare law in 1822, and produced animal welfare pioneers and organisations known across the globe today.
As announced this morning in Environment, Food and Rural Affairs oral questions, next week we intend to publish our animal welfare strategy, which takes forward our manifesto promises through the most ambitious reform to animal welfare in a generation. It will be a comprehensive package of reforms that will improve the lives of millions of animals across the UK. It covers all our relevant manifesto commitments, such as the commitments to give farm animals greater freedom and dignity, and to protect our wildlife. By improving animal welfare standards, we are supporting healthier, more productive livestock that deliver better outcomes for farmers, farm profitability and food security, and the high welfare standards that British consumers expect.
The animal welfare strategy builds on this Government’s proven track record of delivering reforms for animals, including introducing new world-leading standards for zoos earlier this year and supporting the passage of the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025, to tackle puppy smuggling, and the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act 2025, whose Royal Assent you have just announced, Mr Speaker, and which is about the worrying of livestock. Labour has always been the party of animal welfare. During our last term in government, we enacted the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and we banned foxhunting.
Dr Hudson
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I know that you are an animal lover, as indeed we are as a nation.
As a veterinary surgeon, I have animal health and welfare very close to my heart. We have now reached the end of the year for Parliament, and we still do not have sight of the Government’s animal welfare strategy. The Prime Minister has said on the record that the strategy would be released by the end of the year. That has been repeated by Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs many times in the Chamber and again today, as well as in answers to repeated written questions from many Members across the House.
We need to find out, and be able to scrutinise, the Government’s plans for our animals. We face significant issues: animal digital identification; disease outbreaks such as avian influenza and bluetongue; the threat of foot and mouth disease or African swine fever coming into the UK; a Competition and Markets Authority inquiry into veterinary services; the need for a new Veterinary Surgeons Act; a shortage of vets; and a farming community struggling with anxiety and financial pressures caused by this Labour Government.
I put on the record this House’s thanks to all the vets, farmers and frontline officials in the Animal and Plant Health Agency who are on duty over the Christmas period, tending to and protecting our animals. The UK has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world.
We should be very proud of the previous Conservative Government’s achievements in improving animal welfare, such as banning the export of live animals, including cattle, sheep, pigs and horses, for fattening or slaughter in the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024; increasing from six months to five years the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty in the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021; and enshrining animal sentience in UK law with the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, and establishing the Animal Sentience Committee, so that any new legislation must pay due regard to animal welfare. The baton has now been passed from the Conservatives to Labour. Please can we hear what the Government plan to do in this crucial area, so that the House can scrutinise what the future is for our animals and the people who care for them?
Emma Reynolds
I want to reassure the shadow Minister that we will publish the animal welfare strategy before Christmas, as we have promised. He is right that we face a number of significant issues. We will be tackling those issues head-on. I disagree with the shadow Minister’s characterisation of our Government. This will be the most ambitious animal welfare strategy in a generation. However, I agree with and echo his thanks to the vets, farmers and regulators for their work all year round, but particularly over the festive period.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
As we approach Christmas and Boxing day, let me record my pride in having been an MP when we banned foxhunting. I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the Government’s commitment to welfare. Will she reiterate to the minority of people who still seem to think that it is pleasurable to kill foxes that that is totally illegal and inappropriate?
Emma Reynolds
I could not agree more. I was not a Member of this House during the last Labour Government, but as a proud Labour member, I am proud that that Government banned foxhunting. I reiterate what my hon. Friend says: those who engage in this illegal practice should face the full force of the law.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for her comments.
Let me mention something that we would like the animal welfare strategy to focus on. The Veterinary Surgeons Act was passed in 1966, and a lot has changed since then. More than 60% of veterinary practices are now owned by corporates; they used to be owned by individual veterinary surgeons. Medical care for animals is now provided by a whole range of para-professionals, including equine dental technicians, cattle hoof trimmers and animal physiotherapists, who are all unregulated. We also have very highly trained veterinary nurses, but the title of veterinary nurse is not protected.
I urge the Government to make updating the Veterinary Surgeons Act a centrepiece of their animal welfare strategy. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the British Veterinary Association and the veterinary profession are calling for that. It would be good for owners, good for animals, and good for the veterinary profession, so I urge the Government to make that a key component of the strategy.
I am really excited about the fact that now that I am an MP, I will not be on call for Christmas, as I have been many times. I remind everyone not to feed their dogs mince pies and chocolate, and not to let them get hold of onion gravy, as that is what keeps us really, really busy at Christmas.
Emma Reynolds
I thank the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the whole House, for what he has just said, and for his service, before he became a Member and since. This is a really important area, and we absolutely appreciate that the Veterinary Surgeons Act needs updating. I can reassure him that we are continuing to pursue opportunities to do that.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
All I want for Christmas is a generational boost to animal welfare. That does not have the same ring to it as what the queen of Christmas sang, but given the widespread public support for animal welfare, maybe we could give her a run for her money with that one. Our British farmers lead the way globally on high standards of farmed animal welfare, and they deserve great credit for that. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the animal welfare strategy will continue that trend, and will work with farmers and their representatives, so that they can reap the rewards, and so that domestic production is safeguarded as we move towards higher standards?
Emma Reynolds
I can confirm that. As I said earlier, measures are already in place to provide funding to farmers to help them improve animal welfare standards. Those measures include veterinary visits to help them continue to improve their animal welfare standards.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
We have some of the best animal welfare standards for farm animals in the world. Of course, we can do much by regulation, but the best way to protect farm animals is to have contented and prosperous family farmers who love their animals and care for them. When I arrived in the House, farmers used to talk in glowing terms about Tom Williams, the Labour Minister for agriculture in the Attlee Government, who started 80 years of prosperity for our farmers. I beg the Secretary of State and the Minister, if they are really concerned about animal welfare and the welfare of our farmers, to drop the absurd family farm tax.
Emma Reynolds
I say politely to the right hon. Gentleman that the time to raise those issues was earlier today.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and to everyone across the House. I reiterate what colleagues from across the Chamber have said about the importance of reforming the Veterinary Surgeons Act. It is 60 years old and has not kept pace with modern medicine, new technology or the way that veterinary practices are run. Will my right hon. Friend set out how the animal welfare strategy will tackle the extraordinary increase in veterinary fees, which is a massive cost of living issue? Finally, I thank veterinary surgeons across the UK, particularly those at Glasgow University’s veterinary hospital, who I had cause to see rather more frequently than I would have liked this year.
Emma Reynolds
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think you have much in common with my hon. Friend. I thank her for her doughty campaigning on this issue. The work we are doing on the Veterinary Surgeons Act is separate from the animal welfare strategy, but as we have discussed privately, that work is ongoing.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I feel I should declare an interest, Mr Speaker, in that Mrs Carmichael will be one of those veterinary surgeons who will be on call on Christmas Day this year. It will be me in the kitchen, yet again. [Interruption.] That’s fine; it keeps the turkeys safe, at least. Just 10 days ago, Baroness Hayman told us that we would get the strategy before Christmas. Publishing it next week is, I suppose, strictly within the letter of that, but it is not quite within the spirit. The Department seems to be struggling a bit with its strategies at the moment. Our Select Committee had an excellent session with the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), but as soon as she was out the door, no fewer than four fisheries management strategies landed in my inbox. As a new year’s resolution, will the Secretary of State look at how these things are handled, so that this House can scrutinise future strategies?
Emma Reynolds
May I start by thanking the right hon. Gentleman’s wife for her service over the Christmas period? I am glad to hear that, by the sound of it, he will be spending a lot of time in his kitchen. We promised that we would publish the strategy before Christmas, and we will do precisely that, but obviously we would like to discuss the strategy with colleagues from across the House when it has been published.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the update and for engaging with the various animal welfare charities. I am particularly interested in the farmed animals section, given that we have millions of farmed animals in this country. Farmers, I find, are so often the best conservationists, and they want to do even more. Can the Secretary of State confirm that British farmers will continue to lead the world with strong animal welfare standards, and will she consider what more support can be provided to help them do so and to get the message out to consumers so that they can make more informed choices?
Emma Reynolds
My hon. Friend is a great campaigner for his constituency and does great work locally. We do indeed have a good reputation for animal welfare around the world. I was in Brussels recently meeting my counterparts at the European Commission, and they were very interested in what we are doing here in the UK. Obviously they are doing different things in Europe, but it is always interesting to share notes.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I have two questions—one practical and one policy. Let us make no mistake: the Government have been dragged here today to answer an urgent question about their welfare strategy, which they are bringing forward next week but which we cannot scrutinise because Parliament goes into recess today. Why is that the case? On policy, I have written a number of times about animal welfare in the rescue and rehoming sector. I hope that that is included in the strategy. Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is being looked at and whether further regulations are needed?
Emma Reynolds
I am sure that there will be opportunities in the new year to have a discussion about the animal welfare strategy. I will be able to confirm the answer to the hon. Member’s question when the strategy comes out.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
My constituent Bryan Griffiths tells me that trail hunting in Warwickshire is often a smokescreen for illegal hunting, with devastating consequences for livestock. When will the Government start the consultation on the future of trail hunting?
Emma Reynolds
In the new year, we will issue a consultation on banning trail hunting, as we committed to do in our manifesto. My hon. Friend is right in the things she says about it.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Since we cannot scrutinise the strategy today, may I ask what action is included in it to phase out animal testing in scientific laboratories?
Emma Reynolds
As the hon. Member will probably know, that is a joint responsibility with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, which leads on it. We are working closely with DSIT. It released a strategy recently that ensures we can use alternatives more quickly to phase out animal testing. I would be happy to discuss it with him, but it is led by DSIT rather than DEFRA. It is seen as an animal welfare issue, but it sits with DSIT.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I hope that you, Mr Speaker, like me and my family have already got your turkey ordered from the local butcher for Christmas. Like many of my constituents, I really care about animal welfare, so I look forward to the strategy being published next week. Will the Secretary of State outline the steps that the Government are taking to ensure that there is really clear labelling and communication, so that we can all be confident when we go and buy our Christmas turkey of the welfare of the animal we are eating?
Emma Reynolds
I have ordered my meat from my local butcher already. It is a bit late in the day, but I thank my hon. Friend for the reminder to those who may not have done so already. We want to make sure that there is transparency, and we are working on labelling. It will not be part of this strategy, but we are looking at it separately.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
We are indeed a nation of animal lovers, yet every year 200,000 sows are kept in farrowing crates where they cannot even turn around, while millions of hens are kept in tiny spaces no bigger than an A4 piece of paper. Those are cruel, cramped conditions that cause a short life of pain and suffering. Following the recent cross-party letter that I initiated, will the Secretary of State confirm that the animal welfare strategy will include an end to the cruel use of farrowing crates and cages and, importantly, support for farmers through this transition so that people can have confidence in so-called welfare-assured systems?
Emma Reynolds
I know that the hon. Member is active on the issue of farrowing crates. Some 50% of the sow herd give birth outside, but we are looking at what more we can do to deal with the rest that do not; that is a priority for the Government.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
My wife, who is a radiographer, is on call on Christmas day, but luckily we are going to the in-laws, so hopefully that will cover it.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
You won’t be in the kitchen, then?
Mr Francois
They’re not going to risk that!
Mr Speaker, we know you are an animal lover—the world knows that—but some may recall that our great friend, Sir David, was a passionate animal lover, too. One cause that was very close to his heart was pig farrowing crates. Another was banning the import of foreign hunting trophies, which is an awful trade. There was a private Member’s Bill in the last Session that sailed through the Commons but ran into trouble in the Lords. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Government are committed to banning the import of hunting trophies? At the moment, they are not providing any private Member’s Bill Fridays for other reasons, so how will that ban be achieved?
Emma Reynolds
I found Sir David Amess to be a really good and generous friend; I went on a number of parliamentary visits with him, and I thank the right hon. Member for what he said about Sir David.
We are committed to banning hunting trophies. It is a conservation issue, so it will not be in the animal welfare strategy, but we will be taking measures forward separately.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
South Norfolk’s farmers produce some of the highest quality pork and poultry products in the world because they are so proud of the high animal welfare standards they have. May I urge the Minister to work closely with colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade to ensure that we protect our farms from lower standards across the seas, which we have been doing brilliantly in these first 18 months?
Emma Reynolds
I can reassure my hon. Friend that that is precisely what we are doing—we are protecting the high standards we have here in the UK in the trade deals that we are doing with other countries around the world.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Australia and New Zealand trade deals signed by Boris Johnson’s Conservative Government undercut the standards that are demanded of British farmers, including on animal welfare. Will the Government seek to renegotiate the trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, and will they ban the import of food produced with antibiotic growth promoters?
Emma Reynolds
I know that one of my Conservative predecessors, Michael Gove, has been very critical of the trade deals done by the last Government with Australia and New Zealand, but the hon. Member will appreciate that it is very difficult to unpick trade deals once they are in place.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and all the staff of the House. There is no such thing as cruelty-free fur, as the last Labour Government recognised when they banned the fur farming industry in the UK. That case has been made powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) and organisations like Respect for Animals. Beyond the animal welfare strategy, and when the Animal Welfare Committee reports, will full and favourable consideration be given to finally banning the fruits of this vile trade by ending the import of real fur products?
Emma Reynolds
I reassure my hon. Friend that we are looking at this issue, and there will be further details in the strategy.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. May I thank you for signing the Christmas card of my young constituent, who was the winner of our Christmas card competition? When I gave it back to her, she was thrilled.
I had the pleasure of visiting the Lush store in Bath. Lush has been a leading advocate for ending animal testing, championing cruelty-free science and cosmetics, and investing in innovative and humane alternatives. The Secretary of State has partly answered the question on the “Replacing animals in science” strategy, but of course it will be closely linked to the animal welfare strategy. Will she commit to any strategy that is published being backed up by primary legislation, with legally binding targets and timelines for ending animal testing and cruelty?
Emma Reynolds
As I said in response to a previous question, this is a DSIT lead, not a DEFRA lead. We do work closely with DSIT, and as a Labour Government, we are committed to phasing out animal testing as quickly as possible, but obviously we need alternatives to be in place to do so.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and all colleagues across the House. Before my election to this place, I spent five years in the shadow DEFRA team, working with my old boss, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones). We had the animal welfare brief and spent many months and years on these issues, so I welcome the strategy almost finally arriving.
In Newcastle-under-Lyme and Staffordshire, we have wonderful farmers who work to the highest standards—British standards. While it would have been helpful to read the strategy today, can my right hon. Friend assure me and farmers back home that our strategy will support rather than hinder, be rooted in the highest of standards, and be rolled out properly, speedily and proactively?
Emma Reynolds
The short answer to my hon. Friend—I am sure you will appreciate this, Mr Speaker—is yes.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The top animal welfare issue raised with me by my constituents is the impact of fireworks—particularly ad hoc and unannounced displays—on pets and their owners. Please will the Secretary of State reassure me and others across the House, who I am sure are concerned about that issue as well, that the strategy will finally tackle it and provide much-needed relief to pets and their owners?
Emma Reynolds
That is raised with me in my constituency too. It is a tricky issue, however, because there are lots of people across the country who, at different religious festivals and obviously on Guy Fawkes day, enjoy fireworks. It is about getting the balance right.
Business of the House
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I wish all Members all the best for a restful Christmas, and let us hope for a more peaceful new year. I thank all the staff of the House, particularly my own team. They have been wonderful and they look after us. To those who are working over the Christmas period to keep this House safe, we must thank them as well. As I say, I wish you all the best for Christmas from myself and Attlee, who is very pleased that his cards have sold well this year.
I call the acting shadow Leader of the House.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The business for the week commencing 5 January 2026 will include:
Monday 5 January—Debate on a motion on mobile connectivity in rural areas. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 6 January—Second Reading of the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill.
Wednesday 7 January—Opposition day (15th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.
Thursday 8 January—Debate on a motion on the effectiveness of Magnitsky-style sanctions for serious human rights abuses, followed by debate on a motion on high street gambling reform. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 9 January—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 12 January includes:
Monday 12 January—Committee of the whole House on the Finance (No. 2) Bill (day one).
Tuesday 13 January—Committee of the whole House on the Finance (No. 2) Bill (day two).
Wednesday 14 January—Remaining stages of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill.
Thursday 15 January—General debate on new towns, followed by general debate on financial support for small businesses and individuals during the covid-19 pandemic. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 16 January—The House will not be sitting.
John Lamont
I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for the start of the new year.
I begin by expressing my deepest condolences and sympathies to the victims of the Bondi Beach attack at the weekend. I am sure that we were all horrified to see the events unfold, with innocent Jews murdered as they enjoyed Hanukkah in the evening sunshine. As the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, we must do much more to tackle antisemitism and Islamic extremism around the world, but also here in the United Kingdom.
Mr Speaker, I wish you, the Leader of the House and Members, the Doorkeepers, the catering team and all parliamentary staff a very happy Christmas.
Will the Leader of the House be making any new year’s resolutions? I know that he respects this place and the important role of MPs and Parliament in holding Ministers to account. May I suggest that his new year’s resolution should be to ensure that the 2,644 parliamentary questions that have not received a response are answered as soon as possible, please, and that all the many letters and emails from MPs to Ministers that have not received the courtesy of a reply are dealt with as quickly as possible?
As we look ahead to 2026, I am reminded that Dickens’s “A Christmas Carol” is a tale not just of redemption but of the perils of ignoring reality. Sadly, after only 18 months of this Labour Government, it is already clear that no amount of festive storytelling can disguise what is happening to our country. If anyone needs a visit from the three ghosts this year, it is those on the Government Benches.
Let us start with the ghost of Christmas past. In opposition, Labour promised everything to everyone: lower energy bills, shorter NHS waiting lists, kick-starting economic growth, safer streets, 1.5 million new homes and world-class public services, funded—apparently—without raising taxes. The British people were sold a vision of transformation without the trade-offs. Now that Labour is in government, reality is quickly catching up.
The ghost of Christmas present shows us the consequences. Since the election, we have seen rising taxes on working people, a retreat from every major spending pledge, a benefits bill rising higher and higher, a cost of living crisis made in Downing Street and economic growth going in the wrong direction. Labour promised an immediate plan to rescue the NHS; instead, waiting lists have continued to rise and militant doctors remain in dispute, resulting in 93,000 lost appointments and patients being told to expect a long, difficult winter. This Labour Government promised a plan for social care; six months later, there is still none. They promised cheaper energy bills; bills are up again. They promised 1.5 million new homes; yet planning reforms are already being bogged down by internal Labour rows. They promised 6,500 more teachers, but there are now 400 fewer teachers since the election. They promised to smash the gangs, but illegal migration continues to rise, and despite promising to restore trust in our justice system, Labour’s early release scheme has seen offenders let out early while police forces struggle with 1,316 fewer police. This is not the change the public were promised.
Now to the ghost of Christmas yet to come: if the first 18 months are a sign of things to come, the future should send a winter chill through us all. Even more tax rises are due to hit working people thanks to the Chancellor’s “Nightmare before Christmas” Budget last month. The family farm tax will take effect, which will decimate our rural economy and undermine food security. We will see Departments told to brace for spending cuts after Labour admitted the money was not there; councils warning of bankruptcy, and investment faltering as businesses grapple with mixed signals on planning, energy and regulation; our liberties under attack, with the introduction of digital ID and the scrapping of trials by jury; and a Prime Minister who talks endlessly about missions but is yet to deliver a single measurable improvement to the lives of ordinary families.
The lesson of Dickens’s tale is that it is never too late to change course. For the sake of our country, we on the Opposition Benches urge the Government to do exactly that. We urge them to be honest about what they can fund, to be transparent about what they will cut, to show some backbone and, above all else, to keep their promises. Let us hope that by next Christmas, the Government have changed direction, because the country cannot afford another year like 2025. Happy new year.
Sir Alan Campbell
First, I join the shadow Deputy Leader of the House, and the whole House, in sending our thoughts and condolences to those affected by the terrorist attack in Bondi Beach. Hanukkah should be a time of celebration; instead, it has become a scene of horror and violence. Antisemitism has absolutely no place in our society, and we stand in solidarity with the Jewish community.
This is our last business questions of the year, so I would like to thank you, Mr Speaker, and wish you and Members across the House a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. It is a shame that there are no Reform Members joining us in the House today. I understand their nativity play has been cancelled this year because they could not find three wise men.
I want to address some of the points raised by the shadow Deputy Leader of the House specifically, but let me first take the opportunity to reflect on what has been achieved over the past 12 months, and recognise and thank all those who have embodied the spirit of good will and service this year.
First, I acknowledge the hard work of charities and organisations in our constituencies—none more important those that support people experiencing homelessness. The Government are backing those organisations with our homelessness strategy, which outlines our commitment to halving the number of long-term rough sleepers. We are also delivering on our promise of safe and secure housing by banning no-fault evictions and introducing new protections for renters. We are bringing forward planning reform to build the new homes that we need and to deliver the biggest boost to social and affordable homes in a generation.
We must also recognise the contributions of charities and community groups in supporting the most vulnerable through the cost of living crisis. We have extended the household support fund to support struggling households. We have also launched the warm homes plan to deliver lower energy bills and lift 1 million households out of fuel poverty, and we have published our child poverty strategy, which will lift half a million children out of poverty. We are improving children’s life chances now, and addressing the root causes of child poverty in the future.
I also thank teachers and all those who support our young people. I hope that they get a well-deserved rest over the festive period. We are backing them by investing in our children’s future, recruiting 6,500 more teachers nationally, and increasing school funding by £1.7 billion.
NHS workers are the backbone of our health service, and I acknowledge their dedication—they continue to care for patients through the festive period. We are backing them with our long-term plan to rebuild our NHS over the next 10 years, protecting investment, creating more appointments, and recruiting more GPs and mental health workers.
We must also acknowledge and thank local authority workers, postal workers and shop workers, who work throughout the festive period and keep our country running. And last but not least, I acknowledge the dedication and tireless work of our police and emergency services, who keep our community safe. We are backing them with the resources they need to do their vital jobs, which is why we are publishing our provisional police funding settlement today and will continue to ensure that money is directed to the right places. We look forward to delivering on our commitment to recruiting more police officers in 2026.
Let me address some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman. He asked about my new year’s resolution; it will be not to make resolutions. He asked about parliamentary questions and other correspondence from Ministers. I do take those matters seriously, as he said; we constantly tell Departments that they need to up their game. However, he knows through his work—not least on the Modernisation Committee—that there is a deeper issue with PQs. Their number has increased enormously. Departments need to up their game quite frankly, but at the same time, we must think carefully about the number of PQs we are putting in and whether the system can cope with it. This has been a problem not just for this Government but for the previous Government, too.
The hon. Gentleman referenced Dickens’s “A Christmas Carol”. Let me turn instead to “A Tale of Two Cities” and draw a comparison between 14 years of Conservative Government and 18 months of Labour Government. To paraphrase, “It was the worst of times, it is now the best of times.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. A couple of Members did not get in last week, so we will start with them. I call Andy MacNae.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
A very merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and to all House staff and colleagues.
Since we were elected, my Lancashire colleagues and I have been campaigning for more funding for our local services. When new local government funding was announced yesterday, I was really pleased to see that the Government have properly listened. Funding is now following need, and a decade of austerity is ending. It is great to see Blackburn with Darwen borough council and Rossendale borough council getting significant increases. We are working with council leaders to ensure that the impacts of that funding are felt in every community.
However, most key services in Rossendale are delivered by Lancashire county council. They have been under threat since Reform took control, with cuts to nurseries, gritting and care homes all being considered. Now, thanks to the Government and to lobbying by Labour MPs across Lancashire, the county council will get a massive increase—£310 million more—by 2028, so Reform has no more excuses. Will the Leader of the House join me in calling on Reform to stop the cuts and focus instead on delivering the services that we all rely on?
Sir Alan Campbell
I agree with my hon. Friend that the callous words of the council appear to be completely nonsensical and, in some cases, outright dangerous. The Government take the matters that he raises very seriously, including questions about road safety, which he has raised in the past. That is why we are backing local authorities with increased resources, but I urge Reform-led Lancashire county council to take these matters more seriously.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
May I associate myself with the comments made by the Leader of the House about the victims of the Bondi Beach attack? Antisemitism has no place in our society and I am glad that the House is united against hate.
Mr Speaker, I join in the well wishes to you and to all the House staff at Christmas time. The Government have been engaging in another Christmas tradition this week: rushing out lots of statements in the final week before recess. I calculated that we are up to double the normal rate, with 13 and a half statements per day this week—I will let you decide what half a statement constitutes, Mr Speaker!
We had the statement on local government finance yesterday, and it seemed that many Labour Back Benchers seemed to have had access to the figures for each local authority in advance, in a way that we had not. Our spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), searched the internet for the figures in advance but could not find them, so will the Leader of the House ask the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness to clarify whether those figures were made available to Labour Back Benchers in advance?
Moving on to more serious Christmas matters, the BBC reported this week that Father Christmas’s pay has flatlined this year. There is good news for the elves, as thanks to the national minimum wage increase, their pay is on the up. However, this wage compression is apparently demotivating for Father Christmas and some garden centres across the country are struggling to get him to turn up. As it happens, he is also upset about the Employment Rights Bill, because it has made it much more difficult for him to get the sack—ba-dum tish. [Interruption.] Oh, come on!
Another important Christmas matter is the ongoing bitter dispute about Christmas films. The Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), insists that “Die Hard” is a Christmas movie; she even has a “Die Hard”-themed advent calendar in the Whips Office. It is of course set at Christmas time, but some say it is too violent to be a Christmas film, although in my experience violence is not absent from Christmas, usually.
There has also been some controversy over “Love Actually”—it is of course set at Christmas time, but some people have been calling for it to be cancelled because of its dated romantic themes. I still like “Love Actually” and I encourage the Prime Minister to watch it this year; I would hope he might be inspired by Hugh Grant’s character’s courage.
Finally, I would like to make the slightly controversial point that sometimes Christmas TV specials are better than Christmas films. I really enjoyed the “Gavin and Stacey” Christmas special last year and I am looking forward to “Amandaland” this year. All this demonstrates that there is a lot to be settled when it comes to the matter of Christmas films, so will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on the matter of Christmas films?
Mr Speaker
I have been very generous because it is Christmas, but the hon. Gentleman has taken a minute longer than he should have done. Hopefully he will get a new watch as a Christmas present, ready for the new year.
Sir Alan Campbell
In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s last question, unfortunately my answer is no; I will not be doing that. For a moment I thought that the pantomime season had come early, but I encourage him not to give up his day job.
The hon. Gentleman raised the matter of statements, which arises from time to time. I am afraid that I previously made the point I am going to make now. The Government are often in a lose-lose situation: if we do not come to the House with statements, Members demand to know what we are going to do, but if we do bring forward statements, including written ministerial statements, we are criticised for there being too many. There is nothing new in this; as we break for any recess, there is often a flurry of statements and written ministerial statements so that the House gets to know what it needs to know before we break.
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we will be returning in the new year to give Members the opportunity to debate some of the issues that have been the subject of statements, particularly written ministerial statements, this week. Getting information out to them in a timely fashion is therefore important, but it is also crucial for local authorities and police forces.
We understand the challenges facing local authorities as a result of higher demand and the cost of providing critical services, which is why we are addressing the question of fair funding and bringing in the first multi-year settlement in 10 years. It is important that local authorities and Members of Parliament get the earliest sight of that, which is why we have done what we have done. I will take up the point that the hon. Gentleman raises; I suspect he knows the answer, but it is important that all Members get to hear these figures at the earliest opportunity.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I took the opportunity a little earlier to wish you a merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. May I echo your thanks to all the House staff for everything they do all year round to guide us and keep us safe?
I recently visited St James Carlisle Guides and Brownies. I was reminded then, as I was by the recent death of my 100-year-old aunt, who was a Guide leader and county commissioner for many years, of the important and invaluable support that volunteer Guide leaders give to young women and girls. Next year marks 70 years of the Queen’s Guide award. Will the Leader of the House consider how we might best celebrate and thank generations of Guide leaders?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Scouts and Guides can have a huge impact on the lives of young people, giving them the opportunity to develop new skills and character and to engage with local communities. I am sorry to hear of the passing of her aunt—I commend her aunt not just for getting to that incredible age, but for the dedication she showed to the guiding movement. Because there is obvious agreement across the House on how important these matters are, I encourage my hon. Friend to perhaps apply for a Backbench Business debate when we return, to give others an opportunity to contribute on this matter.
Mr Speaker
That is perfect timing—I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the Backbench Business for the Chamber when we come back. I congratulate him on being briefed immediately, given that the offers were accepted only this morning. In addition, the business in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 6 January will be a debate on less survivable cancers. On Thursday 8 January, the Liaison Committee has taken up the option for a debate on the Scottish Affairs Committee’s report; the second debate will be on Myanmar and religious minority persecution. On Tuesday 13 January there will be a debate on the potential merits of a statutory duty of care for universities. Offers are outstanding for the Thursday, so we are waiting to hear back on those.
I join others in condemning the terrible atrocities at Bondi Beach and in expressing sympathy for the victims and their families. It has always been the case that chants such as, “Globalise the intifada”, “Death to the IDF”, and, “From the river to the sea” are deeply antisemitic. They should be arrestable offences, and there should be prosecutions as a result. Yesterday, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and his counterpart in Manchester released a statement saying that, in future, those chants will be arrestable offences, but that begs a number of questions. Does that apply only to London and Manchester? What about the rest of England? What about Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales?
What guidance is the Home Secretary issuing to the police on the actions that should be taken against those who chant those sorts of antisemitic tropes? Will the Leader of the House encourage the Home Secretary or one of the Home Office Ministers to come before the House immediately when we return—or this afternoon, if necessary—to make clear what the position is, so that people understand what they can say and what will happen to them as a result of chanting those antisemitic tropes?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the hon. Gentleman and his Committee for their invaluable work. As he has said, all forms of hatred are completely unacceptable and have no place in our community, and inciting violence and hatred is already illegal in this country. The Prime Minister has made it clear that there is no other interpretation of calls to “internationalise the intifada” than that it is a call for violence against Jewish communities, and they are therefore entirely unacceptable.
Free speech is an important right in this country and always will be, wherever we live, but it cannot extend to inciting hatred or harassing others. When guidance is issued, it is important that it is clear and understandable. I will draw the hon. Gentleman’s comments to the attention of the Home Secretary and ensure that there is clarity going forward on this really important matter.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker.
The Christmas spirit is alive and well in Falkirk, whether it be the Denny Boys getting everybody into the mood last month with their Ring doorbell edition of “Last Christmas”, the school Christmas fairs—which I know many of my family and friends who are teachers are still enjoying—or the very successful inaugural Falkirk festival of trees, which took place last weekend and the weekend before, thanks in no small part to the Falkirk Delivers team. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the workers, emergency services and volunteers in Falkirk and across the country who will be working so hard this Christmas so that we can all enjoy a restful Christmas and a peaceful new year?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing such festive news to business questions. I am sure that the whole House will join me in thanking the workers and volunteers in businesses and local organisations in Falkirk for their tireless efforts to bring Christmas spirit to their community. In doing so, of course, we thank similar organisations and individuals in all our constituencies for the fantastic work they do.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
May I ask the Leader of the House about the restoration and renewal of the Houses of Parliament, which is fast developing into a major scandal? According to some estimates, up to £800 million may already have been spent, with barely a brick being laid. We need an urgent decision. I served for many years on various bodies concerned with this programme, and the whole debate has been bedevilled by plans for 15-year decants that may never happen and the setting up of a delivery authority, instead of just getting on with the work around us. The Leader of the House may not agree with my particular view, but I am sure he agrees that we need to have a decision, there needs to be clear leadership, and we need to get on with the work.
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely agree with the Father of the House, and in taking this job I made it one of my priorities to see if we could move restoration and renewal forward. I am pleased to be able to tell him that there is a degree of consensus between the two commissions and the client board on these matters, and a report will be forthcoming early in the new year. It is important that we get that report right, rather than rush it, but it will set out what the future might look like and where decisions might lie. I hope that report will give Members the opportunity to consider these matters carefully, because it is important that we make progress, but whichever route we choose will not come without a considerable cost. I am absolutely clear that once that report is out there and Members have had a chance to digest it, it will be up to this House and the other place to have the final say on how we move forward on this, as I hope we will.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I am very proud to employ a special educational needs and disabilities specialist caseworker, and I am grateful that Parliament funds that role, which is currently supporting more than 150 families across South West Norfolk—families who are desperate and are navigating a SEND system that we know to be in crisis. Does the Leader of the House share my concern that Tory-controlled Norfolk county council has recently written to me to try to close down this support service, continuing its adversarial approach to dealing with SEND in the county rather than focusing on supporting vulnerable families?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a champion for SEND matters, and I thank him for that. The SEND system is broken, but we are working to fix it, investing a total of £12 billion in SEND this year. As my hon. Friend knows, we will bring forward a schools White Paper early in the new year, but politics is about choices and priorities, and it is a great pity that the council he refers to appears to have set itself at odds with so many families in his area by taking the position it has.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
May I wish you, Mr Speaker, and your team a very merry Christmas? I also put on record our thanks for the forbearance that your staff have shown to us new MPs over the past year.
Sandown Park racecourse in my constituency, which was the late Queen Mother’s favourite racecourse, is bringing to a close a year of celebrations for its 150th birthday. For a century and a half, not only has that historic venue brought enjoyment to my constituents; it has also been a vital employer and a contributor to the local economy, driving footfall and trade for Esher high street, and supporting local shops, restaurants, pubs and hotels on race days and during major events. It also provides valued support to our very own Princess Alice hospice through its fundraising events, such as last week’s Santa fun run. Will the Leader of the House consider making Government time available so that the House can recognise the contribution of long-established local venues such as Sandown Park racecourse to local economies—
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly will. Our racecourses are very important, and not just at this time of year but throughout the year. It is clear that they are much more than just a place that people go to watch racing; they are very much part of local communities. I very much support the hon. Lady’s comments and wish Sandown a great future.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
Merry Christmas to all. I bet Members will join me in paying tribute to our hard-working posties and sorting office staff. The team in Ebbw Vale do a brilliant job. However, despite their best efforts, constituents report delays receiving letters and even missed hospital appointments. Royal Mail management cite resourcing challenges. Does the Leader of the House agree that Ofcom should ensure that Royal Mail meets its universal service obligation, and can we have a Government statement on this?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an issue that affects not just his constituency but many others. I do agree on the Ofcom point. Once we get through this busy festive period—we thank postal workers throughout the country for their work—perhaps he should apply for a debate so that we can reflect on what has happened.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, to the Leader of the House and to my friends across the House. I also wish a merry Christmas to my constituent in Holbeach, Annette Bramley, although at this time she will be grieving the loss of her daughter Holly, who was brutally murdered by a worthless, wicked husband. We have just debated animal welfare, and this week we have talked about violence against women. This man tortured and brutally killed Holly’s pets before he killed her. So often that is the case: first come God’s creatures, then come men and women. Will the Leader of the House make a statement to support Annette’s campaign for a national register of animal cruelty? That would give some solace and hope to those many women and children—and men, by the way—who face domestic abuse.
Sir Alan Campbell
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the early signs of abuse against partners, often women and girls, can be found in violence towards pets. He raises a very interesting point. As he knows, we are bringing forward the violence against women and girls strategy, which will be debated at some point. I invite him to raise this point at that moment, but I will certainly raise it with the relevant Secretary of State.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
Tomorrow I will have the absolute privilege of going to Burradon primary school to meet Ava, the winner of my Cramlington and Killingworth constituency Christmas card competition. Ava won with a fantastic design amid fierce competition from other schools right across the constituency. The card has been sent to the King, to the Prime Minister, to you, Mr Speaker, and to many local community groups, organisations and businesses in the area. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Ava and wishing all the pupils and teachers at Burradon and all the schools right across Cramlington and Killingworth a very merry Christmas?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Ava and the whole of Burradon primary school on winning the competition. If my memory serves me correctly, I believe that last year’s winner was Shiremoor primary school, which used to be in my seat by is now, I am jealous to say, in that of my hon. Friend. I wish them well, too. I also take the opportunity to thank the teachers, teaching assistants and all the hard-working staff in our local schools and across the country, and wish them all a very peaceful but merry Christmas.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
I have no doubt that you will be very organised and ready for Christmas, Mr Speaker, with all your presents purchased and wrapped. Some of us are not quite like that and will be making panicked purchases around our constituencies this weekend. If people are parking in Penkridge at Boscomoor retail centre or the Quinton Court shopping centre in Great Wyrley, there is a high chance that the parking operator, ParkMaven, will issue tickets on their cars, totally without justification. What more can be done to stop these rogue operators? May we have a statement from the Government?
Sir Alan Campbell
I hope that the operators have heard the right hon. Gentleman’s words, because this is an issue not just in his constituency, but elsewhere. The Government have attempted to tackle it, and we have done some really good things, but it continues to be an issue in some places. I will write to him after taking it up with the Transport Secretary—I think the Home Secretary will also have some responsibility for these matters—and get back to him.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I wish you and all the House staff a very merry Christmas, Mr Speaker.
I thank constituents for raising concerns about playgrounds in Stamshaw, Hilsea and Baffins that lack age-appropriate equipment and proper access for disabled children, which contribute to antisocial behaviour in those playgrounds. Will the Leader of the House make time for the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to update the House on how councils can access the £18 million that was announced in the Budget to refurbish playgrounds and on how sites can be prioritised, so that families in Pompey can once again enjoy safe places to play?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for her assiduous campaigning on behalf of her constituents, and join her in recognising the important part that playgrounds play in our social infrastructure. I will draw her request to the attention of Ministers and ensure that she gets a reply on the matter of how to access funding.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
On Sunday, George Starling told me of his work as a volunteer for the Prison Fellowship with the Sycamore Tree project, which is a restorative justice scheme that has been going on for over 50 years. The scheme has been shut down, and its appeal has not been granted. It is a victim awareness and restorative justice programme involving six weeks of work in prisons up and down the country. Could we have a statement from a Minister or a debate on the role of Christian charities in delivering restorative justice? It seems very unreasonable that all the volunteers, who have done such amazing work over 25 years, are going to be prevented from continuing to do so.
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly pay tribute to the work of George Starling and the Sycamore Tree project, not least because it has been going on for 50 years. I do not know the details of why the funding might not be in place, but I will take up the matter with the Prisons Minister, who I know shares the right hon. Gentleman’s views on the matter of restorative justice and how we need to improve our prison system.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
May I warmly endorse the generous comments of the Leader of the House about the public sector workers, often on low pay, who serve our communities, especially in holiday periods? I cannot extend that warm greeting to the management at Yorkshire Water, which has polluted our river courses, raised its prices and failed to deliver services more generally. Today we learn from the BBC that the chief executive, who earned £1.7 million over a two-year period, was secretly paid two further payments of £660,000 each. Can we have a debate about the scandalous levels of high pay in corporate Britain, particularly pay that is kept secret from the public?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend will know that the Government are bringing forward a series of measures on how to improve the water industry, which was in a dire state when we came into government. That includes looking at the role of the water ombudsman and others, and at how to protect customers from the sorts of practices that my hon. Friend describes. Let me take up the matter with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. If he wishes to meet Ministers, I will encourage them to meet him.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
If I may crave your indulgence for a brief moment, Mr Speaker, I thank you and your deputies for all your service this year; all House staff, particularly those who keep us safe and those who will be working over Christmas; and all Members’ staff, who will in many cases continue to be on the frontline in helping people over Christmas.
In Aberdeen, the fiscal situation means that a number of people are losing their jobs in the oil and gas industry. The Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury measure that by looking at how many people are claiming unemployment benefits, such as universal credit. That misses the key point that many people are moving abroad, retiring or simply moving out of the workforce completely and not claiming benefits. Will the Leader of the House ask the Work and Pensions Secretary and the Treasury whether there is a better way to measure accurately the number of jobs that are being lost?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will certainly draw the hon. Lady’s remarks and concerns to the attention of the relevant Minister and make sure she gets a response.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I join others in wishing you, Mr Speaker, and the staff of the House a happy Christmas, and also wish a happy fifth night of Hanukkah to all those who are celebrating. May I also thank the shadow Deputy Leader of the House for reminding me of my favourite version of that Dickens classic, “The Muppet Christmas Carol”?
Qesser Zuhrah is currently undertaking a hunger strike. Understandably, her next of kin, who are my constituents, are very worried about her welfare and desperate for information about her current condition. As her MP, I have sought that information, because I believe that, whatever one may think of what someone who is incarcerated has done, welfare information is a reasonable thing for the next of kin to require. Will the Leader of the House give some advice and support on how we can improve the channels of communication with the Ministry of Justice in these circumstances, especially at this time of year and given some of the reporting of this issue, so that the next of kin can get accurate information? Will he also say whether we can have a debate on how we can support families in those situations?
Sir Alan Campbell
The welfare of prisoners and their families is of paramount importance to the Government. We continue to assess prisoners’ wellbeing and will always take the appropriate action when necessary. The Deputy Prime Minister has responded—in fact, in this House—and will continue to respond when appropriate, including through correspondence on these matters. As my hon. Friend points out, it is important that Members, on behalf of their constituents, are able to get the information that they require, and I will draw her comments to the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
May I, too, wish you, Mr Speaker, your team and Members across the House a very merry Christmas?
Given the significant demand for new homes, my constituency has seen a large number of developments in recent years. However, some developers are building and selling homes, then moving on without completing the work, leaving residents in limbo, with roads unadopted and water companies unable to take on sewerage systems. Yet these developers continue to profit from building further on our green spaces. Developers such as Vistry Group, who do not attend meetings and rarely reply to correspondence, are failing residents in areas such as Saighton Camp and Wrenbury. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on this issue, so that Members across the House can consider mechanisms to hold those developers to account?
Sir Alan Campbell
I invite the hon. Lady to seek a debate in the new year on these matters, which have been raised in business questions and elsewhere on a number of occasions. I would have expected local planning authorities to take into account some of the situations that she described, as far as possible, when giving permission. The Government are absolutely clear about the difficulties of unadopted roads for people who move on to new estates, and we will be bringing forward proposals on how to hold developers to account.
Several hon. Members rose—
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker; I wish you and your staff a very merry Christmas.
Yesterday, my constituent Liz Buchanan stood down after 15 years as chairperson of Cumbernauld Seniors Club. During Liz’s tenure, the club has become a safe place to meet friends, chat, have a hot meal and enjoy countless activities and celebrations. Liz’s fellow committee members say that this is down to her enthusiasm, determination, wit and amazing powers of persuasion. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Liz and all those who volunteer to make our communities much better places to live?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Liz. Fifteen years is a wonderful achievement; clearly, she did a great job. Volunteers like Liz are the absolute backbone of our communities. It is right that they get a mention in this place and that we celebrate the work they do.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The child maintenance system presents a number of challenges for MPs. The fact that the Minister for the CMS is in the other place is one of those challenges, and it means that we have not debated the child maintenance system in Government time for some time. It is also a challenge from a Scottish perspective, because it does not seem to work properly with the Scottish process of sequestration, and there is no power to compel needed information. I have a constituent who is currently owed £40,000, despite the CMS’s involvement over five years. I commend the work of Fife Gingerbread and Fife Young Carers to promote awareness of the fact that, in Scotland, children themselves can apply for child maintenance support, which takes out some of the challenges in the system that we sometimes see. Given the challenges that I have outlined, will the Leader of the House schedule a debate in Government time so that we can talk about something that causes such sadness at Christmas, no matter what side of the parental divide people are on?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will certainly give the hon. Lady’s request due consideration. This is a question not just in Scotland, of course, but across the country, and many of our surgeries will be testaments to that. I will raise her concerns straightaway with the Department for Work and Pensions to see whether we can get an answer on some of those points. However, I gently point out to her that just because a Minister sits in the Lords does not mean that there is not also a responsible Minister in this place; it therefore ought to be the case that any statements can be made, or questions answered, in this place.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, all House staff and, in particular, my constituents, who keep re-electing me as their Member of Parliament.
Many of my constituents have again contacted me regarding British Sikh national Jagtar Singh Johal, who, according to the United Nations working group on arbitrary detention, has been arbitrarily detained in India since 2017. I know that many hon. Members across the House feel very strongly about this issue, and I personally have raised it on several occasions. Will the Leader of the House confirm what personal steps the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have recently taken with their Indian counterparts to ensure consular access and swift action on this grave issue?
Sir Alan Campbell
I praise my hon. Friend for raising this matter many times in this Chamber. We remain committed to working for faster progress on Mr Johal’s case, and the Foreign Office continues to support Mr Johal and his family. I can reassure my hon. Friend that the case has been raised directly with Prime Minister Modi, and we continue to raise concerns around Mr Johal’s prolonged detention with the Indian Government and to remind them of the need for a prompt resolution.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Leo, a 16-year-old boy in my constituency, has just received the best news that he could receive before Christmas. He is a leukaemia patient who has been searching for a donor to alleviate his cancer, and after a search in which 700 people came forward, he has finally found an anonymous donor. This is fantastic news. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing Leo a very merry Christmas and a prosperous and healthy new year? Will he also arrange for a statement in early 2026 on funding for leukaemia research and development?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly wish Leo well; it is great news that he is to get the treatment he needs. I also place on record our thanks to those who sign up to donate. Families, often in tragic circumstances, are faced with a decision and recognise that, out of that tragedy, some good news can come. I will certainly draw the hon. Gentleman’s remarks to the attention of the Health Secretary and see whether we can have a debate in the new year, because the issue is of such importance.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
May I wish you, Mr Speaker, the team and colleagues across the House a very merry Christmas?
I have been contacted by a number of constituents who feel that they have been sacked by Rockstar, the company behind the game “Grand Theft Auto”, for using their right to organise in the workplace. Along with fellow Edinburgh MPs, I have met the company and will continue to support affected workers. Does the Leader of the House share my concerns over the dismissals? Given reports in The Scotsman that suggest that Rockstar claimed more than £70 million in tax relief through the video games tax relief scheme, will he raise the issue with the Chancellor and schedule an oral statement on the video games tax relief scheme?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for again raising this important issue, which is hugely important to her constituents. I reassure her that Ministers are currently looking at the case of these dismissals and will keep my hon. Friend updated. Should she seek a meeting with Ministers to put the case herself, I will arrange one.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Merry Christmas to you, the House staff and the Doorkeepers, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to say a massive thank you to Andy, Helen and other staff, as well as Mr Speaker, for facilitating my asking a very big question in Parliament a matter of weeks ago to my now fiancé. My question today is on behalf of the people of Sovereign Harbour in Eastbourne, where thousands of homeowners are forced to pay hundreds of pounds a year for the maintenance of sea defences. This situation is an anomaly; in no other harbour in the UK—or, we think, in Europe—does such a charge exist. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the fairness and transparency of this arrangement, so that the people of Sovereign Harbour can get the answers and the justice that they deserve?
Sir Alan Campbell
I have to admit that even though I am a coastal MP, I have never come across that situation, although there are often historical anomalies that result in people being held responsible for such matters. I will certainly raise this question with Ministers on the hon. Gentleman’s behalf. We are acutely aware of the cost to homeowners of the buildings that they live in, and legislation that we are bringing forward will provide an opportunity to raise this, which I hope is an anomaly, and to do something about it.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
My constituent, a senior NHS nurse and single mother of three, faces severe hardship because her ex-partner deliberately withholds financial support. She is solely responsible for her children’s care, yet the Child Maintenance Service has rejected her claim and failed to enforce the payment of arrears. With no payments coming in, she is forced to rely on food banks and to borrow from family just to get by this Christmas. This demonstrates systematic failings that leave vulnerable families unsupported. Will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate on the CMS system and its enforcement?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. The CMS has a range of enforcement powers to ensure that parents meet their financial responsibilities in full and on time. I understand that this will be a worrying time for his constituent and her family, and indeed for others across our country, so I will ensure that the relevant Minister writes to him as a matter of urgency. There is a pattern emerging here; this is the second time this matter has been raised this morning. We therefore need to give some consideration to how best to air these views more fully.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
I have in my hand the tickets that my late father and I had for the 1966 world cup final. The price was £1 and five shillings, which I am sure the Leader of the House would acknowledge is better value than the ridiculous FIFA prices. Can he confirm that Ministers at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have made known their views and those of the Prime Minister, who has also been critical on this subject, to the Football Association, so that those views can be fed to the ridiculous organisation that is FIFA?
Sir Alan Campbell
I remind the House that the only time we have won the world cup was under a Labour Government. I will take up the hon. Gentleman’s point with DCMS. The reality is that the world is a different place now, when it comes to international football—in some ways for the better, but in many ways not. It is important that fans can access matches at a reasonable cost, so I will raise the matter with DCMS Ministers and see what representations they have made to FIFA on seeing sense on these matters.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
A very happy Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This weekend, Bingley’s Myrtle Park will host the closing event of Bradford 2025. I hope you will agree that it has been a fantastic year for Bradford, with so many brilliant events. There have been thousands across the whole district throughout the year, with audiences in the millions, since the opening ceremony, Rise, in Centenary Square back in a very chilly January. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating all those involved in making the city of culture year such a success, and grant time for a debate on the legacy of Bradford 2025?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has raised the matter of Bradford being the 2025 city of culture—I know this subject is close to your heart, Madam Deputy Speaker—and the fact that it has been a tremendous success. The city of culture programme has historically been a driver of local growth and pride. Next year, we look forward to not only cities of culture, but towns of culture. I am sure there will be an opportunity in the new year for my hon. Friend and others to debate these matters and see what further progress we can make.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you, all Members and House staff a very merry Christmas and a guid new year, when it comes. I have the honour to represent one of the largest rural constituencies in the United Kingdom, where the ability to drive is essential for many, particularly at Christmas, when we want to get out and see family and friends. May we therefore have a debate in Government time on the operation of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and its associated agencies? Not only are there long delays for driving tests, and not only are rural test centres being overwhelmed by people from outside the area, but we now have significant delays for people with medical conditions who are applying to renew their driving licence.
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the right hon. Member for his question. I agree with him about the importance of being able to drive, particularly in areas like his. The DVLA aims to process all applications as quickly as possible, but he will know from the National Audit Office report on driving tests, published this week, that the situation is far from acceptable, and delays can affect the lives of our constituents. I will therefore ensure that a Minister updates him on the steps that the Department for Transport is taking to ensure that the DVLA’s performance improves.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
May the blessings of Christmas be with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all who serve in this place. Few of us can imagine the extraordinary difficulty of studying for university exams in a war zone, so I was delighted about, and commend the Government for, setting up the scholarship scheme for students from Gaza who won places at UK universities. These students—some of the brightest of their generation—will rebuild that war-torn place, but the Leader of the House will know that the scholarships scheme is due to end on 31 December, and there are still some students trapped in Gaza who need to be evacuated, with their children. Perhaps he could speak to the Home Secretary and ask her to set out, in good time, what provision she will make to ensure that those students and their children are not left behind, and to ensure that we honour the commitment we made to them by extending the scheme beyond the end of this month.
Sir Alan Campbell
Gazan students often face huge challenges in taking up their place, and we are carefully considering solutions for those yet to arrive. We want them to be able to take up their place, and to continue their education in the United Kingdom. It will be good for them, and good for our universities, too. I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets a response from the Home Secretary on this issue as a matter of urgency.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I wish you, and indeed all Members across the House, a very happy Christmas? Like thousands of my constituents, I have recently been sending Christmas cards. May I use this opportunity to congratulate Leo from Oakworth on creating such an excellent design for my Christmas card this year?
I am sorry to say that hundreds of my constituents have raised their concerns about continued unacceptable delays in mail deliver. There has been partial or no delivery of mail, particularly in the Worth valley area, for months. It is resulting in missed doctors’ and hospital appointments, as well as in bills and urgent correspondence being missed. Can we have a debate in Government time on the importance of this issue, and ensure that Royal Mail is held to account?
Sir Alan Campbell
Again, that subject has been raised before in business questions, and I hope that Royal Mail has heard that, because it is a story repeated in many parts of the country. What the hon. Gentleman describes is not acceptable, not least if there is to be timely delivery of Christmas cards, but as he rightly points out, the issue affects things like hospital appointment letters, too. I will raise this with the appropriate Minister and ensure that Royal Mail is held to account.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
A very merry Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My constituent Sam is a fibre engineer. He spends his days climbing ladders, fixing lamp posts and repairing wi-fi for people across north Warwickshire. He has glycogen storage disease type Ia, which is a very rare liver disorder. Despite his GP and hospital consultant telling him that he should have a blood monitor to check his blood sugar levels, Coventry and Warwickshire integrated care board has refused to fund it. Sam has to pay for it himself, at a cost of £100 every month, so that he can continue working. Will the Leader of the House refer my constituent’s case to the Department of Health and Social Care, and enable a debate in Government time on NHS support for people living with rare conditions?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important case. We are committed to improving the lives of those who, like Sam, have rare diseases. Integrated care boards have a responsibility to commission services to meet the needs of those in their care, so I will refer the case to the Department of Health and Social Care, and will ensure that my hon. Friend gets a meeting, if she wants one, to see what progress can be made on these matters.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I wish you and all the staff in the Speaker’s Office a very merry Christmas, and may I thank you for all your kindness and courtesy throughout the past year? However, I must say to the Leader of the House that this Christmas, my constituents in Romford are increasingly afraid to walk through the town centre; reports of violent crime and street robbery are becoming a regular occurrence. Despite the huge precept that we pay to the Mayor of London—it is an average of £500 a year, per household—we simply do not get the police we pay for. Inner London always takes priority. Indeed, the whole Greater London region has become plagued with petty theft, shoplifting and violent crime, especially on Transport for London services. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on these pressing issues, which affect the daily life of my tax-paying, law-abiding constituents in Romford?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government take this important matter seriously, and through the safer streets summer initiative, we applied additional resources. We are doing so in the winter as well, particularly for town centres, so there should be no excuse for inactivity on these matters, in the run-up to Christmas or beyond. Our commitment is absolutely to ensure increased numbers of police officers, because, quite frankly, we inherited a system that was chronically underfunded. We are bringing forward the police grant, which will be debated in the new year, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to make his strong case during that debate.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
A merry Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to everyone who works in the House. [In British Sign Language: Merry Christmas.]
Last Sunday, I had the absolute pleasure of joining the Mar Dyke Valley Rotary club and volunteers from Re-engage on their annual Santa run through Aveley. I am assured that the Santa who accompanied us on the run is the real one—he is a constituent of mine, and he is open to suggestions about who should be on the naughty and nice lists—but Mar Dyke Valley is just one of the more than 1,000 Rotary clubs in the UK doing similar things up and down the country throughout the Christmas season, bringing festive joy to young children and raising thousands and thousands of pounds for local good causes. Will the Leader of the House join me in offering our thanks to all those who give up their time on cold wintry nights to go out and raise money for their local community?
Sir Alan Campbell
A Rotary Santa is certainly very much a part of Christmas tradition now. I join my hon. Friend in thanking volunteers for their fantastic work and generosity, particularly but not exclusively during the Christmas season. Rotary clubs play a really important part in our local communities across the country. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for championing them.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
May I wish a very merry Christmas and a happy new year to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to everyone else who works in Parliament?
In my constituency, Wokingham in Need is an amazing local charity that provides support for homeless people and the most vulnerable. It does it all through volunteer-led projects. Most recently, it created a sensory garden for Wokingham hospital to provide much-needed respite for its patients and staff. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Wokingham in Need, and particularly its founder Sue Jackson, on receiving the King’s award for voluntary service this year?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will indeed. I congratulate Wokingham in Need and Sue Jackson on the award, which is an incredible achievement. I thank them for all their work, and I extend those thanks to volunteers across our country who are involved in similar good actions.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
In Luton, the brilliant NOAH charity—New Opportunities and Horizons—is working to support those who are homeless or rough-sleeping, with food, meals, laundry and shower facilities 365 days a year. It will be a lifeline for many over the festive period, so will the Leader of the House join me in thanking all at NOAH, and indeed the volunteers and charities everywhere supporting those who are homeless and in need, particularly over the Christmas period?
Sir Alan Campbell
In my opening remarks, I paid tribute to charities in the homelessness sector. I repeat my thanks for their work, which they do throughout the year but which is particularly prominent during the Christmas period. Charities provide invaluable support to people experiencing homelessness. As I said earlier, we are backing them through the homelessness strategy. Our aim is to halve the number of long-term rough sleepers.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
A merry Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Last month, at my surgery in Bromley, I spoke to my constituent Rhonda Josephs, whose 11-year-old son Alexander has been diagnosed with a brain tumour. His ongoing care is currently spread across five hospitals, leading to delays in communication between different teams and increased stress on Alexander and his family. My constituent feels that transferring her son’s care to Great Ormond Street, where everything can happen under one roof, would be the most sensible option. However, that has been rejected. Can we please have a debate on ensuring joined-up care in the NHS so that we do not see more such cases putting undue stress on patients, particularly young children, and their families?
Sir Alan Campbell
If the hon. Gentleman gives me the details of the case afterwards, I will certainly take it up with the Health Secretary, who takes these matters really seriously—not least because of his personal experience. One thing that is very clear is that communications across the NHS are not always joined up. One of the priorities of what the Secretary of State is trying to do is making sure that these situations do not arise in future.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The Hanukkah murder of the Jews on Bondi beach has reverberated around the world. I shall go from here to sign a book of condolence at Australia House.
UK synagogues require security guards for religious services. If that were true of churches in the United Kingdom, it would be considered a national emergency. The oldest hatred has re-emerged in our times. This is not otherwise lawful protest against the actions of an elected Israeli Government. “Globalise the intifada” has only one meaning, as far as UK Jews such as myself are concerned, so will the Leader of the House provide Government time for a debate on antisemitism in the United Kingdom? Now is the time for action.
Sir Alan Campbell
We are all responsible for driving out antisemitism wherever it occurs, because it has no place in our society. The Government have invested an extra £10 million this year to strengthen security measures around synagogues and Jewish schools and have brought forward legislation in the Crime and Policing Bill to address the issue of protests outside places of worship. It is a priority for the Government; it is a personal priority for the Prime Minister, who feels very strongly about this. We are working very closely with the police to step up what they are doing and to give reassurance to people, particularly at Hanukkah events.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
This Saturday is the Hopkins Brothers Tractor Run. Dozens of tractors covered in lights will start in Barwell and go through Earl Shilton, Hinckley, Higham, Stoke Golding, Dadlington, Market Bosworth and Desford and past my house in Newbold Verdon. The run was set up by Liam after the tragic loss of his brother Kieran, who committed suicide in September 2022. Since then, it has raised more than £30,000 for Mind, and Liam won the Voluntary Action LeicesterShire fundraiser of the year award in October. Will the Leader of the House thank Liam for what he does, thank the farmers for putting on such a show for our community and encourage all my constituents to come out and see the lights this Saturday when they pass by?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the hon. Member for raising such a worthy cause, an issue on which I know he has been a great campaigner. He will know that the Government take it seriously. In the men’s health strategy, we have set out what further steps we can take to tackle men’s mental health challenges. I wish the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Mind, Liam and the Hopkins Brothers Tractor Run the very best in their campaign, and I encourage everyone in the area to come out and support them, and to donate.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The excitement in the run-up to Christmas has been tempered this year by a particularly nasty outbreak of flu and respiratory syncytial virus. My one-year-old was very ill with RSV in recent weeks, and my husband and I had a real scare when our GP told us that he needed to be taken into hospital. After brilliant care in paediatric A&E, I am delighted to say that he is back to babbling at us and pushing everything with wheels around the house. It was another powerful reminder of the incredible care that our NHS staff give every single day of the year. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the dedicated staff at West Midlands ambulance service and Walsall Manor hospital, and join me in wishing all our NHS staff a very merry Christmas?
Sir Alan Campbell
First of all, I extend my sympathies to my hon. Friend and his family. I am pleased that the news is getting brighter. I absolutely join him in thanking staff at West Midlands ambulance service and Walsall Manor hospital, and all our NHS staff for their lifesaving work over the holiday season at what is, with the flu outbreak, a particularly difficult time.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Merry Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
One of the biggest issues I am contacted about in Winchester, by parents, schoolteachers, paediatricians and campaign groups, is children’s mental health, with particular reference to smartphones and social media. An emerging problem is the increased use of chatbots for mental health advice, especially by children who think that a chatbot is their friend or a cartoon character. That is causing some very dangerous outcomes.
The US has just brought forward the GUARD Act—Guidelines for User Age-verification and Responsible Dialogue Act of 2025—to regulate chatbots. Given that this is an emerging and urgent problem, will the Leader of the House consider providing Government time for a debate on the specific issue of chatbots? One third of adults have already used chatbots for mental health advice and therapy.
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman and the House will know that the Government take the matter of mental health, in particular children’s mental health, very seriously indeed, which is why we are looking to ensure that there is professional help in schools for them. He raises an issue and a specific point over which there is considerable debate. I suggest that I should arrange a meeting for him with Ministers, so he can expand on the points he has made. Following that, if the House seeks a debate we will see what we can accommodate.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
May I take this opportunity to wish you a merry Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker?
It was a pleasure to join Ingles FC, a non-league club in North West Leicestershire, as it hosted the Premier League trophy last weekend. The Premier League has supported the club with a grant of £45,000 to install LED floodlights, as well as previously supporting a defibrillator. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the Premier League for all the work it does to support grassroots football, as well as the volunteers at Ingles FC who keep the local club running week in, week out?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and join her in recognising the fantastic support that the Premier League has provided to Ingles FC. I pay tribute to the volunteers—football clubs depend very much on the work of volunteers. The commitment is also from the Government to support clubs to improve environmental sustainability and reduce energy costs through Sport England’s movement fund. It is good to see that the resources are being wisely spent.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
The on-demand bus service, Tees Flex, is a vital lifeline for rural communities across Teesside, but Labour leaders have just voted to scrap it, leaving villages such as Sadberge and Bishopton without any buses, and cutting off elderly and vulnerable residents from being able to do their shopping, get to hospital appointments, or visit family and friends. Will the Leader of the House join me in condemning this terrible decision, and will he grant a debate on the importance of bus services to rural communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman on the importance of bus services—particularly in rural communities, where they are essential. I invite him to apply for an Adjournment or a Backbench Business debate, so he can raise these matters affecting his constituency. He might find common cause with others, particularly in rural areas.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you, all Members and everyone who works in this place a very happy Christmas. Unfortunately, I cannot bring any Christmas cheer with my question, since it relates to the slow progress of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in the other place. Will the Leader of the House join me in reaffirming that this elected Chamber has primacy in all legislation? The Government of course remain neutral on that particular Bill, but does he agree that we cannot be neutral about that principle, and that what is happening risks damaging the reputation of our political process?
Sir Alan Campbell
This matter has been raised constantly in previous sessions, particularly more recently as what is happening in the other place has become clear. As I have said previously, nobody benefits from legislative deadlock. The other place has a duty and a responsibility to scrutinise legislation. It has the right to scrutinise legislation, clearly, but it has a duty and a responsibility, too. There are conventions about the way it does so, so I urge the other place to do everything it can to expedite these matters and respect the view—the clearly expressed view—of the elected Chamber.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
A very merry Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
My constituents would have been forgiven for thinking that Christmas had come early last weekend, because we were treated to not one, but two major sporting achievements. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Stephen Robinson and everyone at St Mirren football club for their historic achievement in winning the Scottish Premier Sports cup, after their 3-1 victory over Celtic, the first club in the UK to win a major trophy under fan ownership; and Johnstone Burgh FC on its excellent 2-0 victory over Renfrew in the Scottish Communities cup?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating St Mirren football club and Johnstone Burgh FC on their achievements. I hesitate to go further, because what I am quickly learning in this job is to tread carefully where the often tribal matters of local football are concerned.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
A very merry Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to everybody in this place.
In a historic win against Chelmsford on 6 December—it is another football success story—Weston-super-Mare football club, for the first time in our history, reached the third round of the FA cup. Like many Westonians, I am really excited to head to Grimsby in January with the fans to cheer on the Seagulls and to show my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) how impressive our lads are on the pitch. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the whole Weston-super-Mare team, the club staff and the amazing fans who, through their long-standing support, have made this historic game possible?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly respect the huge achievement of getting through to the third round of the FA cup for the first time—a massive achievement. It is good that that is on the record. I wish both the Seagulls of Weston-super-Mare and the Mariners of Grimsby Town the best of luck when they come together for what will be a coastal derby in the new year. The fans, the team and the club staff are all part not just of a local game but a national game, and I congratulate them on that fantastic milestone. I wish both teams well. I wish everyone involved in seasonal matches across the country all the very best for this festive period.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Merry Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to all the House staff, everybody here and everybody who is not.
When asked to become a kinship carer for seven children, in addition to already having two of her own, my constituent and her partner stepped up because those seven children were being neglected. She was then told by social services, who had asked her to take the children on, that she was not entitled to kinship carer allowance, a decision it then changed months later but which left the family in dire financial straits. They are still waiting for back payments even now. They have used all their savings and now they are reliant on food banks. I am working on this case, but in the meantime will the Leader of the House grant an urgent debate on the need to ensure that those who step up to be kinship carers get the support they deserve?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the work of his constituent and the importance of kinship carers, who are selfless in their attitude but do this work at considerable cost. That is certainly not helped by any delay in getting the support that they need. He has raised this matter with me before, and I apologise therefore that it has not been resolved, but I give him my word that I will take it up with the relevant Minister and make sure that he gets a reply to ensure that there is no delay in these matters. Perhaps in the new year, kinship care and payment delays would make a good topic for an Adjournment debate.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Further to the question from the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), I share his disappointment at the scrapping of Tees Flex, but can I gently say to him that if the Tory Tees Valley Mayor took the buses into public hands, which this Government have given him the power to do, we would not have to fight over the scraps?
I ask my question on behalf of my constituents Rob from Loftus and Hilda from Skinningrove, who have raised with me their really poor experiences with contractors working on the ECO4 scheme. The Government are right to scrap the scheme, but can we secure time to discuss the quality and oversight of the work on such schemes to better serve the taxpayer and constituents like mine?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter, and I am very sorry to hear of his constituents’ experiences. The Government expect all ECO4 installations to meet strict quality and safety standards, and we continue to apply pressure on installers to take responsibility to fix issues and to not put the burden on individual consumers. Should he wish to apply for a debate on this matter, I am sure that the application would be well received.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I wish everyone a very Murray Christmas.
The communities of Niddrie, Bingham, Magdalene and The Christians are fantastic places full of hard-working people who take pride in their community. Sadly, they have been let down by austerity in recent decades. Will the Leader of the House join me in strongly welcoming the £20 million that has been allocated to the area by the UK Government, and can we have a debate about how we will put local people in the driving seat to make sure that the money is spent in the best interests of the community?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in welcoming the Pride in Place funding, which his constituency and many others are receiving. The reality is that the previous Government let down local communities, and the Scottish Government are doing the same, despite the fact that they received the largest funding settlement since devolution. We, on the other hand, are giving constituents not only the investment but the powers that they need to make changes locally so that they can deliver on the real change they want to see in their local communities.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
My constituents Mellissa and Nikita were left devastated a few months ago when their four-month-old puppy was mauled to death in the streets by XL bullies that had escaped from a nearby house. Nikita, who is just 18, needed hospital treatment for the serious wounds that she sustained in the attack. The family is campaigning to reduce the risk of further attacks like this around the country involving dangerous breeds. Will the Leader of the House help me meet the relevant Minister to discuss how the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is being implemented and whether there is more that the Government, police and other agencies can do to reduce the risk of such incidents happening in future?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sorry to hear of the case that my hon. Friend raises. I wish the family well, Nikita in particular. We are committed to making sure that the XL bully ban is fully implemented and enforced. Owners of any breed of dog dangerously out of control are breaking the law. I will certainly ensure that my hon. Friend gets the meeting that he asked for.
Violence against Women and Girls Strategy
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
Merry Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker. With permission, I will make a statement on the publication of the Government’s strategy to tackle violence against women and girls.
Let us start with the facts. Last year, one in every eight women was a victim of domestic abuse, stalking or sexual assault. Every day, 200 rapes are reported to the police, and many go unreported. Behind every one of those figures is a woman or girl whose life has been shattered. Behind every crime lies a perpetrator who all too often gets away scot-free.
For too long, we have accepted these statistics as simply a fact of life. Today this Government say: no more. We are calling violence against women and girls the national emergency that it is. We are committing to halve these horrific crimes within a decade, and today we publish the strategy that sets us on that journey. The strategy does something that none before it ever has. Until now, responsibility for tackling violence against women and girls has been left to only the crime-fighting departments, which work so often in isolated ways. They provide support that is vital, but it often comes too late to truly change the story.
This strategy is different. It deploys the full power of the state, across national Government and local government. It draws on the experiences of victims and the power of the third sector to transform our approach to these crimes—in our schools, in our police forces, from housing to healthcare, on our streets and behind closed doors, online and offline. The strategy is designed to deliver three goals: first, preventing boys and men from ever becoming abusers in the first place; secondly, bearing down on perpetrators so that those who have offended do not do so again; and, finally, supporting victims so that they get justice when they seek it and the closure that they deserve.
I will start with how we stop the violence before it starts. Because of the proliferation of content that has the potential to poison young minds, the need to address this issue has never been greater. Our strategy tackles radicalisation and confronts behaviour long before it spirals into abuse or violence. Education is undoubtedly the key. We must empower teachers to challenge harmful attitudes and act before they escalate. To do so, we will invest £20 million to tackle harmful attitudes in young people.
Our universal pledge is to change fundamentally how relationships, consent and attitudes can be embedded through education. That means changing the curriculum and developing training for teachers and external providers on healthy relationships and consent. We will also develop targeted programmes for those starting to exhibit harmful behaviours, and we will pilot interventions in schools, focusing in on and managing risk where abusive behaviours are starting to show. We will provide parents and frontline professionals with the support and training that they need to spot the warning signs of misogyny and act on them.
We will make the UK one of the hardest places for children to access harmful content and misogynistic influences online. We must help our parents to protect their children from harmful, poisonous content. We will ban “nudification” tools, which currently enable users to strip clothes and produce intimate images without the consent of those depicted. We will work with technology companies to make it impossible for children in the UK to take, share or view nude images through nudity detection filters.
First and foremost, our goal must be to stop these crimes from ever happening. That means stopping anyone from ever becoming a perpetrator. It also means bearing down on those who commit these awful crimes. In this strategy, we set out significant new powers and tools to pursue these dangerous individuals. Today, police performance varies from force to force, with more than two thirds of rape cases seeing the victims withdraw support in some police force areas. For that reason, by 2029 every police force in England and Wales will have a specialist rape and sexual offences team, mirroring the approach taken by the Metropolitan police.
We will ensure that police forces use the same data-driven approach to tacking offenders that we apply to terrorists and serious organised criminals. New forensic technology will be used to track down rapists and sex offenders, allowing us to reopen cold cases and bring offenders to justice many years after they thought they had got away with it.
We will ramp up our efforts to take perpetrators off our streets, and we will pursue them online too. Following the approach long applied to disrupting child sex abusers, and acknowledging that violence against women and girls is increasingly happening online, we will deploy covert officers online to disrupt offending and bring criminals to justice.
We must also do more to break the cycle of offending. Through the Drive project, we are investing £53 million in ensuring that high-risk, high-harm domestic abusers are subject to intensive case management arrangements. We will also roll out domestic abuse protection orders across England and Wales. Crucially, they can be applied for by a police officer or a court—criminal or family—and, unlike other orders, they do not rely on the victim to act. In the pilot locations alone, 1,000 victims have already been protected in this way. Now, many more will be.
Where crimes are committed, it is essential that we help those who have suffered to get the justice they deserve and as much closure as is ever possible. I have spent most of my life working with the victims of these crimes, and their voices have informed every decision that we have taken. We will be backing this strategy with over £1 billion in victims funding. That includes over half a billion pounds for victims’ services and another half a billion pounds for providing safe housing for victims of abuse as they escape their abusers. As part of this investment, we will support vital victims’ helplines, set up a new service to connect victims with specialist help through their GP and provide up to £50 million for therapeutic support for child victims of sexual abuse.
In the short time I have today, I have touched on only a fraction of the measures in the strategy—one that signals, in its entirety, a transformation in the Government’s response and a Government who are rising to the challenge of the national emergency that we face. Before I finish, I would like to take the opportunity to thank all those who have helped us get to this point. I am particularly grateful to my counterpart at the Ministry of Justice, the Victims Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), for her integral role in developing the strategy, as well as to the Home Secretary; her predecessor, who is now the Foreign Secretary; the Deputy Prime Minister; and, last but by no means least, the Prime Minister and the team at No. 10—they have stepped up to the plate with leadership and ambition, and I thank them all. I would also like to thank all those across different Government Departments who I may have been slightly annoying to at times but who have stepped up admirably, from the national health service to police forces, and all my colleagues sat beside me on the Front Bench today. They have worked incredibly hard. I am also grateful for the incredible dedication of the third sector, which has, rightly, long called for the Government to do more.
Most importantly of all, I would like to thank the victims of these awful crimes—those I have met and worked with for many years, whose bravery and determination have inspired me and always will, and kept me going through what seems like a very long career when it too often felt like change was impossible. Without their support, this strategy would have been impossible. It is, above all else, for them.
I end by imploring those here and far beyond these walls to recognise that this strategy is more than a document; it is a call from a Government who recognise this as a national emergency and are willing to back up their words with action. Ending violence against women and girls is the work of us all—those who might spot a young boy at risk of turning down a darker path; those who might see troubling signs in the behaviour of their friends or perhaps even themselves. It will take all of society to step up and end the epidemic of abuse and violence that shames our country. The challenge is great, but I have never felt more confident that we can rise to it than I do today, because change is coming. We can make women and girls safe, at last. I commend this statement to the House.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
I wish you a very merry Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I would like to start by thanking the Minister and the colleagues she has worked with for bringing forward this strategy today. Tackling violence against women and girls is a deeply noble aim, and one that the Opposition very much share. Women and girls face particular threats, both in the home and at the hands of strangers. Previous Conservative Governments fully understood that, which is why we took steps such as setting up the grooming gangs taskforce, introducing measures to make it easier for victims to pre-record evidence in rape cases, and rolling out 700 more independent sexual violence advisers to support and work with victims through the police and court process.
I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friends the Members for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) and for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) for their work in leading the efforts of previous Governments on this issue, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), who I know is looking forward to working collaboratively with the Government on next steps after she returns from maternity leave. The work of keeping us all safe is never done, so I further welcome the steps taken in this strategy to continue and enforce a lot of that work—particularly those steps to ensure national coverage of specialist rape and sexual offence police teams, to apply new forensic technology to cold cases and to roll out domestic abuse protection orders.
Truly protecting women and girls demands that we have difficult and sometimes awkward conversations—conversations about sex and consent, about private lives and criminality in the home, and about who is committing these crimes and why. Relationships between men and women and relationships between parents and children are delicate, particular and shaped by long-standing norms and beliefs. Not every country and culture in the world believes, as we do, that women are equal to men, with personal, bodily and sexual autonomy. When people from those countries and cultures come here, this can be dangerous.
Do not just take my word for it. The defence counsel for Israr Niazal, an Afghan asylum seeker convicted of raping a 15-year-old girl, argued that Niazal did not understand the age of consent or the concept of consent more broadly, because no such concept exists in Afghanistan. If we cannot be honest about this, we will fail to achieve the first of this strategy’s goals: preventing men and boys from becoming abusers.
Despite repeated attempts by my Conservative colleagues to secure the release of comprehensive data on migrant crime, the Government still refuse to publish the full breakdown. The indicative data that we have suggests shocking variations in crime rates by nationality and immigration status. According to data from the Ministry of Justice, foreign nationals make up a third of all convictions for sexual assaults against women, despite making up between 11% and 12% of the population. Afghans and Eritreans—the nationalities that made up the largest number of those on small boat crossings this year—are more than 20 times more likely to be convicted of sexual offences than British nationals.
Each and every case of sexual assault is wrong. Perpetrators must face the full force of the law, regardless of nationality, and it remains the case that, statistically, the most dangerous place for a woman to be is in her own home. But we must be able to have an informed and honest debate about whether mass migration is making this problem worse, particularly when a large number of recent migrants come here from countries where attitudes to women are very different from our own. The Minister spoke rightly of the importance of a data-driven approach, so will she work with her ministerial colleagues to release the full data on crime by nationality, including as it relates to violence against women and girls, so that we can fully understand this problem in order to tackle it?
This is relevant not only for the sort of violence and sexual violence against women and girls that has sadly always existed in this country, but for specific cultural practices that are imported and new to this country. Just this week, an article published in the British Medical Association’s academic journal highlighted how differing cultural attitudes towards women can influence behaviour. That piece, on the apparent “harms” of the global campaign against female genital mutilation, argued that in many cultures, women’s bodies
“may be perceived as belonging to a larger group…rather than being subject to individual choices and preferences.”
It went on to argue that an emphasis on women’s bodily autonomy can therefore be “traumatic” to those of other cultures. This is wrong. Individual autonomy is the bedrock of our laws, our culture and our country, as I am sure all of us in this House will agree. So finally, will the Minister please join me in affirming that whoever you are, wherever you may have come from, wherever your family may have come from, and whatever may have happened to you, if you are a woman in Britain, your body belongs to no one but yourself?
Jess Phillips
In the list of people who have put in effort over the years in this regard, I would like to make special mention of Baroness May, who I worked with for many years on many of these issues.
In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, let me give her a really specific answer about data. She is absolutely right that data collection on a variety of different issues has been neglected for some years and is not good enough. Issues relating to how we collect data, whether it is ethnicity data or other forms of data that will inform this strategy, are vital. Having been a pro-choice Member of Parliament and a pro-choice advocate my entire life, I am more than happy to stand here and say, on a woman’s right to make any decision, that, “It is nobody else’s business what I do with my body.” I hope the hon. Lady and anyone else would always join me in telling that to anyone from anywhere, including when they are of our own ranks and communities. I am more than happy to say that.
I say to the hon. Lady that this Government have deported an increased number of foreign national offenders—a 12% increase since her Government’s period in office—and have passed much stronger laws limiting the ability of asylum seekers to claim asylum in our country, and I believe that Conservative Members voted against that Bill. I also say to her that if the only crime that I had to concern myself with halving was that committed by people who arrive in our country, my job would be considerably easier. The vast majority of the data that I am talking about is about people who were born in our country abusing other people who were born in our country, from every culture and every creed. I have yet to come across any community where violence against women and girls does not happen.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I welcome the new VAWG strategy and thank the Victims Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and the Safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who have both worked so hard and who are wholly committed to ending harm against women and girls.
On training for teachers, will that be co-designed alongside girls and boys, so that it is well received and up to date with the latest technology? Big tech has a huge role to play in tackling misogyny. Children are constantly targeted with information when online, including violent pornography or hateful content. We say, “Don’t look”, but the algorithms are screaming at them to look. The Women and Equalities Committee has found that tech companies such as X, Snapchat and TikTok continue to freely publish misogynistic content. Will we see this Government getting tough with big tech companies over their failure to protect children?
Jess Phillips
My hon. Friend is absolutely right when she characterises the kind of violent pornography that young people are exposed to. Among other things, part of the strategy is to ban strangulation in porn. Indeed, I am sure that everybody will go away and read the strategy and some of the guidance that comes from the review on pornography and exactly what we have to do. I am very pleased to say that since the introduction of age verification in July, Pornhub has seen a reduction of 77% in its traffic—my heart bleeds for them. We are seeing the green shoots, but my hon. Friend is right that the strategy tackles head-on how we have to work with tech companies, whether through regulation and/or collectivism, to ensure that the kind of vile crimes that we see happening to children in our country cannot happen any more.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. I warmly welcome the Government coming before the House with this much-anticipated violence against women and girls strategy. It is essential that we tackle this issue head-on, and to do that it is vital that we do not just talk about dealing with the horrific consequences of violence—as the Minister has said, that alone is not good enough. We must not accept a system that tells women and girls to expect violence and abuse, but which promises support after their lives have been irrevocably harmed.
Training for teachers is a welcome measure, but unless it is also accompanied by steps to properly moderate online content, there is no doubt in my mind that it will fail. As long as violent misogynistic content reaches children and adults online, this crisis will persist. I have no doubt that the Minister knows that. Will she go further and faster in tackling the devastatingly harmful effect of online content right now? Children are being harmed right now; we need tougher action right now.
We were told that the Online Safety Act 2023 would make a difference—it has not. Now Ofcom has released guidance that we are assured goes further, but it is voluntary and any strengthening will come in only in 2027, which is too late. Without clear legal enforcement, social media companies will continue to put their profits first. Will the Minister commit to holding social media companies properly to account? Will she ensure that Ofcom’s guidance on violence against women and girls becomes mandatory, with enforceable duties and real consequences for failure—now, not in 2027?
Finally, in order for this strategy to succeed where multiple others have failed, it must also include ringfenced funding for specialist services, including for older victims. It must work comprehensively across Government Departments, recognise that minority women may experience violence differently and have clear accountability if progress stalls. Will the Minister set out how the strategy will deliver on each of those points?
Jess Phillips
The hon. Lady will see from the strategy that the issue of tech is undoubtedly in there. I agree that, on assessing how well things are going, it seems quite a long time to wait until 2027. I can absolutely guarantee that I will hold tech companies accountable for their behaviours—I think it is quite famously known that a lot of them are not all that keen on me. I will also work with them on what is possible, for example on ensuring that what teachers know is adapted to the modern world—my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) asked about that. We will also need big tech brains on that, so although I will hold them accountable, it will also be important to work with them.
There is ringfenced money specifically for targeting domestic abuse and sexual violence. The strategy contains a commitment to how we give the standards of commissioning when giving out money from the centre down to areas, in order to look at exactly the issue of “by and for”, which the hon. Lady talked about, whether for older people, for veterans support, or for black and minority ethnic groups. All those “by and for” groups will have to be taken account of.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank all the Ministers for their collective hard work with the Safeguarding Minister. It has been worth the wait for this strategy. She will know that for too long it has been an occupational hazard for women in this country that they get hassled wherever they go and whatever they do. Will she therefore confirm that, as part of the strategy, the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 will come into force in April next year? That will mean that, for the first time ever, the law will recognise that misogyny causes crimes against women and girls, and the police and courts will be able to do something about it. The Minister will know that Citizens UK, the brilliant Sue Fish, Our Streets Now, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), and indeed the former Member for that constituency, Greg Clark, and I have been pushing for that for over a decade because we want to see women and girls as free to walk our streets as men and boys are. Will she tell us how we can now feed into the police guidance on the matter?
Jess Phillips
Absolutely, I can confirm that. I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend and the others she has mentioned to discuss what exactly goes into the guidance. We always have to ensure not just that we write nice words on goatskin in this building, but that we make them workable in the real world. I am keen that everything in the strategy does that.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I absolutely welcome the strategy published today, and I share the Minister’s ambitions on early intervention. However, in constituencies such as mine, one of the state’s greatest failures has been the historical failure to openly and honestly confront perverse cultural attitudes behind violence and abuse against women and girls. I think of the women in my constituency specifically targeted because they were working-class, white girls. I think of the many women I have met who have poor English and little education, and who do not know about their rights or how to access support. I also think of those many women I have met in my constituency who are too scared to raise those concerns. The Minister rightly speaks of challenging misogynistic attitudes within schools, but can she assure me that the strategy will not stop at the school gate and that the Government will challenge any institution, religious or otherwise, that continues to reinforce harmful attitudes towards women and girls and puts their safety at risk?
Jess Phillips
I absolutely can confirm that. The strategy is not only about challenging institutions, whether that is children’s services, police forces or the court system; we have tried to look at wherever a person might come forward or has previously been failed, and look at ways we can seek to improve that. We cannot undermine, frankly, millennia of patriarchy overnight—if only; I’d do it if I had a magic wand—but I don’t care what it says above the door of your establishment: if you are not working with us, you are working against us.
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
I would like to make the House aware of my appointment as the VAWG adviser to the Secretary of State for Health, and it is the commitments made by the Department of Health and Social Care in this transformative strategy that I wish to raise. Will the Minister confirm that the roll-out of the Child House model represents a significant step in delivering against recommendation 16 of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, and that the introduction of the Steps to Safety service, which will embed specialist support workers across groups of GP practices, will play a huge role in better identifying victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence through those settings?
Jess Phillips
First and foremost, I welcome my hon. Friend—I don’t really need to welcome her to the party; she and I have been in the same meetings in the sector for about a decade.
I absolutely can confirm that. When Departments stand up and say, “We’re going to put so and so millions into this”, what I want to highlight about the measures in the strategy that my hon. Friend has spoken about is the cultural shift of not just the Minister saying, “It’s everybody’s business,” but the Health Secretary, with other Cabinet members, saying, “Okay, what does, ‘It’s everybody’s business,’ mean?” I thank the Health Secretary for making it mean that he understands that if someone is raped, stalked, harassed or domestically abused, they will be sick, and that we have a responsibility to deal with that. The idea that every child in the country will now have access where they live to what can only be described as a gold-plated system, like the one that exists in Camden and in other places across the country, frankly makes my heart sing.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I have long argued in this House that when it comes to mental or physical health, it is about women and men, not women or men, and that is important. I welcome the strategy coming forward, but can I also bring a sense of caution, because terms like “toxic masculinity” and labelling young men and boys are potentially a real problem, because they see themselves as destined to cause some problem? Already some of the reporting today enhances that. What are the Government doing to ensure that we are not already socially criminalising young men and boys for having feelings about good masculinity? That is an important definition that the Government need to get right, and I would appreciate her answer on that topic.
Jess Phillips
I totally agree, and I am not a fan of the term “toxic masculinity”. As somebody who has raised two men—I used to be able to say I have children, but I have raised two men; they are very tall—I have watched over the years, since the Me Too movement and then the death of Sarah Everard, a real pouring out of emotion by women in our country that did not include men and boys in the conversation, so they went somewhere else to get their information. So much of the strategy is about inviting those young men and boys in, but also young men and boys who are victims of these crimes. Today there are terrible cases for all to see in the news of sextortion, and my hon. Friend the Victims Minister will be holding a men and boys summit, and there is a men and boys statement as part of the strategy. It is vital that we get this right because we have tried the alternative before, and it did not work.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
We are all aware of the delays in the criminal justice system. Those can occur at any stage, but they are particularly severe when cases move from the police to the Crown Prosecution Service and then to the courts, each under a separate Department. What mechanism or, better still, individual will ensure joined-up government in tackling violence against women and girls and doing so quickly and effectively?
Jess Phillips
The backlog in our courts is one of the stickiest, most difficult issues, and it covers lots of different Departments that need to get this absolutely right. It is probably the problem that drives our collective work more than almost anything else. We are due to have 100,000 cases in the backlog by 2028 if we do not put in place real, radical change, keeping at its heart the experiences of women and girls. There are things in the strategy around legal advice for victims and greater support for independent sexual violence advisers. All those sorts of things are there, but this will require a radical change.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I pay tribute to the Minister for her work on violence against women and girls. I welcome what she said to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) about her commitment to holding tech companies to account for their behaviours. However, during the passage of the Online Safety Act, the Minister and the Victims Minister, who was also instrumental in the development of this strategy, were at the forefront of calls for a code of practice to protect women and girls online. Now they are in government, why are they not delivering on it? It is in the Government’s gift to amend the Act to make Ofcom’s guidance the code. With the best will in the world, guidance will not make any difference to social media companies’ behaviour, nor their profit-driven models, which are the source of so much misogynistic influence, which teachers are now being expected to deal with. Why are the Government afraid to use all the tools at their disposal to hold tech firms to account for their role in fuelling misogynistic behaviour?
Jess Phillips
I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words and her reminder of the many years that passing the Online Safety Act took. Many of us will remember them—I was about to say “fondly”, but I am not sure that was necessarily always the case. First and foremost, I would not be afraid of doing any of the things that she has highlighted. The hon. Lady was not here, but the Act took 10 years to get to its current legislative state, and it has only really been rolled out since July. The Government have repeatedly said, and what they say in the strategy, is that where we need to go further, we absolutely will.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement and warmly welcome this strategy. I pay tribute to her for delivering this strategy and for her years of personal commitment to the safety of women and girls. I welcome in particular the focus on educating children about misogyny and driving misogyny out of our schools. My hon. Friend will know that the Ofsted inspection framework has previously been largely silent on the issue of misogyny, allowing examples to occur where schools have been rated “outstanding” despite girls at that school having widespread experience of sexual harassment and abuse by their peers. What engagement is she having with Ofsted to ensure that all the Government’s objectives are aligned and that no school where girls routinely experience misogynistic harassment and other behaviours can be regarded as “exceptional”, “strong standard” or “expected standard” under the new framework?
Jess Phillips
The Government have released new curricula on healthy relationships education. Working with Ofsted to ensure that schools are monitored against the delivery of that education is one of the most important things we can do. Schools just saying they do it, and then the teaching never being looked at to see whether it is any good, has led to a hodgepodge and, frankly, some terrible behaviour around the country. I will absolutely take her point away and speak to my colleagues in the Department for Education, which is a fundamental pillar—I am starting to talk like a civil servant; they say “pillar” about everything—in this strategy, because if a school is not safe, how could it be “outstanding”?
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I welcome the publication of the strategy, and acknowledge the Minister’s commitment over many years to get to this point—this must be a great moment for her.
A few weeks ago, I visited Salisbury Soroptimists, who published “Fresh Thoughts”, a document taken from Dorset and customised for Wiltshire to give information and support for women fleeing domestic abuse, through close working with Wiltshire police, Wiltshire council and the end violence against women and girls campaign in Wiltshire. After I go back and tell them about this strategy, how best can they engage with it to build on the work that the Minister has set out?
Jess Phillips
As I have said, the strategy will live and die on whether everybody takes part in it. The right hon. Gentleman has given me the perfect opportunity to pay tribute to Soroptimists from all over the country. Some of the work that appears in the strategy—specialist advocates for rape victims in courts, for example—started because of volunteer programmes run by Soroptimists in parts of the country. I want to give them the confidence that they can change Government policy, and they can work through the right hon. Gentleman’s good offices to reach out to me. They do amazing work in their local communities.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the statement on ending violence against women and girls. Will the Minister tell us more about how she will support and empower third sector organisations such as Phoenix Domestic Abuse Services in Blaenau Gwent, which always deserve a helping hand?
Jess Phillips
Again, I am poacher turned gamekeeper in ensuring that the voluntary sector is well placed to deliver much of what is in the strategy—not just classic victim support models of national or local funding, but new opportunities and new schemes in our employment and health services. I want to ensure that where those services are operated locally, voluntary sector agencies can be part of them.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I back the Minister’s comments about the effectiveness of public health on BBC Radio 4 this morning. I agree about the importance of conducting a public health campaign for this. Women for Refugee Women has surveyed women in the asylum system with no recourse to public funds. It found that 38% of them had stayed in abusive relationships because of their inability to access public funds, and that 38% of those women then went on to be raped. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government will agree to implement fully the Istanbul convention, including article 59, to afford real protections to all women?
Jess Phillips
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to say that, throughout this process, many Members from across the House have been to see me about various issues and the importance of this matter in their areas. The strategy definitely tackles issues relating to migrant women. The Government fund specialist provision for women with no recourse to public funds so that they can escape, and we have increased that funding. The type of visa they have does not matter; they can access the funding. One inclusion in parts of the Istanbul convention relates to the firewall between police and support services. I am pleased to say that that is part of our strategy, and we will look to implement it as soon as possible.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend for her tireless work to tackle violence against women and girls. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Given my experience of being stalked for many years and securing a restraining order for 12 years, I know that, when they are breached, restraining orders can be very difficult to enforce, unless the police and Crown Prosecution Service work closely together. Many women up and down the country find that really challenging when their lives are at risk. What work will be done between the police, the CPS and other support services to ensure that restraining orders are enforced and that, when they are breached, action is taken to protect women and girls?
Jess Phillips
I thank my hon. Friend for her support in the development of the strategy. One thing that makes me most proud is the advancement in refuge funding. She played no small part in pushing for that and deserves every thanks in the world, not just because she is a brilliant Member of Parliament but because of her experience—one that too many of us in this House share.
Work must be done across the board to look at exactly how protection orders work. As my hon. Friend says, people can have action taken on their restraining orders—although I am about to go to court because somebody has breached one of mine. Domestic abuse protection orders and stalking protection orders are, in my view, considerably better tools and should be used more widely. The strategy is very clear on that.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I welcome the strategy. The Minister will well know that children from homes in which domestic violence is prevalent are all too often conditioned to believe that that is the normal way for relationships to operate. Through changes to the national curriculum in particular, will she ensure that teachers encourage children to come forward with examples of what has happened at home and elsewhere in their families? In that way, we can deal with these matters where they start: in the home.
Jess Phillips
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Anyone who has spoken to victims of domestic abuse who have interacted with children’s social care would know that there was a need for a new strategy. The strategy includes half a billion pounds for the Family First pilot across the country, which seeks to do exactly what he speaks about by ensuring that domestic abuse is dealt with through early intervention. It is now a statutory duty for schools to be informed when children are at home during, or involved in, any domestic abuse incident. We will give schools the tools to know what to do in those circumstances.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
I was surprised to hear the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), say that our culture understands consent, bodily autonomy, misogyny and violence against women and girls, given that every day women experience violations of their bodies. I just do not think that that is true of our culture at all.
I have an 11-year-old son. I worry about the violent and misogynistic material that boys and young men can be exposed to, and the potential for their radicalisation. Can the Minister assure me that prevention will start at a sufficiently young age for boys, and that every boy will have access to that preventive work?
Jess Phillips
The new curriculum is for children aged four to 16. It is compulsory in schools and should be done in an age-appropriate way. Through the new funding, we will create a series of interventions, so that, if there are worries that a kid is sharing images, or young people are disclosing abuses in their relationships, for example, schools can send people for interventions. I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend—mother of a son as she is—that that provision will be age-appropriate across the board.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I was a secondary school language teacher before I came to this place, and I had to deliver lessons on relationships. I have also raised two women and two men, so I was not exactly uncomfortable around young people, but I felt uncomfortable teaching those lessons, and it seems that I am not alone. About half of secondary school teachers do not feel comfortable delivering those lessons. I know that the strategy includes training for teachers, but, with busy school days and lots of other stuff going on, is it realistic to expect yet another bit of training to result in positive outcomes? Should we not have a professional in each school to deliver those lessons?
Jess Phillips
As somebody who was one of those professionals who went into schools, I could not agree more with the hon. Lady. I attended the same school as the Home Secretary, so when we were building the strategy, we kept talking about which of our teachers we would not have wanted to talk to about these issues, which was quite amusing. No offence to the teachers at our school in the ‘90s, but not many of them came out well when we were thinking about talking to them about consent, pornography or other things. What is being announced today is the use of specialists, but the point is that eventually teachers have to comfortable with talking about these matters. I think that my kids’ teachers are more comfortable than mine were, but there has to be development towards that.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I want to say a huge thank you to the Safeguarding and Victims Ministers. I was struggling not to get over-emotional as my hon. Friend was making her statement, because many of us have come to this place to make a change for the women and girls in our lives and in our constituencies. This is a watershed moment and it is a chance for us to take individual actions, bringing together good men and good women across our constituencies to speak out and speak for the kind of society we want.
If the strategy is to be truly successful, it will have to increase the confidence of victims, in which case we may see the number of incidents that are reported rise; for me, that will be an indicator of the success of the strategy. One way to increase confidence is to ensure that no matter how high-profile someone is as a self-declared misogynist, they are held to account and brought back to this country to face criminal charges here. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Government should be doing all that they can to ensure that they pursue every single rapist, abuser, perpetrator, stalker, and that that will be the way to ensure that women and girls feel confident in our police and our court system?
Jess Phillips
I thank my hon. Friend for the diplomatic manner in which she is clearly representing high-profile cases in her constituency. I absolutely agree, and it goes to a number of points made by shadow Minister, too: “I don’t care who you are. I don’t care how important you are. I don’t care if you ran a big department store. I don’t care if you are a movie mogul. I don’t care which country you come from. If you do this in our country, we will come for you.”
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I welcome much of the strategy and I know that it is a personal achievement for the Minister. Anybody who has spoken to a woman who recounts being attacked by her husband or boyfriend and being unsure of whether she is going to leave the room alive, knows that this country still fails to tackle violence against women and to take it seriously. I want to ask about a couple of areas where we know that the state has had a blind spot in recent years. Will she say very clearly that the crimes of the rape gangs were racially and religiously aggravated, and should be punished as such? Does she agree that if there is any law that prevents us deporting any foreign sex criminal or rapist, including the Human Rights Act 1998, we should scrap it?
Jess Phillips
No doubt when the hon. Gentleman worked for Baroness May he was heavily involved in some of this work, so I should thank him for some of things he did in that time. I will not say anything from the Dispatch Box that will affect any case by saying that it is aggravated by one thing or another. I am very proud that for the first time this Government are making grooming an aggravated offence, but without seeing all the evidence, I cannot comment on individual cases. From my years of working with the victims of grooming gangs, I know that there is absolutely no doubt, as the Home Secretary has said, that women and girls were targeted for being white and working class—I have seen that with my own eyes. I will not scrap the European human rights law, but we do not need to do that in order to deport sex offenders. We should have been doing so for a lot longer.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the Minister for her statement, and I thank her and the Victims Minister for their hard work in a truly cross-Government effort to leave VAWG offenders with nowhere to hide. For far too long and far too often, justice for victims of domestic abuse has had to be sought by parents such as Sharon Holland and by groups such as Project Resist, because the system let their daughters down. Tragically, this strategy is too late for two young women from Portsmouth: Chloe Holland and Skye Nicholls were driven to take their own lives because of coercive control by vile partner perpetrators. Will the Minister explain how the new VAWG strategy will ensure that those deaths are recognised for what they are—manslaughter? How will it tackle systematic institutional failings and support our third sector to prevent future tragedies?
Jess Phillips
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady and pay tribute to Sharon Holland, who I have met a number of times, who campaigns fiercely on behalf of her daughter, Chloe. Suicide is a fundamental part of the strategy with regard to how we end domestic-related deaths and femicide, to call it what it is. A number of different things appear in the strategy, such as how well our domestic abuse risk assessments look for mental ill health; often, assessments are looking for instances of homicide rather than suicide. On the issue of manslaughter, my hon. Friend the Victims Minister has empowered the Law Commission to undertake a review of that exact thing, and we await its findings.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I welcome the strategy, and I commend the Minister for her tireless work supporting victims and trying to reduce violence against women and girls. I welcome the cross-governmental approach and the focus on prevention and public health promotion.
We know that boys as young as nine or 10 are being spoon-fed hardcore violent pornography on social media, even when they are not looking for it. Access to that type of content leads to violent sexual acts being normalised and the way that they view relationships with women becoming warped. The head of a boys’ school that has completely banned mobile phones from its estate has spoken powerfully to me about the effect of being able to have conversations with boys before they start seeing that content online.
While schools are a part of the answer, asking teachers to combat the tidal wave of indoctrination, radicalisation and normalisation that these algorithms are causing is unrealistic: those misogynistic, violent attitudes must be stopped at source. As part of this work, what action will the Government take to ensure that social media companies comply with the Online Safety Act 2023, to make Ofcom guidance statutory, and to push her colleagues across Government to legislate to get smart phones and their misogynistic content out of our schools?
Jess Phillips
A nine-year-old looking at any pornography on any social media site or any site in the UK is illegal. If there are instances of that, they should be reported. We saw a case recently of a pornography site not having age verification. It was fined £1 million by Ofcom and asked to put age verification in place. Those sites will be blocked in the UK if that is not the case. Such measures are already in place, but I ask the hon. Lady to get her schools to report those particular issues, which we will raise with Ofcom. It is important to say that misogyny existed before the internet—tackling misogyny has had to be done for quite a long time. I absolutely agree that we need to support teachers because of what young people are seeing, both inside and outside schools, and the strategy deals with that.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
I thank the Minister and all those in Government who worked so hard on this strategy. The shadow Minister, through her rhetoric, does her best to demonise whole communities, but the Minister is right to recognise that abuse occurs in all communities. However, she will be aware of the need to be sensitive to cultural differences experienced by women and girls from different communities. The Minister has already recognised the value of by-and-for organisations working to provide culturally sensitive support for women and girls, and I trust that that support for those organisations will continue, but one area where progress needs to be made is in relation to honour-based abuse. Will the Minister commit to support calls from Karma Nirvana and around 60 other organisations, including Sikh Women’s Aid, for a statuary definition of honour-based abuse, to recognise honour as an aggravating factor in criminal sentencing, and to require multi-agency guidance to identify honour-based abuse?
Jess Phillips
I am very happy to say that coming up with a statutory definition of honour-based abuse, and working on statutory guidance with the organisations that my hon. Friend has identified, are very much in the strategy. I am very proud to do that, because we absolutely need cultural sensitivity in the services we provide, and we need to listen to the voices of the women in those services. It is an honour to work with those organisations, and I will continue to do so.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I will address another aspect of this strategy: how it relates to male survivors of crimes considered to be violence against women and girls. My ten-minute rule Bill earlier in the year called for a dedicated strategy for tackling interpersonal abuse and violence against men and boys, so that male survivors of rape, sexual assault, domestic abuse, forced marriage and honour-based violence receive the justice and support that they deserve. I recently met the Minister, and I thank her for her time; the discussions were very positive. I have also spoken to the Victims Minister, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), about how to shape the strategy to support male survivors. What provisions are there in this strategy to support male survivors? Will a dedicated strategy to help male survivors be published next year?
Jess Phillips
I really thank the hon. Gentleman for his approach to this issue, and for working collectively with us. Alongside the strategy, there is a statement specifically targeted at men and boys, and there are some specific support services and policies for male survivors, but anything in the strategy, any of the legislation, and any of the support services and the commissioning are for men and boys who are victims. As he and I said, we actually need a piece of work done, because we cannot just paste what women have always used on to men. At the men and boys summit that my hon. Friend the Victims Minister will hold early in the new year, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman can be part of, we will look at exactly what that is.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
May I add my personal tribute to the Minister? This work is a huge achievement for her, but not just for her; she is doing it on behalf of all women and girls in this country. She said that all of us across the country have a role to play, as individuals or organisations. She will recall that in Stevenage we have an amazing charity called Survivors Against Domestic Abuse. One of the challenges it faces is that many victims keep going back again and again, because the justice system is not strong enough for them. I am sure that SADA will welcome domestic abuse protection orders. Will she explain to SADA and other organisations how this Government will help them to provide support to women and girls who need it?
Jess Phillips
I thank my hon. Friend. Organisations such as SADA are absolutely vital to how we roll out new perpetrator schemes, so that victims do not have to do the work, and instead, there is offender management of their perpetrators, and support for victims. Lots of new national schemes will be rolled out as part of this strategy over the next three years, and I very much welcome, and will work with, all organisations across the country to get those schemes right in local areas.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
From the bottom of my heart, I sincerely congratulate the Minister and the Victims Minister on all the work with victims, survivors and the sector across the country that they have put into making this happen. I was proud to work with them both to help secure the domestic abuse identifier, which is in clause 6 of the Sentencing Bill. That will tell us how many domestic abusers there are in prison and in the country at any given time, and what their reoffending rate is. I am keen to understand when the Minister expects that information and data to go online. How does she expect to use that data to monitor the impact and progress of this VAWG strategy? What will the Government do to measure the impact of the identifier?
Jess Phillips
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I always say this, but it was a genuine pleasure to work with him on this issue, and I thank him for his leadership in this space. We obviously have to wait for the Sentencing Bill to pass, but I expect that it will throw up huge amounts of data that will be incredibly helpful. It will take a bit of time to see exactly what data we want to collect and look at, but the process can start as soon as the Sentencing Bill passes. That is certainly our ambition.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her leadership and determination in bringing forward this ambitious strategy. I really welcome the focus on prevention, and particularly the focus on reducing online harm for young people—the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, raised that issue in its report. Bradford Rape Crisis and Staying Put provide vital support to women and girls in my constituency who have been victims of violence against women and girls. I hugely welcome the £1 billion in the statement, if I heard right, that will be invested in victim support and safe refuge. Will the Minister explain how those funds will help victims of domestic abuse in my constituency to get support and a safe place to call home?
Jess Phillips
With regard to my hon. Friend’s Rape Crisis service, there will be a specific amount of uplift to the ringfenced budget for Rape Crisis services in the country. I think Rape Crisis England and Wales asked for a 15% uplift. Funnily enough, that will be from health service funding. That is the cultural change I am talking about—people making this their business. We expect to see those uplifts, so Rape Crisis services will hopefully benefit from that.
On domestic abuse, compared with the £130 million a year under the previous Government for refuge, housing and other support, there will be £109 million extra over the three years. I hope that her organisations will be able to access that through the commissioning process, which we will redesign, so that it works better, and works over a longer period, rather than our doing this every year.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
A recent Ofsted inspection of children’s services in Devon found that they
“share a determination to improve services to care leavers”.
How will the new strategy to end violence against women and girls pay particular attention to preventing harms to care leavers and care-experienced people? How will it build on the improving practice that we see in local authorities, such as in Devon?
Jess Phillips
That is absolutely a vital part of this puzzle. I have worked with the Children’s Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), in the Department for Education on the “family first” part of the strategy—the bit about children’s social care and care leavers. People often talk about grooming gangs, but we cannot talk about grooming gangs without talking about care-experienced children, and the interaction between the two. That is a vital part of getting this right. The Government also have a children in care plan that they will work towards, and I sit on the board for that.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
From my time as a deputy police and crime commissioner, I know that there has been a growing pattern of violence relating to younger people, especially young boys, in Blackpool and beyond. Will the Minister set out plans to engage with young people, particularly young boys and men, to tackle that?
Jess Phillips
We have not done anywhere near enough to engage with young men and boys about their feelings on this issue, and to devise a system that is best for them. Other than saying, “six-seven”, what do I know about what it is like to be a teenage boy? Not even my children are teenagers any more. We will test a number of models, and that will have to be done in concert with young people.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
May I welcome the strategy, and thank my hon. Friend and the ministerial team for their tireless work in tackling violence against women and girls? To meet the Government’s target of cutting violence in half, we must end the demand for commercial sexual exploitation, whether it be in pornography or prostitution. What steps will be taken, across Government Departments, through the strategy to eradicate that demand?
Jess Phillips
My hon. Friend will be pleased with the Government action that the strategy proposes with regard to some of the commercial sexual exploitation that occurs within pornography—she rightly points that out—based on Baroness Bertin’s review. Much more broadly, we must properly integrate adult sexual exploitation —including the terrible commercial sexual exploitation—into what we consider to be violence against women and girls, and have robust measures to deal with that. That is a fundamental part of changing this.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I welcome the strategy that the Minister has set out, and commend her and everyone around her for their tireless, often lifelong, work that has got us to this point. When I speak with the charitable sector and with third-sector organisations, such as Leeds Women’s Aid in my constituency, which has worked in this space for years, they keep telling me that the funding period for grants is often far too short, and grants come up for review far too frequently. They tell me that when the cost of applying for those grants and the time that staff spend applying are factored in, long-term strategic decision making in their organisations becomes really difficult. Can the Minister assure them that the strategy will address this common challenge?
Jess Phillips
As an alumni of Women’s Aid, I can absolutely do so. One of the strongest messages that came from the sector, especially the domestic abuse sector, is how crackers it is that these organisations have to apply for their funding every year. Obviously, we cannot commit funding for longer than comprehensive spending review periods, but we are committing to long-term funding going out of our door and into those organisations’ doors, under a set of standards and commissioning models that we in the Government will work to, because there are also quite a lot of complaints about localised commissioning. That is a fundamental way of allowing those organisations to grow, and to breathe again.
Ukraine
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
With permission, I will update the House on Ukraine.
As we prepare for Christmas, the people of Ukraine are fighting. It is their 1,394th day of resistance since Putin’s full-scale invasion, and their fourth Christmas of the war. I would like to update the House on the work that we are doing to bring a just and lasting peace to Ukraine by ensuring that it is in the best possible position on the battlefield and at the negotiating table. A small number of members of our armed forces are at the heart of that work, whether they are delivering military training in the UK, transporting kit to Ukraine, or helping to develop innovative new warfighting capabilities. Last week, our armed forces and our country lost one of our brightest and best, Lance Corporal George Hooley. He was a model soldier who was tragically killed in Ukraine observing trials of a new defensive drone system, well away from the frontline. I know that the whole House will have been moved by the final letter he wrote to his family, which they released yesterday to coincide with his repatriation, and that the whole House will join me in sending our heartfelt thoughts and condolences to all his family, friends and colleagues.
This Government and this House will stand with our Ukrainian friends for as long as it takes. Twelve months ago, I set out five areas in which this Government would increase that support, and with the backing of Members across this House and the commitment of countless defence personnel, partners in industry and allied nations, we have delivered on all five. First, we have strengthened Ukraine’s military capabilities, with a record £4.5 billion military support package this year. That support package includes supplies of tens of thousands of rounds of advanced missiles and ammunition; 85,000 drones, up from the 10,000 gifted last year; and the new Gravehawk air defence system, co-developed with our Danish partners. Secondly, we have now trained more than 62,000 Ukrainians in the UK, alongside our Operation Interflex allies, and we have extended that programme until at least the end of 2026.
Thirdly, to boost Ukraine’s indigenous defence industrial base so that its destiny is increasingly in its own hands, I have led further trade missions to Kyiv. We have also signed new Government-to-Government co-operation agreements that have enhanced the sharing of battlefield technologies, and, in March, we facilitated the £1.6 billion deal for 5,000 lightweight air defence missiles. That supports 700 jobs at Thales in Belfast. This demonstrates how growing defence spending across the globe can act as an engine for growth across all our nations and regions in the UK.
Fourthly, the UK has ramped up our international leadership, with the Defence Secretary stepping up in the spring to co-chair, alongside Germany, the Ukraine Defence Contact Group of over 50 nations. Since then, our UDCG partners have pledged over £50 billion of military support for Ukraine, and at Tuesday’s UDCG meeting, we confirmed the UK’s biggest single-year investment in air defence for Ukraine. I am pleased to confirm to the House that the UK is providing £600 million-worth of air defence systems, missiles and automated turrets to shoot down Russian drones and defend Ukrainian civilians. This includes Raven systems to protect frontline units, Gravehawk systems that reinforce Ukraine’s ability to protect key infrastructure from Russia’s deep-strike barrages, and counter-drone turrets designed specifically to defeat Shahed-style attack drones at scale and at lower cost.
Fifthly and finally, alongside our allies we have significantly ramped up sanctions and economic pressure on the Russian economy. We have sanctioned Russia’s largest oil majors; lowered the crude oil price cap alongside EU partners, contributing to a 35% fall in Russia’s oil revenues year on year; introduced a maritime services ban on Russian liquefied natural gas, which will be phased in over the next year; and announced our intention to ban the import of oil products of Russian origin that have been refined in third countries.
Just this morning, we announced a further 24 sanction designations across the Russian oil, military and financial sectors to further ramp up economic pressure on Putin. As the Prime Minister said to the coalition of the willing last month, the UK is ready to move with the EU to provide financial support for Ukraine based on the value of immobilised Russian assets. We are working with EU and G7 partners to advance this aim, and I hope for further positive discussions on it today.
We have tightened sanctions, strengthened alliances, boosted industrial co-operation, delivered military training, and provided the biggest annual package of UK military support for Ukraine to date. Yesterday, we went further, with the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary calling time on Roman Abramovich’s inaction. The Government have issued a licence that enables the transfer of more than £2.5 billion from the sale of Chelsea football club to benefit the victims of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We urge Abramovich to honour the commitments he made over three years ago or face court action.
Twelve months ago, I pledged that this Government would provide iron-clad support for Ukraine. That is what we have delivered, and it is what we will continue to deliver for as long as Putin continues his barbaric assault on the Ukrainian people. I know that that support will continue to enjoy cross-party support in this House.
What was not on the table last December was peace talks. On Monday, the Prime Minister was in Berlin with European leaders to advance President Trump’s peace initiative. The leaders welcomed the significant progress that has been made, and reiterated their commitment to work together to provide robust security guarantees and support economic recovery as part of any peace agreement. We have worked determinedly with our French counterparts to establish a coalition of the willing, which now consists of 36 countries, and a Multinational Force Ukraine, which is an essential pillar of the credible security guarantees required to deter Putin from coming back for more territory in the future.
It has been the position of this Government from the outset that Ukraine’s voice must be at the heart of any peace talks. That is what we have worked to achieve—not just because that is what our values and our international norms and laws dictate, but because practically, Ukraine is too militarily powerful and too determined to defend its sovereignty for peace to be built over the country’s head.
While a pattern has emerged of Russia claiming battlefield successes at opportune political moments, its claims have been exposed as disinformation time and time again. Russia has suffered over 1 million casualties to gain around 1% of Ukrainian territory since the stabilisation of the frontline in 2022. In more than a year of fighting for the comparatively small city of Pokrovsk, Russia has advanced only 15 km—equivalent to 40 metres a day—and although Putin claimed to have finally taken that city ahead of the recent visit of the American negotiating team, it is our defence intelligence’s assessment that pockets of Ukrainian resistance continue to operate there. Right across the frontline, it is Ukraine’s continued strength on the battlefield that gives it strength at the negotiating table, so we will continue to work with our allies to boost that strength and secure the credible security guarantees needed to underpin a just and lasting peace.
As we approach the fifth year of fighting since Russia’s full-scale invasion, this Government are in no doubt that the frontline of UK and European security continues to run through Ukraine. Twelve months ago, there was no clear route to ending the war; today, the US-initiated peace process represents the brightest path towards securing a just and lasting peace that we have seen since the start of the full-scale invasion. To support those diplomatic efforts, we are accelerating joint work with the US on security guarantees. The Defence Secretary directed military chiefs this week to review and update the Multinational Force Ukraine military plans, so that we are ready to deploy when peace comes. That includes revising and raising readiness levels as we continue to work with allies to maximise pressure on Putin’s war machine, to strengthen Ukraine’s hand on the battlefield and to grow its defence industrial base.
Russia’s economy is getting weaker: military spending is around 40% of the budget. Its VAT is rising and its social spending is falling. We will continue to work with our allies to tighten the screw on the Russian economy, to provide more support for Ukraine and to lay the foundations for the just and lasting peace that the Ukrainian people so deserve and want. With increasing grey-zone attacks across Europe, Ukraine’s security remains our security. I commend that approach, and this statement, to the House.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I echo the Minister’s rightful tribute to Lance Corporal George Hooley of the Parachute Regiment, who gave his life for the cause of freedom while serving in Ukraine. His sacrifice will never be forgotten.
There are things that we welcome in this statement, including the imposition of further sanctions and the provision of new equipment, including drones, missiles and in particular air defence equipment for Ukraine. We must not forget that Vladimir Putin is a former KGB colonel who has sanctioned the barbaric use of highly accurate cruise missiles against children’s hospitals in Ukraine. In particular, I agree with the Minister that no enduring settlement of the war can be reached over the heads of the Ukrainians. A world war one Admiral, Sir Jackie Fisher, once remarked, “Ultimately, all nations desire peace…but peace on their terms.” We cannot allow peace on Putin’s terms, as that peace would surely not last for long.
It is also worth reminding our American allies that article 5 of the Washington treaty has only ever been invoked once—by them, in 2001, following the appalling attack on the twin towers. Thousands of Americans were murdered that day, as were several hundred Britons. When the Americans rightfully called for help, within weeks British special forces were working alongside their American counterparts, killing terrorists in the caves of Tora Bora. Alliances work both ways. For the record, when the call came, we turned up.
The Minister also made reference to the coalition of the willing. However, if British troops were to participate, they would need to have modern, effective equipment. That brings me to the elephant in the House: where is the long-awaited defence investment plan? Prior to the summer recess, the Defence Secretary assured us that the DIP would be published in the autumn. As the autumn came and went, it slipped right, but Ministers remained adamant that the DIP would still be published before the House rose for Christmas. So where on earth is it?
As there were multiple references to industry in his statement, let me say to the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry that our defence industry will rightly be furious at this continued delay. To give just one example, we still have no decision on the new medium helicopter—a programme vital for the future of Leonardo’s workforce of thousands at Yeovil. Roberto Cingolani, the corporate CEO of Leonardo, said recently:
“We cannot subsidise Yeovil forever”.
That frustration will be repeated up and down our defence manufacturing base, from primes to fourth-tier subcontractors, the latter of whom struggle to subsidise anything at all. Is it any wonder that Mr Kevin Craven, the chief executive of ADS, said only yesterday in the Financial Times that the
“delay in releasing the Defence Investment Plan…is frustrating, to say the least”?
If we are to defend the Ukrainians successfully, we have to be able to defend ourselves. At the Liaison Committee on Monday, the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, who as ever is in his place, told the Prime Minister:
“the Government does not seem able to agree on the money involved. It cannot deliver the defence investment plan on time. It means that things are moving very slowly, rather than moving at pace, given the threats from adversaries.”
Is it any wonder that his all-party Committee recently described the Government’s progress on increasing war readiness in Britain as “glacial”?
We also welcome the ongoing financial commitment to Ukraine, which follows a similar path to our approach when in government. Would that we had such financial clarity at home. The three distinguished authors of the strategic defence review were adamant that it required defence expenditure of 3% of GDP to deliver it. But the Government cannot even give the year in which that will be reached because they are incapable inter-departmentally of agreeing it. Moreover, in-year—now—Defence Ministers are pursuing an efficiency savings exercise—“savings cuts” in pub English—of £2.6 billion in the Department’s operating budget, which is materially affecting our readiness for war and thus our ability to deter it.
In summary, our commitment across this House to the brave Ukrainians remains unwavering, but as someone once famously said, “To govern is to choose.” Yet again, the Government have avoided making choices, moving key capability decisions even further to the right yet again. When it comes to the future procurement of vital military equipment for the defence of the United Kingdom and our allies, they have kicked the can so far down the road that we can no longer see the can at all—even with an Ajax. In contrast, while our Ministers prevaricate, our Polish allies are digging anti-tank ditches along the border with Belarus.
The Romans had a saying: “Si vis pacem, para bellum” —he who desires peace should prepare for war in order to deter it. The Conservatives announced a £50 billion sovereign defence fund this morning to do precisely that.
Luke Pollard
I wish a merry Christmas to the right hon. Gentleman. First, I thank him for his support for the investment that the UK is making in Ukrainian air defences; we are spending £4.5 billion on Ukraine this year—the most that we have ever spent as a country. It is a really important statement, and the more powerful because it is backed on a cross-party basis. I appreciate his comments about Ukraine in that respect. It is absolutely right that we support Ukraine in shooting down Russian drones and missiles that are targeting civilians in particular, as well as protecting its frontline.
It is important that we value our alliances, and we continue to do so. We have a NATO-first defence policy, as set out in the strategic defence review. We are very clear about our priority focus on the Euro-Atlantic, securing our backyard. That includes working more closely and deeply with our European friends, our NATO allies, our Joint Expeditionary Force partners and Ukraine, as well as supporting and continuing to work with our friends in the United States.
When it comes to the DIP, I believe the right hon. Gentleman was at Defence questions on Monday and will have heard the Defence Secretary say very clearly that he is working flat out between now and the end of the year to finalise it. He continues to do so. On industry, we will continue to sign contracts. We have signed over 1,000 contracts since the general election, 83% of which have gone to British companies. We will continue to back British defence companies. We continue to sign those contracts. I recognise the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman asked for clarity on behalf of industry. We are working with our industrial partners to do that. Indeed, there are many contracts that his Government chose not to sign, which we are still working our way through to make sure that we can deliver the updated defence posture that the strategic defence review set out so clearly.
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, we are a Government who have delivered a plan to increase defence spending: there was £5 billion extra in our Budget this year, and it will reach 2.5% of our GDP by April 2027—three years earlier than anyone projected. We will achieve 3% in the next Parliament. We have made a commitment alongside our NATO allies for 3.5% on defence, as part of 5% on national security by 2035.
The right hon. Gentleman will also remember from when he was a Defence Minister—it was a wee while ago—that it is very normal to do business-as-usual budget management in-year. We are fixing the mess that his party left us in defence, but for the purpose of this statement I do not wish to make party political jibes. I wish to reinforce the cross-party support that this House can show for our friends in Ukraine. We will continue to do that, and I look forward to that further support being on show next year and every year afterwards.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The final letter from the late Lance Corporal George Hooley is moving, poignant and inspirational. We will remember him.
The Defence Committee wholeheartedly supports the Government’s steadfast support for Ukraine, their approach to a just and lasting peace, and the robust security guarantees for our Ukrainian friends. Putin and Russia have illegally invaded a sovereign European nation and should pay the cost, rather than the lion’s share of the burden falling on my Slough constituents and the British taxpayer. Rather than prevaricating, when will the Government and their European allies finally use the frozen Russian assets to punish Putin and properly support our Ukrainian friends?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend and his Committee for the work that they have done over the past 12 months in support of our service personnel and our allies, not just in Ukraine but across the world. We continue to work alongside our European partners to look at how we can use the immobilised sovereign Russian assets; indeed, we are undertaking discussions on that very topic today. There is strong support from the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Defence Secretary for progress on this issue, and we are seeing more progress from our European allies.
I hope that we will continue to make progress, because the case that my hon. Friend makes about Russia paying for the damage that it has caused, and about the cost that it has inflicted on the Ukrainian people, is absolutely right. We need to continue to make that case, especially as we get towards what I hope will be a peace deal that brings a just and lasting peace. It needs to be a fair peace, in which the voices of the Ukrainian people are heard very clearly.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Most Members of this House recognise that Vladimir Putin has no interest in securing a just peace for Ukraine. The only peace he will accept is one that carves up Ukraine and leaves it defenceless against future Russian invasion. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken to apply more pressure on Putin, and I encourage Ministers to go further.
As the Minister has pointed out, Putin’s oil profits are still propping up his war machine. They will continue to serve as a lifeline to the Russian economy until the UK, together with our international partners, turns the screw more tightly. Has the Minister considered the Liberal Democrats’ call to work with G7 partners to lower the oil price cap to $30 a barrel, which could cut more than a third off Putin’s oil profits?
Donald Trump has become another vital lifeline for Vladimir Putin, as he remains fixated on rewarding the Kremlin’s illegal invasion by pressuring Ukraine into giving up unconquered land in the Donbas. Reports now suggest that Trump is trying to block the UK and Europe from seizing frozen Russian assets, despite the transformative leverage that they could give Ukraine by funding new weapons. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will not allow Trump to block efforts to seize those assets? Can he confirm whether the Government will seize the £30 billion-worth of assets in this country, which estimates suggest could fund half of Ukraine’s military budget for 2026?
Luke Pollard
I welcome the hon. Lady to her place on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. I agree with her that it is important that, as we hopefully move towards a peace deal that is brokered by our American allies, the Ukrainian voice is heard loud and strong, and that a deal signals not a pause in hostilities but the end of hostilities. In order for that to happen, the Ukrainians must have their voice heard in the negotiations and be able to maintain a viable defence of their own nation in the future. The UK stands ready to support them through the coalition of the willing, the Multinational Force Ukraine and further actions.
I hope the hon. Lady will recognise that the actions we have taken on the Russian oil price cap have made a difference. My colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and in the Treasury continue to look at more methods that we can use. Indeed, a key part of our sanctions activity involves doing so alongside our allies, and we continue to build international support for those actions. That includes making sure that we can maintain our NATO commitments and our NATO unity when it comes to not only Euro-Atlantic security, but the support we offer Ukraine.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
May I return to the issue of the Russian assets? I talked to members of the Ukrainian community last night, and their anxiety is that if a deal is not done quickly—[Interruption.] Sorry, did the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) want to intervene?
John McDonnell
I talked to members of the Ukrainian community last night, and they were extremely worried about the situation. They are concerned that unless a deal is done quickly, there will be further threats not just to Ukraine but to Poland, because the Russians are amassing on the Belarusian borders. The fear is that if Trump somehow tries to impose a peace deal that eventually becomes temporary, the frozen Russian assets will be used for the next invasion of Ukraine. That is why it is so important to seal the deal now.
With regard to Abramovich, I welcome the measures taken by the Government, but there was a long period in which the City of London was used as the Russian laundromat for tax avoidance. It would be worth while the Government looking again at the Russian tax avoidance that located itself within the UK, to see whether some of those assets could be used to rebuild Ukraine.
Luke Pollard
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. I agree that it is important that we make progress on the seized Russian assets. Those negotiations and discussions are continuing today, and I hope that we will be able to report positive news in due course. He is right about the threat not just to Ukraine, but to our NATO allies along the eastern flank. It is for that reason that the UK has deployed forces and Typhoon jets in support of our allies. We are supporting our Estonian allies through Op Cabrit and the presence of the British Army’s forward land forces, and we will continue to do so.
I recognise what my right hon. Friend said about the importance of making sure that we can be proud of the measures that we are taking as a country to stand up against money laundering and illicit finances. We have made good progress, but my colleagues in the Treasury will continue to look at new avenues to clamp down on illicit finance. We hope that peace comes soon to Ukraine, but the threat from Russia will not end when peace comes.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I agree with the Minister that we have to work on a cross-party basis on this issue, because that is how we are strongest, so can we agree on the following two points? First, it would be intolerable if any peace settlement forced Ukraine to give up territory that Russia has not already conquered forcibly and if Ukraine gave up its fortress belt. It would be like stripping Czechoslovakia of Sudetenland and leaving it defenceless.
The second point is even more important. We cannot have a peace settlement through warm words alone; we must have a commitment that Ukraine’s defence is protected by the equivalent of an article 5 declaration. The only thing that will deter Putin is knowing that if he invades again, there will be war with the west and we will win. Can we unite on those two powerful points?
Luke Pollard
I thank the Father of the House for the strength he puts into his argument. We are in a new era of threat, and our approaches need to adapt. It is right that the Ukrainians are at the negotiating table and will decide the terms on which a peace deal is done, and we will continue to support them to deliver that. We are very clear that it is for Ukraine to decide its future in the negotiations.
On security guarantees, we continue to believe that the long-term future of Ukraine is within NATO, but it is for Ukraine to decide on its security alliances. It is important that, as we look towards what a possible peace might be, security guarantees exist within that framework that not only enable the deployment of western forces to help support our Ukrainian friends, but prevent Putin from pausing, regrouping and coming back for more. I welcome the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman asked his questions.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
Today’s newspapers carry further coverage of attempts by Russia to influence political systems in the west. To avoid being held to account for the war in Ukraine, Russian agents are reportedly undermining financial institutions and public servants in Belgium. Following the jailing of a former Reform leader in Wales for taking bribes from Russia, does the Minister agree that the inquiry into foreign financial interference in our domestic politics has not come soon enough?
Luke Pollard
The vast majority of the seized Russian assets are held by Belgium—within its geography—which is why we are having discussions not only internationally but directly with our Belgian colleagues. I hope that progress can be made on that.
My hon. Friend is right that the threats we face from Russia are not just military threats. The sub-threshold or grey zone threats—the election interference that we see Russia perpetrating around the world, the cyber-threats and cyber-attacks against the UK and our allies, and the potential grey zone attacks on our undersea infrastructure—are all part of the increasing threat that Russia poses to our country, our values and our alliances. For that reason, it is absolutely right that the Government take steps in all those areas to look at what can be done to prevent Russian interference and to defend ourselves more strongly and better. That includes increasing defence spending, as well as other measures.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
May I start by paying tribute and offering thanks to all those on the frontlines in our uniform, guarding our seas, guarding our land and guarding our air? They will be on duty for the next fortnight, when many of us will be celebrating, and will not have the chance to be with their families.
May I raise a point that I do not really want to raise, but which I am afraid is fundamentally true? The promises of defence spending are actually on the never-never—they are for after the next election. The reality, as the Minister knows very well, is that the uplift he has spoken about is actually a reallocation of money that was allocated to Ukraine and is still allocated to Ukraine. It was coming out of one budget and it is now under the defence budget. That is Treasury chicanery, not a defence uplift.
The reality is that we are not considered serious. We complain, understandably, that we are not part of President Trump’s talks, but we are not willing to put in the money or put a stake in the ground to show that we are a capable and equal player. We see what Poland is doing and what the Baltic states are doing, and we are not doing it ourselves. Until we are willing to do it ourselves, I am afraid that the Minister, and all of us here, are not being serious. We are not truly standing with Ukraine, we are not truly defending the British people, and I am afraid that the promises will come to naught.
Luke Pollard
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the passion with which he puts the argument. We are increasing defence spending; there is £5 billion extra in the defence budget this year. We will have more money in our budget every year for the next 10 years. There is not a single person who has served in uniform and seen a decade of rising defence spending ahead of them. We need to spend that well, but we also need to recognise that, with increasing threats, it is not just Defence that needs to spend money well; it is the whole of Government and the whole of society that need to step up. It is not just an MOD pursuit, although we take the lead in many cases.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his thanks to the service personnel deployed around the world. For Members who have not seen it yet, the Royal Navy Christmas advert, which shows the real-life events of HMS Diamond when she was in the Red sea and what happens for our people at home and those deployed abroad, is well worth a watch.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
For some Ukrainian children, this will be the fourth Christmas that they will spend in Russia, after being torn from their families by the Russian state. Others will spend their Christmas living under occupation, and many more will spend their Christmas in a military training camp, being taught to fight against their own country. Will my hon. Friend set out what recent work he has been doing with colleagues in the FCDO to make sure that those children do not find themselves on the battlefield and that they spend their next Christmas in their own home, in their own country and with their own families?
Luke Pollard
Children should never be pawns of war. May I place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend for championing this issue? There is not a Ukraine debate that goes by without her raising the issue of Ukrainian children. It is absolutely vital, and it is why, as a country, we have said that a lasting and just peace in Ukraine must include the return of all the Ukrainian children stolen by Russia. We have committed more than £2.8 million to support Ukrainian efforts to facilitate the return and reintegration of children deported by Russia. We will continue to support that effort and to make the case that stealing children is not the sign of a strong nation. It is the sign of a weak nation, and it is not something that we will support or that any decent nation around the world should back.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I welcome what the Minister said about introducing a maritime services ban on Russian liquefied natural gas; I was a little less welcoming of what he said about it being phased in over the next year. It was reported this week that UK-insured ships have transported almost half the Russian diesel exports since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Those exports are thought to have been worth more than £24 billion pounds, and UK-owned or UK-insured vessels are reported to have enabled the export of £45 billion-worth of Russian gas. Why can the Government not get on with the UK maritime services ban today?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We have announced that we intend to introduce the maritime services ban on Russian LNG, which will restrict Russia’s ability to export globally. The reason it is being phased in is so that it can be done in lockstep with our EU friends, who are introducing equivalent restrictions. He is right to identify the issue, and the Government are right to take steps to address it. I am an impatient so-and-so, and I know that the efforts that we are making across Government are based on a similar impatience to get it done fast, but it must be done well.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and send solidarity to Ukraine. As Christmas approaches, I would like to thank all who serve in our armed forces and wish them a merry Christmas, wherever they are in the world.
I want to pause and remember Lance Corporal George Hooley, who, as we heard from the Minister, has returned home to the UK. Before his passing, Lance Corporal Hooley wrote a letter to his friends and family to be opened in the event of his death, as many members of our armed forces do. If you will allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to share a few of his beautiful, poignant and proud words:
“If you are reading this, it means I didn’t make it home. Please don’t let that be the thing that breaks you. You know I was doing what I believed in as well as loved, with people I respected, and for reasons that matter to me, my country and democracy and freedom in this world. I was proud of what I was doing.
Don’t remember me with sadness and loss. Be proud. I went out doing what I trained to do, what I chose to do, and I had all of you in my heart the whole way.”
Rest in peace, Lance Corporal George Hooley.
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for reading Lance Corporal George Hooley’s words into the record. I know how close to home that will hit with her, as a mother of someone serving in our armed forces, and indeed other Members across the House. We ask extraordinary things of our people. What they do and the sacrifices they make—the ultimate sacrifice in this case, but also the sacrifice at Christmas—is appreciated on the Government Benches, on the Opposition Benches and, I believe, by everyone in the United Kingdom.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I endorse what the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) and the Minister have said about Lance Corporal George Hooley, who sounds as if he was a fine individual and a great soldier?
On 29 December, it will be the 85th anniversary of President Roosevelt’s famous fireside chat radio broadcast, in which he defined his country, which was not then at war, as the “arsenal of democracy” in support of those countries that were at war. He did not say that Churchill had no cards to play. He did not say that Adolf Hitler should be rewarded with recognition of the countries that had been occupied. By the end of the war, the Americans had seen the importance of standing in alliance with the other democracies, and when Germany was divided, they made certain that the western part of Germany was not a military vacuum. Does the Minister agree that if Ukraine is divided by force, then we democracies must make sure that western, free Ukraine is not a military vacuum either?
Luke Pollard
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the way he puts the argument. That is precisely the reason why we are working with our French colleagues on the coalition of the willing, to make sure that when peace comes, and I hope it comes soon, we will be able to support our Ukrainian friends, allowing them to remove their units from the frontline and reconstitute them up to NATO standard, because the deterrence we need in Ukraine is a stronger Ukraine—one that will stand up against any future Russian aggression. But we need to recognise that, as a leading country in NATO, we have commitments not just to our friends in Ukraine—which we will honour—but to our NATO allies along the eastern flank and elsewhere in the Euro-Atlantic. We will continue to make commitments and support those efforts as well.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
The people of Ukraine are not alone, as we have heard in this House today. Their sacrifices are for their own country, but they are for us all. I am therefore very grateful for what this Government are doing in leading the way; so much more is being done to support our brethren and sisters in Ukraine. However, Russia is a threat not just to Ukraine but to all of Europe, and we have heard about the threats to this country. What can the Minister tell us about the cross-Government steps we are taking to stop interference in our democracy, attacks on our infrastructure and, indeed, attacks on our whole society?
Luke Pollard
This Government’s approach has been ever so slightly different from those of previous Governments. We have taken a different approach to revealing Russian activity, precisely because we face threats increasing. For instance, in revealing the activity of the Russian spy ship Yantar on her recent visit over some of our infrastructure, and the shining of a laser at our RAF pilots, we were deliberately calling out that behaviour, being clear about the threats that Russia poses and signalling support for our allies in doing so.
We were doing something else as well. We need to take the British people with us. Part of that is not just a whole-of-Government approach, but a whole-of-society approach. We are being clear about the threats that Russia poses to our way of life, values, laws and institutions, but also being clear that we can do something to stand up against them—every Department can. Having met the Security Minister this morning, I know that he is taking the threat seriously. We are doing more in that respect to deal with the threats that Russia poses, and there will be further announcements in the new year.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
We are thinking of all Ukrainians today, particularly the around 2,500 who found sanctuary in Aberdeen; they will be spending Christmas worried about their friends and family who remain in Ukraine. According to the Defence Committee, the most effective way to ensure long-term security for Ukraine and the strongest possible European defence framework is to have strategic unity with our European allies. Will the Minister confirm the reasons behind the refusal to join the SAFE—Security Action for Europe—programme?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Lady for putting on record the Ukrainians who are in the UK because they found sanctuary with families up and down the country. They will continue to receive our support.
We entered into negotiations with our European friends around SAFE in good faith. We wanted to secure a deal, but we were also clear from the start that we would not accept a deal that was not in the best interests of our taxpayers or the British defence industry. Sadly, we were not able to find a fair financial measure for inclusion. We were happy to pay our fair share, but we were not willing to pay above that.
We continue to work with our European friends, and British companies can participate in SAFE arrangements up to 35%. We will continue to work through bilateral arrangements, such as the Trinity House agreement we signed with Germany and the frigate deal with our friends in Norway, which will benefit Scotland considerably. There is more to do across Europe, and we will do continue to do it, whether we are in SAFE or not.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s announcement that readiness levels have been revised and increased so that, if a just peace can be successfully negotiated, forces are ready to deploy to prevent future Russian aggression. Will the Minister set out to the House the extent to which the coalition of the willing is ready for such a significant deployment and commitment and—if he can comment—what force elements might be deployed first?
Luke Pollard
The coalition of the willing is ready to deploy. I am afraid that I will not be able to give the news, which Putin wants, about what units we are deploying, but the coalition of the willing has a number of elements: safe skies, which would probably be the fastest deployment of assets in terms of combat air Typhoon jets and allied jets, to secure airspace; safe seas, securing the maritime domain; and supporting the regeneration of Ukrainian forces.
We continue to work with our coalition of the willing allies around rotating readiness, so that whenever peace comes, we are able to deploy. We have UK personnel working with our friends and allies on the coalition of the willing to ensure that, if President Trump’s peace deal is successful, we are able to move immediately after that deal takes place.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Can the Minister update us on de-mining in Ukraine? Ukrainian civilians are still regularly being killed by mines or improvised explosive devices. The last time that I had the opportunity to visit Ukraine, it was with the HALO Trust, which is based in my constituency and carries out the meticulous work of removing mines. The scale of the mines is such that there remains a serious threat to the civilian population.
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman is exactly correct. Russia’s reckless use of mines across large areas of Ukraine poses a threat not just to Ukraine’s military forces, but to civilians in Ukraine and occupied Ukraine every single day. I thank him for mentioning the people in his constituency and elsewhere who undertake de-mining, and we will continue to support that effort with our Ukrainian friends. Indeed, we want to go further by supporting de-mining efforts, after peace, in the Black sea, to ensure that we clear not just mines on the land, but maritime mines, which threaten peaceful trade in the Black sea. That can be addressed when peace comes.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
May I thank the Minister for reiterating the UK’s commitment to stand by Ukraine in this illegal war by Russia? This is another Christmas that many Ukrainians in the UK will be spending away from their family and their home. Will he join me in wishing them a merry Christmas, making a commitment that we will always be a safe haven for them, and thanking people, such as Viktoriya Shtanko, who are leading efforts in the UK to make sure that they have a happy Christmas?
Luke Pollard
This Christmas is a difficult time, because we tend to think of family, those people we have lost and the people we miss. Not only have many of our Ukrainian friends lost homes and family members, but there is uncertainty about their friends and family members on the frontline and those who remain in Ukraine and occupied Ukraine. I thank everyone in our communities who have welcomed in Ukrainians. We will continue to support our Ukrainian friends at home and abroad. I wish all Ukrainians a very merry Christmas and, hopefully, a peaceful new year.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
I welcome the Minister’s statement and reiterate Reform’s strong support, with all parties in this House, for Ukraine, its sovereignty and its independence against the dictator Putin. The Minister knows that I have spoken frequently about using the frozen central assets, and I am encouraged by his words today, but can I urge him to go further? Ukrainian friends of mine have reinforced the strength of the negotiating leverage of such assets. This Government therefore have the opportunity to show real leadership in the coalition of the willing by committing unilaterally to using those frozen central assets.
Luke Pollard
In the spirit of Christmas, may I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for this effort? It is so important that we can, as much as possible, present a cross-party, unified voice. The steps that he has taken, especially to address the pollution of Russian bribes in his own party, are important steps forward. Hopefully, Russian bribes will never, ever again be taken by people in his party or anyone else’s.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the issue of frozen Russian assets, and it is important that the UK moves with our international allies in this respect. That has been our approach from the start. I hope that we are nearly at the point where progress can be made. He is right to say just how important it is to use those assets as leverage in peace, as well as to use the value of those assets, and the interest from them, to support Ukraine in the fight against Putin’s illegal invasion.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
May I start by associating myself with the remarks from the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) regarding the loss of Lance Corporal Hooley this Christmas? Given the situation in Ukraine and the possibility of a Russian redeployment and reconstitution of its forces in the event of any peace settlement, the Schwerpunkt of any future Russian belligerence may be more difficult to fix than to strike. We clearly require some sort of continuous on-land deterrent to ensure that we maximise our sensitivity to effect opportunities across all domains, including space. What progress has he made in digitising our kill chain, developing our AI solution, getting inside Russia’s OODA—observe, orient, decide, act—loop, and ensuring the effectiveness of the eastern flank deterrence line? When will we see a tangible output?
Luke Pollard
I fear there will be more parliamentary questions based on that question coming at me very soon. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the integrated digital targeting web as a key part of our deterrence activity. The SDR was clear that we are moving to a situation, in a digitised battlefield, where any target must be able to be in the same decision-making process as any sensor to detect it, and any effector to prosecute it. We are piecing that together.
The early steps in the digital targeting web have been taken, with money being spent to develop the concept further. That will be reinforced in the defence investment plan. By using that technology, we hope to increase the lethality of our forces by having a greater flexibility in how we target and detect adversaries—that makes our Army, Air Force and Navy much stronger—and integrating space and cyber facilities in that combined effort. That is a good part of the SDR, and we are making progress on it.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank the Minister for coming to the House today on this last day of Parliament before Christmas, which keeps Ukraine at the top of the political agenda, which is where it must be. I want to endorse thoroughly every word uttered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) in his response to the Minister’s statement, as well as the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat). I make no apology for pressuring the Government to spend more on defence, and I know that secretly, in his heart, the Minister agrees with me. Will he think about coming back to the House early in the new year with a debate and a motion on a three-line Whip, so that we can thoroughly debate these matters with a much fuller House than we have this afternoon? That will enable us to lead the conversation that he so ably talks about.
Luke Pollard
I have no doubt in my mind that the hon. Gentleman, and indeed many of my hon. Friends sitting behind me, will also be making the case for defence. Both the Minister for the Armed Forces and myself, as well as the Defence Secretary and the Minister for Veterans and People, value the focus put on defence by cross-party debates. There will be opportunities in the new year to look at the defence investment plan and at how we deploy the increased defence spending that we have been allocated. In doing so, we must be mindful of how we implement the strategic defence review, which is the key strategic document that we are seeking to implement as a Government; it sets out how we will increase lethality of our forces and how we will renew our forces, retiring old gear and bringing on new technologies in order to do so. More debates on defence in this House are very welcome indeed.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and for reminding us of the commitment of the £1.6 billion deal announced this March for 5,000 lightweight air defence missiles, which supports 700 jobs at Thales in Belfast, and indeed across the Province. This Government and this Minister are committing themselves, and I thank them for that.
The picture on the front page of The Times today shows two soldiers who had been on the front for 130 days. They look tired—they look like they need a break. They have now been sent to the rear to have a chance to recuperate. While their faces are tired, their eyes tell the real story: they show their courage and commitment. What has been done to ensure that all medical help and assistance is available to help the injured, both in mind and body, and to get them reinvigorated so that they can go back and continue to stand for Ukrainians at the front?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the lightweight multirole missile contract that we secured earlier this year in support of the production facility in Belfast. Defence is an engine for growth, and we can use not only the increased spending on our defence, but that in support of our friends in Ukraine to create more good, well-paid and decent jobs in every part of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; my sense of many Ukrainian soldiers on the front is that they are tired but undefeated. The courage that we see from them, and their innovative spirit in using new technologies to defend their country and their people against this illegal attack, should give us all courage and pride; it will continue to do so. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to look at Project Renovator, which is how we are supporting Ukrainian service personnel to recuperate and then get back on the frontline. As well as supporting that effort, we are providing those fighting forces with the equipment and innovative new technology that they need, especially in drones and air defence missiles, to ensure that we can keep Ukraine in the fight, as well as putting it in the best possible position at the negotiating table.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I will take it provided that it pertains to the statement we have just had.
Mr Francois
Absolutely; it does pertain to the statement. We had been hoping for a Christmas present in the form of a defence investment plan. The Minister has told the House that the Government are working, in his words, flat out—
Madam Deputy Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman is seeking to extend the debate we have just had on a separate matter. He will know that that is not a point of order, and it is not a matter for the Chair whether the MOD is going to bring forward—
Madam Deputy Speaker
It is simply not a matter for the Chair. It does not pertain to the statement.
Local Government Reorganisation
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
As I said to the House yesterday, we need to set local authorities on a plan for financial sustainability, after 14 years during which the Tories decimated local government, and local government reorganisation is a part of that journey.
Having layers of councils is both inefficient and ineffective. With one council in charge in each area, we will see quicker decisions to grow our towns and cities and to connect people to opportunity. Residents will see more preventive care; a family needing special educational needs support and help with housing, for instance, will need to contact only one council, rather than being passed between two. Residents will also benefit from more financially stable councils, with combined services delivering for a larger population, providing for efficiencies and better value. That is why reorganisation is a vital part of our change: stronger local councils equipped to generate economic growth will improve local public services and empower their communities. As we break for Christmas, I would like to thank colleagues in this place and councils across the country for working with the Government to deliver this process.
We want to make these changes in this Parliament. We have already reached a number of key milestones, including the Secretary of State’s decision to implement two new unitary councils in Surrey. We have now received proposals from all 20 remaining invitation areas and a consultation is open on 17 of those proposals from six invitation areas. I expect to launch a consultation in early February on proposals for the remaining 14 areas that seek to meet the terms of the statutory invitation; that consultation would be for seven weeks. I remain committed to the indicative timetable that was published in July, which will see elections to new councils in May 2027 and those new councils going live in April 2028, subject to Parliament.
Local government reorganisation is a complex process involving the rewiring of local services to bring housing, planning, public health and social care all under one roof. When councils have told us about the limits they are working within and the capacity required for reorganisation, my ministerial colleagues and I have heard them. In recent weeks, as final proposals have been submitted, the number of councils voicing such concerns have grown.
Many councils across the country—and of all stripes—have expressed anxiety about their capacity to deliver a smooth and safe transition to new councils, alongside running resource-intensive elections to councils proposed to be abolished shortly. They have expressed concerns about the time and energy spent managing elections to bodies that will shortly not exist, only to run an election a year later. We have also heard from councils querying the value for taxpayers of spending tens of millions of pounds running elections to bodies that will not exist for much longer. Councils are telling us that where capacity is a problem, postponement would free up resources to be concentrated on local government reorganisation and the delivery of good services.
This Government believe in devolution and local leadership. We do not wish to dictate local decisions from Whitehall without consultation; instead, we will listen to local leaders. It is right that the Secretary of State considers the concerns that have been raised with specific relevance to the areas they have come from. Capacity will vary between councils, and that is why the Secretary of State wants to hear from local leaders who know their areas best and understand their own local capacity. He is therefore today seeking the views of council leaders regarding their local capacity to deliver local government reorganisation alongside elections.
To be clear, should a council say that it has no reason to delay its elections, there will be no delay. If a council voices genuine concerns, we will take these issues seriously, and would be minded to grant a delay in those areas. To that end, the Secretary of State is minded to make an order to postpone elections for one year only to the councils that raise capacity concerns. We have asked for representations from councils by no later than midnight on 15 January, and will then be in a position to make an informed decision.
I will continue to update the House on this and other important milestones for reorganisation as we deliver on this vital agenda. I commend this statement to the House.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. The question many will be asking out there today is: what does this Labour Government have against democracy? Only two days ago, when asked, the Secretary of State said that all local elections were going ahead. He either hid his decision until today or has changed his mind in the past 48 hours. Which was it?
Voters will now potentially be denied the right to elect their own representatives, and not for the first time under this Labour Government. This is the second year in a row that Ministers have scrambled to postpone elections. Now, while many people gather around their screens to watch movies like “How the Grinch Stole Christmas”, we are sitting here discussing how Labour is trying to steal the elections.
There is no mandate for the Government’s botched reorganisation plan, and they have behaved as the sole actor, forcing local council leaders to reorganise, with little regard for local people and their democratic rights. Has the Electoral Commission been consulted on these latest changes, or has it been ignored once again? Just as the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission noted when mayoral elections were previously cancelled, the commission exists to protect the integrity of our electoral system, but time and again the Government seem content to brush aside its advice when it becomes inconvenient.
Do the Government still believe in the Gould principle—the long-standing agreement that election rules and practices should not be changed within the six-month period of a scheduled election—or is that expendable whenever Labour finds itself politically vulnerable? The Opposition accept that there is a precedent for a single-year delay, but that is not what we face. Do the Government accept the clear advice of the Electoral Commission that further delays are unacceptable? It said that scheduled polls should be postponed only in exceptional circumstances —what are the exceptional circumstances in this case? We know the answer: Labour’s rushed, chaotic and flawed local government reorganisation plan. It is the Government’s fault, not local leaders’ fault.
Have the Government undertaken or commissioned any up-to-date research into the costs of restructuring? Again, we know the answer, and it is a resounding no. What assessment has been made of the paralysis that the restructuring risks causing in local plan preparations? At a time when the Government claim they want to speed up planning, how does freezing governance structures help? Will this disruption not make the Government’s beleaguered 1.5 million homes target even harder to achieve? What about social care? What assessment has been made of the impacts of breaking up counties on adult and children’s social care provision? The broader narrative is clear. Yes, some councils have expressed an interest in restructuring, but Labour’s process has been rushed and deeply flawed, local residents have not been properly consulted and this Labour Government have put a gun to the heads of local council leaders.
The Opposition support council leaders who have engaged with the process, such as Kevin Bentley, the leader of Essex county council, who has stated clearly in the public domain that he will not ask for elections to be delayed in Greater Essex. I am pleased to say that my authority, Hampshire county council, does not support the move, either.
In December 2024, the Conservatives set out several clear tests; Labour has failed every single one of them. Is this a genuine choice for councils and communities, or are councils being compelled and punished if they do not comply? Will they be more accountable as a result? Will this reorganisation keep council tax down and improve services or simply add new layers of cost? Will it avoid disruption to social care at a time of immense strain? On all counts, the answer is no.
Earlier this month, Labour cancelled mayoral elections because it was worried it would not win them. Now it is doing the same with local elections, pausing the democratic process to serve its own political interests, creating for itself a true nightmare before Christmas. The process has been a mess from start to finish. It is not wanted, not in Labour’s manifesto and centrally dictated. It should be scrapped today.
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response. I will do my best to respond to a couple of his substantive points. He said that the Opposition are supporting local leaders who are engaging in the process in good faith, and I thank him for that, despite his other comments where he indicated that perhaps his party is not supporting the move to towards unitary councils, which we know are more efficient and effective, as I said.
On the hon. Gentleman’s important point about the Electoral Commission, the Secretary of State will take that under advisement, and will take any issues raised seriously. As I mentioned, we want to take an approach that puts local insights first. He mentioned councils that do not support a delay. As I said, that is fine; there is no problem with that at all. We want to support local leaders through what we are doing.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned planning, which is extremely important, given the desperate need to build more homes; in fact, part of the motivation for moving to unitary authorities is to get that work done effectively and efficiently. He also asked about social care, which is an extremely important area. A lot of change is going on in social care, not least through the work in the Department for Health and Social Care on changing how NHS England works. I am working closely with colleagues in that Department on that, and I am happy to engage further with him on it.
The position on elections is as it has always been. The starting point remains that elections go ahead unless there is a strong justification for them not going ahead. Today, we are writing to local leaders who have raised concerns and made justifications to us, to ask them to set those out, so that an informed decision can be taken.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for her statement. I appreciate that she outlined that she has listened to valid concerns from councils about reorganisation. I have raised with Ministers the uncertainty that councils will face in transitioning into new councils, and in running vital day-to-day services.
I am a bit disappointed in the Minister, in that this announcement has come so late in the day. This is an issue of grave importance to so many hon. Members right across the Chamber, but many of them will not be here today to raise their concerns with her. In addition to the Secretary of State’s comments two days ago, he said this when he appeared before the Select Committee on 11 November:
“Where the elections are intended to go ahead, they will go ahead.”
What has changed since then?
The deadline is in a few weeks—the Minister asked that representations be made no later than 15 January—which leaves councils little time to prepare, if we are to make sure that we inform the Electoral Commission as well. What advice would she give to election officers who are planning elections, which takes time and costs money? Should they go ahead or should that work be paused? After that date, when will the final decision be made? Can Members have sight of that date?
We appreciate that local government reorganisation is complex, but we cannot have a situation in which the Government keep postponing elections. Local elections are vital and a sign of a healthy democracy.
Alison McGovern
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for raising those points. First, I take seriously her point about the timings. She will understand that it has been a particularly busy time, given all that is happening in the Department, but I absolutely accept her point. I have been in touch with many Members of the House on reorganisation, funding and other matters, and I anticipate that I will also be in touch with Members over the rest of the year, and very much in the new year as well.
My hon. Friend asked, “Why now?” We have had representations from a number of councils undergoing reorganisation—albeit by no means the majority, as most councils that are reorganising are not due to have elections in any case—and we think it is important that we take stock of their views on capacity constraints. My hon. Friend also asked about timings; we have asked the councils to come back to us quickly, and we will take decisions swiftly.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Just over two weeks ago, we were in this Chamber for a statement cancelling the mayoral elections in six areas. At the time, the Government assured us that they intended to go ahead with May 2026 elections, so it is deeply disappointing to be here again discussing cancellations and the prospect of people being denied their vote and their voice. I do wonder how voters and Members of this House can trust the Government on the topic of elections, given that they have gone back on their repeated assurances that elections would go ahead.
In her statement, the Minister indicated that concerns had been raised about lack of capacity. With the Government’s timetable for reorganisation having been clearly set out in July, it seems strange that capacity issues are only just being highlighted. Will she clarify to the House the type of capacity issues that are being highlighted? Will she also say which tier of council will be the primary decision maker on whether an area has capacity issues? What will happen if district and county councils have differing views?
Finally, the Minister will be aware that councils have already committed significant financial resources, not to mention staff hours, to planning for the May 2026 elections. Will she commit today to fully reimbursing councils for costs incurred in planning for 2026, if they end up having their elections cancelled?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. I will not respond again to those to which I have already responded. As I mentioned, the majority of the English electorate will get to vote in the elections in 2026 that are not affected by reorganisation. There are other elections going on and, as I said, this does not apply to the majority of councils undergoing reorganisation, either.
A number of councils have raised capacity issues, demand on limited resources and the challenge of getting the transition process right. They have shared details with us, which is why we are writing to them to ask their view formally. We will get on with this process as quickly as we can.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I thank the Minister not just for her statement, but for moving at pace with the local government reorganisation programme. Contrary to what we heard from the shadow Minister, for whom I have great respect, we want local government reorganisation in Exeter and across Devon. I have lost count over the past 18 months of the list of places and topics for which two-tier government is simply not working for a diverse and dynamic city such as Exeter. I will not list them today, Madam Deputy Speaker, but does the Minister agree that streamlining councils and allowing cities such as Exeter to take control of their own economy, destiny and services will deliver real benefits—not just for the economy and for services, but for local people?
Alison McGovern
I understand that today we may hear more from those with concerns about reorganisation, but the case that my hon. Friend makes is the right one. Everywhere in this country deserves the possibility of economic and social growth.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
Today, Gosport borough council has been given the lowest possible rating by a Government regulator for the management of its social housing. The Minister will understand that this is a deeply worrying time for the 3,000 Gosport tenants and for local council tax payers. What is not helping is the constant ambiguity, uncertainty and speculation from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about the borough’s future, compounding the chaos and confusion from the council’s already quite hapless leadership. The Minister has already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) that Hampshire county council does not favour a delay, but does she agree that today’s announcement just adds to the uncertainty that thousands of residents face across Hampshire?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue in the House; it sounds really serious. I will look at what has happened in Gosport. We endeavour to take decisions quickly and have clarity, but I will have a look at the issue that she raises, because it sounds important to her constituents.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement. Outside the political bubble, many people—particularly those who have struggled over the past few years to get the local services that they need on their doorstep—will welcome the idea of a modernised local government system, but this is also about funding. Luton North deserves more than just the bare essentials. That is why I welcome the 63% increase in multi-year funding, compared with the previous Government’s cuts of over £116 million to our town. Does the Minister agree that areas like my town of Luton not only deserve every single penny, so that we can bring back our play parks, our high streets and our local assets, but deserve the mechanisms to deliver for people?
Alison McGovern
I agree: Luton deserves far better, and it is about time that people in Luton had their fair share.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Can the Minister confirm that elections in Surrey will go ahead in May 2026?
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
The fact of the matter is that Britain has one of the most centralised political structures anywhere in the world. If we are to renew our democracy and rebuild confidence in the people, we need well-led, financially secure authorities that can speak powerfully to central Government, so I advise the Minister to proceed quickly and carefully with the reorganisation. [Interruption.] I do not want to listen to advice from Opposition Members. They launched a tsunami of financial attacks on local government that left councils strapped for resources.
One final point: there are 10,000 parish and town councils, including quite a number in my constituency. Will the Minister look at how we can use them to help to renew our democracy?
Alison McGovern
I do not want to try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is much I could say in response to my hon. Friend, who makes some excellent points, but I will just say that I have heard what he says, and I will do my best.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Labour’s process of local government reorganisation is descending into farce. Two days ago, the Secretary of State assured the House that next May’s elections were going ahead. Now, the day we rise for Christmas, the Minister comes here and says, “Well, they might not.” I back to the hilt the Conservative leader of Essex county council, Kevin Bentley, when he says that they must go ahead. He is right, but what about the lower tier? What about Labour-led Basildon, Labour-led Thurrock and Labour-led Southend? Are they allowed to run away and hide, just because Labour is tanking in the polls?
Alison McGovern
I am pleased to hear that the right hon. Gentleman has been in touch with local authority leaders. They will have heard what he has said, and I am sure that they can take his views into consideration when they respond to our letter.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
In Newcastle-under-Lyme and in Staffordshire, there is real discussion about what the future may look like. It is clear that some things have to change, because councils are not operating as effectively as they might. That said, can the Minister assure me that the views of local people, and the history, traditions and identity of communities, will be the driving force behind any discussion about what the future may look like?
Alison McGovern
Of course those things are taken into consideration. We have set out some criteria by which the decisions on reorganisation are taken, and I refer my hon. Friend to those, but effective local government is built out of a strong sense of community. I am sure that will be reflected in his constituency, as elsewhere.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as a serving county councillor. Why has the Minister given Norfolk Conservatives a route to chicken out of their impending electoral doom? Will she tell me why the Government did not support my amendment to the English Devolution and Empowerment Bill, which would require her to win a vote in this place in order to stop elections? Does she not believe that elected Members here have a right to stand up for their constituents?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We are following the precedent for dealing with situations like this. This happened under the previous Government, too, and we support that process. Council leaders will have heard what he said. I am not sure what the politics are of the situation that he alluded to. None the less, local leaders will have heard what he said, and I am sure that they will consider that when they take their decision.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
This is another U-turn from the Government. Two days ago, the Secretary of State said that the votes were going ahead. Now we are told, in a statement slipped out just before we rise for Christmas, that they are not going ahead. The Minister uses as her excuse representations that she tells us she has received from councils. Will she take this opportunity to confirm that the Conservative leader of Norfolk county council has not made representations to her, and reaffirm her public position that she will not ask for a delay in elections in Norfolk?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I will write to him to confirm the response to it. Primarily, that is one for Norfolk. I am sure it may say things publicly, but I would be very happy to discuss with him the circumstances in his constituency, if he would like that.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The Minister is doing a noble job of defending the absolutely indefensible cancellation of further elections, but where is the Secretary of State who just two days ago told this House, I am sure in good faith, that the elections would go ahead? The Minister needs to explain what has changed in the last 48 hours; otherwise, MPs are left with the regrettable conclusion that the Secretary of State inadvertently misled the House.
Alison McGovern
I am awfully sorry that I am not the person that the hon. Member wanted to see at the Dispatch Box today.
Alison McGovern
A merry Christmas to him, too! I feel disappointed that he is disappointed to see me here. In any case, as I have said to other Members, what has happened is that local councils have raised concerns with us, and we are attempting to get in touch with them—the letter is going to them today—so that they can say what the circumstances are in their boroughs. As we have discussed, if they wish for elections to go ahead, that is fine.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
This is a disgraceful decision that damages our democracy and sets a dangerous precedent. To borrow a phrase, is the Minister afraid? Frightened? Frit? What does she say to my constituents whose fundamental right to have their say at the ballot box is now being taken away?
Alison McGovern
I am sure that the hon. Lady’s council will have heard what she has said and understood her views—and it is right that it has. Having stood in one local council election and five general elections, I am not afraid of democracy.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
This feels like some kind of unholy Labour-Conservative alliance to avoid electoral humiliation. At West Sussex county council, the dysfunctional Conservative administration will surely grab the chance to cling on to power for yet another year past its sell-by date. To make sure that any decision to delay is taken for the right reasons, will the Minister agree to require that any council seeking to cancel elections will also be required to see out the rest of its term under a cross-party rainbow coalition comprised of existing councillors?
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I invite the Minister to be open and candid with the House. Could she tell us what discussions there have been and what views, opinions, advice or instructions have been issued to her, her fellow Ministers or special advisers by the political advisers in No. 10?
Alison McGovern
As I have mentioned a few times, we have had representations from councils about their capacity. Of course we discuss these issues as Ministers and as part of the Government, and those discussions happen in the usual way, as the hon. Member would expect.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
After Reform-led Staffordshire county council, Conservative-run East Sussex county council paid out the highest amount in compensation relating to potholes between 2022 and 2024. People in Eastbourne want to have their say. Can the Minister confirm whether the leader of East Sussex county council has already made representations to her about the cancellation of elections next year? Will she confirm whether she expects the people of East Sussex to have a say at the ballot box in 2026?
Alison McGovern
I am sure that East Sussex county council has heard what the hon. Member has said. It may discuss that with him directly, as I will happily do if he would like.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Can I explain to the Minister why this U-turn is worrying? She said that there would have to be strong reasons for elections to be cancelled, and then cancelled them on the basis of not very strong reasons. Her predecessor said that there would have to be very strong reasons why boundary changes might happen during local government reorganisation. We are extremely concerned that Southampton city council wants to split off the sensitive waterside that looks towards the rural New Forest and amalgamate that under its power structure in the future. Can we now be confident that those very strong reasons that would have to be adduced for any boundary changes really amount to any sort of guardianship of the situation at all?
Alison McGovern
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I have heard it and take it away as part of our consideration of the issues around reorganisation. We published the criteria that we will use to take decisions with regards to reorganisation, and we need to stick to those criteria, but I take seriously the point that he raises.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her update. Having gone through a local government restructure in Northern Ireland some years ago, I can say that the shifts are dynamic and that it can be very difficult to reconcile the new ways. What information will be available for the general public to ensure that the transition is understood and that people are not alienated from their local representation?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his commitment to taking part in these discussions and for the insights he brings from Northern Ireland. I will alert colleagues in local government to those and let them know that there is experience they could learn from.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is about the reply I got to my question. I have it on very good authority that these decisions have been taken by political advisers in No. 10, and the Minister did not deny that. Could she clarify whether I am right to take away that impression, or could she be more open and candid with the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The hon. Gentleman will know that that is not a matter for the Chair. I am reluctant to allow continuation of debate via the mechanism of points of order, unless the Minister wishes to respond.
15th Anniversary
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee. Bob Blackman will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement; they must be brief questions, not speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Committee Chair, not to the relevant Government Minister. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
With permission, I will make a statement about the report on the first 15 years of the Backbench Business Committee. As Members will be aware, the Backbench Business Committee came out of the Wright reforms presented to this House, all bar one of which have been implemented. The only one that has not been implemented is the requirement for a House Business Committee, but I will leave that to the Leader of the House to consider in the future.
I pay tribute to my two predecessors as Chair of the Committee: Natascha Engel and Ian Mearns. They led the Committee with appropriate dignity and initiated many different reforms in this place. I have had the pleasure of serving on the Committee for 14 of its 15 years, so I have witnessed at first hand the excellent work they did.
Our role is very simple: to encourage debates on a wide range of subjects that the Government do not necessarily wish to be debated in the House. We also have a duty to ensure that requests for debates have cross-party support, to use the time as effectively as possible. We also allow for Select Committee statements to take place, and I remind Select Committee Chairs that they can apply to the Backbench Business Committee for a debate on reports they produce, which may lead to a motion on the Order Paper if they so wish. There is a slight problem with this, which I recommend the Leader of the House looks at seriously. At the moment, the Standing Order requires such statements to be within five working days of the publication of a Select Committee report. We would like to see that extended to 10 working days, to allow more flexibility for Select Committee Chairs to make appropriate statements to the House on the work they have done.
I turn to the issue of substantive motions, which are divisible motions that the House can consider. Between 2010 and 2012—the first two years of the Committee—63% of the debates in this Chamber were on divisible motions. In the last two years, that figure has reduced to 25%. In our Committee’s report, we have summarised how that has changed over the years. I think there is a reason for that: divisible motions are not binding on the Government, and there is hardly ever a vote on them—they are normally nodded through. I urge the Leader of the House to look at this. Could we have a framework for action on the motions passed by this House? What action are the Government prepared to take on those, and will they report back to the House?
At the moment, generally speaking, we are confined to Thursdays for Backbench Business debates in the Chamber. One of the suggestions we have made in our report is that we should be given more time between Mondays and Wednesdays, possibly with 90-minute debates either before or after appropriate Government time, to allow Back Benchers to have debates on issues that they wish to discuss.
I have to say—and today is another day when it has happened—that our debates are often curtailed by urgent questions and statements from the Government. That is unfair on Back Benchers who are here to take part in important debates that they have sponsored. Indeed, there are often visitors in the Public Gallery who have come to witness those debates. We need to do something about that, to prevent Backbench Business debates from being curtailed and colleagues having to give short speeches.
On Westminster Hall, we have the opportunity to allocate the 90-minute debate on Tuesday morning and debates on Thursday afternoon. We have suggested once again—I hope the Leader of the House will look at this sympathetically—that we bring forward the debates on a Thursday afternoon from 1.30 pm to 12.30 pm and from 3 pm to 2 pm. That would allow Members to get away and close Westminster Hall at an earlier time, which would be much more convenient for staff; we often have rejections of offers—unfairly, in my view—for the second slot on Thursday afternoons.
Given that we look rigorously at the applications submitted, I also suggest that it would be helpful if we looked at more allocation on Tuesdays and Wednesdays in Westminster Hall so that we can ensure that there is sufficient support across parties to make sure those debates are balanced. That is obviously in the hands of the Speaker and Deputy Speakers, and I respect that.
The Procedure Committee has made certain recommendations. It does not have to wait for a Government motion to be put, but can apply for time under the Backbench Business Committee for a business of the House motion. I am not accusing the current Government of this, but it has often been the case that a Government have frustrated the Procedure Committee when it wants to make changes by not making time available. I alert the Procedure Committee to that opportunity.
Equally, one of the things that we are looking at—I would want to work with the Leader of the House on this—is the allocation of more topical debates. At the moment, we have a six-month waiting list for debates. That means that by the time those debates come up, the topicality has often gone. If we could get to a point whereby we could announce a topical debate on a Tuesday, have bids before our meeting and then announce the result of that for a Thursday, that would really give the debate a topical timing. However, I believe that would require a change in Standing Orders.
One of the issues that we have often had complaints about is the fact that our Backbench Business Committee is the only Select Committee in the House that has to have elections after every King’s Speech and state opening. That means that there is a delay after the King’s Speech until a Chair and Committee members are elected, at just the time when there is often an opportunity for general debates, either in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall. May we change that so that the chairmanship is continuous throughout the life of the Parliament?
There is a further issue: the reform of private Members’ Bills. I have piloted three such Bills through this place to successful conclusion. However, they are dependent, frankly, on a raffle—if a Member is successful in the raffle, they will do well. One of the things that the Procedure Committee recommended when I was on it, and that I am glad to see it is still recommending, is for the Backbench Business Committee to be able to consider prioritising for the first four sitting Fridays the bids for private Members’ Bills that are well-founded, have cross-party support and for which detailed work has been done, rather than someone getting drawn in the lottery of the ballot and then deciding what they are going to do. I think that would be better way of making law.
I will not continue any longer, Madam Deputy Speaker. I look forward to any questions that colleagues may have.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Has my hon. Friend and his Committee considered whether anything can be done to encourage more media interest in the subject of the debates that his Committee grants? I have in mind a particularly outstanding debate on Ukraine, which was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on Thursday 4 December. Every speech from every participant —with the possible exception of my own—was outstandingly good, yet afterwards I could detect no coverage whatever. Is there anything that can be done to persuade those whose responsibility it is to report on the proceedings of this House that sometimes it is worth taking note of what Back Benchers have to say?
Bob Blackman
The reality is that the sponsor of the debate is responsible not only for the content of their speech, but for encouraging the press to get involved and promote the debate. The debates can be on a wide range of topics. One of the great things about the Backbench Business Committee is that we consider things that most people have never even thought of as possible debates. Importantly, it is therefore incumbent on the individuals who propose the debates to promote them appropriately.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Chairman for the statement. A number of colleagues have found it quite frustrating when putting in debate applications that they have to get 15 Government Back Benchers, eight Opposition Members and the rest of it. I wonder whether any thought could be given to making it a little easier, as the result of the general election last year means there are fewer Opposition Members to add up for those applications.
Bob Blackman
Our standard position is that for a 90-minute Westminster Hall debate, eight speakers are required. That is, I think, a reasonable number for a 90-minute debate. Four should come from the Government side and four from the Opposition—that is the combined Opposition, not restricted to one party. For Chamber debates, it is perfectly reasonable that we look to get 15 speakers with, broadly speaking, a balance between Opposition and Government Members. In this Session, 70% of the Chamber debates have had time limits imposed on Back-Bench speakers, and I suspect this afternoon will be another such debate, so we do get enough speakers. There was one debate I well remember—I will not name the colleague, who is no longer in this place—where the Member came along with a huge list of something like 85 Members who wished to take part. He stood up and spoke, and no one else had come along to speak. After that, I have been very conscious that we have to ensure that people sign up not only to agree to the debate, but to turn up and speak.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I thank the Chair for his report. He will be aware that when we had a debate on digital ID, inspired by a public petition, there was a massive turnout and massive participation. It was very crowded, which was a good sign, but many of us thought that a debate of such magnitude and importance ought to be held in the main Chamber. Is his Committee making representations to get more time in the Chamber for debates that are inspired by a very large number of people signing a public petition? Certainly, when there are over a million signatures, we ought to be thinking about having a debate in here, not in Westminster Hall.
Bob Blackman
The reality is that it is for the Petitions Committee to come forward with those debates. Of course I would strongly support the Petitions Committee having time in the Chamber—as long as it does not detract from the Backbench Business time that is available. Equally, if the right hon. Member and colleagues wish to come forward with an application on the subject that he raises, I am sure that our Committee would look at it very sympathetically, particularly as it was such a well-attended debate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee and all the Committee members for what they do to ensure that the debates are held and heard. The Chair has referred to the number of Backbench Business applications. I understand that it is absolutely ginormous, and that the debates will take us right through to next April or May. The Chair of the Committee has often tried to ensure that extra time is available in the Chamber. Since there is no time available whatsoever in Westminster Hall for all the debates that are presently sought, what can be done to ensure that the main Chamber can be made available for the Backbench Business debates that have been requested?
Bob Blackman
I am grateful for the question from our honorary season ticket holder at the Backbench Business Committee. As is stated in the report, prior to the 2019 general election, the hon. Member appeared before the Committee no less than 44 times with applications. He has continued to do that, and of course he is the top Member for number of applications before the Committee, and we are always pleased to grant appropriate ones.
I am encouraged that large numbers of MPs, including new ones who have never been before the Committee, come with an application that is well supported across the House. I think the message has got out that this is the one of the best ways that Members can get a debate on an issue that affects them.
Point of Order: Rectification Procedure
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Charlie Maynard on a point of order in connection with the code of conduct, to rectify a failure to declare.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In response to a recommendation by the Committee on Standards, I would like to apologise to the House for failing to register several interests within the 28-day period set by the House. They included my receipt of pro bono legal advice to support my intervention, at the High Court and subsequently at the Court of Appeal, in the sanctions hearing of Thames Water Utilities Ltd’s restructuring plan. Nor did I appreciate that I should have registered an informal arrangement with a family member to use her London flat without charge while I was staying in Westminster. I also owned and subsequently sold shares in a Vietnamese company that exceeded the threshold for registration. Finally, I failed to update my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests when my role as a councillor at West Oxfordshire district council ended.
Those failures were a result of my own errors. I am grateful to the Committee for recognising that I neither gained nor sought to gain any advantage, and that I acted honestly in repeatedly drawing the commissioner’s attention to failings as I identified them. I fully accept that those are breaches of rule 5 of the code of conduct. I apologise to the House and commit to take a more diligent approach to the registration of my interests in future.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order and for giving notice of it. I remind the House that Members may seek advice on the code of conduct at any time from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and from the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests. There will be no further points of order on this issue.
Christmas Adjournment
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the Christmas adjournment.
I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Members, their staff and all the staff here in Parliament a very merry Christmas, a happy Hanukkah, and a happy, peaceful, prosperous and, above all else, healthy new year. As the nights are drawing in, we will undoubtedly all be lucifugous by the spring—explanations of that will come later.
Let me turn to local matters in my constituency. When the Conservative party took over Harrow council back in 2022, it was mired in corruption, there were backlogs in road, pothole and pavement maintenance, and basic services were not being delivered to residents, who pay a high level of council tax. Well, things have changed. The administration is now spending more than £40 million across three years on the highways budget, and it is very apparent on our roads and pavements that things have changed.
We have also rolled out one hour of free parking across the borough. That is the most generous parking allowance anywhere in London. Fly-tipping, which I know is also the blight of many other areas of the country, is being addressed. In the past year alone, more than 1,000 fines were issued to the culprits of fly-tipping. The council has even reopened phone lines so that people can call and actually speak to a human being at the council, which was not possible for many years—I welcome that.
In Rayners Lane, the council is tackling the scourge of double parking and stopping those who think that they can simply park their car in the middle of the road, lock it and go off to the shops. Thanks to Councillor Thaya Idaikkadar, there is now an enormously successful red route. More than 500 fines were issued in the first week, and awareness of the scheme rules is growing. I just hope that, when he visits Rayners Lane, Santa Claus does not park in the middle of the road, because he will get a ticket.
To tackle fly-tipping, the council has introduced one free annual bulky waste collection for every household. That is making a huge difference. We know what it is like when people want to dispose of freezers, wardrobes or sofas. We want them to be cleared up quickly. As well as the bulky waste collections, there are drop-and-go sessions for which the council sets up a recycling centre in a car park, so that residents can drop off their waste. That is extremely popular and has reduced fly-tipping—people can see the difference. However, those who dump rubbish on the streets of Harrow or elsewhere should suffer the penalties for doing so. Harrow suffered criminal fly-tipping that was similar to, but not as large as, that in Oxfordshire. It is vital that residents continue to report fly-tipping and that action is taken.
There could have been even better news for residents in Harrow this week, as we were all looking forward to confirmation that Harrow’s first special educational needs and disabilities school in more than a generation will be built. The money to build and operate the school was delivered under the previous Conservative Government, but in common with so many other projects, when this Labour Government came into office they froze the proposal and we have been struggling to get clarity ever since. Indeed, the Budget was supposed to have been an early Christmas present for residents, but it has turned into a nightmare before Christmas.
Certain Labour Members—not Conservatives—were told about the bubble and squeak medley of the announcement last week. Money was announced to improve existing SEND facilities in mainstream schools, while the Government are now minded to cancel the new school that had been promised by the previous Labour administration in Harrow. The much-needed SEND school at 265 The Ridgeway, where the previous Harrow Labour administration wanted to build flats, is in continued limbo, with alternative funding to be provided—you could not make it up. The school needs to be built urgently, because children are being sent for an hour and half each way to specialist schools miles outside the borough, which is costing the council an incredible amount. That is bad news for their education and their mental health. Spades could be in the ground now and the school could be opening soon, but we need the money and we need the school built now.
Similarly, hon. Members will have heard that the Labour Mayor of London is breaking yet another manifesto promise by closing police front counters across the capital, including in Harrow and in Pinner. It is unacceptable that the mayor can promise before the election that everything will be better with a Labour Government and a Labour mayor, while knowing the state of London’s finances, and then blatantly break that promise. As one of our local councillors put it, the pantomime villain in this endless saga is the big baddie—the Mayor of London.
Police front counters are a vital safe haven for women and girls. Those who have unfortunately been sexually molested or raped need to go somewhere safe to report the crime committed against them. In the case of Pinner, the front desk was being run by volunteers, so there is very little saving. I urge the Government and the Home Secretary to step in, and to join the thousands of residents who have signed my petition and the petition organised by my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), to keep the front desks open at the police stations in Harrow and Pinner, as was promised.
Hon. Members who have attended these debates before will know that I have campaigned constantly for step-free access and lifts in stations in Harrow for a long time, and that campaign continues. When I was first elected, I took up the cudgels on this, and there is now the good news that Canons Park station has finally been shortlisted for a feasibility study. I hope that that happens. However, we still await news about Queensbury station and, more importantly, Stanmore station.
Stanmore is designated as step-free, but in reality passengers face a choice of 48 steps to the main entrance, 16 steps via the car park, 24 steps at the side to the bus stop or the so-called step-free route, which is 140 metres long and includes a steep ramp that even the Paralympian Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson could not complete unaided. For the past six or seven months, my office has been working to get Stanmore delisted as step-free and obtain a proper definition of what step-free means, so that we can then work to get lifts or adaptations installed. I urge colleagues who face similar problems to contact my office so that we can work together.
While I am on the subject of transport, Transport for London continues to blame the September 2024 cyber-attack for the backlog in private hire vehicle and private carriage office licences, which is unacceptable and is delaying many of my constituents in gaining work. The new Piccadilly line trains have been delayed again, and are not expected until late next year. Graffiti on the Bakerloo and Central lines continues to get worse, despite the head of TfL claiming that vigilantes from Looking for Growth were painting graffiti on to then clean it off, which is a completely ridiculous position.
Homelessness in England is increasing. Crisis found record levels of homelessness, with more than 300,000 individuals and families experiencing its worst forms in 2024, which is an increase of 22%. London has the greatest homelessness pressures, and one in 50 Londoners and, sadly, at least one child in every London classroom is homeless. As we approach Christmas, many of us will be doing our shopping, seeing family and loved ones, and maybe turning the heating up a bit, but let us think of those sleeping rough: cold, wet and often hungry, on a park bench or in a shop corner, in sub-zero temperatures overnight. There are no official stats on how many homeless people are, sadly, dying in their sleep, but one has only to imagine the harsh and life-threatening conditions that they have to endure.
There are steps that can be taken, and I invite the Government to take them. My oven-ready Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, which is yet to be implemented, could help. My private Member’s Bill, which had an unopposed Second Reading, is still waiting for its Committee and Report stages and conclusion, but we can take other steps. Local authorities have to meet rising costs so that victims of domestic abuse are not forgotten and hospital discharges and the plight of temporary accommodation are not ignored. I thank the team at Crisis and all the other charities for the work that they do to help homeless people.
I represent Harrow East, which is the most diverse constituency in the country, with someone from every faith and country in the world and speakers of every language spoken on earth, so I deal with a large chunk of matters related to the Home Office. However, it has not helped that my staff have been told not to chase cases for upwards of a year. They will get no updates for 12 months, and even longer in some cases, so I am left flabbergasted and discombobulated by the position. The Government must be thorough in their checks, but it does not do much for my constituents, their family members or my staff to be told month after month, “I’m sorry, but there is no update.”
My office recently met Home Office officials to manage expectations and make it clear that I am not going to stop chasing the applications until they are decided overall, not just closed. Indeed, in my role as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on fire safety and rescue, I have been continually raising the issue of the Grenfell Tower inquiry recommendations. I note that a written ministerial statement about that is on the Order Paper, but we have other issues, such as lithium-ion batteries, solar panels, modern construction methods and other technologies, that come into the proposals.
I know you want me to wind up, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have three quick points. On Iran, let the Government come forward and proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in its entirety, as they promised when they were in opposition. On India and Bangladesh, let us ensure that there are free and fair elections that include every single party; in my humble opinion, the outlawing of the Awami League is an outrage. I am delighted that we have reformed the Azerbaijan all-party parliamentary group, and we are looking for increased trade, which was worth £888 million in the last 12 months alone.
I was delighted to captain the House of Commons bridge team this year to a commanding victory over the House of Lords. I was even honoured with the award for the best-played hand. My partner, the former MP Aaron Bell, left me in a very difficult contract, but I managed to make it.
While we sit on these green Benches and praise and thank everyone, we must always think about the incredible team behind us. My team in my office this year has dealt with more than 12,000 individual cases, bringing the total to almost 100,000 cases since I was elected in 2010. I thank my entire team: my wife Nicola; Hattie Shoosmith, who has now gone off to Dubai; Matthew Goodwin-Freeman; James Thomson; Rhys Benjamin; James Bourke; and Gabriele Montone for their work. I hope they have a good rest over Christmas and are ready to do it all again next year. One member of my team, Rhys Benjamin, is off to Australia—hopefully he will see some cricket and see a turnaround of England’s fortunes in the Ashes. Merry Christmas.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
There will have to be an immediate three-minute time limit.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
It is good to see the Leader of the House personally responding to this debate; it shows the respect that he has for the House, which is much appreciated. We were talking yesterday about the Chartist graffiti in the Cloisters, which lay hidden until a few years ago when it was uncovered. As the MP for Newport East, I can say that we are very proud of our Chartist history in Newport. I pay tribute to Newport Rising, which commemorates the Chartist uprising of 1839 every year; it was the last armed insurrection in this country. As my late constituency neighbour, Paul Flynn, used to say, we could do more in this House to recognise movements such as the Chartists that shape our democracy, particularly in times when our democracy is under threat.
Newport may have a rich Roman, Chartist—we are the city of democracy—and industrial heritage, but it also has a very bright future. Throughout its history, Newport has been prized for its location, with our unrivalled access to rail and sea links, and that plays a central role in the city’s economy today as we take steps into the new industrial revolution. This year has been a transformational one for Newport: there have been big investments in our exceptional semiconductor cluster; companies have moved their headquarters to the city; we have had new tech jobs; there is work under way on one of the UK’s biggest battery storage sites; we have strong local cyber-security expertise; and, thanks to the Government, Newport is a key player in the south Wales artificial intelligence growth zone. This is all supported by two active Governments at both ends of the M4, showing the benefits of two Labour Governments working together after years of Tory neglect.
Our traditional industries remain strong, with tens of millions of pounds-worth of investment in Associated British Ports’s Newport port this year, and Tata’s steelworks—clearly, it is a difficult time for steel, but I thank our Ministers for an active industrial policy that is helping. Newport is the fastest growing city in Wales; jobs in new sectors are opening up many opportunities for the city’s young people. It is not just about our industries; it is about our people. I have been privileged this year to work with Newport council, led with great positivity and energy by Dimitri Batrouni, who has massive ambition for our city. The biggest ever settlement from the UK Labour Government to Wales means that the council is able to address the things that matter to people, such as getting streets resurfaced. Streets are cleaner, and the city centre is on the up with 85% retail occupancy rates, which is great. There is still work to do, but the growth in our policing settlement is really starting to help.
Like all hon. Members, the great privilege of my job is working with constituents who do not just do it for the thanks—but I am going to thank them anyway. I particularly thank 11-year-old Sfiyah, who has juvenile arthritis and uses her incredible energy and infectious positivity to raise awareness, including coming to lobbies in this House. She inspires me every week, as does former Welsh Guard Mike Hermanis, a Falklands veteran who is fighting to get to the truth of what happened when the Sir Galahad was attacked in 1982.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
As I have three minutes, I just want to raise two quick issues. The first, I hope, is good news; it is to do with Riverside medical centre. I have been trying for seven years to get an extension on its GP practice, but because of the unbelievable NHS bureaucracy, about which I will not try the patience of the House, it has not been possible to do so until recently, even though a brand new housing estate called High Elms Park, built by Barratt Homes, has produced many extra residents who need a GP.
The parties have now come up with an innovative solution. Barratt has just sold the last couple of houses on the estate, and for a notional £1 it is going to donate its sales office to the practice, which will convert it into a GP annexe that can accommodate three GPs with attendant training and administrative facilities. This is a big win for the local community; we had a public meeting in April at which there was overwhelming public support for the idea. The planning application has been slightly delayed because of red tape, but Riverside assures me that that application will go in soon, and it should be a relatively straightforward conversion. Hopefully, that annexe—which I think will be very popular in the village of Hullbridge—will open some time in the summer of 2026.
That is a good-news story. We then have the saga—and it is a saga—of the old Co-op supermarket site in Wickford. In a nutshell, the Co-op closed over three years ago. The site was bought by a South Africa-based developer called Heriot. It tried to do a deal to redevelop the site with Morrisons, but that fell through; it tried to do one with Asda, but that also fell through. Heriot recently got planning permission, yet it still has not managed to secure a contract with a new tenant. There are rumours all over the town of Wickford that it has been talking to everyone from Lidl to Waitrose, although I will believe the latter when I see it.
My constituents in Wickford are exasperated with Heriot. They just want a new supermarket. They deserve one by now, so I make a plea in the Commons to the directors of Heriot, with whom I have had numerous meetings: “Please, please bring this to fruition. You’ve got planning permission; pick one group and do a deal with them. Get them on site, and let’s get that new supermarket opened in a way that my constituents in Wickford—who have waited more than long enough—deserve.”
In my final 10 seconds, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you, all MPs, the staff of the House, and our own staff—without whom this job would be impossible—a very merry Christmas.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
Following the reduction of their grant by 9% in real terms, National Parks and National Landscapes were explicitly encouraged to use biodiversity net gain markets to attract private finance. I was disappointed, therefore, to see that in setting out their consultation on planning reform proposals on Tuesday, the Government announced plans to introduce an area-based exemption for smaller sites under 0.2 hectares. Exempting developers from BNG, and thus reducing the biodiversity net gain market, is a serious blow to our protected landscapes, removing one of the few viable mechanisms available to generate external income. Cutting Government funding to these vital landscapes and telling them to look to private finance makes no sense if that source of private funding is then taken away. I ask the Government to consider reducing the site exemption threshold to 0.1 hectares, which would approximately double the market available for biodiversity units.
Next year will be the 70th anniversary of the Clean Air Act 1956 in this country. When 4,000 people died over five days, the Government acted. Today, 262 people a year die from knife crime, approximately 1,600 people die from road traffic accidents, but 35,000 people die every year from the consequences of air pollution and the health impacts that it brings. Had they died from road traffic accidents, there would be uproar, but because it is an invisible and silent killer, unfortunately there is not the motivation to act that there should be. We need to align what we do with the World Health Organisation’s standards. I urge colleagues to back that next year, so that on the 70th anniversary we can get a new Clean Air Act through this Parliament.
Before the last election, we promised change. In fact, that single word was the title of our manifesto: “Change”. Five million households under leasehold have been demanding that change, but the property magnates and offshore interests think they can continue to exploit leaseholders with impunity. The manifesto committed our Government to ending the feudal leasehold system for good—and we must. We need to remember that the purpose of Government is not to ask what the law tells us about the status quo, but to legislate to change the status quo when it is unjust and makes no economic sense. Even Michael Gove promised to do away with ground rent, so why are this Government—my Government, the party of labour—struggling to take on the parasitical rent seekers who demand a ground rent for no service?
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Merry Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, your team and all the House staff who, in their own way, help MPs give a voice to our constituents. I want to give enormous thanks to all MPs’ staff, who are the unsung heroes of our work. On behalf of my constituency, I want to say a massive thank you to my staff team, including incredible Inga Frame, excellent Euan Morrison, jolly smart Jack Morrell, conscientious Kathryn Sutter, cracking Kara Bishop, sensational Sam McManus, knock-it-out-the-park Nadia Wyllie, just brilliant Josh Moreton and heroic Hannah Wain. I thank my parliamentary support team volunteers, too: Cherine, Jackie, Arianne and Sue, who I will shower with alliterative adjectives in person. All of them, and many more volunteers, have helped to power my missions and more for the people of Eastbourne.
A key mission will be to drive down homelessness in Eastbourne next year and beyond. The issue of street homelessness is more stark than I have ever known. Rough sleeping has soared outside Eastbourne train station. I have urged Eastbourne borough council to do its bit to get on top of this tragedy, and a taskforce has been created, bringing together homelessness agencies, station management, the council and others, including me, to help drive this out. But we need the Government to play their part, including by providing the funding for the support services that street homeless folks need to get back on their feet. In particular, we need Government to help fund more transitional housing, like that run by Kingdom Way Trust in Eastbourne, which provides a roof over folks’ heads as well as holistic support to help them to move from street homelessness into a tenancy that they are able to manage and sustain. Locally, we have the model, the expertise, the will, and an award-winning homelessness hub, but we need the cash to scale it. I hope that the Government can provide support for that.
Another issue that I would like to draw attention to, as I have done on many occasions in this House, is water quality and the conduct of Southern Water and South East Water in Eastbourne and the surrounding area. Not only is our sea polluted by raw sewage and our air polluted by all the stuff that comes out of Eastbourne water treatment works, but bio-beads have been released from those works, and have polluted beaches in the surrounding area. Southern Water needs to get its act together, and in 2026 and beyond, I will continue to hold it to account.
Merry Christmas, one and all!
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
I have three minutes to celebrate three fantastic community organisations. Since Chance Drama in Ferryhill was established in 2017, it has trained hundreds of local young people from across my constituency in theatre arts, singing, dancing and performing. It was brilliant to have recently been in the audience for its production of “Bugsy Malone”, in which the cast had great fun covering themselves, and most of the audience, with what came out of their splurge guns. It was really heartening to talk to parents during the interval and after the show, and to hear how being involved in local community drama had transformed the skills, confidence and experiences of their children, and of young people in our community. The tireless volunteers, who put on several shows a year and work at weekends to train young people, deserve our thanks and support.
In Spennymoor—the heart of my constituency—the St Paul’s centre has been running excellent community facilities for some years, including an art and photography group, Dementia Friends and a really active bereavement support group, which I met recently. The centre has just opened a new extension, so that it can expand its food bank, but also so that it can do more for the local community. When it opened as a parish hall, it had an annual footfall of around 3,000 visits a year, but now the figure is 34,000. St Paul’s centre in Spennymoor is an excellent example of how a really well led community centre can be a thriving community hub.
Finally, in my home town of Newton Aycliffe, we have a new community hub, which is just fantastic. It is run by Lifeline Community Action, and its vision is to convert a disused shop in the town centre. It was formerly a Woolworths, where I happily bought many pick ’n’ mixes and lots of cassettes, like “Now 95”, back in the day. It has been empty for 15 years, but Lifeline Community Action has bought the building, with support from the national lottery community fund and funding from the UK shared prosperity fund. Its vision is to bring 20 local organisations into the building, so that residents can walk into a warm, friendly, safe and comfortable environment where they could get job advice and mental health support, or buy heavily discounted food from the community pantry, if they were in financial need. They would be able to see the local police team, meet social workers, volunteer and get involved in a range of activities. I pay particular tribute to Pauline Chambers, the director, who has worked tirelessly for years to raise the huge amount of money that this really impressive project has required, and to Andy Boyd, recently retired after 30 years as a police sergeant in my home town, who has taken it from strength to strength.
Those are three brilliant organisations, and I am really proud of all the work they do. Merry Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker!
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I bring greetings to all Members of this House from my constituents in Romford, a town that I am proud to represent in my 25th year as a Member of Parliament. Having been born and brought up in the town, I can tell the House that we are proud of our Essex roots, although we are unfortunately part of Greater London, instead of Essex. Nevertheless, we are determined to reassert our identity as a proud part of the great English county of Essex.
On Friday, I will be hosting the carols round the Christmas tree for my local churches, scout groups and schools at Margaret Thatcher House in Romford. Everybody is welcome to come and celebrate our proud Christian heritage. However, we enter 2026 with a lot of issues that we are simply not happy about—the Leader of the House knows, because I raise them with him every Thursday. They include the Gallows Corner roundabout, which is a disaster because of the Mayor of London and Transport for London’s complete incompetence and failure to deal with the junction and rebuild the flyover much faster, which is affecting everybody in the Essex and east London area. We need action on that, because it is making people’s lives quite miserable. The Mayor of London is also reducing our police counter hours in Romford—all our police stations are already closed except the main one, but now the hours there are reducing.
We also have a boom in HMOs—houses in multiple occupation—in Romford and across the borough of Havering. Homes are being built without the consent of local people, causing much anger and creating disruption for families in many residential streets. We also have the ongoing situation on the Oldchurch estate. Sanctuary housing has failed to deal with the issues facing the residents of the estate, where unacceptable conditions exist. That housing association has completely failed to do an effective job for the tenants who pay its wages. That is another issue that I ask the Leader of the House to raise on behalf of my constituents.
Finally, the Building Safety Regulator has failed to act swiftly on cladding on the Mercury Gardens estate and the Axis estate at the back of my headquarters. It is causing unbelievable stress for the residents of flats, because they are trapped as leaseholders, unable to sell their properties until the matter is resolved.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you a merry Christmas. Thank you for your kindness and courtesy, and thank you to all the Speaker’s staff for all they have done over the year. I am here because I love my country and I love my constituency, and this House must always put our country first.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
War and Russian brutality first came to Ukraine in 2014. While Ukrainians knew that it never left, I think it fair to say that we did forget that our friends in Ukraine were at war—that is, until 2022. Since then, we have witnessed the heroism of the Ukrainian people, and the savagery of Putin’s regime.
In case it was not devastatingly clear, this is not just Ukraine’s fight; it is a contest for the security of Europe and the integrity of the international order. The Britain I know has always stood on the side of the underdog. We are in a phase of hybrid warfare. Other countries, such as Poland and Estonia, are calling a spade a spade, and it is time we did so, too. One does not have to turn very far for examples. Warehouse fires, targeting of undersea cables, a strategy to recruit traitors in turquoise—these are not just random acts; they are deliberate steps in a campaign of destabilisation designed to test our resilience and erode our unity. In case there were any illusions about quite how direct the links between Reform UK and the Kremlin were, we should ask ourselves why even local Reform supporters in Cornwall share posts attacking the plans to freeze Russian assets.
Meanwhile, this Labour Government are getting on with the job, as shown by the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday compelling Abramovich to pay up. As a former banker, I know as well as anyone the importance of a rules-based order, but the fact that we are engaged in hybrid warfare is precisely why I have absolutely no qualms about these assets being used to help Ukraine. I also greatly welcome the new probe into foreign interference in British politics, which will investigate how foreign agents target and subvert our political process.
By next July, this phase of war will have lasted longer than the first world war. It has cost the European economy more than $4 trillion, barely a 10th of which has been spent on support for Ukraine. I am not a defence or security specialist—I am not even a banker any more—but I can tell the House that this is a war that Europe cannot afford to lose.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
This last debate of the year is an opportunity to reflect on and celebrate some of the most valued aspects of our constituencies. I can mention only a few because of the time limit.
VOICES has been delivering independent, trauma-informed domestic abuse services in Bath for more than a decade, and it currently supports more than 200 women, with many more on the waiting list. VOICES is working hard to improve survivors’ experience with the courts. Earlier this month, I met Baroness Levitt to discuss the survivor-led guide to family court proceedings, which VOICES co-produced. We explored how the Government can work with VOICES, so that there is wider access to the trauma-informed guide, which helps survivors to navigate what is often an intimidating and retraumatising court process. I pay tribute to VOICES and the very hard work it is doing.
Looking back, many of the brightest moments of 2025 had a musical focus. Most recently, of course, carol concerts across the length and breadth of the city highlighted the joyful unity that communal singing can bring. November brought Mozartfest and lively am-dram Gilbert and Sullivan productions, and May brought the Bath festival and Party in the City. None of our cultural activities is free from deep financial worries; public money has all but dried up, and events can survive only thanks to the hard work of the volunteers who run the organisations.
Bath is home to a vibrant community of independent shops, including our independent bookshops, such as Mr B’s, Persephone Books, Topping, Bath Old Books, the Oldfield Park Bookshop and the iconic Skoobs—we have a wonderful choice. Many of those cherished local businesses face serious challenges, as rising costs and limited Government support continue to threaten their future. Mr B’s bookshop will soon see its business rates rise by more than 70%, largely because of a steep increase in its rateable value. Rateable value often bears little resemblance to the reality of what businesses pay in rent. Many independent shops have long-standing relationships with their landlords that are built on trust, loyalty and stability. In some cases, landlords deliberately keep their rents fair and manageable because they value reliable long-term tenants, but none of that is recognised by the valuation system, and the casualties are our independent shops.
The Government presented their business rates reforms in the Budget as a fairer deal for the high street, but in reality, the average pub will see its business rates increase by 76% in the next three years. I implore the Government to think again and support our local businesses.
For many of us, the festive period means time away from work, spent with our closest friends and family, but let us not forget the many extraordinary and dedicated workers in the NHS, the emergency services, social care, retail and hospitality, energy, transport and so many other sectors who work over Christmas. I thank them. I also want to say a very big thank you to all the staff who have supported us through the year. Merry Christmas to you all.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
I represent 23 former mining villages in Yorkshire, and I am very worried about the future of young people there. They are trapped in villages with little public transport, services have been cut to the bone, and there are no more youth services. They are facing great difficulty. I met some of them the other day in Featherstone. They were bright and optimistic, with eyes shining and looking forward to the future. I hope that this Government will build on the Budget announcements the other day to do more for young people.
The second point I want to raise is the presence of a hunger striker—I will be very careful in what I say because of sub judice rules—in New Hall women’s prison in Wakefield. Heba Muraisi is now on day 46 of a hunger strike. Those who understand anything about human physiology will understand that, at 40 days and beyond, life can be very, very difficult. I am alarmed at the different kinds of advice I am getting about her condition: the governor tells me that she is receiving the medical treatment that she requires, but her lawyers tell me that she is not being properly cared for. Putting aside the pursuit of justice, I hope that the authorities at least ensure that she receives the healthcare that she requires. I will be watching the matter carefully in the coming days and weeks.
My final point relates to the National Coal Mining Museum. Yorkshire is very proud of its heritage; I often say that if you dig down deep enough in my garden, you will find coal. The miners provided power, heat and light for so long, in the most difficult conditions. I do not whether know everybody knows this, but 100,000 men died underground, digging coal, in the last century. Think of the scale of that, and contrast it to the conditions that people face today. We are very proud that we have a National Coal Mining Museum to recall that history, and to show our pride. It is in Yorkshire, in the Wakefield area, for which I am an MP.
A strike has been running there for almost 90 days, and I express my total support and admiration for the courage and resolution of those people who have been on strike for so long. They are now balloting to stay out probably until the summer. Think about that—the strike going through the winter and into the summer. This is just unacceptable.
Let me address the chief executive and the board of directors, who have been less than helpful, directly: if you cannot get round the table and resolve this matter—a matter of only a few thousand pounds—then you really ought to stand aside and make way for somebody else who could bring a resolution to this matter. I have met the people who are on strike; they are reasonable, decent Yorkshire folk who deserve the best possible Christmas, and that means a settlement to their dispute.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Being called early, as he has a flight to catch, is Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
My comments tonight are about the greatest story ever told. I want to cast people’s minds back to the first Christmas. I think of the distance that a young couple had to journey with no hotel booked and no way of knowing what the future held; I think of that young couple going through the most worrying time in their life with no help or support, wondering what the day would bring for their family. They had only their faith in God, which had called them to accept His will. They were uncertain, frightened and alone—how many families in each of our communities feel that way today? They need to know that God has a plan for their lives, and that He will bring an innkeeper who will provide.
I think of those rough and ready shepherds on the hillside—the forgotten men of society, ignored or frowned upon for their work and for being unlearned. These men were used to fading into the background, yet on that night God reminded them that He saw them and that they had a role to play. He sent not simply one angel but a heavenly host to give them the good news that the saviour of the world was born. This reminds me that there is always hope and a future for all. No matter where we are at a particular time, when we meet Christ, it can all change.
I think of the journey that those wise men undertook—years of travelling to find the truth and discover the true light of the world—and how this reminds us all to use our gifts and talents in this House and in our lives for His glory and to follow His commands to love our neighbours as we love ourselves. It reminds us all that we should be thankful for the Christian foundation of this nation. I am also thankful that the Gospel is for all and that everyone who kneels at the feet of Jesus can be changed.
The greatest story ever told is what we call the story of the Bible—the story of the birth of Jesus Christ. I believe it is the greatest truth that can be told about the power of Christmas acceptance, faith and hope, which remain today all wrapped up in the love of God, which is demonstrated in Christ Jesus.
This Christmas, I am thankful for my family, my friends, my community and my colleagues. Above all, though, I am thankful for Christ, my saviour God, humbled and born to lie in a manger, to walk this earth and to die an awful death on the cross for my salvation—and all our salvation—and to give us all hope and a future not just at Christmas, but all year through. Emmanuel, God with us then and now.
I thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker, and wish all right hon. and hon. Members a merry Christmas and a happy new year. May God bring you all the blessings that he should.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
There are many issues affecting Blackpool South, but my work this year has often returned to a few key areas. I have met hundreds of business owners, community groups and young people in Blackpool who have told me the same thing: they want pride back in our town, job security and opportunity.
My constituency is home to an iconic tower, three piers, the pleasure beach and countless attractions in between. It is a place where tradition meets reinvention and has been welcoming visitors for generations. Alongside our permanent attractions, our seasonal and annual events, including the illuminations, are the key reasons why 21.5 million people visit Blackpool every year. I congratulate Kate Shane on receiving her MBE and thank her and all the Blackpool tourism team for the outstanding work they do on behalf of our town and the countless independent businesses I have visited across my patch. They keep Blackpool going.
Tourism and hospitality are the beating heart of Blackpool’s economy and, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for hospitality and tourism, I have been pushing to give this sector the recognition it deserves nationally. The sector employs more than 3.5 million people, contributes £93 billion to the economy and generates £54 billion in tax revenue each year, but right now it is under real pressure. The current business rates discount for hospitality is 5p—far below the 20p permitted. I will keep pressing the Government to increase the discount to the full 20p. Businesses tell me that they want to invest but that the system is holding them back.
Nearly 3,000 people have backed my call for a world-class arena on the empty Blackpool Central site, where every previous proposal has failed. It would bring in visitors year round, support local businesses and secure Blackpool’s future as a leading destination for entertainment.
Sticks of rock and fish and chips are part of the seaside’s identity, but I also want to address dietary health in my constituency. Blackpool faces some of the highest levels of food-related ill health and deprivation in the country. We have one of the highest densities of fast food outlets alongside high levels of poverty and limited access to nutritious food. Among children of reception age, 27% are affected by obesity, rising to a shocking 42% by year 6. We need to limit unhealthy food outlets, support healthier businesses and make education a priority. Good work is already happening through organisations such as Grow Blackpool, LeftCoast and Blackpool Learning Rooms. In 2026, I want to see those projects grow.
Crime and antisocial behaviour has had a real impact in my constituency. This year, I have supported grassroots boxing and rugby league as a tool for focusing young people’s minds. I have seen how boxing and rugby league give young people structure and purpose: they build discipline and confidence, teach respect and turn people’s lives around. Clubs like Brian Rose boxing academy and Blackpool Scorpions provide support, create belonging and improve physical and mental health. I am pleased that Ministers are listening, and I look forward to working with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to drive that forward.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
My constituency is larger than any in England and has over 100 distinct communities, which I could not even list in three minutes, so I intend just to focus on the highlights. I am delighted that the Backbench Business Committee has granted a debate on modernising marriage laws, because Europe’s self-proclaimed marriage capital, Gretna Green, is in my constituency.
In Annan, the main issue for the community remains the replacement of two footbridges swept away during flooding in 2021. There is still no plan to replace them, despite the community’s own efforts to bring forward plans. That is why I hope that project can come under the important Borderlands growth deal, which covers the south of Scotland. It has been a positive force, but, as I said in a recent debate about Scotland, it needs the Government to put a bit more oomph into it.
Two very positive projects are unfolding. One is at Eastriggs, with the potential for a UK munitions factory on the site of HM Gretna, which was a munitions factory during the first world war. That would give a huge boost to not only my constituency but that of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns). There is also a plan for a green energy hub on the Chapelcross site. Although I would have preferred to have seen a new nuclear plant on that site, I am happy to support the project.
I can demonstrate that coming to business questions with the Leader of the House has an impact. On one Thursday in October, I called on the Bank of Scotland to sell its branch in Peebles to the Peebles Community Trust, and the very next day it announced that it was doing so. I take that intervention as having been helpful.
The constituency covers not only a large rural area but former mining communities. I was pleased, along with many Government Members, to support constituents in their call to have the British Coal staff superannuation scheme extended to include them—that was one announcement in the Budget that I was able to welcome.
As we approach the Scottish Parliament elections, two Members who overlap with my constituency are standing down. They are Christine Grahame, who has served for 27 years and my son Oliver Mundell, who has served for 10.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
It is always a privilege to represent my home town as an MP, so I would like to take this opportunity to reflect on some highlights from 2025.
As ever, I was lucky enough to attend some wonderful local events across Luton South and South Bedfordshire, celebrating our local communities and the mix of diverse and vibrant cultures in our area. As I do every year, I celebrated St Patrick’s day with the Luton Irish Forum, which had its 26th annual festival and parade—and of course the after-party, which was great craic. I was also glad to join the 1Eid festival and Desi Fest Luton in Wardown Park, as well as the Luton Turkish association’s annual TurkFest in Stockwood Park.
At Luton town hall, we marked Ghana’s 68th Independence Day and our annual Windrush Day. I was delighted to join the Luton Sri Lankan Welfare Association for its Tamil new year and Vesak celebrations in High Town. I visited the Guru Nanak gurdwara and the Shri Guru Ravidass sangat to mark important religious events, I attended the Holy Ghost Catholic church’s diamond jubilee anniversary, and I was warmly welcomed at my local mandir on Crescent Road for its Diwali and new year celebrations.
And all that is before we get to the villages in south Bedfordshire! I was glad to attend Kensworth and Studham’s village fairs, celebrate St George’s day fun at the Heathfield centre in Caddington, join Appledown dog rescue and kennels for its dog show and fête in Eaton Bray, and go to the fabulous Greek festival at St Charalambos church in East Hyde. These events are a beautiful and perfect representation of everything that Luton South and South Bedfordshire is about: coming together, regardless of religion, culture or background, to celebrate and uplift each other.
But this year, unfortunately, we have seen a devastating increase in overt antisemitism, racism and Islamophobia. That is why it is more important than ever that people in my constituency stand united and make it clear that we are one town of many voices and one constituency of many cultures, and that our diverse communities only make us stronger and more compassionate. I appreciate Luton council’s work to make it clear that there is no place for hate in our town. I also pay tribute to the work of our local faith and civic organisations, including Luton Council of Faiths, to drive that message forward.
Looking ahead, next year will mark 150 years of Luton as a borough, reminding us more than ever of the importance of local democracy and civic participation. As part of UK Parliament Week, I was delighted to visit the 5th Stopsley Guides, St Margaret’s Catholic primary school and Foxdell primary school to answer many questions about my role as their MP. I enjoyed meeting River Bank primary and Totternhoe Church of England academy on their visit to Parliament.
I wish the whole House, all the staff and, of course, my fabulous team a very merry Christmas and all the best for next year.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I join the House in wishing you a very merry Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank all our office staff and all staff in the House for everything they do to assist us over the year.
This morning, I was at a very well-attended press conference with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). We listened intently to the families of a group of eight prisoners who are undertaking a hunger strike. They gave us harrowing accounts of the physical condition that those prisoners are in. I should stress that none of them has been convicted of anything; they are all remand prisoners and are all awaiting trial. Some of them have been in prison for a very long time and have at least a year to go until their trial may or may not be heard.
I am very well aware of the sub judice nature of this matter, and I will not stray into issues of the trial itself or of their guilt or otherwise. My contribution solely concerns their conditions in prison and the operation of the prison rules—a matter that I have raised several times in the House.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
Does the right hon. Member agree that remand is not punishment? It is not meant to break bodies or silence dissent, yet we are witnessing conditions so severe that these young people feel driven to risk death simply to be heard.
Jeremy Corbyn
My hon. Friend is right: there is a presumption of innocence, which is the basis of the British judicial system. We have prison rules that guarantee that prisoners are fairly treated and have access to medical services when they desperately need them. My concern is about what access those prisoners have had to medical support when they have desperately needed it.
Last week, I visited Amu Gib, a prisoner from my constituency. She is still in prison and is desperately in need of medical assistance. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) and I have just written to the prison governor as follows:
“We write to you jointly today with the utmost urgency requesting a meeting with yourself…to discuss the…delay in calling medical staff and ambulances when the prisoners are in clear distress and in increasing pain; inconsistent administration of essential daily nutrients, apparently due to a lack of supply…10 day delay in acknowledging the start of the hunger strike…non-association orders between prisoners; slow communication/no communication with the families.”
The families are obviously desperately concerned. That is why all I asked of the Secretary of State for Justice, and all I asked of the Prime Minister yesterday, was an undertaking that the Ministry of Justice will meet the legal representatives of those in prison in order that their conditions can be discussed and considered. So far that has been absolutely refused.
The media in general has not reported on this, despite the drama surrounding it and the importance of the issue. I urge Members to think for a moment about how desperate a situation someone must be in to have no alternative but to take hunger strike action to bring attention to it. I hope that the Government will hear this call.
When I raised this issue last week in business questions, the Leader of the House very kindly and efficiently passed on my request to the Ministry of Justice and copied me into the letter he sent. I thank him for that, but we still have not had a substantive reply from the Ministry of Justice. I hope that when it hears this debate, the Department will recognise that it has a responsibility for the welfare and medical condition of prisoners and for the way in which they are supported in every one of our prisons. That includes people who are taking protest action because of their very strong belief in what they are trying to achieve. When the Leader of the House replies to the debate, could he confirm that he will once again ask the Ministry of Justice to get involved and meet the legal representatives of the prisoners?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am going to struggle to get everybody in, and interventions do not help. I call Alex Mayer.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
I would like to raise a festive selection box of issues. First, I am sure Members have seen the recent news that a new post box has been installed in Antarctica among all the snow and ice. I thought that was brilliant, because everyone needs a post box, but unfortunately my constituents in Bidwell West still do not have one. It is a complicated issue, but it stems from the fact that the roads in the area are all unadopted, so residents have to take a 30-minute round trip by foot to post a single Christmas card. I very much welcome the fact that penguins are getting a post box, but my constituents need one too. My message to Royal Mail is that next year I am dreaming of a new post box.
On a quick Santa dash to another issue, I want to give a big shout-out to the people who grow Christmas trees. It takes seven years to grow a Christmas tree to 6 foot. During all that time, they are sucking up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and providing a fantastic habitat for wildlife. Trees are not just for Christmas. One of the best things that happened this year, I thought, was the announcement of a second new national forest. I am so pleased that all the new trees are going to be planted in Bedfordshire—that is tremendous news.
Alex Mayer
I am pleased that my hon. Friend supports those trees too.
Christmas is the season of good will. I was really proud to meet so many volunteers who have been working right across my constituency, particularly at the local food bank, at a local care home, where there was a jolly Christmas jumper day, and at the Leighton Buzzard Railway. Earlier this year, the Leighton Buzzard Railway, which is a steam railway, decided that even though it is a heritage line, it did not think that all of its volunteers needed to be of a certain vintage. It has set up a youth scheme, and this Sunday I will be going on the Santa express with Jacob, who is just 14 years old. He loves getting covered in soot and volunteering on the steam railway. The brilliant news is that the youth scheme has been such a success that now one in five of the volunteers on the steam railway are under 16 years old. I know that they have a bright future ahead of them and it is full steam ahead.
On that note, I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all hon. Members a very merry Christmas.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I come here in the Christmas spirit, with both my nice list and my naughty list. On the nice list are, of course, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker and the other Deputy Speakers for your work over the past year; all the House staff who support us, feed us and keep us safe; and the rest of the parliamentary community, including my own team.
On the naughty list, which I have made and checked twice, are those who, despite my efforts, are letting down my constituency. Top of that list is Norfolk county council and its Conservative administration. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving councillor on that authority. The county council spent the early part of December trying to wage all-out war on the residents of Sheringham, as the it tried to knock down their historic bus shelter in the face of dogged opposition. But residents of Sheringham do not give up a fight easily, and for nine straight days the bus shelter was occupied by local protesters day and night. The council employed bully-boy tactics, wasting taxpayers’ money on bailiffs sent to intimidate and attempt to evict protesters without the adequate legal authority to do so.
Any popular support for the council’s approach faded away rapidly, with the local paper, local councils and many local people turning against it. I was delighted when, last week, Sheringham town council voted to deny permission for the demolition, forcing the county council to back down. This protest drew widespread national media attention, from The Guardian to The Telegraph, GB News and “Have I Got News for You”. It even had the Prime Minister and the Transport Secretary weighing in. The intervention from the Transport Secretary was most enlightening, as she confirmed that the Government funding for bus stop improvements in Sheringham was still very much available if the scheme was altered to retain the existing shelter. That blows a large hole in the council’s attempt to throw its toys out of the pram and refuse to support investment in Sheringham’s transport infrastructure.
The Conservative council leader has spouted lies and misinformation about me and fails to see the complete and utter mess she has created. Once again, I call on Norfolk county council to come to the table to agree a compromise. The story continues. Merry Christmas and a happy new year!
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you and yours and all colleagues a very happy Christmas. Christmas is a time for family and friends, merriment and relaxing, but it can also be a difficult time for many: for those who are mourning—it will be the first Christmas for my wife and her family since her dad died in June, so we will be feeling that particularly; for those who work in our emergency services and are on call over the coming days, including the clergy, who are busy doing the Lord’s work at this time of year; and for those serving in our armed forces, to whom we owe a real debt of gratitude. I thank all of them for what they do, both back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme and across our United Kingdom.
Three weeks ago, we celebrated the first anniversary since the closure notice was issued to the cowboy operators at Walleys Quarry. We have seen a real improvement and a tangible difference to the lives of local people, but there is more to do.
Our world faces crises in every corner, and my thoughts at this time of year are with the people of Sudan, Ukraine, Gaza and all parts of the world where there is pain and suffering, not least the good people of Australia as they deal with the disgusting, disgraceful antisemitic terrorist attack at Bondi last week.
I welcome the action on the British Coal staff superannuation scheme in the Budget, which was mentioned earlier.
I urge Staffordshire county council—the less said about its former leader, the better—to ensure that it steps up and gives Newcastle-under-Lyme the focus we deserve. It must work quickly and effectively to fix the potholes on our roads, as I heard from my constituent Mark this week. It must improve road safety—I heard from residents in Madeley Heath yesterday about a collision that took place outside a local primary school—and sort the A500 slip road at Audley. That is not to mention the ongoing crisis in special educational needs and disabilities provision.
I thank our farmers in Newcastle-under-Lyme and Staffordshire for all they do to feed us and tend to the land, and for their contribution to our economy. I have put on record my thoughts about the proposed changes, and they have not changed.
On occasion, it feels like I live rent free in the heads of some Conservative members of Newcastle-under-Lyme borough council—I feel sorry for them if I do; nobody deserves that. I will simply say, as it is the festive season, that it is an honour to represent them and everyone who lives, learns and works in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and I thank them for their support for my work.
In the year ahead we must focus on delivery, on providing practical outcomes for families in my community and on ensuring that the promises we make in this place are felt by people in Newcastle-under-Lyme, like Janet and Eric, who visited from Wolstanton just yesterday.
As I prepare to head for my train shortly, I thank my staff for the help they give me here in this place and back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme; I thank my family for sharing me with my constituents and everyone here, and for making this life work; and most importantly, I thank the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme for giving me the chance to serve in this place. Happy Christmas to all.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
The levelling-up agenda is incredibly important for traditionally forgotten-about places like Keighley. That is why, turning back the clock, I was incredibly proud to achieve a drawdown of about £80 million for various levelling-up projects across Keighley, which was delivered through the £33.6 million Keighley towns fund; the long-term plan for towns—rebranded by this Labour Government—that awarded £20 million to Keighley in 2023, to be spent on rejuvenating the town centre and other projects; and the £19 million that we were able to draw down through the levelling-up fund. We are making good progress on many of those projects. The Providence Park project has developed and units can now be rented out, although there are some problems getting them valued through the Valuation Office Agency. I would like to see the Government put pressure on the office to unlock that.
We have managed to achieve the manufacturing, engineering and tech hub, money has been spent on the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway, and toilets and new roofs have been built in many community projects, but we are still finding a roadblock with the accounting body that is Bradford council. Significant projects are at risk, right now, of not being delivered on time: the new stand that we need to see delivered for Keighley Cougars; the new health and wellbeing hub that we want to see built in the centre of Keighley, but which Bradford council is so lethargically slow in getting off the ground; and the money that needs to be spent on the maintenance and rejuvenation of Haworth village hall to get it up and running. I met the new trustees who are forming and driving forward that project, but we need Bradford council to get a move on. The money was allocated way back in 2022 and Bradford council is being so slow. Likewise, we are yet to get the skills hub that will deliver adult learning, and we need to make sure that the money that is due to be drawn down to the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway through the levelling-up fund is spent.
My point is that under the last Conservative Government, we managed to achieve a whopping £80 million-odd to spend on Keighley. Bradford council needs to pull its finger out to make sure that those projects are delivered. Before I finish, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you and the whole House a very happy Christmas.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The good news is that I can get you all in; the bad news is that there is a speaking limit of two minutes.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, our fantastic House staff and all hon. Members a very merry Christmas.
It is a time to reflect on the year that we have had and on the year ahead. In Cannock Chase, there is cause for celebration. Though many of us face uncertainty, there is plenty of hope for optimism in 2026. I will start with the heroes who produce the food that is central to many of our Christmases: our farmers. They have weathered two difficult winters, disease outbreaks, the abrupt closure of support schemes and changes to inheritance tax. Those who cannot pass their farm on in time face impossible choices, such as selling off land or stopping farming altogether. Yet we now have Baroness Batters’ profitability review, which I believe will drive positive changes in 2026, some of which the Government have already committed to. Next year, we can look forward to many chances to turn the corner on more than a decade of uncertainty for farmers.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Danny Emmott who, until seven weeks ago, was the chair of the Staffordshire Young Farmers. This week, we have received the awful news that Danny has taken his own life. He was just 28 years old and leaves behind a two-year-old daughter. I only met Danny on a couple of occasions, but his passion for the incredible work and fundraising that young farmers do shone through. He was an advocate for many brilliant causes, such as the Yellow Wellies campaign that supports our farming community with mental health and wellbeing. Danny will be hugely missed by so many in Staffordshire, and I extend my deepest condolences to his family and friends, who I know will be going through unimaginable grief.
As 2025 comes to a close, I hope the spirit of goodwill will carry us forward with the positivity and determination that we need to make sure 2026 brings us lots of good news and certainty for the towns and villages that it is my pleasure to represent.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
This year has sadly seen a continuation of the rise of those who wish to divide us, amplify our fault lines and sow division. That is happening across Europe and also, unfortunately, domestically, with the rise of racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia and antisemitism. As we approach the festive season, however, I want to share a message of hope and mention some excellent groups and individuals who are working to bring our communities together rather than spreading division.
First, I will mention a young boy by the name of Joshua Harris, or the Joshie-Man as he is commonly known. He is a young boy with autism and he set up a campaign along with his father Dan called “Cake Not Hate”. Following an Islamophobic attack on a mosque, he now travels up and down the country visiting places of worship and shares cakes with the local community.
Secondly, I will quickly mention Ruth Sinhal and her Leicester Schools Linking Project, which is an excellent initiative that brings together schools from different areas, with children from different ethnicities and religions, to learn that we have much more that unites us than divides us.
Finally, in these cold winter months, there is the charity One Roof Leicester. Salma Ravat, along with Leicester cathedral, ensures that no one is left in the cold in these long nights, and they all deserve our appreciation. However, all these wonderful people face constant, vile hate speech on social media, just because they are trying to bring communities together.
I would like to thank everyone who does not give in to vile rhetoric and instead chooses to stand with their neighbours in solidarity, which is the true message of Christmas. To everybody here, I wish a happy Christmas.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I came to this place determined to listen to my constituents and to deliver real change on the issues that matter most. In the past year, we have saved Cosham post office and secured average-speed cameras on Portsdown hill—something for which residents of Drayton and Farlington have been fighting for over five years. We have cracked down on dodgy shops. We have removed taxis abandoned for years on Tangier Road in Baffins and we have taken significant action on houses in multiple occupation.
Of course, there is still much more to do, and I want to be honest about the local challenges we face, from access to homes, health services, water bills rising, parking, education and special educational needs and disabilities provision, but the securing of £20 million of Pride in Place money for the part of the city where my parents were born has meant so much to me and the people of Paulsgrove. For decades they have been ignored, and they deserve better. It is not just Paulsgrove that will gain from having a Labour MP. A record fairer funding local government settlement of £62 million means that all of Portsmouth will gain.
In 2026, Portsmouth will celebrate 100 years of the city, and what a year it will be. We are also building momentum for a city of culture bid, and I am determined to champion Portsmouth on the national stage, with creativity, resilience, pride and ambition at its heart.
Before I close, I want to thank some remarkable people who make Portsmouth North the incredible community it is: Lynn Timms and her Forty 4 Frankie campaign; Mehmet Ulucan, a local business and community figure; Freya Marley and her involvement in the Lobular Moon Shot project; Vicky Gidney for her community work and her travelling sofa; Father Hugo of St Michael’s and all the faith leaders in my city for the support and care they give; Clare Martin, the CEO of Pompey in the Community; Paul White at In a Jam, who fitted our community defibrillator; and Lara, the organiser of the Baton of Hope—rest in peace.
I also want to thank my brilliant staff, who have worked tirelessly to serve our community. Their dedication, problem solving and sheer hard work make everything possible. To my family, I love you, and to all the parliamentary staff, the Speaker and Deputy Speakers, and everyone who keeps this place running, I wish you a very merry Christmas.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
As we approach the Christmas celebrations, it is appropriate that we reflect on the place of the Christian faith in our society and the role of the established Church—that is, the Church of England—in furthering the Gospel. I am an Anglican and a regular worshipper at St Giles and St Matthew’s church in my constituency. Religious faith is important to me, as it is to thousands of my constituents and millions across the world. It is an important part of our identity.
There have been disturbing reports in recent weeks that some far-right activists are trying to hijack religion, claiming to be the protectors of Christianity. The Church should respond, in my view, by concentrating more on spreading the Gospel rather than acting as an non-governmental organisation or lobby group. If it did so, there would be much less space for the far right to claim that they are the voice of Christian Britain.
Not everyone celebrating Christmas next week will be Christians. The pews will be fuller than usual, whether it is for midnight mass, carol services or Christingle services, all of which provide our churches with an opportunity to proclaim the Christian message and perhaps touch the hearts of those who used to believe, who have doubts or who are searching for something to satisfy their spiritual yearnings. In a strange way, the Church of England does indeed speak for mainstream middle England. This coming Sunday, I will be attending two nine lessons and carols services, one in the small St Peter’s church in Ashby cum Fenby in my constituency, and one in the grander setting of Grimsby minster. Equally, wherever it is, the message will be the same, and no doubt the words of St John’s Gospel will be resounding. For me, the striking passage in that Gospel, as the authorised version says, is:
“He was in the world, and the world was made by him, but the world knew him not.”
Then, as now, the world was ignoring Christ’s message of peace and goodwill. Happy Christmas.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Two weeks ago in my constituency, there was a terrible fire on Errington Street in Brotton. I visited a couple of days later and spoke to residents and to Accent Housing, which manages two of the four affected properties. It was clear that it was a devastating fire. It affected two families with young children, and an elderly pensioner.
The way the community came together afterwards to support those residents was truly remarkable. There is still some way to go. Over the road from those properties lives a young man called Steffan Bentley, who I went to school with. He took it upon himself to organise a crowdfunder. Our area is not the richest part of the world, but within a few days, it had raised over £2,000 to support those families. A whole range of other support took place, too. Our local councillors organised support, and pubs and village halls opened to support those residents.
That story just reminds me of who we are in East Cleveland and across Teesside. As we look to Christmas, we see that spirit of community coming out across our area—in our church halls, our food banks and our warm hubs. That is what the spirit of Christmas is truly about, and it is what we on Teesside have always been about.
There has been a long effort from many politicians over the years to tell a slightly different story of England—one that is about individuals working hard, pulling themselves up and putting themselves first. We have seen a shift towards an atomised England in which we lead parallel lives. Well, that is not what I have seen in Brotton in the past couple of weeks, and it is not what I see every day. I think that we are a nation of George Baileys rather than a nation of Scrooges. I wish all my constituents, everyone who works here, and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a very merry Christmas.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Many Members have referred to the hunger strikes. The Secretary of State is refusing to meet representatives or lawyers of the hunger strikers. Will the Leader of the House put this proposition to the Secretary of State for Justice? According to the Government’s own guidelines for the Department, one possibility is to maintain discussions by appointing an independent mediator. If that could be done, we could avert a tragedy.
Last week, I was on the picket line at Great Ormond Street hospital, where the National Education Union had brought about strike action because four of its teachers—teachers of long standing—had been sacked. It seems that there is a new and bullying management that has created a hostile environment. In fact, we have now lost a number of long-standing and dedicated teachers. Through the House, I ask the Great Ormond Street hospital governing board to intervene to resolve the dispute and recreate the environment that the hospital has always been famous for—one of caring, not just for the children it looks after but for its own staff.
I come now to the staff of this House. Security guards have been taking industrial action for several months now as a result of an unfair grading structure, and they will come out on strike again in the new year if we cannot resolve it. They keep us safe here. During covid, they came on to the estate and three of their members died as a result of infection. A number of issues around grading have not been resolved since that time. I urge the management of the House to get around the table, recognise the injustices that those staff face, and show respect for the role that they play. I wish them in particular, on behalf of the House, a happy Christmas and, hopefully, a constructive new year in which their injustices will be addressed.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
People across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages are looking forward to a very merry Christmas. In the run-up to the big day, many will have enjoyed opening Christmas cards from friends and loved ones—well, they would have done if the cards had arrived. For far too many people across my area, the post simply does not arrive.
The Christmas period is a busy time for letters, so let me be clear: this is not a seasonal issue in Lichfield and Burntwood. Residents have been telling me about serious problems with deliveries from Royal Mail for months. Constituents have gone weeks without mail before receiving a huge bundle of delayed letters all at once. Households tell me that they regularly receive mail only once a week or fortnight—and, in some cases, only once every three weeks. Constituents have missed jury service or court hearings because summonses have not come; they have missed hospital and GP appointments because the invitation and reminder arrived three days after the appointment; they have been fined for late payment of credit card bills that they had never received; or they are waiting for vital letters from their banks with debit cards or pin details.
Royal Mail has clear delivery targets: 93% of first-class letters delivered by the next working day, 98.5% of second-class letters delivered in three working days and 99% of delivery routes to be completed six days a week. In my area, those targets are a joke—we are nowhere near that. I have been writing to Royal Mail about these issues for months and working closely with the Communication Workers Union. I want to take this opportunity to make it clear that none of this is the fault of hard-working posties. They are doing a brilliant job and doing as much as they can, and I want to thank them this Christmas. No, this is on Royal Mail.
Royal Mail has been consistently slow in dealing with my requests and, when it has got back to me, it has batted away my concerns and claimed “There’s nothing to see here.” It has finally admitted that there is a problem, but I am eager to know what action it is going to take in the new year to fix it in the long term for the people of Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages.
In my remaining 10 seconds, I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, all the House staff, and every right hon. and hon. Member for their support this year. I wish everybody a very merry Christmas.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I would like to start by saying a big thank you to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to Mr Speaker and to all your Deputy Speaker colleagues for all your hard work over the year. I also thank all the House staff and parliamentary staff, without whose amazing work and organisation we simply would not be able to do our jobs. It has been wonderful to listen to this afternoon’s debate and especially to hear the pride with which hon. Members from across the House have been speaking about their constituencies.
As many of us look forward to spending more time with our loved ones over the Christmas period, I find myself looking back over 2025 and reflecting on all the amazing people I have visited in my constituency. What strikes me is something very simple: none of the organisations that I visited would be anything without the people working in them and, more often than not, volunteering for them. In every constituency, there are people who give up their free time to help others. That is something to celebrate, to champion and to shout about, especially at this time of year. If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will share a few highlights based on my visits to some wonderful charities in my Chelmsford constituency and further afield.
In January, I spent a cold and blustery winter’s morning with the dedicated Chelmsford Litter Wombles. This is a fabulous group that turns out all year round in large numbers to help keep our streets, verges, parks and everywhere else in between free from litter. Rather than complaining about unsightly rubbish and pointing a finger to say it is someone else’s problem, they roll up their sleeves, quite literally, and get stuck in.
In March, I visited Open Road, a crucial drug and alcohol support service operating across Essex and Medway. Hearing about the important, often lifesaving work that they do with people with addiction problems was incredibly heartwarming. I was delighted to attend a reception in Parliament recently celebrating the work that they do, and crucially hearing directly from some of the many people they have helped, some of whom are now volunteering themselves to help others.
In April, I visited the brilliant Independence Project. This great little organisation in Chelmsford provides opportunities for people with learning disabilities and autism to achieve independence. The team do an amazing job supporting those who are perhaps less fortunate by giving them the skills and opportunities they need to lead rich and fulfilling lives.
There are so many more voluntary organisations that I have met in Westminster and beyond who are doing fabulous work on a national level. I am privileged to be taking part in a new initiative called the parliamentary knowledge scheme for frontline services, which is a crucial opportunity for MPs to hear at first hand from the emergency service organisations that rescue us in our hour of need. So far, we have spent time with the amazing Royal National Lifeboat Institution, hearing about the bravery of their volunteer crews who go out in all weathers, all year round, and at any time of the day or night to help those in distress at sea.
An organisation with which I have a personal connection is Mountain Rescue England and Wales. I say that because the service saved my life when I fell from height in Scotland a few years ago. If it were not for the actions of the service’s heroic volunteers, I may not have been here today. While we tuck into our Christmas dinners, or snuggle up on the sofa for some festive viewing, many of those selfless volunteers will be on call, ready to help those in need.
In conclusion, I ask all Members from across the House to spare a thought for all those continuing to help others over the festive period. I encourage everyone to hold their loved ones tight, to raise a glass to those not with us and to celebrate in style the dawning of a new year. Wishing everyone a very merry Christmas.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Deputy Leader of the House.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I start by wishing you and your team a very happy Christmas and a prosperous new year? I feel as if we have had a whistlestop tour of the United Kingdom today, and we have heard from hon. and right hon. Members from all corners of our great nation, but we are yet to hear from the best part of our United Kingdom—the Scottish Borders.
Let me take a moment to reflect on a hugely busy year in my constituency, before mentioning some of the excellent contributions we heard today. Local legend Douglas Heatley from Selkirk has just retired after 40 years of working at the Scottish Borders council. Douglas is truly a fantastic man, and we always chat whenever we bump into each other. He is responsible for keeping streets and public toilets clean, and he makes our area an even better place to live. I take this opportunity to thank him for his incredible service to the Scottish Borders, and wish him a long and happy retirement.
It has been a busy time of the year for me as the MP for the Borders; I have been supporting constituents with their issues, campaigning to protect our natural environment from new mega-pylons, fighting for better rail services and much, much more. I know that a highlight for many hon. Members—we heard much about this in business questions earlier today—is the annual Christmas card competition that many of us conduct. I had a bumper year this year, with hundreds of entries coming in from across the Scottish Borders. The eventual winner, decided by public vote, was Rowan from Coldstream primary school; we presented her with her prize last week. Her design will be landing on doormats across the Scottish Borders over the next few days.
In the time available, I will mention a couple of the excellent contributions that we have heard. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who underlined the great work that the Conservatives are doing on Harrow council. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), he highlighted the failures of the Labour Mayor of London. We heard from the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden); I do not know much about her city, but she is undoubtedly a great advocate for it. I enjoyed listening to her talk about some of the important work going on there. We heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is sadly no longer in his place; hopefully he is on a plane heading back home.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), who, like the hon. Member for Strangford, reminded us of the importance of Christmas, what it is all about and the birth of Christ. We heard from my fantastic constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), who represents a constituency covering a huge area; it is even bigger than mine. He is a very powerful voice for all the 100 or so communities that he represents. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) about the energetic campaign for his communities and the important investment that he secured for his constituency, particularly under the last Conservative Government. While much divides us in this Chamber, this debate shows what we all have in common: the honour of representing our constituents, and a belief that our constituency is the best in the country.
As Christmas approaches, my thoughts are especially with those who will spend the next few weeks serving others. I express my heartfelt thanks to everyone who will be working or volunteering over Christmas and the new year to support our communities. Our armed forces, both at home and overseas, deserve our deepest appreciation for their ongoing commitment to keeping us safe. I thank the NHS, social care staff, firefighters, police officers, and all the emergency service workers for their dedication. I am also grateful to the small business owners and workers in hospitality, retail and transport who put their plans on hold in order to help us celebrate.
Please take time to remember those who face loneliness, loss and financial problems at this time. Those things can be a particularly heavy weight on people at Christmas. If you can, consider reaching out—supporting a food bank, volunteering with a local group, or even just checking in with a neighbour who you worry may be lonely.
I wish everyone in the Scottish Borders, as well as every Member of this House—and you again, Madam Deputy Speaker—a very merry Christmas. I look forward to seeing everyone, hopefully well rested, in 2026.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
It is a pleasure to close this debate, and I thank all Members who have contributed this afternoon. I am grateful to the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), for granting time for this debate. Next time he asks me to protect time for debates because it is getting squeezed, I will have a bit more sympathy with him.
Like any other Member, particularly those from earlier intakes, I am reminded today of the legacy of Sir David Amess, and of his dedication to the people of Southend and to this place. I know that he is more associated with the summer recess Adjournment, but this is a time when we think of him. We are also reminded of the loss of our honourable friend Jo Cox as we head towards what will be the 10th anniversary of her murder. My thoughts, and I hope those of the House, are with Sir David’s and Jo Cox’s families at this time. We remember colleagues and friends, but we are also reminded of the importance of Members’ security; I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr Speaker for making that a priority. However, it is also important that we ensure that respect is at the core of our debates in this Chamber—by and large, today has risen to the occasion—and that we encourage kindness, both in this place and in our constituency.
We have heard from a range of Members on various subjects. Unfortunately, I will not have time to discuss each speech in turn; there were 26 Back-Bench contributions, and there will have been three Front-Bench contributions, which is quite an achievement, given the time available. I will just recognise those who spoke: my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell); my hon. Friends the Members for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland), for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), for Blackpool South (Chris Webb), for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), and for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer); the right hon. Members for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), and for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn); the hon. Members for Harrow East, for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), and for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers); and, last but not least, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson). If I have omitted anybody from that list, I apologise, and if Members have made specific requests for a response from me, I will endeavour to respond in the coming days.
I want to pick up on one or two of the themes of today’s debate. As the shadow Deputy Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), has said, the highlight of today has been the passionate way in which Members in all parts of the House have spoken about their constituency and their constituents. In this wide-ranging debate, we have seen that Members’ knowledge of and closeness to their constituency, and the amount that they care, are sometimes underestimated and underrated by people who follow our proceedings. That is about pride in place, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South demonstrated—he is a fantastic advocate for the fine town of Blackpool.
We learned a number of things that we did not know before, or at least I did not know before. We learned that in Romford, there is a Margaret Thatcher House, which I had not come across before. [Interruption.] It is the hon. Member for Romford’s office. He talked about a roundabout; I was very surprised that he has not named that roundabout after Mrs Thatcher, but perhaps you can turn any direction on that roundabout, not just right.
We have learned from a number of people about the importance of volunteers and community organisations. I pay tribute to all of them, including those in my constituency. They act selflessly and work tirelessly—not just at Christmas, but throughout the year. We owe them a great deal, because as I have said on a number of occasions at business questions, they are the golden thread that runs through our communities. Rightly, we also paid tribute to all the people who will be working throughout Christmas—the emergency services, NHS staff, local authority workers, shopkeepers, shop workers and so on—at what will be a particularly busy time for them. I put on record my thanks, and those of the House, for all they do.
The hon. Member for Strangford reminded us about the central message of Christmas. He was absolutely right to do so, as was the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham, and I thank him for that. We were also reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay about what is happening in Ukraine, and what has been happening there for far too long. We hope that the new year will bring a lasting and just peace to that country. He highlighted the importance of our own national security—that is central to what the Government are doing—throughout the year, not just at this time.
A number of Members raised the hunger strikes. It would be remiss of me not to comment on them. The right hon. Member for Islington North was very gracious when he said that he had raised the matter at business questions, and I had taken it up. He asked if I would do so again; I will certainly make that commitment to him, but I have to say to him, and to others who have raised the issue, that the welfare and wellbeing of prisoners, whether they are on hunger strike or not, is absolutely central to the Prison Service and for Ministers. It is really important that we appreciate that the Deputy Prime Minister takes a keen interest in what is happening, and hopes that we can find a suitable outcome. I also say, very gently, to those in this House and outside, that we could not get further from the truth than to say that the Government or the Prison Service were trying to break the bodies of the people on hunger strike. We want to find a settlement to this, and I give a commitment to take back to the Deputy Prime Minister what has been said here. Hopefully, we can find a suitable way forward.
MPs speak movingly in this place; they rightly speak their mind. I include among those MPs my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase, who talked about tragic loss in his constituency. He was absolutely right to do so. We also found common ground in paying tribute to not just the volunteers who sometimes make the political system work, but our office staff, who are, quite frankly, the unsung heroes on these occasions. I pay tribute to my office staff, as well as the staff of every other Member. I want to express my gratitude to House staff, including the Doorkeepers, cleaners, Clerks, catering, security, broadcasting and Hansard, those involved in visitor experience, as well as our constituency teams, and the civil servants who come together to make this place function. They continue to show an amazing commitment to this place and, through that, to the democratic process.
Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, our thanks go to you, Mr Speaker and the other Deputy Speakers for everything that you do on our behalf. As we rise for the Christmas recess, I offer my best wishes to all Members and staff, and to those watching and listening, and I hope for a peaceful, safe and happy Christmas and new year.
Bob Blackman
With the leave of the House, I thank the other 25 Back Benchers and the three Front Benchers who have contributed, who have made this such an interesting debate for all those who have sat through all of it. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for managing the debate so that we actually got everyone in who wished to contribute. It remains for me to wish Mr Speaker, the Deputy Speakers, the whole House, all our staff and everyone who makes this place tick a very Merry Christmas, a happy Hanukkah and a happy, peaceful, prosperous and, above all else, healthy new year.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the Christmas adjournment.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With the leave of the House, I would like to put on record my thanks and pay tribute to all the House staff, the Doorkeepers, the Clerks, the staff in the Ways and Means office—Abi Samuels, James Holland and Emily Pullen—my constituency staff, who enable me to do my job, Pavlina Aburn, Alison Dobson, Conor, Abi, Asja and Bob. I wish everyone in my constituency and everywhere a very happy Christmas and a peaceful new year.
Walsall Leather Museum
Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)
May I wish everyone, including you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a very happy Christmas and new year? I present this petition on behalf of the residents of Walsall and the UK.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the Walsall Leather Museum, built in a nineteenth-century leather factory, is the heart of the town’s heritage and the pride of the community; notes that Walsall Council plans to relocate the museum and lease the site to Walsall College for a peppercorn rent; declares that this plan has been brought forward without consultation with local people; further declares that alternative sites, including within Walsall College’s estate, are more appropriate for SEND provision than the Museum site and so should be considered as alternatives in order to preserve the culture and heritage of the current Museum site; and further declares that these plans amount to removing a cherished community asset against the wishes of the community.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to acknowledge the contentiousness of this proposed transaction, and to encourage Walsall Council and Walsall College to halt the plans to relocate Walsall Leather Museum, to look instead at alternative sites for Walsall College’s SEND provision, to hold a full public consultation on the proposal, to publish detailed information about the plans including alternative options considered, to ensure that the Museum remains open, and to make a commitment to transparency and accountability.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003153]
Indices of Deprivation: England
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to hold the final Adjournment debate of 2025. I thank everyone for staying behind to join me, and I thank the Minister as well. From what I have seen in the headlines, I believe she had a busy morning.
People in Blackpool often feel forgotten by national politics, so it matters that their experience is the last issue debated in this Chamber before Christmas. Whereas colleagues in the House will be returning home to spend time with their families, this time of year is a period of struggle, rather than celebration, for many in my constituency.
Throughout 2025, this Government have begun to show Blackpool that they understand the scale of our challenges, but belief takes time when a place has for so long been held up as a symbol of decline, a poster child for deprivation and a stark reflection of the pressures facing our country as a whole. I hope the Minister will join me in demonstrating to my home town that it is not forgotten, and it is no accident that we have saved this issue till last.
In October, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government updated the English indices of deprivation for the first time since 2019, marking a rare and important moment to reassess Government action. The indices rank small areas in England according to deprivation across multiple domains. They look beyond income alone, taking account of housing, access to services, education, employment, health, crime and the living environment. Although it may feel like it for local people when their town is splashed across newspaper headlines, the indices are not a league table for shame; they are a tool for targeting Government action. If the 2025 indices do just one thing, they should convince the Government that action must focus on Blackpool.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
The new indices show that neighbourhoods in Stafford, including Highfields, Penkside, Rising Brook and Stafford Central, sit among the bottom 10% to 20% of the most deprived areas in the country. However, the depth of need is often masked at local authority level by more affluent parts of the borough. Recent data shows that Stafford Central is in the bottom 2% nationally for health need. Does my hon. Friend agree that such indices, alongside wider health data, give the Government a clear opportunity to target our record investment in healthcare, education and local government at neighbourhoods with the greatest need, including pockets of deprivation in otherwise affluent areas?
Chris Webb
I completely agree, and the Pride in Place scheme is a great start. I will come on to that later, but I want to see it expanded to many more of our communities, based on the new indices.
If we can turn around a town that contains seven of the 10 most deprived areas of the country, and 10 in the top 20, we can turn around the fortunes of the country. Rather than being a poster child for deprivation, Blackpool, where 38% of adults live in the top 10% of the most deprived areas in England, can be a poster child for renewal.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. Not only do seven of the 10 most deprived areas appear to be in Blackpool, but all 10 of the top 10 are in coastal communities, as are 50% of the top 50. We who represent coastal communities do not want to indulge in any kind of deprivation bingo. Instead, we want the Government, and indeed the private sector, to see the potential to invest, given the untapped talent of our workforce, the energy of our entrepreneurs and our extraordinary natural environment. Does he agree that an economic regeneration strategy that is designed for coastal communities could transform our country?
Chris Webb
I absolutely agree, and that is why my hon. Friend and I, along with many others, have been pushing for a coastal communities Minister to address that need and bring in all corners of Government to tackle the problems we face in those communities.
Put simply, when Blackpool succeeds, Britain succeeds. The IoD’s income deprivation domain measures the proportion of people reliant on means-tested benefits. It captures not just poverty but how close people are to crisis. In Blackpool, income deprivation is deeply entrenched and a daily reality for many, such as Leanne, who contacted me after having her benefits sanctioned. Despite keeping in touch with her work coach about her father’s illness, she missed an appointment when he passed away and was dealt a second blow. It took two months and intervention from me and my office to get her benefits reinstated. In the interim, she was denied a hardship payment and had no food or heating. That is what income deprivation looks like in the real world—not poor budgeting, but families with no safety net when life throws them a shock.
Of course, income deprivation overlaps with employment deprivation, and Blackpool is one of nine local authorities in England ranked among the most deprived on both measures. The IoD’s employment domain measures people who want to work but cannot, due to a lack of opportunities, caring responsibilities, disability or ill health. Employment deprivation is more pronounced in Blackpool, where our labour market is seasonal, insecure, tourism-reliant, low paid and low skilled.
Blackpool council, alongside our tourism industry, has worked hard to extend our offer beyond the summer months, as is visible on our promenade today, with our fantastic Christmas By The Sea festival. But more must be done for people like Noreen, whose autistic son regularly reaches interviews but never secures work, and Rob, who was self-employed when he had a serious accident and faced a 13-week wait for financial support. These are the real lives behind our employment deprivation scores.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the stories of real lives into the debate. When we talk about deprivation, indices and statistics, we can so easily forget that behind every number are people’s lives—lives that should have promise and that deserve the support of this Government. I place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend for making sure that we do not lose sight of what we are really talking about: people’s lives.
Chris Webb
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words; I think we all know it across the parties in this House. We see it in our mailbags every week, in our casework and from the thousands and thousands of individuals who reach out to us for help when they have nowhere else to turn.
Aspiration is not the problem. In February, I hosted Blackpool’s biggest ever jobs fair, welcoming 4,000 jobseekers and over 100 employers, with more than 1,500 roles on offer. Five hundred positions were filled on the day and another 500 positions were filled later on. The indices highlight a lack of good jobs, not a lack of work ethic.
Meanwhile, the IoD’s education domain captures how disadvantage reproduces itself in Blackpool. Residents are concerned about access to quality education, SEND support, post-16 pathways, adult literacy, mental health in schools and workplaces, and the impact of deprivation on learning. These are the mechanisms by which neighbourhoods remain at the bottom of indices for generations.
This February, I will host my jobs fair again, with a sharper focus on career pathways and quality employment, showing what local employers, community partners and political will can achieve. But even with the greatest opportunities on our doorstep, residents are on the back foot from childhood, with disadvantaged school pupils falling furthest behind. Just over half of Blackpool pupils achieve expected standards at key stage 2. At GCSE, Blackpool’s average Attainment 8 score is among the lowest in the country.
Fewer than half our young people achieve a strong pass in English and maths, compared with nearly two thirds nationally.
The indices’ health deprivation and disability domain measures premature deaths, hospital admissions, disability and mental ill health. Some 58.5% of neighbourhoods in Blackpool fall within the 10% most deprived nationally on this measure. Men in Blackpool have the lowest life expectancy in England, with our current toddlers, my son included, not expected to reach the age of 74—a decade less than their peers in Hampshire. I am not going to let that stand.
Severe mental illness rates are shockingly high: in 2018-19, more than 500 people were admitted to hospital for intentional self-harm, and suicide rates among men were the second highest in the country. By 2022-23, Blackpool had the highest prevalence of GP-diagnosed depression in England, and 6,300 people are now claiming personal independence payment for psychiatric disorders—the highest level in Lancashire and in the top 10 nationally.
Health services are at breaking point, and there is a clear human impact—like there was for Jamie Pearson, who tragically took his own life in Blackpool hospital, after waiting nearly 24 hours in A&E during a mental health crisis. Every day I deal with constituents battling to access not only mental health support but a dentist, a GP or hospital care.
People turn to me when there is nowhere left to turn to—people like Steven, himself a mental health nurse, who contacted me after developing serious neurological symptoms. Despite repeated warnings, his first neurology appointment is scheduled for October 2026. This case of a frontline worker who wants to work and support our NHS, but is being failed by it, demonstrates how poor health, economic inactivity and deprivation reinforce one another.
The indices of deprivation crime domain shows that crime and antisocial behaviour are concentrated in areas of multiple deprivation. Similarly, a recent report by the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods notes that crime persists in areas facing persistent poverty, under-investment and neglect. In such places, residents report concerns about antisocial behaviour, illegal drugs and safety, and feel less connected and optimistic—people like Chantelle, who endured two years of threats and antisocial behaviour in Bloomfield, a neighbourhood ranked 12th out of 33,755 neighbourhoods of the indices of deprivation. Despite repeated police involvement, she and her neighbours felt unsafe, but could not move because of financial barriers.
We also know what works. In Brunswick ward, which is within the ninth most deprived neighbourhood nationally, Blackpool’s multi-agency youth antisocial behaviour working group reduced youth-related incidents by 45% through targeted interventions, alongside the work of the brilliant PACT—police and communities together—meetings led by Brian Robinson. Scaling up that approach, with co-ordinated, cross-Government strategies and devolved funding, can make deprived neighbourhoods safer, stronger and more connected.
Perhaps the biggest problem that this Government could tackle to improve life for my constituents is housing, which directly impacts poverty, health, education, employment and so much more. The IOD’s barriers to housing and services domain captures affordability and access, while the living environment domain measures housing quality, air quality and road safety. More than one in four cases that my office handles relates to housing or the living environment, because poor housing and unhealthy environments reinforce disadvantage at every turn.
Blackpool council has done some good work building new council houses in areas such as Grange Park, where my grandparents, Dougie and Maggie, were some of the first to collect their keys when the post-war estate was built. Now, new generations of families have the same opportunity to have quality, secure homes, but we still have a huge shortage: a stock of only 5,000 social homes and 12,000 people on the waiting list. More than 20,000 households privately rent, many in properties well below standard, and thousands live in damp and unsafe conditions.
Chelsea was seven months pregnant when she was served with a section 21 notice. She could not raise a deposit for other private rentals, and her bid for social housing was unsuccessful. Saleem lost a leg and was forced into a care home, separated from his family for almost a year because there were no adapted homes available. Meanwhile, Tia and her two young children were placed in a B&B with no cooking facilities, where her baby’s health deteriorated. I see these situations every day.
Investment in homes and streets is not a luxury; it is the foundation for better lives, safer communities and opportunities. Recent Pride in Place funding offers hope but, as I told the Secretary of State just the other week, one scheme is not enough. Blackpool is suited to multiple, targeted, place-based interventions to address housing, the environment and opportunities. It is also exactly the kind of place that should have benefited from the Government’s new fair funding formula. Instead, the local government finance settlement will potentially harm some of the most deprived communities further.
My council also informs me that the new formula disproportionately penalises deprived northern and coastal towns. We need a fair, progressive new system if we are to radically change lives. I will work with the Department further in the run-up to February to see what more can be done.
Overall, 82% of neighbourhoods in the most deprived decile in 2025 were also there in 2019. Only a handful of constituencies have shifted position at either end of the scale. It is clear from these statistics that we must do something different to tackle entrenched deprivation. We must put our money where our mouth is with targeted, long-term, place-based investment, guided by the indices. Moving beyond short-term pots to multi-year investment, tied to measurable outcomes like better jobs, improved health, higher educational attainment and a narrowing of the life expectancy gap, is essential, and that must be done on a scale that meets the extent of the problem.
Blackpool has enormous pride and potential. Despite the challenges captured in the statistics, people in our town will not be defined by them. Our communities are strong, our young people are ambitious, and our organisations drive change every day. This spirit of resilience and determination is the foundation on which renewal can be built. With the right support, investment and political will, that local energy can be harnessed to transform opportunity, improve lives and rewrite the story of our town. The people of Blackpool are doing their bit and, by showing us where the need is greatest, the indices have done theirs; now the Government must do their bit, too. With enough political will, Blackpool does not have to be a poster child for deprivation; it can be the poster child for renewal. If the Government can turn around Blackpool, they can turn around the country, and if Blackpool succeeds, Britain succeeds.
I take this opportunity to thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as Mr Speaker and the other Deputy Speakers, alongside all the staff in this place, but especially the staff in my office—Wendy, Holly, Antonia, Kate, Luke, Grace and Amber—for all their work. I wish all staff and all Members across this House a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I second that. I call the Minister, whom it is good to see here, and not writing her new Christmas cards.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) for securing this important debate, for the eloquent and passionate way that he talks about the issues in Blackpool, and for the powerful way that he champions voices from his community. I concur completely that his community will never be forgotten by this Labour Government.
Coastal communities such as Blackpool are a vital part of our national identity, serving as a reminder of our national pride and shared maritime history. However, we know that behind these places lies another story, as my hon. Friend has rightly pointed out. The new indices of multiple deprivation show the challenges faced by all areas across the country, but particularly by coastal communities, which feature as a distinct category of concentrated deprivation in England. Blackpool features prominently in the new indices of deprivation, as my hon. Friend has demonstrated; seven of its areas are among the 10 most deprived neighbourhoods nationally. That is a sobering statistic that shines a spotlight on the issues that my hon. Friend has highlighted.
My Government are acutely aware of the multidimensional challenges that these communities face, and we are committed to doing our part to reverse them. The Government’s mission is to tackle inequality and unlock the full potential of all our communities, including those like Blackpool, to ensure that they play a vital role in our economy and our future, and so that they are not held back.
Through long-overdue reforms to the local government finance system, we will redirect around £2 billion of funding to places and communities that need it most, enabling councils to reliably deliver for their residents. Blackpool, for example, will see an 11% increase in its core spending power between 2025-26 and ’28-29, but we recognise that more needs to be done to reverse a decade and a half of under-investment in my hon. Friend’s community. We also recognise that delivery costs vary across the country, with deprivation, remoteness, variance in the ability to raise tax locally and the impact of commuters and tourists all affecting how hard it can be to deliver services in seaside towns like Blackpool. That is why we are committed to ensuring that these factors are accounted for in future funding allocations.
We are also delivering a wide range of programmes to address economic, social and health disparities across the country. Our £5 billion Pride in Place programme, which my hon. Friend spoke about, will deliver up to £20 million of funding and support over the next decade to 244 deprived communities. Little Layton and Little Carleton in Blackpool South will receive up to £20 million in funding over 10 years. Fleetwood town in Blackpool North and Fleetwood will also receive up to £20 million over the next 10 years. That funding will be used by each local community, based on its set priorities, to lift up the community, invest in regeneration plans and build community wealth.
Across the country, the Pride in Place programme will help communities improve cultural venues, health and wellbeing services, and local infrastructure. It will champion local leadership, foster community engagement and strengthen social cohesion. It will also give people agency, voice and power to drive the change they want to see in their places. We are also providing funding to Blackpool through our Pride in Place impact fund, which will provide £1.5 million of investment over the next two years to restore pride in place, support communities and stimulate local economic activity through visible, short-term, community-led improvements.
My hon. Friend raised the critical challenge of housing. He is right that good, decent housing is foundational; it is the rock on which people can build a life and get ahead. The Government understand the need to build more homes, and more social housing in particular. That is why we have outlined a plan to support the largest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation and transform the safety and quality of existing social homes. A new 10-year, £39-billion social and affordable homes programme has also been confirmed —the largest long-term investment in social housing in recent memory. That is an important first step, but we know that more needs to be done.
Tackling deprivation is the work of the whole Government. My Department will play its part, but it is an endeavour across every single Department, with a range of targeted measures across health, poverty, employment and antisocial behaviour. Over 1 million children will be lifted out of poverty as a result of the Government’s historic child poverty strategy, which tackles the root causes of poverty by cutting the cost of essentials, boosting family incomes and improving local services so that every child has the best start in life.
Funding has also been made available by the Department for Work and Pensions to support Blackpool residents who are struggling with rising living costs via the household support fund. That will support those vulnerable households in most need of help with the cost of living.
The Government are acutely aware of the crime and antisocial behaviour located in areas of multiple deprivation. On crime, we have committed to five core missions that seek to address some of the fundamental challenges that society will face over the next 10 years. The safer streets mission will tackle serious crime. It will halve violence against women and girls, halve knife crime, and restore confidence in policing and the criminal justice system. It is focused on addressing both harm and confidence in parallel by taking a whole-system approach. Tackling antisocial behaviour is at the heart of the mission. We are determined to rebuild confidence through investment in neighbourhood policing. We will also be at the forefront of the fight against antisocial behaviour.
On employment deprivation, which my hon. Friend talked about so eloquently, our “Get Britain Working” White Paper focuses on building a thriving labour market, reducing economic inactivity and increasing the number of people in work, which is central to growing the economy. Backed by £240 million of funding announced in the 2024 Budget, the White Paper sets out the biggest reforms to employment support for a generation.
The Government are absolutely committed to tackling entrenched health inequalities through targeted support for coastal communities. We understand and appreciate the specific challenges in our coastal communities, which is why the Coastal Navigators Network was launched by the NHS in 2024, in response to a report by the chief medical officer, to help tackle the acute health challenges facing coastal towns. It reflects the need to tailor our approach to the specific challenges of coastal communities, which can include poor transport and housing, economic decline and a high prevalence of residents with complex conditions.
We understand the acute challenges that our most deprived communities face—our coastal communities doubly so. We are taking significant steps to tackle deprivation in communities such as Blackpool, but we are open to hearing more ways in which we can play our part in supporting communities to grow, improve and thrive. I thank my hon. Friend once again for securing this debate; I look forward to hearing more from him and to working with him to ensure that we tackle the challenge of Blackpool. He is right: when Blackpool does well, the rest of the country is doing well. I look forward to hearing more when I visit in the new year.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you and the rest of the House a very merry Christmas.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
For the final time this year, at the end of the final Adjournment debate of 2025, I shall put the Question that this House do now adjourn. Happy Christmas, everybody.
Question put and agreed to.
Changing Places Facilities
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
Backbench Business
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
Jane Austen
(1 day, 7 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
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the cultural contribution of Jane Austen.
It is a delight to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I am really grateful to have been granted this opportunity to recognise and celebrate the legacy of one of our nation’s greatest authors, if not the greatest: Jane Austen.
Many may be asking why I am the one here speaking about Jane Austen. I have been a fan, of course, of both the 1995 and 2005 adaptations of “Pride and Prejudice”; I thoroughly enjoyed the recent BBC drama “Miss Austen”, which looked at Jane Austen’s life through the eyes of her sister; I have been on a fantastic Jane Austen tour, led by my brilliant constituent, Phil Howe, who is in the Public Gallery; and I have enjoyed many of Austen’s novels over the years. I am not, however, speaking just as a fan. The truth is that although half the country like to claim her, she will always be, first and foremost, a Steventon girl. Born in Steventon in my constituency of Basingstoke, she spent her first 25 years there, where she drafted “Sense and Sensibility”, “Pride and Prejudice” and “Northanger Abbey”. I am proud to be here to commemorate her impact on our town, as well as on the country and around the world.
Throughout Austen’s work, the influence of her upbringing in Steventon is unmistakable. Her father served as the rector, and she spent her formative years deeply rooted in the small community there, observing the congregations that passed through the church and the daily life of the village around her. Many of the social and class dynamics that animate her novels are thought to be shaped by her early experiences watching, as one scholar, Brian Southam put it,
“the world—of the minor landed gentry and the country clergy”—
as they navigated their relationships with both working-class neighbours and the area’s aristocracy.
Dancing also played a central role in Austen’s novels, and that influence can be traced directly back to her years in Basingstoke. She attended lively assemblies at Worting House and at the Old Town Hall, which became the Lloyds bank at the top of town, where she also shopped for materials to make her dresses. That same bustling area was where her father purchased her now famous sloped writing desk from Ring Brothers, the furnishers on Church Street. Austen used that desk throughout her life, drafting the works that would become beloved around the world. Its origins in Basingstoke highlight just how deeply the town shaped both her experiences and her writing.
The quintessential English countryside, which frames so much of Austen’s storytelling, owes much to landscape of north Hampshire—its rolling hills, quiet lanes and natural beauty still recognisable to us today.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman may know that in “Emma” Jane Austen said that Cromer in my constituency was
“the best of all the sea-bathing places.”
Does he agree that if Jane Austen were around today, she would be delighted by the recent news that a record seven North Norfolk beaches have excellent water quality, making my whole coastline excellent for all sea bathers?
Luke Murphy
I am sure that Austen would agree and, as we do not have a sea coast in Steventon, that she may have admired the hon. Gentleman’s area more than most.
Local children in Steventon still climb the old lime tree where Jane and her brother once played more than two centuries ago—a living reminder of the world that helped to inspire her enduring works. Equally, we still feel Austen’s influence in Basingstoke today. Across the town there are countless reminders of Austen’s legacy, not least the striking bronze statue outside the Willis Museum, created by the brilliant local artist Adam Roud, who is also in the Public Gallery today.
To mark the 250th anniversary of Austen’s birth, Hampshire Cultural Trust is co-ordinating wonderful tours of our area, giving us all the chance to explore the places that shaped her life and work. I am so pleased that Paul and others are here in Parliament today representing the great work that Hampshire Cultural Trust is doing. I also highlight the outstanding work of the Basingstoke Heritage Society, including the research undertaken by Debbie and Joan—who are also in the Public Gallery—into Jane Austen’s life in Basingstoke, which has been vital to preserving and celebrating her legacy in the town. My constituents handed me some helpful maps with points of interest just before the debate, should anyone want to peruse them later.
Right now the Willis Museum at the top of the town is hosting a brilliant exhibition, aptly named “Beyond the Bonnets”, on the women behind Jane Austen, shining a light on the often overlooked working women of the Regency period—the women who restored Elizabeth Bennet’s curls and washed her petticoats after that famous three-mile walk to Netherfield Park; the women who cooked for the Dashwoods at Norland Park; and the many other women whose unseen labour made the stories possible, yet so rarely receive any credit.
As we mark what would have been Jane Austen’s 250th birthday this week, there has never been a more fitting moment to visit Basingstoke and reflect on its place in her story. My sincere thanks go to Tamsin, who is also here today, and her team at Steventon’s Jane Austen 250 for their dedication to celebrating Austen’s legacy in our area, and for helping us all to discover the many ways our town influenced Jane Austen’s life, worldview and writing.
As much as I would like to give Basingstoke full credit as Austen’s muse, her life and literature were of course shaped by so many other places across the UK. Following her father’s retirement, the Austen family relocated to Bath, a setting that inspired “Persuasion” and “Northanger Abbey”. Five years later, after her father’s death, they returned to Hampshire, first to Southampton and then to Chawton. In this period Austen published “Sense and Sensibility”, “Pride and Prejudice”, “Mansfield Park” and “Emma”. Austen spent her final years in Winchester, where she was cared for by Giles Lyford during her illness. She died on 18 July 1817, at the age of 41, and was laid to rest in Winchester cathedral. I am sure the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) will comment later, but Austen’s influence in Winchester endures to this day, with the city hosting numerous events that celebrate the life and work of this very special Hampshire-born novelist.
Put simply, Austen reshaped the English novel. She perfected a narrative style that allowed readers to see the world through her heroines’ eyes, pioneering a realism that influenced writers such as Virginia Woolf and timeless narratives that inspired Helen Fielding’s “Bridget Jones” and, indeed, Heckerling’s “Clueless”, one of my favourite films. At its core, Austen’s style was characterised by her ability to weave her quick wit into her nuanced social commentary. Through interactions between her characters, she displayed the complex class dynamics at play at the time, and “Pride and Prejudice” captures it perfectly. The Bennets may belong to the gentry on paper, but at Netherfield Park they are frequently made to feel as though they do not quite belong alongside Mr Darcy and the Bingleys.
The social hierarchies of the period are also evident in the character of Charlotte Lucas from “Pride and Prejudice”—but as a vital means of securing her financial and social future. For many women of the so-called lower classes at the time, marriage was not simply for love; it was a matter of survival. As Austen so aptly reminds us:
“A woman is not to marry a man merely because she is asked, or because he is attached to her”,
but because he can offer her security in a world that grants her few other options. By reflecting real aspects of Regency-era life back to her readers with her flair and humour, Austen was able to endear readers who saw themselves in her characters and entertain those who did not, swiftly gaining her recognition among her contemporaries.
Austen’s novels did more than entertain and enlighten her readers at the time. They also hold up a mirror to us now, revealing much about who we are as a nation today—not least because it is rumoured that the character of Mr Darcy in “Bridget Jones”, Helen Fielding’s modern reimagining of “Pride and Prejudice”, was perhaps inspired by our very own Prime Minister.
On a more serious note, Austen’s novels reveal the foundations that our society is built on today. Her contribution to feminist progress has been raised time and again when I have spoken to constituents, friends and colleagues. In her own lifetime she did not experience much of the autonomy that women today enjoy. She lived under strict legal limitations on women’s rights and within a culture that offered little recognition of women as people in their own right. Women’s voices were rarely platformed, and their lives were often tightly policed—so much so that even showing an ankle was considered improper.
Women were expected to be seen to bolster their husband’s social status, but were never truly heard, treated as secondary citizens under the law of the time. This manifested in Austen’s own life as she initially had to publish under a masculine pseudonym to be taken seriously by contemporaries. Yet in the world she created on the page, Austen centred female voices that had hardly been acknowledged before, and in her own life she broke quiet but powerful barriers. She chose not to marry, rejecting a system that often defined a woman’s worth by her husband.
It is true that Austen did not campaign for women’s suffrage or other forms of reform, but she still did something transformative. Through her stories, she invited her readers to recognise women as full people with ambition, intellect and agency. In doing so, she quietly laid the groundwork for the generations of feminists who would follow. Austen may not have lived to see the freedoms that women now enjoy, but her influence helped to shape them, one honest, courageous sentence at a time. Today, as new barriers to gender equality emerge, including from online radicalisation around the world, her message remains an important reminder to approach politics with a respect for everyone’s humanity.
Jane Austen is not only a cornerstone of our national literary heritage, but a global phenomenon. More than two centuries after her death, her novels continue to inspire readers around the world—from the United States to Japan, India and beyond. Global fan societies, reading groups, academic conferences and adaptations for stage and screen all testify to the extraordinary reach of her work. Austen’s characters, wit and insights into human nature transcend time and place, uniting an international community of admirers who find her writing still speaks powerfully to modern life.
Beyond the far-reaching cultural impact of her work, Austen’s economic legacy also endures. In Hampshire, we enjoy what the Hampshire Cultural Trust calls the “Jane effect”: every year, we welcome millions of visitors who want to experience the landmarks and areas that shaped her writing. Austen continues to inspire devotion from readers all over the world, which in turn supports our local businesses and regional economy. Most notably, this year alone more than 92,000 copies of her novels were sold in the UK—an increase of a third on last year.
Austen’s stories have inspired so many high-grossing films and TV shows spanning decades, helping to sustain a thriving British film industry: de Wilde’s adaptation of “Emma” grossed millions as recently as 2020, and there is a huge buzz around Alderton’s upcoming adaption of “Pride and Prejudice”. To this day, there is still a fierce debate about whether Colin Firth’s or Matthew Macfadyen’s Mr Darcy reigns supreme—
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
There is no debate. [Laughter.]
Luke Murphy
Does the Minister want to intervene on that point? No? I am sure he will elucidate that in good time.
Austen’s enduring cultural impact is felt not only on a global scale, but powerfully at a local level, where it continues to shape and enrich Basingstoke’s vibrant film and arts scene. From the literary legacy of Jane Austen to the creative energy of today, the town has long sustained a strong and distinctive cultural identity. We are home to nationally recognised venues such as the Anvil, an outstanding concert hall that hosts everything from world-class performances to much-loved community events like the mayor’s variety show, and the Haymarket theatre, which continues to delight audiences with a programme of productions, from the festive sparkle of “The Crooners Christmas Special” and “Aladdin” to a wide range of acclaimed theatrical performances throughout the year.
One incredible show that came out of Basingstoke was our very own Phil Howe’s “Twelve Hours”, which depicts the story of Austen’s infamous short-lived engagement to Harris Bigg-Wither of Manydown. Our creative momentum is further strengthened by the Exit 6 film festival, a flagship Basingstoke event that draws visitors from across the globe and showcases independent short films and emerging filmmakers. Celebrating its 10th edition in 2025, Exit 6 exemplifies Basingstoke’s commitment to nurturing talent, championing new voices and sharing culture with the world. Together, all these institutions and events demonstrate the fact that the town does not simply inherit a cultural legacy but actively lives it, making Basingstoke a compelling and deserving choice for UK town of culture 2029, as I am sure everyone here agrees.
For 250 years, Jane Austen has enriched our literary heritage, our culture and, indeed, our economy through her sharp wit and romanticism, and her ability to capture the enduring nature of human relationships. What are the Government doing to celebrate and promote Jane Austen’s extraordinary legacy? How are we supporting today’s and tomorrow’s generations of female authors and artists? Given the central role that place played in shaping Austen’s life and career, and because it has also been the birthplace of other great British icons such as Burberry, and is now home to the Anvil, the Haymarket and the Proteus, and the Willis Museum, the Milestones Museum and much more, does the Minister agree that Basingstoke would be a deserving winner of the UK town of culture 2029, which is to be decided next year?
Basingstoke represents a notable chapter in Britain’s cultural and economic story, having produced globally recognised figures and brands. I am delighted to see so many colleagues here today to celebrate one of them—Jane Austen—and to acknowledge the vital role that our authors, artists and entrepreneurs play in shaping who we are as a nation.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
I remind Members to bob in their place if they intend to speak in the debate. I want to bring in the Front Benchers at 2.28 pm. I am not going to impose a time limit now, but that will depend on how people behave.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
It is very good to see you, Mr Efford, presiding over this timely debate. Not only is this the 250th-anniversary year, but I think this is the first Backbench Business slot available after Jane’s actual birthday, which was on Tuesday. I congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) not only on securing the debate—I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it—but on his excellent speech.
The last time I saw a production of a Jane Austen novel was “Pride and Prejudice” at the Vyne in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, as part of the 250th celebrations. It was the second-wettest outdoor event I have ever been at. By coincidence, the very wettest was “Sense and Sensibility” earlier that same summer, at Uppark just outside Petersfield.
A number of places have a link to Jane Austen, including Southampton, Winchester, Bath and, of course, the rectory at Steventon. But it was at Chawton that Jane Austen’s genius truly flourished, and where she either wrote entirely or revised and completed all six of her globally beloved novels. The house in Chawton is now, of course, the Jane Austen’s House museum, which is in my East Hampshire constituency.
The significance of Austen as a novelist can hardly be overstated. Things changed after her work. It was not that she wrote about ordinary people—they were not quite ordinary—but they were a lot more ordinary than the grand, historical figures or the Gothic characters who would typically have featured in novels up to that point. The novels were about ordinary events for those people: the subtle putdowns and the slightly tedious visits they had to withstand. She demonstrated that the domestic world holds just as much drama and just as many moral dilemmas and lessons as any royal court or battlefield. They were not quite what you would call kitchen sink dramas, but they were a social observation and social commentary, so in turn became a sort of social campaigning, because to change the world we first have to observe and explain it.
There was then Austen’s own ordinariness, coming not quite from the masses, but still, relatively speaking, ordinary. She was the daughter of a clergyman with a fairly limited formal education, which makes hers also a story of social mobility. That social mobility grew posthumously. We talk about the enduring significance and legacy of authors, but for Jane Austen that grew dramatically with the increasing interest in the 1870s and 1880s.
The huge increase then came in the mid-1990s, with the BBC adaptation of “Pride and Prejudice”. Notably, the most famous scene in that adaptation was not in the book. There is an interesting question about how new media adds to what we already have. As the hon. Member for Basingstoke said, we see the storylines in “Bridget Jones”, “Clueless” and “Bridgerton”—there may be no actual Austen link, but quite a few people probably think there is. In any event, we see a kind of genre-spawning going on.
I am not a literary critic. Were Jane Austen to describe me, she might say something like, “He was a moderately read man who happily knew the limits of his own scholarship.” I will not go further than that—the hon. Member for Basingstoke did a very good job—but I can and will pay tribute to all those who do so much to keep Jane Austen’s legacy alive, celebrate her work and its wider impact and make sure it gets to a wider and wider audience. It just so happens that many of those people are resident in my constituency and connected with Jane Austen’s house, Chawton House or the Regency day and festival.
I already spoke briefly about the significance of the house in Chawton. It was Jane’s place of stability after what had been a period of insecurity, and it was there that she received her own copy of “Pride and Prejudice”—I think she called it her darling child when it arrived from London—and read it out loud to a neighbour with her mother. Not only was the house the place where those novels were fashioned; it was also the place where that “truth universally acknowledged” was heard out loud for the first time. The house became a museum in 1949. Today, it holds an unparalleled collection of first editions, personal letters and artefacts, and receives tens of thousands of visitors from around the world. This year, for the anniversary year, there were 55,000 visitors, a third of whom were from overseas. Under the leadership of Lizzie Dunford, it has done amazing things with the team of 18 staff and 80 fantastic volunteers.
However, Chawton is not about only Jane’s own house. There is also what she called the “Great House”: her brother Edward’s house, which is correctly called Chawton House and was the reason that Jane was in Chawton. She was a frequent visitor, even when it was let out to another family. Today, it is a public historic house in the estate run by the Chawton House library trust and is dedicated to telling the stories of women’s history and women’s writing. It has the UK’s leading collection of pre-20th century women’s writing, with around 16,000 items, including the so-called Grandison manuscript in Jane’s own hand.
Chawton House is a centre of scholarship and long has been, but these days it is also a fantastic day out. It has had a great upgrade under the chief executive, Katie Childs. There are brilliant volunteers there who help to bring the place to life. Visitors will discover many influences on Jane’s novels around the house. It runs a great programme of outdoor theatre, classical music and walks—countryside walks such as the walk from Chawton to Farringdon were, of course, a great influence on Jane—as well as being a Royal Horticultural Society partner garden.
Finally, there is the town of Alton, just outside which the small village of Chawton lies. The whole of Alton is really involved with Jane Austen’s legacy. On 21 June this year, we had a fantastic unveiling of the new bust of Jane Austen, which is now in the Alton Regency garden just outside the assembly rooms and very close to the branch of her brother Henry’s bank on the high street. It was great to have there the sculptor Mark Coreth and descendants of the Austen and Knight families. The bust was made at Morris Singer foundry in Lasham, which—a little fun fact for colleagues—was the same foundry that fashioned the two unique bronze sculptures outside the door of Westminster Hall that mark the late Queen’s platinum jubilee.
Every year, the Regency day and festival bring into Alton hundreds of people, particularly those with a fondness for period costume. It is a great spectacle. The Regency ball always sells out. There is great work between Chawton and Basingstoke on some of these commemorative events. That festival is now into its 17th year and attracts people from around the world, with some 50 events. It has a brilliant organising committee, which includes the secretary, Julie McLatch. It was all the brainchild of local hero Pat Lerew.
In conclusion, and given the season, I will quote Mr Elton in “Emma”:
“At Christmas every body invites their friends about them, and people think little of even the worst weather”—
which will be a good thing if it stays as filthy as it is outside right now. Mr Efford, if I might paraphrase Caroline Bingley in “Pride and Prejudice”:
“I sincerely hope your Christmas”—
in Eltham and Chislehurst—
“may abound in the gaieties which that season generally brings”.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
You all have roughly six minutes each. I am not imposing a time limit; just be courteous to others who want to speak.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) on securing this timely and welcome debate and, to be honest, on allowing us to reread and rewatch the great works of Jane Austen, all on the grounds of pure research.
I begin by quoting Jane herself from “Persuasion”:
“I hate to hear you talk about all women as if they were fine ladies instead of rational creatures.”
Those words were spoken by Anne Elliot, a character who knows exactly what it is like to be overlooked, underestimated and quietly right all along, and they seem like an entirely appropriate place to begin discussing Jane Austen. As has already been said, we are meeting just after the 250th anniversary of her birth, and what strikes me is not simply that her novels are still read and in great demand, but they are still being argued over, still being adapted and still capable of illuminating modern debates about power, class and gender. To my mind, that is the clearest measure of her literary and cultural legacy.
Jane Austen was a woman who was often presented as a writer of romance and— sometimes dismissively—the original chick lit, but she was a woman who never wrote escapism. As we have been reminded during this debate, she was writing social commentary, delivered lightly but never casually. Her novels examine money, inheritance, reputation and power with real precision, particularly in how they shape women’s lives or, as she puts it clearly in “Sense and Sensibility”:
“Happiness in marriage is entirely a matter of chance.”
That line does feel a bit less romantic than totally economically literate.
The clearest example of Austen’s seriousness is “Mansfield Park”, which to my mind is a novel that is often overshadowed by “Pride and Prejudice” or “Emma”. Through Fanny Price, Austen explores dependence and what it means to be grateful, constrained and constantly reminded of one’s place. Fanny’s refusal to marry wealth at the cost of her conscience is not dramatic rebellion; it is moral resistance under pressure. Austen shows us that integrity, especially for women, is rarely rewarded quickly or loudly.
Austen is never heavy-handed. Her greatest strength is irony. She exposes hypocrisy, entitlement and self-importance by letting her characters speak for themselves, often while being entirely convinced of their own virtue. It is a technique that has aged extremely well and still feels uncomfortably familiar in public life, which is why her influence today is so extensive. She wrote about structures, not fashions, which is why her work travels so easily more than two centuries later. We have already talked at length about “Bridget Jones’s Diary”, but we also have Bollywood’s “Bride and Prejudice”, modern queer retellings such as “Fire Island”, and let us not forget “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”, which suggests that if a writer’s work can survive both the literary canon and the undead, their cultural legacy is in a really good place.
Most recently, historians such as Lucy Worsley have reminded us that Austen’s radicalism lay in insisting that ordinary women were worthy of being heroines and that their inner lives mattered, which is why she continues to speak so powerfully to young women today. Her heroines think, judge, change their minds and, crucially, are allowed to say no. They are underestimated, patronised and sometimes dismissed as trivial, only to prove otherwise. That theme has not entirely lost its relevance.
By writing women’s lives seriously—their judgment, their intelligence and their everyday experience—Austen helped to shift what was considered worthy of literature. Writers such as the Brontë sisters, George Eliot and Elizabeth Gaskell went on to write very different kinds of novels, but they did so in a literary world that Austen herself had helped to open up. She showed that stories centred on women could be complex, rigorous and enduring, and that women novelists themselves deserved to be taken seriously. Her influence runs through literature, films, television and popular culture, and it continues to invite us to question how power really operates, often behind politeness and convention.
I will end with Austen herself again, who wrote:
“One does not love a place the less for having suffered in it”.
Some 250 years on, Jane Austen remains beloved, not because she smoothed over difficulty, but because she understood it, and because she trusted her readers to do exactly the same.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. What a wonderful debate to bring to this Chamber, on which I congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy). Jane Austen: what a legend, what a genius! She is still inspiring us today, and what an opportunity we have to hear from her directly, as she wanders the streets of Bath in 2025 through a little bit of time travel:
“My dearest Cassandra, you will laugh at me, I am sure, for the rapture in which I write, but I cannot help myself, for Bath is a much changed city from when you and I did grace its fair streets. I shall do but imperfect justice with my pen, but will endeavour to paint in your mind a picture befitting this changed city, which, despite the marching of time, I still find to hold immeasurable beauty.
As I wound through the streets of Bath, I marvelled at the honey-coloured stone, which did glow as pleasantly as ever. But sister, what will truly astonish you is what I did see coming towards me: I would call it a carriage, yet it is a strange mechanical one whose body is silver, and how it moves is beyond my comprehension, as there are no horses to pull it. Goodness! The noise it produced was most dreadful: a mixture of cry and roar such that I was compelled to leap from its path.
There are, too, these strange signs affixed around the town, and for the life of me I cannot decipher their meaning. ‘Clean air zone’ is inscribed upon them—what a peculiar thing to write! Sister, when I uncover their origin and meaning, I will let you know with great haste.
No sooner had I proceeded a little further than my senses were again most violently assailed, for I encountered a most merry band and of women, full of uproarious amusement; one did speak of a ‘hen party’. I shall not attempt to describe their attire, for it would, I fear, defile my pen. You may imagine them as you will, sister, but I shall leave that to you.
They still hold celebrations and festivals in Bath; I watched one where ladies and gentlemen paraded about in coats and costumes of such cut and colour that I felt I had stepped into one of my own chapters. I observed them with all the greatest delight, so imagine my surprise when I found it was being undertaken in my honour. How gratifying to have unconsciously inspired so strong an affection!
You will laugh, but it continues. I inquired, and found this not a singular affair; events across the city are held entirely to commemorate me. Exhibitions in museums and balls of the sort we once danced at are held in grand halls during an annual festival. There is even a museum—they call it the Jane Austen Centre—which informs visitors of my life, work and the manner in which I lived. I ought to be embarrassed, and perhaps I am—but only just a little. Mostly, I am entertained beyond measure.
I am often detained by Bath’s excellent bookshops. One such establishment, Persephone Books, is a publisher devoted to selling neglected fiction and non-fiction text by women authors. It is admirable to see this shop promoting women writers. Imagine if when I struggled to publish my books, I had had such support. I find this accompanied with a certain vexation, though, as I see so very few women’s titles—or, indeed, their characters—within school curricula. The imbalance is unmistakable. The books of men and the stories of their heroes are bound in such numbers that it is most improper. I hear—and I do say it is frightful—that only 5% of GCSE pupils studied a text authored by a women for GCSE literature in 2024. Such figures speak plainly and require no ornament. That books written by women appear so seldom in the curriculum is most unjustifiable.
I then, most unexpectedly, found myself being carried along by a crowd, my legs no longer my own. Hurried to a great stadium and with my curiosity spurring me on I ventured within and behold, what a spectacle presented itself! A number of gentlemen most astonishingly hurled one another across the grass in pursuit of a misshapen ball. They ended up in a most undignified heap, yet the people appeared highly entertained. I, caught up in the fervour, did lend my own voice. That is how I, to my own surprise, became a supporter of Bath Rugby.
Cassandra, how a single city can change so much I cannot easily comprehend, but it is not an unhappy alternative lying before me. Far from it: Bath still leaves my heart fluttering. Until you can come again, you must accept this poor description in place of your own experience, and believe me, as ever, to be your affectionate sister Jane.”
I apologise to all Jane Austen scholars, everybody who loves her and the great author herself for this poor epistle—but my team and I had great fun.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I sincerely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for securing this debate. To take a quote from my favourite Austen novel, “Persuasion”:
“I wish nature had made such hearts…more common”.
I am also delighted to see the Minister in his place, not least because it has prompted me to consider which of Austen’s clergymen the Minister might best embody. He will be relieved to know I have discounted Edmund Bertram and Edward Ferrars, but I think we might be able to agree that he embodies Henry Tilney from “Northanger Abbey”, with his quick wit.
I cannot claim a constituency link to Jane Austen, but I would draw members attention to a doctoral researcher at the University of Cumbria, headquartered in my constituency, whose doctoral research explores Jane Austen’s depiction of walking as a form of resistance by her heroines—and it is her heroines that I wish to talk about in my brief remarks. She is a creator of heroines who have stood the test of time. In an era where women were often confined by social norms, Austen gave us characters who dared to think, to feel and to act with independence and integrity.
Those characteristics were embodied by my own A-level English teacher, Mrs Nutley, who steered us through the social pretensions and moral hypocrisy laid bare in “Mansfield Park” and unlocked in me a love of Jane Austen. I come from a working-class family. Our home was modest, my parents hard working and, while storybooks were read to me as a child, the books on our shelves in my adolescence were dictionaries and encyclopaedias, not novels. Therefore, I owe a debt of thanks to my English teachers at Trinity school, Carlisle, for opening up a world of Austen, Dickens, Hardy, the Brontës and—perhaps less enjoyably—James Joyce.
However, literature does not have to adhere to Joyce’s experimentalism to be good, and I would argue that the strength of Austen’s work, and what we learn from it, lies in the gentle subtlety of her drawn characters. Her heroines are not perfect; they stumble, they err and they learn. That is precisely what makes them extraordinary.
Elizabeth Bennet, with her wit and courage, reminds us that self-respect is non-negotiable. She refuses to marry for convenience, choosing instead to marry for love and equality. Elinor Dashwood, calm and rational, teaches us the strength of quiet resilience, while her sister Marianne embodies the beauty and the peril of unguarded passion. Then there is Emma Woodhouse, clever and confident, whose journey from vanity to humility shows that growth is the true mark of greatness. My favourite is Anne Elliot, whose quiet endurance and steadfast heart reveal that patience and hope can triumph over time and circumstance. In my favourite passage, she moves Captain Wentworth to declare:
“I can listen no longer in silence. I must speak to you by such means as are within my reach. You pierce my soul. I am half agony, half hope. Tell me not that I am too late, that such precious feelings are gone for ever. I offer myself to you again with a heart even more your own than when you almost broke it, eight years and a half ago. Dare not say that man forgets sooner than woman, that his love has an earlier death. I have loved none but you. Unjust I may have been, weak and resentful I have been, but never inconstant.”
By the way, if anyone is looking for an Austen to watch over the Christmas period, I strongly commend the BBC’s 1995 adaptation of “Persuasion”.
Austen’s heroines are not rebels in the loud sense. They do not storm barricades or shout slogans. Their rebellion is subtle, yet profound. They insist on being true to themselves in a world that often demands compromise. They value love, but never at the cost of dignity. They seek happiness, but never by surrendering principle. In praising these women, we praise Austen’s vision—a vision that still speaks to us today. Her heroines remind us that strength comes in many forms: in wit, in kindness, in perseverance and the in courage to choose one’s own path. Those are heroines I feel we need now more than ever.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. As Mr Bennet said in “Pride and Prejudice”:
“For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbours, and laugh at them in our turn?”;
so I thank my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for securing this debate. I thought his speech was excellent, not just on the history of Jane Austen’s life, but on how relevant her works are today when viewed in terms of structural inequality, and how pioneering they were at the time. It was a very good speech, and I congratulate him on it.
The hon. Member has already talked about the links that Jane Austen has to my constituency; she is buried in Winchester cathedral. She is an immense source of pride for all of us in Hampshire—with everyone claiming their little section of her life—but particularly in Winchester. She moved there in 1817 and subsequently spent her final days there. She lived in No. 8 College Street and, to celebrate 250 years since her birth, Winchester College opened it to the public over the summer. It is a mere five minutes from the cathedral, a site that many of us here will have visited and where many people come from all over the world purely to visit Jane Austen’s headstone.
No. 8 College Street is a site where brilliant volunteers are brimming with knowledge about Jane Austen’s life in and around Winchester. It is also just a couple of doors down on the same street as P&G Wells bookshop, which is one of the longest continuously operating bookshops in the UK. It is very beautiful; Austen was probably one of its most famous customers, and it still sells beautiful collector’s editions of Jane Austen in the store. The cathedral, Hampshire Cultural Trust and many other local groups and businesses have put on excellent events and exhibitions to commemorate 250 years of Jane Austen this year. I thank everyone involved for their hard work, and everyone is welcome to visit.
The more we learn about Jane Austen, the greater our admiration becomes for a woman with such wit, skill and literary prowess. Through her work, we enter into the mind of a young woman in a society where that voice would not usually be heard—and it is not just any voice; it is bold, witty, ironic and very funny. Austen brings us a voice that had hitherto been sidelined; when it is given centre stage, we can hear all its incredible qualities. She has a sharp and honest sense of humour and a clear-minded understanding of people and society, and emphasises the importance of taking pleasure in a good novel, which should be an inspiration to us today, particularly at a time when the proportion of the UK population reading for pleasure has been decreasing significantly.
Austen delighted in the ridiculous, and was never one to take life too seriously, writing in “Mansfield Park”:
“Let other pens dwell on guilt and misery.”
As we celebrate her immense cultural legacy, I hope that that joy and amusement in the society of others will continue to inspire and enlighten us today. When I was younger, my mother and my two younger sisters watched the ’90s BBC adaptation of “Pride and Prejudice” on loop for about a decade, and I can still quote nearly every line from it—I should thank them for making me appeared more cultured than I actually am. As Lizzy Bennet says:
“Think only of the past as its remembrance gives you pleasure.”
It is with great pleasure, fondness and admiration that we celebrate the life and works of Jane Austen.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I rise to speak in this debate simply because I love Jane Austen and all her works. We commemorate her in this debate, as we did on the 250th anniversary of her birth on Tuesday. Today, there has been a statement in the House on the Government’s launch of their strategy to counter violence against women and girls.
One might ask: what is the link? Jane knew about coercive control and the endless structural limitations on women without means, income or property. From Charlotte Lucas in “Pride and Prejudice” to Harriet Smith in “Emma” and the Dashwood family—a mother and two daughters brought low, fallen on hard times, because of the death of the father—there are many examples of how women have to navigate a world with the odds stacked against them.
Jane Austen is a comic genius, and I do not want to sideline her wit. It is because of her ability to describe with humour the realities of life for women in the 19th century that her stories resonate across those centuries. The context may have changed, but the fundamental truths are the same—not the idea that any young gentleman with means is in want of a wife, but the constraints, limits, dangers and insecurities of life for women. Those truths echo across time, as well as echoing through the streets of my constituency.
Jane Austen’s sense of place was as acute as her observation of the social and economic condition of women, as demonstrated by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). Ramsgate, in my constituency, is portrayed in her novels as a place of ill repute. In “Mansfield Park”, it is referred to as a place where bad things happen. In “Pride and Prejudice”, it plays a larger role. Mr Wickham, who as we all know is a walking cautionary tale for all young women, plans to “elope”, as they call it, with Georgiana Darcy to Ramsgate. Of the bad’uns in Austen’s books, Mr Wickham, as a walking cautionary tale, is outdone only by the red flag of Frank Churchill going to London to get his hair cut. I can tell Members that reading that at the age of 17 helped me a lot later on.
The fact is, with Georgiana Darcy, her brother had to intervene to stop that elopement happening. In the novel, that is portrayed as a proof-point that Mr Darcy is a morally strong and decisive figure, and not the terrible bore that Lizzy Bennet thought he was at first. Avoiding or surviving such an abuse of power, however, should not rely on good relatives or friends; not all women have a Mr Darcy to intervene. That is why, nowadays, we need support for all—so that risks are reduced for all women.
Eloping sounds romantic, and seaside resorts such as Ramsgate have often had a saucy or edgy reputation. Indeed, this week, a blue plaque dedicated to Jane Austen has been installed in Ramsgate to acknowledge her link to the town. Her brother, Francis—better known as Frank—was a Royal Navy officer in the town. There are some suggestions that she disliked it, given that it was disreputable, but she was able to develop characters and so forth on the basis of it.
The reality for women now, as then, is that their lives can be ruined by the actions of men like Wickham. It is therefore right for the Government to declare that violence against women and girls is an emergency. It is a problem even older than Jane Austen’s wonderful novel. On this day, when we commemorate her genius, we should also remember that her stories reveal that misogyny, violence and coercion have been a daily reality for women for centuries.
Jane Austen’s cultural contribution stretches well beyond the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) and beyond the stories of romance, helping us to understand women’s condition. Although things have improved—indeed, have been transformed—for most of us, the fear of financial hardship and the risk of being subject to the whims and power of men still loom large in the lives of many women. Let us make Jane Austen’s legacy an effort to consign that fear to history.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) on securing this debate. I am the Liberal Democrats’ Chief Whip, so I am not given to making speeches as a Liberal Democrat spokesperson, but I have chosen to speak in this debate because my degree is in English language and literature and—as other Members have already said—I am a Jane Austen fan.
As the MP for North East Fife, I cannot claim that my constituency has any relationship to Jane Austen. If she had come to North East Fife, she might have wanted to bathe in the sea off the East Neuk, but she would have found it rather chilly. As the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), whose constituency includes Ramsgate, just pointed out, going to the seaside was not necessarily a safe thing for Austen’s characters to do. Many of them came to harm by the sea.
Clearly, the streets and the quirks of neighbours captured in Austen’s writing are one of the reasons why we have had such a varied debate today. Walter Scott, the 250th anniversary of whose birth we celebrated in 2021, was a Jane Austen fan and described her as having
“the exquisite touch, which renders ordinary commonplace things and characters interesting, from the truth of the description and the sentiment”.
I want to put Jane Austen into her historical context. Many Members have already done that in this debate, but the Napoleonic wars have not been mentioned so far. I recommend Jenny Uglow’s “In These Times: Living in Britain Through Napoleon’s Wars, 1793-1815”, which is available in the House of Commons Library. If we map Austen’s life on to that period of time, we see that the Napoleonic wars started as she turned 18 and concluded only two years before her untimely death.
There has been some criticism of the letters that Austen wrote and of her attitudes towards death. There is a particular letter in which she comments on the stillbirth of a woman known to her by basically suggesting that the stillbirth was caused by the woman being “frighted” at seeing the face of her husband. Consequently, some people have suggested that there is a cruelness to Austen, but I would argue that that was the reality of her times: women died in childbirth; these things happened.
We see Austen’s perspective on war in many ways in her books. We see the Redcoats that Lydia Bennet encounters in Meryton, and naval officers such as Captain Wentworth and his colleagues in “Persuasion”. There were troops everywhere in Britain during that time. War was a fact of life, but it was also a fact of life that, because the war continued for so long, it became part of people’s day-to-day lives so it did not intrude on their consciousness in a way that an event of shorter duration might have done. War is part of Austen’s novels, but it is not at the centre of them. As has been said already, Jane had brothers in the Navy. She was heavily invested in their careers and understood the peril that families felt about a loved one serving overseas.
What is interesting about Austen’s writing is that it not only resonated with her contemporaries but has continued to resonate with many different generations across the ensuing 250 years. In 1918, as part of efforts to boost morale in the trenches, two of her works, “Persuasion” and “Northanger Abbey”, were selected by the War Office for the Forces book club and printed in a size that could fit in a soldier’s pocket. That does not suggest that Austen produced “chick-lit”. Indeed, a hospital worker in 1915 wrote an article in The Times about their efforts to find appropriate reading to calm the nerves of those suffering from shellshock:
“It happened that a tired soldier found her”—
that is, Austen—
“just what he wanted…We found ourselves…wishing that the dear lady had written at greater length…as the last page of ‘sense and sensibility’ came.”
The other thing I will say about war is also about empire. One of the things that we do not necessarily recognise in “Mansfield Park”, for example, is that it is quite clear that the Bertram family are profiting from the slave trade in the Caribbean.
In relation to Bath and my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), I was at the Topping & Company bookshop in St Andrews in my constituency last week and people there were talking about how popular the celebrations in Bath for Austen’s birthday had been. It is truly remarkable that a woman who in her lifetime earned only £631 from writing—the equivalent of £45,000 today—has gone on to create a multimillion-pound industry.
I want to talk a bit about the literature—how did Austen capture so many hearts and minds? I will suggest a second book to Members: John Mullan’s “What Matters in Jane Austen?” is a set of 20 essays that really track her literary genius. It is a book that I come back to on a regular basis, though not quite as regularly as I come back to the books themselves. John Mullan argues that Austen was a trailblazer in literary ingenuity:
“She did things with fiction…with characterisation, with dialogue…that had never been done before.”
We take free indirect style in English fiction for granted, so we underestimate how revolutionary Austen’s style was. Because she filtered her plots through the consciousness of her characters, we really saw real people. That is one reason that her art has endured.
It was the little things that mattered—the smallest of details. One chapter of Mullan’s book talks about blushing. That seems such a small, inconsequential thing in some ways but Emma Woodhouse—the one Austen character who is very secure in her opinions, her confidence and her sense of self—blushes when she is reprimanded by Mr Knightley for her treatment of Miss Bates on Box Hill. That is the first sign that that woman, Emma, who has been so confident in her opinions until now, has got things wrong and does not truly know herself.
Austen’s plotting of who keeps silent in “Emma” turns the book into a detective novel. That is one reason why so many people can return to her books: you find something new every time. All of that shows how crafted Austen’s work was, and that craft has allowed her work to be remade again and again. I am a woman of a certain age, so 1995 was quite important for me, whether it was “Clueless”, “Persuasion”—I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) about that production—or the very well known “Pride and Prejudice” adaptation. I have unfortunately been unable to get to the “Austenmania!” exhibition, but that would have been very popular with me. As the hon. Member for Basingstoke mentioned, the careers of some of our greatest stars, and maybe even our Prime Minister, may have been launched through such things.
What inspires so deep a devotion to Austen’s work, even in the inattentive reader? I would argue it is the way she captures human follies and scruples with genuine affection and humour. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) referenced what Mr Bennet said about how we make
“sport for our neighbours, and laugh at them in our turn”.
On Mr Bennet, I have to say that the 1995 production fooled us all. Mr Bennet is a pretty neglectful dad, isn’t he? How did he end up with five daughters and be unable to provide for them on £2,000 a year? I think he has a bit to answer for.
Towards the end of that story, Elizabeth reflects that Darcy
“had yet to learn to be laughed at”.
We, the readers, understand that under her tutelage he will learn that. We also learn to laugh at Darcy a little ourselves. Austen’s ironies attract us still, but her balance and poise often elude imitators. But while laughing at foolishness is a good way to get by, it is not ultimately the salve that brought comfort to the soldier in the trenches or to an admiral’s family. To quote Beatrice Scudeler,
“if her novels prove that moral corruption is ubiquitous, they also make the case that, despite our corrupted nature, we’re not unsalvageable: forgiveness and redemption are always within reach of humankind.”
From Emma to Anne Elliot to Mr Darcy, confronting their mistakes is a powerful factor in how Austen’s characters grow. Fanny Price is one of the least popular of Austen’s characters because she is always good and always right, and although that is a very nice way for someone to live, it sometimes makes them slightly insufferable to live with. I agree with the hon. Member for Carlisle—Anne Elliot is my favourite character and her failing is that she has not been headstrong enough, which is not often a problem for the other heroines of Austen.
Austen’s most powerful innovation was to realise that a lack of self-knowledge is the very voice of narration. Her dialogue is king of her works. The comic characters are monologists whereas our heroes—such as Emma and Mr Knightley—are supreme in their dialogue. We should also look out for the significant characters who we never hear from—they do not actually speak—because they are interesting too.
To conclude, in an age where it is less and less common to call on our neighbours and know their follies and scruples, and where the ridiculousness of Miss Bates would have potentially meant that Emma’s hot takes went viral on social media, it does us good as politicians to be reminded that community requires compassion.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for securing this debate on the literary and cultural legacy of Jane Austen. I also thank everyone in the Public Gallery and those around the UK, including my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who champion her legacy.
Two hundred and fifty years after her birth, Jane Austen remains not just a cornerstone of English literature but a distinctly English voice rooted in place, tradition, social order and moral responsibility—a true Tory perhaps. Her wit and insight are timeless. As she wrote:
“It is not what we say or think that defines us, but what we do.”
That line captures something profoundly serious beneath the comedy: an emphasis on conduct, duty and personal responsibility. Those values feel increasingly relevant to Members of this place.
It is sometimes forgotten that Jane Austen was, by instinct and upbringing, a conservative figure in the truest sense of the word. She was, as we have heard, the daughter of a Church of England clergyman, deeply embedded in parish life. She was respectful of established institutions and sceptical of radical upheaval—she wrote in the long shadow of the French revolution. Her novels consistently defend the importance of social stability, inherited responsibility and moral restraint. She sought not to overturn society but to understand it and, where necessary, gently challenge and correct it. Her characters are judged not by fashionable opinions but by their behaviour towards others. Her heroines are not radicals attempting to dismantle the world around them, but thoughtful, intelligent women navigating society as it was in their time, valuing good judgment, self-control and integrity. Their flaws are acknowledged, their virtues earned, and their happy endings never accidental.
Jane Austen’s life was firmly rooted in England. She was born in Stevenson in rural Hampshire and wrote arguably her greatest works in Chawton. She lived for a time in Bath and was laid to rest in Winchester cathedral. She drew deeply from parish life, village society and the rhythms of provincial England. Those connections remain visible today across Hampshire, Bath, Southampton and beyond.
Jane Austen’s legacy continues to make a real economic contribution. Her house in Chawton attracts tens of thousands of visitors each year, as my right hon. Friend said, while Austen-related tourism supports jobs in hospitality, heritage and the creative industries. Her novels, which earned her just over £600 in her lifetime, now generate millions through book sales, film adaptations and cultural tourism. Her reach has grown further through adaptation: more than 70 films and television series have been inspired by her work, from faithful period dramas to modern reinterpretations, introducing new audiences to her stories and projecting a distinctively British cultural inheritance across the world. Her place in our national life is reflected not only in festivals and exhibitions but quite literally in our pockets. Since 2017, Jane Austen has featured on the £10 note—a quiet but fitting recognition of her contribution to our cultural and literary heritage.
Yet despite Jane Austen’s popularity, there have been attempts to sideline her work and that of other literary greats from parts of the curriculum. That would be a mistake. Jane Austen is not an optional extra in our cultural inheritance; she is central to it. The then Education Secretary said in December 2012:
“I do not see anything wrong with having the 19th century at the heart of the English curriculum. As far as I am concerned, Jane Austen, Charles Dickens and Thomas Hardy—not to mention George Eliot—are great names that every child should have the chance to study.” —[Official Report, 12 December 2012; Vol. 554, c. 583.]
Two hundred and fifty years on from her birth, Jane Austen’s work endures because it speaks the permanent truths about human nature, society and the value of continuity over chaos. She reminds us that progress does not require rupture or revolution, and that civilisation is sustained not by grand theories but by character, restraint and responsibility. That is a literary and cultural legacy well worth defending and celebrating.
At the end of my short speech, I would like to thank everyone for their contributions. I wish them all a merry Christmas, and I hope this Government can find some sense and sensibility in 2026.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
Well, if only the Conservatives were not full of pride and prejudice—sorry, I could not resist that. It is a great delight to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a Minister in possession of a good portfolio must be in want of a debate. When it turned out that the culture Minister was unavailable this afternoon, I wanted to embody another quote from “Northanger Abbey”:
“There is nothing I would not do for those who are really my friends. I have no notion of loving people by halves; it is not my nature.”
That is why I am here on behalf of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, although I am in the Department for Business and Trade.
I am enormously grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for securing this debate which, at one point, was in danger of becoming about tourism rather than Jane Austen. However, we had some good literary criticism later on, including going into the nature of the prose that Jane Austen wrote. It is always good to see an English degree put to use at some point in somebody’s career—I have one myself, so am delighted by it.
I am a bit disturbed, however, that we are talking about Jane Austen, and so far the character that people have referred to most and questioned the actions of is Mr Darcy. Surely we should be talking about the female actors who have appeared. The bigger question should be who is the better Lizzy Bennet: is it Jennifer Ehle or Keira Knightley? [Interruption.] Apparently there is no question about that either.
It was great to hear from the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), although he has now disappeared, so he must be taking to heart another of Jane Austen’s lines:
“There is nothing like staying at home for real comfort.”
It was good to hear from him briefly, even though he has now departed. It is always good to hear from the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who took us on a tour of his constituency as well, talking proudly about many of the tourist attractions. I will come on to the point about how Jane Austen has probably contributed to the modern economy of the UK more than any other single individual, Dickens may be able to challenge that, but hers is certainly a very significant contribution to our modern economy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) spoke without claiming any particular identity with Austen for her constituency. I identified with her in this: I do not think that any of the characters from any of Jane Austen’s novels ever visited Rhondda, Ogmore, Blaengwarw, Blaenrhondda, Pontycymer or any of the other places that Hansard will not be able to spell.
It was also great to hear from the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). As part of the celebrations earlier this year, I went to the Jane Austen Centre in Bath, which I think received 200,000 visitors in 2024. I am sure the numbers were larger this year. It has some fascinating items from Jane Austen’s life and the life of her family. The whole city feels like it is “Jane Austenville”, not only because of the bookshops—although Bath has some of the finest independent bookshops in the land—but because of the museums and houses there that have been used in film adaptations or television series. I will come on to “Bridgerton” later.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the Minister acknowledge the unbalanced literature that is still taught in schools, the majority of which is written by men as opposed to women?
Chris Bryant
In fact, the one book that we were recommended to read about Jane Austen was by a man, which seemed a little bit ironic. I will address some of those points later.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) was querying what kind of clergyman I am; I think I am more Trollope really—it has been said before. Some of the clerical characters in Trollope are more my kind of style. The hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) is right that Jane Austen is buried in Winchester Cathedral. The initial gravestone referred to her mind, but not to her works. That was rectified in later years, which is really important. I suppose there was some kind of prejudice about the idea that a woman would not just have a mind but actually do something with it, which I am glad to say we have managed to overcome.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) made an important point about how this debate is taking place two days after the anniversary of Jane Austen’s birth, but that it is also a day when the Government are bringing forward important legislation. One can interpret many of the scenes between men and women in Jane Austen’s books as being about coercive control—a point that my hon. Friend made well. I have already referred to the literary criticism offered the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). It is always good to hear from a Whip—unless one is in trouble and has forgotten a vote—and was great to have her in this debate.
The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), of whom I am enormously fond—well, anyway—tried to claim Jane Austen as a member of the modern Conservative party. I think he was trying to hand her a membership card. It is true that she was sceptical of revolution, but she also hated hypocrisy—make of that what you will. [Interruption.] I’m joking. She was sceptical of revolution, but in many ways she brought about a revolution in that she was able to publish books and get them printed, and she has continued to be a presence in a world that has been dominated by men, by male publishers and male writers for generation after generation. Sometimes there is a radicalism in quiet conservatism, and sometimes conservatism in quiet radicalism.
Obviously, Austen was famous as an author. It was mentioned earlier that some 92,000 copies of her books have been sold in the UK this year. It might be more by now because it was 78,500 by the end of June. Her writing is sometimes referred to as subtle, nuanced, clever; there is a comedy of manners involved in it. We have already heard the reference to the sharp prose that she engaged in. One of my favourite moments is when Darcy says to Lizzy:
“But it has been the study of my life to avoid those weaknesses, which often expose a strong understanding to ridicule.”
And Lizzy says:
“Such as vanity and pride.”
That is a burn—a real burn on a very arrogant man who is not able to see his own ridiculousness.
Austen has been vital to today’s creative industries. We have referred to several different versions of “Pride and Prejudice”. If we include “Clueless” and productions like that, probably $1.2 billion-worth of revenues have been generated from film and television adaptations. There was a great new production of “Emma” at the Theatre Royal in Bath earlier this year. Incidentally, the Theatre Royal in Bath is a wonderful institution that does not take a single penny from the Arts Council, because it has decided that it can do things on its own.
And then we have “Bridgerton”, which everybody recognises as sort of being by Jane Austen, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with her. One of its triumphs is not only that successive series have given us phenomenal storylines that feel Jane Austen-like—we kind of know where it is going to end up; it is not the twist that matters, but the getting there—but it has also given us Adjoa Andoh and a very brave moment of television where a black woman is cast as a queen in a period that clearly would not have had a black queen in the UK, and yet it is entirely characteristically Jane Austen. And of course it has given us the most beautiful man in the world, Jonathan Bailey—not according to me, but according to lots of other people—who plays one of the main leads. I see several Members smiling, so I think they agree.
Austen has done a phenomenal amount for tourism in the UK. I have already referred to the Jane Austen Centre in Bath. Many TV and film locations have managed to do extraordinarily well in recent years, including several aristocratic homes such as Lyme Park, which featured in “Pride and Prejudice”. It had 300,000 visitors last year, many of whom will have come because of the connection with the film. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke asked what the Government are doing. Well, VisitBritain has been trying to build on this sense of “starring Great Britain”. A lot of international visitors to the UK—we set a target of getting to 50 million visitors by 2030—have done so specifically to visit places they recognise because films were made there, including many of the Jane Austen adaptations. It is a really important part of what we do.
Likewise, Arts Council England has supported many literary-based projects, including quite a lot of Jane Austen ones this year. Alongside providing funding for the Jane Austen Fan Club and the “Sensibilities on the Bonnet” project, it has supported Southampton Forward, and God’s House Tower, which presented her writing desk as part of the Jane Austen 250 celebrations earlier this year, as has been mentioned. The Forest arts centre in Hampshire received support to research collections of early music, including that owned by Jane Austen and her sister, and the Dorset Museum & Art Gallery held a “Jane Austen: Down to the Sea” exhibition using funding from ACE, with support from the Government indemnity scheme, which ACE administers.
Several Members referred to one element of Jane Austen that I think is really important. We have heard half the quote I am about to give, but I will say the next line, which is just as important. On women, one of her characters said:
“I hate to hear you talking…as if women were all fine ladies, instead of rational creatures.”
The next line is:
“We none of us expect to be in smooth water all our days.”
The sense that a woman is far more than just the stereotype so much literature had created up to that time is a really important part of the radicalism inherent in Austen.
Jane Austen has not been the only woman writer in our history. Before her, the great playwright Aphra Behn wrote some phenomenal plays. Daphne du Maurier’s book “Rebecca” is one of the most read novels in our history. There are George Eliot, who often confuses people by being called that rather than Mary Ann Evans, and the Brontës. Agatha Christie, who made one of our biggest contributions to world literature, is renowned across the world—not only in the UK and the United States of America, but in large parts of Africa, China and south-east Asia. In recent years, we have had Hilary Mantel. Only a few days ago, I saw yet another version of Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”, which I think is probably the closest to the original, and Iris Murdoch is one of my favourite novelists. Austen’s role as a woman novelist who survived and managed to make a living, and who had female characters with three dimensions to them rather than just one or two, is such an important part of what she gave us.
The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup read this quotation from “Sense and Sensibility”:
“It is not what we say or think that defines us, but what we do.”
That is true. It is not just having a debate here today that defines what we think about Jane Austen; it is what we do, and I think we need to celebrate reading far more.
One of the problems for many young people—the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, who used to be Education Secretary, will know how important this is—is getting them to read anything longer than a post or a tweet, or to watch something longer than two minutes, but being able to concentrate on the whole plot across 200 or 300 pages, or whatever it may be, is really important. We must have parents reading to their children and reading in schools, and we must have libraries in schools and in communities, because enabling people to read is a really important part of what we do. As Members of Parliament, we need to do far more to celebrate reading itself.
We should also celebrate publishing, because it is one of the things that the UK does phenomenally well. We export more books than any other country in the world, which is partly because we are a really good crossroads of the nations. Some of the best writing in the English language is written by people in India or Pakistan, or in Africa. We celebrate that as part of the publishing that we give to the rest of the world. Some of it is technical publishing, of course, but we should celebrate that part of our creative industries, and we should of course celebrate the knock-on effect of having so many of our great films and television series spring from books that have been written in the UK and by British writers.
Above all, I want us just to celebrate novels. Fiction is so important because it is so easy for us to be trapped in our own little world—the world that we know, are comfortable with and have chosen because we follow certain people and not others. I want people to go into a bookshop and browse. They should browse, and find something they would not otherwise find, or a novel telling a story that they would not otherwise know anything about. I remember reading a book a few years ago about a migrant coming to the UK on a small boat, and it completely changed my understanding of what somebody else’s life might be like. I am sure everybody who is listening to this debate will recognise the experience of seeing life from a completely different angle, because they read a fictional account. It is so important to be able to walk in somebody else’s shoes, empathise and sympathise, and embrace a wider set of possibilities in life. Of course, Jane Austen herself wrote:
“The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid.”
She really did have a point.
I am thinking of instituting something for next year. Next Christmas, when we have a debate like this, nobody should be allowed to take part unless they have read six good novels that were written that year—not just things from 500 years ago, 300 years ago or 100 years ago. No Member will be allowed to take part in the debate unless they have read—bought or from a library—six new novels.
I am going to make four recommendations of my own, all by women authors, from the last 18 months or so. The first is Samantha Harvey’s “Orbital”, which is a magnificent short novel; it is almost like poetry, the way that it is written. The second is Yael van der Wouden’s “The Safekeep”, which I have just finished reading. It is absolutely beautiful; it is set in the Netherlands, and the story is completely and utterly surprising. The third is Maggie O’Farrell’s “Hamnet”, the film of which has just been released. It is so moving and a beautiful rendition of another part of our literary history. The fourth is the book that I finished just before “The Safekeep”: Elizabeth Day’s “One of Us”. If anybody else wants to take part in next year’s debate, including you, Mr Efford, they have to have read six new novels by British authors.
Luke Murphy
It has been a delight to debate this subject under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank all the contributors and the Minister in particular for making himself available to respond to the debate. His speech really highlighted why we should celebrate Jane Austen as an author and all her contributions to the UK. I also thank the Minister for his celebration of reading. My dad passed in the last few weeks, and in the eulogy that I gave about him, I talked about my love of reading and his love of buying books. That really struck a chord with me, because his love of reading inspired both myself and my sister, so I really attached myself to his comments. If I am lucky enough to get the same debate this time next year, I will of course follow his mandate to have read six books in advance.
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), who attempted his own creative fiction by suggesting that Jane Austen was a Conservative. He also highlighted how she was central to our cultural inheritance. I thank the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain); as well as setting Jane Austen’s work in historical context, she inspired me to consider which literary figures might inspire our own Chief Whip to contribute to a Westminster Hall debate.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), who made a really powerful speech that highlighted structural violence and the conditions of women both today and in Austen’s day. She drew attention to the really important violence against women and girls strategy that was outlined today, and highlighted Austen’s links to Ramsgate. I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for briefly highlighting Jane Austen’s link to Cromer. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) highlighted Austen’s deep links to Chawton and the contribution of many of his constituents to celebrating Jane Austen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) highlighted the many Jane Austen spin-offs, including “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”; the film inspired a conversation this week in my office about how one might survive a zombie apocalypse. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) gave us a tour of some of her favourite characters, including Elizabeth Bennet, who I know is also the favourite character of Holly in my office, not least because she refused to conform to social norms. My hon. Friend’s reference to quiet rebellion really captured much of Jane Austen’s work.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for her own very creative update of Jane Austen’s work. Finally, I thank the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), who highlighted Jane Austen’s links to his constituency. He was very generous in his praise for my speech; I have to say that the praise should be directed to Holly and Cait in my office, who I believe greatly enjoyed writing the speech.
Briefly, I pay tribute to Lucy Worsley, who is somewhat of an authority on Jane Austen. It is her birthday today, which is why she has not attended the debate—I wish her a happy birthday. I am grateful to all colleagues from across the House for their thoughtful contributions. I am incredibly grateful to all my constituents—Phil, Debbie, Joan, Tamsin, Adam, Paul, Catherine and many more—whose work and dedication ensures that Austen’s story continues to inspire new generations. Today we have helped to not just preserve Jane Austen’s legacy but affirm the enduring value of literature, creativity and the human stories that connect us all.
Question put and agreed to.
That this House has considered the cultural contribution of Jane Austen.
Community Audiology
(1 day, 7 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
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered community audiology.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank those who have joined us for the debate and the Front-Bench teams for giving up their time to put in the final shift of this sitting just before Christmas. I realise that I may not be on many people’s Christmas card lists after detaining them to the bitter end, but I appreciate their giving up their time and responding to this important debate. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for securing this debate on community audiology, an under-discussed topic and a very important one in our communities.
Hearing and hearing loss are often the subject of stigma and shame, and sometimes light-hearted jokes in the media and film. Hearing loss is a serious issue—it is not a mild inconvenience—and it can be life-changing. It has a profound impact on the lives of millions of people across England and on the effective functioning of our health and care system more broadly.
Audiology services diagnose, treat and support people with hearing loss and deafness. They are critical to the quality of life and health of a significant proportion of constituents in all our communities. In 2024, 5.8% of people in England reported deafness and hearing loss. Although 94% of hearing loss is related to ageing, that is by no means the only patient group affected. In particular, I note that children’s audiology services are incredibly important to the life chances of children who are born deaf.
Untreated hearing loss has far-reaching consequences for physical and mental health, independence, employment and social participation. People with hearing loss are 2.5 times more likely to experience mental ill health related to social isolation and difficulties finding employment. Elderly people with hearing loss are 2.4 times more likely to experience falls, which in turn increases the risk of hospital admission, loss of independence and long-term care needs.
Untreated age-related hearing loss is one of the single largest modifiable risk factors related to dementia. Evidence suggests that treating adult-onset hearing loss between the ages of 45 and 65 reduces the incidence of dementia by 7%. In the context of an ageing population and the growing prevalence of dementia, that statistic alone should place hearing services firmly within our prevention agenda.
There are significant economic implications to poor service provision. The UK loses an estimated £25 billion a year in lost productivity and unemployment as a result of untreated hearing loss. On average, a person with hearing loss will see around £2,000 less a year than a non-disabled person, and 40% of people with hearing loss will retire early due to the challenges of communicating at work.
The demand for audiology services will only increase over the next few decades. The incidence of hearing loss increases by approximately one percentage point for every year of life. That means that at the age of 50, around 50% of people will experience some level of hearing loss, while 80% will by the age of 80. As our population ages, the pressure on audiology services will grow. As we embark on our mission to rebuild our NHS so that it is a first-class health service fit for the 21st century, it is crucial that we get our approach to audiology services right and in line with the Government’s three key shifts.
Audiology is exceptionally well suited to a nationally directed, community-based model for care, for five key reasons. First, most audiology services are low-risk procedures that can be easily carried out in community-based settings. Currently, 50% of national referrals to hospital ear, nose and throat teams are for uncomplicated non-surgical procedures such as earwax removal and age-related hearing loss. That is difficult to justify clinically or operationally, and sending those patients through complex hospital pathways places unnecessary pressure on ENT services, contributes to longer waiting times and is an inefficient use of specialist capacity. Instead, such procedures can be managed in a safe and effective way by audiologists in community settings.
Just this morning, as if perfectly set up for this debate, I met a constituent at the Christmas present-wrapping event for the fantastic ShopMobility charity in Uxbridge. This gentleman shared with me his wife’s experience in accessing audiology services in our community. His wife faces a more complex hearing issue—not something run of the mill that could be dealt with on the high street—that requires specialist intervention. She has been waiting around a year for a specialist appointment and follow-up at NHS ENT services to have the issue resolved. Shifting less complex cases out of secondary care settings would mean more capacity, more appointments and quicker health for my constituent’s wife, and many more people like her.
Secondly, delivering audiology services in community settings is far more cost-effective. Research by the University of York found that NHS adult audiology pathways delivered by community providers cost between 15% and 25% less than the same pathways delivered by an NHS hospital-based service. There is an obvious financial case for reform to a community-based model.
Thirdly, because audiology services are commissioned at a local level by integrated care boards and have in some cases already been transferred to community services, community audiology is not a new concept. We already have many good examples of good practice to build on, but unfortunately provision is variable and patchy. Thirty of the 42 ICBs in England already commission community-based services, with NHS services delivering assessment, hearing aid fitting, rehabilitation and long-term aftercare in primary care settings, community hospitals, outreach clinics and high street locations. Those services are delivered in partnership with GPs and private providers such as Specsavers. For example, the ICB in my constituency in north-west London commissions community audiology services, with self-referral across our whole area, providing a more consistent and accessible model than many parts of England have today.
Fourthly, delivering audiology in community settings assists the preventive healthcare agenda. People are not always forthcoming about seeking help for hearing loss. On average, it takes around seven to 10 years to acknowledge hearing loss and seek help, meaning that by the time most people present to services, the impact on their health and wellbeing can already be significant. Any barriers or difficulties in getting help can put people off asking for it, further delaying treatment and increasing their personal risk of things such as dementia, falls and mental health challenges, which I have outlined already.
Lastly, audiology provision in the community, especially models that enable patient self-referral without a GP appointment, are better for patients. They empower patients and support the early identification of hearing loss. They reduce travel time and other geographical barriers to access, particularly for older people and those with mobility issues. Community audiology services are particularly impactful for deaf children and their families. Children with hearing loss issues require more frequent appointments than adults—for example, to replace ear moulds for hearing aids as they grow—so community provision with appointments closer to home is particularly helpful for those families.
Taken together, the case for driving a quick shift to community-based audiology is clear. However, despite the opportunities, there remain several structural barriers to the rapid roll-out of community audiology services in every area. The recent Kingdon review of children’s audiology services set out many of the barriers in great detail. Its findings, which I would argue are relevant to audiology services in our country more generally, can be summarised in the words of the introduction: audiology is
“a ‘Cinderella’ service…often overlooked, undervalued and underfunded.”
The most significant issue is that the current system is fragmented and inconsistent, with a clear lack of national oversight. That is apparent from the fact that, astonishingly, the Kingdon review found that there is no national audiology lead in the Department of Health and Social Care, resulting a lack of ownership and accountability for the performance of services. It found that communication between the DHSC and NHS England on known service issues did not meet expected standards. I hope that the merging of the functions of NHS England and DHSC will be a key opportunity to resolve those challenges.
There is patchy coverage of audiology services throughout the country, with a significant postcode lottery of access. NHS audiology services are commissioned locally by ICBs, with tariffs set locally. Although local commissioning can support responsiveness to local needs, in this case it has resulted in wide variation in availability, quality and value for money. As I have said, only 30 of 42 ICBs commission adult community audiology services. In around half those areas, coverage is only partial, and in 12 ICBs no service is commissioned at all. In those areas, patients who are concerned about their hearing must first visit the GP and then be referred to a hospital-based service.
As I have set out, the lack of community provision leads to longer waits, poorer services and more expensive provision in some areas of England. NHS England’s 2023 guidance encouraged direct access and self-referral to audiology services to reduce pressures on GPs, yet evidently not all ICBs have implemented that guidance. Local commissioning and tariff setting has also created substantial inconsistencies in tariffs. In some areas, audiology service tariffs have been set below the cost of delivering care, which has forced some providers to reduce and compromise service quality by, for example, cutting follow-up appointments, outcome measurement and rehabilitation support.
In some areas, local commissioning within limited financial envelopes has resulted in activity caps based on financial envelopes rather than patient need, resulting in predictable waiting list growth. Some services have reportedly been asked to reduce throughput or pause the issuing of hearing aids entirely in order to remain within their contractual limits. This practice undermines the principle of care based on clinical needs and risks storing up greater costs for the future.
The lack of national oversight has produced issues with quality assurance. While many independent and third sector providers deliver high-quality services, there is clearly variation in quality of service, and currently no mandatory system-wide quality assurance requirement for all NHS-funded audiology provision. That lack of oversight has also led to certain services falling through the gaps of NHS provision. The starkest example is earwax removal, about which I am sure many of us will have had emails from our constituents. It is perhaps not the sexiest of issues, and not one that we often like to talk about. I will hold my hand up: I have had earwax removal several times—historically from my GP, and more recently in private Specsavers-based settings—so I can speak at first hand about the impact of these services, or the lack of them.
Historically, wax removal was carried out by GPs and nurses in GP practices. Following a change to the GP contract in 2012, it was no longer designated as a core service, and now, over a decade later, the majority of GP practices no longer provide it. As a result, patients who cannot self-care or self-fund their treatment in a private setting often have no option other than to refer themselves to specialist hospital ENT services when the problem gets much worse, unless they live in one of the very small number of ICB areas that do still commission the service as part of the community audiology pathway. Wax removal is a simple, basic procedure, and it is nonsensical that it is not always delivered in the community.
Data collection and oversight is also extremely poor. NHS England recently decided to stop referral-to-treatment waiting time reporting for audiology services, which has removed visibility of the full patient pathway. Diagnostic data suggests that audiology is now a poorly performing diagnostic service, with over 70,000 people waiting and some regions experiencing delays of more than 40 weeks. Without consistent data, commissioners and providers, and policymakers such as us, simply cannot understand where pressures are greatest and where intervention is needed most.
Like many areas of community services, audiology services are also seeing significant workforce planning issues. There are fewer than 10,000 audiologists and hearing therapists in the UK, and work by the National Deaf Children’s Society and the British Academy of Audiology found that 48% of audiology services have seen a decline in staffing since 2019, equating to an overall reduction of around 8% of the total workforce.
The Kingdon review described the audiology workforce as having been “neglected for years”, with low status, poor professional representation, limited governance and insufficient investment in research and training and development. Coherent workforce planning could be facilitated by the introduction of a single professional register for audiologists, as well as a much more consistent approach to professional development, training pathways and retention measures. This is incredibly important given the predicted increase in demand for services, and I hope that audiology services, and community and primary care workforce issues more generally, will feature centrally in the Government’s promised new workforce plan, as we seek to shift activity away from secondary care towards primary and community-based care.
I welcome the steps the Government have taken to move forward improvements in audiology services. The commissioning and publication of the Kingdon review was a very helpful step. The 10-year health plan for England, published in July, committed to enabling self-referral to clinical audiology, using the NHS app where appropriate, which is welcome. NHS England is supporting providers and ICBs to improve audiology services through capital investment, upgrading audiology facilities, expanding testing capacity via community diagnostic centres, and direct support through the national audiology improvement collaborative.
All those developments are welcome, but clearly there is much more to do. We now need a coherent national framework that gives audiology the strategic attention it deserves. That should include, first, a national commissioning framework for audiology services, including standardised tariffs and activity planning to reduce unwarranted variation and ensure that services are commissioned on the basis of patient need rather than short-term financial constraints locally.
Secondly, the framework should mandate system-wide quality assurance for all NHS-funded audiology services, regardless of provider, building on existing frameworks. Thirdly, it should require a clear national direction on the movement of audiology services into community and neighbourhood health models, setting out how services should integrate with primary care, ENT, social care and broader support services. Fourthly, it should require the reinstatement of referral-to-treatment waiting time reporting for audiology, so that performance is transparent and improvement efforts can be properly targeted.
Fifthly, the framework should require sustained investment in the audiology workforce, including for expanded training places, improved retention measures and the implementation of the Kingdon review’s recommendations on professional registration and governance. Finally, it should require action to ensure equitable access to core interventions such as earwax removal, so that access to basic hearing care is not determined by postcode or ability to pay.
Audiology services may not often feature prominently in political debate, but they matter deeply to millions of people. They matter to older people striving to remain independent, to working-age adults seeking to stay in employment, and to children, whose language, development and life chances depend on early and effective intervention. Community audiology offers a practical evidence-based opportunity to improve access, quality and value for money, but realising this opportunity will require national leadership, clear standards and some sustained investment.
I thank all Members and the Front-Bench teams for being here. I hope the Minister can address the issues in his response. If we are serious about prevention, reducing health inequalities and delivering care closer to home, then community audiology must be part of the conversation. I hope that, as we do so often in this place, we can all say “Hear, hear!”, not only as a mark of agreement, but as a promise of a better future for hearing services in every part of our country.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) on moving this timely motion. I declare an interest: I am someone who suffers from hearing loss—it is good to be honest about these things. I recently found a picture of myself in uniform in the pouring rain, looking very miserable in Germany or on Salisbury plain, leaning against a 25-pounder. I can assure Members that those guns went off next to my ear on many occasions, and it is a very loud bang indeed.
I am not alone in suffering from some hearing loss. As the hon. Gentleman made clear, if we group together deafness, hearing loss and tinnitus, some 18 million people in the UK are affected by hearing conditions. Of those among us who are 55 or over, more than half suffer from hearing loss, as he said. Of those of us who are 70 and older—Mr Vickers, you and I were born just weeks apart—over 80% have some form of hearing loss. Some 2.4 million adults across Britain have hearing loss that is severe enough for them to struggle with conversational speech in some situations.
We all know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That is even more true in medicine than in any other walk of life. I am one of 2 million people in the UK who use a hearing aid. People should not be ashamed of using a hearing aid. People are not ashamed of wearing glasses—the Minister, Mr Vickers, and the distinguished consultant from Suffolk, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), are all wearing glasses. It is a fact of life, and we should support people.
The British Academy of Audiology estimates that there are 6.7 million people who could benefit from a hearing aid but do not currently use one. The impact is not limited to wives, irritated that we have not heard them—although I must admit that if someone is known in the family to have hearing loss, it is very convenient. I am frequently ticked off by my wife because I am generally completely useless, and sometimes I pretend I have not heard her, so there are some benefits.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
The right hon. Gentleman is busted now.
Sir Edward Leigh
At the risk of giving in to economic reductionism, there is a significant impact on the economy. The Royal National Institute for Deaf People has estimated that untreated hearing loss costs the UK economy around £30 billion per year in lost productivity. Adults of working age with hearing loss have an employment rate of 65%, compared with 79% for those without any disabilities. Hearing loss has a social cost as well, as it has an impact on daily life and often increases isolation. Too often, we are embarrassed by hearing loss when we should be tackling it head on.
Another problem is a lack of audiologists. Unwisely, the Government have maintained the cap on the number of people allowed to study medicine—a restrictive measure that the doctors’ unions cling to regressively. The first priority should be the health of the public. We should allow anyone who meets the high standards that we expect of those studying medicine to do so.
Instead, the doctors’ unions ensure there is a lack of domestic supply to protect their bargaining position, but that means we are forced to make up the shortfall by importing doctors from other countries, often less developed ones. Many countries, not just fully developed ones, have high standards of medical education. It seems to me, and to many others, morally dubious for the NHS to pick the cream of doctors from any developing country and bring them here. Their diligence, training and expertise are much needed in their home countries. Meanwhile, we have excellent people here who cannot get into medical school—not because they are not good enough, but because the numbers are capped.
The shortfall in audiology is yet another reason why we need to address this issue. We have over 3,000 registered audiologists working in the UK, across the NHS, the private sector and educational settings. Figures from the British Academy of Audiology show that 48% of services have reported reduced staff, with an overall decline of 8% in the audiology workforce. Nearly one in 10 clinical posts in audiology are currently vacant, and 65% of audiology services have at least one vacancy. Those shortages exist across multiple salary bands, from junior to senior clinicians.
I am not blaming this Government, by the way; I am not being party political. This problem is the fault of successive Governments and Health Secretaries, who have failed to address it. Back in 2006, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People pointed out in evidence to the Health Committee:
“A recent NHS workforce project has suggested an additional 1,700 qualified audiologists are required to cope with current pressure. This could take between 10 and 15 years to realise under the current training programmes.”
That was back in 2006, so what has happened since then? It will not surprise the experienced observer that not enough action was taken. Hearing loss is one of the most prevalent long-term conditions in England, yet it is often treated as a low-priority service. If we treated it as a core part of prevention and independence, the rewards would be innumerable. As I said, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Demand for audiology services is rising, and the International Longevity Centre estimates that by 2031, one in five Britons will have hearing loss. There is at least increasing public awareness, but with an ageing population, the demand for audiology services is rising. That puts additional pressure on the workforce and on service capacity. Community audiology should not be a marginal service. It is a preventive intervention with clear implications for the wellbeing of individuals and families, economic productivity and long-term public spending. Delivering audiology close to home is ideal, particularly for older patients and those managing long-term conditions.
The current model relies heavily on local commissioning decisions. There is wide variation in access, as well as in the scope and quality of provision across England. Patients in some areas benefit from straightforward self-referral and timely community services, while others face longer waits or unnecessary hospital referrals. I suspect that the service in London and other big cities is better than that in our home county of Lincolnshire, Mr Vickers.
We need to improve the way we collect data on audiology services, so that we can evaluate their impact across the country. Good data will help us to focus on outcomes, as any reform should. National minimum service standards would provide clarity without imposing uniform delivery models. We should preserve local flexibility while ensuring that patients know what level of service they are entitled to expect. Community audiology should be integrated into broader prevention and healthy ageing strategies.
Hearing care supports people to remain economically active and socially connected for longer. That is immensely central to maintaining human dignity as we all get older. Early intervention reduces downstream costs in social care and mental health services. The social and economic impact is huge. There is much we can do now that will produce worthwhile results, so we need action from the Minister.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for choosing this as a subject for debate.
It was fascinating to hear from the Father of the House about his time in the Honourable Artillery Company, listening to the guns and then perhaps regretting it in later years. It reminds us of our responsibility in this House to try to prevent problems that may emerge later. Last weekend, I was reading about a former colleague of mine, Lieutenant Colonel Rob Page, who has suffered 20% hearing loss off the back of his time testing the Ajax vehicle. Plainly, that is something we have to watch out for.
This debate is about community audiology. In my Devon constituency, I represent people who care a great deal about hearing health. Honiton and Sidmouth has the sixth oldest constituents in the country by demographics. Local health data shows that 7.3% of residents in the Devon ICB area report hearing loss or deafness. That compares with an average in England of 5.8%.
In an ageing population, this is about the older age profile of all of our communities. In my constituency the median age is 57, so hearing loss is very common and hearing care is essential. Johns Hopkins University found that people with moderate hearing impairment are more than twice as likely to experience a fall as those without hearing loss. Falls in older people often lead to hospital admissions and then to a significant loss of independence.
The Health Secretary has characterised the plans for NHS reform as being partly about a shift from sickness to prevention and from hospital to communities. Plainly, community audiology will have to sit at the heart of this. In Devon, community audiology has been complicated by some major changes in provider arrangements. Until March this year, Chime Social Enterprise delivered NHS audiology services and routine community audiology. Chime had its challenges, but it had a local presence, including in a lot of towns that I represent. It had drop-in clinics for people who needed urgent repairs or had urgent issues. However, from 1 April 2025, NHS Devon integrated care board commissioned several new providers in place of Chime for routine and specialist audiology, and that changeover has caused a lot of problems.
One elderly constituent, who has relied on hearing aids for more than 25 years, told me that she had to wait from June until September before she was able to see her usual audiologist. When she finally got to her appointment in Sidmouth, she discovered that the new provider had no access to her medical records, and she was told that she would have to come back in November to have new hearing aids fitted and supplied. Something that should not have taken very long at all took a total of five months. That was not just five months of inconvenience waiting for an appointment; it was five months of struggling to communicate with the rest of the world. I wrote to NHS Devon after being inundated by similar reports, and I received a reply to my letter of 16 June saying that the changeover was happening as fast as NHS Devon could make it happen.
Although waiting times appear to be improving, this disruption is not unique to Devon and it reflects wider pressures across the community. Across NHS community audiology in England, 38% of people were waiting six weeks or more for audiology appointments. That is set against the fact that the national hearing loss charity the RNID reports that about 70% of people who go private receive hearing aids or support within two weeks. Plainly, we are seeing that when community audiology breaks down, patients wait longer for appointments, continuity of care is lost, and those who cannot afford to go private get left behind.
That is not supporting the transition—from hospital to community, and from treatment to prevention—that the Government want. If the NHS is truly to prevent hearing loss in the community, community audiology must work for patients every time, and that includes in rural and coastal areas such as the one I represent.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for securing this interesting debate, and I declare a series of interests. I am an ear, nose and throat surgeon, so I have been interested in audiology for 40 years. In this place, I chair the deafness all-party parliamentary group. Until I came here, I was the chair of the Norfolk Deaf Association, which is also called Hear for Norfolk, and I will say a bit about that as we go on. I have worked overseas dealing with patients with hearing loss, and I have been a specialist ear surgeon for 30 years or so. Audiology has really been much of my life.
As many Members have already said, deafness is a hugely common problem and is often much neglected. The statistics that have been cited regarding the percentage of elderly people who begin to develop hearing loss are quite familiar to me. What happens is that couples age together, but they might not always appreciate that fact. There is the story of the man who decides to test his wife’s hearing. He comes up behind her and says, “Mavis?” There is no response, so he says, “Mavis”, then “Mavis!”. She turns around and says, “For the third time, what is it that you want?” It is very familiar to me that many elderly people have hearing loss.
As I think has already been said today, about 2 million people in the country use hearing aids. There are probably about 6 million people in the country who would benefit from a hearing aid and probably about another 2 million hearing aids that are in drawers; they have been distributed to people, but are simply not used. Some people have a lot of hearing aids. They come in and say, “I’ve got all these hearing aids. None of them are any use, doctor.”
The story of NHS hearing aids is that we started with great big cream-coloured plastic boxes with little plaited wires that led to earphones; some of us will remember children at school who had those. Then, of course, the so-called BE hearing aids came later. When I was a young ENT surgeon, I never knew what “BE” stood for. A few years later, somebody told me that it just stood for “behind the ear”. Those were analogue hearing aids and they were quite good. They were extremely inexpensive and were distributed in their millions in NHS hospitals, which is how we ran hearing aid services.
Then, about 25 years ago, digital hearing aids were invented. They were not immediately available in NHS hospital clinics, because they were a little more expensive, so they started to be distributed by private hearing aid providers that sprung up all over the place. Members will know that in many high streets there is an audiology service and in the window there will be one hearing aid in a little box on a felt cushion. Curiously, hardly anybody ever goes in and out of those services. The reason is that those companies do not need to sell many hearing aids to stay in business because of the difference in cost. The digital hearing aids provided by those private providers often cost in the thousands, so they need to sell a hearing aid only once or twice a week to stay in business. At first, those hearing aids were a bit better than the ones we could provide in the hospitals.
Some time later, we began to distribute digital hearing aids through the NHS, which was brilliant. People would come to me and ask, “Do you think I should get a private hearing aid?”, and I would say something like, “Well, you can get a private hearing aid, but it is a bit like a hi-fi.” Someone can go to Argos and get a hi-fi or they can go to Bang & Olufsen and get a hi-fi. There is a big difference in price and they do actually sound quite different. I would say to people, “The hearing aids that we can give you are like John Lewis hearing aids; they are pretty good, and they are good enough for most people. I don’t think you should go and spend £4,000 on two private hearing aids. You should have the hearing aids that I can give you for nothing in my NHS clinic, because most people will be very happy with that.”
That was the model we used until a particular Government came along—I cannot remember which one—and decided that we ought to have something called the “any qualified provider”, or AQP, system. Suddenly, all sorts of people could provide hearing aids willy-nilly. We had a different acronym for it: “any willing provider”. Anyone who wanted to provide hearing aids could do so because, as has been said, there was not a particularly close supervisory mechanism. I have a feeling that anybody could set themselves up as a hearing aid provider, if they wanted to. We had this completely variable system in which some people spent large amounts of money on hearing aids that they kept in a drawer, and some people received hearing aids for nothing from hospital services.
That was how we went on, until somebody mentioned earwax. As some people may remember, general practices used to remove earwax with large stainless steel syringes that had a spout on the end. Those procedures were done by nurses until about 2012 when it stopped being part of the GP contract. There was a problem with the syringe: the little stainless steel nozzle on its end could become a bit worn, so it would not be completely connected. As a result, when somebody pushed the syringe, the stainless steel nozzle could fly off into the ear. I have repaired numerous eardrums over the years that had been smashed by syringing, so that system was not completely without its problems. Of course, we had aural care nurses in hospitals looking after patients and coming to take out their earwax, or if a patient had undergone an ear operation, the nurse would have to clean out their mastoid cavities.
We then, however, began to see all sorts of community providers of earwax services, sometimes set up by people who had been nurses in ear clinics, and sometimes set up by somebody from another occupation—they could have been a Member of Parliament who decided that they were now going to do earwax removal. There was a fee to be gathered from this, and some people did fairly well from removing earwax, but the provision was of very variable quality.
I would like to talk about Hear for Norfolk, or the Norfolk Deaf Association, which I chaired for quite a few years before I came here. It is a community-based audiology service that employs qualified nurses who have previously worked in NHS hospitals, and they perform what we call aural care, which includes removing earwax. People can just turn up to have that done; if they are referred by their GP, it is free on the NHS as there is a contract, or they can pay £50. We have vans that go around the district into nursing homes and small villages to do that work.
We now have a contract for hearing aid provision from the NHS, meaning that our not-for-profit charity provides thousands of hearing aids and treats thousands of patients in a community-based setting. I think that such a model could be developed and rolled out around the country so we have community-based, county-wide, not-for-profit aural care services that provide hearing aids.
I am not confident about simply distributing the contracts for hearing aid provision to a whole lot of private providers—Specsavers is one but there are many others—because the quality of their services is variable, and there will always be an incentive to provide private hearing aids. If someone walks into a service, they will be told, “Well, you can have this NHS hearing aid, but you know what? You could have this private one.”
Sir Edward Leigh
The hon. Gentleman is giving an absolutely brilliant speech. It is such a pleasure to hear a Member of Parliament speaking from direct, personal experience. I want to emphasise one important point that might come out of this debate: a lot of people are paying a lot of money for private hearing aids, but I know from personal experience that, nowadays, NHS hearing aids are perfectly satisfactory.
Peter Prinsley
I could not agree more, given the number of people who have come to me with handfuls of hearing aids on which they have spent thousands of pounds, telling me that they are just not working—and there is no proper follow-up for many of those people.
The issue with a hearing aid is that it needs to be looked after: it has a mould, it has batteries and it needs cleaning, so there needs to be an arrangement for follow-up. That is the sort of thing that an organisation such as the Norfolk Deaf Association, or Hear for Norfolk, is able to provide—it knows that that needs to happen. We need to be cautious about the quality of community audiology provision. We must not think that just because we are distributing it to respected private providers such as Specsavers, we are necessarily doing the right thing.
It has rightly been said that there is no national lead for audiology. Audiology is in a pickle, and it would be brilliant to get a proper national lead for audiology in the Department of Health and Social Care. There are issues with shortages of audiologists, but when questionnaires ask which healthcare professionals—or even which professionals—have the happiest lives, audiologists come out right at the top. Audiology is a particularly lovely occupation because people come in deaf and you send them out hearing. You hardly ever make them worse; it is not like going to the dentist, where it hurts. There is really nothing not to like about doing audiology, and it is a very interesting career, so I would like us to think of ways of encouraging people into it.
There is a bit of a confusion between medical practitioners and audiologists. The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) referred to the issues relating to how we recruit medical practitioners from overseas. I am not aware that we are recruiting large numbers of audiologists from overseas; I actually think that we are not, although we did have audiologists who came from the EU when we were members of it. We can train enough of our own audiologists, but we need to get on and organise it.
I could talk about this for the rest of the day but it will be Christmas soon, so I shall sit down. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip again for securing this important debate.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. This is an important debate, secured by the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), but it is quite something to have to follow an eminent and experienced ENT surgeon, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), when speaking about hearing and hearing loss—especially as I am just a rudimentary vet.
It is quite common that people bring in a dog that they assume has hearing loss because it can no longer hear its name being called in the park, yet for some reason it can still hear a treat packet or a fridge being opened in another room. On comparative anatomy, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket may be interested to hear that one reason why up to 20% of a caseload in a day of treating small animals can be on ear-related issues is that in humans the ear canal goes straight to the eardrum whereas in dogs it bends around 90° before it gets to the eardrum. Around that corner it is often quite warm and moist, and a lot of bacteria and yeast grow in those conditions.
Peter Prinsley
I am very interested in the story of dogs and the shape of a dog’s ear canal; that is such a helpful explanation. I was often brought dogs, particularly spaniels with big floppy ears, who had ear infections and blockages, and I was always puzzled why it was that the dogs got into such difficulties. The hon. Gentleman’s explanation of the right angle at the bottom of the ear canal is so helpful and I thank him for it.
Dr Chambers
I am honoured to have educated an ENT surgeon. Spaniels do have worse ear problems, given that there is a lack of airflow, and one thing that vets can get experienced at is taking a swab so that we are not using unnecessary antibiotics or inappropriate antibiotics. With a bit of experience, it is fairly easy to smell the difference between Malassezia yeast, pseudomonas bacterial infection or streptococcus intermedius—to anyone who thinks being a vet is glamorous, I say, “Spend a day sniffing ears to determine what type of microbes are down there, and it will change your mind.”
It is very interesting that many Members spoke today about the impact of hearing loss on dementia. We know that dementia is multifactorial—there is no single cause—but certainly my father had hearing loss for a long time, and he developed dementia. Hearing loss certainly affected his quality of life, dementia aside. He lost the confidence to go out to socialise and barely left the farm unless he had to. We are pretty sure that a significant factor in that was that he felt he could not hear what other people were saying. He could not perform business at the market as he used to, because markets are very noisy places.
The Father of the House touched on the fact that one in three adults have either deafness, tinnitus or some other type of hearing issue. What surprised me was that only 38% of people who suspect that they have hearing loss themselves have contacted a professional about it. I read that stat and was quite surprised, but I then realised that for years my partner Emma and other family members have often said, “Why do you have the TV so loud?”. I have also often noticed in a pub everyone else is talking, and I find it really hard to hear the conversation over any external noise, yet I have never gone along and had a hearing test. Quite clearly, I do not hear as well as everyone else in my vicinity, so I should probably get one. That could be a new year’s resolution for me—to go and work out whether I actually have some kind of hearing issues as well.
I also note the weight given to the importance of community audiology, especially when such a high percentage of hearing loss is age-related. Those people have no need to go to a hospital to get the initial assessment, and community audiology could free up hospital time for children and other people with more acute hearing issues that need to be investigated. Audiology is one of the worst performing diagnostic services in the NHS for speed of assessment, with 40% of patients waiting more than six weeks simply for the initial assessment. That is one reason respondents to the British and Irish Hearing Instrument Manufacturers Association are advocating for open self-referral and expanded community clinics simply to minimise those delays. Delivering audiology services in the community costs 15 to 20% less than from a hospital, so it is an economically sensible model as well.
We often call for more community-based services for a whole variety of medical issues to keep costs down. It should be the default for most people with age-related hearing loss. We also urge the Government to consider trialling hearing tests as part of routine health checks for people over 70 and at-risk groups and to investigate how best to support everyone, from GP surgeries to high street pharmacists and opticians, to deliver free earwax removal. They are already being successfully run by some GP practices with positive impacts on health outcomes, and the cost can be small, especially where GPs co-ordinate to pay for a service that covers a large area.
Sir Edward Leigh
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point that we often hear about national screening programmes. It has just occurred to me that if everybody over the age of 70 was sent a text message through the NHS, summoning them into a screening programme, we could make huge advances in this area, particularly with things such as dementia—because, as he made clear, many people are either embarrassed by hearing loss, or not aware that they have it.
Dr Chambers
I completely agree. As we approach the busiest and loudest time of the year and every shop and pub has music playing, which is fun for most people, it is a good time to urge people to go for a hearing test in the new year, as I will be doing. We urge the Government to look at supporting community-based services so that everyone can get the hearing assessment they need. People need information to be able to act, and if someone does not know their hearing status, they will not know what other problems they will be dealing with in the future.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers, and I wish you and your team a merry Christmas. I thank the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for inadvertently creating what seems like a medical symposium; I feel as if I am back at one of my Christmas grand rounds—they often used to pick something a little bit strange and wacky to debate. I did not quite expect to be talking about spaniels’ ear canals, but I enjoyed the flashback none the less.
The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) rightly talked about couples. When I was a GP, I saw couples become yin and yang, supporting each other on the basis of who had the hearing loss, who had the brains and who had the dexterity. If one of those problems is not sorted, there can be real impacts for the others. We should consider that when we deal with patients. The hon. Gentleman’s point about drawers of waste was a personal hobby horse of mine too—though it was not hearing aids, but often medication brought back to me, or seeing thousands of bandages or eye drops left over when I went on home visits, for example. That is a really important point and the NHS is not very good at picking up on it.
I thank the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for raising the issue of stigma. My grandfather was particularly bad and stubbornly did not want to get a hearing aid, and even when he did get it, he would not wear it. My right hon. Friend also joked about his wife not hearing him, which reminded me of “Captain Corelli’s Mandolin”; at the start of the film, the pea is taken out of the ear, but at the end, because of all the nagging, he is desperate to get the pea reinserted.
My right hon. Friend also raised the issue of workforce, which is incredibly important when it comes to trying to solve some of these problems. The hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip set out clearly and coherently both the landscape and where we find ourselves. That is really important because, when people think about care delivered close to home, hearing loss services are among some of the most visible examples on the high street and in our community settings across the country. I visited the Specsavers on Hinckley’s high street, as well as the pharmacy in Newbold Verdon, only a couple of months ago to see what they provide.
There is a real opportunity to bring care towards people, which makes high streets a good bellwether for this Government’s ambition on prevention and community care and how that is being translated into practice. There are three issues I would like to press the Minister on. The first is the funding pressures on the ICBs, the second is access and self-referral, and the third is national oversight and data.
On access and self-referral, under previous NHS operational planning guidance, ICBs were asked to increase direct access and self-referrals into audiology services. That was a good move; it meant that people concerned about their hearing could go straight to specialist care without needing to see a GP first. In many areas, that has been a success. However, as we heard during the debate, 12 ICBs that commission hearing loss services still require a GP referral. That adds delays for patients and places unnecessary pressure on general practice, not necessarily for any clinical benefit. Against that backdrop, it is a little disappointing to see that self-referral was not included in the most recent operational planning guidance for 2025-26, nor in the medium-term planning framework. The question is why. Would the Minister explain why self-referrals seem to have been deprioritised, and what concrete steps the Government are taking to ensure that access to audiology does not depend simply on where someone lives?
On funding pressures and core services, Members have rightly highlighted the significant variation in access to routine audiology services, particularly earwax removal. In too many parts of the country, people are either being pushed back to the ENT departments or told to pay privately. I am glad that we have an eminent surgeon in the Chamber, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket; from a GP’s perspective, I understand why some were reluctant to go back to having their ears syringed and I often dealt with complaints about why it was not suitable, as suction is the gold standard.
The question is how we provide that in a way that is deliverable to the community and provides to the patients, but is also at least cost-neutral for primary or secondary care. There is a conundrum there. That situation will be made worse, as the Father of the House pointed out, by our ageing population. When ICBs are under pressure and their budgets are changing—they are being cut by 50%—how do we ensure that that it is deliverable? That poses the question of how sustainable it is to place the responsibility of the full range of audiology services on ICBs, considering they are under constraints, and how will the Government square that circle. There is also the opportunity of public-private partnerships and neighbourhood centres to help to deliver audiology services. That could come as sites or services. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out what his vision is in this space, considering we are trying to take a leftwards shift.
There are also opportunities for new thinking. As I mentioned, I went to see a pharmacist. What supports have been put in place for new providers to come in? Pharmacists seem keen to be able to take on more services, and they often have sites directly in the heart of our communities—the closest place to our residents. Is there some consideration of what can be done to innovate in that space?
On data, oversight and accountability, one of the most striking features of audiology is how difficult it is to assess the performance nationally. The Government were right to set out their ambition to meet the NHS standard that 92% of people should wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to treatment, and in most specialties we can clearly see how the system is performing against that ambition. However, in audiology it is harder, especially as the referral-to-treatment waiting time data, which was paused during the pandemic for understandable reasons, has since been retired by NHS England.
Looking ahead, given that the Government have confirmed their intention to bring forward legislation to abolish NHS England, with the statutory functions being taken into the system, will the Minister consider looking again at reinstating the referral-to-treatment waiting time data for direct audiology as a way to monitor the leftward shift that the Government are pushing for? If so, will that be done at ICB level or under the Department of Health and Social Care?
I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify two points. First, when does the Government expect to introduce the legislation in 2026? Secondly, it would be helpful to understand when we can expect the workforce plan: we were told that it was coming in the summer, then the autumn and, now that we are on the last day of business before Christmas, I expect it is coming in the new year. Knowing when that plan is coming, and how audiology will play a part in that, is really important.
Given the Kingdon review only came forward in November, it is unfair of me to ask whether the Government have fully assessed it yet. The review had 12 recommendations and also pointed out the oversight, and there is a question about how that will be resolved. With all the changes to ICBs, NHS England and the Kingdon review, I would be grateful to know when we will likely hear whether all recommendations have been accepted and will be resolved.
Audiology may not always attract attention in this House, but it is a vital part of our community healthcare and a real test of the Government’s commitment to prevention and access. I hope the Minister can provide clarity on the questions I have asked today. I wish you, Mr Vickers, your team, your colleagues, everyone in this House and my constituents a very merry Christmas.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) and congratulating him on securing this important debate. Having now been in the same room as a specialist in ear, nose and throat, a former GP and a vet, I am not sure that I am entirely qualified, and I approach this debate with some trepidation. I certainly enjoyed the debate and, as the Father of the House rightly said, it was a privilege to be able to hear some of the insights, direct experience and expertise of hon. Friends and Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip has also been doing a huge amount of good work in promoting the flu vaccine ahead of winter, in his constituency and more widely, and I pay tribute to him for that. It was a pleasure to visit his constituency a few weeks ago, where I met the incredible team at the Pembroke centre in Ruislip Manor to hear about how they are delivering, designing and developing their thoughts about neighbourhood health hubs and the neighbourhood health service, which will be a pivotal part of our 10-year plan.
The Royal National Institute for Deaf People estimates that one in five people in the UK—almost 12 million adults—are deaf, have hearing loss or experience tinnitus, and by 2035 that figure is projected to rise to over 14 million. For people with cognitive disabilities, hearing loss can have a real impact on their quality of life, causing confusion for people with dementia, making communication and social interaction more difficult and increasing loneliness and isolation.
That is why our community audiology services are so important. They represent a comprehensive range of hearing care delivered in local, accessible settings, such as GP surgeries, community clinics and community diagnostic centres. They help people of all ages, offering assessments, hearing aid fittings and support for those with tinnitus and balance issues. They advise on equipment such as amplified telephones and alerting devices, while working alongside occupational therapists to support people to stay independent. They form part of a wider team with speech, language and other community services, acute care, and the ear, nose and throat department for issues that cannot be managed in the community.
Community audiology services face challenges, particularly on waiting lists and inequality of provision. Members across the Chamber raised some of those points. The Father of the House rightly pointed out that there are 6.7 million people who should use a hearing aid but do not. We must overcome the stigma associated with hearing loss.
The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) was right to talk about the connection between hearing loss and the propensity for falls. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) shared his tremendous expertise as an ear, nose and throat surgeon, and I thank him for his insights about the Hear for Norfolk project, which is a very interesting model indeed. Perhaps we can follow up on it in the new year.
The hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) gave a remarkable exposition on hearing loss in dogs—I have to say that I did not have that on my bingo card for this afternoon—from which we all learned a tremendous amount. He also made a number of important points about hearing loss in humans, and we absolutely take them on board.
The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) rattled off a number of questions for me, and I desperately tried keep track of them. I got some of them and did not get others, so I will happily write to him on the points that I am unable to address now. He raised an important point about self-referral, which of course depends on local commissioning arrangements. There is inequality and unwarranted variation in the ability to self-refer. We want more self-referral. We think there are opportunities in upgrading the functionality of the NHS app. Our objective is absolutely to be able to do this without having to go through a GP. There are some technology-related solutions, but I want to assure him that there is no conscious decision from the Government to deprioritise self-referral; I just think that there are some variations.
The old chestnut that we are constantly trying to crack is around devolving to ICBs the power and agency that they should have because they are closest to the health needs of their population, while ensuring that they are clear about the outcomes, frameworks and standards that we expect. We honestly hold our hands up and say that we have not got that right in all cases, but we are committed to self-referral as a principle and as a really important part of the shift from hospital to community.
On ICB budgets, we have secured £6 billion through the spending review process for capital upgrades. A lot of that will help us to ramp up what we are doing on community diagnostics. That is one way to square the circle around the investment that we need on the ground for ICBs to be able to do more in terms of the services they provide by improving the equipment, the kit and the technology they have. Part of the answer to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth’s question relates to capital investment really helping to boost the services provided.
The workforce plan is coming in the spring of 2026. I absolutely hear what the hon. Member says about the need to move forward on that. It has been a complex process. Obviously some of the changes and restructuring around what we are doing on NHS England have also had an impact on the process of putting the workforce plan together, but I am reliably informed that that will be in the spring of 2026.
Timely access and effective support to services can make all the difference to someone’s quality of life, wellbeing and independence. As part of our effort to shift care from hospital to home, this Government want to support people to live independently in the community, and community audiology will play an essential part in making that happen. Community audiology is commissioned locally by integrated care boards. Funding is allocated to ICBs by NHS England. Each ICB commissions the services it needs for its local area, taking into account its annual budget, planning guidance and the wider needs of the people that it serves.
This year, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirmed the Government’s commitment to getting our NHS back on its feet and fit for the future, with day-to-day spending increasing by £29 billion in real terms over the next five years. By the end of this Parliament, the NHS resource budget will reach £226 billion. That funding will support the growing demand for community health services, including audiology. It will help integrated care boards to expand diagnostic capacity, invest in local estates and equipment, and sustain the workforce needed to deliver high quality hearing care for patients of all ages. For the first time, we have published an overview of the core community health services, which include audiology, for ICBs to consider when planning for their local populations and commissioning processes.
Our medium-term planning framework for the next financial years sets out our ambition to bring waiting times over 18 weeks down, develop plans to bring waits over 52 weeks to zero, and to increase capacity to meet growth in demand, which is expected to be around 3% nationally every year. We are asking systems to seek every opportunity to improve productivity and get care closer to home, from getting teams the latest digital tools and equipment they need so they can connect remotely to health systems and patients, to expanding point-of-care testing in the community. Systems are also asked to ensure that all providers in acute, community and mental health sectors are onboarded to the NHS federated data platform and use its core products.
Our 10-year health plan sets out how we would make the shift from analogue to digital by making the NHS app the digital front door to services. We will make it easier for patients to access audiology services through self-referral. This will transform the working lives of GPs, letting them focus on care where they provide the highest value-add. This is how we will make sure everyone can self-refer—not just the most confident and health-literate. Patients can access NIH-funded audiology services directly without having to wait for a referral from their GP. That means improved access to care and shorter waiting times.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip and other hon. Friends stood, as I did, on a manifesto to halve health inequality between the richest and poorest areas of our country. I know he will agree that access should not be based on where we live. A key part of our elective reform plan, published at the start of the year, is transforming and expanding diagnostic services so we can reduce waiting times for tests and bring down overall waits. NHS England is working closely with services to improve access to self-referral options, aiming for a more consistent offer right across the country.
Dr Luke Evans
I am grateful that a comprehensive plan is coming forward. One problem we have is joining the leadership up. The Kingdon review, which was launched in May and finished in November, made 12 recommendations that will help align with all the missions the Minister is bringing forward. Can he tell us when the Kingdon review will be accepted and analysed by the Government, and their position on the recommendations, because it is a key thread to delivering all the ambition that he has rightly put forward?
Stephen Kinnock
I can—we are absolutely committed to responding to the Kingdon review next year. We are working on pulling together our response to the report. It is extremely important, and there are serious lessons to be learned from it. We think Dr Kingdon has done an excellent piece of work, and we are very keen to build on it and take it forward.
Community diagnostics, such as local hearing assessment clinics and testing in community settings, are being rolled out more widely through the expansion of our community diagnostic centres. We are opening more of these centres—12 hours a day, seven days a week, offering more same-day tests, consultations and a wider range of diagnostics. I am very proud that we now have 170 CDCs across England.
Almost 2 million audiology assessments have been carried out by NHS staff since this Government took office, including 136,000 tests in October—the highest number of audiology tests for a single month in the history of the NHS. This is a crucial step in supporting the NHS to meet its constitutional standards and deliver quicker care to patients. I also want to salute the work of the Welsh Government, who have been pioneers in many respects with their plan, published this week, showing how Wales is also leading in audiology services on care in the community, training and infrastructure.
The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth asked about the Kingdon report, and in this debate on audiology services, I must take this opportunity to thank Dr Camilla Kingdon for the excellent review that she chaired into failures in children’s hearing services. As I have just told him, the Government are committed to responding to the recommendations made by Dr Kingdon, and we will publish a comprehensive response next year.
Community audiology services face challenges, with long waits and inconsistency in access to services, but we are taking action through the medium-term planning framework, by expanding community diagnostic centres and as an integral part of our 10-year plan. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip and I come from a political tradition based on solidarity, and this Government stand for a health service that leaves no person behind. I know that he shares my determination to get timely access to community audiology services for all 12 million of our compatriots who need them.
I thank my hon. Friend once again for bringing forward this extremely important debate, and I thank all Members who have spoken. It only remains for me to wish you, Mr Vickers, as well as your entire team and everyone else in the Chamber, all the very best for Christmas and the new year.
Danny Beales
We certainly heard about some issues today that I did not expect to be on the agenda. The waxiness or not of dogs’ ears will certainly stay with me for a while. I am glad that the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) clarified that he is a vet. I wondered whether checking dogs’ ears was a particularly Lib Dem thing to do to, so I am glad he clarified that he does it professionally rather than personally.
We have had contributions from experts across the health sector and experts by experience of hearing loss, and I think we covered many of the key issues for audiology, such as workforce challenges and occupational hearing loss, as well as rural areas, regional variation and unacceptable delays. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) made a powerful point about the importance of quality assurance of services. Yes, we want more community access, but it needs to be quality community access.
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), and the Minister for their kind remarks. I thank the Minister for visiting what he called the fantastic development of neighbourhood health services in Hillingdon. We are fortunate in that, as well as the developing neighbourhood hubs, we have an ICB community-based audiology service. Hillingdon is very fortunate in having community audiology services, and I hope such services will be provided in all ICB areas.
I welcome the Minister’s recognition of the importance of self-referral and the Government’s continued commitment to it. I also welcome his recognition of the need to deal with the issue of variation across the country. In his response, he mentioned the key opportunities in developing the workforce plan, which we expect in the spring, and this Government’s broader neighbourhood health agenda, and I hope that audiology will feature strongly in those developments.
Thank you, Mr Vickers, for your time and the Clerk for their time. I wish everyone a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered community audiology.
Wales
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Smith
Can the Minister say more about how the Government are reflecting the experiences of victims when tackling grooming gangs in Wales?
Anna McMorrin
Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising this critical matter. We are putting victims’ voices at the heart of the inquiry, because their voices must be heard, and we are accepting Baroness Casey’s recommendations in full, including the introduction of mandatory reporting, the creation of a new child protection authority and the ending of the three-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims.
[Official Report, 3 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 977.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin):
Anna McMorrin
Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising this critical matter. We are putting victims’ voices at the heart of the inquiry, because their voices must be heard, and we are accepting Baroness Casey’s recommendations in full, plus the introduction of mandatory reporting, and the creation of a new child protection authority. Earlier this year, we announced the ending of the three-year statute of limitations for relevant personal injury claims.
Defence
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Last week, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry told me:
“There are no other platforms within the Army’s armoured fleet which can fulfil the armoured reconnaissance role; Ajax has been specifically designed for this purpose.”
Our commitment to NATO includes two divisions. The first includes three manoeuvre brigades, with armoured and mechanised capabilities. With Ajax undeployable, we have no formation reconnaissance capability and therefore no deployable armoured brigade, thus we are not currently meeting our NATO obligation. Will the Minister clarify whether we still meet his NATO test without Ajax, whether we meet our NATO obligation more broadly, and, if he thinks we do, how?
Al Carns
As the hon. Member will recognise, a review of Ajax is under way. However, Ajax has been overspent and the key user requirements have changed and oscillated from left to right for the past 10 years. We have now taken this on and we recognise that we have to secure the capability to provide our armed forces with the very best. The reality is that Ukraine is teaching us that war is being fought very differently. It is not just about armour; as the hon. Member knows, it is about a mix of uncrewed systems and armoured systems, not one over the other.
[Official Report, 15 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 612.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns):
Al Carns
As the hon. Member will recognise, a review of Ajax is under way. However, Ajax has not been overspent but the key user requirements were over-specified. We have now taken this on and we recognise that we have to secure the capability to provide our armed forces with the very best. The reality is that Ukraine is teaching us that war is being fought very differently. It is not just about armour; as the hon. Member knows, it is about a mix of uncrewed systems and armoured systems, not one over the other.
Covid-19 Inquiry Response Costs
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
The UK covid-19 inquiry is examining the UK’s response to and impact of the pandemic. The Government are fully committed to supporting the work of the covid-19 inquiry and to learning lessons from the covid-19 pandemic to ensure the UK is better prepared for a future pandemic. Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Cumulative total for 2025-26 Cost of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff (including contingent labour costs) £5,004,000 £4,310,000 £9,314,000 Number of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff (full time equivalents) 248 207 N/A Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Cumulative total for 2025-26 Total legal costs £5,194,000 £6,186,000 £11,380,000
The Government recognise the unprecedented and wholly exceptional circumstances of the pandemic. The inquiry is therefore unprecedented in its scope, complexity and profile.
The independent UK covid-19 inquiry publishes its own running costs quarterly. The chair is under a statutory obligation to avoid unnecessary costs in the inquiry’s work, and she has been clear as to her intention to complete her work as quickly and efficiently as possible.
I would like to update the House on the costs to the UK Government associated with responding to the UK covid-19 inquiry. Figures provided are based upon those from a selection of the most relevant Departments and are not based on a complete set of departmental figures, and are not precise figures for accounting purposes. Ensuring a comprehensive and timely response to the inquiry requires significant input from a number of key Government Departments, including, but not limited to, the Cabinet Office, the Department of Health and Social Care, the UK Health Security Agency, the Home Office and His Majesty’s Treasury, many of which are supported by the Government Legal Department. While every effort has been made to ensure a robust methodology, complexities remain in trying to quantify the time and costs dedicated to the inquiry alone.
It should be noted that alongside full-time resource within Departments, inquiry response teams draw on expertise from across their organisations. These costs, including costs associated with staff taking time to provide written or oral evidence, are not included in the costs below.
Breakdown of staff and costs
The Government response to the UK covid-19 inquiry is led by inquiry response units across Departments. The associated staff costs for Q2 2025-26 are below.
Q2 number of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff—207 full time equivalents.
Q2 cost of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff—£4,310,000 (including contingent labour costs).
Financial year 2025-26 (Q1 + Q2), total cost of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff—£9,314,000 (including contingent labour costs).
Total inquiry response unit legal costs
Inquiry response units across Government Departments are supported by the Government Legal Department, co-partnering firms of solicitors, and legal counsel. The associated legal costs (excluding internal departmental advisory legal costs) for Q2 2025-26 are below.
Q2 legal costs—£6,186,000
Financial year 2025-26 (Q1 + Q2), total legal costs—£11,380,000
[HCWS1207]
Inheritance tax relief for infected blood compensation payments
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
At Budget 2025, the Government announced that they would extend the existing relief from inheritance tax to compensation payments made from the infected blood compensation scheme and the infected blood interim compensation payment scheme. A tax information and impact note has been published and can be found here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inheritance-tax-and-infected-blood-compensation-payments
Prior to these changes, infected blood compensation payments were already relieved from IHT on the death of the infected or affected person eligible for compensation. However, if the infected or affected person had died before the compensation payment was received, the IHT relief did not extend to the estate of whoever received the payment following their own death (the “first living recipient”).
The Finance Bill 2025-26 contains a power to make changes to the IHT treatment of infected blood compensation schemes in secondary legislation. The Government will lay regulations before Parliament, subject to parliamentary approval of the Bill, and this statement sets out what this means in practical terms, and what action impacted individuals should take ahead of regulations being made.
Changes for first living recipients
First living recipients will be able to pass on the value of infected blood compensation payments upon their death without attracting an IHT charge. This change will apply retrospectively.
Alternatively, first living recipients can pass on some, or all, of their compensation payment during their lifetime as a “qualifying gift”. When first living recipients make a qualifying gift, the compensation will be treated as never having formed part of their estate. As a result, qualifying gifts will not attract an IHT charge, and the IHT relief on death for the compensation transferred will also pass to the recipient of the qualifying gift.
If the compensation payment was made before 4 December 2025, the first living recipient will have two years from 4 December 2025 to make any qualifying gifts. If the compensation payment is made after 4 December 2025, the first living recipient will have two years from the date of payment to make any qualifying gifts.
Any such qualifying gifts must be recorded in writing and signed by the first living recipient, even if the gift has already been made.
Changes for infected and affected people
Any compensation in an infected or affected person’s estate on death will continue to be relieved from IHT. Lifetime transfers of compensation payments made by infected or affected people will not attract an IHT charge. This change will apply retrospectively to qualifying gifts of infected blood compensation payments that have already been made by an infected or affected person. Any such gifts must be recorded in writing and signed by the infected or affected person, even if the gift has already been made.
Collection and refunds of IHT on infected blood compensation payments
As of 26 November 2025, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will no longer collect IHT on infected blood compensation payments in the circumstances set out above.
HMRC will also refund any overpaid amounts of IHT made before these changes were announced. Personal representatives who have paid IHT on infected blood compensation payments can claim a refund by submitting a corrective account using form C4, which is available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inheritance-tax-corrective-account-c4
Customers who require assistance with this process can contact HMRC’s IHT helpline for support. Contact details are available at:
https://www.gov.uk/find-hmrc-contacts/inheritance-tax-general-enquiries
[HCWS1209]
Ajax Armoured Vehicle Investigation
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I am updating Parliament before Christmas recess on the British Army’s armoured cavalry programme, known as Ajax. The safety of our service personnel remains a top priority for me and for the Ministry of Defence.
On 26 November 2025, after around 30 service personnel operating Ajax reported noise and vibration symptoms during a training exercise, I confirmed to the House that I had directed a pause of the use of Ajax for training and exercising while a safety investigation is carried out. This safety investigation is ongoing. Service personnel who reported noise and vibration symptoms during Exercise Titan Storm were operating across 23 vehicles. All these vehicles have now undergone a 45-point inspection. 13 of the vehicles have undergone further inspections specifically relating to the potential cause of noise and vibration and the remaining 10 vehicles will undergo these tests. The outcome of these inspections will be reported to Ministers in the new year.
In the House on 8 December 2025, I confirmed that in addition to the Army’s safety investigation, a Defence Accident Investigation Branch investigation is also under way—this also remains ongoing. I also confirmed that I had directed a ministerial review be carried out. I expect the outcomes of this review very shortly.
On 8 December, I set out my intention to bring together an independent group of experts to add expertise and external challenge to our work, and we are making progress on this.
The pause on use of Ajax for training and exercising was implemented immediately. Reliability growth trials have continued at Bovington training area to provide data to inform the ongoing investigations. During the trials on 12 December 2025, one soldier reported vibration symptoms. The individual did not require hospitalisation and is being provided with the appropriate medical support. The vehicle involved was not one of the 23 vehicles whose personnel reported issues during Exercise Titan Storm, but was instead part of the RGT to establish a safety baseline for comparison. The vehicle was immediately removed from the trials and will undergo a thorough investigation.
This additional report of an injury is a serious concern to me, so out of an abundance of caution and to ensure the safety of our personnel, I have directed a pause on all Ajax trials. This is in addition to the ongoing pause for training and exercising. The pause to the trials will allow time for the individual’s symptoms to be investigated and for the vehicle to be thoroughly inspected. In the new year, I will assess if trials can be restarted.
The investigation teams are conducting their work thoroughly and at pace and they must be given the time and space required to ensure that all information and evidence is considered. Findings from the investigations into Ajax will be closely aligned to decisions in the defence investment plan.
I met General Dynamics last week and I continue to have regular meetings with the Chief of the General Staff, with the Army and with officials.
As I told Parliament last week, it is unacceptable for the safety of our personnel to be at risk. I will provide further updates to the House in due course.
[HCWS1212]
Nuclear Energy Infrastructure National Policy Statement
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
Today I am pleased to announce we have designated the national policy statement for nuclear energy generation, EN-7, according to the Planning Act 2008. EN-7 now provides the planning framework for all nationally significant infrastructure projects proposing to use nuclear fission to generate energy, replacing EN-6, which applied to projects deployable by the end of 2025.
This marks an important milestone in delivering our ambition to make the UK a clean energy superpower, in part through an expansion and diversification of the UK nuclear energy industry. The designation of EN-7 builds on the momentum of recent Government action, including the publication of the Prime Minister’s strategic steer to the nuclear sector following the report from the nuclear regulatory taskforce. Our implementation of the report’s recommendations will shape a modernised, more agile regulatory environment, while maintaining the UK’s high standards of safety, security, and environmental protection.
Alongside EN-7, we will be publishing the EN-7 supplementary information. This document clarifies the planning and regulatory requirements for nuclear energy projects, helping applicants to navigate the process for applying for development consent, and to engage effectively with regulators and expert consultees. By providing practical advice, the supplementary information aims to streamline project delivery, reduce uncertainty, and support robust safety and environmental standards. It will be updated regularly to reflect stakeholder feedback, ensuring it remains a valuable resource for all involved.
The EN-7 and supporting documents, including the EN-7 supplementary information, are available on gov.uk.
[HCWS1208]
Independent Farm Profitability Review
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
A strong domestic farming sector is, and always will be, a linchpin for national security. As Secretary of State, I will always champion British farming and rural communities. I have visited farms up and down the country, and in all these interactions, I have seen the ingenuity, determination and pride that defines our British farming communities. Whether the farming is arable, livestock, horticulture or mixed enterprise, the message I hear consistently is that to become profitable, productive and resilient, farmers need clarity and certainty from the Government. That is exactly what I intend to deliver.
Today, I am publishing Baroness Batters’ independent farming profitability review. The Government commissioned this review to examine how we can support farm businesses to become more profitable. Doing so is essential for our country’s economic growth and food security, enabling a stronger, more productive domestic farming sector that also helps keep high-quality British food on shelves for consumers who want to buy British.
I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Baroness Batters for her exemplary efforts in leading this review. Drawing on her years of experience and deep understanding of working farms, alongside months of research and stakeholder engagement, she has produced a breadth of work that will help in the development of our long-term 25-year road map for the sector.
The review makes 57 recommendations and highlights the sector’s potential to stand at the heart of Britain’s economic renewal. It calls for stronger partnership between the Government and industry, better data to drive productivity, smarter regulation, and more targeted innovation themes, which are central to this Government’s plan for change and essential to my vision to grow the rural economy.
One theme stands out very strongly from the review, and that is the need for agriculture, the food industry and the Government to work in partnership. I could not agree more. That is why, today, I am establishing a new farming and food partnership board, which I will chair, alongside the farming Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), as deputy. It will be about serious action and a strong voice at the centre of the Government bringing together senior leaders in farming, food, retail, and finance.
The new board will help shape decisions, remove barriers to investment and tackle the challenges the sector faces. This is a key element of our cross-Government food strategy.
Importantly, the board will not take a one-size-fits-all approach. It will focus on specific agricultural sectors, tailoring growth in sectors like horticulture and in poultry, where there is significant untapped potential to increase homegrown production. I want to unlock the untapped opportunities in specific parts of the food chain and deliver specific sector plans.
I want to give farmers confidence to grow and invest. Most farmers are small and medium sized business owners, as well as custodians of the land, and they want to sell their produce for the best price and have a long and sustainable future. Helping them do so strengthens the whole food chain—supporting households with reliable, affordable access to British produce at a time when the cost of living remains a concern for many families.
Alongside the launch of the board, the Government are today setting out immediate actions to back farm businesses:
This week, the Housing Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), and I took action to cut wasteful bureaucracy, and are changing planning rules to make food production a priority for councils. This will mean the system is more supportive of the infrastructure farmers need. That is a win for getting more on-farm reservoirs, greenhouses, polytunnels and farm shops built quicker.
We are tackling barriers to private finance, bringing together farmers, agrifood businesses and major financial institutions to attract investment into farm transformation and productivity and nature.
We are stepping up action on supply chain fairness, including continued scrutiny of unfair practices and consideration of changes to Groceries Code Adjudicator oversight.
The Government can and must create opportunities for farmers beyond our own shores. We are creating opportunities overseas through our trade deals for our world-class food and drink, from British beef in the US to a whole range of produce in India.
But we can go further. Our global network of agriculture attachés has unlocked an estimated £100 million in export deals this year alone, and there is more potential out there. I am going further and setting up dedicated trade missions for British agriculture, so that farmers and growers can get their products to new markets overseas.
This is just the start. Our 25-year farming road map will give farmers clarity and confidence for the future. We are doing more than ever—cutting bureaucracy, driving investment, opening global markets—because British farming matters not just for rural communities, but for every household that values affordable, homegrown British food.
Today’s announcements form a core part of the Government’s overall food strategy, focused on backing British farming, strengthening food security and supporting profitable, resilient farm businesses for the long term.
In addition to the Government’s initial response set out here, we will carefully consider all of Baroness Batters’ recommendations as we continue to develop our 25-year farming road map which will be published in 2026.
[HCWS1204]
NHS Adult Gender Services: Independent Review
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Today, NHS England has published the independent review of NHS adult gender services, led by Dr David Levy. The review was commissioned by NHS England in June 2024 in response to a recommendation in the Cass review final report. The review has sought to pinpoint areas for improvement, drawing attention to where the quality of NHS adult gender dysphoria clinic services could be raised, and recognising the positive existing practice that can be shared across services.
To inform this review, Dr Levy visited all commissioned NHS adult GDCs from October to December 2024. The review included engagement with NHS clinicians, executive and management staff in the hosting trusts, current and former patients, and those on waiting lists.
Although the review acknowledges the positive signs of progress across GDCs, such as patients feeling heard and understood and a strong commitment by staff to patient care, it highlights the challenges faced by GDCs and recommends a co-ordinated system-wide approach for improvement. Key findings of the review are:
Poor productivity across many adult GDCs, coupled with increasing demand, has led to unacceptably long waiting times, signalling the urgent need for an expanded number of services and targeted improvement programmes to enhance efficiency and productivity.
Significant variation exists in the quality and productivity of clinics, pointing to the need for a standardised approach to care that incorporates holistic assessments and a complexity measure sensitive to individual patient circumstances.
The referral process into the GDCs would benefit from streamlining and it is recommended that the current system of self-referral is ended in favour of a single referral route via GPs.
GPs may not always have sufficient experience or confidence to fully support patients with gender dysphoria, particularly in relation to prescribing and monitoring hormone treatments. It calls for GDCs to take responsibility for initiating and managing hormone prescribing during the first year of treatment, prior to transferring care to primary services.
In response to the findings of this review, we and NHS England will take forward a set of immediate priorities:
Creating a new single, national waiting list for adult gender services to be implemented in April 2026.
Raising the referral threshold to 18 years to align with the age of discharge from the NHS children and young people’s service.
Bringing an end to self-referrals into the service and, in parallel, providing advice and guidance for those finding it difficult to secure a referral.
Establishing challenging but achievable productivity goals for every service that can then guide and inform the commissioning of additional services, underpinned by a clear understanding of the regional demand through the national waiting list.
We are making progress beyond this review. NHS England has increased the number of adult gender dysphoria clinics in England from seven to 12 since 2020, and has established a national quality improvement network for adult gender services. In order to support the wellbeing of patients awaiting their first appointment with a GDC, I previously announced the development of a “waiting well” pilot for patients on the waiting list for the GDC in the south-west.
I will place a copy of the review in the Library of both Houses. This Government have always made it clear that anyone accessing gender services deserves the highest quality of care and support, and to be treated with dignity and respect. The publication of this review marks a significant step forward in our commitment to ensuring safe, effective and evidence-based care for anyone accessing gender dysphoria services across the NHS.
[HCWS1214]
Manchester Arena Inquiry: Recommendations 7 and 8
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
Today the Government are launching a public consultation relating to the private security industry, specifically on Manchester arena inquiry monitored recommendations MR7 (in-house CCTV operatives should be licensed by the Security Industry Authority) and MR8 (security businesses should be licensed by the Security Industry Authority).
The safety and security of our citizens is the Government’s top priority, and private security operatives play a crucial role in that. They hold positions of responsibility, interact with vulnerable individuals—especially in the night-time economy—and can be first responders to terrorist incidents. It is therefore essential that high standards of regulatory oversight of private security are delivered consistently. This regulatory oversight is provided by the Security Industry Authority through its licensing regime, and the Manchester arena inquiry found that this regime could be extended to improve preparedness.
The consultation is open to the public, and is targeted at security businesses, in-house and SIA-licensed security operatives, in-house employers of security operatives, buyers of security, local and public authorities, and industry associations. It seeks views on a range of options to understand which, if any, should be implemented. These include regulatory and non-regulatory options, aimed at ensuring that any new costs and regulatory burdens are proportionate, consider the impact on business, and are highly effective in improving public safety.
The consultation will run for 12 weeks. A copy of the consultation document and consultation options assessment will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk.
[HCWS1211]
Manston Asylum Facility: Inquiry Terms of Reference
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
On 12 February 2025 the Government announced the establishment of a non-statutory inquiry to investigate and report on the decisions, actions and circumstances that led to the conditions encountered by those detained at the Manston short-term holding facility between 1 June 2022 and 22 November 2022.
A copy of the terms of reference for the inquiry was placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Since then, at the request of the senior coroner for Kent and Medway, HM Senior Coroner Patricia Harding, and after consulting the chair of the inquiry, Sophie Cartwright KC, the Home Secretary has agreed to expand the terms of reference for the inquiry to expressly include addressing how, and in what circumstances, Hussein Haseeb Ahmed came by his death on 19 November 2022.
In order to comply with section 6(3) of the Inquiries Act 2005, I will place a copy of the amended terms of reference in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1213]
Provisional Police Funding Settlement 2026-27
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
Total funding for police forces, including Counter Terrorism Policing, will be up to £19.5 billion in 2026-27, an increase of up to £798 million compared to the 2025-26 police funding settlement. Total funding to territorial police forces will be up to £18.3 billion, an increase of up to £746 million compared to 2025-26. This equates to a 4.2% cash increase and a 2.0% real terms increase for police forces. For police and crime commissioners in England the council tax referendum threshold will be £15 for a band D property.
Funding for Counter Terrorism Policing will increase by at least £52 million to £1.2 billion in 2026- 27. Police and crime commissioners will be notified separately of force-level funding allocations for Counter Terrorism Policing, which will not be made public for security reasons.
We will publish a police reform White Paper in early 2026 which will set out a vision to bring policing into the modern age with the technology, innovation and structures they need to ensure policing can focus on the crimes that matter to the public and to drive out waste and inefficiency. As with previous years, a copy of the “Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2026-27” will be laid before the House by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the new year.
An accompanying table that outlines policing bodies’ proposed total funding for 2026-27 can be viewed online: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2025-12-18/HCWS1216/
[HCWS1216]
Freehold Estates Consultations
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
For too many homeowners, the experience of living on a newly developed housing estate has been tainted by the hidden and enduring consequences of unadopted infrastructure. Roads, sewers, drains, green spaces, and other amenities that historically would have been maintained by the local authority or utility companies, are instead now routinely left to be managed by private estate management companies, often with little transparency or accountability.
In many cases, the quality of the amenities on such freehold estates is inferior to those adopted by the relevant public authority and falls far short of what people have a right to expect. Residential freeholders across the country frequently report open spaces not fit for purpose, roads left unsurfaced, and drainage systems which are often little more than open ditches. These issues blight people’s lives and with few of the rights to redress found in other markets and no ability to control the management of the estates on which they live, residents feel like they are treated as second-class homeowners.
The Competition and Markets Authority’s 2024 house building market study identified significant consumer detriment arising from the private management of unadopted public amenities on housing estates. It concluded that without Government intervention, this consumer detriment was likely to increase. This Government believe that homeowners living on freehold estates deserve a fair deal. That is why we pledged in our manifesto to act to bring the injustice of “fleecehold” private housing estates and unfair maintenance costs to an end.
Our objective is clear. We are determined to reduce the prevalence of private estate management arrangements, which are the root cause of the problems experienced by many residential freeholders. We also want to provide those who currently live on privately managed estates with greater rights and protections so that the fees they pay are fair, transparent, and robustly justified.
That is why we are today launching two comprehensive consultations seeking views on how best to implement new consumer protections for homeowners on freehold estates and the ways in which we might reduce the prevalence of privately managed estates over the coming years.
Enhanced protections for homeowners on freehold estates
The Government are already taking action to protect homeowners living on privately managed estates. We are committed to strengthening regulation of managing agents and have consulted on proposals to introduce mandatory professional qualifications for managing agents and estate managers on these estates, protecting homeowners from poor practice and unscrupulous operators.
We also intend for homeowners on privately managed estates to benefit from the proposals we announced on 6 October to transform home buying and selling. These will reduce delays, strengthen upfront information for all homebuyers, and cap unreasonable fees for providing property details.
We have also asked the Law Commission to consider how homeowners on freehold estates might secure greater control over the management of their estates, including whether the existing right to manage regime could be adapted for privately managed estates. That programme of work is now live and can be found on the Law Commission website at: https://lawcom.gov.uk/project/management-of-housing-estates/.
However, we know we must do more to protect homeowners already living on freehold estates. That is why this Government intend to introduce primary legislation to ban the use of the draconian remedies in sections 121 and 122 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which are available when rentcharges are not paid.
Those remedies include rentcharge owners taking possession of the affected property until arrears are cleared and granting a lease over the property. Currently, these remedies can be used without notice for very small debts. This creates uncertainty for homeowners and lenders and increases home buying and selling costs. We also seek views on whether these remedies should be removed entirely for all types of rentcharges, ensuring that enforcement is proportionate and fair. Additionally, we plan to put in place a free advice service for homeowners on privately managed estates.
The first of the two consultations we are publishing today seeks views on how we effectively implement the consumer protection provisions for residential freeholders contained in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. These provisions allow for the creation of a new regulatory framework that will make estate management companies more accountable for how homeowners’ money is spent. They will provide homeowners who pay an estate management charge with better access to information they need to understand what they are paying for; the right to challenge the reasonableness at the first-tier tribunal; and the right to go to the tribunal to appoint a substitute manager.
Implementing these consumer protection provisions requires detailed secondary legislation. To help shape that legislation and ensure we are implementing these new consumer protections effectively and to the benefit of all homeowners, we want to hear from individual homeowners, estate managers and managing agents.
Reducing the prevalence of private estate management arrangements
The second of the two consultations we are publishing today seeks views on how we reduce the prevalence of private estate management arrangements. Building on the recommendations of the Competition and Markets Authority’s 2024 house building market study, it aims to better understand the root causes and incentives that have led to the rise of unadopted amenities and what credible options for reform exist.
The consultation explores and seeks views on how to remove barriers to adoption and improve processes through common standards for amenities and adoption procedures. It explores how we might remove the perverse incentives that are driving non-adoption to help reduce friction between developers and local authorities and make adoption more straightforward.
It also asks for feedback on whether certain amenities should be subject to mandatory adoption and by whom, to reduce fragmented ownership and improve service delivery. Finally, the consultation also looks at how to improve dispute resolution mechanisms for poor-quality amenities and adoption issues as well as improving transparency, alongside proposals for a new affordability assessment so that maintenance of communal amenities is sustainable for homeowners in the long-term.
We recognise that not all new freehold estates will be adopted, so we need to ensure that we are giving homeowners, or prospective homeowners, greater control. The consultation therefore seeks views on whether to prohibit “embedded” management company arrangements and make resident-controlled management the default where adoption is not feasible.
The options for reform we are exploring through this consultation are far-reaching and have implications for housing supply and local authority budgets, so it is vital that future policy decisions are informed by robust evidence and a wide range of views. Through the consultation, we aim to engage residents, local authorities, developers, and estate management companies to deliver meaningful and lasting solutions.
Together, we want to build a system that works for everyone; one in which estates are well-managed and homeowners are protected, empowered and free from the burdens of hidden and unfair charges.
[HCWS1210]
Local Government Reorganisation
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
This Government are determined to streamline local government by replacing the current two-tier system with new single-tier unitary councils, ending the wasteful two-tier premium. We are progressing this landmark reform at pace, which will be vital in delivering our vision: stronger local councils equipped to drive economic growth, improve local public services and empower their communities.
I am fully committed to ensuring that councils can deliver new, sustainable structures within this Parliament.
Milestones
We have already reached a number of key milestones, not least the Secretary of State’s decision to implement two new unitary councils in Surrey. We have now received proposals from all 20 remaining invitation areas.
A consultation is currently open on 17 of those proposals from six invitation areas, and I expect to launch a consultation in early February on proposals from the remaining 14 areas that seek to meet the terms of the 5 February statutory invitation. That consultation would be for seven weeks.
I remain committed to the indicative timetable, published in July, that sees elections to new councils in May 2027 and those councils going live in April 2028. This is a complex process, and we will take decisions based on the evidence provided.
Local views
We have listened to councils telling us about the constraints they are operating within, and the work that reorganisation introduces on top of existing challenges. Now that we have received all proposals, it is only right that the Secretary of State listens to councils that are expressing concerns about their capacity to deliver a smooth and safe transition to new councils, alongside running resource-intensive elections to councils that may be shortly abolished. We have also received representations from councils concerned about the cost to taxpayers of holding elections to councils that it is proposed will shortly be abolished.
Previous Governments have postponed local elections in areas contemplating and undergoing local government reorganisation, to allow councils to focus their time and energy on the process. We have now received requests from multiple councils to postpone their local elections in May 2026. The Secretary of State recognises that capacity will vary between councils.
And that is why the Secretary of State has reached the position that, in his view, councils are in the best position to judge the impact of potential postponements on their area and, in the spirit of devolution and trusting local leaders, this Government will listen to them.
We are therefore inviting councils today to set out their views on the postponement of local elections in their area and whether they consider that postponement would release essential capacity to deliver local government reorganisation. We have asked for representations by no later than midnight on 15 January. For those that have already made their views known, he will be taking these into account.
The Secretary of State has adopted a locally-led approach. He is clear that should a council say that it has no reason for postponement, then we will listen to it. But if a council voices genuine concerns about its capacity, then we will take those concerns seriously.
To that end, the Secretary of State is minded only to make an order to postpone elections for one year for those councils that raise capacity concerns.
Next steps
The Secretary of State will consider all the material received in relation to each council.
I appreciate that preparations for elections may have started in some places, and that councils will be keen to have certainty, which we will deliver as soon as possible.
I will continue to update the House on this and other milestones as we seek to deliver this vital programme. I will deposit the letter I have sent to council leaders in the House Library, and it is also being published on gov.uk today. A full list of councils in scope follows:
Adur district council; Basildon borough council; Basingstoke and Deane borough council; Blackburn with Darwen council; Brentwood borough council; Broxbourne borough council; Burnley borough council; Cambridge city council; Cannock Chase district council; Cheltenham borough council; Cherwell district council; Chorley borough council; City of Lincoln council; Colchester city council; Crawley borough council; East Sussex county council; Eastleigh borough council; Epping Forest district council; Essex county council; Exeter city council; Fareham borough council; Gosport borough council; Hampshire county council; Harlow district council; Hart district council; Hastings borough council; Havant borough council; Huntingdonshire district council; Hyndburn borough council; Ipswich borough council; Isle of Wight council; Newcastle-under-Lyme borough council; Norfolk county council; North East Lincolnshire council, Norwich city council; Nuneaton and Bedworth borough council; Oxford city council; Pendle borough council; Peterborough city council; Plymouth city council; Portsmouth city council; Preston city council; Redditch borough council; Rochford district council; Rugby borough council; Rushmoor borough council; South Cambridgeshire district council; Southampton city council; Southend-on-Sea city council; St Albans city and district council; Stevenage borough council; Suffolk county council; Tamworth borough council; Three Rivers district council; Thurrock council; Tunbridge Wells borough council; Watford borough council; Watford borough council mayor; Welwyn Hatfield borough council; West Lancashire borough council; West Oxfordshire district council; West Sussex county council; Winchester city council; and Worthing borough council.
[HCWS1215]
Vehicle Type Approval
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
Today, the Government are confirming that they intend to legislate to mandate that vehicles placed on the market in Great Britain must hold dual GB and EU type approval and marking, enabling their sale in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in the absence of evidence that manufacturers are doing so voluntarily. I am also today publishing a call for evidence on this approach.
A GB type approval scheme for passenger and commercial vehicles was introduced in 2024. Type approval is an established regulatory approach for ensuring that vehicles meet mandatory safety and environmental requirements before they can be registered and used on the roads. Vehicle manufacturers have been given two years to transition all their vehicle models on to the scheme. Good progress is being made, and as the scheme approaches its final stages of implementation, we are working with the manufacturers to ensure that they are ready. I encourage any vehicle manufacturers that have yet to begin the process to contact the UK’s approval authority, the Vehicle Certification Agency, to ensure that they have the correct approvals in place.
The scheme largely applies technical requirements that are harmonised internationally, which ensures that components like braking systems, seatbelts, and lighting are the same in both Great Britain and the EU, supporting UK exports and economic growth. However, I am aware of business concerns about current and potential future divergence between EU and GB requirements, which can lead to unnecessary barriers to trade in a global market. To this end, the former Minister for the Future of Roads, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), sent an open letter to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders in June to reassure its members that this Government will continue to monitor regulatory activity in the EU and adopt an explicit presumption in favour of alignment in the GB scheme to remove unnecessary duplicative burdens on manufacturers while maintaining high regulatory standards.
The Government are fully committed to supporting the motor industry across the whole of the United Kingdom, recognising the vital role it plays in our economy. Our most recent update to the GB scheme illustrates this approach by removing the need for dual EU and GB approvals for eCall components, and we have recently laid legislation implementing international UN regulations for cyber-security and software updates. We intend to continue to address areas where unnecessary barriers to trade may exist or might arise for manufacturers in future amendments.
We are aware of the importance of an effective single UK market for vehicles, which is important for maintaining consumer choice as well as business flexibility on how they source and supply vehicles, and I am committed to removing barriers that may prevent or hinder this, in line with the Government’s commitment to the protection of the UK’s internal market.
To sell a vehicle throughout the UK, it must be approved to the GB approval scheme and the EU’s equivalent approval scheme, which applies in Northern Ireland. The EU has historically been the largest export market for UK-produced cars, accounting for around 54%—or over 300,000—of cars exported in 2024, and UK supply chains are highly interconnected with Europe. Large-volume manufacturers are selling across both markets and already hold EU type approvals for the majority of vehicles they supply. The GB scheme was designed to support manufacturers to mark vehicles to show that they have both EU and GB approvals—known as “dual marking”—and the Government fully expect that vehicles will be dual-marked wherever possible to ensure that they can be sold across the UK.
While the majority of vehicle models are being dual-marked, I am aware that some are not. The Government have engaged extensively with vehicle manufacturers and dealerships in Northern Ireland to address this. I recognise that failing to mark vehicles as suitable for both the GB and EU markets has the potential to cause issues for businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland. I am committed to resolving this and will take the steps necessary to ensure that businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland are not disadvantaged compared to those in Great Britain. This will also provide a more consistent regulatory landscape that will provide industry with certainty for the future, removing unnecessary duplicative trade frictions and supporting economic growth.
This Government therefore intend to legislate to mandate dual marking if there is not a clear commitment from industry to make this the default approach for vehicles sold in the UK. We will be seeking input from industry and others to better understand the factors leading to the current situation and to help us identify the most effective way of resolving this issue.
I am pleased to inform the house that today I am publishing a call for evidence on the approval and marking of road vehicles placed on the market in Great Britain, and with a view to solidifying Northern Ireland’s vehicle retail industry within the UK internal market. In the meantime, the Government continue to urge manufacturers to dual-approve vehicles to ensure a consistent regulatory landscape across the UK vehicle market.
The call for evidence will be open until 12 February 2026. I encourage industry to engage with it so that together we can find a solution that protects the UK’s internal market.
[HCWS1205]
Automatic Enrolment: Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band Review 2026-27
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
Automatic enrolment has transformed workplace pension saving for millions of workers. However, despite this success, the Government recognise that millions are still under-saving for their retirement. That is why we have revived the landmark Pensions Commission to finish the job that we started 20 years ago. The commission will examine why tomorrow’s pensioners are on track to be poorer than today’s and make recommendations for change.
It is against the backdrop of the commission’s work that I have considered and completed this year’s annual statutory review of the automatic enrolment thresholds, which are the earnings trigger and lower and upper earnings limits of the qualifying earnings band. The main focus of this year’s annual statutory review has been to ensure the continued stability of automatic enrolment for employers and individuals, particularly during the ongoing work of the Pensions Commission, which will explore long-term questions of adequacy and how to improve retirement outcomes, especially for those on the lowest incomes and at the greatest risk of poverty or under-saving.
The thresholds review has therefore concluded that all automatic enrolment thresholds for 2026-27 will be maintained at their 2025-26 levels.
The 2026-7 annual thresholds are as follows:
The automatic enrolment earnings trigger will remain at £10,000.
The lower earnings limit of the qualifying earnings band will remain at £6,240.
The upper earnings limit of the qualifying earnings band will remain at £50,270.
The publication supporting the review will be published on the www.gov.uk website and a copy placed in the Library of the House.
[HCWS1206]
Royal Assent
Retirement of a Member: Baroness Ford
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from today, of the noble Baroness, Lady Ford, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank her for her much-valued service to the House.
Girls: Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics
Baroness Hunter of Auchenreoch
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they are making in increasing the numbers of girls studying science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, encouraging more girls into STEM is vital for a diverse, skilled workforce. We have seen progress, with more girls taking STEM A-levels, particularly in biology and chemistry, although challenges remain in other STEM subjects. We are concerned at the barriers in front of girls, which particularly contribute to the low take-up of maths, physics, and computing after GCSEs, which, of course, has a knock-on effect in higher education and the workplace. On Monday, the Government launched the Women in Tech Taskforce, led by Technology Secretary Liz Kendall, which will take action to address these barriers.
Baroness Hunter of Auchenreoch (Lab)
My Lords, I have a long-standing association with the Royal Academy of Engineering, so I warmly welcome the establishment of this task force and the strong commitment of the Secretary of State to encourage girls to pursue STEM subjects from a young age, which I am sure has the support of all noble Lords. Only 17% of the engineering and technology workforce are women, and a key area for reform is the unwelcoming workplace culture that puts women and girls off. Will my noble friend set out what the Government are doing to remedy what I would call the tech bro culture?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
We share the concerns outlined by my noble friend about workplace culture, and particularly its impact on women in STEM careers. We know that the STEM sector is crucial for future economic growth, employing 9.4 million people. Currently, women make up just 25% of the total STEM workforce in the UK. Workplace attitudes start in school, and this is where we are beginning to challenge stereotypes early, working in primary schools. We fund the STEM Ambassadors and I Belong programmes, which inspire girls and aim to break down cultural barriers. We are also refreshing the curriculum to make it more inclusive, with a greater focus on digital literacy and skills.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, the Minister is replying specifically in relation to science and the like, but women play an inadequate role in very many parts of society, most notably, for example, in sport. Will she take this opportunity to congratulate the England women’s football team and, in particular, the England women’s rugby team on their successes this year and hope that the likes of Ellie Kildunne will set an example for women in society to take up more sport, whether at a higher level or just at a general activity level?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I think it is fair to say that I was not expecting that question, but I absolutely acknowledge and accept everything the noble Lord has said. The most important thing, of course, is that we all send our huge congratulations and recognise the contribution these young women are making, but we also have to understand that all sportspeople can be incredible ambassadors and role models. In my local area, rugby league is huge; they are getting the kids in and training. Girls’ rugby is, I think, the fastest growing sport in Leeds. If they misbehave or do not come along, they are out. The discipline is extraordinary. I thank the noble Lord for the question, and I hope he will please pass on my messages.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I want to follow up on the Minister’s previous answer concerning primary education. What steps are being taken to encourage not only science teachers but other teachers to ensure that girls get that early education that will inspire them to take this subject at a later stage in life?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I answered this question in the sense of needing to get into primary schools to start to change attitudes. Working with teachers and professionals is critical in this, and that is why we are investing in the workforce and training, and in getting a greater awareness of why there are these barriers. We have to work with families across the piece. Families do not understand the complexity of the system. We need to break down that complexity and ensure greater ownership of young people’s futures.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I warmly welcome the recent launch of the Women in Tech Taskforce and commend this Government on recognising the important contribution that women and girls make to the technology sector in particular. What steps are being taken to ensure that the TechYouth programme, part of the wider TechFirst programme, opens pathways to support and encourages young women and girls in further education and vocational training who are interested in pursuing apprenticeships and careers in this field?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I am somewhat disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, is not in his place because he would, I am sure, stand up to talk about university technical colleges. The work they are doing is a real template, and it just proves that, given the right opportunities, the right background and the right culture, women can excel at everything, as we heard earlier today.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, it is me again; apologies. Four days in a row—and I think noble Lords all know my profession. STEM/STEAM, girls/boys: there is a bigger picture here. Every student, every young person, should be guided to their full potential so that they can become the workers of the future to the best of their ability, whether it be as social workers or engineers, whether they be boys or girls, whether they be female submarine commanders. Does the Minister agree that, alongside excellent education, you need excellent careers education? I would like to hear what the Government are thinking about that.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I completely agree. The DfE funds the Careers & Enterprise Company, which works with 20 sector bodies and much wider. I emphasise the need for every school to take up the requirement for a qualified careers adviser to speak to every child in their school. One of the most heartbreaking experiences I have had is going to a careers fair with incredible companies there offering opportunities, and young people being absolutely astounded and saying, “We never imagined these companies would be interested in us”. There is a huge job to do in building confidence, and I believe that we are putting the steps in place to achieve that.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I very much welcome the reference by the noble Baroness, Lady Hunter, to women in engineering. I heard recently that one of the best predictors of economic growth can be seen in the ratio of engineers to lawyers. Our current ratio is a little heavily weighted to lawyers, so we need more engineers. On maths, as the Minister knows, girls get the same percentage of grades 7 to 9 as boys at GCSE, but there is half the uptake of maths A-level among girls. What specifically are the Government going to do to address that?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
First, we have to acknowledge that there is an issue, and the statistics are stark. Of course, maths is compulsory, as has been said. Following on into A-levels and beyond GCSEs, only 37% of girls take maths and only 27% take further maths. They are absolutely stepping stones to so many different careers. We have set up maths hubs, working with 85% of primary and secondary schools. It is about that emphasis on primary and getting across the point of maths, which I have to say when I was young often escaped me. It is about getting in there, making it inspiring, encouraging young people and explaining the opportunities it will open when they pursue those subjects.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, in respect of my noble friend’s Question, men outnumber women by four to one in computer science degrees. It has also been said that the economy loses between £2 billion and £3 billion a year because women leave the tech sector or change jobs due to barriers that should not exist. Is that not exactly the type of thing the Women in Tech Taskforce is being set up to tackle?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I shall be honest: I have three girls, and they found their computing courses absolutely boring, and yet it should be one of the most inspiring subjects they can learn, so my noble friend is right. We are investing in this area and funding the National Centre for Computing Education’s I Belong programme, which is targeting this. It is a hugely important issue and is probably getting even more so as we go forward.
Preschool Children: Digital Technology
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Penn
To ask His Majesty’s Government what information they provide to parents and early-years providers about safe and appropriate use of digital technology by pre-school children.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government recognise concerns about the impacts of screen time on young children. We have produced guidance for the Help for Early Years Providers platform, which refers to the World Health Organization’s screen time recommendations. On screen time specifically, we are continuing to assess evidence gaps through ongoing research and will consider what, if any, further research and action is needed.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking time to meet me and the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, last month to discuss this issue. The evidence shows that digital device use among early years children is growing rapidly, and education and health professionals, researchers and academics are deeply concerned about how this is leading to identifiable changes in behaviour, language development, social skills and mental and physical health. More than 40 members of the Digital Standards for Early Years Action Group wrote to the Government more than a year ago to call for action in this area, but there is nothing in the early years strategy, there is nothing in the early years foundation stage statutory framework and there is no public health information for family hubs, health visitors or GPs, so the digital action group wrote again to the Government last week to call for real action in this area. Will the Minister outline what further steps the Government are going to take to address this important issue?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for our useful and informative meeting, from which we have already taken further action. She is right about, and we particularly discussed in that meeting, the concerns of parents for the advice that they receive. I outlined in my initial Answer some of the action that we are taking to provide more clarity for early years providers, but we are also working to provide parents with clear, specific advice on early years screen time and home learning. In advance of specific early years screen time guidance for parents, we have streamlined content on the Best Start in Life website, an issue that she raised with us, to ensure that relevant home learning content appears in search results for screen time. We are exploring options to prioritise search results, ensuring that the most relevant home learning page appears first to further strengthen discoverability. Any new specific guidance for parents on early years and screen time will also be signposted clearly on the website. I look forward to the opportunity, when the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill returns to this House for Report in January, to continue this conversation and provide further information about action that the Government are taking.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, this is an important question and the Minister’s replies have been very helpful. With regard to the safeguarding side of nurseries, the Minister will be aware of the tragic occurrences of two nursery children in my colleagues’ constituencies of Cheadle and Twickenham. I know she has engaged with those two MPs. What progress is being made to support children, particularly in those nurseries that are part of a group of nurseries?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an important point, and of course we have had other very distressing cases that have taken place recently in nurseries. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State made a Statement about action that the Government are taking. Specifically on this issue, we will be appointing an expert panel to inform the development of guidance for the early years sector on CCTV and digital devices within safeguarding. That guidance will set out best practice, technical information and clear expectations about how those devices are used, along with the use of CCTV. I would be happy to send the noble Lord further information about the action that we have taken post that particular case.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is an adjacent problem to the one that we are discussing, which the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, has raised, which is parents’ own use of technology and the way that that impacts on their interaction with very young children? Most of us, if we travel on public transport, will often see a child in a pushchair and a parent or carer using their phone and the child being completely isolated from any contact. In the support for parents, will there be advice for parents about how their own use of technology can impact on their ability to interact effectively with their very young children?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point. I note, for example, the Children’s Commissioner’s suggestions and advice this morning that Christmas would be a good time for us as adults to put down our phones and focus on family time and interaction with children in particular, while the NHS website provides advice on the activities that are important for children’s health and development. Sometimes the issue about screen time is that it displaces other important activities, so the NHS website provides advice on the importance of sleep at all ages for good physical and mental health and well-being—I am sure that noble Lords will be keen on that one—and guidelines for parents on physical activity for children under the age of five. Those types of activities and the face-to-face interaction that parents can have with their children are one of the most important ways in which we can ensure healthy child development.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as it is Christmas, parents are looking at all the available toys. One area that concerns me is the use of AI now in toys for very young children. Do the Government have any plans to look at that area, because it is of great concern?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
This is an issue that we touched on with respect to educational technology in particular during the course of the Bill. There are wider developments in how we can regulate the use of AI with respect to individuals’ data that are being taken forward, particularly by the Information Commissioner’s Office. The noble Baroness raises an important point that I am sure parents will have borne in mind when thinking about presents that they are buying for their children. However, she is also right that we cannot leave parents, schools or other settings to make these decisions on their own, which is why we need to keep up with the evidence in order to provide the best possible advice to parents, to education settings and to others.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Minister’s comments about producing guidance for parents and early years settings in this area. Could she clarify the timing of that appearing and confirm whether it will be accompanied by a public health communications campaign?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I have probably gone as far as I can today in talking about the work that the Government are doing in thinking about how we can improve the guidance for parents. We will have more to say about this in the near future. As I said, we will also have the opportunity to consider this in more detail when we come back to Report on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. However, any guidance that we produce needs to be easily accessible to parents. That will mean, for example, using the Best Start in Life hubs and website. We will also require public health dissemination as well.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said today, but can she explain how any DfE guidance is co-ordinated with the work of Ofcom under the Online Safety Act, the ICO’s age-appropriate design code and DHSC advice, so that parents and providers receive a clear and consistent message rather than a patchwork of partial guidance?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very important point: in all this work, it is important that we are evidence led—as I suggested, we are developing that evidence through ongoing research—and, secondly, that we are able to provide clear information for parents and for early years settings, for example, with respect to the youngest children. There is considerable work going on between the DfE, DSIT and Ofcom to make sure both that the research is coherent and that the results of that research are appropriately communicated and go alongside some of the regulatory measures that the noble Lord mentioned.
Jobs Market: Wider Economic Implications
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Wirral
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the jobs market, and of the implications for the wider economy.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, there is positive information in the labour market. The claimant count is falling. Over 350,000 more people have moved into work this year. Real wages have risen more since July last year than they did in the first 10 years of the previous Government, and UK growth is forecast to be the second fastest in the G7 after only the United States. However, the latest figures also highlight the challenges and the importance of our Get Britain Working plan, which includes creating a new jobs and careers service, tackling economic inactivity due to ill health and delivering our youth guarantee.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
The Minister omitted to mention that unemployment has now risen to 1,830,000 and, perhaps most chilling of all, that the number of young people without the dignity of work has risen to 735,000. Do the Government now accept that the triple blow of the jobs tax in last year’s Budget, the increased income tax levels in this year’s Budget and the unemployment Act, which received Royal Assent earlier today, have all contributed to the fact that unemployment is rising to 2 million people? What is she going to do about it?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I will tell the House what we are going to do about it: something the last Government never did, which is to take seriously the challenge of so many young people in our country who are not in employment, education or training. What did the last Government do about that? They did nothing. What are this Government doing? A huge amount: in the Budget, we have put hundreds of millions of pounds into a youth guarantee. We are creating guaranteed jobs for young people who are long-term unemployed on universal credit, and we have the former Health Secretary, Alan Milburn, digging down deep into what the driving reason is for why so many of our young people are not out there in the labour market. We are going to solve the problems we inherited; we are doing something about it.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I call on the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who is participating remotely.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
With the jobs market hugely influenced by the availability of training, in particular apprenticeship training, should we not positively welcome the £820 million for the youth guarantee scheme, with its emphasis on quality? Is not the lesson that the Government have learned from the YOPs and community programmes of the 1980s that such schemes work only when they incorporate quality, real skills development, and the prospect of long-term employment? Are they not the hallmark of this much expanded and brilliant training programme?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I welcome a particularly fine question from my noble friend. I could almost have said that myself; in fact, maybe I will. He makes a really important point. We need to have support in the investment of skills for young people: skills for today and for tomorrow. Simply putting them on to some kind of make-job scheme does not work. We actually need to invest in them, so my noble friend is quite right. At the Budget, we announced £820 million of investment into the youth guarantee to support young people to earn or learn, but there was another £725 million for the growth and skills levy. We are trying to invest in young people so that they will find ways of getting the skills and be inspired to get out there and make a difference.
We also need to understand those who are not engaging. Alan Milburn issued a call for evidence this week. He is asking two questions: what is stopping more young people participating in employment, education or training, and what would make the biggest difference to support more young people to participate? We want to hear from anyone with knowledge, expertise or lived experience, so I urge noble Lords, with all their connections: let us all together try to get the answer to one of the most pressing questions facing our country.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, the Bank of England has canvassed for resignations to cut jobs to save £45 million and use more AI, and many other jobs continue to be lost to AI. What strategy have the Government got to ensure that their AI and tech procurements support British jobs? If mandating is okay for pension fund investments, where is it for government?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I think I might save the pension fund for the extensive debate we will have later, which is my Christmas present from the Chief Whip. That is all I can conclude. The noble Baroness makes a very important point. One of the things that the Government as a whole are doing is looking across the piece. The truth is that it is still quite early days in working out what, in the medium to long term, will be the impact of AI on the economy. There is evidence that jobs may be displaced in some sectors while in others jobs are created. While we are understanding the full impact, the challenge for us is to make sure we equip people with the skills that enable them to compete in the markets that are to come. There is a lot of work going on in my department, but also in DSIT and across government, to monitor this and develop strategies. In particular, there is work on investing in homegrown tech companies to make sure that we have the opportunities here in which we can invest and our young people can work.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, further to the points made about skills, will the Minister look at a new report by the Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre that finds that arts, culture and heritage sectors are all
“losing skilled employees due to low pay, limited progression and lack of flexibility”.
Although our freelance workers should certainly be better supported, there is concern over the levels of permanent creative staffing, including in theatre. How will the Government address these concerns?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The noble Earl makes an excellent point. He is a fine ambassador for the creative sectors, for which I commend him. The Government are looking sector by sector at how we can support the development of skills. I am aware that we have had to work quite hard to protect some quite specialist skills, because if we lose them we will not get them back, certainly in the heritage sector. I am happy to look at how our sector work can do that, but what we are trying to do in DWP is to work with a wide range of employers to make sure that we know what they want, what skills they need and how we can support them. One thing that has made the biggest difference—I slightly bang on about it—is my noble friend Lady Smith’s welcome joining up of adult skills and the DWP. That can make a real difference, so I will make sure that we look carefully into that.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that I am not yet in the Christmas spirit because, as the Minister herself said, there are huge challenges in the deteriorating jobs market. It is of great concern that jobs in the all-important retail sector have fallen by 74,000, and the chief executive of the BRC has stated that the number of people in work in that sector is at a record low, namely 2.82 million jobs. What are the Government going to do to change the situation, as a matter of urgency, in that sector?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Viscount will know that we have a number of what we call sector work programmes to develop skills and support people into many areas of our economy, including hospitality and retail, and many others. I come back to the fact that there are challenges across the globe. The UK unemployment rate is firmly below the EU 27 average. The UK has the third-highest employment rate among the G7—higher than Canada, the USA, France and Italy. I fully accept that these have been challenging times but there has been a reduction in demand across the globe, for a range of reasons. I am confident that things are looking good. We are seeing, for example, that vacancies have stabilised. We are seeing interest rates coming down and businesses getting more certainty, not least from the fact that we now have an Employment Rights Act.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear from the Lib Dems next, please.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I am more than happy to speak to Alan Milburn, given my long experience of working with NEETs. The question I will ask the Minister is about His Majesty’s Government having two key priorities. One is around net zero and the other is building 1.5 million homes. I want to know: what is the strategy around young people and apprenticeships? I ask this because I spoke to a young person studying at Sheffield College who is doing an electrician course. He is really stressed out that he is unable to get the apprenticeship course he needs to get properly qualified and contribute to the economy, because otherwise he told me that he will look for a job in McDonald’s.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am not going to diss looking for a job in McDonald’s, but I do not want to see anyone unable to pursue the things that they want to do. The noble Lord is absolutely right. We have invested £600 million in a construction package and are working closely with the industry. We have a strategic relationship team in DWP that works with key sectors to try to make sure, if jobs come on stream, that our people get them. We want young people and people who are not in the labour market to get them—those who are struggling with economic inactivity. I am grateful to him for raising that.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, should not the Government look at the incredible difficulty that youngsters have in getting into work, with very bureaucratic HR processes for making applications? Should they also not say to employers who are on contracts to the Government that they need to provide a certain ratio of training places to qualify for being on government contracts?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, those are two important points. The second quite often happens. I know that the social value element of contracts is something important that we in DWP take especially seriously. On the first point, we must all have had that experience of knowing young people and their heartbreaking experience of sending out application after application, and getting nothing back at all. I understand how tough it is for businesses to manage that, but if any employer is able to do that—to make it as easy as possible to support young people—that is great. One thing we can do in DWP is to support the young people in doing that: to connect them with employers, give them the skills and make sure they are putting in the best possible application in the first place.
Lithuania: Balloon Incursions
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Rawlings
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the defence implications of balloon incursions into Lithuania for British forces stationed in the Baltic states.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, my son-in-law, as a reservist, has served recently in the Balkans and may well do so again in the future.
Lithuania has experienced over 600 balloon incursions and over 200 drone violations in 2025. It has requested support from a NATO counter-hybrid support team. The UK is the framework nation of NATO’s forward land forces in Estonia. UK forces stationed in the Baltic states as part of NATO’s forward presence remain safe and able to operate effectively. There has been no change to force protection posture for UK personnel as a result of this incident.
Baroness Rawlings (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive Answer; he always gives very good answers. Balloons are not just for Christmas or festival treats. Sadly, these balloons can be serious weapons, as we have heard. Can the Minister enlighten us further about the deadly balloon incursions in Lithuania at the moment?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The Lithuanian intelligence is that the vast majority of the balloons in the drone incursions to which I have referred are for criminal activity and relate mainly to tobacco and cigarettes. Of course, that does not alter that Lithuania believes, with some credibility, that this is part of Belarus weaponising that sort of activity in order to destabilise and disrupt Lithuania and elsewhere.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, have any Royal Air Force flights been affected by these balloons? More serious even than that, this type of activity could become more widespread. What attempt are the Government making to deal with the possibility of further attacks? For example, have they tasked the Advanced Research + Invention Agency with working on this problem?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We are looking at all the various options to deter such activity, as the noble and gallant Lord will know from his own experience. Through Eastern Sentry we have tasked Royal Air Force assets to try to deter right across the eastern flank of NATO. More of that will be done. In January 2026, SACEUR will be announcing further measures that will be taken with respect to that. I point out, as I often do, the importance of deterrents. I am not talking about balloons, but since the introduction of Eastern Sentry on 10 September, there have been no Russian military aircraft incursions into NATO airspace.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, the media coverage of this universally describes a significant proportion of it being done by Belarus as a proxy for Russia. Last month, Admiral Dragone, the head of NATO’s Military Committee, said that the western military alliance was considering a more aggressive or proactive stance to Russia’s hybrid warfare, which this is. To what extent are we contributing to that process of consideration?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We are contributing to a whole range of efforts to deter Belarus’s activity, or Belarus acting as a Russian proxy. Lithuania and a number of other states have requested a NATO counter-hybrid support team from us. In the next couple of weeks it will work with Lithuania to assess what is going on there and what needs to be done, and to support Lithuania and others, if necessary, in order to deter this activity and respond appropriately.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We have plenty of time. We will hear from the Lib Dem Benches next.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, in a normal world, Belarus would be offering co-operation to stop this smuggling, rather than sneering and saying that Lithuania has to solve it. Lithuania has offered €1 million to anybody who can work out how to deal with these balloons. What are we doing, in co-operation with NATO’s centres of excellence in Tallinn and in Helsinki for countering hybrid and cyber threats, to ensure that we can find ways of dealing with the balloons? They represent a threat to the whole of NATO.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I agree with the threat that they represent, and the destabilisation and disruption that they cause. We are doing exactly what Lithuania has asked us to do. It has asked us, with NATO, to send a counter-hybrid team to Lithuania to work with it and establish what it needs to do to deal with the threat from the balloons, and the drone incursions, and find the most appropriate way forward. We are doing exactly what Lithuania is asking us to do within the auspices of NATO.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I welcome and support the Government’s announcement of support through NATO. I have visited troops in that part of the world, and I know we do a lot of work in the JEF as well. Can the Minister say, particularly with regard to countries in the Balkans, what extra support is planned within the context and framework of the JEF to send a straight signal to Belarus and Russia that the threat from Belarus—we have also seen challenges in the airspace of Poland—will not be accepted or tolerated?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
It is an important question, and one that both the previous Government and this Government have sought to deal with. The noble Lord will know that there are 1,000 British troops in Estonia as part of the forward land forces, along with defence attachés and others in support in other JEF nations. The noble Lord will know of Baltic Sentry, the maritime defence in and around underwater cables in the Baltic. So we have forward land forces, Baltic Sentry and, alongside that, the Eastern Sentry, which is the aerial operation. At a land force level, a maritime level and an air level, within the auspices of NATO, this country is contributing to deter Russia and to deal with the threats. We can be proud of what we are trying to do to deter Russia from the activity it is seeking to pursue.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, as we approach Christmas, I am sure that my noble friend and all Members of the House would wish to thank the members of our Armed Forces and security services, who will be working over Christmas, at home and abroad, to keep us all safe. The Baltic states are on the front line against Russian aggression, and are doing a sterling job through the efforts of not only their armed forces but their populations. What more can NATO partners do to meet the defence expenditure goals that were set at The Hague earlier this year?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I join my noble friend in his congratulations and recognition of our serving Armed Forces personnel and their families who stand behind them. It is important to recognise that, particularly at this time of the year, as my noble friend has just done. I am sure that the whole House joins him in that.
Discussions are ongoing about how we can meet NATO expenditure targets. While those discussions around expenditure and budgets are ongoing, we can point to the many things that we are already doing. This includes through RAF fighter support within Eastern Sentry, the troops that we are committing, maritime support of Nordic Warden, and responding to the request directly from the Lithuanian Government, through NATO, to provide the counter-hybrid support team. Whatever is needed, we will do it. I say again that, in order to stop Russia and the aggression we face, this has to be deterred. As I said to the noble and gallant Lord, since 10 September and the adoption by NATO of Eastern Sentry, there have been no Russian military incursions into NATO airspace. That shows us all the value of deterrents.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, the Royal Navy does a brilliant job of helping to stop smugglers in various parts of the world. If the situation in Lithuania is cigarette smuggling, will the Government consider allowing our forces on the ground to assist with ending the illegal smuggling trade in the region?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We are doing all that we can. Lithuania is telling us that it is cigarettes and tobacco smuggling, in the vast majority of cases, with respect to the balloons and the drones. It sees this as criminal activity. Lithuania is saying to us that the weaponisation of that criminal activity is being used by Belarus, and Belarus as a proxy, to disrupt and destabilise. That is why the counter-hybrid support team, under the auspices of NATO, is going to Lithuania. It is going there to talk about what specifically Lithuania believes is necessary to deter and deal with the threat that it faces. That is the proper way forward.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, we may be approaching Christmas, but the people of Ukraine will face no peace. Yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, highlighted the comments of the head of MI6 and the Chief of the Defence Staff—to which he might have added the Secretary General of NATO—that we are planning for war. This is a clear statement that starts to match the passion that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, represents in this House every time he speaks about this issue. I wonder why we and our Government are not planning to increase spending on defence in 2030, or increase it again in 2035. Our opponents are doing something now. Is it not time to redress that priority?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord will know the Government’s defence spending policy, and he and others will no doubt continue to make the case they do. As we approach Christmas and beyond, and the search for peace in a way that is consistent with what Ukraine would want goes on, this country can be proud of what it is doing with respect to Ukraine. It stood up for the people of Ukraine and defended freedom, democracy and the international borders that international law represents. The noble Lord will continue to press the case for defence spending. But even within the auspices of current spending and the increases the Government have agreed to over the next couple of years, there will be no doubt that we will stand up to Russian aggression and seek to deter it. We will stand with the Ukrainian people in defence of freedom and democracy.
Tributes
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am delighted to lead the customary and important tradition of giving thanks to staff across the House, especially those who have retired this year, as we head towards the Christmas Recess. As 2025 draws an end, it is nice to have a moment to reflect on the excellent work of the House and the teams that support us. I hope that noble Lords will find this more jolly than my usual reminders about short questions and references to the Companion.
Before turning to individual tributes, I want to start by thanking all the staff across the House, a team of 700 strong, for their work. I will not attempt to name all teams, through fear of missing some that are equally as important, but the House simply would not function without the work of each and every one of the people who support us, and our vital scrutiny could not be done. I know I speak for the whole House when I say thank you for your hard work; we appreciate everything you do for us. We all have examples of staff going the extra mile in service of the House and showing us their unique kindness.
I now turn to some individual members of staff who have retired from the House this year. I will name a few, and my usual channels colleagues will name others when they speak.
First, I pay tribute to Carell Roberts, a valued member of the housekeeping team who retired in April. Carell worked in the team for just under 20 years and was involved in managing some high-profile and important areas, including the second-floor galleries above the Chamber. Carell also looked after a space much loved and used by noble Lords, the Library. Carell has retired to spend more time relaxing with family and friends, including much overseas travel. We wish her well.
Secondly, following the Library theme, I give thanks to Christine Martin, a senior Library assistant, who retired in July after 23 years. Christine started in 2002, looking after the main Palace Library suite, keeping it shipshape and tidy for Members, and ensuring they had newspapers to read—no mean feat when navigating the height of those Library ladders. In 2007, Christine was promoted to senior Library assistant and became the Library’s quartermaster. Christine had left a lasting impression on all colleagues with her calm demeanour, sense of humour, teamwork and kind counsel. Always ready to lend a hand in a crisis, her help was invaluable when the Library had a major flood in 2008 and during Covid when she was instrumental in keeping the Library running. We wish her a well-deserved and enjoyable retirement, attending to her garden and putting her feet up.
Next, I pay tribute to Gordon Rock, a senior doorkeeper who is due to leave us on 31 December. Gordon started work as a precision engineer toolmaker in 1977. He joined the Royal Marines in 1986 and served his country until 2008. He joined as a doorkeeper in 2012. Since his promotion to senior doorkeeper, he has enjoyed keeping everybody in step, including during the important state visits of President Macron, Prime Minister Trudeau and President Zelensky.
Although Gordon is not related to the noble Baroness, Lady Rock—I have checked that she is very happy for me to mention this—they have huge respect for each other. I am told by the doorkeeping team that he refers to her as “auntie”. A few years ago, I did the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme. Gordon came up to me and said, “I understand you’re going to a particular Army base at the weekend”. I said that I was. He said, “I’ve got lots of friends down there. I’ve given them a briefing and they’re all waiting for you”. I am pleased and very relieved to report that I had a wonderful time, and I wish Gordon a very restful and long retirement.
Finally, I must pay special thanks to Fiona Channon, who worked in the heart of government and Parliament for over 30 years, first in the Civil Service and, since 2019, as our much-loved, admired and respected Deputy Yeoman Usher. Throughout her roles in the Civil Service, Fiona worked with a number of colleagues, including my noble friends Lady Harman and Lady Jay of Paddington, alongside other noble Lords. Fiona went from the Civil Service to lead a number of important functions in the House of Commons, including as director of accommodation and logistics, a good training ground for the ceremonial wonders of your Lordships’ House. Fiona had an exceptional eye for detail and was instrumental in the delivery of a number of critical events, including the funeral of Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth and the coronation of His Majesty King Charles. I am told that Fiona was able to enjoy over 1,000 sitting days in her time in the House of Lords and is well-known for her never-ending patience and calm manner in the face of a crisis and a long day. While Fiona was well acquainted with the building, I am told that, equally, the building wanted to give something back to Fiona, when she was attacked by a decapitated pigeon in State Officers Court near the Guy Fawkes plaque. Colleagues were able to rush to her rescue and lend her a shirt to enable her to continue her duties that day. I hope she will enjoy a slightly slower pace and a well-deserved actual rest without any pigeons.
In addition to individual members of staff, I thank all colleagues across the House for their good humour and support. I love the House very much and I am very privileged to be the Government Chief Whip and the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms. I do my best to be accessible to everyone and be on hand to deal with issues as they arise. I thank all Members across the House for their friendly engagement with me throughout the year; I really appreciate that.
The House has reviewed 70 Bills this year alone and we always manage to debate topics, even the most difficult topics, with kindness and respect. This extends especially to my usual channel colleagues. While sometimes we have difficult conversations throughout the year—I am sure we have many more to look forward to next year—I appreciate their continued support and frank discussions. I have huge respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. We can usually smile and laugh in between more difficult conversations, and I count each of them as good friends. I hope we can continue to make progress together in guiding the House through its important work.
Finally, it seems a shame to waste the opportunity not to announce another recess date, as I fear colleagues are already getting anxious to book their Christmas holidays in 2026, perhaps even as a present for a loved one. I am therefore pleased to tell the House—with the usual, not very festive caveat that it is subject to the progress of business in the House—I intend for the House to rise for the Christmas Recess next year on Thursday 17 December 2026 and return on Tuesday 5 January 2027.
I hope colleagues will consider this a well-deserved Christmas gift, as I think it is important that noble Lords and staff have time to plan for activities with family and friends outside the House. I wish everyone across the House and all the teams so expertly supporting us a very Merry Christmas, a restful Recess and very happy new year. I look forward to seeing you all back on 5 January for a three-line Whip.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, sometimes in this House, it feels like our years should be measured in dog years, particularly when you are in opposition. As this year draws to a close, it is a pleasure to follow the Government Chief Whip in paying tribute to those who make the work of this House possible and who will be leaving us for pastures new.
Not only do all staff members play a crucial role in the operation of this House but their kindness and courtesy make for a welcoming place for all of us. Joao De Frietas, more affectionately known as Alberto, began his career just before the turn of this century in the Peers’ Dining Room. He soon became a familiar face, successfully going on to manage events in the Cholmondeley Room and the Terrace. Since 2018, he has been bar manager for the Woolsack, where he has been keeping morale high on the Parliamentary Estate. Throughout his time here, he was very well liked by his colleagues and regulars at the Woolsack. He will be much missed, and we wish him and his family very well for the future.
Neil Baverstock will be leaving Black Rod’s office this Christmas. For the past 12 years, he has been known for his unfailing dependability as the 23rd Yeoman Usher—the longest serving for 65 years. His sense of public duty, from when he trained at Sandhurst until now, is one from which we can all take inspiration. He has been a model of high standards, with a very cool head in challenging moments. I am told that his buzz-phrases are now a permanent part of parliamentary folklore. My favourite has to be, “My Lords, I’m going to run through the plan. I must be clear that this is a plan, not a discussion document”. He has certainly left his mark, being trusted with the Palace’s arrangements for the late Queen Elizabeth II’s lying in state and Operation Marquee. We know that behind every good man is a good woman, and we must thank his wife Alison for her support. This is a legacy of which they should both be proud, and they leave with our sincere gratitude.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, in continuing these staff tributes from the Liberal Democrat Benches, I want to talk about three individuals. First, Ola Diya was a valued member of the housekeeping team. She spent just under 20 years as an early housekeeper, starting in Millbank House with the cleaning contractors and then later transferring to the in-house team, cleaning high-profile areas of the House of Lords, including the first floor offices of the West Front, and covering duties in the Chamber and the Royal Gallery. Housekeepers are vital to the functioning of the House, and the House thanks Ola for her hard work over two decades. She retired in September to spend more time with her family overseas. We wish her all health and happiness.
Secondly, Nicholas Beach retired as deputy counsel to the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords at the end of October, after a remarkable 40-year career as a lawyer in Whitehall and Westminster. Nick joined the counsel’s office in the House of Lords in 2010, with 25 years’ experience as a government lawyer in the Treasury Solicitor’s Department, the Department for Education, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. He came to us with a well-deserved reputation as a public law expert, with an enviable reputation as a drafter of statutory instruments. This expertise has been put to very effective use over the last 15 years, particularly in the House’s scrutiny of delegated powers in Bills and of statutory instruments.
The burden of scrutinising secondary legislation grew considerably during the Brexit and pandemic years. Nick rose admirably to the challenge, with quiet professionalism of the highest order, combined with his trademark patience and good humour. Nick also spent many years advising on the legal aspects of restoration and renewal. He assisted with the transfer of the Parliamentary Archives to the National Archives at Kew, and he advised the archives on the loan to Parliament, in 2015, of the four original copies of Magna Carta. Nick could always be relied upon to keep cool in a crisis, and this ability will be put to good use in his retirement. He hopes to become an expert ice cream maker as well as a cake baker. We wish him all the best in these ventures and all health and happiness in retirement.
Finally, Amanda McGrath is retiring on 31 December, after 13 years as a committee assistant and, later, a committee operations officer in the Lords Committee Office. During her career in the Lords, Amanda developed a specialism working for several sub-committees of the former European Union Committee, including the Home Affairs Sub-Committee, the Justice Sub-Committee, and the Security and Justice Sub-Committee. She has been a committee operations officer for the Justice and Home Affairs Committee since it was established in 2021, guiding it through several high-profile inquiries and handling a high volume of sensitive evidence. She has organised many committee visits, including the Justice and Home Affairs Committee visits to His Majesty’s Prisons Belmarsh and Isis—and getting the committee out again—the Port of Dover, Eurotunnel, and the Eurostar terminal at St Pancras. Before joining the Committee Office, Amanda was a civil servant in the Ministry of Defence. She is planning a number of projects in retirement and will spend more time travelling and at the theatre. We wish her all the best and all health and happiness.
I join in the tributes to my colleagues in the usual channels and the House at large. As we near the Christmas Recess, I take this opportunity from these Benches to wish everyone, Members and staff, a very happy Christmas, a good rest over the two and a half weeks and all the best for the new year.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I associate myself with all the warm comments made by my fellow members of the usual channels about the staff of the House. I note the kindness, the courtesy and the huge help that those staff provide to Cross-Bench and all Members, and I am very grateful. Before I pay tribute to four very special colleagues, I reflect particularly on the moment in March of the confetti in the Chamber, when protesters interrupted our proceedings by throwing leaflets from the gallery. Our doorkeepers ushered them away, clutching as they were leaflets that called for “aristocrats out, nurses in”. I felt that my noble friend Lady Watkins came very close to declaring a conflict. But, thanks to the skill of the doorkeepers, we were back up and running in just four minutes. We owe a great debt and give great thanks to our doorkeepers, and their head doorkeeper John Ingram. I for one am very grateful for them.
My first tribute is to David Prior. David worked in the Parliamentary Archives, joining in April 1992 as the assistant clerk of the records, a role latterly not so snappily renamed head of public services and outreach. He has transformed the way in which our archives are presented to the public, through many exhibitions, large and small. He oversaw loans such as the Stamp Act 1765, which went to the USA; this was the legislation that gave rise to the cry, “No taxation without representation”, giving great succour to the independence movement over there. He arranged for the Articles of Union between England and Scotland, and the Act of Union 1707, to be displayed at the Scottish Parliament in 2007, which was the tercentenary. Most remarkably, David arranged for the four inward loans for the four surviving Magna Cartas, which were displayed in the Robing Room in February 2015, a task that others observed was more complex than organising a western Balkans conference. I have not mentioned his technological thrust in bringing the archive to our public, for which I hope he will forgive me. I thank him for all 33 years and wish him well.
Mary Nottingham and Mandy Marks retired as senior internal auditors in September. Mary and Mandy met when working for the Ministry of Defence internal audit department, and while Mary moved to the House some time before Mandy, the role they took on when Mandy arrived was quickly adapted so that they were a job share. They brought great audit experience to the Lords team, with humour and professionalism and no hint of sinister purpose, an approach that was much appreciated by all whom they worked with during their parliamentary careers. They were consummate team players. That is not to say they did not have strong opinions, as their colleagues recall: their head of section observed that they were masters of upwards management, always done with such charming subtlety that to this day he was never entirely sure whether he was managing them or they were managing him. I think we know the answer. Mary and Mandy will take their opinions on that question into a long and very well-earned retirement, which I understand will include visits to Cyprus, where they both used to own homes. They were wonderful colleagues and respected professionals, and we are all very grateful to them for their contribution to the House.
Finally, I pay tribute to one of our greatest generals in our longest-running war. I speak, of course, of the war against moth and mouse. Maureen Shoults led the early-morning sorties on the front line of the Principal Floor corridor for 27 years before retiring in November. She started as a housekeeper, was promoted to a team leader and latterly had a team of 15 housekeepers. Her particular personal theatre of battle was the bit of the Principal Floor corridor that included the Cross-Bench offices. While we try to lock away our admittedly plentiful rations of crumbly shortbread, we have been guilty of providing sustenance for the enemy. Despite this, and the early hour when I tended to run across her, she always greeted me and indeed all our staff and those who met her with a smile and a kind word. She will now spend more time with her children, Ben and Wayne, and her grandchildren, Finley and Fiona. We wish her all the best, and we will all keep fighting the great war on her behalf.
It remains only for me to thank my fellow usual channels. I cannot tell your Lordships how generous they are constantly to the Cross Bench in all sorts of little ways, and I and the Cross Bench are all very grateful to them. I have to say that it is very good fun in the usual channels. I would take issue about the biscuits, because there was a metre-long lot of biscuits with the Chief Whip—a lot of Jaffa cakes at one point—and we are hoping to get more of those in there. But it is in a great spirit that we try to make sure that things work in the House, and I pay tribute to them.
With that said, the only remaining thing is to wish, on behalf of our Benches, everybody, Members and staff, a very happy Christmas.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I shall not detain the House long, but on behalf of these Benches I echo the appreciative comments that we have just heard from the Front Benches about all those who have retired, or are about to retire, as colleagues, working alongside us here. It is a real privilege to have the final opportunity on behalf of us all in your Lordships’ House to thank those who work with us, both front of house and behind the scenes, for their outstanding care and service in keeping this House and our work here running smoothly.
As we near the end of this year’s journey through Advent and approach Christmas, I know that all Members will join me in wishing not just each other but all our colleagues here a restorative recess. I pray that they may know the joy of the angels, the eagerness of the shepherds, the perseverance of the wise men, the obedience of Joseph and Mary, and the peace of the Christ child this Christmas. Happy Christmas, and a good New Year when it comes.
Procedure and Privileges Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the Report from the Select Committee Conduct Committee: Rotation Rule (5th Report, HL Paper 230) be agreed to.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, the 5th report from the Procedure and Privileges Committee follows an invitation from the Conduct Committee to the Procedure and Privileges Committee to review the application of the rotation rule to Peer members of the Conduct Committee. The report before your Lordships’ House recommends that Peer members of the Conduct Committee should be appointed for up to three years in the first instance, with the option to extend their appointment annually up to a maximum of six years in total. The Committee of Selection should review the membership of the Conduct Committee annually, with the input of the committee’s chair, to ensure a balance of skills and experience on the committee as a whole. The report proposes no formal change to the terms of appointment of external members, who will continue to be appointed for three years in the first instance. An extension thereafter, up to a maximum of a further three years, will be subject to regular review by the chair of the Conduct Committee. In summary, if this report is agreed, the terms of appointment for Peer and external members will, as far as practicable, be aligned. I commend the report to your Lordships.
Retirement and Participation Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That: (1) A Select Committee be appointed to consider and make recommendations on—
(a) a retirement age, and
(b) a participation requirement for members of the House of Lords;
(2) In relation to these issues the Committee shall consider and report to the House on—
(a) the impact of a retirement age on the House and, in particular, its size and functioning,
(b) the impact of a participation requirement on the House and, in particular, its membership and functioning, and
(c) options for the implementation of a retirement age and participation requirement including without primary legislation and that these options should include transitional measures, where appropriate;
And that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:
Anelay of St Johns, B, Blunkett, L, Chandos, V, Hayman, B, Manningham-Buller, B, Mattinson, B, Parminter, B, Sherbourne of Didsbury, L, Smith of Hindhead, L, Strathclyde, L, Suttie, B, Taylor of Bolton, B (Chair)
That the Committee do report by 31 July 2026;
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes; and
That the Report of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House.
Sentencing Bill
Lord Lemos
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order: Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 9, Schedule 2, Clause 10, Schedule 3, Clauses 11 to 27, Schedule 4, Clauses 28 to 31, Schedule 5, Clauses 32 to 47, Title.
Puberty Suppressants Trial
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the Government for their sensitive language in handling this delicate issue. I recall the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, telling the House that puberty blockers are currently licensed only for much younger children with precocious puberty or older adults with certain cancers. Trials are therefore needed to determine whether they are safe for adolescents with gender incongruence and to understand the interaction with the different processes of puberty. I understand that children taking part in the trials must have their parents’ consent, but can the Minister clarify two points that are clearly raising concern? First, what is the maximum and minimum age of children taking part in these trials? Secondly, what assurances can the Government definitively give that children taking part in these trials will not experience fertility issues or loss of sexual function or any conditions that are irreversible later in life? I also wish all noble Lords, staff and officials a merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah, happy new year and, as our American cousins say, happy holidays.
The Parliamentary Under-secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for acknowledging the sensitive language. This is indeed a sensitive issue. For all the division and divided opinion that I know there is, there is also a determination—including across the House, I am sure—that we get this right. The clinical trial is just part of the PATHWAYS study. With regard to the clinical trial, it is extremely unlikely that anyone under the age of 11 will qualify as a potential participant and it runs up to the 16th birthday, so I hope that that is helpful. Can the noble Lord remind me of his second question?
Lord Kamall (Con)
What assurance can be given so that any health developments under these trials are not irreversible?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. Before participants enter the trial—and it is an extremely high bar, as it should be; there will be at least 226 participants required, but that is not a target and there will be no drive to get up to that number—certainly any possible impacts such as those the noble Lord describes will be fully discussed and mitigations will be explained and made available, particularly in terms of fertility. I absolutely take the point that the noble Lord raises.
Baroness Cass (CB)
My Lords, we are faced with a situation where, for 15 years, clinicians in this country have told children and young people that these medications are safe, fully reversible and indeed life-saving. Last year, they were rightly banned from clinical practice. However, the upshot is that now, of the 75 children a month who are coming to the new services, about 20% are getting these medications and, worse, testosterone and oestrogen from unlicensed and unregulated sources—and those are the ones we know about. In addition, referrals to the new services have dropped from 200 a month to only 30 a month, so we think that a large number of those young people are also being harmed through those mechanisms.
We are concerned about this much broader harm; children are voting with their feet now. Does the Minister agree with me that, for the very tiny number of young people who clinicians believe will ultimately have a long-standing gender incongruence and will therefore be eligible for this trial, it is better that they get their medication under careful clinical supervision rather than on the dark web? Secondly, does she think that this trial will be a way of attracting that broader group of young people back into the NHS who do not need medical treatment but need holistic wraparound care?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Let me first say to the noble Baroness how grateful we are for her continued professional attention and sensitivity in dealing with this. There was a cross-party approach to the Cass review, and I pay tribute to Sir Sajid Javid, the former Health Secretary for seeing the need for this. We have always been supportive of the Cass review. I agree with both points that the noble Baroness has made. The fact is that this is about the need to face up to what the review found: shocking levels of unprofessionalism, a lack of clinical oversight and puberty blockers being prescribed to children without sufficient evidence. That was not safe and not beneficial and it could not go on.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I first join my noble friend the Minister in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, and I also congratulate my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, for the transparency with which this has already been dealt. Members will be aware that, across parties and across both Houses, there was a briefing that involved all the scientists who will be carrying out this research. Can my noble friend assure the House that that transparency and information giving will continue?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I can confirm to my noble friend that the transparency will continue and I am grateful for the comments that she made about my right honourable friend the Health Secretary, who I believe has not just been transparent but extremely honest. I very much welcome that.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, the backdrop to this research is an extensive international religious nationalist campaign against women’s rights and LGBT rights. Since this research has been designed according to standard research protocols, has been approved by the NHS ethics committees and will be carried out by professionals who are bound by professional regulation, does the Minister agree with me that those professionals should be enabled to get on with their job free from ideological interference?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I do agree with that point. We are seeking to protect the safety and interests of children and young people through evidence, and it is right and proper that we get on with that. As the noble Baroness has said, this is a trial; it is being 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 NIHR and by the MHRA and it has also received approval from a research ethics committee. I would say that we are treading cautiously and correctly in this area, because all that matters is the safety of children.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I understand the concern about illicit provision on the dark web, which is a very serious matter and difficult to manage. None the less, I must ask what provision is being made to meet potential claims for damages from young people like Keira Bell in the future who sustain permanent damage to sexual function and emotional well-being after being on the trial?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
It is probably helpful to say that no one is required to be on the trial. Nobody will be accepted on to the trial unless there is an extremely rigorous and clinically led judgment about whether a young person is suitable. On the point about transparency, all that information is available online and I would urge noble Lords to look at it. The temporary ban was brought in by the previous Health Secretary, Victoria Atkins, and, in my view, it was absolutely right that we made it a permanent one. However, the issues remain, and we must work out how best to support children and young people who suffer gender incongruence.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, in the case that children cannot consent, which is widely acknowledged, given the age of the children, we know that single-parent consent will be permissible for the PATHWAYS trial. We also know from litigation to date on these vexed matters that parents are going to court to ascertain whether a single parent can consent to this. Will the Government review single-parent consent and insist that both parents must give consent to these potentially irreversible changes, where children’s consent is not possible?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As the noble Baroness rightly says, children, by definition, cannot consent to being on the trial, so places will require parental consent as well as the assent of young people. I can assure your Lordships’ House that, as I have already mentioned, there are strict eligibility criteria to join the PATHWAYS clinical trial. Part of the assessment by the professionals making the decision about engagement involves the role of parents, including whether there has been any undue pressure and a whole range of considerations. I urge the noble Baroness to refer to the details of how young people will be accepted on to this trial. I must emphasise that no person will be guided towards it who should not be. We are seeking young people; there is no requirement.
UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, there is little doubt across the House that the opportunity to live, study and work abroad can bring real benefits for young people. It enables them to experience different cultures, encounter new ways of thinking, build confidence and form relationships and friendships that can last a lifetime. Those objectives are, in themselves, entirely laudable. However, good intentions are not enough. If this arrangement is to command confidence, it must be fair, accessible and genuinely mutually beneficial. It is therefore right that we scrutinise carefully both the financial and practical implications of what His Majesty’s Government have agreed.
One of the most immediate questions raised by this announcement is whether it will represent genuine value for money for the British taxpayer. It is concerning that the Government have been unable to define any cap on the number of EU students who may come to the United Kingdom under this arrangement, nor have they ruled out a wider youth mobility scheme that could further increase the inflow of young people from the EU. Under the proposed deal, European students would be able to study in the UK for up to a year while continuing to pay tuition fees to their home institutions.
When this scheme last operated, the imbalance was stark. In 2018, almost 32,000 young people came to the UK through Erasmus, compared with around 17,000 UK students who travelled in the opposite direction. The result was an estimated net cost to the UK taxpayer of more than £200 million per year. The media reported this morning that the total cost to the British taxpayer from this new scheme could be as high as £8.75 billion. At a time when young people in this country are already facing rising living costs, spiralling unemployment and diminished opportunities to buy homes and to save and invest their money—problems largely stemming from this Government’s own policy choices—we must be extremely careful about entering into arrangements that risk British taxpayers subsidising European students to study here.
Whether or not a taxpayer’s own child benefits from this scheme, the cost is borne by everyone. If parents across the country are being asked to help fund opportunities for other people’s children to study abroad, we must be confident and able to demonstrate that this delivers benefits not just for the individual participant but for the country as a whole. What assurances can the Minister give the House that this will not again become an asymmetrical arrangement? Can she guarantee that participation in Erasmus+ from 2027 will not result in a net cost to the British taxpayer of the kind we saw previously? Can she please tell us how value for money for the taxpayer will be assessed and communicated?
Closely linked to this is the question of equitable access. It is easy to predict who is most likely to benefit from schemes of this nature: those who studied languages at school and travelled abroad with their families, and whose educational and social background already equip them to take advantage of international opportunities. Without careful design, Erasmus risks becoming little more than a publicly subsidised gap year for young people who already enjoy significant privilege. Although the Government have said that financial support will be available for disadvantaged students, funding alone is insufficient if those disadvantaged students are unaware of the scheme, lack institutional encouragement or do not see it as something for people like them. Can the Minister set out how the Government will ensure that this scheme is actively promoted and supported in schools, colleges and universities serving disadvantaged communities? What concrete steps will be taken to ensure that those who would benefit most from international mobility are not, once again, the least likely to access it?
I would also welcome the Government’s response on how the new arrangement will sit alongside existing UK mobility programmes. The United Kingdom currently operates the Turing scheme, which was designed to expand opportunities for students to study and work abroad, well beyond the European Union. Against that background, it would be helpful for the House to understand what the future holds for the Turing scheme once association with Erasmus+ begins in 2027. I hope, therefore, that the Minister can tell us how, in choosing to reassociate with Erasmus+, the Government intend to preserve the broader international reach that Turing was specifically designed to support. Will opportunities for global mobility beyond Europe be maintained at their current level, or do the Government envisage a narrowing of focus back towards the EU alone?
As I indicated earlier, this scheme must be able to not only deliver benefits but demonstrate clearly that it represents value for money for the taxpayer. Although the Government have outlined the initial cost of association, experience tells us that such programmes can become significantly more expensive over time, particularly where participation is uneven or demand exceeds expectations. It would therefore be reassuring to hear what safeguards are in place to prevent costs escalating in the years ahead.
The Government have said that rejoining Erasmus will cost £570 million in 2027 for a one-year membership but declined to say what the future costs will be. Can the Minister now tell us what they will be? It is reported that Brussels plans to increase funding for the scheme from 2028 by more than 50%, from around €26 billion to €41 billion. This, plus the extra costs associated with joining EU programmes after Brexit, means the bloc could charge Britain £1.25 billion a year between 2028 and 2034. Can the Minister confirm whether these figures are correct?
Also, if participation once again becomes markedly unbalanced, with substantially more students coming to the UK than travelling abroad, what mechanisms will exist to address that? Will the Government be able to renegotiate the terms of participation, adjust financial contributions or take corrective action to ensure that the UK is not locked into a persistently disadvantageous position? Can the Minister tell us what projected cost this programme will have to universities, which may lose out on international student fees as a result of this policy?
Finally, there will understandably be concern in this House and beyond that this EU reset could amount to a gradual reversal of the settlement reached when the United Kingdom left the European Union. What protections are in place to ensure that the UK is not drawn into open-ended financial commitments, regulatory alignment or governance structures over which it has limited control? Crucially, what clear mechanisms exist for the UK to withdraw or adjust its participation should this arrangement cease to serve our national interest?
There is broad consensus across this House that international mobility can be a powerful force for good, but good will must be matched by responsibility. If this scheme is to succeed, it must deliver value for money, widen opportunity rather than entrench privilege, and sit comfortably within a UK-EU relationship based on co-operation without dependency. I look forward to the Minister’s response on these points and to greater clarity on how the Government intend to ensure that this agreement works not just in theory but in practice for young people across the whole United Kingdom.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Statement and the achievement. We regret only that the Government are moving so slowly. I note that this means we differ considerably from the Conservative Front Bench, although I was relieved that the noble Earl’s words were a little less hysterical than the front pages of the Telegraph and the Mail today. If we are going to pursue the reset further, as my party strongly supports, and move towards dynamic alignment across the board—and, therefore, closer association with the customs union, which will have to come next—the Government will need to change their language and spend more time discussing the benefits as against the costs, which my Conservative colleague, the Telegraph and the Mail have stressed so heavily this morning.
I declare an interest. I taught many students from other European Union countries in my last two jobs in universities, one of whom is the President of his country and extremely active on European security; a number of others are now in leading positions in public life in their countries and good friends of the United Kingdom. That is one of the benefits we get from exchanges. On the imbalance we had last time, an active scheme to encourage British students to spend time in other countries would be of enormous benefit to this country. It would lead to people who understand other countries, can do business with them, understand their politics and then enter public service here or elsewhere, to our mutual benefit.
I regret the language of the Statement. It is defensive and therefore wrong. It talks about only “the national interest” and “sovereignty”. I am sure the Minister will agree that the only country in the world that is fully sovereign is North Korea. In other countries, sovereignty has to be compromised by international co-operation. As the leader of Reform in effect makes clear, the alternative to membership of the European Union is not full sovereignty but dependence on the United States, which is not an easy alternative at the present time.
I suggest that the Government should be talking about shared interests, common security, the benefits as against the costs and the fact that our contributions helped save this country money in many ways. When the Conservative Government took us out of the European Union, we had to set up separate agencies and recruit additional public servants. We lost the European Medicines Agency in London, which was a great boon to our pharmaceutical industry, and a number of other things. The benefits absolutely need to be stressed and I encourage the Minister to say to her colleagues, in particular Nick Thomas-Symonds, that the sort of language they are using will not persuade the bulk of the British public that we need to be closer to the European Union.
We now know, on very strong evidence, that we have lost a lot of economic growth since we have left, which means we have also lost tax revenue. On goods and services, we know that we need to go back to closer relations. I encourage the Minister to go further.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, maybe this was not the Statement to bring some Christmas good will, cheer and unanimity across your Lordships’ House. It is a good thing that my language, I hope, will be both positive for the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and slightly more circumspect for the noble Earl, Lord Courtown. I thank both noble Lords. We will continue to rehearse these arguments, as we have done for many years since the referendum, as we seek to undertake our reset. A number of important issues have been raised, which I will address in some detail. I will also reflect on Hansard to see which questions I have missed, either intentionally or by accident—never intentionally, as I am being reminded—and will write in due course.
I would like to engage with this in a spirit of good will. This is a positive thing we are doing: £500 million of additional investment in our young people in one year. It is something to be celebrated. I will engage in the promise of positivity at this time of year and I view it as my own Hanukkah miracle. I will touch on some of the issues raised.
On the UK-EU summit, our manifesto promised to reset our relationships with our European partners to improve our diplomatic, economic and security co-operation following Brexit. Earlier this year we hosted the first annual UK-EU summit, where the Prime Minister and the European Commission President welcomed our new strategic partnership and a landmark deal that is good for bills, borders and jobs. That is what we are seeking to deliver—a partnership that enables us to tackle the shared challenges we face, to boost the prosperity, safety and security of both our peoples, and to help strengthen European-wide defences.
I turn to the core of the announcement. We have made good progress on talks with the EU since the summit, working to implement the joint commitments we made in May. I am therefore pleased to inform the House that, yesterday, the UK and the European Commission concluded negotiations for the UK’s association to Erasmus+ from 2027 for one year—with, as I said, £500 million of investment in our young people. Our association to the programme will open up opportunities for learners, educators, youth workers, sports sector professionals and communities of all ages in our education, training, youth and sport sectors, for both the professionals who work in these sectors and, crucially, our young people. Participants can travel to any European Union member state and to several countries outside it, opening doors to tens of thousands of people across the UK, renewing our people ties with Europe and beyond.
At the summit, we also agreed to work towards participation in Erasmus+ on the basis that there will be a fair balance between our financial contribution and the number of UK participants receiving funding. We are pleased that the EU has agreed financial terms—a 30% discount in 2027 compared with the default terms in the trade and co-operation agreement. This is a fair balance between our contribution and the benefits of the programme. It has also been agreed that the UK’s participation in the programme will be reviewed 10 months after our association, which will include data on the demand for funding in the UK. Any continued participation will be informed by our experience of association in 2027. The Government will now work quickly to ensure that there is maximum take-up across all sectors and groups and that the benefits of our association to Erasmus+ can be felt.
The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, raised an important issue about people’s awareness of the scheme. I live in Stoke-on-Trent, and we must make sure that people from up and down the country are able to access these schemes, so that it is not, as historically it could have been considered, a boost for middle-class children, but is accessible to everyone. Many Members of your Lordships’ House have associations with further education facilities and schools up and down the country; there is a responsibility on each of us to make sure that people are aware of this scheme. I urge all noble Lords to reach out to their communities. The funding streams open in October 2026 and we have time to make sure that people can access this. One of the things I was most delighted to see yesterday was a quotation from the Association of School and College Leaders, which was delighted about this scheme.
The Turing scheme has wider international reach since we left Erasmus, though it was not the scheme that we left. I reassure noble Lords that the Turing scheme will be operating as normal next year and that we will continue to learn lessons from it. Any future decisions on Turing will be brought forward to your Lordships’ House in due course. On international fees to the EU, I am not sure that is something that I recognise, but I will reflect on the noble Earl’s exact question and come back to him.
On today’s coverage in the Mail and Telegraph, it will not surprise noble Lords that I anticipated such a question. The reality is that the European Union has not yet determined any costings for the next scheme, so nobody recognises the numbers that were in the papers today because no such scheme has been rolled out with any such budget. We have been clear to commit to 2027. We will make sure that it works and proves to be good value for money for the United Kingdom and is of huge value to our young people. We will continue to negotiate with the European Union on next steps.
The noble Earl raised the youth experience scheme. As I have made clear in other debates in your Lordships’ House, the Government recognise the value of such schemes. One of the things I find exceptionally difficult when we discuss youth mobility schemes is that the previous Government signed a youth mobility scheme with Uruguay. I do not understand why a youth mobility scheme with the European Union is so contrary to our values that we would not want one. If we can have one with 13 other countries, we can have one with the European Union.
On the Labour Party’s red lines in our manifesto, I hate to disappoint the noble Lord but we have been very clear that we are not rejoining the customs union. Our manifesto set out exactly what we were prepared to do in our negotiations. All our negotiations are through the prism of our red lines. We will not be returning to the single market, the customs union or freedom of movement.
On whether the UK is becoming a rule-taker, we have made a choice to align in some areas where it makes sense for our national interest. The EU has accepted that there will need to be a number of areas in which we need to retain our own rules as we make alignment going forward. The details of these are all subject to negotiation. We will be involved in forming the regulations that apply to the UK at every stage, and Members of your Lordships’ House will have appropriate scrutiny arrangements in place.
I will finish on a positive. The expected financial benefits for our economy from having a closer relationship with the European Union are hugely significant. The SPS and carbon-pricing agreements which we are currently negotiating will add nearly £9 billion a year to the UK economy by 2040. The carbon-pricing deal avoids the risk of UK businesses paying tax to the EU on £7 billion-worth of trade. We are seeking to reset our relationship based on what is best in our national interest as a sovereign country. The European Union is our biggest trade partner and the biggest source of economic growth for this country. We continue to work closely with it, in a spirit of good will at this time of year.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that rejoining Erasmus+ will include schools for the purposes of trips and exchanges? If so, will His Majesty’s Government back this up by reintroducing group passports, so that we can put an end to the inordinate delays at the border when coach-loads of children have to get out of the bus to be individually checked?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises an important point about how important travel is for our young people. We are negotiating bilateral agreements with countries. We have done the first of these for youth travel with France and I believe ongoing conversations are happening with Germany. I will reflect on her comments, but we are seeing positive moves in this direction.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
Of course we have to give scrutiny to any international agreement, but I am sure that, throughout this House, there is wide agreement that this is good news for the young people of this country—there is no question about that. In that context, will my noble friend the Minister reconfirm, in case of any confusion, that this is not confined only to universities but applies to access for further education, schools, sports, sports trainers, staff and so on? Therefore, it is, in my view, an unalloyed good move for young people. Can she confirm the next steps on this over the coming 12 months? Does she have an understanding of the timeline and the next elements in the process?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. He is right that this is for young people in the round. That is why I was delighted that the chief executive of the National Youth Agency welcomed yesterday’s announcement as
“a significant moment for young people across the UK. With Erasmus+ officially back, we are reopening doors to global learning, cultural exchange, and opportunities that shape futures”.
At a time of global instability, it is incredibly important that we have close relationships with our friends and allies and that we understand that the world is more than our borders. This is for as many young people as possible, and we expect and hope to see 100,000 young people participate in this scheme in 2027. On next steps, the funding call opens in November 2026—I must correct myself, as I think I said October 2026 previously—and will be open until February 2027. There are two pots of money, the first of which will be over £400 million that will come directly to the participating organisations, and there is a £1 billion pot that individuals and institutions can bid into. This is very exciting, and I hope noble Lords will share my enthusiasm in their local communities.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I will focus on the comments in the Statement on electricity co-operation trading with the European Union. Obviously, there are millions of families in this country who are wondering still how on earth to pay to keep their house warm and feed their children during the Christmas period, and indeed in any period. That is not as it should be. We should be much more concerned than we are about this totally unacceptable situation.
The Statement claims that the new co-operation plan that is being discussed will
“drive down energy costs and protect consumers”
and
“drive up investment in the North Sea and strengthen energy security”.
Can the Minister and her colleagues assure us that that really is going to happen, and that it will drive down the price from what it is now and not from the much higher price it is likely to be? This is a trick of statistics being used by the Government, which I do not like at all, and they should be much more straightforward. Is it going to make cheaper electricity for families and industry than we have now? I very much doubt it. Obviously, we want more investment in the North Sea. At the moment, we are paying the owners of wind farms literally billions of pounds not to produce electricity. The system is wrong and must be changed. I hope it will be, with the co-operation of the European market.
Those are the things on which we want some reassurance because, at present, they are not desirable. It is incredible that we are not producing competitively produced energy, in this country of all countries. We have the North Sea as a huge asset that we are not using properly—indeed, the Government are trying to slow it down. It is time we faced in another direction in this whole area, and I would like to hear more about it.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Given that we have not touched on this point so far, it would be helpful to update your Lordships’ House. The UK and the European Commission have concluded exploratory talks on the UK’s participation in the EU’s internal electricity market. This closer co-operation will drive down energy costs and protect consumers against volatile fossil fuel markets. The UK and the EU will work at pace on these negotiations as we head into next year. While these are ongoing, we cannot comment on the specifics any further.
To reassure the noble Lord on how this is going to impact energy bills, joining the EU’s electricity trading platforms will lower bills by reducing trade friction. More efficient electricity trading allows us to make more efficient use of our shared infrastructure. This deal will also support investment in North Sea electricity infrastructure, allowing us to reduce exposure to volatile wholesale gas costs. This is one component of household bills among many others, but we genuinely believe it will have a direct impact. The noble Lord is right: there is nothing more important to communities, especially where I live, than the cost of living crisis, and we need to do everything we can to support families.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, on Erasmus, I remind my noble friend that, as I am sure she knows, we are talking about very large sums of money. It was £570 million in the first year alone, and that is with a terrific 30% discount. When large sums of money are involved, I am interested in who the beneficiaries are going to be. I am encouraged by the part of the Statement in which the Commons Minister said,
“there will be a review of the UK’s participation in the programme 10 months after our association”.
My guess is—and it will of course be tested over time—that there will be rather more students coming from Russell group universities than from FE colleges in the Midlands and the north. To a degree, that is how it must be tested, because the evidence is pretty strong that such schemes can easily become a case of “to them that have shall more be given”, and communities such as my noble friend’s former constituency and mine do not get their fair share.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right that one of the tests of this success will be making sure that my former constituents and his have access to this scheme and genuinely participate. As I said, the Association of Colleges’ chief executive said yesterday that this was “brilliant news” for staff and students of all ages in further education colleges:
“For students, it widens their perspective on the world, opening their eyes to different cultures and different ways of life, and for staff, the opportunity to learn from other countries on how they deliver technical education and skills is invaluable”.
We need to make sure that this is embedded going forward, and one of the tests will be to make sure that working-class kids, too, have access to this scheme.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, the £570 million is a gross number; the net number would take account of grants to our own people benefiting from the scheme. I hope that the Minister will not be too distracted by the ghosts of Christmas past rattling their chains and coming up with absurd estimates of the cost of this scheme. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Reid, said, an unalloyed benefit that we are going back to Erasmus.
It is the other bits of the Statement that I would like to press the Minister on. She rightly pointed out that this is of considerable economic benefit, potentially. The Statement and what was said in the other place makes it clear that the negotiations on electricity are intended to move swiftly. If it is possible to achieve more efficient use of the interconnectors, that will be an immense benefit to the United Kingdom and to our continental friends. Obviously, it is crucial that we get the SPS agreement, and it would be good to have a firm link between the emissions trading schemes.
My understanding is that the intention is to do all that before the next summit. But the one thing that did not appear in the Statement was any indication of the date for the next summit. Can the Minister confirm that it will be, at the latest, no later than one year after the first summit—that is, by May?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I was doing so well. What I have been told I can say is that it will be happening in 2026, so there will definitely be a summit next year.
We genuinely are moving at pace, and there is the reality that some of the things we are hoping to bring forward, not least SPS, require a number of contributions from Members of your Lordships’ House to get this over the line. On that basis, we will be discussing these issues in some depth. I expect to be doing so with Members of your Lordships’ House, at this Dispatch Box, next year, which suggests that we are moving—in civil service language—at pace.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, as a long-standing opponent of Brexit, I welcome the Statement. I hope it is the first of a number of steps which will improve our relations with the European Union, especially in the trading aspects of that relationship. Without this, the prospects of sustained significant growth are going to be very difficult to achieve.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Viscount is absolutely correct. Our trade with the European Union was worth £813 billion in 2024, and it is our most significant trading partner. It is incredibly important that we have a positive relationship with it, and we have sought to do that. The fact that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister held the first EU-UK summit since Brexit earlier this year suggests that our relationship really did need to be rebuilt. We are rebuilding our relationship based on the three pillars of security, tackling migration, and SPS and ETS. I expect to be in front of your Lordships’ House on many occasions to discuss what I hope will be positive announcements.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and others in roundly celebrating this announcement, although we should take a second to reflect on the tragedy of those who missed out in the desert years. Those affected were not only those who might have travelled, but students staying here who did not benefit from having exchange students in their classes and being trained here.
I have two specific questions. David Clarke, professor of languages at Cardiff University, noted that since we were last in the scheme, the bureaucratic hurdles such as visas have become much greater for students travelling. Are the Government working with the European nations to try to minimise those road humps? Secondly, both Scotland and Wales have introduced their own schemes. Are the Government working with the devolved Administrations and the nations to ensure that any interchange is as seamless as possible when Erasmus comes back?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very important point about visas. I will have to write to her about the detail of any changes we will need to bring forward. I remind and reassure noble Lords that these are temporary arrangements for Erasmus; people will be here for less than 12 months and will be travelling for less than 12 months.
On existing schemes in Scotland and Wales, obviously, there are ongoing conversations, but the Taith scheme in Wales is hugely respected and regarded. In terms of accessing and working with disadvantaged communities and those from working-class backgrounds, we all have a huge amount to learn from their successes. Given the nature of these schemes and that education is devolved, these decisions will be a matter for the Scottish and Welsh Governments, but, obviously, we will have ongoing conversations with them.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I warmly welcome this great initiative, which is a matter for celebration. I am especially pleased that, as my noble friend Lord Reid said, it is open to all kids. As my noble friend the Minister said, we all have a responsibility to ensure that kids in all our areas, including the Forest of Dean, which is a greatly disadvantaged area, know about this so that they can take advantage of it. At a time when we have war on our continent and people are peddling fear of the other, the way in which this can nurture understanding between young people is vital.
There is one thing that worries me slightly. Of course, we have to have robust finances, and to know that we are getting value for money and that all kids are included. Ten months is a very short amount of time. I urge my noble friend the Minister to ensure that, whatever happens in the future, there must not be a cliff edge; we must do whatever we can to ensure that such schemes are a success.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her question and, more importantly, for the work she has done over many years in this area. She raises an important point, but one of the things we need to be aware of is that we are joining the last year of the current scheme, and that the details on the priorities of the next scheme and the countries that will participate have yet to be published. Therefore, there is nothing else that we can join at the moment. I hope that our joining Erasmus+ at this point sends a message to our friends and allies in the European Union and to young people up and down the country that we are investing in their futures, that we are clear in our relationships and partnerships about how important it is that we have cross-country travel, and that we appreciate the potential for cultural exchange.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on getting us back into Erasmus+, something for which many of us have been asking for a long time. I add that it is a complete myth that working-class students did not make use of Erasmus when we were previously a member of Erasmus+.
I have just one question. When the new youth mobility scheme is agreed, will it be properly templated on to Erasmus so that costs, red tape and conditions are kept as low and as simple as possible to further encourage less privileged students whose career plan may want to make use of both schemes? In that sense, as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, said, a year is surely too short a period to assess the overall interest.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, we have agreed with the European Union to work towards the establishment of a youth experience scheme with the EU, creating new opportunities for cultural exchange with the UK and the EU. It is in both our interests to conclude the negotiations quickly and to stand up the scheme so that young UK and EU nationals can take up the opportunities as soon as possible. I cannot give those assurances that it will align with the Erasmus+ scheme as we are still negotiating one of those schemes, but I look forward to discussions with the noble Earl as soon as we have the detail of both.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the introduction of this scheme. What assessment have the Government made of the extent to which the enhanced EU-UK mobility will strengthen and contribute to better collaboration in defence-related research and development? Will the Government pursue further measures to deepen such mobility, particularly alongside wider defence co-operation?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right to raise our security and defence relationships with the European Union. We see even today why that is so important in the ongoing discussions about Ukraine. On how we ensure this is part of our wider collaboration, it is incredibly important that our young people have a shared understanding of the world with young people from across the European Union, and that they understand the threats we face, which is why there is so much to be gained from us rejoining Erasmus+. I will have to write to the noble Baroness with an update on what the specifics will look like with regard to research, but I will follow up in the new year, if she will forgive me.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, this is really good news and I welcome it on all counts, in particular the food and drink deal we are moving towards, because so many small businesses have simply stopped exporting to the EU. Can the Minister say how those small firms will now be encouraged to get back to work and back into selling to the EU?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, a huge amount of effort is going into negotiating the SPS agreement, which will be incredibly important for our trade but also in reducing friction, including between Northern Ireland and GB. There are many positives to this. Those negotiations are ongoing but I look forward to discussing them with Members of your Lordships’ House once they are complete so that we can look at them in detail to make sure that everyone, including SMEs, can access them.
With that, I wish everyone a merry Christmas, chag sameach and happy new year. I look forward to seeing all noble Lords in 2026.
Pension Schemes Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock
Northern Ireland and Welsh legislative consent sought. Relevant document: 42nd Report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to open the Second Reading of the Pension Schemes Bill. I am grateful to noble Lords for the engagement we have already had, and I look forward to working constructively together as the Bill progresses through this House. I also very much look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady White of Tufnell Park.
Pensions are really important, and the Bill will transform our pensions landscape for the better. It will play its part in delivering growth, as well as helping to raise living standards in every part of the UK. It will assist the pensioners of the future to feel more confident about the economy in general, as well as their own futures.
Pensions are the promise we make to millions of people that their years of hard work will be rewarded with security and dignity in retirement. UK pension schemes invest hundreds of billions of pounds in our country. The reforms outlined in the Bill will make those pounds work harder for pensioners by making schemes more efficient—more money invested, and less on overheads and administration.
The first Pensions Commission laid the groundwork for a new pensions landscape, with a simpler state pension and automatic enrolment into retirement savings. This transformed private pension saving in the UK. The Bill, along with the work of the pensions investment review, moves our private pensions system forward. Bigger, better pension schemes will drive better returns, as well as tackling inefficiencies in our system.
The new Pensions Commission is looking at the issue of adequacy across the state and private pensions systems, with a clear objective of building a strong, fair and sustainable pension system. I look forward to this debate on the Bill, which is all about making every pound saved work harder for members, unlocking investment for our economy and restoring confidence in the promise of a decent retirement.
I will now outline the main measures in the Bill. First, the Bill addresses the fragmentation of the Local Government Pension Scheme, which is currently spread across 87 funds in England and Wales. This fragmentation limits efficiency and scale. Through these reforms, all assets in the Local Government Pension Scheme, or LGPS, will be managed through FCA-regulated investment pools, ensuring professional oversight and better value for money. Administering authorities will set clear targets for local investment, working with strategic authorities to align with regional growth plans.
Of course, LGPS members’ pensions and benefits are protected, as they are guaranteed in statute and are not affected by the performance of investments. These reforms are about the LGPS being well governed and well invested to deliver efficiency and value for money.
Next, the Bill introduces powers to enable more trustees of well-funded defined benefit, or DB, schemes to share some of the £160 billion of surplus funds to benefit sponsoring employers and members. This will enable employers to drive growth through investment and higher purchasing power, but it will be subject to strict safeguards. The measure will allow trustees, working with employers, to decide how surplus can benefit both members and employers, while maintaining security for future pensions.
The defined contribution, or DC, workplace pensions market prioritises competition on cost rather than on the overall value. The Bill introduces a value-for-money framework to enable a shift in focus away from cost towards a longer-term consideration of value. This new framework looks to standardise how value is assessed, in a transparent, consistent and comparable way. It will require schemes to disclose standardised metrics, undertake a holistic assessment of value, and take improvement actions where needed.
Automatic enrolment has been a huge success, ensuring that millions more people are now saving for their retirement. However, frequent job changes mean that individuals are often enrolled into a new pension scheme by each employer, leaving them with multiple small pots over their working life, often with very small amounts saved. This has created a challenge across the workplace pensions market, with current estimates suggesting that within the system there are more than 13 million pots worth less than £1,000 each. This is hugely expensive for pension schemes to administer, with an estimated cost of £240 million a year, ultimately resulting in poorer value for members.
Through the Bill, we are taking powers to introduce automatic consolidation of these dormant small pension pots through a multiple default consolidator model. Opportunity for member choice will be built in; members can choose a consolidator scheme or choose to opt out entirely if they wish. This will simplify the system, reduce costs and support members so they can better track their retirement savings.
There is strong evidence that larger pension schemes mean better outcomes for members through efficiencies of scale, stronger governance and better investment opportunities at lower cost. The Bill will therefore drive scale by accelerating the consolidation of multi-employer DC schemes.
From 2030, schemes used for auto-enrolment must reach at least £25 billion in assets in a single main scale default arrangement, or £10 billion on a transition pathway with a credible plan to reach £25 billion within five years. This is about harnessing the power of scale: larger schemes can negotiate better deals, access more diverse investments and deliver better outcomes for savers.
On asset allocation, earlier this year, the Mansion House Accord was signed by 17 major pension providers, which, between them, manage about 90% of active savers’ DC pensions. This initiative was led by industry, and the signatories pledged to invest 10% of their main default funds in private assets, such as infrastructure, by 2030. The purpose of this voluntary commitment is, as the signatories put it,
“to facilitate access for savers to the higher potential net returns that can arise from investment in private markets as part of a diversified portfolio, as well as boosting investment in the UK”.
The Bill includes a backstop provision that would permit the Government, with Parliament’s approval, to require DC pension providers of auto-enrolment schemes to invest a fixed percentage of their default funds in specific asset classes. The Government do not anticipate exercising the power, unless they consider that the industry has not delivered the change on its own. There are also strong safeguards around it.
All workplace pension schemes are required to have a default arrangement, where contributions are invested if members do not choose an investment option. Most members go into a default arrangement and remain there throughout their scheme membership. There are currently thousands of different default arrangements in pension schemes, creating fragmentation, inefficiency and poorer outcomes for members.
The Bill introduces new requirements to review those default arrangements, with a power to make regulations as needed, following the review, to require default arrangements to be consolidated into a main scale default arrangement. There is also a power to make regulations for new default arrangements to be subject to regulatory approval. That will ensure that savers benefit from economies of scale and improved governance by reducing the fragmentation in the pensions market.
Many pension schemes, especially legacy ones, are not delivering good outcomes for savers. As contract-based schemes rely on individual contracts between firms and members, firms usually need individual members’ consent to make any changes, even when the change would improve outcomes for members. Obtaining this consent is often difficult and costly, especially when members are disengaged, even when a scheme offers poor value. This leaves members stuck in poor-value schemes.
To address that, the Government are introducing the contractual override power in the Bill. It will allow the providers of FCA-regulated DC workplace pensions to transfer members to a different pension arrangement, make a change which would otherwise require consent, or vary the terms of members’ contracts without the need for individual member consent, but only when the legal and regulatory requirements are met. That includes rigorous consumer safeguards such as the best interests test, which must be met and certified by an independent expert before a contractual override can take place.
At retirement, DC scheme savers face complex financial decisions. They need to evaluate the different options to suit their own individual circumstances, assess risks and uncertainty in financial products, and factor in their own estimation of their life expectancy. We know that savers do not always use the support available: only 16% used a regulated source, such as Pension Wise or a professional financial adviser.
The Bill puts new duties on trustees to develop and provide one or more default pension plans at retirement to help members access their savings without these complex decisions. These plans will provide a straightforward income solution for most members, with opt-out rights for those who prefer alternatives. Trustees must design plans based on member needs, communicate options clearly and publish a pension benefits strategy, which will be overseen by the Pensions Regulator. The Bill also requires the FCA to make rules that deliver default pension plans in relation to pension schemes regulated by the FCA, ensuring consistency and better outcomes for savers.
Superfunds are commercial consolidators that offer a new route for employers to secure the legacy liabilities of closed DB schemes that cannot secure an insurance buyout. Building on the current interim regime, the Bill establishes a permanent legislative framework for superfunds. It introduces an authorisation and supervisory regime with robust governance, funding and continuity arrangements, so that members of those schemes can have the confidence that their pensions are properly protected. Superfunds may invest more productively because of their scale, expertise and buying power, so they are good for members, employers and the wider economy.
Part 4 contains a range of important measures. Following the Virgin Media court case, certain DB pension benefit alterations could be treated as void if schemes cannot produce actuarial confirmation that they met the minimum standards in place at the time. This affects schemes that were contracted out between 1997 and 2016. The court judgment has the potential to cause pension schemes significant cost and uncertainty, even where the schemes did, in fact, meet the minimum standards required. To resolve that, the Bill allows schemes to ask their actuary to confirm that past benefit alterations would not have caused the scheme to fall below the relevant minimum standards.
The Chancellor announced in the Budget that the Government will introduce pre-1997 indexation into the Pension Protection Fund and the Financial Assistance Scheme—the PPF and the FAS—to address the long-standing issue faced by members. As noble Lords will be aware, those are the compensation schemes that provide a safety net for members of DB schemes. Currently, payments in respect of service before 1997 are not uprated with inflation, and affected members have seen the real value of their compensation decrease significantly in recent years.
The Bill will pave the way to introduce increases on PPF and FAS payments for pensions built up before 6 April 1997. These will be CPI-linked and capped at 2.5%, and will apply prospectively for members whose former schemes provided for these increases. That will help those members’ pensions keep pace with the cost of living. This is a step change that will make a meaningful difference to over 250,000 members. Incomes will be boosted by an average of around £400 for PPF members and £300 for FAS members after the first five years. Our changes strike an affordable balance of interests for all parties, including eligible members, levy payers, taxpayers and the PPF’s ability to manage future risk. The Bill makes some other changes to the PPF and the FAS that will benefit the members of these schemes and the levy payers supporting the PPF, including around terminal illness and the levies.
Finally, some noble Lords may have seen that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee published its report on the Bill last night. I emphasise that the Government recognise the importance of getting the right balance when taking delegated powers and using them appropriately. The pensions industry is highly technical and rapidly evolving, and there is a complex interaction between legislative requirements, regulatory oversight and changes in practice or innovation. In pensions legislation, it is common for a mix of requirements and principles to be set out in primary legislation, with finer detail, which is liable to frequent development, to be set out in secondary legislation. That allows for a quicker response to developments in the industry, including to protect scheme members. We think we have the right balance in the Bill, but I thank the committee for its report and will respond in due course.
This Bill will initiate systemic changes to the pensions landscape, with the aim of building a pensions system that is fit for the future—one that is strong, fair and sustainable, and that delivers for savers, employers and the economy. At its core, the Bill is about making sure that people’s hard-earned savings work as hard for them as they have worked to save, while galvanising the untapped benefits that private pensions can offer the economy at large. I look forward to our discussions today. I beg to move.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I too look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady White. I have every confidence that she will make a great contribution, including to the work of the House generally. Having had some interface with her at the DWP, I am very confident that will happen.
Although the Bill is not perfect, I hope the Minister will take comfort from the broad cross-party consensus that exists around many of its core measures. Across your Lordships’ House, we share a common ambition: having a pensions system that delivers strong returns for those it serves.
In 2010, we inherited from the previous Labour Government a private pensions system that was not fit for purpose. The shift from defined benefit to defined contribution had left millions behind and, in 2011, just 42% of people were saving into a workplace pension. The cornerstone of reform was auto-enrolment—a Conservative innovation and an undeniable success. Today, around 88% of eligible employees are saving for retirement, with most opt-outs made on the basis of sound financial advice.
Workers deserve dignity in retirement, not merely a safety net. That is why, before the last election, the Government rightly focused on two enduring challenges: value for money and pensions adequacy.
Let me begin by acknowledging what the Bill gets right. We welcome progress on the pensions dashboard, which will help savers access their information more easily and plan for retirement. We also support the Bill’s emphasis on consolidation, including larger pension funds, the consolidation of the Local Government Pension Scheme, and the long-overdue merging of small, stranded pots—all of which have the potential to improve efficiency and value for money, provided that risks are properly managed. Finally, we welcome the humane and necessary measures to improve access to pensions for those facing terminal illness. Taken together, these provisions represent steps in the right direction.
However, while there is much to commend, there are also areas where we believe the Bill falls short, and in ways that matter deeply to the millions depending on it. The most striking omission in the Bill is the absence of any meaningful progress on pension adequacy. The uncomfortable truth is that too many people are simply not saving enough to secure a decent standard of living in retirement: a situation made all the more difficult in the current economic circumstances.
Auto-enrolment was never intended to be the finished article. It was a foundation, not the building itself. Yet the Bill proceeds as though the task were complete. The central question of whether current savings levels are sufficient is not confronted but deferred: pushed into the second stage of the review. This is not reform: it is a holding space, in which difficult but necessary decisions risk being postponed rather than resolved.
Adequacy should have been the organising principle of this legislation. Instead, it has been quietly parked for another day. In its place, the Government have focused on taxing pension contributions, increasing the cost of employment, and layering additional regulation on to the terms and conditions of work. We are regulating, taxing and constraining the very mechanisms through which retirement savings are generated, yet we have failed to address the most basic and consequential question of all: are people saving enough to retire with security and dignity?
A further missed opportunity is the failure to support the self-employed with new and innovative ways to save affordably for their retirement—more than 4 million people who drive our economy, create jobs and take risks, yet too often face retirement with no provision at all. Only around one in five self-employed workers earning over £10,000 a year currently saves into a pension. This is not a marginal problem; it is a structural gap in our pensions system. We need practical and pioneering solutions to support this growing group, and the Bill should have set that direction. We have spoken directly to the self-employed in preparation for this legislation, and in Committee we stand ready to assist the Minister by bringing that engagement and evidence to bear.
Our wider engagement also brought into sharper focus the Bill’s treatment of public sector pensions. This Bill is, in our view, decidedly LGPS-light. We will therefore table amendments to address that omission, ensuring that the scheme operates with greater clarity, flexibility and accountability. At the heart of our concern is the need for a more transparent, simpler and reformed approach to reviewing employer contribution rates for local authorities. This is not about loosening discipline or weakening the scheme. It is about prudent financial management and giving councils the tools they need to govern responsibly. This is what local authorities deserve and it is good financial governance.
The Bill shows no enthusiasm for addressing excessive prudence and the record surpluses within the Local Government Pension Scheme. We are not naive enough to suggest that the LGPS surpluses can be extracted or treated in the same way as those of private defined benefit schemes. But, under the Chancellor’s revised fiscal rules, those surpluses are now treated as assets offsetting public debt. That may be fiscally convenient but it represents a missed opportunity to enhance councils’ resilience. In appropriate circumstances, those surpluses could—and should—be used to support reductions in employer contribution rates. However, too often, overly cautious actuarial methodologies, excessive prudence and a lack of transparency have locked councils into contribution rates that are simply too high.
Proportionality and openness in how assumptions are set and decisions are reached are pivotal. Without transparency, those assumptions cannot be properly challenged through due diligence, and Section 151 officers cannot fully discharge their statutory duties. We must therefore ensure that interim reviews of employer contributions are more accessible, transparent and accountable, through clearer statutory trigger conditions, published policies, improved actuarial transparency and strengthened statutory guidance.
Kensington and Chelsea demonstrated precisely that approach in the aftermath of the Grenfell tragedy. Yet, across the country, councils are still forced into an exhausting and uncertain process to navigate the existing regulatory framework simply to secure interim contribution reductions after a formal valuation. We look forward to engaging constructively with the Government to ensure that councils are properly supported in delivering services while fully meeting their LGPS obligations.
Finally, I turn to what I regard as the most troubling element of the Bill: the proposed reserve power to mandate pension fund investment strategies within master trusts and group personal pension schemes used for automatic enrolment. Mandation is not a neutral tool; it is the quiet nationalisation of pension investment strategy. It is a fundamental shift in who ultimately controls investment decisions. Automatic enrolment has succeeded because it is trusted. Mandation threatens that trust: automatic enrolment is trusted by employers, by industry, and above all by millions of ordinary savers who have neither the time nor the confidence to manage complex financial decisions themselves.
It is therefore deeply concerning that this power is targeted specifically at automatic enrolment default funds. These are the schemes used disproportionately by those with the least means and the least financial confidence: the very people who rely most heavily on the integrity and independence of the system we have built over decades.
This is where the injustice bites. Those with the fewest means and the least financial confidence are the ones Labour’s mandation would trap. The savviest can opt out; the poorest get locked in. That is the injustice of mandation. Those savers need our protection, not a situation in which their pension outcomes become indirectly shaped by ministerial preferences, however well intentioned. Conservatives built automatic enrolment; Labour now stands a chance of threatening it.
We built automatic enrolment on a simple settlement: the state sets the framework, but trustees make the investment decisions. The Bill risks blurring that line. At stake here is trustee independence and fiduciary duty, principles that sit at the very heart of pensions policy. Trustees are bound, both legally and morally, to act in the best financial interests of their beneficiaries. Pension schemes exist to serve savers, not to serve the shifting political priorities of the day.
In this context, I am reminded of the warning offered by the respected pensions expert Tom McPhail, who invoked Chekhov’s famous dramatic device: the gun on the wall. If the gun is hung on the backdrop of the stage in the first act, it will be fired by the third. Once a Government arm themselves with a power, no matter how benignly it is presented, history suggests that it will eventually be used. If the Government do not intend to use the power, why is it in the Bill?
Rather than relying on the logic of “mandation as a backstop”, I urge the Minister and her team to step back and address the underlying reasons why pension funds are not investing more in the UK in the first place. Low domestic investment is not simply a collective action problem, as the Government suggest. It reflects real structural barriers, and the Government should compile the relevant evidence and report back on how those obstacles might be removed.
Will the Minister undertake to do this? There are better and far less constitutionally troubling ways to unlock long-term investment. I offer her just one example. Solvency rules continue to constrain insurers from investing in productive UK assets that offer stable long-term returns. Reforming those outdated rules could, according to Aviva, unlock billions of pounds over the next decade. That is how we should be driving growth, by removing barriers to investment and not by inserting the state into decisions that properly belong to independent trustees acting solely in the interest of savers. It is therefore striking that the Government have chosen to expend so much political capital on a mandation policy that commands little support beyond the DWP and lacks a wider consensus across the industry. Can the Government provide assurances that savers in auto-enrolment pension schemes will not subsequently discover that their pension providers have been instructed to invest in specific entities such as Thames Water?
I close by reaffirming our commitment to work constructively with the Government. Stability and confidence in the pensions market are paramount. It is in that spirit that we approach this Bill. Where improvements can be made, we will table amendments. We will engage in good faith to ensure that the detail is right and that the framework ultimately serves savers, schemes and the wider economy. We broadly support the direction of travel that the Government are pursuing. However, as today’s debate has made clear, there remain important questions around the detail, the intent of forthcoming regulations and what has been omitted from the Bill.
When closing today’s debate, my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie will expand on these points, set out further concerns and put several direct questions to the Minister. We hope that the Government will reflect carefully on those issues as the Bill progresses. I look forward to working with the Minister in the weeks and months ahead and to continuing this constructive, robust dialogue as we seek to strengthen the legislation.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I join the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, in saying how much I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady White, especially since I too live in Tufnell Park.
It is always a pleasure to follow the Minister. We welcome an important set of proposals for reform. We would support many of these proposals, but several merit serious examination and probing in Committee. As things stand, I should say upfront that we cannot support the mandation proposals in the Bill. I hope that we can constructively modify these proposals during the Bill’s passage through the House.
The Minister will know that stakeholders have expressed significant concerns about risk to member security, trustee independence and long-term saver outcomes that may be contained in the Bill’s proposals. For example, there are worries that easing access to DB surpluses of employers could undermine member benefits. Phoenix has noted that surplus release thresholds will be set in secondary legislation. It believes that a post-release funding level is essential to protect members and limit covenant risks. It opposes lowering the threshold to “low dependency” and believes that surplus should only be released above buyout affordability. Some MPs and the ABI have called for stricter oversight, including retention of the three “gateway tests” to prioritise buyouts over superfunds.
The ACA also recommends that trustees have a formal role in assessing and agreeing any rule changes and in determining any refund of a surplus to an employer. The CEO of TPR, Nausicaa Delfas, whose name I googled—it means “burner of ships”—is on record as saying that:
“Where schemes are fully funded and there are protections in place for members, we support efforts to help trustees and employers consider how to safely release surplus if it can improve member benefits or unlock investment in the wider economy”.
It is not entirely clear how those two outcomes may be traded off, but I would be grateful if the Minister could say more about government thinking on member protection in release and distribution of surplus. I know that my noble friend Lord Thurso, who cannot be here today because he is undergoing a medical procedure in Inverness, will also wish to test the Government’s thinking in this area in Committee.
Then there is the critical question of mandated asset allocation. This Bill, as everyone knows, contains a reserve power to authorise DC master trusts and group personal pensions used for automatic enrolment to invest a minimum proportion of assets in “productive” investments, including UK assets. On the face of it, this cuts directly across trustees’ fiduciary duties and members’ best interest tests. It risks political direction of asset allocation. Does anyone really believe that the Government would be better at allocating funding than the markets? This mandation may well create significant market distorting effects if, for example, the demand for such “productive” assets outpaces their availability.
There is also the risk that such a power may be extended over time to influence allocation on an even larger scale than might be currently envisaged. It is worrying that the Governor of the Bank of England has been reported as saying that he does not favour mandation. The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries has said in a written submission:
“The criteria for Master Trust authorisation were intended to produce a safe and reliable savings environment and we do not believe the concept of qualifying assets belongs there”.
This power to mandate
“introduces a commercial conflict between pension providers and trustees over asset allocation, weakening the fiduciary accountability of the trustees … It is also premature to give the Government a sweeping power it does not expect to make use of (we note the percentage of mandated assets cannot be increased after 2035 but that might encourage a government to ‘use it or lose it’.) We would urge Parliamentarians to consider the implications of a future government—of any configuration—having a power to define qualifying assets as any project that the government of the day can meaningfully define, charging the capital costs to the auto-enrolled pension savings of the nation … Should mandating schemes to invest in accordance with Government direction proceed, it needs to be made clear what the respective responsibilities of Government and trustees are”
as the finances work themselves through.
I would be very grateful if the Minister could set out for us how mandation and fiduciary duty can be reconciled without complicating or diluting the proper exercise of fiduciary duty. Perhaps a definition of “productive” would be a useful start. My noble friend Lady Kramer, who is attending a funeral this afternoon, had intended to speak to this point and wanted to ask for a detail and risk profile of assets that will qualify as “productive”.
Most people contribute through auto-enrolment into default funds. They have few resources and should not be in high-risk investments—and certainly not without their permission. Ministers have promised statutory guidance to help resolve the issue of potential conflict between mandation and fiduciary duty. On Report in the Commons, Torsten Bell said
“I intend to bring forward legislation that will allow the Government to develop statutory guidance for the trust-based private pensions sector”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/25; col. 1043.]
He did not specify what kind of legislation or when. The Minister has told us that this guidance will not amount to direction and will have the usual force, or lack of force, present in the many existing “have regards” that exist in the financial services arena. She has also told us that this draft guidance will not be available before Committee begins. This is surely not ideal.
Can the Minister reassure us that, at the very least, this draft guidance will be available before the end of Committee stage? We need to be able to discuss the details of the guidance before we agree to legislation. That is especially the case if the Government intend to rely on the use of SIs, which would of course deprive Parliament of any effective means of scrutiny at all. May I ask her to take another look at the timing, so that we may be able to take guidance properly into account in our discussions of mandation?
Perhaps the Minister can also explain why the mandation currently has sunset provisions for expiry in 2035 if no regulations are in fact made. Why not use, for example, the Mansion House targets to generate a significantly earlier cut-off?
Then there are questions of value for money and consolidations, which have been discussed already. The ABI, as I am sure the Minister knows, pushes for regulatory mechanisms to force consolidation only when it clearly benefits customers. I heard the Minister endorse that approach. The key word here is “clearly”—what does this mean? What will be the test, and who will be doing the testing?
As important as any of these things is the question of pensions adequacy or inadequacy. It is very disappointing that the Bill does nothing to tackle such things as low contribution rates, self-employed exclusion and early savings barriers. The question of whether people are saving enough is probably easy enough to answer, but what to do about it is entirely absent from the Bill. We will want to discuss this further.
Finally, there is no substantive mention of climate issues in the Bill and no reference to, for example, the Paris Agreement. There is an obvious asymmetry here. The Bill provides for increasing investment in productive assets, which are to be defined. It says nothing about which assets should be avoided or minimised. Industry analysts caution that, if the mandation favours domestic growth sectors without, or which do not have strong, climate screening, schemes could be nudged into assets misaligned with the 1.5 to 2 degrees pathway. That would certainly conflict with the spirit, if not the letter, of the Paris Agreement, and it would damage everybody and every enterprise.
Proposed new Clause 19, brought forward at Third Reading in the Commons by my honourable friend Manuela Perteghella, addresses this issue. This new clause, not voted on, would have required the Government and the FCA to make regulations and rules restricting exposure of some occupational and workplace pension schemes to thermal coal investments, and to regularly review whether the restriction should be extended to other fossil fuels. We will bring forward a similar amendment in Committee.
This is a very important Bill with some obviously welcome proposals but also some deep causes for concern, especially as regards mandation and the failure to address pension inadequacy. We look forward to a constructive discussion with the Government and detailed examination of the Bill.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, it is about five years since we last saw a Pension Schemes Bill in this House, and it is good to see so many familiar faces, albeit sitting in different places in the Chamber. It is also good to be welcoming some new faces to our small band of pension enthusiasts, and I am particularly looking forward to hearing the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady White of Tufnell Park.
This is a big Bill, and there is a lot in it, much of which is to be welcomed and is not particularly controversial. I am going to restrict my comments to two areas of the Bill, one of which I think we will hear quite a lot about.
First, I understand and agree with the reasons and the desire to consolidate small dormant pension pots, but I have some concerns about the details. We are all aware of the problem of lost pensions, whereby a person has forgotten about a pension, perhaps from a long-ago short period of employment. This is one of the problems that the much-delayed pensions dashboard is designed to solve. Compulsorily moving a small pot from one provider to another risks increasing that problem: it will be much more difficult to track down a pension that you dimly remember if it has been moved, perhaps with any correspondence having been sent to an out-of-date address.
The definition of “dormant” is also slightly concerning: a pension pot will be considered dormant if no contributions have been made into the pot during the last 12 months and the individual has taken no steps to confirm or alter the way the pension pot is invested. I have a couple of pension pots that would be considered dormant under that definition, but that is simply because I am happy with the choices I made in the past; I would not consider them to be dormant. In the opposite direction, £1,000 seems a rather low definition of small, although I see it can be changed by regulation.
I am not clear when the Secretary of State intends to make the relevant regulations, but to avoid making the problem of lost pensions worse, I would suggest that it should not be done until the first pensions dashboard is fully operational and accessible to the public. As I understand it, that will not be until late 2027. Perhaps the Minister could provide a brief update on that. Also, there should be a clear requirement that any such transfer, carried out in a situation where no response has been received from the individual, should be clearly flagged on the dashboard to help people track them down.
The second issue I want to raise is more important. Here, I fear that a trend is beginning to emerge already—and that, most unusually, I am going to find myself in disagreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. This is the power for the Government to mandate the asset allocation of a master trust or group personal pension scheme. Pension schemes should be managed for the benefit of the beneficiaries. The trustees have a fiduciary duty to that effect. The Government mandating that a proportion—and there is no limit to this in the Bill—should be directed into types of assets and locations chosen by them rides a coach and horses through that principle. Who will be liable if such investments are not suitable or go badly wrong? I do not see any indemnification of trustees here. What makes the Government think that they know better than a professional qualified pension manager as to what is best for scheme members? The track record of government investing is not stellar, to say the least.
Of course, the reason for this is to push more pension funds into UK assets, often described as “productive assets”. Like the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, I have that in inverted commas here, but even that makes little sense in this respect. Let us look at the sorts of assets that the Bill refers to. The first is private equity. Now, private equity may be a good place for a pension fund to put some of its money. Over time, returns have generally exceeded public markets and bonds, primarily because of the use of leverage, but I would love to understand why the Government think this would be a good thing for the country.
What private equity does is buy existing assets, then leverage them up with high levels of debt, thereby gearing up the possible returns that can be made on normal levels of growth. That reduces the corporation tax payable by the company because debt interest is tax-deductible, and the debt is often located in overseas low-tax jurisdictions. Typically, then, overheads and costs are reduced as far as they can be to make the company appear more profitable for sale after three to five years, and that often has the effect of reducing investment in the company and often leads to job reductions.
So where is the benefit to the country from this? If noble Lords do not believe me, I give them Thames Water, left underinvested and indebted by Macquarie, which took out billions in the process, or Debenhams, where the three private equity owners collected £1.2 billion of dividends financed by debt and property sales that left the company to go bust. Others we could mention would be Southern Cross Healthcare and Silentnight, where, ironically, pensioners also lost out, and we have the current anti-competitive situation with veterinary practices. Of course, this is a generalisation, and there are exceptions, but the idea that PE generates growth is doubtful at best—venture capital, development capital, growth capital, yes; PE, not so much. Why do the Government think it would be a good idea to force pension funds to invest in private equity?
Amazingly, the Bill does not actually set out that allocations must be made into UK assets. The wording is drafted so widely that the only assets globally that cannot be prescribed are assets listed on a recognised exchange; nor does it set any limits to what percentage should be allocated into the assets the Government prescribe. In theory, 100% could be allocated. The only safeguard in the Bill—contrary to the Minister’s comment that there are many safeguards—is that the Secretary of State must review the effects of any such regulation within five years of the regulations coming into force. We should note that this is not an independent review; it is a review by the Secretary of State, the very person who made the regulations. That does not fill me with huge confidence. Anyway, if things have gone wrong after five years, what can be done? Is the Secretary of State to be liable for the losses that scheme members have incurred because of the Government overriding the fiduciary duty?
We are an outlier in terms of our pension funds investing in their own country’s productive assets, especially when compared with countries such as Canada and Australia, so I understand why the Government wish to change that, but the way to achieve that is first to understand why it is not happening now. I would be interested to hear from the Minister why she thinks that is. I suspect it is down to a number of issues, including demographic issues, the attractiveness of our markets versus others, regulation, taxation—Gordon Brown’s dividend stealth tax has a lot to answer for—and, I am sure, others. The better solution, surely, is to identify and deal with the barriers that exist to make UK productive assets a more attractive investment prospect, not to take the frankly lazy and inefficient route of mandating without addressing the underlying reasons. Neither Canada nor Australia mandates. Rather, they promote domestic investment in infrastructure and projects through collaboration, not by forcing specific allocations. We should learn from those examples.
The Minister has been clear that the Government do not expect to use this mandation power. This raises a wider point of principle, one that the Minister and I have debated in other contexts in the past, which is that the Government should not give themselves powers that they do not intend to use. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, said, there is a tendency to use them regardless at some point, even if it is another Government who use them. This is becoming a bit of a trend, and one that I feel should be strongly resisted. There are two potential solutions to this part of the Bill. Either we need to clarify the whole fiduciary duty principle and improve safeguards, or we should remove the power altogether, and I must say that I favour the latter.
With that, I look forward to working with Members from all around the House, as ever, and the Minister on the Bill. In the meantime, I wish everyone a very happy Christmas.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and to take part in this Bill, which is a historic measure proposed by the Government with noble intentions. I need to declare my interests as an adviser to NatWest Cushon and a non-executive director of Capita Pension Solutions. I too look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady White, who has so much success and experience to offer the House. I thank the Pension Protection Fund, CityUK, Pensions UK, the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, and the Pensions Action Group for their helpful briefings and information for this speech.
The Bill introduces reforms that aim to improve pension outcomes for members of defined benefit schemes, defined contribution schemes and local government schemes and to increase investment in UK productive assets via the route of consolidation into a few larger asset pools or by ensuring default arrangements for direct pension funds in a way that the Government will mandate. I certainly support the aim of increasing UK investments by UK pension funds and the aim of improving pension outcomes. I warmly welcome many of the Bill’s provisions, but I believe that some of the assumptions underlying these reforms could prove dangerously false and that there is a real risk that there will be a lack of innovation in future as smaller, newer providers drop out or do not even start, while the Government could and should be bolder in encouraging pension schemes to support UK growth than the measures in the Bill provide for.
Using both unlisted and listed investment seems to make far more sense than just requiring a specific exposure to private unlisted assets. I hate to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, but I think we are on a similar page when it comes to the Government’s specific proposals. Many of our listed companies are selling at attractive ratings or discounts to their real asset value.
There are many aspects of the Bill that my remarks today could cover, but I will have to try to concentrate on a few and leave the rest for Committee. The aim of increasing UK pension fund support for UK growth is right and long overdue. However, much more could be done with the Bill. According to the Government’s workplace pensions road map, the UK has the second largest pension system in the world, and it is clearly the largest potential source of domestic long-term investment capital. Taxpayers provide £80 billion a year of reliefs to add to individual and employer contributions, but most of that money helps other countries, not ours. If taxpayers were presented with the question, “Would you like £80 billion of your money to build roads and fill potholes in other countries, rather than keeping it here in Britain?”, I am not convinced that they would answer in the positive.
UK pension funds have stopped supporting British companies, large and small. I believe that the future of British business can be successful and I believe in Britain, but it seems like our own pension funds do not. Even the parliamentary pension scheme has about 2.8% of its equity exposure in the UK. The Bill does not address that, as the Government are focusing on DC and local government schemes. One of the proposals that I would like to put to the Government is to see whether there are ways in which, instead of mandating specific areas that the Government want pension funds to invest in—which happen to be, in my view, some of the riskiest areas that they could support—the Government should require, let us say, at least 25% of all new contributions into pension schemes to be put into UK assets, listed or unlisted.
The UK listed markets have become exceptionally undervalued in a global context because our pension funds no longer support our markets. We used to have a reliable source of long-term domestic investment capital. If schemes want taxpayers to put huge sums into their pension funds each year, and if managers and providers wish to continue to receive such sums, is it so unreasonable to ask that they put, as I say, maybe just one-quarter of those contributions into the UK? That could include unlisted assets, listed assets or infrastructure—that would be up to trustees to decide—and if they wanted to put more than 75% overseas, they could go ahead, but should not expect taxpayers to give them money to do so. That seems to me to be not mandation but a proper incentivisation, using the incentive mechanism that we already have of tax relief, which does not have to support Britain at all.
We find ourselves in constrained fiscal circumstances. New Financial recently showed that each bit of the UK pension system has lower allocations to domestic equities as a percentage of assets, as a percentage of their equity allocation and relative to the size of the local market than other countries. What is wrong with Britain? I believe in Britain, and there are reasons to expect that pension schemes—after all, 25% of the pension is tax free—should do far more now to protect and boost our growth. This would not have to wait until 2030, either; it could happen immediately.
If I may, I want to cover the question of relying on consolidation as the answer to driving better returns, and what that might do to the marketplace. Defined contribution workplace schemes and the LGPS are supposed to somehow automatically generate better long-term returns by being bigger. Well, there is a case for that, and some studies would support it, but the figure of £25 billion that must be reached by default funds, and the £10 billion by 2030 that is required, are totally arbitrary. There is no rationale that says that is the right number, yet we are putting it in primary legislation. That is most unwise. What if there is a market crash between now and 2030, for example? What is magic about that number?
Can the Minister say what evidence there is that scale is a reliable future predictor of returns? What consideration have the Government given to the damage to new entrants by favouring these large-scale incumbent funds? The risk of schemes herding and all doing the same thing with such large pools of capital, especially in global passive funds, could distort markets. What consideration has been given to that? What level of confidence is attached to the predictions that the Government have made for improvements in outcomes?
I have heard from new entrants to the market, such as Penfold, which say they are now unable to get new business because they are growing fast but may not reach the £10 billion by 2030—and of course people cannot recommend that employers now invest in them. That company has innovative financial methodologies and is offering a new way of reaching out to pension scheme members, as are Cushon and Smart Pension, which may be further down the line in reaching the target. I have concerns that the Bill will stop new competition and new entrants coming in. An oligopoly is not normally the best way for a market to succeed.
I am particularly puzzled by the explicit exclusion of closed-ended listed companies within the Bill. Part 2 says that none of those investment trusts that have invested in precisely the types of investment that we need, and that the Government want to encourage to boost the UK economy, are excluded from the Bill. I do not understand why the Government would be doing this. I know that they want to encourage long-term asset funds, which are open-ended structures, but there are enormous reasons for and benefits from having closed-ended structures when holding such illiquid assets and long-term growth assets. These are proven companies that have produced very good returns in net asset value yet have shrunk to discounts, due partly to macro factors but also to regulatory overkill, which needs urgently to be reviewed.
Investment in just UK infrastructure and renewables by this investment company sector has exceeded £18 billion. Overall, in the kind of assets that the Government want to encourage—funding solar and wind projects, energy efficiency initiatives, social housing, biotech, property and private equity—these companies have put more than £60 billion to work. But they are now struggling to survive and having to buy back their shares, rather than invest in the kind of growth assets that they could otherwise be selling and managing for pension funds in this country.
I hope that the Minister will help us understand whether the Government are going to reverse this particular exclusion and recognise the benefits of this long-standing, world-leading investment sector. Unquestionably, it can be part of the answer in this scenario. I also urge the Government to clarify what fiduciary duty means. I know that there have been many calls for that to be put into statutory guidance, and I would support this.
Finally, as regards the Pension Protection Fund and the Financial Assistance Scheme, I welcome the flexibility that is being put in to allow the levy to be changed. I welcome the change in the terminal benefits. I welcome the acknowledgment of the injustice of the pre-1997 frozen payments, with the oldest people both in the Pension Protection Fund and particularly in the Financial Assistance Scheme, suffering most. I also welcome the flexibility that will mean that, where a scheme is unsure whether the previous rules would have granted increases on the pre-1997 benefits, it will be assumed that they will. The terminal illness increase, from six to 12 months, is again very welcome. But I would urge the Government to look carefully at how we can recognise the injustice to the pre-1997 members, such as Terry Monk, Alan Marnes, Richard Nicholl and John Benson, who gave years of their lives to achieve better outcomes in the Financial Assistance Scheme, and promote the PPF, which has been such a success. I have also heard from Carillion workers who were in the Civil Service pension scheme and have ended up in the PPF, losing their pre-1997 benefits. This injustice hurts, especially in light of the Government’s generosity to mineworkers and the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme, which has been given a 30% to 40% increase to pensions that is effectively publicly funded. I hope that the Government will think again about potentially one-off increases, or some other way of helping the pre-1997 members who lost their benefits.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I welcome many features and proposals in this substantial and significant Bill. It does, of course, draw on the work of the previous Government, and indeed continues progress on pensions that has long been conducted on a cross-party basis. I think back to my time as shadow Work and Pensions Secretary 20 years ago, when I worked with the then Pensions Minister James Purnell as he investigated auto-enrolment; I then served in the coalition Cabinet with Sir Steve Webb implementing these proposals. I remember also many years of debating with my noble friend Lady Altmann, and I agree with a lot of what she has just said. I look forward to the maiden contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady White, and I rather suspect that during her time in the No. 10 Policy Unit she may have also been engaged in some of these debates.
The Bill comes before the proposals from the re-established Pensions Commission, and I hope that it will have the flexibility to make it possible to implement ideas that emerge from the Pensions Commission. There is a still a crucial question hanging over the original Pensions Commission work, and it is great to see the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, in her place. She knows that I agonise over whether there was a scenario where defined benefit pension schemes could have been saved 20 years ago. They had become very onerous, and over decades successive Governments had added to the regulations to make the defined benefit promise more and more generous and more and more cast iron. Eventually, they had become so onerous that companies closed them to new members, so what had always been intended as an intergenerational contract was made so generous that it became a once-off special offer for the members of those schemes when they closed. It is possible that a significant reduction in the burdens on employers might have enabled some version of those schemes to survive. That is relevant to today’s debate on measures such as collective DC, which is an attempt to recreate some of those strengths. We went instead to pure DC, and younger employees have not been able to enjoy anything like the pension promise of older members of company schemes.
We did some work on this at the Resolution Foundation back in 2023. I cannot remember what has happened to the chief executive at the time, but perhaps I can quote some figures from our intergenerational audit in 2023. We estimated that millennials born in the early 1980s will reach the age of 60 with, on average, £45,000 less in pension assets than boomers born 20 years earlier. That is the challenge of boosting the pensions savings of the younger generation, which I hope is the cross-party basis for this legislation.
A particularly acute example of how this generational unfairness can work is that some of those defined benefit schemes closed to new members were in deficit. The company plugged the deficit gap by using revenues generated by all of its workers, including the younger workers, which it put into the defined benefit scheme available only to some of the workers. We now have some very interesting examples of what happens when these schemes find themselves now, thank heavens, in surplus. The recent Stagecoach deal is a very interesting example; it has been widely welcomed in the media, and in many ways it is good news. However, the Stagecoach pensions scheme closed to new members in 2017. After that, the younger workers had no opportunity to join it. There will now be a distribution of the surplus. I hope the Minister might comment on the feasibility of some of the uses for that surplus, which are not in the current provisions. We heard from my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott about the importance of pension adequacy. Would it be acceptable for one use of the surplus to be to pay increased auto-enrolled employer contributions into the pension schemes of employees of Stagecoach who joined post 2017 and were therefore not in the earlier scheme? Some of their work will have generated the revenues that created the surplus. Would helping them through the successful auto-enrolment model not be one way forward? Another use, which is being talked about, is funding a collective DC pension arrangement to help get those schemes going. I very much hope we will move beyond the single CDC we have at the moment with Royal Mail. Pensions UK has an interesting proposal for some tax waivers for extra contributions going into CDC, especially out of pension surpluses. Again, I hope the Minister might be able to give that a welcome.
The closure of DB schemes and the creation of pure DC was the background to some of the big shifts we have been talking about. There has been a massive shift from equities into bonds and away from UK assets into assets held abroad. We are talking about this as if it is just rational capitalism working and trustees exercising their discretion, but I have a lot of sympathy with the points that my noble friend Lady Altmann made, because the British model is a very unusual model. I believe it is largely to be explained, not by some higher economic rationality, but by the strange features of the closure of DB and moving to pure DC. It means that the percentage invested in UK equity fell from 50% 20 years ago to 5% now. That makes us a complete outlier across the OECD for the willingness of our pension funds to invest in UK assets.
This is not what the pension fund members and contributors expect. As we know from recent polling published by the London Stock Exchange, when you do a survey of 1,000 current members of workplace pension schemes and ask them how much of their pension contributions they think are going into British business, their estimate is 41%—nearly 10 times larger than what is actually happening. If you ask them whether they think their pension scheme should invest more in British industry, even if this would involve some sacrifice in their future pensions, 61% say yes.
Most funded pension schemes in other advanced western countries are much more deeply rooted in their own national economy and realise that part of what they are trying to do is create the environment in which their national pensioners thrive in a healthy economy in a generation’s time. It is absolutely right to have this debate now in Britain and, for me, having been involved—and still being involved, in different ways—in the science base and research, it is deeply frustrating that we have one of the world’s great research bases and one of its great financial centres but we have totally failed to link the research base with the commercial investors in the City. That needs to change.
Successive Chancellors have been trying to do this, and of course we have had the Mansion House compact and now have the Mansion House Accord. There is now a fraught debate about mandation, and I realise all the delicacies about it. I personally think that the recent proposal from the London Stock Exchange is a very interesting way forward: not specifying the asset allocation by type of asset but saying that, whatever asset allocation has been decided upon, 25% should go into UK assets—absolutely not with full mandation but expecting this as a provision for UK DC default funds. So I hope the Minister will say that the Government are considering this proposal from the London Stock Exchange, now backed by 250 founders and chief executives of UK companies. I hope she will assure the House that, if that proposal were to go forward, this Bill would provide the necessary legislative framework, which I am assured is not an ambitious set of changes. There are things that can be done to secure a far greater understanding of the value of investing in British industry and other British assets than we have seen over the last few years.
I will briefly raise one other issue involving the other Pensions Commission: the investigation of pension age. I hope the Minister may be able to say something about this, because the clock is ticking. There was a half-hearted partial announcement of the decision that the pension age should go up further under the previous Government, which has not been followed up. My view is that that debate has got totally trapped in a preoccupation with life expectancy and using projected life expectancy as the only metric—what I call RIP minus X—or formula that has to be used. What pension age you set is not simply a mechanical calculation around life expectancy but an important fiscal decision. As in all other decisions, there are other factors, including long-term public expenditure costs and the likely income of pensioners from other sources.
I hope therefore that we will not find that we look back on this debate and ask why we missed another opportunity to prepare the ground and properly consider whether, given the fiscal constraints that any Government face, we should also be considering increases in the pension age.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I too look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady White of Tufnell Park. I was delighted to discover that we are both honorary alumni of the University of Bradford.
An adequate pension must be the goal for everyone to ensure a happy and secure retirement. This Bill aims to achieve higher returns for pension savers. As many millions more people are now in pension schemes through automatic enrolment, it is imperative that we ensure they get good value for the money they are saving from their hard-earned incomes. At the same time, those savings must provide the best possible support in their retirement.
Both the previous and current Governments recognised that, if we are to achieve the growth our country needs, domestic markets must be stimulated to invest in the UK. This inevitably led to a review of the pension system. The pension sector is a major allocator of capital, which has a direct impact on the efficiency of the wholesale financial markets in driving innovation and investment in our economy.
The pension systems in most other advanced economies invest significantly more in their domestic economies than does the UK, as has already been said, where pension savings, as we should remind ourselves, are also supported by tax relief of over £70 billion per annum. The UK has deep savings pools, yet we have seen a reduction in domestic investment in the UK. The UK has one of the largest pension systems in the world. As the parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions reminded us in another place, it is our largest source of domestic capital, underpinning not just retirement of millions of people but the investment on which the country’s future prosperity depends. It makes so much sense to seek better to harness that capital, to invest in a more diverse range of assets that would benefit the UK economy, but also not to place savers at risk. This Bill is a serious and most welcome attempt to address both issues of concern: domestic capital investment in the UK and improving the outcomes for millions of workers saving for their retirement.
The pension sector’s role as a major allocator of capital will come increasingly from defined contribution schemes. There is momentum behind the need to focus on the DC pension sector’s ability to deliver good value for pension savers. In addressing these twin challenges of improving the outcomes for pension savers and achieving sustainable economic growth, there is general agreement that we need market consolidation, to see fewer pension providers operating at scale, and to deliver higher returns to savers and greater investment in UK productive assets. The Bill introduces the enabling powers to achieve that structural reform and greater consolidation in the market. But that raises major issues in respect of regulation and the governance standards required in both the management and administration of those schemes and the oversight of them by those with the fiduciary duty to protect the scheme members.
The case for consolidation is compelling, but will the Government give further consideration to the governance and regulatory requirements that need to be placed on those fewer scale pension providers managing billions, even trillions of assets over time so that downside risks are controlled and the desired outcome is achieved?
On the specific issue of trustees in these consolidated schemes, in another place, Liam Byrne MP called out the risk that in creating scale through fewer and bigger pension funds, there would still be a failure to deliver desired levels of investment in the UK. He called for greater legal clarity on trustees’ fiduciary duties, their ability to consider systemic factors and their impact on members pension savings when taking investment decisions. The Minister, Torsten Bell, advised that the Government will bring forward legislation to clarify that trustees can take systemic factors into account. Can the Minister advise the House as to the timescale for bringing forward that legislation?
The Bill aims to improve the returns workers receive on their retirement savings. We know that the DWP, the regulator and the FCA are working together to create a disclosure framework for assessing value for money that is to apply across the whole DC market, enabling consistent and comparable assessments of workplace pension schemes. To fully implement that framework, however, will require primary legislation in addition to the provisions in this Bill. When do the Government anticipate fully rolling out a new framework for assessing value for money?
I turn to the issue of accessing pension savings on retirement. In a DC world, UK savers are not well supported at retirement in making the complex decisions they face. They must manage their own longevity, inflation, and investment risk, and many struggle. Which? rightly points out that these decisions may have severe consequences and can mean that an individual outlives their savings. So it is good news that the Bill requires trustees of pension schemes to provide their scheme members with default retirement solutions that are relevant to their needs, and to help them manage the risks they face when they move into retirement. But we have to ensure that those solutions are fit for purpose. Are the Government actively considering additional guidance and regulation on the assessment of the value and benefit for members of the default retirement solutions to be provided by the schemes?
There are now many millions of small pension pots, as workers move from employer to employer, and the numbers are increasing. It is a major inefficiency in the pension system, as the Minister herself pointed out. The welcome advent of the pensions dashboard will help savers to take action to consolidate their pension pots. Characteristically, however, inertia means that many will not. The Bill provides for very small pots to be automatically transferred into qualifying consolidator schemes, which should reduce administration costs and deliver better returns for consumers through lower costs and charges. Can the Minister say what the Government’s current thinking is on the timetable for implementing the necessary regulation to allow this to happen?
There are several other important changes in the Bill which other noble Lords have already raised, but I finish by highlighting one of the changes to the PPF—the Pension Protection Fund—compensation. The decision to introduce legislation to enable prospective annual increases on pre-1997 compensation to PPF and FAS members is welcome. It could benefit more than a quarter of a million PPF and FAS members, but I am concerned that it will leave an unfairness, because no retrospective increases are applied to pre-1997 accrued pensions. The prospective increases will not apply to those members whose schemes did not provide increases to pre-1997 pensions prior to entering the PPF, and there is no recognition in any form of the major past loss of pension value, particularly given the incidence of high inflation and the acute financial impact on those affected. In its foreword, a recent PPF levy policy document concludes:
“The likelihood of the PPF encountering significant funding problems in the future … is low and is expected to continue to reduce over time … if funding problems did arise, these could be resolved over a multi-year period with our investment returns likely to be the most significant contributor”.
I go back to the points made by my noble friend Lady Drake on 23 April, when she raised this issue. Taking into account the considerable confidence in the funding level and investment returns, that £32.2 billion of assets, £19 billion in liabilities and reserves of £13.2 billion are held by the PPF, and the reduction in the levy to zero, the level of fairness set in the striking of the balance between levy payer and PPF/FAS member does not appear right. As my noble friend said:
“Not only has the levy in quantum declined hugely; the levy has also declined as a proportion of the PPF’s funding mix. Roughly one-third of the funding comes from the assets transferred to the PPF from those members’ pension schemes. Similarly, another third comes from the investment returned on assets, and 11% comes from assets recovered by the PPF on behalf of those schemes. Less than a quarter—23%—of the funding comes from the levy, and that is going to fall”.—[Official Report, 23/4/25; col. GC 32.]
Can the Minister take back to the Government consideration of an ad hoc payment to those members of the PPF with pre-1997 service, in recognition of the considerable real loss of pension that they have experienced? Such a payment should be well within the funding levels of the PPF. Payment of the prospective increases to pre-1997 pensions accrued to those whose original scheme may not have made provision for such increases.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, there is a lot in this Bill. Some of it is to be welcomed—there are quite a few crackers in it. However, there are also large elements of it that feel—dare I say it at this time of Christmas?—like a little bit of a turkey. It is such a skeleton Bill that it is more appropriate for Halloween than the time in which we find ourselves.
I am not the only person here who believes that. I must say that the report from the DPRRC is one of the most damning that I have seen on a piece of primary legislation coming to your Lordships’ House. Indeed, the committee says that
“we have found it exceedingly difficult to provide meaningful comment on the Bill precisely because it is so skeletal”.
This extent of delegated powers—there are nearly more delegated powers than there are clauses—does not feel like the right place to be. Of course, I know that trying to work with the pension industry and see the scope of what it is trying to achieve means that a bit of flexibility may be needed, but it is important that we do not just, candidly, hand things over to almost a ministerial diktat, which I am afraid that parts of this Bill do.
I was Secretary of State when the previous Pension Schemes Act was passed in Parliament, and my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott took it through this House; in fact, it started in this House. It built on—and this Bill continues to build on—the idea that where consensus comes together, we can get a very good product. Indeed, that continuity of thought is important, not just for the pensions industry but for the current and future pensioners that we seek to serve.
It has been useful to see the variety of consultations there has been, going back even to 2015, including about local government funds, and the actions taken when consolidation started to happen. There was a consultation in 2022 about other aspects of small pot consolidation. The clause I probably welcome the most is about value for money. It is really important that we make sure that we address these issues. In particular, the power to effectively shut down underperforming funds is good because, regardless of how little or how much people put in, many people are putting into their pensions all the time but do not necessarily realise quite how little will come out at the end of it. We will see more communication with the pensions dashboard, but the value-for-money framework will be a critical part of that.
There has been quite a lot of talk about trustees, and I know that a number of bodies have been trying to see if we can move to having solely professional trustees. That would be a mistake. I appreciate that is not what the Bill is calling for, but one of the challenges is that trustees, driven by a certain type of asset adviser, have been attracted to low-cost and low-risk pension schemes, but too often that has led to low return. So many of the gradual changes we have seen and that will start to come through in response to some of this legislation will be able to address that. That is vital and I will support measures to achieve it.
However, there is an underlying issue here about the mandation clause. From my experience in government, I remember a meeting in Downing Street with a bunch of pension providers, which was mainly driven by insurers. People had been told that they could not raise the issue of Solvency II being a problem. One or two were brave and did so, and were later chastised by Treasury officials. Nevertheless, it was important that they did. I understand the frustration of Government Ministers at the very top of government. People saying “We need investment” is all well and good, but why do they not put some of their money into it? I include the Local Government Pension Scheme in that. Ultimately, our traditional approach is one of state pensions not being particularly generous and trying to incentivise people to put into the private pension market, as well as what has happened historically with the defined benefit industry. That is why we have the system that we do, which has grown to the extent that it has so far—so much so that, as has been recognised, trillions of pounds in assets could be deployed to greater use, but it still must be for the benefit of current, future and, indeed, deferred pensioners.
Further, there is a missed opportunity in this Bill. Having two different regulators for pensions is a wasted opportunity. I know that the two bodies, the FCA and the Pensions Regulator, have been working on joint strategies, but fundamentally we still have significantly different rules on what can or cannot happen with pension funds, depending on how they are regulated. That just does not make sense.
This is the moment to try to change that. Frankly, the FCA has enough to do. Under their different rules, TPR allows a particular investment but the FCA does not, although it may seem to be a very similar product. We should not leave that element of complexity to be solved via delegated powers but take the opportunity to fix it in this Bill. That will need primary legislation and I hope that, although she may not welcome it—and, as I am trying to get it all out of the Treasury and the FCA, they certainly will not welcome it—the Minister will try to get it into one regulator to make a difference for the prosperity of our pensioners.
I am conscious that this is a missed opportunity in how pensions can help our planet. I strongly promoted the concept of planet, prosperity and people. These are mutually beneficial and there is no doubt that investment by the industry can play a part. That is why we put in place world-leading, pioneering regulations making the link to the TCFD and net zero. However, crucially, they did not mandate how investments were to be made or the drawing from a variety of assets but, basically, put a much greater duty of transparency on what was happening in the long term. The same needs to happen with nature and the TNFD. I will explore that in Committee.
In terms of what we want to achieve from this, I think your Lordships will share with the Government the outcome of having a good, robust and fully functioning pensions industry that generates prosperity, but let us not go down this tricky route of mandation. In particular, the DPRRC singles out that Ministers keep saying, “We don’t intend to use it”. In that case, let us not legislate for it. Let us make sure that we keep that blunt instrument away and continue to have a productive pensions industry. Nest, which was originally provided for in legislation prior to 2010 and came into effect within the last decade or so, has been a fantastic source to drive and make sure that we have private asset allocations. Let us celebrate that, work out why it worked so well and, as I have already suggested, make sure that we get rid of the stuff that is massively underperforming when prospective pensioners do not realise it.
It is going to be an interesting time in Grand Committee. I am afraid there will be a lot of amendments—this is not the only Bill I will be tabling amendments to—but I hope the Government will think again on the themes we will get into. If a lot of this is just about getting investment in Britain, the Government will need to answer why they scrapped the British ISA, which was a ready-made model. It is almost because it was not invented here. Fortunately, on the pensions journey, there is normally good cross-party consensus, but I fear that mandation has blown that out of the water. Nevertheless, let us see if we can try to fix it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and to hear nature-positive sentiments from the Conservative Benches. We are hearing a wide range of perspectives in that space, and I am glad to hear those. I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and the National Association of Local Councils.
I echo the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, in enjoying seeing so many familiar faces on the pensions trail. My first ever Committee was on the Pension Schemes Bill some six years ago. It is also nice to welcome new faces such as the noble Baroness, Lady White of Tufnell Park. I very much look forward to her speech as someone who, when in London, stays just across the border in Kentish Town. I also join the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, in his expressions of concern about any forced investment in private equity. It is an extractivist, exploitative model which benefits a few at the cost of the many and does not have the long-term perspective that we surely need when talking about pensions.
I will start by looking at the context. We are starting from when the Chancellor initiated a pensions review in August 2024, led by the DWP and HMT, aimed at bolstering investment in the UK and dealing with pension adequacy—or rather, the significant levels of pension inadequacy that so many now suffer from.
Picking up the point about pension age raised by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, although from an opposite perspective, I note that when the state pension age rose from 65 to 66, between December 2018 and October 2020, the percentage of 65 year-olds in income poverty more than doubled from 10% to 24%. A quarter of a million more 60 to 64 year-olds are now in poverty than in 2010, when the state pension age began rising. These figures are from a report by the Standard Life Centre for the Future of Retirement. According to the research, the poverty rate for 60 to 64 year-olds increased from 16% to 22% from 2009 to 2024. There are now 8 million people in their 60s in the UK, up from 6.7 million in 2010, and that is expected to peak at 8.7 million in 2031. Many of those are pre-pensioners now, but they are very soon going to be pensioners. Some are pensioners already, and we have a huge poverty problem there. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, said that this has to be a fiscal consideration. I am afraid we have to look at it much more broadly and consider the state of public health in the UK, whether many of those people are indeed fit to work, and the huge inequality of health at age 60, 65 or 70 that operates across different communities and social groups.
We also have to acknowledge that 2.8 million pensioners are now living in households below the minimum income standard. I note that the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee said in July:
“No older person should be unable to have a minimum, dignified, socially acceptable standard of living”.
The Green Party concurs with that. I know the Minister will be interested that women make up 67% of those pensioners in poverty. There has been some improvement in the situation with the new state pension but, as the committee noted in July, there are “blind spots” in policy-making. The reality of women’s lives is still insufficiently recognised. I cannot see anything in this Bill that deals with that, but I would be interested if the Minister could contribute anything on it.
Staying with the context, because it is important that we think about where we are before we get to the detail, according to ONS data we now have 44% of adults aged 16 and over actively contributing to a pension pot. This compares to 34% a decade earlier. Obviously, auto-enrolment is a really important factor, but according to the recent Scottish Widows 2025 Retirement Report, 39% of working-age adults are not on track to achieve what the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association deems a minimum lifestyle in retirement, and that is a 1% increase since 2024, so we are headed in the wrong direction.
The Minister said this is all about security and dignity in retirement. Before we start talking about private pensions, we have to acknowledge that the financial sector’s private pensions are not going to meet everybody’s needs. There are great risks with the financial sector in this age of shocks, and we have to acknowledge that the state pension must be the anchor of security, certainty and freedom from fear for everybody in our society.
Picking up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, on our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report, there are a couple of extra facts from that report that I think are telling and concerning. At 149 pages, the Bill’s delegated powers memorandum is nearly as long as the Bill itself, which is 161 pages. The number of delegated powers in the Bill—119—nearly exceeds the number of clauses, which is 123.
I have spent quite a bit of time on context because I think it is important, but I turn now to a couple of points that I expect to raise in Committee and possibly later. One of those is the term “fiduciary duty”. Lots of people have been asking me, “What are you doing in the last week before Christmas?” and I have said, “I am going to be talking about fiduciary duty for pension schemes”. I have then got lots of blank looks.
But this is something I have actually long been familiar with as a Green, as we have been struggling over many years to ensure that local pension schemes in particular are able to avoid investing, say, in the merchants of death, big tobacco, because that is bad for pensioners in a broader context, or able to avoid investing in fossil fuels because of their health and environmental impacts, and also because of the financial risks of the carbon bubble. So things like “fiduciary duties” roll off my tongue so easily.
Noble Lords will know that this was debated very strongly in the Commons. They have started the work in some ways but have left us with an unfinished piece of work. In response to the amendment in the Commons supported by 34 MPs, including all four Green MPs, the Pensions Minister has now committed to legislate to bring forward statutory guidance—again—on fiduciary duty. However, as I understand it—I am happy to be corrected by the Minister—the statutory guidance provided by the Government would not apply to the whole range of pension schemes and would not provide the legal clarity that schemes would need to wish to act on these issues. Any statutory guidance of course need not be followed and is at risk from potential future Governments.
Although this sounds technical, it is of course terribly important. I note that Liam Byrne in the other place said that there is currently confusion—and what the Government are proposing does not seem to deal with that confusion. With confusion comes caution. Then, we see trustees understandably following the safe path, rather than the one they can actually see is the right path.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has covered a lot of what I was going to say about nature, so I will not repeat that. But it is worth looking at this from my perspective of six years in this place. I am delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in her place, because she has been a leader in finally getting successive Governments to put climate and nature into Bills. To get the climate and nature bit in because the Government initially left it out has become almost the standard part of the role of your Lordships’ House. That is something I am sure we will return to.
I have one final point to make on the Bill. The Financial Conduct Authority has, to be charitable, a chequered regulatory history. The Minister said that the FCA would have this extra responsibility and that extra responsibility, which is deeply concerning. I am interested in the suggestions from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, on how we might look at that regulation. I do not have a view on that yet, but I would be interested in the debate.
I note that, a year ago, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Investment Fraud and Fairer Financial Services—I declare I am a Member—published a report on the effectiveness, or not, of the FCA, and blamed it for doing too little, too late, and doing nothing to prevent or punish alleged wrongdoing, with errors being all too common. That is really important, given that we are giving it oversight over some significantly increased powers for trustees, where trustees will not be referring back to members of the scheme.
Finally, I come to the fun bit. Given that this is the last contribution from a Member of the Green group for this session before Christmas, I sincerely thank all the staff—the doorkeepers, clerks, Library, catering, security and cleaning staff—for the many hours they have laboured for us, all too often hours very late in the evening. To offer a wish for all of them and all of us, my hope for 2026 is that we might see more sensible working hours for your Lordships’ House and for all our staff.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. But, not for the first time, she will find that I disagree with practically everything she has just said.
I have a few problems with the Bill, which has a number of sensible things in it. I will focus on aspects of the Bill that are being sold as supporting UK business investment and hence the Government’s growth mission.
I have big concerns about pension scheme money being seen as available for investment in ways that the Government choose but which conflict with the views of trustees, who have a duty to act in members’ best interests. I am as patriotic as anybody, but I do not think it is right to allow the Government to require investment in the UK. There have been times when investing in the UK was a terrible idea financially. I can remember the 1970s, when the only reason anyone held assets in the UK was the existence of exchange controls—we could not get money out. I say to my noble friend Lady Altmann that forcing or incentivising pension schemes into listed UK assets does absolutely nothing to enhance UK growth. These are existing assets; they have nothing to do with new investment.
The Government’s proper role is to create the economic environment where businesses want to invest. That requires confidence in the economic future, taxes that are predictable and low, and regulatory burdens that are kept in check. Anti-business and anti-growth Budgets, and changes to employment laws, are the main drags on investment in the UK at the moment, and no amount of playing around with pension fund assets will change that. With the exception of scale-up financing, which is a problem in the UK, there is no evidence that funds are not available to back profitable business investment in the UK. The powers in the Bill need to be judged against that background.
The part of the Bill that concerns me most, in line with many other noble Lords who have spoken, is Chapter 3 of Part 2, which deals with scale and asset allocation. These provisions go much too far. I get the benefits of scale, both in terms of cost efficiency and the ability to diversify into alternative asset classes. However, I do not think that there is any conclusive evidence that £25 billion is a magic threshold. I am concerned that the Bill will have the effect, after first having consolidated the market, of ossifying the pensions landscape. As I have said many times in your Lordships’ House, I am a believer in competition and markets.
Large players love regulations that create barriers to entry, because they insulate them from market disrupters. The Bill says that subscale players—new entrants—have to be regulated. Risk-averse regulators are not the best people to judge growth potential or the power of innovation. The Bill should encourage new entrants into the pensions market, even if that means a prolonged period of operating below scale. We need to look at how the long term for pensions investment can be protected and I will want to explore that in Committee.
The real shocker, of course, is asset allocation. Put simply, I believe that mandating asset allocation is wrong in principle and carries a significant risk of moral hazard. Pension trustees have a clear fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of their members. The Government should have no right to say to trustees that they must invest in particular things, especially if that conflicts with trustees’ views. I do not doubt the sincerity of the Government’s desire to get pension schemes to invest in a wider range of investments to improve returns for their members: that is broadly what scale facilitates. The danger comes with eliding that desire to facilitate higher returns for members with wanting to direct the investment into particular things, which may or may not turn out to deliver those higher returns. Legally requiring certain types of investment will inevitably result in calls for the Government to pick up the tab if the returns from those sorts of investments fall short. The moral hazard implications of these provisions for mandation are huge.
I am also disturbed to read proceedings in another place where some MPs wanted to direct pension schemes assets into their pet projects; they talked about social housing, hospitals and net zero. Such investments may well be socially desirable but there is no confidence that they will yield high returns for members of pension schemes. If the Bill does not rule out that kind of mandation, I am sure that it should. At the end of the day, trustees need to seek the best possible returns for their members, because it is investment performance that drives the retirement income of defined contribution members.
The drafting of the mandation clause is also a horror story; I will not weary the House with a commentary on that today, but I give notice that I shall want to examine it in Committee. I am sure that in Committee we will also want to look at capping the percentage which could be mandated—if indeed we wish to keep mandation at all, which I suspect we will not.
The other area that I wanted to talk about today is Clause 9, which creates a welcome ability to extract surpluses from defined benefit schemes. While only a tiny number of private sector DB schemes are still open to new members, very many employers are still burdened with schemes which have been long closed to new members or indeed to future accrual. Gordon Brown’s tax raid in 1997, followed by the prolonged period of low interest rates, meant that for the last 25 years, employers have had to pay large amounts to support the funding status of their defined benefit pension schemes. Recently, the good news is that some of those have swung back into surplus. It is only right that there should be an opportunity for those employers, who have borne this burden for such a long time, to get some of that surplus back. Doubtless, trustees will want to argue for further benefits for members in return for returning surpluses, but I hope that they will be mindful of the fact that the corporate sector has borne significant costs of keeping the defined benefit pension promises intact over many years, and they deserve a major share of those surpluses.
The Government have portrayed this as supporting business investment in the employing company, which it might do if the business environment is right for those companies to invest, but it may also be entirely rational for those companies to return excess money to their shareholders because that would be the best outcome for those shareholders. There is a provision in Clause 10 which allows conditions to be set on making payments. I shall want to ensure in Committee that this power cannot be used to direct what companies do with liberated pension surpluses once it has been agreed that it is safe for those surpluses to be removed from the pension scheme.
The Bill focuses on pension schemes, but it does not deal with many of the other problems that continue to exist in the pensions world. The Pensions Commission will tackle some but not all of those problems. In particular, around £1.3 billion of unfunded public sector pension obligations will weigh very heavily on future generations—that is currently largely hidden from sight at the moment. Into that category I would also put the continuation of the triple lock. This Bill is not the end of the pensions story.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes; I still worry on those occasions when I find myself agreeing with what she says. No doubt we will have interesting debates in Committee.
It is a real pleasure to take part in this debate, which is a perfect start to the festive season. I declare my interest as recorded in the register as a fellow of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, and I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady White of Tufnell Park.
I thank all the individuals and organisations that have written to me about the Bill. They have raised too many issues to deal with them all today, but I and others will seek to raise them in Committee.
I welcome this Bill. It is the first leg of the route to better pensions that was set out in the Government’s pensions road map. It seeks to make existing provision work more effectively and to ensure that people derive the maximum benefit from their pension savings. These objectives are to be welcomed. The second leg of this journey will be the outcome of the Pensions Commission. Part 2 will address the adequacy of retirement incomes and the fairness of a system that currently contains persistent inequalities. I welcome my noble friend the Minister repeating that it will look at state as well as private pensions.
It is worth pointing out, particularly given the welcome presence of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts—though he is not in his place—that this Bill marks the effective end of personal pensions and sets out how we can move to a better system of collective provision, leading to improved, fairer and appropriate outcomes for members.
Taking the various proposals in turn, the Bill takes important steps to remove inefficiencies in the current system. They include the consolidation of small dormant pension pots, contractual overrides for FCA-regulated schemes and the resolution of the issues that have arisen from the Virgin Media judgment through the validation of certain amendments. Each of these changes affects individual member’s rights without their active involvement and therefore must be handled with care, supported by appropriate regulation and professional oversight. These measures will require careful scrutiny in Committee.
Next, the Bill requires defined contribution schemes to offer default retirement arrangements for members. I welcome this initiative and consider it to be the most significant part of the Bill—potentially, as it is still unclear how these arrangements will operate in practice. The Bill provides broad regulation-making powers. We have now had the helpful report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, but the details, as the committee emphasises, will depend on what is in the regulations. I therefore hope that we will be able to explore these issues in Committee and identify the main parameters that will apply to these default arrangements.
Turning to the value-for-money proposals, I have some reservations about what they can achieve. Greater and clearer disclosure based on defined parameters is undoubtedly desirable. However, value for money is not a simple or uniform concept. It varies significantly from individual to individual, reflecting different circumstances, attitudes to risk and personal needs. The problem is that there is no simple metric that can adequately capture this diversity. While charges are relatively straightforward to identify and compare, investment returns are inherently uncertain and can be assessed only by reference to the past. Beyond these factors, value for money is also shaped by the quality of the scheme administration, the level of service provided to members and the effectiveness of communication and support. Crucially, it also depends on how benefits are adopted and delivered and whether they meet differing members’ needs. Bringing these factors together, deciding how to weight them and reaching meaningful conclusions of value to members is highly complex. Therefore, while everyone is in favour of the concept of value for money—no one favours its opposite—its practical delivery is far more challenging than the Bill appears to acknowledge. The fear is that the process will simply end as a justification for making higher charges and hence lower benefits.
As a number of previous speakers have explained, the Bill contains provisions relating to pension scheme investments, which the Government consider a central element of the Bill. Other noble Lords have addressed, and will address, this in some detail, but I will make a couple of points.
I have no objection in principle to mandation, unlike other speakers. However, it is very important that the Government understand the implications of directing how members’ money is invested. Doing so carries responsibilities; this is where I found myself agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I do not think that that aspect has been sufficiently recognised by the Government. I am also concerned, as other Members have mentioned, about the provisions that would be inserted into the Pensions Act 2008 by Clause 40 that refer to specific classes of investment that will be the subject of mandation. I do not believe that this belongs in the Bill.
I have a general concern about the Government in effect providing investment guidance—so much can go wrong—but my particular concern is the appearance of private equity in that clause. Private equity has a mixed performance record and presents significant liquidity and transparency challenges for pension provision. Where members have pension rights, illiquidity raises a question about who ultimately carries the risk that is inevitably involved: is it the member, the scheme or other members? I think the point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden.
There are, of course, other issues that require careful consideration, alongside broader concerns, such as climate and systemic risk. I am sure these will be touched on by other Members.
I turn to my two principal concerns about the provisions in the Bill: first, the provisions relating to the release of surplus, and secondly, the provision for pension increases where no statutory guarantee currently exists. On the release of surplus, ministerial Statements have suggested clearly that members are intended to share where surplus is released—I have a series of quotes, but I am running out of time. If that is the case then this objective should be set out clearly in the Bill. This is particularly important as there is a requirement under the existing legislation that the release of surplus should be for members’ benefits, and that is being removed. The Government justify this on the grounds that trustees’ responsibility to members is sufficient. I am afraid my experience in the industry tells me that that is not correct. It needs to be in the Bill if that is the Government’s intention.
Also, where employers are involved in the process of releasing surplus, it is absolutely right that it should involve the independent recognised trade unions that represent the affected employees. This is established practice elsewhere in pensions legislation, where unions must be notified and, in some cases, consulted before decisions are taken. This should clearly apply. If it applies to benefit and changes, it should apply in the case of surplus release.
I turn to my other area of concern: pension increases. It is important to understand the context. Prior to 1997, there was no general statutory requirement for increases in payment, other than those associated with contracting out. However, by the mid-1990s, particularly after the Scott and the Goode reports, it had become standard practice for pensions in payment to be increased annually by at least a minimum amount. In some schemes, this was set out in the rules; in others, it depended on trustee discretion. Which approach was adopted was largely a matter of chance. Either way these increases were funded, members paid for them during their working lifetime as part of their pension contributions, and they had a reasonable expectation that they would receive increases when they retired.
Although scheme finances have fluctuated since then, in general schemes now have sufficient resources to pay increases. It is therefore reasonable to expect them to provide those increases, whether guaranteed or discretionary. This reflects the reasonable expectation members acquired when they accrued benefits in the 1980s and 1990s. This applies in two overlapping contexts. The first is to benefits provided by the Pension Protection Fund and the Financial Assistance Scheme, where the original legislation in both cases excluded any allowance for pre-1997 increases, regardless of rules or practice. The second aspect is members of active schemes: the scheme is continuing, but they no longer receive the discretionary benefits to which they have a reasonable expectation given their service in the 1980s and 1990s.
I welcome the provisions in the Bill relating to the PPF/FAS. They are clearly a response to the current financial state of the PPF. Without the surpluses in the PPF, I doubt that these measures would have come forward, so they are welcome. However, as I have explained, making a distinction between those for whom the rules say they are going to get increases and those for whom the practice was making discretionary increases is invidious. All affected members should receive the same increases. The benefits from these schemes have never been or been intended to be an exact copy of the benefits that were provided by the schemes that were lost. They were always a broad-brush approach to what is fair to provide.
Given the current financial circumstances, it is absolutely fair that all members should benefit from those surpluses. The Bill provides for employers to share in those surpluses by the suspension of the PPF levy. Employers are sharing in the surplus; members should also, whatever the precise details of their entitlement to past increases. Crucially, none of these members is getting any younger and many, sadly but inevitably, will benefit from the Government’s proposals for only a limited period. For 28 years they have suffered a loss and they are now going to benefit from the change in policy but, for many of them, it will be for far too short a period.
Finally, I turn to the circumstances of defined benefit schemes that are continuing to run. Many are in a healthy financial state but are failing to provide discretionary increases for members’ benefits that were accrued before the statutory requirement was introduced in 1997. I believe that it is now reasonable to expect schemes in general to provide these members with discretionary increases, and we need to investigate ways in which we can make sure that that will happen in Committee. I look forward to hearing my noble friend’s response to these and other points that have been made in the debate.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I very much look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady White of Tufnell Park. I declare an interest as an employee of Marsh, the sister organisation to Mercer, a pension and investment advisory and management company.
I welcome many parts of the Bill. The Government’s ambition to reduce fragmentation, lower costs and secure better outcomes for savers is clear, and I am sure that Members across the House share the desire for a system that functions more effectively. Some measures in the Bill will undoubtedly support that aim.
However, from my discussions with those in the industry, it is clear there are substantial concerns about elements of the Bill. The central purpose of the Bill, as I see it, is to create scale that unlocks access to a broader range of asset classes, including private markets and UK-based investments. Scale is not an end in itself; it is a mechanism to strengthen negotiating power, secure better pricing and deliver improved outcomes for savers. Equally important, it is the potential for operational efficiencies that reduces costs and complexity across the system.
It is crucial, however, that the Bill does not become entangled in prescribing or favouring any particular business model. The pensions market is dynamic and diverse, with multiple viable routes to achieving the Government’s objectives. Flexibility is essential if innovation and competition are to flourish, allowing the best solutions to emerge in a live market environment.
I welcome the amendments made at Third Reading in the other place, which removed from the Bill detailed structures concerning the relationships between product lines and their contribution to the main scale default arrangement. That is a positive step. These issues are complex and better addressed through secondary legislation, where they can be explored with the nuance they require, and which is difficult to capture fully in primary legislation. However, these future regulations will have a profound impact on the efficiency, pace of change and cost across the pension system. It is therefore essential that the Government commit to a full and transparent consultation. I invite the Minister to assure the House that examples included in the Bill will not become exclusionary, and that the regulatory framework will be developed in a way that supports, rather than hinders, the delivery of the policy’s core objectives.
The policy in the evolving legislation must engage constructively with market realities and good industry practice. If that engagement does not occur, the result could be inefficiencies and additional costs that bring no tangible benefit to savers. We must avoid creating a system that is overly rigid or prescriptive and risks stifling innovation, increasing administrative burdens and potentially causing some large funds to lose auto-enrolment eligibility through no fault of their own.
In practice, many pension providers operate multiple product lines, such as group personal pensions and master trusts, while making investment decisions and negotiating prices at an overarching level across these products. That is not fragmentation; it is a sensible and efficient approach that leverages scale and expertise to the benefit of savers. The regulatory framework must recognise and support this reality.
For that reason, I urge the Minister to confirm that the approach to regulation will be principles based. The MSDA and common investment strategy tests must avoid creating unnecessary fails or imposing constraints that do not deliver real value for savers. A principles-based approach would provide the flexibility needed to accommodate different business models and market practices while ensuring that the policy’s objectives were met.
I turn to the Local Government Pension Scheme. I note with concern the significant reserve powers delegated to the responsible authority. While these powers are intended to provide flexibility, there is a risk that political motivations could influence the management of LGPS assets. What protections will be in place to ensure that these reserve powers cannot be used, or threatened, to pursue political objectives regarding LGPS investment decisions?
Alongside the introduction of governance reforms, it is paradoxical that the draft secondary legislation and guidance appear to control and limit external scrutiny and challenge of the enlarged pools. Independent external challenge is a vital component of robust governance, ensuring transparency and accountability.
Another area of concern is the balance between rules-based and principle-based legislation. While clarity is important, again, the current draft secondary legislation appears overly prescriptive and directive.
Almost all noble Lords have hit on the point about mandation. Many in the industry, including Mercer, signed the Mansion House Accord, but the Government should be aware that voluntary support for that accord does not equate to support for mandation, which I know the industry strongly believes poses a conflict with fiduciary duty. I hope that the Minister understands that and will consider it as the Bill moves forward.
In closing, it is vital that secondary legislation governing group personal pensions, the LGPS and the wider Bill remains flexible and not overly prescriptive. Multiple models and approaches can effectively achieve the policy aims. I hope that the Government recognise these market realities and will ensure that regulations support innovation, efficiency and practical implementation while delivering the intended outcomes. Striking this balance is essential to avoid unnecessary burdens and secure the best possible results for savers across all pension schemes.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, we have had a wide range of expertise in the speakers today, although I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, might be the only one of us who could not think of a better Christmas present than a pensions Bill. I am also conscious that my remarks stand between the House and the much anticipated maiden speech from the noble Baroness, Lady White of Tufnell Park, to which I too am looking forward, so I will try to be brief and focused.
I want to touch on three areas but before that, like many others, I welcome many aspects of this Bill, including on consolidation and value for money. However, there are important areas of detail that the Government need to provide for us to understand how they will better work; in particular, around the requirements on scale and value for money, and what they mean for competition and market dynamism, as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and my noble friend Lady Noakes have spoken to. There is also the risk that, at some point, scale no longer promotes investment in innovation and scale-ups, as those businesses would no longer be able to meet the minimum investment thresholds for very large funds.
The first area I want to focus on, which may be no surprise, is mandation. I am not convinced about the decision to include a mandation power in the Bill, as others have said. I will not repeat those arguments, but if I was convinced of the case for mandation, I would not be convinced of how it is being legislated for in the Bill as it stands. We are told that it has a sunset clause, but that is not the case. The 2035 deadline is only for increasing the maximum allocations set out by regulation and before this sunset moment, as I read it, there is no maximum limit on what proportion of investments can be mandated. I ask the Minister: why not? If the Government want to use the existence of this power to drive delivery against the Mansion House Accord, why not set a maximum level of mandation in line with those commitments made in the accords? There is also absolutely no clarity on what assets may be mandated for investment, only that they are not listed assets. In doing so, the Government have excluded a potentially important class of productive asset, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and surely to be raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. I would also like to hear from the Minister whether the Government intend to change course here.
As to what can be included within mandation, the answer appears to be: absolutely anything else. There are examples, of course, as to what the Government want to do but no legal limits whatever, and the prescribed assets can be altered at any time by regulation, in perpetuity. Normally, the argument for such an approach is to maintain flexibility. But given this is a power that the Government themselves say they do not want to use, surely the case for constraining it to the limits of what the Government intend could not be stronger. If a future Government wanted to go further than this, it would also seem reasonable to put forward further primary legislation to do so, because it is important not to think about the use case one might agree with, but the one that one might disagree with.
I can think of credible cases being put forward for mandating for portions of assets significantly above 5% or 10% for investment in net zero or defence, to name two examples. I make no judgment on the values of these: rather, I ask whether, even if noble Lords might support one of those use cases or scenarios, they would support the other.
In explaining the need for the power that the Government do not expect to use, the Pensions Minister has said that its existence will provide clarity to industry. But, for clarity, we need more detail than is included in the Bill: the definition of a qualifying asset and the percentage required. To provide that clarity, you would need to provide draft regulations. Is that the intention of the Government, will we see them during the course of the Bill and can the noble Baroness set out a timeline for us?
If the Government do not wish to use mandation, perhaps I might ask the Minister what feedback she has had from pension providers on the barriers to investing in the UK economy, and what action the Government are taking to address those, both to increase the pipeline of investment opportunities but also, specifically, regulatory barriers that have been raised by providers. Are the Government committed to looking at those also, and over what timeline? I also ask the Minister what happens if valuations change, over time or in response to a specific shock? There is a lot of detail to be looked at with regard to how the mandation powers will work, as well as the principle of them.
The second area I want to touch on is fiduciary duty. This was something that noble Lords discussed in some detail during the passage of the Financial Services and Markets Act, during which I committed to this House that the Government would consider the work of the Financial Markets Law Committee and host their own round tables to consider whether further action was needed. One of those round tables did take place, but I am afraid further ones did not. The Financial Markets Law Committee reported in 2024, however, and made it clear that, in its view, it is proper for pension fund trustees to consider climate change, along with other factors, when discharging their fiduciary duties. As the Pensions Minister conceded in the Commons, however,
“more clarity about the ability of trustees to take into account such factors would help”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/25; col. 1043.]
The Minister committed to bringing forward legislation that will provide statutory guidance in this area. Could the Minister confirm whether that legislation will be in this Bill and, if so, when we can expect to see those amendments, and also the timescale for the statutory guidance to be produced? Given that there will continue to be different interpretations of the underlying law in this area, I ask the Minister why an amendment in primary legislation would not be preferable to address the issue?
Finally, in the same discussions around fiduciary duty during the Financial Services and Markets Bill, the issue of deforestation-linked finance was discussed, including in relation to pension funds. Could the Minister update the House on the Government’s plans to bring forward regulations under Schedule 17 of the Environment Act 2021 to ban the import of forest-risk commodities and conduct a subsequent review to assess whether the financial regulatory framework is adequate for the purpose of eliminating the financing of illegal deforestation, and to consider what changes to the regulatory framework may be appropriate in this context? The EU’s framework on deforestation-linked finance is coming into force this month, so it would be a timely moment for the Government to set out their plan in this area.
Finally, the Bill does nothing to address pension adequacy, as we have heard. My noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, have highlighted in particular the issue of self-employed people and pension adequacy. I will be focusing in particular on the women’s pension gap, which remains at over 30%. My understanding is that there has been little progress on narrowing that gap over the years, and what progress has been made is as a result of men’s contributions falling, rather than any improvement in contributions from women, and I do not think that is the right way to be narrowing the gap. We are storing up huge inequalities in retirement unless further action is taken. Can the Minister reassure me and this House on the action that the Government are planning in this area, both potentially through the commission but also alongside and in advance of its work.
Baroness White of Tufnell Park (CB) (Maiden Speech)
I rise to address your Lordships’ House for the first time. I want to start by saying a little bit about myself. I am a child of the Windrush generation. My mother came from Jamaica to London aged 19. In fact, my grandfather sold a field to fund her passage. My father arrived as a 26 year-old and they met and married here in London. I spent most of my childhood in Leyton, east London, and it was something of a dilemma whether to take the name of the place I grew up or the name of the place that I have chosen to live with my husband and two boys, Tufnell Park. Noble Lords will see that I chose the latter.
At a time when the national discourse is so full of division, I hope that the successful integration of the West Indian community into the UK serves as a reminder of those close, common bonds that tie together so many communities, many from the previous British Empire. Thanks to this country, I was able to get a free education at Cambridge and then in London—an education my parents did not get. My mother left school as a 10 year-old and my father as a 15 year-old. It has enabled me to enjoy what is charitably described as a rather eclectic career between the public and the private sectors. I have a rather wide range of interests across public policy, economics and business and I hope your Lordships will be tolerant of those over the coming years.
I am both humbled and privileged to be making my maiden speech as part of the Pension Schemes Bill debate. For me, pensions are both personal as well as professional. They are personal as I creep ever closer to pension age myself, but also because I am scarred by my father’s experience. Probably the single worst financial decision he made was leaving the British Rail defined benefit pension scheme and joining the little-known SERPS many years into his working career.
It is professional because, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, mentioned, I have spent quite a lot of my career working on pensions. I was trying to remember the first time, which was the Goode report in the aftermath of the Maxwell pension scandal. The equalisation of the state pension age was when I was at the Treasury. The reform of SERPS was when I was at No. 10, and I am currently advising one of the big Canadian pension schemes.
As we have heard already in the debate, the country desperately needs to increase its productivity and growth. It is the only way, sustainably, to raise living standards in this country across communities—living standards which, extraordinarily, have not budged in real terms since the great financial crisis of 2008. As is well known, we lose too many companies to the US, where growth capital is more plentiful. Again as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, has already said, this is no accident. It is rooted in past regulation, which was well intentioned and aimed to de-risk defined benefit schemes. But it has had the result, as we have heard, of dramatically reducing the proportion of pension assets going into UK equities, from around 50% to, broadly speaking, 5% today.
Plans put forward by this Government and championed by the former Government to require UK pension funds to invest more of their funds in the domestic economy and within domestic businesses are, in my view, a positive and important step. We have heard already that several UK funds have voluntarily made commitments through the so-called Mansion House Accord, and it is welcome that the Bill provides a legislative backstop to ensure that what is promised is actually delivered. I note the controversy that this particular set of legislative recommendations has raised already in the House, and I look forward to being part of the debate in the future.
In a similar vein, the consolidation of the myriad diffuse local government schemes should improve efficiency—efficiency not just for its own sake but to release more funds to invest in the UK. However, the move falls short of the creation of the sort of mega funds in Australia and Canada that have driven a more wholesale move of public sector pensions into private funds.
I thank your Lordships. Joining the House is one of the privileges of my life, and I look forward, over the coming months, to listening, learning and, over time, contributing in some small way. Like others today, I take a moment to thank the many Members of the House of Lords and its staff. I am spatially dyspraxic, so finding my way around over the last few months has not been without its challenges, and the team has been incredibly kind, patient and generous. I thank them.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure and an honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady White, and her excellent maiden speech. I congratulate her on her appointment and her debut outing here in the Chamber and say how much all of us look forward to her future contributions. I am sure her family, not for the first time, is extremely proud of her today.
On that subject, if noble Lords ever worry about the limited breadth of their professional experience, I advise them not to look at the noble Baroness’s CV. In her extraordinary career so far, she has—strap in for a minute—studied at the University of Cambridge and University College London. She worked at Her Majesty’s Treasury twice, at the British embassy in Washington, as a senior official at Downing Street, at the World Bank, at the Department for International Development, at the Ministry of Justice—I have not finished yet—and at the Department for Work and Pensions, before becoming the third chief executive of Ofcom and then the sixth chair of the John Lewis Partnership. She then became the chair of Frontier Economics and a senior managing director at a Canadian pension fund. That is exhausting just to read. I think I am right in saying, however, that her first job after studying was in a church in Birmingham. She has spoken publicly and movingly about the importance of faith to her and her family.
If noble Lords talk to former colleagues of the noble Baroness, Lady White, some of whom are here today, they will find universal agreement that she is someone who faces professional challenges in her career with calmness, humanity to those around her, sound judgment, expertise and a warm inviting intelligence that most of us can only admire. She once told an interviewer:
“You often learn more from things that did not quite go to plan than things that did”.
As a former adviser to Gordon Brown for many years, alongside my noble friend the Minister, I can only endorse those as the wisest of words. We are truly fortunate to have the noble Baroness, Lady White, in our midst, and I am sure everyone agrees that this House’s work will be the richer for her wide-ranging experience, expertise and generosity.
Like the noble Baroness, I strongly welcome aspects of this Bill—most of it, in my case—and the way in which it has been welcomed across the political divide, almost. It will make a positive difference to savers, increasing the value of their savings through pot consolidation and driving greater scale, improving the range of guided retirement products and strengthening the value for money framework—all issues on which other noble Lords have spoken with much greater expertise than I can.
I want to focus my comments on the ambition in this Bill to make UK pension funds a greater driver of investment in UK infrastructure companies and communities, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, said. There is a wide consensus, whatever your view on the measures in the Bill, that we have a big problem in this country with the interface between pension funds as value generators for their clients and their investment contribution to the UK’s real economy.
The statistic has been cited a number of times that, 25 years ago, UK pension funds allocated half their assets to UK equities. That figure is now under 5%. This alarming fall is not for want of scale or size, as many colleagues have mentioned. The UK has, as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, remarked, the second largest pool of pension capital in the world. Indeed, UK DC pension assets are set to grow from around £500 billion in 2021 to £1 trillion by 2030. That is a 100% increase in under a decade, with growth predicted to accelerate further after that date. Yet DC pension funds have only 9% of their overall equity allocation in the UK. The global average is 30%. Across all types of domestic pension funds’ equity portfolios, UK equities make up 15% of the total. In Australia, the figure for domestic equities is 52%; in Japan, it is 48%.
We know a lot about why we have become such a worrying outlier in this respect. The £1.5 trillion corporate DB sector has been derisking for some time, as it has approached meeting its liabilities. At the same time, DB schemes have pivoted, for reasons of value generation, from a UK-biased equity approach 30 years ago or so to a global market cap approach in the past 20 years.
One side effect of this move is that the proportion of overseas investors in UK equities has risen to well over 50%, and, because of scarce domestic capital, UK companies have therefore become more reliant on debt for financing expansion. This combination of a growing reliance on debt finance and foreign capital is a matter of concern. As the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has written, it is a matter of concern from the point of view of national economic security. There is no simple response to this, but this Bill takes some first important steps to reconfiguring the structure of the industry, the regulatory environment that fund managers face and the incentives that confront them.
One key challenge is to create larger, more powerful and more strategic investment capacity. The last Government made welcome progress on this, and the current Chancellor’s Mansion House Accord, as many colleagues have said, has built further on that. The Bill builds on that accord by gripping the issue of generating scale and simplicity where there is currently too much fragmentation. Like other noble Lords, I welcome the LGPS consolidation, strengthening asset pooling and improving administering authorities’ governance structures. I welcome the requirement for master trusts to reach a minimum size of £25 billion, but I share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and echo her question to the Minister to assure us that this threshold will not be to the detriment of innovation and new entrants, and to tell us how these two objectives that we all share can be reconciled. The noble Baroness, Lady Penn, also mentioned this.
Lastly, there is the issue of pension mandation, undoubtedly the most contentious issue. It raises issues about the tension between government policy, regulation and fiduciary duties. Again, whatever your view on mandation, our starting point has to be that we have a real problem on our hands here—and the public agrees. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, mentioned data from a survey on this showing that two-thirds of all UK savers think pension funds should increase investment in UK companies, even if returns are lower. Why do we not listen to them?
The Government in this Bill are taking a reserve power to mandate pension fund investment, but are accompanying it with ministerial protestations that they do not intend to use that power. At the very least, I thank the Government for giving me an excellent case study that I can present for the coming years when I teach my students in the real-world use of game theory. More seriously, I think that I understand the logic of taking the power to do something when you have no intention of using it. The spectre of a big stick locked away in a cupboard, but still on view, is designed to have an incentivising effect on fund managers to reorient their strategies to start to take UK investment much more seriously. Critics might say you cannot have your big stick and eat it, to mix my metaphors—that you cannot have a power and then credibly say that it will never be used, or, to flip it the other way round, that you cannot hope that taking the power will have a chastening effect on the industry while also saying that you will never use it.
My own explanation for what the Government are doing here—I am sure that my friend the Minister will have a better explanation—is that it is a strategy based on sequencing the necessary changes. So, first, the fund industry needs to be defragmented, consolidated and scaled up, which this Bill is primarily about. Secondly, collective reorientation of the UK pension fund industry is incentivised through these reforms but also the accompanying reserve power. Thirdly, alongside the strategic capacity that is being built up, the Government know that they have work to do to make investment in UK equities and non-listed destinations more attractive, which involves lots of measures. By the way, one down payment on these measures that is to be warmly welcomed is the Chancellor’s decision in the Budget to introduce a three-year stamp duty holiday for new listings on the stock exchange. We will see whether this works. For my own part, I am a subscriber to the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, that 25% of new contributions should be invested in UK public markets.
This Bill is a building block in the attempt to make progress through what we might think of as pressured voluntarism rather than straightforward compulsion, and I welcome that very much. However, we need to be clear that this is a change that, from a UK plc point of view and a public finances and public services point of view, must happen one way or the other.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, before I make my few remarks, I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady White, on her most excellent maiden speech. I declare my interest as a trustee and a director of pension funds for a number of years. I acknowledge that this Bill is, in general, a good idea; however, as has been said by many people—I hate to repeat it again—it is a complex multifaceted set of proposals, and the devil is in the details. As I said, I have read this in almost every report so far at this stage of the Bill.
To most working people, their pensions are prospectively there simply to support them when they retire. Good employers, whether in the public or private sector, know that pension provision is often measured carefully when job opportunities are considered. Whether it is a defined benefit plan or a defined contribution plan is quite often a matter of good luck rather than good management and is often determined as a result of historic tradition in the particular industry or business.
In this legislation, the Government have the good general intentions of assisting members in DC schemes, including the enhancement of opportunities to get better returns through increasing the size of schemes and returning surpluses to employers. They also want to encourage schemes to invest in UK asset classes, thus hoping to help the economy, which I am sure is a laudable aim, particularly at present. All well so far, but let me at this early stage of our deliberations just put down one or two markers for later debate.
Increasing DC schemes to £25 billion—an arbitrary figure—has some real downsides. I suspect that this will reduce competition due to consolidation, leaving less choice and barring entry for new schemes, and will increase vulnerability, especially to cyber attack. DC schemes have been the preferred formula now for over 20 years and master trusts for only about 10 years and, of those, only a handful have achieved that magic £25 billion.
Next is the question of surpluses in DB funds. When interest rates were low, many employers put billions into schemes to repair a large number of deficits. They became less competitive than employers who did not have any DB schemes. I therefore hope that, in the Bill’s changes, we might find ways in which some of these surpluses could be returned to be utilised to fund capital expenditure, and I hope the Minister might be able to agree to that.
There are examples of surplus sharing and, in that context, I mention the Aberdeen Group’s adoption of the Stagecoach pension scheme less than two weeks ago—perhaps already mentioned by noble Lords. Members there will get two-thirds of future surpluses and Aberdeen one-third. I have no doubt that this will give great pleasure to bus drivers all over the UK but, like so many other aspects of pensions, there must be safeguards. It is the trustees who must always decide to distribute surpluses and they must act independently of employers, remembering that the basic principle is always to act in the best interest of the members. The intentions in the Bill for the allocation of surpluses in DB schemes seem to extend quite widely and to include enhancement of contributions in DC schemes. This crossover needs some care and further explanation.
Superfunds should be respected as an alternative destination, but advisory costs can be enormous. Also, actuaries must follow their obligations under Technical Actuarial Standard 300 and give advice on alternatives when consideration is taking place to transfer pension scheme obligations to insurers under buyout contracts. Improving the superfund regime is all well and good, but the Government must deal with the barriers around adviser intransigence and those potentially enormous costs. Without that attention, the idea of growing superfunds is a non-starter, as is evidenced by there being only one such fund in the UK at present.
Regarding encouragement to invest in UK assets, I also retain great reservations on mandation powers. As I said at the beginning, in theory it is a good idea that investing to help the UK should be given greater priority, but I remain concerned about the conflict of interest that might arise. This issue was raised by my honourable friend Mark Garnier at Second Reading in the other place. I go back to the strict obligation on trustees to always perform their role in the best interests of beneficiaries. That might suggest a new concentration on UK investment, but not necessarily. We need some more help for trustees for this responsibility. In response, the Minister in the other place suggested an opt-out if there were to be material detriment to members in taking such preferential decisions. I suggest that that would not satisfy the need for trustees to consider a wide list of things in determining those best interests of members.
On the powers for the ombudsman, we need to delve further into the intentions of the Government. Moving the ombudsman to become a form of court or tribunal changes to some extent the nature of its work. The relationship between the regulator, trustees and the ombudsman is currently very clear. We need a better explanation of their future respective roles and powers. My experience is that, although the Pensions Regulator imposes and controls duties and reminds pension trustees of their obligations, it is always, of course, ultimately up to the trustees themselves to decide what they believe is a proper course. Putting the regulator or the ombudsman into an enhanced role will not only diminish the absolute responsibility of trustees; it could also put those bodies into invidious situations of decision-making between themselves. No doubt there are also substantial resource issues to consider.
Lastly, I mention the pensions dashboard to the Minister, which has no doubt been referred to. A progress report would be welcome, as would an assurance that, as was clearly stated by the Minister at Second Reading in the other place, it will be completed and ready by autumn next year.
No doubt we can perfect matters as the Bill proceeds, as is the way with this House. The intentions are fine; the logistics and implementation to meet those intentions may well take quite a lot of work.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a director of the London Stock Exchange and of Valloop Holdings Ltd. I also have experience engaging with local authorities and their pension funds, in relation to both funding proposals and policy. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady White of Tufnell Park—she is no longer in her seat—on her excellent maiden speech. I welcome her to this House and look forward to her future contributions.
Like other noble Lords, I welcome much of this Bill, and my reflections are directed at what is missing or where small but significant adjustments could deliver real benefits for scheme members. I shall give some examples. When engaging with local authority fund managers on social impact investing, I found that while they valued local options, they also wanted diversity through investing in similar localised assets but beyond their immediate region. An amendment to reflect that flexibility, perhaps in Clause 2, concerning local and localised investments, may be worth considering.
On scale tests and value for money, should there not be some kind of linkage? Presently, some of the best performers in the DC market have assets under £10 billion. If such schemes deliver outstanding benefit for members, as demonstrated in value for money assessments, should they not be allowed to continue? Other issues in this space include whether the definition of “hybrid” is wide enough and whether the focus on forward looking metrics risks dismissing past performance, which surely still has relevance.
I also hope that some solution can be found for the many schemes in the charity and social housing sector that are disallowed from using retrospective confirmation measures due to an ongoing legal review. Concerns also remain about the PPF’s recent pre 1997 increases in the wind up trigger for DB superfunds, which create issues for funding levels and viability. Additionally, gateway test 1—that if a scheme is funded to buyout level it cannot enter a superfund—seems to prevent schemes augmenting member benefits via a superfund. Is that fair?
I turn to trustees’ fiduciary duty. It is undeniable that the Government have opened a Pandora’s box by taking the power of mandation, even if it is intended as a reserve power. I happen to think it is about time Pandora’s box was opened, emptied and hope allowed to get out, at least on interpretation of fiduciary duty. However, it is essential that this be done in primary legislation. Regulatory guidance or an SI is not enough. We are already seeing banks stung for compensation on car loans when lenders followed flawed guidance from the FCA.
Systemic issues such as the resilience of the UK economy and ESG are not abstract considerations; they directly affect pension scheme members’ long term retirement outcomes. Climate breakdown, financial crises and economic instability all influence the value of investments, the type of investments that need to be made in future and the returns available to members over time. They also determine how far pensions will stretch when drawn. These factors should already be integral to fiduciary considerations, requiring trustees to balance risk mitigation with support for long term stability. Yet trustees remain concerned about how to demonstrate alignment with member outcomes, even though investment results of any kind can never be guaranteed. Clarifying in this Bill that systemic factors are legitimate concerns would help.
At the same time, by naming and favouring certain vehicles, the Bill risks going too far and putting trustees in jeopardy. It could cause herding, market distortions and valuation bubbles and discriminate between comparable structures while failing to provide a safe harbour for trustees regarding financial benefit. The only way to achieve definite financial benefit would be through tax penalties for failing to meet mandated allocations, a possibility noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann.
We have already seen the dangers of herding in both DB and DC schemes, driven by regulatory and advisory consensus. Advice focused on global indices, coupled with regulatory encouragement, led to a retreat from UK equities, an overreliance on gilts and the use of nested leverage through repo borrowing, culminating in the LDI crisis. The only accepted defence that trustees have is that they take advice, but it is from unregulated advisers. While many are excellent, some were noticeably reticent when this House’s Industry and Regulators Committee investigated LDI. We found it striking that such influential advice was not regulated, unlike advice to individuals. This should be addressed, perhaps by making it a designated activity under FSMA.
I turn now to the discrimination against listing. The Government mandate investment into private assets but exclude that investment from being via listed entities, despite their ability to provide superior liquidity. Not all listed entities operate in the same way, and I am going to have to explain that later. It is openly acknowledged that the Mansion House provisions reflected in this Bill are tailored to LTAFs, the new long-term asset funds, which are themselves a variation on the EU’s LTIFs—the long-term investment funds developed during my time as chair of the EU’s ECON Committee. At that time, the UK rejected implementing LTIFs, with the Treasury assuring me that we did not need them because we had listed investment funds, also known as investment companies and trusts, which were better. Yet, under this Bill, they are explicitly excluded, even when investing in the prescribed assets, as the alt sector does.
This exclusion is extraordinary. Before the mistaken, and now nearly corrected, regulatory cost disclosure and cost cap debacle, listed investment funds were favoured by local authority pension funds precisely because they financed local UK infrastructure such as schools, hospitals and renewables, and provided venture capital to growth companies. Those local authority pension funds were major investors at IPO and follow on stages, often for the local infrastructure they were subscribing to. Many retail investors hold listed investment funds in their portfolios for similar reasons.
I have recently been told that somewhere in the Treasury there is a belief that listing and then trading shares is not new money. Interestingly, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, whom I very much respect and often find myself in common cause with, also made that point. That is not the proper story if you are looking at a listed investment fund. Listing is what keeps the underlying investment funding in place so that it is not sold out for redemptions, as happens with open ended funds like LTAFs. In fact, the way in which money is raised and then put into investments is a similar procedure to that of an LTAF or any other open-ended fund. The only difference is a clever trick: instead of having to sell off the investments if somebody wants to get liquidity and withdraw their shares, the shares can be traded on the market and there is no damage to the underlying investment. That does not seem to have been recognised in the provisions in the Bill.
It is interesting that even some LTAF providers have contemplated investing in listed investment companies because they want the liquidity, and that will enable them to stay listed in productive assets for longer while still having the safety of being able to trade and get their money if they need more money for paying pensions, so why discriminate against them? The fact is they are complementary investments. They are often going to be smaller and local-sized, as opposed to massive. They can be used in combination with LTAFs and it is very foolish and stupid thing to exclude them. I will certainly be tabling an amendment to try to adjust that.
Overall, it is about time that the Government’s discrimination and denigration of listed investment companies end. I say “denigration” because there is damage done to these companies by this wording in the Bill. How many times has this House talked about having to improve the state of our stock exchange, both for listed companies of the operating variety and for listed funds? What do we do at every turn? The Government and the Treasury do not understand and, here, seem to be undoing a lot of the good work they have tried to do in all the listing reviews.
The Bill contains important reforms, but it must not undermine fiduciary duty, encourage herding or exclude proven vehicles that deliver value. With constructive amendments, we can ensure that it strengthens pensions while saving members’ long term outcomes and delivering for the UK economy.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. She speaks with great experience and knowledge, and I certainly very much agree with the points she made on fiduciary duties and the need for clarity on them.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady White of Tufnell Park, who is not in her place at present, on a maiden speech of great humour and informed with important principles and pointers to what we should be seeking in this legislation. We will certainly look forward to her future contributions in your Lordships’ House.
I want to make some generalised points about the Bill—echoes, inevitably, of what has been said previously in the debate. But I would also like to focus on four specific areas: first, mandation of investment; secondly, fiduciary duties; thirdly, addressing the wrongs suffered by the pensioners of the former Allied Steel and Wire company; and fourthly, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report. The Minister, whom I greatly respect, referred to this in opening but dismissed it somewhat breezily—possibly not; maybe I am being unfair. There are some important concerns there that we have to address.
The Bill proposes many sensible reforms. It is a largely good piece of legislation. The creation of megafunds delivering lower-cost, diversified investments and better returns is sound and sensible. The consolidation of the Local Government Pension Scheme is also very sensible. There is much to welcome in this legislation.
My fundamental concern, along with many others who have spoken from around the House—almost universally—is the objection to defined contribution schemes and the Government’s backstop power to mandate investment. This really concerns me. It is potentially in conflict with the fiduciary duties of pension trustees. I would like to hear in the Minister’s response what the Government are proposing for that potential conflict.
Government-dictated investment risks undermining trustees’ fiduciary duty and risks distorting markets. Far more preferable, surely, is the voluntary approach that we have in the Mansion House Accord—built on reforms of July 2023 and based on, later again, the approach of my right honourable friend, the then Chancellor, Sir Jeremy Hunt MP—a voluntary agreement of 17 of the UK’s largest workplace pension schemes, signing up to committing at least 10% of their default funds to private markets by 2030, with a minimum of 5% in UK private assets. That is surely the preferred approach. It may well be the Government’s preferred approach, but I have real concerns about the backstop approach that is also in this legislation. The approach in the Mansion House Accord is expected to unlock up to £50 billion for high-growth UK companies and major infrastructure. That seems to be the sensible way forward, and it is based on the approach of Australia, for example, and other states.
Another area I want to touch on, which has also been touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, is the fiduciary duties and the need for clarity here. These duties are in many ways similar to the duties that company directors owe to their companies. The fiduciary duties of company directors are in many ways based on case law, but there is also a statutory framework since the Companies Act 2006, which is very important to underpin the case law that is vital in interpreting the duties. It seems sensible to have a statement of duties on which the case law then elaborates and on which it rests.
There is a need to set the duties of pensions trustees in a broader context. How do they take account, for example, of the impact of climate change, the local community and the views of pension savers? The Government talk of guidance, but in my view there is a very strong case for the introduction of a statutory framework, as we have in company law.
I also want to raise the case of the wrongs suffered by pensioners of the former Allied Steel and Wire company, and indeed others, who have lost out because of the pre-1997 pension compensation not being index-linked. Allied Steel and Wire, a company largely based in Cardiff at the time, went into liquidation in 2002, affecting around 1,000 workers in Cardiff but also in Belfast and Sheerness.
A pensions action group was set up 2003, after the collapse, by those who had lost not just their jobs but their occupational pensions. These workers’ pensions are not protected by the Pensions Act 2004, which helped members of defined benefit schemes that went into liquidation but after 6 April 2005—so obviously it preceded that. In fairness, a government scheme, the Financial Assistance Scheme, was set up and helped to provide some relief for these pensioners—up to 90%—but it was not inflation-proofed. This led to the erosion of the pensions’ value over time. As the pensions built up before April 1997 were not linked to rising prices, that failure for index-linking meant that they have suffered massively and continue to suffer.
I know the incoming Government promised to re-examine the situation, but the Minister will realise that there is still real hurt among these pensioners that this has not been recognised in proper compensation. These pensioners played by the rules; they deserve the pensions they invested for. It seems the Pension Protection Fund has a considerable surplus, which could be used to right this very obvious wrong, and I hope the Government will take this unfinished business on board.
Lastly, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report, to which my noble friend Lady Coffey and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, referred, outlines some very serious concerns. There are almost as many delegated powers, 119, as there are clauses in the Bill, 123—that is serious. It is a pretty damning report, I have to say. It refers to a licence for the Minister to make subordinate legislation. I feel that is something we will inevitably have to return to as we go through Committee and Report, and I would be very interested in hearing what the Minister has to say on that.
I otherwise welcome the legislation. There is a lot to be welcomed in it—it is good legislation—but I have those reservations.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a past chair and present director of Peers for the Planet. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord in what he has just said. We have worked together on these issues before, and I feel somehow that on the issue to which I will return, fiduciary duty, we have the very good beginnings of a cross-party amendment with him, me and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles—and I hope we will recruit from the Labour Benches as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, some hours ago—not long hours, interesting hours—mentioned the absence in the Bill of any reference to the Paris Agreement and the Climate Change Act. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned the previous Pension Schemes Bill, in which we both participated six years ago.
That Bill, thanks to a cross-party amendment and great support from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, who was the Minister at the time, included references to the Paris Agreement and the Climate Change Act. I am assured that it was the first piece of pensions legislation in the world that mentioned those things, and it has been followed by many pieces of pensions legislation in many jurisdictions since then. Therefore, I am hopeful that we may make some progress on this.
As the Pensions Regulator has said, pension schemes are
“uniquely placed to understand that short-termism in the face of systemic risk is not the right approach for … pension savers”.
Successive Governments have recognised that the UK’s long-term prosperity will depend on our ability to lead the transition to a greener financial system. However, financial experts, such as the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries and the Pensions Regulator, warn that many schemes continue dramatically to underestimate climate and environmental risks. The Pensions Regulator has stressed that climate change and nature loss are not “abstract concerns” and that
“awareness of and managing systemic risks is … a core part of effective trusteeship”.
The Chancellor recognised the centrality of the issue in her Mansion House speech last year. In letters to the Bank of England and financial regulators, she said:
“The climate and nature crisis is the greatest long-term global challenge that we face”.
She recommended that they
“consider how these risks could impact financial stability over the near and longer-term”.
She also reaffirmed her commitment to make the UK a global leader in sustainable finance.
There are clear benefits to placing the UK at the centre of global financial flows that will drive the economy of the future, creating high-quality jobs and enabling the investment we so urgently need in the face of ongoing economic and cost of living pressures. The pension sector must be central to that endeavour. With the third-largest stock of pension assets in the world, the UK has the capacity to set a global benchmark for responsible investment. The £3 trillion held in UK pensions represents an enormous opportunity to align long-term investment with long-term risks and long-term economic stability.
However, significant exposure to environmental and supply chain risks and fossil fuels leaves savers at risk of holding stranded assets or seeing significant reductions to their pension pots in the years ahead. This is neither in members’ interests nor in our national interests. Therefore, in our discussions on the Bill, I will be very interested to hear how pension schemes investments can align with our climate and nature goals.
As the Bill stands, it remains silent on how the major pension reforms it contains will support the delivery of our nature and net-zero targets, despite the risk to both savers and our economic prosperity that institutions, such as the International Energy Agency and the Climate Change Committee in this country, have highlighted. UKSIF has estimated that approximately £88 billion-worth of UK pensions are directly invested in fossil fuel assets, and that, even if the limited decarbonisation pledges made so far by countries are fulfilled by 2040, £15 billion of UK pensions are at risk of loss due to stranded assets.
The Bill offers a practical, incremental opportunity to put a direction of travel in statute on the need to move away from investment in carbon-intensive assets in a managed and orderly way. It could send a clear signal about the long-term risks we face and help pension schemes to prepare for the transition in a considered way.
One of the measures we could take, and something that I will certainly be focusing on, as I said, as we go through the remaining stages of the Bill, is the clarification of fiduciary duty. For too long, many pension schemes’ trustees have reported confusion about what they should take into account when making investment decisions, particularly when those decisions involve long-term structural risks such as climate change, nature loss and other systemic factors. This can lead to unnecessary and unjustified caution and reinforce a bias towards short-term financial returns, even when the long-term risks are clear.
I think we all absolutely understand and agree that trustees of pensions have a fundamental responsibility to act in their members’ financial interests. However, the clarification of fiduciary duties in legislation, far from detracting from that responsibility, would enable trustees to fulfil it more effectively. So, while I welcome the commitment made on Report in the other place for guidance on this issue to be brought forward, guidance alone falls short of providing the legal certainty that is needed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, said so clearly.
Guidance can be challenged, ignored, and reversed without primary legislation. The legal ambiguity to which trustees are currently exposed will remain, even if in a slightly lesser degree, if there is only guidance on which to rely. Legislative clarification would dispel that uncertainty and future-proof the system to ensure that pension schemes are better able to recognise and to manage the systemic risks of climate change and nature loss. It would support trustees to act in the long-term interests of all beneficiaries and address issues of intergenerational fairness that are becoming of increasing importance as the longer-term consequence of the climate and nature crisis becomes clearer. It could also lead to better returns and increase new investment in the areas we need to future-proof our economy: clean energy, clean transport, clean infrastructure and, crucially, to unlock the economic opportunity of investing in nature-positive solutions.
I very much look forward to pursuing those issues as the Bill proceeds through your Lordships’ House.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady White of Tufnell Park, who is not in her place, on her excellent and well-informed contribution. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who just made a most interesting and informative speech.
I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill today. Reforms to the structure of the pension schemes market introduced over the last 14 years have been generally beneficial. In particular, I am sure the Minister will agree that introduction of auto-enrolment into a pension scheme is the principal reason why the number of people saving into such a scheme has increased from 42% of the workforce back in 2011 to 88% today. That is a huge change and one of which the last Government can feel proud. Of course, the 8% of income invested into these schemes is not enough, but it is a start on which we can build.
While current economic conditions necessitate a review of the triple lock, it has been successful in restoring the relative position of pensioners in our society and has lifted 200,000 pensioners out of poverty. As my honourable friend Mark Garnier said at Second Reading in another place,
“the previous Government had turned their attention to two central issues: first, getting the best value for money out of our pension schemes and, secondly, pensions adequacy”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/7/25; col. 722.]
There are some positive measures in the Bill which I welcome, but I want first to remind the House that it was a Labour Government who did enormous damage to our defined benefit pension system, which was previously a jewel in our financial services crown and the envy of the world.
Shortly after his appointment as Chancellor in 1997, Gordon Brown launched a stealth tax raid on our pensions by abolishing dividend tax credits. The removal of the dividend tax credit has been estimated to have cost occupational pension schemes over £3 billion annually. This led to increased contributions required from employers and employees to maintain pension levels. The consequences of the change were, first, reduced investment in UK companies. Following the abolition, pension funds have been less incentivised to invest in British companies, with their ownership of UK-quoted shares dropping from about 50% in 1997 to just 4% in recent years. This shift is one of the main reasons for the failure of the London Stock Exchange to value new listed companies competitively or to provide the necessary investment to support economic growth.
Secondly, the abolition of the dividend tax credit resulted in the double taxation of corporate earnings, since dividends are paid out of post-tax income whereas loan interest is deductible from corporate tax. This harmful move effectively destroyed many final salary-linked pension schemes by making them too expensive for companies to run. It has been estimated that the tax rate destroyed around £200 billion of the value of the nation’s pensions. Besides the abolition of the dividend tax credit, which was a fatal blow to DB pensions, the continuing restriction of the tax-free allowance for dividends provides an additional disincentive to investment in equities. The dividend allowance was £5,000 per annum in 2016-17 but was reduced to only £500 in 2024-25. Besides that, the income tax rate applied to dividend income has been increased by 2%. A higher rate taxpayer now pays 35.75%.
Take the example of an entrepreneur who has established a successful small business. He does not take a salary but pays himself through dividends when his company can afford it. The company has paid 20% corporation tax, and the 35.75% dividend tax means that the income that the business owner takes out of the business that he has built is now taxed at a rate of 55.75%. Leaving the entrepreneur aside, for years, dividend tax has been a second-tier concern—something that mainly affected company directors and high net-worth investors. That is no longer the case. Dividend tax is now a mainstream issue and hits ordinary people with modest portfolios who have never thought of themselves as investors in the past. If you hold shares outside an ISA, receive dividends from your own company or invest through funds and ETFs, dividend tax now matters.
There have been ongoing discussions about the potential reinstatement of the dividend tax credit to stimulate investment by pension funds into listed equities. That would encourage more domestic investment and help to restore London’s previous status as the best stock market for innovative new technology and other companies to list on. In Australia, as I am sure that the Minister is aware, dividend tax credits have been reintroduced as part of the dividend imputation system. This is designed to prevent double taxation of company profits.
Does the Minister recognise that it is a missed opportunity not to introduce a measure which would be warmly welcomed by the City and would certainly help the London Stock Exchange recover its lost position? Have the Government considered reintroducing dividend tax relief, and if not, why not? Surely this kind of radical measure is exactly what our financial services industry needs. Reintroducing tax credits on dividend payments and cutting stamp duty on UK share purchases are among the 10 recommendations that the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association has made for using investment and fiscal incentives to encourage pension schemes to allocate more of the nation’s savings to British assets.
I welcome the measures in the Bill which seek to consolidate and build on auto-enrolment and the encouraging progress towards the pensions dashboard, which will greatly assist people’s access to their pension information and help them plan more effectively for their financial future. As the noble Baroness said, larger schemes generally perform better than smaller ones. I believe that the measures enabling the consolidation of small pots and the creation of superfunds are sensible, although regulations must ensure that protection for scheme members is not weakened.
The Association of British Insurers, the Society of Pension Professionals and other industry groups in the main support many of the measures contained in the Bill, including the value for money framework. Will the Minister introduce a requirement that it will be regularly reviewed to ensure that it operates as intended? Referring to the point on the consolidation of small pots, I suggest that the definition of small pots should be revised to £5,000 rather than £1,000, because the latter is too small.
The biggest problem with the Bill, as well explained by my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott and others, is the proposal to empower the Government to mandate asset allocation within large multi-employer defined contribution schemes. I am not aware that the Government is a well-qualified fund manager with a spectacular track record, and it is absolutely not right to interfere with trustees’ fiduciary duties. It is all the more unacceptable because it applies only to those very large schemes and will therefore affect only pensioners of relatively modest means. This is unfair. This Government are pickpocketing the pensions of poorer people. Fund managers and the trustees who appoint them are under a legal duty to prioritise the financial well-being of savers. Their job is not to obey political whims but to invest prudently, grow pension pots and uphold the trust placed in them by millions of ordinary people. While I hold the noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield, in the highest regard, I am afraid I do not agree with his view on this matter. It may be that many pensioners would like to invest in UK assets, even if the returns are low, but they should take action separately to achieve that end.
The fiduciary duty is not a technicality; it is the bedrock of confidence that the entire pension system rests on. Rather than impose new regulations and take powers to do things that they are not qualified to do, I would like to see the Government free up insurers from solvency rules which prevent them owning equity in productive assets. Indeed, following the Mansion House Accord, the pension sector is already moving towards greater investment in productive assets. Seventeen of our largest workplace pension providers have already committed to invest 10% of their main default funds in private assets by 2030. Mandation is not required to achieve this trajectory. To attempt to define and enforce allocation thresholds risks concentrating activity too narrowly, crowding investment into specific asset classes and inadvertently restricting investment in broader activities.
The Government seek to take a power that is unnecessary. Their possible intervention in the market creates operational ambiguity. How schemes and pension providers will prove compliance with requirements lacks clear thresholds and enforcement logic, and creates reputational risk for pension schemes. The clause offering opt-out in cases of material financial detriment is too vague. The best solution to the problem is for the Government to drop this reserve power from the Bill entirely. If the Minister will agree today to do this, it will save us all a lot of time and trouble. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about this.
Concerning local government pension schemes, I welcome the proposal to consolidate the pensions of 86 different authorities, which should contribute to enhanced performance. But, as my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott explained, surpluses should be used to reduce the burden of contributions going forward, particularly as councils are faced to go through deeply damaging and expensive reorganisation.
Lastly, I am happy that the Bill attempts to find a solution to the problem of defined benefit surpluses. As drafted, it does not provide sufficient safeguards. In this area and others, I look forward to working with noble Lords to improve the Bill in the months ahead. I entirely agree with what my noble friend Lady Noakes had to say on this matter. I look forward especially to hearing the Minister’s winding-up speech.
Lord Evans of Guisborough (Con)
My Lords, I should preface my remarks by declaring an interest in that I am a member of the Local Government Pension Scheme. I am, of course, much too young to be drawing any benefits from that scheme as yet.
It is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Trenchard, who gave us a good, detailed critique of the Bill and made a number of constructive suggestions. Indeed, it is even more of a pleasure to be following—well, everybody, really. The Minister pointed out the generosity of the Whips this morning; when I looked at the list, I discovered they had been even more generous in giving me basically the last slot of the last debate of the year, at least from the Back Benches—the Front Benches can follow up afterwards. Bearing that in mind, I will keep my remarks mercifully brief and focus on a couple of the contributions that people have made during this extremely informative and interesting debate.
First, I congratulate and thank the noble Baroness, Lady White of Tufnell Park, for her excellent maiden speech. It was interesting and, I think, will be inspiring to people from outside this place who see that clip. I know that she will bring a great deal of expertise to us here, and I look forward to her future contributions.
Secondly, I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes, who raised the spectre of the dead hand of regulation, as it has been referred to at times in the past, and the concern that if we regulate schemes too much, we will discourage new schemes or even make it impossible for them to open up and operate, which will harm competition. We have already seen this in recent years with the situation that pertains to challenger banks in the UK, because a lot of the financial rules that were set up after the market crash made it very difficult for new banks and new financial institutions to gather the capital and put in place the administration they needed to start up. I believe that the Treasury has relaxed some of those rules recently to enable more people to take part in the financial market. I hope that the Government will reflect on that and not repeat mistakes that have been made in the past.
I shall refer briefly to the contribution from my noble friend Lady Altmann, who gave us an informed and passionate plea to encourage pension providers to invest more of the money they have in UK assets. I was quite persuaded by that, but saying to investors, “We’d like you to invest a percentage of your assets and you get to decide, with all your expertise, knowledge and experience, what you invest them in”, is very different from being asked to give the Minister permission to make a much more detailed investment decision on their behalf, with what, in effect, is other people’s money. I think that is what we are being asked to do in the Bill.
I hope we will revisit the whole mandation issue and help to moderate it or even remove it from the Bill altogether. I would go out on a limb and say that I would trust the Minister to make investment decisions on my behalf, but that does not mean that I would trust future Ministers and future Governments to do so. That is not just about the sort of people with the sort of ideas who might occupy those posts in the future; it is also about the sort of challenges that the Government may face and the sort of temptations that this legislation may lay open to them at a time when future years are looking difficult and unpredictable.
I mostly welcome what is in the Bill. There has been a tendency today to focus on the things we do not like about it; that is the job of scrutiny. Back in the 1990s, I worked for a visionary entrepreneur, and he used to say that in the future there will be no such thing as security of employment but there will be security of employability. He was running a training company, so your Lordships can maybe understand why he said that, and we have moved a long way towards embracing the new jobs market since then, but the pensions market needs to catch up. A lot of the measures in the Bill will help us to do that.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
Yes, my Lords, we are getting towards the end. I thank all noble Lords who have who have spoken. My particular thanks and congratulations go to the noble Baroness, Lady White of Tufnell Park, who made a marvellous first speech, which I am sure will be one of many.
There is much to welcome in the Bill; let us start positively. My noble friend Lady Kramer—as noble Lords know, she cannot participate today because she is at a funeral—is seeking the detail and the risk profile of the assets that will qualify under the Mansion House compact. Most people contributing through auto-enrolment into default funds have few resources and should not be in high-risk investments, certainly not without their permission.
My noble friend Lady Bowles, with great expertise, emphasised that fiduciary duty must remain the overriding principle of pension governance. She warned that mandating specific investment vehicles risks undermining trustees’ discretion, encouraging herding and discriminating against proven structures such as listed investment funds. Drawing on lessons from the LDI crisis, she argued that statutory preference cannot guarantee financial benefit and may expose pension members to unnecessary risk.
My noble friend further highlighted the Bill’s unjustified exclusion of listed investment companies and trusts, despite their track record in financing UK infrastructure and growth businesses. She also cautioned that lobbying pressures appear to have shaped the preference for long-term asset funds and urged that legislation should not be dictated by sectoral interests. Her message was clear: fiduciary duty must not be subordinated to lobbying or legislative preference, because it is pension members who will ultimately bear the cost.
My noble friend Lord Sharkey raised many important matters, many of which I will mention, including mandation, DB surpluses and DC master trusts. My noble friend Lord Thurso, who cannot be present—he is up in Inverness—was particularly keen to ensure proper guardrails and governance in relation to DB surplus release, mandation and adherence to the stewardship code, as well as seeking to improve the lot of pre-1997 pensioners who have not benefited from inflation uplifts. He will pursue these matters. Noble Lords can therefore see a lot of amendments lining up.
We will need to consider any action in the Bill to remedy pre-1997 pension erosion. The absence of discretionary increases for pre-1997 pensioners has clearly resulted in an erosion in the real value of their pensions. That is not the only injustice that has impacted on many pensioners. I draw attention to the AEA Technology Pensions Campaign’s work fighting for pensioners who were misinformed by the Government and ended up losing out as a result, as recognised by the Committee of Public Accounts in its June 2023 report on this issue. Although that is not the only example of injustice in our pensions system, it illustrates the challenges many pensioners have faced uniquely. Therefore, we will look to scrutinise these elements of the Bill in detail.
Legislation to formalise the framework around defined benefit superfunds is long overdue and is in the Bill. A main question is how the gateway test for DB funds—in other words, which DB schemes are allowed to enter them—compares with other options such as a buy-out. I hope the Minister can elaborate when she replies on when a new option is created, so that what might be considered the appropriate schemes use it and the wrong schemes do not.
The Bill provides for master trusts to have a default retirement solution so, having built up a pension pot, schemes need to assist in managing it. Can the Minister provide details on how the new advice or guidance will work in practice? The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, made that point. Broadly speaking, extraction of surplus funds from DB schemes as if in surplus is mostly paid in by the employer. At present, it is difficult to access the surplus. Can the Minister elaborate on, and perhaps estimate, whether these new powers will be taken up? Will they just be there to be looked at?
Creating defined contribution megafunds sounds okay, but can the Minister elaborate on schemes being too big to fall, and whether new entrants will struggle to enter the market? We need to have the value-for-money framework elaborated on. In Australia, where there are league tables, there is evidence of investment herding, as mentioned in another context, where everyone invests in the same way. That is hardly a dynamic, competitive market, which is what seems to be one of the purposes of the Bill.
We will, I am sure, discuss mandation at length. Mandation is a reserve power to force pension schemes to invest at the whims of the Government, but I state clearly that I oppose this, as it crosses a dangerous line. It is fine saying that the Government do not plan to use the power, but we have to provide for the actions of future Governments: for instance, a Government who do not believe in climate change, a point made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Stedman-Scott and Lady Hayman.
The Bill’s idea of auto-consolidating small pots of less than £1,000 sounds good, but it is a big effort resulting in very little change and not much happening until 2030. Perhaps I have that wrong, but it was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and I wanted to emphasise it.
The pensions system is evolving. We see what is happening; we are trying to let it evolve in the correct way. There are few easy solutions and, as noble Lords have mentioned, there will be a lot of scope for amendments to the Bill to make it absolutely right. I hope we can work collaboratively, throughout the House, on improving the Bill so that it can be built on and relied upon by pensioners, pension funds and everybody else.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, who, like me, has become a regular on the pensions circuit here. As this debate draws to a close, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed with such seriousness and expertise this afternoon. For my part, I will try to touch on the key themes raised but, before I do, I would like to pay my own tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady White of Tufnell Park, because she gave an assured, charming and exceptional speech. She comes with a distinguished career record and I have no doubt that we will be hearing much from her here in future.
The seriousness of this debate was exemplified by my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott, who set out with great clarity our central concerns raised by this Bill. Those concerns, however, point to a wider issue with the legislation itself. This is a framework Bill, light on detail and heavy on intention, which has left your Lordships debating concepts and hypotheticals rather than the Government’s concrete plans. That is not only unsatisfactory but disappointing. These points were made by my noble friend Lady Coffey. Certainty in legislation comes from detail on the face of the Bill. When that detail is repeatedly altered, deferred and subject to numerous government amendments—by the way, there are over 50—even the limited certainty we believed we had is further diminished. I look forward to the Minister’s response, not just on the preparation of the Bill, or perhaps lack of it, but, as has been raised, on the report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
Nowhere is the lack of certainty more evident than in the proposed value-for-money framework. This was one of the first themes raised, not least by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, and my noble friend Lady Penn. This element of the Bill is thin, almost skeletal, yet it is pivotal—again, my noble friend Lady Coffey spoke about this. In practice, much of what this legislation seeks to achieve will stand or fall on how the value-for-money framework is designed and applied. If it is to drive genuine improvement rather than box-ticking, its methodology must be transparent, robust and genuinely comparable across schemes. Cost alone cannot be allowed to dominate decision-making at the expense of outcomes. A scheme that is cheap but delivers persistently poor returns is not offering value to savers, however attractive its headline fees may appear.
Against that background, I have two specific questions for the Minister. First, do the Government envisage the value-for-money framework operating as a standardised pro forma, with clearly defined and comparable metrics covering costs, net investment performance, and cost-to-return ratios applied consistently across schemes? Secondly, how will the Government ensure meaningful comparability between very different types of schemes? In particular, what steps will be taken where schemes meet fee thresholds but nevertheless deliver consistently weak investment outcomes? My noble friend Lord Trenchard touched on this.
This feeds into a wider concern about the order of priorities in the Bill. Rather than committing to the notion of the reserve power—so-called mandation, which I will touch on later—the Government should have concentrated first on getting value for money right. That should have been the central driver of this legislation. If value for money is properly defined, transparently measured and rigorously applied, it can strengthen outcomes for savers without trampling on the fiduciary duties of trustees. We have heard quite a bit about that this afternoon.
As the Minister for Pensions himself has said, trustees must remain free, and indeed obliged, to act in the best financial interests of their members, but I say that this should be guided by evidence and judgment rather than direction by mandate. We should be confident enough to demonstrate the benefits and drawbacks of widely used default strategies, such as global passive equities, which underpinned many DC schemes’ investment approaches. That case should be made openly and empirically, yet the Government have underplayed the extent to which a robust value-for-money framework could drive improvement without compulsion. If value is genuinely improved and transparently measured, much else should follow.
My noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott has already clearly set out the Opposition’s wider concerns about mandation. I will not repeat them at length, but the subject was raised by my noble friends Lord Ashcombe and Lady Noakes, the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and a number of noble Lords. However, I wish to raise one further point that reflects a broader theme running through today’s debate: the need to strike the right balance between flexibility and discipline. My noble friend Lord Ashcombe spoke on this.
Beyond the constitutional and fiduciary issues already raised, there is also a practical market risk that should not be overlooked. This matter was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, about market distorting effects, as the noble Lord put it. Mandation risks inflating asset prices if multiple funds are required to allocate to the same asset classes at the same time. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, raised this matter too. Markets may also interpret Government direction as an implicit signal of future price support, potentially amplifying distortions rather than improving capital allocation.
Against that background, I have two specific questions for the Minister. First, have the Government assessed the risk that mandated investment could lead to asset price inflation or wider market distortion? If so, what conclusions have they reached? Secondly, how do the Government intend to ensure that mandated allocations remain aligned with changing economic conditions, particularly in cases where schemes may reach a mandated threshold only after the relevant asset class is no longer aligned with economic need or the Treasury’s broader objectives?
There are a few further questions on this important subject. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked this as well. If, after mandation, or, in the case of mandation, if investments underperform or indeed fail, who takes responsibility, the Government or trustees? My noble friend Lady Penn asked how the qualifying assets will be defined. I think other Peers may also have asked that. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, asked some important questions in this sphere, so I am looking forward to the response from the Minister.
I should say also that I noted the constructive advice and ideas from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on how the Government could better encourage pension funds to invest in the UK, short of introducing the reserved power. There were also some suggestions from my noble friend Lord Trenchard.
Next, let me touch on the treatment of surpluses in defined benefit schemes. I agree that surpluses can present opportunities, but they are not windfalls: they exist to absorb future shocks, manage demographic risk and ensure that promises made to members are kept. Flexibility in how surpluses are treated is sensible, but only if it is underpinned by robust safeguards. None of us wishes to see surpluses eroded by ill-judged extraction or quietly diverted into activities that weaken long-term scheme resilience. In that context, the forthcoming guidance from the Pensions Regulator will be pivotal. Can the Minister confirm when that guidance will be published, whether it will be subject to consultation and how Parliament will be able to scrutinise the balance it strikes between prudence, flexibility and long-term security?
Much of today’s debate has also rightly returned to auto-enrolment. The question of paucity of pensions adequacy has been highlighted by the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Davies of Brixton, and my noble friend Lady Penn. Introduced by a Conservative Government, auto-enrolment has been one of the quiet successes of the past decade. I would like to remind the House that the operational aspects of this were progressed and tested going back as far as 2012. Participation among eligible employees now stands at around 88%. I would argue that this is a remarkable achievement. But success should not breed complacency, because upwards of 8.5 million people remain undersavers, and the question of adequacy remains unresolved. There is still work to be done, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said.
Crucially, auto-enrolment is highly sensitive to labour market conditions. Every percentage point increase in unemployment pushes more people out of workplace pension saving altogether. Against that backdrop, the recent “benefits Budget” is concerning. Unemployment is rising and, with it, the number of people falling out of pension saving. I therefore ask the Minister whether the Government have undertaken updated modelling on the impact of higher employment on future pension adequacy, whether those projections differ from earlier assumptions and whether they will be published so that Parliament can properly understand the long-term consequences of the Government’s policy choices.
As many noble Lords have noted, pension engagement remains the missing leg of the stool. Millions are saving, but fewer than half have checked the value of their pension in the past year. This is not simply apathy; it reflects a system that has become increasingly complex and opaque to ordinary savers. The pensions dashboard, which has been mentioned this afternoon, is therefore not a technical adjunct. It is central to enabling informed decision-making, and various questions have been raised about that. Can the Minister confirm when the revised staging timeline will be published, whether clear delivery milestones will be set out and how Parliament will be able to track progress so that savers can have confidence that this long-delayed reform will finally be realised?
Engagement, however, is also constrained by the current regulatory environment. In consultation with industry, we heard compelling evidence that FCA and the TPR regulation makes genuine member education extraordinarily difficult to design. The boundary between advice and marketing has become so blurred that most communications fall into a grey area, leaving schemes with very few compliant touch points for meaningful engagement. If we are serious about improving outcomes, the Government must enable better education and clearer communication. Perhaps the Minister could comment on this and what work is under way to review these constraints and how the Bill supports rather than frustrates the goal of informing saving.
I turn to salary sacrifice, because this decision strikes at the heart of pensions adequacy, individual engagement and, ultimately, trust in the system itself. The recent disappointing Budget has taken a sledgehammer to a mechanism that has for many years made pension saving both affordable for workers and sustainable for employers. For millions of people saving at or near the minimum auto-enrolment rate, salary sacrifice is not a perk but the difference between saving and not saving at all. Removing this relief will mean lower take-home pay, lower pension contributions and, over time, materially smaller pension pots. This is a short-sighted political choice—one that appears designed to plug immediate fiscal pressures while storing up greater dependency on the state in retirement.
The impact on employers is equally concerning. By reimposing employer national insurance on previously sacrificed earnings, the Government are increasing the cost of labour at precisely the wrong moment. For many medium-sized firms, this will translate into tens of thousands of pounds in additional annual costs—money that could otherwise have supported wages, investment or workforce expansion. The decision to charge both employer and employee national insurance on salary-sacrifice contributions above £2,000 introduces a sharp and, I believe, irrational cliff edge. The OBR estimates that 76% of the burden will fall on employees. Once again, private sector workers bear the cost, while public sector employees in defined benefit schemes remain largely insulated.
The figures are stark. An employee earning £45,000 and saving 5% through salary sacrifice will be £58 worse off in the first year and more than £15,000 worse off over the course of a working lifetime. In the light of this, can the Minister confirm whether the Government have undertaken a sector-by-sector distributional analysis of these changes, whether they will publish an assessment of the long-term impact on pension adequacy and future welfare expenditure and whether she accepts that this measure operates in effect as a tax on work and on responsible long-term saving?
Some noble Lords have rightly raised the broader macroeconomic implications of pension reform. UK pension funds and insurers together hold around 30% of the gilt market—this point was made earlier. If mature defined benefit schemes are nudged away from gilts into equities, the consequences for debt management, interest rates and mortgage markets could be profound. It would therefore be reassuring to hear from the Minister whether the Debt Management Office and the Bank of England have been consulted on these potential effects and whether their views will be made available to Parliament.
I realise that time is marching on. I hope the Government will reflect carefully on all the concerns raised across your Lordships’ House today and respond with the assurances that savers and schemes alike are entitled to expect—we owe them nothing less. However, in the spirit of Christmas, and as this is the season of good will—I am feeling more Christmassy now than I did before the Question this afternoon—I say to the Minister that, despite everything I have said, and in a rare outbreak of festive generosity, there are parts of the Bill that we agree with, such as the PPF changes and the terminal illness time extension. As others have said, we will work constructively with the Government in the weeks and months ahead. I look forward to the Minister’s response and wish Peers and staff in the House a very happy Christmas.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the incredible range of thoughtful and constructive contributions we have heard during today’s debate. I should declare that I am a member of the parliamentary pension scheme; otherwise, I have a private pension.
I am so grateful to have heard the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady White. I realise we have quite a bit in common: we are children of migrants, I too have spatial dyspraxia—I have never yet found my way around here—and we both engage with a church. I am afraid that there it ends; no one will ever ask me to chair John Lewis, which may be just as well for anybody who likes shopping there. She may have had an eclectic career but, now that she has joined this House, it will get a lot more eclectic still. It is a joy to have her on board and, if there is more of that to come, I look forward to it.
The range of views around of the House reflects the significance of the Bill for savers, employers and the pensions industry. The level of interest underscores how important pensions are to savers and the UK economy, and we need to help people get the best from their savings. There were some fascinating discussions in the debate today. I could have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and my noble friend Lord Wood for a lot longer, and I shall not be able to do justice to what they said. But I shall go back and read it very carefully and I hope that we can continue to have some really interesting conversations.
There were a lot of questions, and I will not be able to respond to all of them. I shall do my very best, but I have only 20 minutes and it may be that noble Lords have to listen back to this at half-speed, if I am not careful.
I will start with adequacy, as that is where the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, began. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, for setting out that this has been very much a cross-party journey that we have been on together, and I hope that we can keep it that way. I am sure that the noble Baroness did not mean to presume that auto-enrolment started with the last Conservative Government, when in fact it was legislated by the previous Labour Government—and there was also the Pensions Commission. I am sure that she did not mean to say that. What we have done is provide some remarkable continuity in the journey, and I hope that we can carry on doing that.
I was delighted by the work done by the last Pensions Commission, on which my noble friend Lady Drake served with such distinction—and I know that she will serve with equal distinction on the next Pensions Commission. That is the place where adequacy will be addressed fully. The Government are committed to that—it is a key priority for us—but it is also important that we get the market into the right shape so that, if savers are saving more, they will get the returns on their money.
I turn to the issue of surplus. I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and my noble friend Lord Davies, and thought, “I can’t make them both happy on this front”. That is generally true, I think, but it is illustrated particularly on the subject of surplus. I shall say two things. First, to the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, I say that we are very careful about what surplus extraction will do. Schemes are currently enjoying high levels of funding, with three in four in surplus on a low-dependency basis. They are also more mature, with the vast majority having a hedge to minimise the risk of future volatility with investment strategies: they are protected against interest rate and inflation movements. The DB funding code and underpinning legislation introduced in 2024 require trustees to maintain a strong funding position.
The decisions to release surplus are of course subject to trustee discretion and underpinned by strict safeguards, including the requirement for a prudent funding threshold, actuarial certification and member notification. Of course, as part of any agreement to release surplus funds, trustees are in a good position to negotiate, and it will be down to trustees to negotiate with their employers about the way in which surplus is released.
My noble friend Lady Warwick rightly pressed me on the questions of scale. As outlined in the impact assessment for the Bill, there is a range of evidence showing that scale can help deliver better governance, with economies of scale, investment expertise and access to a wider range of assets all helping to improve outcomes. We may not be heading for the sunlit uplands of Aussie megafunds, described by the noble Baroness, Lady White, but we are pushing in that direction. In response to her question, we will ensure that the governance and regulatory requirements needed for these much bigger pension schemes will be robust. We will develop those with the industry going forward.
On the question of whether the scale measures are going to be tougher on smaller schemes, the problem is that our evidence shows, across a range of studies, that scale is what makes the difference. We are asked why there is a magic number of about £25 billion. The evidence from a number of studies shows that a greater number of benefits can arise from a scale of £25 billion to £50 billion of assets under management, including investment expertise and sophistication and the balance sheet to provide a more diverse portfolio to savers. We have not seen sufficient evidence that other approaches will enable the same benefits for savers and the economy, so we do believe that scale is the best way to realise benefits across the market for savers. However, there will be a transition pathway to enable those schemes that are not there now to have a route to scale where they have a credible plan to achieve it in five years, and we will consult the industry on what a credible plan may look like as part of the development of regulations.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, as well as my noble friend Lord Wood, mentioned the position of new entrants. The potential for future market innovation is really important; we are very conscious that scale requirements could, if not done correctly, prevent this future innovation. So the Government have provided for a new-entrant pathway, designed specifically to provide a route for this future innovation. We will monitor future movement in the market to ensure that the pathway is working as intended. In addition to innovation, these schemes will be required to have the strong potential to grow to scale over time.
I dive in briefly to the reserve power and asset allocation. I am clearly not going to satisfy the House today; we will have plenty of time in Committee to discuss this. But I shall make a few points now about it in general and the interaction with fiduciary duty. Questions were raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Stedman-Scott, Lady Penn and Lady Noakes, the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Vaux, my noble friend Lord Davies, the noble Lords, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and Lord Evans—and I am going to stop saying these names now.
There is widespread recognition of the benefits that a diverse investment portfolio can bring for savers. That is exactly why the signatories to the Mansion House Accord are committing to invest in private markets. This reserve power will help to ensure this change happens, but we have built in a number of safeguards. Let me just knock one thing on the head. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, that this asset allocation power does not apply to the LGPS. Following an amendment in the House of Commons, the Bill no longer allows a responsible authority, such as the Secretary of State, to direct asset pool companies to make specific investment decisions. I hope that reassures the noble Lord on that point.
On the wider question, the making of regulations under this power will be subject to a raft of safeguards contained in the Bill. To respond to the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, I say that the Government anticipate that we will not have to use this power if all goes well. Were the Government ever to use it, there are a series of safeguards, and we would have to consult and produce a report. We would at that point look at developing how it would be done. Let me briefly touch on the safeguards: first, the power is time limited, and I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, that it will expire if it has not been used. Any percentage headline asset allocation requirements enforced beyond that date will be capped at their current levels. Secondly, and crucially, the Government are required to establish a savers’ interest test in which pension providers will be granted an exemption from the targets where they can show that meeting them would cause material financial detriment to savers. Finally, the regulations will obviously be subject to parliamentary scrutiny but, before that, the Government will need to consult and publish a report on the impact of any new requirements on savers and economic growth both before exercising any power for the first time and within five years of it being exercised.
I am going to have to rush through. I turn to the points raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Bowles, about qualifying assets and investment trusts. I can see that the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, feels very strongly about this—I listened carefully to the points that she and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, made. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, in particular that the Government recognise the role that investment trusts play in the UK economy and in supporting the Government’s growth agenda, and we are committed to supporting this important sector. We put that on the record very clearly. However, when it comes to qualifying assets in a reserve power, we have aimed to stick closely to the scope of the Mansion House Accord, which itself is limited to investments made by unlisted funds. That is consistent with our general approach to this part of the Bill, where we deliberately ensure that the powers are suitably targeted and contain guardrails. In other words, they are not intended to be open-ended but should be capable of serving as a backstop to the commitments that pension providers have voluntarily made.
There were a number of points made by my noble friend Lord Davies about consumer protections. I reassure him that consumer protection is a priority for the Government, and ensuring that there are strong consumer safeguards is something we take very seriously. That is why the Bill introduces a number of robust consumer protections, including in the contractual override process, in small pots and in DB surplus. I look forward to discussing these in more detail with him and others in Committee.
My noble friend Lady Warwick raised the question of VFM. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for welcoming that; my noble friend Lord Davies raised it as well. The noble Viscount, Lord Younger, asked about the interaction in different parts of the scheme. The pensions road map, which I am sure he has had the opportunity to read, shows very clearly how the different measures that we are proposing connect and how they are all necessary. They are all key parts of a machine necessary to achieving the Government’s objective of moving the pensions landscape forward. I can tell him that the next step will be a joint consultation by the FCA and the Pensions Regulator, which will be published early next year. This will then inform our draft regulations on value for money, which we intend to consult on during 2026. We expect the VFM framework to be implemented in 2028, with the first set of VFM metrics published in March 2028. The first VFM assessment reports and ratings will then be published in October 2028. On that basis, we would expect to see poor performing schemes starting to exit the market from November 2028.
On the pre-1927 indexation in the Pension Protection Fund and FAS, I listened very carefully to the comments that have been made by my noble friend Lady Warwick, the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth—I thank him for his thoughtful reflection—and many other colleagues. We are laying the groundwork for the first major step forward in this area, and I think that some credit should be given to the Government for doing that. However, I understand that this will not go as far as many had hoped.
We need to recognise that the PPF maintains a substantial financial reserve. It is not a surplus; it is a financial reserve to protect against future risks. The cost of retrospection and arrears is significant and would greatly reduce that reserve. Any change that reduces the PPF’s reserves will, by definition, reduce the vital security the PPF provides to its current and future members. The PPF has very successfully navigated the past 20 years. It is well regarded as a prudent fiduciary acting in the best interests of pension savers, and we need to ensure that it can continue to do so.
I am going to disappoint my noble friend Lord Davies on the matter of pre-1997 indexation in wider DB schemes. I need to tell him clearly that the Government have no plans to change the rules on pre-1997 indexation for DB schemes. These rules ensure consistency across all schemes, and changing them would increase liabilities and costs. Over three-quarters of schemes pay some pre-1997 indexation because of scheme rules or as a discretionary benefit, but reforms in the Bill, as we have mentioned, will enable more trustees of well-funded DB pension schemes to share surplus with employers and deliver better outcomes for members, which may include discretionary indexation.
I turn to the questions on fiduciary duty, raised by many noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman, Lady Bowles and Lady Penn, the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and my noble friend Lady Warwick. It is often said that fiduciary duty is the cornerstone of trust-based pension schemes and that trustees should invest in the best interests of their members. That principle remains fundamental. The Government believe that the current legal framework gives trustees flexibility to adapt and protect savers’ interests. However, at the same time, we acknowledge the calls for more clarity on considering systemic factors, such as climate risk and members’ living standards, when making investment decisions.
My colleague the Minister for Pensions set out in the Commons that we intend to develop guidance for the trust-based private pension sector to provide this clarification. I know that he plans to come forward shortly with more details on what the guidance will look to cover. He has already confirmed how he intends to start engaging with a wide range of stakeholders in producing the guidance, starting with a series of industry round tables early in the new year.
Through guidance, the Government are trying to address a barrier that some trustees say they face when investing in savers’ best interests. Guidance has the potential to support climate and sustainability goals, and our wider goal to improve saver outcomes and unlock pension investment in UK growth. We are still in the early stages of undertaking consultation and exploring options on this, and we will provide further updates in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, asked why we do not just change the primary legislation. It is the Government’s view that introducing statutory changes to refine investment duties could risk creating rigid and complex obligations, which would reduce the ability of trustees to respond to changing investment landscapes and circumstances. On the questions of how and when, we are exploring possible options for taking this forward if and when parliamentary time allows.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles and Lady Coffey, raised the position of trustees, and others also alluded to it. Successful implementation of the Bill’s reforms will rely on highly skilled trustees operating independently, applying good governance and focusing on delivering the best outcomes for savers. That is why we launched a consultation on stronger trusteeship and governance earlier this week. It aims to bring all schemes up to the required standard and explore what changes might be needed to raise the bar for all trustees. The industry has welcomed the consultation and there seems to be a consensus that high-quality trusteeship and governance is vital to ensuring good outcomes for pension scheme members. I encourage anyone with an interest in this area to respond to the consultation.
A number of other points were raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, talked about the need for a single regulator. I say simply that the Government recognise the importance of clarity and co-ordination in the regulation of workplace pensions. The FCA and the Pensions Regulator work effectively together, including through joint working groups and consultations. They have shared strategies and guidance, and regular joint engagement with stakeholders. The Government keep the regulatory system under review.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, made some interesting points. The Government are committed to appropriate regulation, and to do that we need to engage regularly with stakeholders and industry to make sure that we get it right. There are some genuine questions, which we will go on to debate in Committee, about getting the balance right between primary legislation, secondary legislation, regulation, supervision, governance and guidance. We need space to be able to engage with industry, because any regulations we produce have to work and the details of the scheme will have to be worked through. That will inevitably mean that there will be times when the House will want more detail than we are able to give. One of the challenges is that it should not be possible both to criticise the Government while they are trying to make their mind up on everything at the same time in some areas and to criticise them for not being open to consultation. We will see how it goes and continue to consult extensively with industry and other stakeholders as we move through this.
A few more points were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, asked about the Pensions Ombudsman. It is important to clarify that the measure on the Pensions Ombudsman neither increases nor widens their powers, nor that of the TPO, beyond what was originally intended. This is reinstating the original intent of the ombudsman’s powers in pension overpayment dispute cases, which were debated in Parliament when the ombudsman was established in 1991. There was a High Court ruling; we are amending the existing legislation because that ruling stated that the TPO is not a competent court in pensions overpayment cases. The aim is to reinstate the original policy intent and reaffirm the government view and that of the pensions industry. I hope that reassures the noble Lord. It restores the original policy intent—that is all. It is not designed to try to widen it. I hope that is an encouragement to him.
On the question of small pots, the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, queried the pot limit. We had to choose somewhere. The initial pot limit of £1,000 will address 13 million stock of small pots, which we think strikes the right balance between achieving meaningful levels of pot consolidation and reducing administration costs for pension providers without distorting the market. However, the Secretary of State will keep the threshold under review to ensure that it remains appropriate as the market continues to develop following the reforms made in the Bill.
A number of noble Lords asked about the position on pensions dashboards. The Government have committed to regular updates to the House—we will be doing another one of those—but let me put some headlines on the record for now. The House will be glad to know that good progress has been made with the pensions dashboards. The first pension provider successfully completed connection to the pensions dashboards ecosystem on 17 April this year, forming a crucial step towards making dashboards a reality. More than 700 of the largest pension providers and schemes are now connected to the dashboards ecosystem; over 60 million records are now integrated into dashboards, representing around three-quarters of the records in scope.
Further, state pension data is now accessible, representing tens of millions of additional records. The pensions dashboards programme is confident that pension providers and schemes in scope will connect by the regulatory deadline of 31 October 2026. When we have assurances that the service is safe, secure and thoroughly user tested, the Secretary of State will provide the industry with six months’ notice ahead of the launch of the Money Helper pensions dashboard.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the gender pensions gap, including the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Auto-enrolment has delivered substantial progress in increasing pension participation among women, which has meant, as the noble Baroness said, that workplace pension participation rates between eligible men and women in the private sector have now equalised. However, it is absolutely right that gaps remain in pension participation and wealth, reflecting wider structural inequalities in the labour market. A gender pay gap leads to a gender pensions gap. Women now approaching retirement still have, on average, half the private pension wealth of men. The Pensions Commission will consider further steps to improve pension outcomes for all, especially women and groups identified as being at greater risk of undersaving for retirement.
That is probably about as far as I can go. I am really grateful to be part of a House with so much interest and knowledge in a subject that not everybody—noble Lords will be shocked to hear—finds as interesting as those of us here today do. However, we do, and I look forward to lots of really interesting discussions in Committee. This Bill marks a decisive step in modernising the pensions system, strengthening security for members, driving better value and enabling innovation across the sector. It combines ambition with safeguards, ensuring schemes can deliver improved outcomes while maintaining confidence and trust. I look forward to working with noble Lords—after they have had a very happy Christmas—and to continuing constructive engagement. I commend the Bill to the House.
Baroness Penn (Con)
The Minister has made a valiant attempt to answer all questions. Can she commit to writing to the noble Lords in this debate on the questions she did not reach, and to that letter reaching us before we start Committee?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
This is the last sitting day before we finish. I will look at what I can put in writing before we get to Committee. I have never been asked so many questions in such a short period—and I have talked to church youth groups. I will see what we can do on that front.
Baroness Sherlock
That the bill be committed to a Grand Committee, and that it be an instruction to the Grand Committee that they consider the bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 118, the Schedule, Clauses 119 to 123, Title.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn and, in doing so, wish everyone in the House, and all those working in the House, chag sameach, a very happy Christmas, a restful break and a happy new year.