House of Commons
Mr Speaker
Before we begin today’s proceedings, may I extend a warm welcome to the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America and his delegation, who are with us in the Gallery?
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
In December, I announced at least £3 billion in high needs capital, which will support local authorities to deliver high-quality places for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. However, while places are necessary, alone they are not enough. We know that high-quality teaching is essential to achieving the best outcomes for all pupils and students. That is why I am delighted that we are investing £200 million over the course of this Parliament to deliver more SEND training than ever before, to upskill staff in every school, college and nursery and ensure that more children and young people receive the right support at the earliest opportunity.
Rachel Blake
The families that I am speaking to in the City, in the west end, in St John’s Wood and in Pimlico through my special educational needs group tell me that they are concerned by a lack of accountability for parents and children when those children are not getting the support set out in their education, health and care plan. What certainty can the Secretary of State give to those families about what is coming forward on accountability, so that those families are not reliant just on mainstream support, but have confidence that their individual needs will be addressed through their education, health and care plans?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all the work she is doing to make sure that the voices of parents and children are heard during the reform that we intend to bring forward. As she will have heard through those conversations, the system just is not working for children and families. Through that national conversation on SEND, I have heard directly from parents, educators and experts across the country, and they echo the themes that my hon. Friend has just set out from parents in Pimlico and elsewhere in her community. Accountability is an issue that I take extremely seriously, and we will set out more detail in the schools White Paper.
Darren Paffey
We all know that early support for children with SEND depends on getting the co-ordination right among parents, schools, local authorities and the NHS, but we also know that is not always happening. Some of the children I have been supporting in Southampton Itchen are spending months out of education and taking years still to get an EHCP, all of which compounds the challenges for them and their families. What can my right hon. Friend do to ensure that SEND families across the country will not have to wait until the end of the White Paper process to see better joined-up working for children who need that support now?
Bridget Phillipson
I agree strongly with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful for all the work he has done in this area. He is right that parents should not have to wait. Even though we need to see a longer term shift in the system overall, we need to see change now. That is why we have taken action. One of the very first things I did as Secretary of State was to restructure the Department to put SEND right at its heart. We are investing billions to create more special needs places and also more places in mainstream settings, alongside improved programmes to support teachers and that £200 million of investment that I just mentioned. My hon. Friend is also right that early support and early intervention are critical. That is why I am delighted that we will make sure that there is a SEND professional in every Best Start family hub as they roll out.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
Early access costs money. Last year, children with special needs in the East Riding of Yorkshire were funded to less than £1,000 per capita—the lowest level in England. Camden received £3,565 a head. The Government’s grant proposals increase East Yorkshire by £30 a head. They increase Camden by £267 a head, nearly 10 times as much. How on earth does the Secretary of State expect East Yorkshire to provide early access or anything else, when funding is as tight as that?
Bridget Phillipson
The right hon. Gentleman makes an understandable appeal on behalf of his constituency and his region. We are looking carefully at questions of funding. They are not easy questions, and he will recognise that many of the ways that funding has previously been allocated have continued because of the necessary timescales around that. However, his constituents will also benefit from the big investment that we are putting into capital and into extra training and support for all teachers, early years professionals and college staff. I want us to try, across the House, to find the ability to work together to tackle this big and deep challenge that we all face: support for children with SEND.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
In my constituency, the challenge that has been highlighted over and over again by the schools that I speak to is not necessarily about early identification, but having the resources and the places available for students once they have been identified. Will the Minister explain how the Government’s approach to early access will ensure that early identification is matched by a suitable vision in an environment that meets the child’s stated needs?
Bridget Phillipson
I have had many conversations of a similar nature with school leaders and others. The hon. Lady is right about the need for not only early identification but early access; they are not always the same thing. That will apply beyond the school gate, to speech and language support, occupational therapy support and much more besides. I can assure the hon. Lady that everything she has mentioned is central to our thinking in respect of the reform that we intend to introduce through the schools White Paper, and I should be more than happy to continue to work with Liberal Democrat Members on areas of concern so that we can seek to get this right and build a consensus.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
More than 260,000 state-funded pupils took at least one A-level in the summer of 2025, and we expect that to remain steady in the future. T-levels continue to grow: at the last count more than 25,000 students embarked on them, which represents an increase of nearly 60% on the previous year’s figure. We are committed to offering post-16 students even more choice through V-levels, a new vocational qualification sitting alongside A-levels and T-levels.
Gareth Snell
As the Minister will know, the uptake of T-levels is behind where we expected it to be and where many colleges would like it to be. At this point I should declare an interest, as a governor of my local sixth-form college.
Given that the Government are still intending to defund BTECs during the current academic year, given that T-levels are not having the uptake that they should have and given that V-levels are not coming on track until 2027, is the Minister confident that every young person will have access to a relevant course this September, and if not, what can he do about it? Will he consider pausing the defunding of BTECs until such time as V-levels come on line?
Josh MacAlister
I thank the hon. Member for his leadership on these issues through the all-party parliamentary group on sixth form education, and for his local leadership as a constituency MP. I can reassure him that we will manage the transition carefully as these changes are introduced. We stand behind T-levels, which are a good option for many students, and we want to see the numbers increase. We have run a consultation which has now closed, and we are analysing the responses to ensure that all students experience a smooth transition.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Minister rightly paints an optimistic picture of more people enrolling for A-levels and T-levels, which is wonderful for our young people, but I have noticed in recent days that some politicians keep talking down Britain and saying it is a broken country. That is simply not true. Education, for instance, is vastly better than it was 15 years ago. If we indulge in grievance politics, what does that say to the young people who are starting their journey in life? Let us be positive, and say that Britain is great.
Josh MacAlister
I thank the right hon. Member for his read-out of the discussion that took place during the most recent shadow Cabinet meeting, where this was a lively topic of debate. Britain is not broken; it has huge and deep potential, best found in our children. We were pleased to see the last Conservative Government take forward many of the reforms initiated under the last Labour Government, and this Labour Government will be doubling down on the measures that are needed to break down barriers to opportunity at every stage.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Labour is boosting teacher recruitment and retention in order to put 6,500 new expert teachers in front of our classrooms. We have boosted teachers’ pay by nearly 10% and have taken action to improve wellbeing, and we continue to offer the targeted retention incentive, which is worth up to £6,000 after tax. Under the Tories, teachers were leaving schools in droves; under Labour, we have seen one of the lowest leaver rates since 2010.
Caroline Voaden
A speech about teacher retention that I made in Westminster Hall recently has been seen by more than 135,000 people on Instagram, and there have been hundreds of comments from teachers. They speak of pay not rewarding experience and far too much time being spent on administration and tests, but it is also clear that safeguarding incidents and poor pupil behaviour are driving teachers out of the profession. We know that both those improve radically when pupils spend less time on social media, so will the Secretary of State commit herself to looking carefully at the Liberal Democrat proposal to introduce film-style age ratings for all social media platforms, not just to help our teachers but to protect our children?
Bridget Phillipson
We will look carefully at any sensible proposals to ensure that we can keep our children safe online. I recognise the broader issues that the hon. Lady has raised, about behaviour being a factor that affects teachers’ experiences and about some of the wider pressures including those relating to safeguarding. I am proud of the fact that we are expanding free school meal provision and ending the two-child limit, lifting more than half a million children out of poverty, because we know that poverty is a big driver of many of the challenges faced by our brilliant teachers and school staff.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I am particularly concerned about teacher retention at a school in my constituency, St Peter’s in Ruddington, which was condemned just before Christmas following an emergency evacuation due to structural issues. I put on the record my sincere thanks to staff, parents, children and local organisations for their support. May I please push Ministers for a swift decision about what will happen next? It is very destabilising for parents and teachers to not know what form a rebuild will take, so I will leave this with the Secretary of State.
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is right to push us on this issue. I know he has been working very closely with my ministerial colleague who is responsible for this area, and I can assure him that we will move as fast as we can. We understand the pressure that this is placing on the school and on the local community, and I will make sure he gets an update following this session.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
I know how hard students around the country work for their exams, and how important it is to ensure consistency and fairness. Ofqual, the qualifications regulator, secures the safe, fair and resilient delivery of qualifications by regulating awarding organisations. As Ministers, we work closely with Ofqual, when needed, to support its work.
Steve Yemm
At West Notts college in my constituency of Mansfield, a significant number of learners requested that their English papers be remarked, because an unusually high number of students missed their expected grades. In fact, more than 50% of the papers that were remarked were given a higher grade, with some improving by two grades. The exam board, Pearson Edexcel, told the college that this was due to human error and the marking of one examiner, but later said that it was more widespread. The exam board has now refused to carry out a wider remark of the papers. Will the Minister join me in urging it to ensure that all students receive the grades that they deserve?
Georgia Gould
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue; I am really sorry to hear about the uncertainty that it has caused students at West Notts college. He will understand that I cannot comment on individual cases, but I can say that Ofqual requires all awarding organisations to follow rigorous quality assurance procedures to ensure that marking is consistent and accurate. I understand that Ofqual issued enforcement action against three Pearson cases in December, resulting in a total of £2 million in fines.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
When I was studying for my A-levels, I had to work really hard to get the grades I needed to go on and study veterinary science at the amazing Liverpool University. Had social media existed at the time, I think it is really unlikely that I would have got the grades necessary, given that there are so many addictive algorithms that are distracting and bad for mental health. Will the Minister look seriously at the Liberal Democrat proposal to effectively ban social media in its current form for children? It is hugely distracting, and we want to ensure that every child can reach their educational potential.
Mr Speaker
That was a bit of stretch, I must admit. I do not know whether the Minister wants to stretch herself or not.
Georgia Gould
I cannot believe that you were not at university when social media existed—you look young enough to have been around—and I am amazed that you are able to concentrate in this Chamber. In all seriousness, we take the safety of young people incredibly seriously, which is why we are implementing the Online Safety Act 2023. We want to ensure that the opportunities of the internet are available to young people, but that they are kept safe online.
Mr Speaker
I gently say to the Minister that “you” refers to me. I certainly do not want to be held responsible.
Georgia Gould
You look young enough to use social media, Mr Speaker!
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Georgia Gould
Decisions about which GCSEs to offer are taken by independent awarding organisations, rather than central Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to these organisations to ask them to consider introducing a Ukrainian GCSE, and discussions are ongoing. Alongside that, we are also considering alternative ways of supporting Ukrainian language learning.
Joe Powell
I thank the Minister for her answer. Ukrainian children, including 2,500 under the brilliant Ukrainian St Mary’s Trust, headquartered in Kensington and Bayswater, have been warmly welcomed, yet they still lack access to formal qualifications in their language. Alongside educators and my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin), I recently met representatives of the AQA exam board, who told us that some children even have to take exams in Russian, which obviously undermines their national identity and standards in their native language. Can the Minister look at expediting the welcome commitment to reintroducing the Ukrainian GCSE and explore giving formal recognition to some of the Ukrainian language classes already out there, and will she agree to meet me and Ukrainian educators to discuss this campaign further?
Georgia Gould
I am so grateful for all the brilliant educators who have worked so hard to welcome Ukrainian children to the UK, including the team at St Mary’s school. I was really pleased to hear about the positive conversations my hon. Friend has been leading, and I am grateful to him for championing this important issue. I would be delighted to meet him and educators to look at how we can support taking this forward.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Bath has proudly welcomed hundreds of Ukrainian refugees, and we stand in full solidarity with the people of Ukraine, especially in Oleksandriya, which is our partner city. It has been concerning to hear that, in some parts of the country, Ukrainians have been encouraged to learn Russian as a GCSE, which can retraumatise children, as we have just heard. Does the Minister agree with me that until a Ukrainian GCSE is rolled out, no Ukrainian refugee should feel pressured into learning Russian?
Georgia Gould
I absolutely agree that all children should get to choose their GCSEs. I also agree about the importance of pushing forward with qualifications that support Ukrainian children, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to exam boards asking them to consider this.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Last week, the Education Committee heard from the chief regulator at Ofqual about the demand for GCSEs in both Ukrainian and British Sign Language. He stated:
“There is no legal obstacle to a new awarding organisation that is not currently recognised to deliver GCSEs coming forward and asking to be recognised… That could happen.”
Given the strength of demand for GCSEs in both Ukrainian and British Sign Language, what is the Minister doing to identify, encourage and equip organisations—outside the four main awarding bodies for GCSEs—to step up to deliver these important subjects if there is continued reluctance from the existing exam boards?
Mr Speaker
That was another good way of crowbarring something in, but I call the Minister.
Georgia Gould
We absolutely support the development of a British Sign Language GCSE. As I have said, we also support the development of a Ukrainian GCSE. We are taking this up with exam boards, and we will continue to do so.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Does the Minister agree with me that any Ukrainian GCSE should also include teaching on the importance of national sovereignty and the international rules-based order? If so, does she agree that Donald Trump should be the first to sit that GCSE, so that in relation to Greenland, he can learn to keep his hands off a country that is not his?
Mr Speaker
I do not think the Minister even needs to worry about answering that. Let us move on.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
Where a council does not meet its special educational needs and disabilities duties, the Department will take action to prioritise children’s needs and support rapid improvement. The support and challenge offered are based on what works in SEND learnings and expertise from independent chairs, SEND advisers and SEND commissioners. The effectiveness of actions taken will be assessed by Ofsted monitoring inspections and robust monitoring by the Department.
Chris Bloore
I thank the Minister for her answer. She knows that Worcestershire county council has repeatedly failed children with special educational needs and disabilities and their families. Many parents report persistent failures to meet statutory duties and experiences of being dismissed or gaslit, causing prolonged distress to families already under extreme pressure. Can the Minister assure me and families in Redditch that, as part of the schools White Paper, she will be looking at how we can properly hold local authorities to account, and where there is failure, drive swift improvement?
Georgia Gould
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I have travelled around the country talking to parents and, sadly, the story he has set out in his constituency of parents having to battle for support is one we hear in too many communities. We want to ensure that the voices of children and their parents are at the heart of reform, and we want a system based on partnership and collaboration, but we know that it has to be underpinned by robust accountability. In the meantime, we will continue to work closely with Ofsted to ensure that performance is monitored and, where it drops, that we are taking action.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
In the Secretary of State’s letter to me of 11 January, she said that the much-needed special educational needs school, Lime academy in March, could proceed if the Lib Dem county council responds by 27 February to say that it is a priority. Could the Minister confirm from the Dispatch Box that funding will be allocated for that priority school if the local authority, run by the Lib Dems, confirms to the Government its desire to do so?
Georgia Gould
We have set out that that special school can continue. In most cases we have given local authorities a choice about whether they want to build a special school or come forward with places that would be fully funded. We can follow up with a letter, but our intention is to provide that support, which is why we have written to the right hon. Member.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
Flu arrived earlier than usual this year, with increases first seen in children and young people. Despite the flu vaccination programme in schools getting off to a strong start in the autumn, with 4 million children vaccinated by early January—an improvement on last year’s figures—attendance levels have been impacted, and the data does show high illness-related absence.
Dr Cooper
As flu circulation in children normally starts before adults, and protection through the vaccine lasts much longer in children, the children’s programme should be under way across schools as early as possible from September 1. In my constituency of Worthing West, some schools were vaccinating children in the final weeks before Christmas last year. Will the Minister therefore undertake to work with the Department of Health and Social Care to review the timeliness of flu vaccinations in all schools, and to ensure that they are given as early as possible in the upcoming 2026-27 winter season?
Olivia Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for her hard work for the people of Worthing West. I agree entirely about the importance of schools starting the vaccination programme as early as possible, and I want to reassure her that the Department is working closely with our colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care, so that next year we can get under way as quickly as possible and in as many schools as possible.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In Northern Ireland there is only a 52% uptake in flu vaccinations. There are two reasons for that: first, parents want to be sure that it is okay and safe for their children; and secondly, schools sometimes show reluctance to let it happen. Will the Minister share the policy that the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) just outlined with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland, Paul Givan, to ensure that we can do better in Northern Ireland?
Olivia Bailey
The hon. Member will be pleased to know that I will be meeting with the Minister he mentioned later this week on a visit to Northern Ireland, and I will be happy to discuss this matter with him.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
In 2010 the Tories scrapped the School Support Staff Negotiating Body. In Labour’s first 100 days in government, we legislated to bring it back. With the Employment Rights Act 2025 now passed, we expect the SSSNB to start operating later this year. We on the Government Benches value the vital role that support staff play. They deserve a voice at the table and, under Labour, they will get one.
Laurence Turner
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my chairship of the GMB parliamentary group. The School Support Staff Negotiating Body, established under Labour’s landmark Employment Rights Act, will make a real difference for more than 1,600 people in my constituency who have been undervalued and denied decent wages and terms and conditions for too long. Can the Secretary of State, who has been a determined champion of this policy, update the House on what progress has been made to establish the SSSNB in recent months, and on when my constituents can expect to receive published information from her Department on what this policy will mean for them?
Bridget Phillipson
I thank my hon. Friend for all his work to make the SSSNB a reality, both before he was elected to Parliament and in his time here—he is a real champion of working people. We will publish our consultation response in the spring, confirming which staff are in scope and what it means for them. We are also developing wider guidance for employees and for employers to be shared before the SSSNB starts operating. We expect outcomes to come into effect from April 2027.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
The autumn Budget made it clear that future special educational needs and disabilities funding will be managed as part of overall Government departmental expenditure. We have subsequently set out new investment, including £3 billion for creating 50,000 new specialist places, and £200 million for SEND training for education staff.
Gregory Stafford
In Surrey, the high needs block deficit is forecast to rise to £165 million by 2027. Although Conservative-run Surrey county council has earmarked £144 million in reserves to ease that pressure, that cannot be a long-term solution. Can the Minister confirm whether and when Surrey’s safety valve agreement will be extended?
Georgia Gould
We recognise that the size of deficits that councils are accruing while the statutory override is in place might not be manageable with local resources alone. We will be setting out more information in the local government settlement this year.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for visiting my constituency last year, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education for visiting last week, when she came to see an expanded school nursery at Uplands primary in Sandhurst. She took the opportunity to speak to some fantastic hard-working teachers, and to hear their concerns about the level of SEND need and the need for more support. I welcome the announcement of £200 million extra funding for SEND training, which will be vital for teachers who need that extra support.
Georgia Gould
I was delighted to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency and to see some brilliant work, including a new SEND resource base that means children who would otherwise have to travel for miles are instead being educated in their community. As my hon. Friend sets out, I heard from teachers who wanted to put in more support but did not always have the tools to allow them to do so. I am delighted that we are able to invest in teacher training, which will support teachers in his constituency and across the country.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
In Kirklees, where my constituency sits, three quarters of EHCPs—education, health and care plans—took more than 20 weeks. Some 46% took over one year, which is six and a half times higher than the 2024 national average of 7.3%. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure timely access to legally entitled support for children with SEND in Kirklees?
Georgia Gould
As I set out, we have heard that too many families across the country are having to fight for, and wait for, support. That is not acceptable, which is why we are bringing forward the investment in early intervention that we have talked about today: the £3 billion for specialist places, the £200 million for teacher training, and the Best Start hubs. But we know that more needs to be done, which is why we are having a national conversation about SEND and will be bringing forward reforms.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I note that the Minister has not been to Harlow yet. [Laughter.] Families in Harlow have completely lost faith in the SEND system that we inherited. I do not think that it is too much of a stretch to suggest that parents are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder after battling to get support for their children. Will she outline, based on the specialist places she mentioned in a previous answer, what the Government are doing to ensure that we have a system that does not pit families, and indeed education professionals, against a system that is broken?
Georgia Gould
I will make sure that that oversight is corrected as soon as possible—although, I am not sure that my hon. Friend has actually invited me to Harlow yet, but I know the Prime Minister has been. My hon. Friend has written to me with stories of parents fighting the system—I have heard many like them—completely exhausted and often having to give up their jobs in order to fight for support for their children. It is just not good enough. We recognise that support needs to be available much earlier, we are investing in it, and that is the basis of the reforms that we will be bringing forward.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I note that the Minister, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), said that the Budget gave much clarity, but the reality is that the Office for Budget Responsibility analysis highlighted a £6 billion funding gap. I almost feel sorry for the Education team, because the Chancellor has backed them into an uncomfortable corner with her own Back Benchers with nowhere to turn, but they do need to be honest with parents and teachers who rely on these provisions. So again we ask: how do they intend to fill the £6 billion black hole hanging over the Department? Will there be cuts to services or to schools?
Georgia Gould
The Chancellor and the Secretary of State have been crystal clear that any remaining deficits will come from across Government. Opposition Members know that but are seeking to spread fear among parents. As we have heard across the House, there is already enough fear about the system. As I have travelled across the country, I have heard from so many families who have been failed—failed for years under the hon. Member’s Government. That is the reality. If I was them, I would come to this Chamber with an apology or with some answers, but we hear neither. We are acting. We are putting £3 billion into desperately needed specialist places. We are putting £200 million into teacher training, which is something that has been asked for across the House. We have changed Ofsted. We are putting money into early intervention for children. We will back children and families across the country.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
Robust governance is crucial to achieving a strong schools system and helping every child to achieve and thrive. The Department has set out new guidance, including the academy trust handbook, setting out core expectations and providing essential support to governors, trustees and governance professionals in fulfilling their strategic and statutory roles.
Rachel Taylor
Financial mismanagement by the Arthur Terry Learning Partnership trust has led to disputes with the National Education Union and, currently, strikes, which is disrupting the learning of students across the west midlands, including at the Coleshill school and Curdworth primary school in my constituency. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that academy trusts are well managed and build positive relationships with staff so that students and parents do not have to endure this disruption again?
Georgia Gould
I thank my hon. Friend and other colleagues who came to see me a few weeks ago about this issue and the impact it is having on their communities. We continue to work with the trust. The work of multi-academy trusts is crucial for children, families and school staff, and it is right that they are subject to transparent accountability. We are delivering our manifesto commitment by legislating to introduce Ofsted inspections of academy trusts and related intervention powers for the Secretary of State, which will support strong governance across the sector, ensuring that the interests of children always come first.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Pressures on schools to convert to academy trusts are considerable and widespread, but academising at all costs is not always in everybody’s interests. Some parents in Glastonbury and Somerton have told me that they are concerned that where decisions are taken across a number of schools, performance could diminish as a result. What steps is the Minister taking to monitor trusts and hold them accountable, especially where a school that has joined with an academy has failed to improve?
Georgia Gould
I have seen real benefits from collaboration in saving money and sharing best practice to support children in their learning. However, as I have just set out, it is crucial that there is strong accountability, and we are legislating to bring in inspections for multi-academy trusts to ensure that there is strong governance and accountability.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
The Department for Education is currently reviewing the draft non-statutory guidance for schools and colleges on gender-questioning children, looking carefully at the consultation response. We are clear that children’s wellbeing must be at the heart of this guidance.
Rosie Duffield
The Secretary of State told the House that the guidance for schools would be published by the end of 2025, yet here we still are without the guidance anywhere to be seen. There is immense pressure on schools, colleges, children’s homes and other settings to socially transition children, often irrespective of parents’ wishes, with the obvious potential risks of long-term psychological harm to the children, many of whom, like Keira Bell and some taking part in the upcoming puberty blockers trial, will go on to change their minds over time. When can schools expect the guidance?
Georgia Gould
This is about the wellbeing of children and young people, and it is critical that we get it right. It is therefore important that we consider the consultation responses and evidence carefully alongside the view of stakeholders and the Cass review, in order to get the guidance right for young people.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
That was a disappointing answer. The Government have been hiding behind the Cass review, which was published more than two years ago, for months. In April last year, the Education Secretary promised to publish the guidance by the end of the year, to give schools and teachers much needed clarity on these sensitive issues. That deadline has been spectacularly missed, and schools have been left in limbo to figure this out themselves. I implore the Secretary of State and the ministerial team to put ideology aside and finally act to protect our children. Will they do that?
Georgia Gould
This is a really serious issue that requires deep thought. We are working to ensure that we listen to the consultation and to experts to get this right for children. We make no apology for taking this decision carefully.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
The Department has announced at least £3 billion in high needs capital between 2026-27 and 2029-30 to support local authorities to deliver sufficient high-quality school places for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. This will create provision within mainstream schools that can deliver more flexible support, adapted to pupils’ needs.
Daniel Francis
I draw attention to the fact that my wife is employed by our local authority as a special educational needs co-ordinator. At the start of this school year, my local authority, the London borough of Bexley, rolled out a number of new resource provisions, adding an additional 122 SEN places in mainstream schools. They are in addition to some fantastic established resource provisions, such as the one at Mayplace primary school in Barnehurst. I invite the Secretary of State to visit the school to see how it is delivering high-quality school places for children with SEND.
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend rightly identifies that there are pockets of brilliant provision right across our country, and our schools White Paper will ensure that we spread that best practice and make it a reality for all children. Through the £3 billion of investment, we will deliver 50,000 more specialist places for children with SEND to ensure that children get the education and support that they need close to home. It was wonderful to visit my hon. Friend just last year at Peareswood primary, another school in his community that is doing fantastic work, but I would be delighted to go back and see some of the work that is under way to support children with SEND in other provision in his constituency.
Jacob Collier
Parents in Burton and Uttoxeter tell me that, under Reform-run Staffordshire county council, their pleas for help are too often ignored, leaving children in unsuitable settings or out of education altogether. Communication is extremely poor, and too often meaningful action comes only at the point of crisis. What action is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that councils such as Staffordshire act earlier and are properly held to account when they fail children with SEND?
Bridget Phillipson
We are backing councils with extra capital investment, including in Staffordshire, but we need councils to work with us to create the provision that children desperately need. We are also strengthening accountability. We have heard from parents time and again that their voices are not heard and that change does not happen quickly. That is why making inclusion a key area of Ofsted inspection for the very first time is central to building parents’ confidence.
It would be remiss of me not to remind the House what Reform has had to say about support for children with SEND and their parents: it has said that this is about naughty children, bad parenting, and “a class of victims”. That is just some of the language that Reform Members have chosen to use. I invite them and others to go and speak to parents of children with SEND, and understand just how desperate things have become and the change that is needed.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State accept that cancelling an £18-million, purpose-built, 152-place SEND school in Buckinghamshire, due to open in 2028, and replacing it with just £8 million over three years will inevitably increase reliance on high-cost independent placements, worsen outcomes for children with the most acute needs in Buckinghamshire, and ultimately cost the taxpayer more, while failing some of the county’s most vulnerable children?
Bridget Phillipson
We are giving councils significant extra capital investment to create places and provision much more quickly than many of them would otherwise have been able to. We are offering most local authorities a choice between continuing with their free school or accepting some alternative funding to deliver the same number of specialist places. Some projects without trusts appointed, which had opening dates very far into the distance, would not have created the places that we need as quickly as we need them. This is about bringing forward the places, giving parents confidence, and making sure that we are not sending children far away from home, which, as the hon. Member correctly identifies, we should not be doing. Children should be able to go to a great local school with their friends, and not travel long distances in taxis.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I agree with the Secretary of State that children should be able to go to an appropriate placement within decent reach of their home. North Herefordshire is one of the most rural constituencies in England, yet her Department wrote to Herefordshire council shortly before Christmas, cancelling plans for a school that would have provided specialist places for children with autism spectrum disorder and replacing it with a grossly inadequate allocation of high needs funding, and not progressing the rebuilding of Westfield school. Will the Secretary of State visit my constituency to meet families of children with special educational needs, and understand the specific need in rural areas for those local, state-funded positions?
Bridget Phillipson
I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards will be happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss those particular cases. We are investing more in support for local authorities, including through capital budgets. The hon. Lady will know that local authorities have until 27 February to tell us whether they wish to proceed with the projects or whether they intend to create the places in other ways. This is about bringing forward investment and making sure the places are created much more quickly than they are right now. That runs alongside more investment into our schools through the high-needs budget and £200 million of extra investment for training that, again, is sorely needed.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
That example, and the example mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), illustrates Labour Government spin perfectly. That £3 billion is short-changing parents and children with special educational needs. The decision to cut schools was rolled out without scrutiny, slipped out before the Christmas recess. Some 46 free schools and 18 special schools have been axed, with a further 59 in doubt. Why did the Secretary of State cancel the much-needed special schools and make life harder for families and children with SEND?
Bridget Phillipson
That is simply not right. We are investing billions into creating much-needed places for children with SEND. We did take the decision not to proceed with a number of mainstream free school projects where we had determined that the places were no longer needed. These were projects that, in some cases, provided questionable value. We are making sure that we are prioritising investment for children with SEND to create more than 50,000 places so that children can go to school much closer to home. On the wider question around reform of the SEND system, the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) recognise, as I do and as Members across the House do, that this is a huge challenge facing communities up and down our country. I would be delighted to work with them to make sure that we can get this right for children and young people. Yes, of course they will push us on certain areas, but I would like us to build a consensus, to take this forward and to make sure that children get the support that they need.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Shortly before Christmas, the Secretary of State announced to the media, rather than the House, welcome capital investment in specialist provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities, children for whom mainstream provision is simply not appropriate. However, digging into the small print, that included the forced cancellation of 18 free special schools and the jeopardising of a further 59, despite two thirds of state special schools being at or over capacity. With children being sent many miles away to privately run provision that is costing taxpayers eye-watering sums in transport and fees, why does she not give all local councils both the resources and the flexibility to decide whether they should go ahead with a special school in their area, because councils know what is best for the families in their areas, not Whitehall?
Bridget Phillipson
We are giving councils a greater role in this process because we recognise that many will be able to create places much more quickly through a different way of allocating funding. We want children and young people to receive the support they need in a local school, not a long distance away. In some cases, that can involve expanded specialist provision in mainstream schools, but I also recognise the critical role that the specialist sector plays—the needs of some children can be met only in specialist provision. That is why we have taken the approach of prioritising funding, and that runs hand in hand with much wider investment running through the system. The hon. Lady knows that I will work with her to make sure we get this reform right and to make sure that children and their education are right at the heart of it.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will introduce a financial oversight scheme for children’s social care. That will increase the transparency of children’s social care providers so that we can make accurate, real-time assessments of financial risk so that local authorities can step in and take swift action in the interests of children.
Sarah Olney
Last Friday, the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, published its report into the financial sustainability of children’s homes. The report highlights that there is very little financial and governance oversight of private companies, which run 84% of children’s homes in the UK. Given that the 15 largest private children’s homes providers make average profits of 22% on an average charge per child per year of £318,000, what more can the Government do to ensure that children’s homes have appropriate financial and governance oversight?
Josh MacAlister
I welcome the hon. Member’s interest in this issue, and the reports from the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. Children’s social care issues looked at through the prism of profit making in children’s homes demonstrate how much radical reform we need for children’s social care. That is why we are putting £2.4 billion into resetting the system overall so that it intervenes earlier. We will also bring forward plans very soon to set out an expansion of fostering. That is in addition to measures in the Bill that is currently going through the other place to introduce a financial oversight mechanism and a profit cap to address the issues that the hon. Member has mentioned.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
I thank my hon. Friend for her efforts in so brilliantly representing the interests of visually impaired young people and the time that she has spent with me on this important topic. I am delighted to be attending a roundtable this week that she has organised with the Royal National Institute of Blind People to hear the personal testimonies of young people. All schools have legal duties to make reasonable adjustments for disabled pupils, and special schools must ensure that they cater for those with complex needs. I am really pleased that the teacher training announcement includes support for visually impaired children.
Marsha De Cordova
I welcome the work that the Minister is doing, and I look forward to our roundtable meeting. Research by Guide Dogs has found that 69% of non-specialist teachers said that they lacked the confidence and the skills to support disabled children, including children with visual impairments, so I welcome the Government’s new SEND announcement on teacher training, which I know will include blind and partially sighted children. However, training alone is not enough, so can the Minister set out what steps the Government are taking to ensure that schools and local authorities properly understand and implement their legal obligations on reasonable adjustments, so that blind and partially sighted children and young people are not put at a disadvantage?
Georgia Gould
We have commissioned research to strengthen the evidence base of what works to improve inclusive practice in mainstream settings, including for sensory impairment, and I look forward to discussing what more we can do together later this week.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Blind and partially sighted children in the East Riding of Yorkshire receive lower funding through the higher needs block than anywhere else in the country, yet in the settlement the East Riding will receive the smallest increase in the country at just 2%, compared with an average of over 6%. How can it possibly be justified that children in the rural, coastal East Riding of Yorkshire, who are already the worst funded in the country, are going to see the gap widen? Minister, please explain.
Georgia Gould
Revenue funding for young people with complex SEND has increased by £1.8 billion since July 2024, bringing total high-needs funding to well over £12 billion. Will be setting out more in the schools White Paper around further funding and how that is distributed.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
As we have heard today, we know that the system to support children with SEND and their families is not working. Our schools White Paper will deliver change that lasts, informed by our national conversation with parents, staff and experts, but critically, we are putting in place the foundations for change right now through £3 billion of investment to create tens of thousands of specialist SEND places and £200 million to deliver the most ambitious SEND training package in our history from early years through to college. Great local schools where every child can achieve and thrive, needs met, parents involved, children thriving, and support without a fight—that is Labour’s vision for a renewed SEND system.
Blake Stephenson
Following the curriculum review, will the Secretary of State outline how the Government will support teachers to deliver financial education in the constituency of Mid Bedfordshire and, of course, right across the country? Will financial education form part of initial teacher training?
Bridget Phillipson
We are continuing to review initial teacher training, but we want to make sure that, through our curriculum review and its outcomes, children receive stronger education around financial literacy, budgeting and saving. There are some fantastic examples of schools that are already doing this well, but we want that to be the reality for all young people, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interest in this.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
The hospitality industry is hugely important. Nothing has been decided on defunding apprenticeships yet. I recognise all my hon. Friend’s points, and we share her ambition that the apprenticeship system in the future is entirely designed around progression, as well as one-off learning.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
It is a disgrace that a Jewish Member of this House had his visit to a school cancelled following pressure and intimidation from pro-Palestinian protesters. That is abhorrent antisemitism. Over the weekend, the Secretary of State announced a welcome investigation into the trust, alongside Ofsted action. She said that she would “leave no stone unturned”. In that spirit, what is the right hon. Lady doing to address the role of the National Education Union in trying to prevent the visit?
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Let me update the House: I am crystal clear that schools must be a place of safety and that no MP should ever be stopped from doing their job, but sadly, this is not the first concern about antisemitism in schools and this alone is not the only challenge we face. We will leave no stone unturned, as the right hon. Lady said. I have asked the trust to commission an independent investigation into what happened. I will launch a review to ensure that all schools and colleges have the right systems and processes in place. I will set out more in due course as to the shape of that, but we will of course consider any area in which antisemitism needs to be tackled. I would be happy to meet her to discuss this further because this is an issue, when it comes to tackling antisemitism, that all of us right across the House must show leadership on.
Laura Trott
I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s words. Bristol NEU publicly celebrated the cancellation of the visit from the hon. Member for Bristol North East (Damien Egan), describing it as a “win” and boasting that it sent a “clear message”. Over the weekend, the head of the NEU claimed that the visit taking place “at the height of the genocide in Gaza” was a mitigating factor for excluding a British Jew from the school. That is inexcusable. I will gladly meet the right hon. Lady. Will she also back my call for the Equality and Human Rights Commission to look into the NEU, and will she ask it to investigate these outrageous statements?
Bridget Phillipson
Teachers are under clear duties around political impartiality, and that is extremely important and serious. In parallel, I have also been concerned as to some of what we have seen recently around the Teaching Regulation Agency’s approach. That is why I have asked the permanent secretary to review what has happened there and to ensure that we have the right processes in place, because no one who glorifies terrorist organisations should be teaching our children. Antisemitism has no place in our schools. We are investing more, but there is always more to do, and I look forward to discussing it in more detail with the right hon. Lady.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. One of us is going to sit down, and it is not going to be me. Can I just try to help? I have a load of Members who all want to catch my eye. This is topicals, and we need short and punchy questions and answers. We will get a good example from the Minister.
Josh MacAlister
I compliment my hon. Friend’s local leadership in High Peak. To support our ambition of 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships, we are expanding foundation apprenticeships, launching a £140 million pilot with mayors to better connect young people with local apprenticeships, and fully funding small and medium-sized enterprises to deliver apprenticeships for eligible 16 to 24-year-olds.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The evidence is undeniable: social media and the addictive algorithms that feed it are harming our children’s physical and mental health and impacting their sleep and their concentration and behaviour at school. With parents, children themselves and teachers crying out for change, and with cross-party consensus growing on this issue, will the Secretary of State work across Government, instead of launching a consultation, to ban under-16s from harmful social media through a film-style age rating system and approach the 42 children’s charities and experts—
Mr Speaker
Order. Please, I am trying to help Members from the hon. Lady’s party and others. You have got to work with me. This is topicals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. We are always willing to work across the House on this critical issue, because nothing is more important than our children’s safety. That is why we are proceeding with world-leading action through the Online Safety Act 2023 and why, as the Prime Minister made clear this week, no action is off the table when it comes to children and social media.
Mr Speaker
Can I just say to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) that it is no use shaking her head and pointing at others? I have to try to help everybody in the Chamber.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
I thank my hon. Friend for our recent discussion about this issue. The £3 billion we are investing in schools is precisely for sensory rooms and other investments to make schools more accessible for young people. I would be delighted to join her on a visit.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Bridget Phillipson
I would of course be happy to meet, or to arrange for a Minister to meet, the hon. Gentleman and colleagues. He will appreciate that changes of the manner he describes will often take time, to make sure we get them right. It has been necessary, because of the timelines available to us, to provide funding on the basis on which it was allocated previously, but we are considering other options through the schools White Paper.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
Josh MacAlister
My hon. Friend has been leading local efforts on this issue, for which I pay tribute to him. The Government stand ready to support local higher education institutions where challenges are present, and I will of course extend the offer to continue that support, as will my noble Friend the Minister for Skills. The Office for Students has responsibility for ensuring that such transitions are managed carefully.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
Georgia Gould
The new guidance sets out inclusion for all children and the recognition of those relationships. As the hon. Member will know, that is mandatory in secondary school, and we continue to take that work forward.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Georgia Gould
We are committed to opening up access to school grounds and sports facilities; that is a key part of the school sport partnership work we are developing. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to develop it.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
The guidance for complaints in children’s social care was issued 20 years ago and has not been updated since. Those who work in the system say that it is out of date, and the ombudsman echoes their concerns. Will the Minister outline what steps the Department is taking to ensure that the guidance is up to date? Will he meet me to hear the concerns that have been shared with me?
Josh MacAlister
I share some of those concerns; this is an important issue. I have asked officials to meet the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman to better understand the issues in the current complaints process, and I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady. Separately, we will soon publish updated statutory guidance on advocacy services for children. The points the hon. Lady raised are important.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
The household income threshold for the maximum maintenance loan for students has not changed since 2008. If the threshold is not increased, by 2028 a child from a single-parent household with a parent working full time for the minimum wage will not qualify for the full maintenance loan. What are we doing to end this scandal after 18 years and raise the quota?
Josh MacAlister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. The Government are focused on protecting support and increasing it for those who need it most, which is why we are increasing loans in line with inflation, reintroducing maintenance grants and, crucially—something I am very proud of and which the Secretary of State recently announced—giving care-experienced students automatic access to the full loan entitlement.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
A year ago the Secretary of State dropped the statutory free speech complaints scheme from the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. According to a letter published in The Sunday Times from 370 academics, including three Nobel prize winners, this has totally negated the whole point of the Act, thus imperilling freedom of speech on university campuses. When is the Secretary of State going to do something to correct this mistake?
Bridget Phillipson
The Government and I are absolutely committed to freedom of speech and academic freedom. It was a Labour Government who first enshrined freedom of expression into law through the Human Rights Act. I cannot comment on what might or might not be considered for future legislation, but I will act to protect freedom of speech and academic freedom, and we are considering options.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
Children are entitled to 30 hours of free childcare from the term after they turn nine months old, meaning that in practice some children are actually 13 months old before they get the funding. I thank Mr P and my constituent Joeli Brearley for raising this issue. Will the Minister meet me to see whether we can fix this injustice?
Olivia Bailey
I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and his constituent should he wish. As he knows, our record expansion of childcare means that more than 400,000 children benefited from additional childcare this September, and working families are saving up to £7,500 per year. I appreciate the concern that my hon. Friend describes, but termly deadlines enable local authorities and childcare providers to better plan and ensure that sufficient early years places are available.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
There is growing evidence that smartphones in schools are harming behaviour, concentration and outcomes, but leaving it up to headteachers is driving inconsistencies, and only 11% of senior schools have an effective mobile phone ban. Will the Secretary of State publish an assessment of the impact of a statutory ban of smartphones in schools?
Olivia Bailey
The Government are completely clear and Government guidance is completely clear that mobile phones have absolutely no place in schools at any point throughout the day. Obviously, we continue to look closely to ensure that the guidance is enforced properly across the country.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will know about the horrific sexual abuse case in one of my local nurseries. Will she introduce mandatory CCTV in nurseries so that we can use it as a safeguarding tool?
Olivia Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for her advocacy for her constituents in what has been an absolutely appalling case. My thoughts remain with all the children and families who have been affected. The safety of our children comes first, so we are considering the mandatory use of CCTV in early years settings through the review we are getting under way rapidly.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Victims of convicted paedophile Neil Foden, the former headmaster of Ysgol Friars, are furious that he is still in receipt of his pension even though he is in prison. The forfeiture panel has met and come to a conclusion; when will that conclusion as to whether he continues to receive his pension be published?
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Alex Foster, a 17-year-old from Aylesbury, has shared his experiences of social media with me. He says that
“thankfully I was one of the very few who had my phone checked”—
by his parents—but
“my friends told stories of watching beheadings, terrorist material, explicit photos of them being shared”.
Does the Minister agree that we must go further to protect and educate young people when it comes to online harms?
Olivia Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for her advocacy on behalf of her constituents. I agree that nothing is more important than the safety of our children. We are already taking world-leading action with the Online Safety Act 2023, and we have been very clear that nothing is off the table when it comes to children’s safety.
Business Rates: Retail, Hospitality and Leisure
(1 day, 9 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
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if she will make a statement on the planned changes to business rates for the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
Colleagues will have heard what the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said on this matter in recent days. I will not add further comments on the specifics in responding to this urgent question. When there are further comments to be made, I am sure they will be made in the usual way.
At the Budget, the Government announced a comprehensive set of reforms to business rates. We have created a new, sustainable system with permanently lower multipliers for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. Business rates are, in line with the usual timelines, revalued every three years, and new valuations that were set in train by the previous Government come into effect in April.
It was right to support businesses during covid, but the previous Government went into the election with plans to scrap the temporary support entirely in 2025. If they had won re-election, they would have removed that support overnight last April. If the Opposition had intended to extend the relief, why did they not say so and why was that not included in their forecast or projections?
We on this side of the House have chosen a different path: we extended the support at a lower rate in 2025-26 and are slowly unwinding it over the coming three years, with the help of £4.3 billion of transitional support. I think all Members can agree that it would not be sustainable for a £1.7 billion annual temporary covid tax relief to remain fully in place at the end of the decade. At the same time, our reforms—[Interruption.] I am glad someone is enjoying them. Our reforms to rebalance the underlying design of the business rates system towards high street businesses will be implemented in April.
The new, lower tax rates will be introduced for 750,000 RHL businesses, funded by a higher rate on the most valuable properties, including for the online giants. That is worth almost £1 billion and means that smaller high street businesses will have a tax rate that is 25% lower than businesses with the largest properties. That is being supported by a significant support package, as I said, worth £4.3 billion over the next three years. As a result, over half of ratepayers will see their bills flat or falling next year, and around a third of properties pay no business rates at all, as they receive 100% small business rate relief.
I look forward to supplementary questions from the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), and other Members, and I look forward to seeing whether the shadow Chancellor can keep a straight face, given that he knows his Government never did enough for our high streets: 7,000 pubs closed over the 14 years the Conservatives were in power; shops were shuttered on high streets up and down the country; the council services that keep our high streets clean and vibrant were cut to the bone; investment was down; and the public suffered from the longest squeeze on living standards on record. That is the legacy for our communities—one that we are turning around.
Sir Mel Stride
That was a complete non-response. The Minister says he will make a statement in future in the usual way; we can only assume that that will be via the media, not this House.
Of all the excuses for a U-turn that we have heard from the Government, this one beggars belief. The Minister expects us to accept that the Government simply did not know what the impact of the changes would be when they announced them. That is astonishing. Why did they announce crippling rises in business rates without bothering to check who would be hit the hardest?
Worse still, we now know from the chief executive of the Valuation Office Agency, who appeared before the Treasury Committee last week, that Ministers were provided with the data on revaluations before the Budget. We are left with questions not only about whether the Government’s excuse is reasonable, but about whether it is indeed correct. Can the Minister clarify what specific information was given to Ministers on the level of increases that businesses would be facing, and when?
Businesses are now in a terrible limbo over what their bills will look like in the coming years. The Government have indicated that changes will be announced for pubs at least, but there has been no official statement, which is why we have had to drag the Minister to the House this afternoon, so will he answer the following additional questions?
Can the Minister at least make it clear which sectors will be in line for further support? Will it be just pubs? If so, why are the Government refusing to help businesses in the wider retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, some of which are seeing even higher rates increases? Will the new support be a temporary or permanent cut in bills, as we have called for? How much will it cost, and will it be funded by yet more Government borrowing? Will the Minister apologise now to the thousands of local businesses up and down our country that have been so sorely let down by this shambolic Labour Government?
Dan Tomlinson
The shadow Chancellor said that I was dragged to the House, but that is very much not the case; I am very happy to take questions from him and from Conservative and Government Members.
Mr Speaker
May I help the Minister a little bit? I did grant this urgent question. This discussion would not have happened if I had not done so. I am not quite sure that his statement and mine are compatible.
Dan Tomlinson
I fully respect your decision to grant an urgent question, Mr Speaker. It was—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I certainly do not need any help from Opposition Members.
Dan Tomlinson
It was the word “dragged” that I had some objection to. I did not mean to comment on your decision to grant the urgent question, Mr Speaker.
Let me answer some of the questions asked by the shadow Chancellor. The key thing is that we are implementing the revaluations that his Government set in train. Treasury Ministers holding a similar role to mine a good few years ago undertook the process for the revaluations that will be in place from April 2026. Those are set on property values from 2024.
Yes, there is an unwind from the pandemic, in terms of increases in businesses’ property values as a result of businesses recovering from the pandemic. We were aware of the impact of the valuation, and of the fact that the previous Government did not have any plans whatsoever to extend the temporary pandemic support. We extended it for one year, and over the course of the next three years we are phasing it out, with the support of Government decisions worth £4.3 billion, and our transitional relief scheme.
I will not comment on speculation, but the shadow Chancellor referred to borrowing. Over the course of this Parliament, we will see the fastest reduction in borrowing of any G7 economy. Borrowing is set to fall in every single year of the forecast because of the decisions that the Chancellor took at the Budget. We have doubled our headroom against our fiscal rules, and we are seeing a warm response from private sector investors and the markets as a result of the decisions that the Government have taken.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Many pubs in my constituency are seeing eye-watering increases in business rates. We know from the Valuation Office Agency, which gave evidence to the Treasury Committee last week, that the formula used is the same formula that has been used for 20 years. This should have been no surprise, as the shadow Chancellor said, yet we learned in that meeting that more than 2,000 pubs have had their business rates doubled. This Government came in with a mission to transform business rates, and they came in part way through a valuation cycle. Aside from the question of what will happen to the hospitality sector, where are the plans for the reform of business rates in the medium to long term?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for her leadership of the Treasury Committee. At the Budget, we set out the first significant fundamental reform of the business rates system that we have ever seen. For the first time, there is a very significant divergence in the tax rate paid by businesses on our high streets and by the very largest businesses, including online giants. The tax rate is around 13p lower for high street businesses than it is for the largest businesses. That is a 25% reduction, which cost around £1 billion. It is a £1 billion reduction for businesses on the high street, paid for by higher taxes on those who can most afford it.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
These business rates changes will hammer high streets, and with the jobs tax on top, many businesses have already decided to shut up shop. Getting data out of the Government has been like getting blood from a stone; every question I am about to ask, I have asked before, but let me try again. Why did the Government set the expectation that they would reduce the business rates multiplier by the full 20p discount for retail, hospitality and leisure, and then not use the maximum power that they gave themselves to do that? Do they accept that lots of small businesses have made investment and hiring decisions based on the expectations that this Government set, and will they apologise to those businesses for raising their expectations and then dashing them? Can the Government finally tell us how many business premises have been brought into paying business rates for the first time?
Last Tuesday, we learned that that the Valuation Office Agency had sent the Treasury data drops regularly over the past 12 months. What did Ministers know, and when? The VOA also confirmed that it had told the Treasury that more than 5,000 pubs would see their business rates double, so how is it possible that Ministers did not know that this would happen? Finally, whatever the Government are considering, can they confirm that it will apply to all hospitality businesses and not just pubs, and will they consider our fully costed Liberal Democrat plan for an emergency VAT cut for hospitality?
Dan Tomlinson
On the point about 20p versus 5p, we legislated for a reduction in the multiplier of up to 20p for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, but that did not set an expectation that we would go that far; it set the bounds within which the Government could choose to operate. As the first step in our significant reform to the business rates system, we chose to reduce the multiplier by 5p, which reduces the total taxes paid by RHL businesses by almost £1 billion and increases the tax take from the largest businesses by an equivalent amount.
The answers to many of the questions that hon. Members ask are very easy to find in the data published by the VOA. Detailed breakdowns of the change in the value of properties between the different revaluation periods are published on the Government’s website. I will not take—I will not say “lectures”—suggestions from Liberal Democrat Members on VAT, given that when they were in power, they and the Conservatives chose to whack up VAT, a decision that pushed up inflation and added to the cost of living for people up and down the country.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
The £4 billion package in the Budget is very welcome, but the manifesto commitment was to replace the business rates system, not tinker with it or subsidise it. Pubs alone will see bill increases of 4% this year. Alongside that, VAT thresholds are strangling hospitality businesses on the high street, and that is on top of a tax compliance bill of £25 billion for small business, not least because His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs does not answer 4 million phone calls a year. I repeat the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), the Chair of the Treasury Committee: when will the Government table comprehensive, radical reform that meets the test of the manifesto commitment?
Dan Tomlinson
At the Budget, we published further updates on our broader work to transform the business rates system. There are things that we want to look at—for example, a switch from a slab system to a slice system, which should support and encourage investment. As was confirmed by the Chancellor at the Budget, we have already extended small business rate relief, so that businesses do not face a disincentive to expand from one premises to two premises, but there are more things that we want to look at that are in that consultation. Of course, we will continue to engage with businesses on our high streets up and down the country, and with businesses large and small, to see what more we can do to continue our work of reforming and improving the business rates system.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Some of my publicans are facing a threefold increase in rates. They have seen the speculation that the Treasury has briefed out to the newspapers, but they are still waiting. They do not have long to wait before they have to pay these increased bills, though, so can the Minister give some indication of when there will be clarity—not just for publicans, but for retailers?
Dan Tomlinson
It is important to be clear that no pub will see their business rates bill go up by three times this year. [Interruption.] No, it is simply not the case. It is true that some businesses have seen significant increases in their valuations, but this year the Government are capping the increase in business rates bills at either £800 or 5%, 15% or 30%, depending on the size of the property. Yes, bills may be higher, and it could be by a large percentage if the rate is moving up by £800, but for the vast majority of businesses, the increase in their bills this year will be limited, due to the Government having intervened and provided more than £2 billion of support this year.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
I welcome noises from the Department about additional support for pubs, but this is not just about pubs; it is about all hospitality businesses, including music venues such as Claptrap the venue and Katie Fitzgerald’s in my constituency. They have been massively impacted by a perfect storm of new valuations by the Valuation Office Agency, the end of covid-related reliefs and rising energy costs. I also want to mention service-based industries, such as hair and beauty salons and indoor play centres. These businesses have limited opportunities to claim back VAT, as labour is their highest cost. When the Government consider additional support measures for hospitality, please can they ensure that all businesses are included?
Dan Tomlinson
Hospitality businesses are the cornerstone of our communities, providing life and vibrancy to high streets up and down the country. The Government are committed to continuing to support their growth and their success. We value the work that employees in that sector do—I believe that around 2 million people work in hospitality across the country—and the work of business owners who seek to grow and expand their hospitality businesses. Precisely because we value their work and the work of businesses on the high street, we fundamentally redesigned the transitional relief scheme, so that it takes the 40% reduction in bills as its jumping-off point. That reduction is a result of this Government’s decision to extend the pandemic-related relief. The previous Government had not costed or funded that, and they would have ended it overnight if they had won the general election in 2024.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The problem is that the November Red Book stated:
“The high street will benefit from permanently lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure”.
Businesses up and down the land think that was entirely misleading. We have had briefings to the newspapers that there will be a change, but the Minister is saying that that is not happening, and that change will be made through the normal processes, which I interpret to mean in the next spring statement. Those in businesses are lying awake at night, worried about these increases, so can the Minister tell them when relief will be on its way?
Dan Tomlinson
The changes at the Budget led to a reduction in the tax rate paid by businesses on the high street. That was a result of the reforms that this Government have brought in. We have been clear about the need to start the work to rebalance the business rates system to support our high streets. Because the pandemic relief is being unwound over the coming years—something that the previous Government would have done overnight in 2025, had they won the general election—and because of the increase in business rate values as we come out of the pandemic, some businesses are seeing increases in their bills. We have capped those increases significantly this year and over the coming three years, providing £4 billion of support. On the hon. Member’s point about updates being made in the usual way, it is of course possible for Ministers to make statements in the House.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the Opposition have no credibility on this issue. We know that had they won the election, either we would have seen these increases quicker, or the black hole would have been even bigger. None the less, it is true that many pubs are really concerned, and are under the impression that further help is coming. They are trying to make accounting decisions right now. Can he say any more about whether their bills will be exactly what they are expecting right now, or whether further help will come before April?
Dan Tomlinson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the important point that the last Government had no plans to continue to extend the pandemic support. As for his other question, I will not comment today on the speculation. He and others can see the words that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said about this matter at the Dispatch Box and during various media interviews, and I have no more to say about it.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
As has been mentioned, in its manifesto Labour committed itself to reforming the business rates system, and the Red Book for the Budget referred to
“permanently lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure”.
That will have given business owners the impression that their bills would be lower. The Government’s get-out about the rates being low, when they knew that transitional reliefs were being phased out and rateable values were rising substantially, is not cutting it with businesses that made plans accordingly. Last week, we on the Treasury Committee heard from the Valuation Office Agency that the Government had known for more than a year about the size of the increase in rateable values, so why has this backlash taken them by surprise?
Dan Tomlinson
As I have said, the Government were aware that a revaluation was taking place. That revaluation, which was initiated by the last Government, took account of property values in 2024, and will be in place from April this year. We were also aware—and Members in all parts of the House would probably agree on this—that by the end of the decade it would not be appropriate to retain the full pandemic relief almost 10 years after the height of the pandemic. In the round, as a result of those decisions, we came forward with a significant package of £4.3 billion of protection for businesses across the country—large and small, high street and non-high street—to help them adjust to the potential for higher bills that some are experiencing. Let me add that, as I said in my opening remarks, the business rates bills of about 50% of businesses are either flat or falling.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Pubs have a powerful lobby, unlike the independents on our high streets such as cafés and retail outlets. I have been poring over the spreadsheets showing the impacts that this will have on York. Some little retail outlets are seeing their business rates rise by 93%, and they simply do not have the resilience to deal with it. What will the Minister do for independents to ensure that they survive past March this year?
Dan Tomlinson
York high street, in my hon. Friend’s constituency, is a beautiful and wonderful place where there are many fantastic businesses. I worked there for a time. I know that Members in all parts of the House value the businesses that keep their high streets vibrant and thriving. We are taking steps, and we took steps in the Budget, to support high street businesses through our £4.3 billion of support, and we will continue to engage with Members and with businesses on the further steps that we can take to support them.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
The Minister is talking in numbers, but out there on the doorsteps and in the streets and high streets, I have met a café owner and a publican whose businesses are busier than ever—they are selling more drinks and more food—but whose top line is shrinking because of the decisions being made by this Government. One landlady was in tears as she spoke to me about whether she should carry on, directly because of this Government’s policies. What advice would the Minister give her?
Dan Tomlinson
I hope that when the hon. Member was conversing with businesses in his constituency, he explained that this year, if a pub has a rateable value of less than £100,000, the policy as set out in the Budget will have capped those increases at 15%. I think it important for Members to do all that they can to help business owners pick through the complexities of the business rates system. It is a complicated system: there are many different reliefs, and there is a difference between the tax rates that are paid, the relief that is applied and the rateable value of the property. Of course some businesses are seeing their rateable values increase as we unwind from the pandemic, but that is precisely why the Government included that package of support in the Budget.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
The hospitality and leisure sector in Liverpool is one of the largest employers and contributes significantly to the local economy. However, it is facing significant challenges at the moment, with the average hospitality business facing an increase of more than £48,000 in business rates over the next three years—double the national average, and a serious threat to sustainability. That is compounded by a 20% VAT rate, which is one of the highest in Europe. By comparison, Germany has reinstated a rate of 7% to support its sector. Can the Minister explain what targeted support will be provided to safeguard jobs, and to prevent closures and redundancies, in the hospitality and leisure sector in Liverpool? Will he please come to Liverpool to speak to business owners?
Dan Tomlinson
When I am up at the Labour party conference, I like to enjoy the pubs and hospitality available in Liverpool. It is a fantastic and vibrant city, and I know that the constituencies and areas in the middle of the city have some of the highest numbers of pubs and hospitality businesses in the country. Like me, my hon. Friend really values those businesses, the work that business owners do and, of course, the work that their employees do—they can be quite tough and demanding jobs.
We want to support hospitality, which is why the Government redesigned the transitional relief scheme at the Budget so that it applies a 40% reduction as the baseline, rather than unwinding the support in full, as the previous Government would have done overnight. We also said at the Budget that we will appoint a retail, hospitality and leisure envoy, and I look forward to that announcement in due course.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are going to run this session for an hour from the start, so it will end at 4.40 pm. If the Minister can help Members to get in, that will be really useful.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Perhaps the Prime Minister, on his much-heralded cost of living tour, might like to visit the pubs and cafés in my constituency of Esher and Walton, if they let him in. They are being squeezed to breaking point by this Government, while constituents watch their wallets because of tax rises. Hospitality venues are the lifeblood of my high street and create the jobs we need for young people. Will the Government act now by fully using business rates relief and introducing an emergency VAT cut for hospitality to protect jobs, pubs, restaurants and the lifeblood of my constituency?
Dan Tomlinson
One of the things that the Government are doing to support businesses up and down the country is bringing back economic stability. Under this Government, interest rates have been cut six times, which will reduce borrowing costs for businesses small and large, and we are doing all we can to boost living standards, so that people have more money in their pockets to spend in hospitality businesses. We have seen faster increases in wages in the first year of this Government than we did in the first 10 years under the Conservatives.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I find it a bit rich that the Conservatives are raising this issue, given that around 7,000 pubs and bars closed on their watch, which is felt in Blackpool and across the country. Will the Minister continue to engage with the hospitality sector, UKHospitality and small businesses to ensure that we get this right? Many are struggling after 14 years of Conservative government, and especially after covid. We need to support our high streets, which have been forgotten about for far too long.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement on this important issue, and for the work that he does on the all-party parliamentary group for hospitality and tourism. Yes, the Government will continue to engage with sector bodies such as UKHospitality on this and other matters that are important for the hospitality industry.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The Minister does not have to defect to Reform to get a pint, and I am very happy to show him round the pubs in Shropshire’s villages and market towns. I will show him that pubs are not just about having non-alcoholic and alcoholic drinks; they are often at the very heart of village communities. Local charities, the women’s institute, pensioner groups and others meet there because the post office or the shop has closed. May I genuinely invite the Minister to get out of London—out of the beltway and out of the bubble—and come to Shropshire? He will not be allowed inside pubs, of course, but I can bring him a pint outside when the warmer weather comes. I appeal to him to join me in Shropshire and hear at first hand what pub landlords and owners have to say.
Dan Tomlinson
I do not know what the current Government position is on whether pubs are allowed to sell takeaway pints, but I hope that would be allowed in Shropshire if I were to visit. However, I have about 30 pubs in my north London constituency, and I have many conversations with publicans both locally and in my role as Exchequer Secretary.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my chairship of the all-party parliamentary beer group. Does the Minister accept that pubs are anchor employers on our high streets, and will he please ask the Chancellor to expedite a package of rates relief and duty reduction aimed specifically at sustaining these really important jobs in hospitality?
Dan Tomlinson
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that pubs are important anchor institutions. I know that she cares deeply about the businesses in her constituency, and she is a strong representative for them. Under the previous Government, we saw more than one pub closing every single day—7,000 fewer pubs in our communities. This Government will do all we can to continue to support publicans and institutions that are the lifeblood of communities up and down the country.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
There has been an absolutely shambolic, chaotic furore around these business rates since the Budget. When will the Minister do the right thing and confirm to the House exactly when we are going to get some clarity on these changes? Is he aware just how despairing businesses are in my constituency of Boston and Skegness and around the country because of the uncertainty and the increased costs? Is he also aware that pubs are reducing opening hours and employee hours? Will he do the decent thing and apologise?
Dan Tomlinson
I was not sure what the hon. Member was referring to when he said there was a “shambolic, chaotic furore”, but it was probably his own party, which would not be able to run anything in any brewery, let alone a whole country.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister says that it is the job of MPs to help publicans and hospitality businesses understand the system. I gently say to him that they do understand it. Their frustration comes not from not understanding the help that is available, but from the system they are working in. Several things can be true at once. It is true that there is a permanently lower rate and that there is a £4 billion package to soften the blow for those with increased business rates, but it is also true that, when that goes away, breweries such as Titanic Brewery in Stoke-on-Trent will have an overall business rates increase of 130%, with some of its venues seeing a 400% increase. Can the Minister set out what specific support they can look forward to in the next three years, or can he give them clarity on what they need to budget for, because as a result of these changes some pubs around the country will close, and we need to avoid that?
Dan Tomlinson
I totally agree with my hon. Friend that we need to avoid the situation we saw for 14 years, when 7,000 pubs closed under the Conservatives, with about 4,000 closing in the first five years when the Lib Dems were in coalition with them. This Government will do all we can to support pubs, hospitality businesses and our high streets, which is why we set out a really strong set of proposals at the Budget, as he mentioned, including £4.3 billion of support.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
When is a U-turn not a U-turn? I would suggest it is when the Government realise that they have made a terrible mistake, brief that they will change the policy and then send a Minister to this House to explain that nothing is changing at all. Does the Minister realise how much despair people are feeling? This is not a problem about a transition; this is a fundamental flaw in the whole concept of business rates that hits the smallest businesses the hardest. We need our policy, which is to leave the transitional rates relief permanently in place until there is a new system that exempts smaller businesses from this punitive tax.
Dan Tomlinson
The Conservatives had 14 years to implement significant reforms to the business rates system. They could have changed the system with significant underlying reforms, meaning that the tax rate paid by high street businesses was lower than the tax rate paid by the largest businesses, but they did not. I do not think we can trust a word they say when it comes to reform of the business rates system. They did not take the opportunity when they had their chance. It is easy to say things, but the Government are getting on with the job of reforming and improving our business rates system.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement so far on this issue. It will come as no surprise to him that we need a cut to VAT and the maximum 20p discount for business rates applied across hospitality, not just pubs, because nobody wants to drink in a pub surrounded by boarded-up cafés, restaurants and B&Bs. Can I urge the Government to act quickly and, as a gesture of their intent, withdraw the statutory instrument that enforces the much lower 5p business rate discount this April?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for her sustained and important engagement and advocacy on behalf of high street businesses in her constituency, from hospitality venues such as cafés and pubs to independent shops. She has explained to me really clearly the impact of various changes that previous Governments and this Government have announced on the businesses in her constituency. I will continue to engage with her and other strong advocates of the hospitality industry on this and other important issues that affect our high streets.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Government have already imposed additional employment costs on our small businesses and those on our high streets. They are still struggling with sky-high energy costs that the Government have yet to alleviate, and now we have these massive increases in business rates. Is there anything at all that the Minister can say that will give hope to the small and medium businesses on our high streets that are wondering whether they can continue, or to our entrepreneurs who are wondering if they can get started?
Dan Tomlinson
The Government back small businesses and our high streets. We want to do all we can to continue to support businesses up and down the country. That is why we announced significant reforms to business rates at the Budget, making sure that we could have a permanently lower multiplier for high street businesses and providing significant support worth £4.3 billion over the coming three years.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Libraries and community centres are central to communities like mine in Lewisham East, and they make an excellent contribution to the local area. Can the Minister say whether there are any planned changes to their business rates and tell us how else they can be supported in our local community?
Dan Tomlinson
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the role that libraries and community centres in her constituency and across the country play in providing places for people to socialise, to learn new skills, and to grow and develop. I think of the libraries to which lots of parents in my constituency take their children in order to get their first books. The reforms to the business rates system that we set in place at the Budget will protect any businesses or premises that are seeing large increases in their rateable values, but I am always happy to have conversations with hon. Members on what other steps, more broadly, the Government could take to support important institutions such as those my hon. Friend raises.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
We all look forward to whatever it is that the Government have decided to change here, but can I ask the Minister to look at two points? First, can he look at when appeals can be made to valuations? At the moment, businesses have to wait until 1 April, and that simply is not giving the sector any confidence. Secondly, can he look at wedding venues? They suffered enormously during covid and are likely, as things stand, not to benefit from any relief that he will announce in the next few weeks.
Dan Tomlinson
The process for businesses that are not satisfied with the valuation provided by the Valuation Office Agency is to go through the “check, challenge, appeal” process. In my role as the Minister with responsibility for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, I will of course be doing all I can to make sure that the performance of the VOA is as good as it can be to help businesses get through that process. That is very important, not least given that we are seeing a rebound in the values of many businesses across the country following the pandemic.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I hope the Minister will join me in congratulating Bristol East’s Lost and Grounded Brewers, which has just appeared on the list of the eight best breweries in Britain in The Times. He may recall that just before the Budget, I brought another Bristol East brewery, Left Handed Giant, to meet him and other Ministers at No. 11, where it made very clear the pressures facing the hospitality sector. Can he give me assurances that, as a first step, we need to sort out the revaluation shambles? Can he also ensure that the consideration of a differential rate of VAT, as we see in so many other countries on the continent, is also on the Treasury’s radar?
Dan Tomlinson
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the brewery in her constituency. I know there is a vibrant small and independent brewery sector in Bristol, with lots of fantastic places where people can choose to have a drink if they so wish. Just the same as her, I want to make sure that this Government do what they can to continue to support businesses such as the one she mentions and those operating up and down the country. This Government are seeking to ensure that people have more money in their pockets so they can go out and spend it. That is why I am really glad that under the first year of this Labour Government, we saw faster increases in wages than we did in the whole first 10 years under the Conservatives.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
As well as pubs, hotels and restaurants, is the Minister aware that many grassroots music venues, some of which have never been liable for rates, now face demands for thousands of pounds? The Music Venue Trust has said that these are not bills but “closure notices”. Will he ensure that grassroots music venues are included in any relief he provides, and are recognised as critical creative infrastructure?
Dan Tomlinson
We considered before the Budget the matter of businesses being brought into business rates for the first time. We set out at the Budget the supporting small business relief scheme, so that businesses that are paying no business rates at the moment but which are coming into business rates for the first time will have their increases capped at £800.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on music. The vast majority of live performance venues have alcohol licences. Many are pubs, but the vast majority are not. Leeds Arena in my constituency is being dragged into the highest rate of business rates, alongside some large retailers. Without live performance venues, we will not have any future Ed Sheerans, Darcey Bussells, Idris Elbas or Simon Armitages bringing in the export income that the Treasury desperately needs. Is the Minister considering live performance venues, not just pubs, when he is thinking about the changes?
Dan Tomlinson
My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of live performance venues. They not only support our economy directly, through people visiting the venues and enjoying a good night out and a good performance; they also support the local economy more broadly, with people travelling to and from, and choosing to go out for a meal before the event. He and I value the contribution they make to our national life and to our economy.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Business rates in Scotland are, of course, devolved, but businesses, particularly in the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors, are not immune to the impact of these measures as they spread across the United Kingdom and undermine the economy. Has there been any effort to sit down with Scottish Government Ministers to discuss a national strategy on how we can help businesses throughout the United Kingdom?
Dan Tomlinson
The hon. Member is right that business rates policy is devolved. I am in conversation with the Governments in Scotland and Wales about a number of changes to taxation policy that were announced in the Budget, and I will of course be happy to continue those conversations. We need to ensure that we continue to support these vital businesses up and down the country, which is why the Chancellor set out the package of support at the Budget.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
Over 20,000 people, including the likes of James McAvoy and Benedict Cumberbatch, have rallied around to try to save the local cafés on Hampstead Heath. I recently spoke to one of the owners, Alfonso, who brought home to me the importance of having local cafés that are affordable and accessible. As a fellow north London MP, is the Minister going to join the campaign to save the local cafés on Hampstead Heath? Will he reassure my constituents that protecting small businesses is at the heart of Government policy?
Dan Tomlinson
If I get time and the parking permits in Camden allow it, I do like to drive down and have a walk in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I have not yet been made aware of that campaign, but I look forward to talking more with her about it. On a personal level, I will do all I can to get my tea and coffee from those establishments.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I am speaking to loads of business owners across South Shropshire in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, who are telling me the polar opposite of what the Minister is saying from the Dispatch Box, showing that the Government are completely detached from reality. There is a U-turn coming on this policy, but many business owners are lying awake at night worrying about how they are going to get through this. Can the Government make that U-turn quickly?
Dan Tomlinson
It is worth pausing to note that while some businesses will see increases in their bills, more than half of rate payers’ bills will either remain flat or will fall in the next year. That, in part, is because of the support the Government have provided to businesses, as set out at the Budget.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Hospitality and leisure businesses in the City of Durham are incredibly concerned about their future. Does the Minister agree that if we are truly to level the playing field between the high street and the online giants, it is time we show our much loved pubs, cafés, restaurants and hotels the same level of support that distribution warehouses, office blocks and supermarkets are receiving?
Dan Tomlinson
We are seeking to give even more support to those businesses than to the very largest ones. Under previous Governments, there would have been the same tax rate for those businesses, but, because of the changes we put forward at the Budget, the business rates multiplier for the smallest businesses on high streets in Durham and across the country is 25% lower than the tax rate paid by the largest businesses. This is the first significant, fundamental reform to the underlying tax rates in the business rates system in a very long time.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Whether it is retail, hospitality or pubs, businesses right across the United Kingdom, especially small businesses, are failing. That is due in no small part to action by the Government—increased taxes, increased energy prices and increased regulation. Rates play a big part in that, too. Can the Minister assure us that if there is to be further additional money for support, it will be ringfenced and not given to the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland, where the Sinn Féin Minister has taken the money but spent it on something else?
Dan Tomlinson
The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of small businesses. It is worth nothing that a third of properties pay no business rates at all, as they receive 100% small business rate relief, and that a further 85,000 will benefit from reduced bills as this support tapers away.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
Hospitality is the UK’s third largest employer; when the sector is hit, jobs are affected at scale. Pubs sit at the heart of the hospitality industry. In Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr, we have 136 great pubs, employing more than 1,100 across the constituency, including the Eagles in Acrefair, where my wife used to work behind the bar, and the brilliant pub, the Hand, in Llanarmon Dyffryn Ceiriog. What steps is the Minister taking to support jobs in the hospitality sector?
Dan Tomlinson
I must say, I am very jealous that my hon. Friend has over 100 pubs in his constituency; I have only 27 in mine, and I have not made it round all of them yet. He is right to highlight the importance of the employment and job opportunities that can be provided by the hospitality sector, with around 2 million people working in it. Many people’s first job is in hospitality, helping them to get their foot on the career ladder and progress in their careers. That is why the Government provided significant support for hospitality businesses at the Budget, and it is why I will continue to engage with my hon. Friend and other Members on the issue of business rates and other matters where we can support our high streets.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
Retail, hospitality and leisure businesses are at the heart of my constituency, yet family-run village pubs such as the Blue Boar in Walsham le Willows face significant increases in business rates from this April. If the Minister does recognise that the current system is failing businesses, when will he commit to meaningful reform and action, including giving local authorities greater powers to support socially and economically essential local businesses, which village pubs in rural areas undoubtedly are?
Dan Tomlinson
I will happily talk further with the hon. Member about any changes that we can make to give councils more powers in relation to the issue he raises. It is not a topic that has crossed my desk before, but I would be happy to receive some correspondence on it.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
Two weeks ago, I held a roundtable for hospitality businesses in Tamworth to discuss the broken business rates system, and I then wrote to the Department about their preferences for support. The rates are crippling, and those businesses asked me to ask the Minister when reform is coming and how they will receive support in the interim, which is essential for my constituency and our businesses.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for the engagement that she has carried out with businesses in her constituency, as a strong representative of the businesses and people of Tamworth. The Government set out some significant reforms in the Budget. We lowered the tax rate that is paid by businesses on our high streets by 5p compared with what it would otherwise have been. That means that the tax rate paid by businesses on our high street is a quarter lower than that paid by the very largest businesses, which can afford higher taxes. That is why we rebalanced the system, transferring £1 billion of extra tax revenue from the largest businesses to high street businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The tables to which the Minister refers show that the median rateable value for pubs and wine bars is increasing by a third. He visited the Prince of Wales, a pub in his constituency, to help it reopen last spring. Its rateable value is going up from £49,200 to £62,500, which will push it into the higher band and higher bills. When we have the inevitable U-turn, will he ensure that it genuinely delivers lower business rates, and not just for the Prince of Wales in his constituency but for all hospitality venues across the country?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for giving me a chance to talk about the Prince of Wales in my constituency, a fantastic pub that I am glad I and colleagues in Barnet council were able to save. I was there just a couple of weeks back, after a canvassing session out on the doorsteps. He is right to point out that some pubs are seeing increases in their rateable values as a result of the unwind from the pandemic. That is precisely why we have come forward with support, capping the increases in business rates bills this year and in subsequent years. In general, the point about pubs being at the heart of our communities is totally true. From the Prince of Wales in East Barnet to the Griffin in Whetstone—I could go on—there are some fantastic pubs in Chipping Barnet, as I am sure there are in his constituency too.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I am a bit surprised by the mock rage coming from the Opposition, given that, over the past decade and a half, thousands of pubs have closed. I thank the Minister on behalf of Stroud publicans for agreeing to review the system so that we can get a really practical solution for pubs. Can I confirm that all business rates, including those on the high streets, will be reviewed, so that we can have a proper level playing field with the out-of-town institutions?
Dan Tomlinson
It is really important that we level the playing field for business rates paid by high street businesses in Stroud—for which my hon. Friend is a strong and active representative—and those paid by the largest online retailers and those with warehouses and distribution centres. That is why we implemented the reforms in the Budget to rebalance the system through a lower tax rate on high street businesses and a higher one on those that can afford it. I thank him for raising the point that Opposition Members want to keep dodging, which is that on their watch 7,000 pubs closed across the country, hollowing out our communities and making our high streets and the places where we live less vibrant and less sociable.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I have heard from many struggling businesses across my constituency about the increasing pressures that they are facing. To give just one example, under the Government’s original plan, a small independent shop in Exmouth would have seen its rateable value rise by about 50%, wiping out the benefits of the lower small business multiplier, stripping it of eligibility for relief and leaving it facing extra costs of around £600 a month. Does the Minister understand how damaging that is for business confidence and viability, and will he please set out a timeline for when those types of small businesses can expect to receive support?
Dan Tomlinson
One of the challenges with the questions I am being asked by Opposition Members is that they seem to be suggesting that the Government should not have gone ahead with the post-pandemic revaluations. Those revaluations were set in train by the previous Government. I do not know about the hon. Member, but I think that, if businesses in his constituency or mine have seen a decrease in their rateable values since the pandemic, for whatever reason, it is right that the system is updated to reflect their post-pandemic values. That is what we have done. He cites a particular example. Of course there will be businesses that see increases in their rateable values, and that is precisely why we have stepped in, with the Chancellor announcing £4.3 billion of transitional support at the Budget last year.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
I welcome the assurance that half of businesses will see their business rates flat or falling, and that is even after the end of the covid-era support and the post-pandemic review initiated by the previous Government. Research by the Music Venue Trust estimates that 600 grassroots music venues may see quite significant rises, probably because of the revaluation. Significant areas backstage are dedicated to production and performance and cannot be used for revenue raising. Will the Minister meet me and sector representatives so that we can understand the issue better together?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. Many grassroots music venues are valued as pubs. Intricacies and complexities in the business rates system mean that, when we think of pubs, it is important also to think of grassroots music venues up and down the country. We must provide support to them and to other businesses. That is why the Government stepped in with the £4.3 billion of transitional protection, over £2 billion of which will be in place this year.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
Those who run pubs in my constituency are really worried about the Budget and its impact on their business rates bills. Last week the Business Secretary said that there was no way the Government could have known about the impact of their decisions, but the valuation office then confirmed that it had told Ministers about the impact of their decisions, which I think the Minister has confirmed. He also confirmed that that data was easily accessible, so why did that happen? Was it wilful ignorance, was it incompetence or did they just go ahead anyway?
Dan Tomlinson
I am glad that the hon. Member was able to ask the exact same question as the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride). I am not going to comment on the policymaking process in the run-up to the Budget.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Most fair-minded businesses recognise that covid-era subsidies could not last for ever, yet many in hospitality, including in my constituency, are worried about what bill will come through for their rates in April. Can the Minister reassure those businesses and outline what transitional support we are putting in place in the short term and how we are reforming rates in the long term?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her continued representation for the small businesses in her Bournemouth constituency, where I know there is a vibrant and growing hospitality and leisure sector. We have implemented reforms to the system to rebalance business rates away from the high street and towards the online giants. I look forward to continuing to engage with her and other Members of Parliament on business rates, other issues and other steps that this Government can take to continue to support the high street and businesses in her constituency.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
This morning I met Roly May, the landlord of the Russell Arms pub in Butlers Cross. Government Members might recognise it: it is the closest pub to Chequers, where they can drown their sorrows after an audience with the Prime Minister. The pub has seen as £17,500 business rate increase. I have heard similar horror stories from pubs such as the Cock and Rabbit in The Lee, the Dinton Hermit in Ford and many others. Will the Minister at least accept that there is no more money to squeeze out of pubs that are absolutely on the brink of financial catastrophe under this Government?
Dan Tomlinson
This Government understand the pressures that hospitality businesses, and pubs in particular, are facing. One of the pressures, which I have heard about very clearly, relates to the fact that the previous Government did not invest in our energy security, which would have ensured that businesses and families had lower energy bills and certainty about future bills, and as a result those businesses and families have seen their energy bills surge. In 2022, under the previous Government, we saw inflation hit 11%, and it is things like that that have made it difficult for small businesses up and down the country.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
We all know that we are where we are precisely because of the disastrous legacy that we were left by the Conservatives, who made unfunded promise after unfunded promise. I welcome the Minister’s reassurance about transitional relief and the caps on the increases, but cafés and small hospitality businesses in Southampton are concerned not just about the future, but about the now, so what message would he give them to assure them that this Government are pro-business and have their back?
Dan Tomlinson
When it comes to support for businesses, we are making sure that we bring back economic stability to this country, with six interest rate cuts that will reduce the cost of borrowing for businesses and households. The economic stability that we have provided has meant that wages went up faster in the first year of this Government than they did in the whole first 10 years of the previous Government. We are supporting people up and down the country with the cost of living and providing stability for businesses in the corporation tax system, keeping it at the lowest rate in the G7 as part of our commitment to our corporate tax road map.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
One of the worst things for business owners in my constituency is the unpredictability of running a business. They need to know, and it is simply killing them. They already have to deal with poor parking, a rise in antisocial behaviour and rises in national insurance contributions, wage costs and energy costs. Now, when they thought that they were going to have a reduction in business rates, they are possibly going to have a rise instead. Can the Minister alleviate their fears and put them out of their misery? What is it going to be? Is it going to rise or is it going to stay the same?
Dan Tomlinson
We want to provide stability in our taxation system, and one of the things that the Government are seeking to do in the coming years is to continue to have economic stability—something that was lacking for so long under the previous Government. That is why we are focusing on getting Government borrowing down in every year of the forecast, and it will fall faster in this country than in any other G7 economy. When it comes to business rates, the reforms that we set out in the Budget will rebalance the system to provide a permanently lower tax rate—the multiplier for those small businesses on the high street.
Iran: Protests
(1 day, 9 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
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office if she will make a statement on the British Government’s response to the Iranian regime’s brutal crackdown on protests.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
The United Kingdom condemns in the strongest of terms the horrendous killing of Iranian protesters and the most brutal and bloody repression against public protest in Iran for at least 13 years. The Iranian authorities must immediately end the abhorrent killings and uphold the human rights and fundamental freedoms of Iran’s citizens, including the right to freedom of expression, to seek, receive and impart information, and the freedom of association and peaceful assembly, without fear of reprisal. The Iranian security forces must be held accountable for the deliberate use of violence that has claimed thousands of lives.
On 13 January, the Foreign Secretary was clear in her statement to the House and delivered that message directly to the Iranian Foreign Minister. The Prime Minister has issued a joint statement alongside the Chancellor of Germany and the President of France. On 15 January, alongside our G7 partners, we strongly condemned Iran and announced our readiness to impose additional restrictive measures if Iran continues to crack down on protests and dissent in violation of its international human rights obligations. We publicly called out Iran’s crackdown at the UN Security Council meeting on 15 January, and we have now secured a special session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, which will take place on 23 January. On 13 January, I summoned the Iranian ambassador to underline the gravity of this moment and to call on Iran to answer for the horrific reports that we have heard.
On 1 October, alongside our E3 partners, France and Germany, the UK implemented snapback in full by reinstating the six previously terminated United Nations sanctions resolutions on Iran. We are going further by bringing forward legislation to implement more sectoral measures. We have already designated key players in Iran’s oil, energy, nuclear and financial systems, and further measures will target finance, energy, transport and other significant industries. We will continue to work with the European Union and our other partners to explore what additional measures might be needed in response to these most recent developments.
Priti Patel
Since last week’s statement, we have seen more information about the horrific brutality that the despotic regime in Tehran has inflicted and the bloodshed it is responsible for against its own citizens. Reports from medics in country say that the figure could be as high as 18,000 men, women and children dead, slaughtered in cold blood. Reports also suggest that up to 360,000 people could be injured, with those wounded left dying due to shortages of blood in hospitals. This is an affront to humanity, and there must be accountability, including for the use of execution show trials.
The regime is one of the most consistently vile and brutal in the world. The UK Government cannot stand by, and we need to understand what more they are doing in response to the latest barbaric revelations and actions. What is the Government’s assessment of the numbers killed and injured and the brutal tactics used by the regime? What do they make of reports that the regime may have used chemical weapons in the recent attacks on its own civilians? What assessment has been undertaken of those imprisoned and being tortured? The principle victims of this vile regime are the Iranian people themselves. What did their ambassador say when he was summoned last week to the Foreign Office, and what did the Iranian Foreign Minister say when he was called by the Foreign Secretary?
Once again, protesters in Iran seek freedom from tyranny, and the response from the west has been shameful as Iranians have been slaughtered. Iran continues to pose a threat to us all and to our interests with its sponsoring of terrorism and its nuclear programme. The US State Department remarked on Saturday that it had
“heard reports that the Islamic Republic is preparing options to target American bases”.
Given that Britain has many joint military bases with the US in the region, what is being done to secure those assets? What is the latest assessment of Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme and ballistic missile capability, and what is being done to strip Iran of those weapons?
With phase two of the Gaza peace plan being implemented, what is being done to stop Iranian sponsorship of Hamas and other terrorist groups undermining efforts to secure peace in the region? This is not a time to be timid as the response to these continued atrocities continues to be shamefully muted.
Mr Falconer
The right hon. Lady asks important questions. Let me turn first to the question of numbers. I do not want to give the House an artificial sense of precision when the internet has remained restricted since 8 January. There clearly have been many deaths; we believe in the thousands. We will not put a more precise figure on it at this time because to do so would be at risk of misleading the House that we have a more precise picture than we do. That does not in any way take away from the strength of our condemnation.
The Iranian regime has provided a variety of rationales, both in private and in public. It has claimed that it was responding to armed protesters, and it has complained that others are seeking to interfere in its internal affairs. Let me be absolutely clear: there is no excuse for the scale of bloodshed that we have seen in relation to those protests. It is not to seek to interfere in Iran’s internal affairs to say that the protesters have rights—rights of assembly, rights to protest and rights to have their internet turned back on.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I know that the Minister shares with me—and probably with most of the House—a deep affection for the Iranian people, for their beautiful country and for their extraordinary culture, which makes the killing and terrible violence we have seen even worse than we could possibly have imagined. Can he give the House confidence that Britain and the international community will not now abandon the Iranian people for geopolitical expediency?
Mr Falconer
We will not. As I said in response to the shadow Foreign Secretary, the Iranian people have rights—rights that we hold dear in this place and this country—and we will continue to press those points with the Iranian regime.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Since the Foreign Secretary’s statement last week, Ayatollah Khamenei has confirmed the death of thousands of protesters, but he has again deflected responsibility for the brutal crackdown by his regime. The Foreign Secretary told the House last week that sanctions against the leaders of the regime, and the proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, relied upon new legislation or instruments. We have waited too long for that. Will the Minister give the House a date by which those measures will be introduced?
Will the Minister update the House on internet connectivity? What is the UK doing, with our partners, to restore internet access so that people in Iran can communicate and evidence can be gathered to hold the regime to account? What dialogue have Ministers and officials had since last week about the Liberal Democrat proposal to pursue, through the United Nations, an International Criminal Court investigation into crimes against humanity perpetrated by the regime?
Mr Falconer
I am sure that my Liberal Democrat colleague knows that the processes of the ICC are independent of the decisions of Ministers here—rightly so.
To turn to the hon. Gentleman’s other questions, I will not presume to dictate dates on which the House might pass legislation, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I can confirm that we are progressing that legislation at pace.
Let me say a little about the impact of the sanctions that we have introduced. The House is aware that we now have over 550 sanctions on Iran. Most recently, in October, we sanctioned IRGC financier Ali Ansari. As an indication of the scale and efficacy of our sanctions regime, I am pleased to confirm to the House that that has led to the freezing of over £100 million-worth in UK property. There is exposure from Iran to the UK, and we will take every step required.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
We must not be indifferent to the pleas of the Iranian people—what we are seeing is absolutely horrific. I welcome sanctions, but we must be honest: the people of Iran are fighting for their freedom. It is still possible that the US will intervene. Will the Minister reassure me that the UK Government are thinking about how they can offer meaningful support to the people in Iran who are fighting for their freedom?
Mr Falconer
I have set out our position in relation to these issues. I would not wish to give the House the impression that the protesters are not at risk; clearly, they are, and we have seen the devastating consequences of the regime’s behaviour in the most recent days. We will do everything we can to ensure that the protesters’ rights are protected. We are discussing closely with our allies what steps we can take.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
This despicable regime goes in for state terrorism at home and abroad, and its principal instrument for terrorism abroad is the IRGC. This is now the sixth time that I have called on Prime Ministers and Ministers to proscribe the IRGC. The excuse given historically is that we want to keep our embassy open, but the embassy is now shut, demonstrating how futile that argument is. When will we proscribe that terrorist organisation?
Mr Falconer
I just want to be clear about the status of our embassy in Tehran. While it is true that we have withdrawn our staff, we have not closed our embassy. I expect that the embassy will be fully functional again soon—I hope with some of this behind us.
On the IRGC, which the right hon. Gentleman has asked about on several occasions, as have others in the House, we conducted the Jonathan Hall review and he found that it is important that we have a tool that is focused on the particularities of the threats from Iran and the IRGC. That is a different threat from that which emanates from a simple terrorist group, if I may use that language, and we are committed to taking forward those recommendations through the creation of a state threats proscription-like tool, and we will be coming back for the parliamentary time to do that.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Chillingly, the head of the Iranian judiciary has publicly called for the acceleration of executions of protesters. The killing in Iran is not stopping. Last week, when the Foreign Secretary talked of further sanctions and sectoral measures, she linked those to the nuclear industry. Will the Minister now confirm that the UK will be seeking to go further than sanctions applied in relation to nuclear issues, to also seek to impose them on human rights grounds for those who have been linked with this brutal Iranian regime?
Mr Falconer
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend who has considerable experience in these matters. She is right to differentiate: there are the snapback-related sanctions, which are in progress and which the shadow Foreign Secretary and I have corresponded on recently; and I can confirm that we are also separately considering human rights sanctions in relation to the abuses that we see.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Many of us will have read the reports in The Sunday Times yesterday detailing how IRGC forces burnt alive and machine-gunned down so many, and that this is not happening in just one town or one city, but right across Iran. We have very few levers in this country to make a difference, but one of them is to proscribe the IRGC. Please, Minister, just do it and make some small difference to send a clear message and make the Iranian people understand that we stand with them.
Mr Falconer
I do not have a great deal to add to the answer I have already given to the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), but I would say that we are under no illusions about the threat posed by the IRGC. The right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) talks about what they are doing in Iran; nobody on this side of the House has lost track of the fact that there have also been more than 20 plots in this country linked to Iran and to the IRGC. That is why it is so important to us that we have a tool focused on the particularities of a state-based threat, rather than treating them just as terrorists.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
The world has been appalled by the scenes of bloodshed. Will the Minister outline what discussions the Government are having with our G7 colleagues and European colleagues to make sure we send out a united message of condemnation and a common demand for the rights of the Iranian people to be respected?
Mr Falconer
I can confirm to the House that both the Foreign Secretary and I have been in extensive discussions over the last few days, and I expect those to continue this week, including at Davos.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The Iranian Government are massacring civilians, and brave young protesters are risking their lives for freedom and dignity against a violent and corrupt regime. The Minister has spoken about the thousands of people who we fear have lost their lives, and The Times is reporting that up to 16,000 people may have died—and in an age when we can see news as it happens in the palm of our hands, we see nothing because of the darkness of the internet crackdown. What are the Government doing to support internet access across Iran so that we can collect evidence to hold the perpetrators to account for this brutality?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Lady asks important questions. We are working with our allies and continue to press the Iranians, both in public and in private. They must restore internet access.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The brutal regime in Iran has destroyed so many lives, and as a woman and a feminist I want to pay particular tribute to the brave women of Iran fighting for their freedom against such odds. They were promised support by President Trump. Can the Minister say what form that support may take, and what involvement the UK may or may not have, and whether it is dependent on executions taking place? On the technical front, will he write to me in my role as Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee explaining exactly how the Iranian regime was able to turn off access to the internet? Do they have some switch somewhere? With our unique technical expertise, what is the UK doing to address that?
Mr Falconer
I join my hon. Friend in her comments about the bravery of protesters. I am sure we have all seen pictures of incredibly courageous protesters, often young women, showing defiance against a regime that is, clearly, deeply intent on not only stopping the protests but silencing the voices of protesters and ensuring that nobody can see them. Those protesters are admirable people asserting their rights. It is clearly an inalienable right of the Iranian people to be able to protest, and that is what we want to see. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend but, for reasons she will understand, I will not be able to delve too deeply into technical questions when they are sensitive.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
Does the Minister’s Department assess that the Iranian regime can come back from this and move into a position of strength? If so, does he assess that the sanctions packages being put forward are enough to limit that happening?
Mr Falconer
I am grateful for the opportunity to set out our position on the future of Iran, which is clearly a matter for the Iranian people. What we are pressing for and focused on is the Iranian authorities ensuring that their people can exercise their right to peaceful protest. What happens next is clearly a question not for London or Washington, but for the Iranian people themselves. That is a message we have delivered consistently to the Iranian regime, which is saying otherwise—publicly, particularly—so I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to set that out from the Dispatch Box so clearly.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
The Trump Administration initially indicated that they would protect protesters when they came out, which they have done in droves, but, as many Members have indicated, thousands upon thousands of them have now been killed. We worry about outside interference, but if we listen to a lot of the protesters, they are actually demanding help from outside. I do not, and I am sure other Members do not, want to be standing here in a few years’ time, looking back and thinking, “What if?” Given that half a million people died in the recent Syrian civil war when a straightforward no-fly zone could have protected them, I urge Ministers to keep everything on the table and to talk to partners about how we might be able to degrade the IRGC’s ability to kill thousands of protesters, because I do not think it is going to stop.
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his continued commitment to these issues, and to those in Syria, which he has been engaged in for some time. As I said, we are deeply concerned about the use of violence against protesters and we strongly condemn the killings of protesters. People must be able to exercise their right to peaceful protest without fear of reprisal.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
There are reports that the US is planning airstrikes or action in Iran. Following the previous US airstrikes there, Iran fired rockets at the Al Udeid airbase in Qatar in response. That base, which has recently been partly evacuated, is co-located with the prison where Matthew Pascoe is being detained. Will the Government advise the House on what they are doing to make sure that he, and any British nationals in the nearby area, will be safe? What is being done to ensure the safety of the Foremans, who continue to be held in Evin prison? We know that, in the past, Iranians have often rightly sought to overthrow the prisons, because of all those who are being held unjustly there.
Mr Falconer
The hon. Lady asks a series of important questions. On our general posture in the region, I do not want to comment in great detail about force protection questions in relation to our bases, although I am sure she will be aware of reports. We are working closely with our American counterparts on those questions.
On those detained—the Foremans and others—I can confirm that I have been in touch with the families, who are at the forefront of our minds. I must draw the House’s and the public’s attention to our travel advice, however: with the embassy withdrawn, there is a limit to what can be done. We cannot offer a full consular package of assistance in Iran. This is a fast-moving situation and we try to keep our travel advice as up-to-date as possible to reflect the very latest developments.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
For almost 50 years, Iranians have found refuge in the UK, and many have made their homes in west London. One of them wrote to me saying that even after 20 years, Iran still runs through his veins. Will the Minister outline how the Government are working with the Iranian diaspora in the UK to provide support and reassurance to them and to their families still in Iran?
Mr Falconer
I know how many families in the UK will feel very personally affected by developments in Iran. Where there are consular-related questions, they are very much on our minds for both dual nationals and mono-nationals. I am afraid that wider community concerns are a question for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
My British-Iranian residents are deeply worried about their families. The Minister has said that he hopes the embassy will reopen soon, but time is not on the side of the Iranian people. When is “soon” likely to be? How quickly should we expect the proscription of the IRGC?
Mr Falconer
I do not want to sound evasive, either about the delicate decisions we need to make about posture across the region or about parliamentary time, but I am afraid I am not able to be drawn any further on either.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
In the last few weeks I have been inundated with communication from constituents who are part of the Iranian diaspora. It is very difficult to convey the extent of their agony about the lack of contact with their families and the fear they feel for their loved ones. They have said to me that they want to see the strongest possible action on sanctions and the fastest possible progress on proscribing the IRGC. I have listened carefully to what the Minister has had to say about the particularities of state-backed terror; will he set out in more detail why he believes it will take further time for us to tackle the vile state-backed terror that is affecting us all so much?
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the care that she puts into these issues in her constituency. The Jonathan Hall review sets out some of the reasons why, in his view, a state-focused proscription-like tool is necessary. We accept his recommendations and we intend to legislate.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
There is a shared horror across the Chamber at the killing of protesters in Iran, just as there is a shared condemnation of the brutal regime and, it appears, a shared view that the IRGC should be proscribed. I have listened carefully to the Minister’s answers, but I gently suggest that he has a consensus, which he should use to proscribe the IRGC as soon as possible to send a clear message to the Iranian people that we stand with them.
Mr Falconer
The right hon. Gentleman’s points are well noted. For the clarity of the House, let me say that the legislation will be Home Office legislation, rather than Foreign Office legislation, but I will certainly pass on the strength of his feeling to the Security Minister.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is undertaking and leading the brutal repression and murder of so many Iranians fighting for their freedom. We know that the IRGC has used two registered cryptocurrency exchanges to move approximately $1 billion since 2023, evading international sanctions. Zedcex and Zedxion routed funds through IRGC-controlled wallets, offshore intermediaries and Iranian crypto companies. What are the Government doing to ensure that the IRGC cannot fund this brutal crackdown through British-based companies?
Mr Falconer
If my hon. Friend writes to me, I am happy to provide a more detailed answer in writing. Clearly, our sanctions regime is wide-ranging, and any British companies need to give very careful attention to it. On the face of it, it sounds like what my hon. Friend has outlined would not be consistent with our arrangements, but if he writes to me, I will respond.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Minister and I share the dubious distinction of having summoned Iranian ambassadors. Does he agree that whether it is Ambassador Mousavi, Baeidinejad or Abbas Araghchi, it does not really matter, because they are not the problem? The problem is the IRGC and its constituent parts. Does the Minister accept that Jonathan Hall KC’s review is not particularly controversial? He has made recommendations that would effectively get around the Minister’s problem with the proscription of state actors. There is cross-party agreement right across the House that would get such a measure through in a day. It is not as if we do not have enough time, as today’s cancellation of business has shown.
Mr Falconer
I am wounded that the comparison is a dubious one. On the question of time, I gently say to my predecessor—and I am glad to see the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), in his place—that there was rather a lot of time over the past 14 years to pass these things. We have done the Hall review and we are committed to implementing it.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The brutal regime in Iran is well known to be attacking its own people at home, but it also poses one of the largest credible threats to Jewish people here in the UK. As the regime is currently blaming Israelis, Jews and Zionists for being responsible for the protests, will the Minister set out what discussions are happening across Government to ensure that the proxies and agents that we know are in the UK are being monitored, to make sure that the Jewish population of the UK do not feel a backlash as a result of the protests in Iran?
Mr Falconer
I have said repeatedly and in no uncertain terms to our Iranian counterparts, as has the Foreign Secretary, that any threats in the UK to British people of any faith or denomination in any building and, indeed, any other diplomatic premises in the UK will be treated with the utmost seriousness. I have reiterated that strength of feeling to a range of representatives from the Jewish community in the UK, and I am happy to reiterate it again from the Dispatch Box.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Last Tuesday afternoon, President Trump took a short break from attacking America’s NATO allies to write on Truth Social the following:
“Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING—TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!!”
He added:
“HELP IS ON ITS WAY.”
Have the Government the faintest idea of what he was talking about?
Mr Falconer
US posture and policy towards Iran is, I am afraid, a matter for the US Government.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Many in this House are concerned about the malign influence of the ayatollahs in our own country. There has been dreadful slaughter on the streets of Iran, but curiously little protest on the streets of Britain. What a contrast that is to the regular protests—sometimes intimidatory to local Jewish people—about the terrible war in Israel and Palestine. Could the aforementioned malign influence explain this?
Mr Falconer
As the Home Secretary has said, we are aware of the very considerable concern that the ongoing protests have caused, particularly in places of real sensitivity such as outside synagogues, and we are taking measures to address it.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
At the weekend, I visited several Iranian-owned businesses in my community to show my support and solidarity. The business owners told me that they have relatives inside Iran who, due to the internet shutdowns, are going to increasingly extreme lengths to pick up information from the outside world, including travelling close to the border with Iraq to pick up a mobile phone signal or across towns to connect to the community-owned Starlink network. They expressed their frustration at the lack of activity from the British Government, as they see it, but they also expressed their fears that the US Government have marched protesters up to the top of the hill and left them abandoned there. What co-ordination has the Minister had with our American allies—if I can still call them that—on their approach? Are we aligned with them on what we are doing in Iran?
Mr Falconer
I understand the degree of anxiety within Iran. The restriction of the internet since 8 January is obviously a source of real concern, both to Iranians in Iran and to those with family links there, and to those few, but none the less profoundly affected, British families who have loved ones detained there, who are also suffering from the restrictions. As I said, US policy and posture towards Iran is clearly a matter for the US Government, but we are in close consultations and discussions with our American counterparts and, indeed, others.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
I share the Minister’s horror at the brutal repression we have seen in Iran. Hendon is home to a large and vibrant Iranian community, and we are all horrified beyond words to see the savage, murderous violence being meted out by the Iranian regime to protesters. Is it not the reality that even when there are not protests in the street, the regime is engaged in industrial levels of violence against its own people? Executions in Iran more than doubled in the last year alone. Does the Minister agree that we must keep up the pressure on the Iranian regime to end this barbarity once and for all, and to let the Iranian people exercise their fundamental rights?
Mr Falconer
I do. We have spoken in some detail about current events in relation to the protesters, but I can confirm to the House that we oppose any and all executions in Iran, and across the world.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
As thousands of brave Iranian protesters are slaughtered on the streets of Iran, I was humbled yesterday to speak in front of thousands of wonderful Iranians here in Whitehall. They asked me to ask the Government a simple question: how much more will it take for this Government to do the right thing and proscribe that terror group, the IRGC—and, while they are at it, the Muslim Brotherhood?
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to my Lincolnshire colleague for the question. I do not have a great deal more to add to the discussions that we have already had this afternoon on the IRGC. “Muslim Brotherhood” is a term that covers a whole range of groups, including, depending on how we consider it, Hamas. Where there is a violent threat to the UK, we will of course take proscription action as necessary.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I condemn the violent oppression of the Iranian people. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the work of the BBC World Service and BBC Persian, not only in getting free journalism and the truth into that country, but in getting stories of bravery, courage and suffering out to the wider world?
Mr Falconer
I will. The BBC World Service and BBC Persian are a lifeline, as are so many of the other World Service channels. I pay tribute to the vital work that they do in reporting, even in the most difficult circumstances.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
If I may, I will return to the topic of Craig and Lindsay Foreman. The Minister will be aware that they have been imprisoned for more than a year and are in Evin prison, regarded as the harshest in Iran. Can the Minister update the House on their medical condition since the outbreak of violence in Iran in recent weeks? Can he say when he was last informed of their medical condition, and whether they are still safe?
Mr Falconer
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I do not want to provide too much personal information to the House, but I can confirm that we have had consular access relatively recently. I have spoken to the families twice, I think, since the protests began. Those people are very much at the forefront of my mind.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
The scenes from Iran are barbaric, and those executions that we are aware of are an affront to human dignity. Wherever we look around the world, we can see the malign influence of Iran, including here. Our national security strategy, published in June last year, highlighted that. Can the Minister assure me that our law enforcement is taking every step possible to manage the risk? Following on from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger), will the Minister make a contribution to the BBC charter review consultation in respect of the positive work that the BBC is doing in that troubled part of the world?
Mr Falconer
The Foreign Office has a special relationship with the BBC, given our role in the World Service, which we have talked about already this session. I can confirm to the House that law enforcement is making full use of the powers afforded to it, including under the National Security Act 2023. It is under that Act that those associated with potential violence were arrested in May last year.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
My constituents have contacted me sick with worry. They have not heard from their loved ones for over a week. There are reports of tens of thousands of citizens being killed, but the number could be higher because of the deliberate communication blackout. This is now an international human rights emergency. Will the Government act faster on the proscription of the IRGC, and will the Minister support stronger diplomatic consequences for this brutal regime?
Mr Falconer
We have discussed the IRGC proscription process, and I do not have much further to add on the more detailed timing questions on which the hon. Lady has sought to press me. As for diplomatic consequences, I have described some of the actions that we have taken in recent days, and I imagine that we will have more to tell the House shortly—for instance, during Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office questions tomorrow.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The scenes in Iran that we are seeing are obviously absolutely terrible, but I am also concerned about the impact that the ongoing situation will have on safety in this country. May I ask the Minister to pass on my thanks to the Foreign Secretary for her decision, in her previous role, to list Iran under the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, and may I also ask him to be specific about what difference that will make?
Mr Falconer
Putting Iran on the FIRS regime means that there is a new offence of seeking to act on behalf of the Iranian regime in the UK without properly so declaring, so it is harder for people to do that in this country without being exposed to the force of law enforcement. As I said just now to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies), UK law enforcement has proved itself capable of finding these people and ensuring that they are prosecuted.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
There have been many calls across the Chamber for sanctions and the proscription of the IRGC, which I fully support. I think we need to be honest and admit that those measures are unlikely to save the lives of protesters who are under a regime fearing for its survival, but I point out that the drone strike in 2020 against Soleiman, the head of the IRGC, did influence Iranian behaviour.
These protests follow on from western military intervention. As was pointed out by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), the United States President has explicitly called on the protesters to overthrow the regime. That reminds me of the 1991 Shi’a uprisings in Iraq; President Bush did exactly the same in the aftermath of the Gulf war, and left those people to be massacred by Saddam Hussein’s helicopter gunships. Is the Minister considering that legacy in his deliberations?
Mr Falconer
When it comes to events across the middle east, I am reluctant to focus on a particular incident in the long and, I am afraid, fraught history of interventions and the violence that follows them, but we are of course considering the broader history of the wider region as we consider our response.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I share the horror expressed by colleagues on both sides of the House at the brutal, repressive crackdown on protesters in Iran, and pay particular tribute to the bravery of women protesters who are fighting for their rights. Among the many concerning stories that are now emerging is testimony on the use of sexual assault as a weapon of repression. Did the Minister and the Foreign Secretary raise that specifically during their recent interactions with representatives of the Iranian regime, and can the Minister set out in more detail the timetable for next steps, including implementation of the additional sanctions to which the Foreign Secretary referred last week?
Mr Falconer
I can confirm to the House that the Iranian representatives were left in no doubt about the strength of our views, but because these were not terribly long conversations, we were not able to get into the full detail of our concerns, and there is not much more that I can add on the timing of further sanctions.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
For me, this is personal. It reminds me of what I saw when I was in Tehran nearly 50 years ago, at the beginning of the revolution. My father was appointed naval attaché to the British embassy in Tehran before and during that revolution, and we saw some awful things. What kept us going when the nights were cold, the power was off, the phones were cut, the guns were going off outside and people were demonstrating on rooftops nearby was the British World Service broadcasting; we could rely on that information. What extra support is the Minister giving the BBC to ensure that the World Service and BBC Persian are boosted in that area, so that we can get information through, and give people the lifeline that I had as I took the last flight out before Khomeini arrived back?
Mr Falconer
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for his question, and I pay tribute to him. I hope he will not mind my saying that he was a diplomat brat. I know from my own service—many Members will be familiar with this—that when diplomats are in difficult positions, their family face the same worries and the same hardships. That was obviously very much in our minds as we considered the position of the embassy in Tehran last week, and it continues to be in our minds as our brave diplomats face perilous situations across the world. I echo the hon. Gentleman’s generous words about the World Service. I can confirm that we are thinking about how its future can be ensured, so that it can continue to perform its vital functions.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Given the horrific scenes of pro-democracy protesters being attacked by the police in London over the weekend, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that peaceful protest can take place in this country?
Mr Falconer
We completely support peaceful protest, but it is true that diplomatic premises are subject to particular protections under the law. That applies in London, as it does in Tehran. There is a balance to be struck, and I was in discussions with the Security Minister throughout the weekend to ensure that we get it right.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
“There were so many people killed, they were hosing the blood down the street using fire engines.” That was the message coming out of my constituent’s home town. She has no idea if her mum and dad are safe in Iran during the communications blackout. When she asks me, as she no doubt will, “Why won’t the Government do everything they can to proscribe the IRGC?”, what would the Minister have me tell her?
Mr Falconer
I am sure that the hon. Lady’s constituent is suffering great anguish, as are so many constituents who will be in correspondence with MPs from across the House. I cannot imagine how I would feel if my loved ones were in a situation in which communications were not certain. I feel it in relation to our consular cases, and I know that it is felt by people right across the country. We will do everything we can to ensure that the protesters are able to enjoy their rights and, indeed, that the communications restrictions are lifted. Iran was plunged into darkness on 8 January, just as Afghanistan plunged into darkness last year. This is a malign trend, which we oppose completely. We will do everything we can to see that the situation is temporary in Iran, as it proved to be in Afghanistan.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers. He will be under no illusions about the barbaric tactics that are being employed in Iran; indeed, last week’s statement made it very clear that the Government are fully aware of them. The strongly worded condemnation has not brought about any change, and we have British citizens incarcerated and in danger. The IRGC’s forces have killed thousands. They have shot them in the head, neck and face, and the IRGC has had a “shoot to kill” policy. What discussions has the Minister had with the United States of America, which promised physical action, about ensuring the safety of our citizens and nation, protecting Iranian citizens from sustained terrorism, and showing Iran that its recent abhorrent actions will no longer be tolerated? Physical action against the IRGC, on the ground, is what is needed.
Mr Falconer
We have already discussed our attitude towards the protests. We are not threatening physical action against the IRGC in Tehran. We want the whole Iranian regime to respect the rights of their people, in accordance with international norms; to ensure that the protesters can exercise their rights; and to lift internet restrictions.
Local Elections: Cancellation
(1 day, 9 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
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on the cancellation of scheduled local government elections in May 2026.
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. We are undertaking a once-in-a-generation reorganisation of local government. We have now received proposals from all areas, and from councils across the political spectrum. For decades, the two-tier council system, where it still exists, has made local government more complicated and more bureaucratic than it needs to be. This Government are bold enough to change that.
We will put in place single-tier councils everywhere by the end of this Parliament. That will mean faster local decisions to build homes and grow our towns and cities. It will bring services such as housing and social care under one roof, making them more effective and responsive to what communities need, and it will end the duplication that sees two sets of chief executives and two sets of councillors, which creates confusion and waste for local taxpayers. This is a proven model, and when we change to unitaries, we never hear calls for a return to two-tier local government.
On 18 December I updated the House on our plans to seek councils’ views on their elections in May. There is clear precedent for postponing elections due to local government reorganisation—the previous Government postponed many elections between 2019 and 2022 in order to smooth the transition to new councils. I therefore wrote to 63 councils undergoing reorganisations with elections in May to ask them if postponing their elections could release essential capacity to deliver reorganisation and to allow it to progress effectively. It is only right that we listen to councils when they express concerns about their capacity. Local leaders know their areas best and are best placed to judge their own capacity. As we have said, should a council say that it has no reason to delay, we will listen; if a council voices genuine concerns, we will take those seriously.
We are running a legally robust and fair process, and all representations are now being considered before decisions are made. The Secretary of State has written to four councils to ask for more clarity on their position by 10 am tomorrow. These councils are Essex county council, Norfolk county council, Oxford city council and Southampton city council. As I have said, no decisions have been made, but we want to make them as quickly as possible in order to give councils certainty, and we will update Parliament on those decisions in the usual way.
Sir James Cleverly
This Government have moved seamlessly from arrogance to incompetence, and now to cowardice. Some 3.7 million people are being denied the right to vote. It was the Government who rushed through a huge programme of local government reorganisation, imposing new structures and timetables, and it is the Government who are failing to deliver them. Rather than take responsibility for their own failure, the Secretary of State has chosen to dump the consequences of their incompetence on to the laps of local councils.
The Government’s own local election strategy said:
“The right to participate in our democracy…should not be taken for granted.”
Cancelling elections was not part of that strategy. The Electoral Commission has been clear that the scheduled elections should go ahead as planned and that capacity constraints are not a legitimate reason for delay. Why was the Electoral Commission not consulted on these cancellations? Why is this being done at the last possible moment? Do the Government accept the Gould principle that at least six months’ notice should be given for any changes to election administration?
Ministers say that they are following the wishes of local councils, and the Minister said at the Dispatch Box that the Secretary of State has written to, among others, Essex county council. The leader of Essex county council has been clear that these elections should go ahead, yet the Secretary of State still cites Essex, among others, to justify the cancellations. It is all well and good for the Secretary of State to write to councils basically to ask them the same question, but they have already given an answer. When does the Secretary of State intend to lay the statutory instruments for these areas, and does he think it is appropriate to use secondary legislation under the Local Government Act 2000? Did Parliament really allow Ministers to run scared and cancel elections at will?
I have always said that these elections should go ahead, but the Secretary of State was the one who called these elections “pointless”, so why does he not have the courage of his own convictions, take responsibility for his own ineptitude and stop laying the blame on local councils?
Alison McGovern
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making those points, which I will certainly relay to the Secretary of State so that he can take them under advisement. We wrote to notify the Electoral Commission, and we are grateful for its ongoing engagement. We will certainly have regard to all views and representations made, including those of the Electoral Commission, but this is fundamentally about local councils and their capacity, and that is why we have asked for representations from them.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Gould principle. That principle is underpinned by the need for certainty, so if there are technical changes, those responsible for the delivery of elections have time to adapt, but this is not about technical changes. We are listening to councils’ views about their capacity in the context of local government reorganisation.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked when the Secretary of State will make decisions. We have moved quickly to get these representations from councils, and the Secretary of State will make a decision as soon as he possibly can.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), for raising this important issue. I accept that the Minister highlighted that there are concerns from councils, but again, we find ourselves in quite a disappointing area. Just before Christmas, the Minister highlighted that councils were asked to delay elections, after the Secretary of State had repeatedly told our Committee that they would be going ahead. As a former election organiser, I know how key dates will be etched in a lot of our minds. It is 108 days until polling day. The deadline for people who have to re-apply for postal votes is 31 January, while the deadline to register to vote is in April. We want people to vote, so I am concerned that we are seeing a postponement yet again. Can the Minister outline when the Government will make the final decisions? Do they plan to reject any of the requests for delays?
The Minister outlined that the Government want councils to be up to date and not have to stress with reorganisation. Reorganisation will take a lot of time and resources, but we are effectively asking councils to choose between running day-to-day services and running an election. It should not be either/or. Councils should be in a state to deliver those services. Can the Minister outline that she is confident that the reorganisation will not distract hard-working frontline staff, impacting residents across the country who rely on the council’s day-to-day services?
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend mentions how important it is for elections to take place. As she knows, large numbers of people will be voting in May. We are talking about a relatively discrete number of local authorities undergoing reorganisation. She asked when the Secretary of State will make the decision. He will do that as soon as he possibly can, and we have set out the further information that we have asked for.
My hon. Friend also asked about resources. This is really important, because the whole point of reorganisation is to ensure that we use our resources in the best way possible. It bears repeating, as I have done on many occasions in this House, that local authorities bore the brunt of austerity. We have reconnected council funding with deprivation, and I am anxious to make sure that all local authorities move towards financial sustainability. I look forward to discussing that with my hon. Friend’s Committee further.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I find it really interesting that this urgent question comes from the Conservative party, which sought to cancel local elections this year and last year in Surrey. [Interruption.] Given the professed concern for democracy of the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), I hope that he will commit to supporting Lord Pack’s amendment in the House of Lords, removing the Secretary of State’s power to change the timing of local elections—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I want to hear what the Liberal Democrat spokesperson has to say, as do all our constituents.
Zöe Franklin
That said, the Labour party is the main offender in cancelling elections, and it appears to be running scared from the ballot box rather than trusting voters. Does the Minister accept that cancelling elections risks setting a dangerous precedent that elections become optional when they are inconvenient to those in power? What message does it send to residents about the value of local government if their right to vote can be so easily set aside? Democracy is a right, not a matter of convenience.
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Lady for powering through, despite commentary from the Opposition Front Bench. She asks about the importance of democracy. It is, of course, very important. The vast majority of elections are going ahead next year. A huge number of people will be voting. It is important that that principle is stuck to. We will take the decisions based on the evidence and the precedent I set out in response to other Members.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
As a former leader of a major council and a Labour MP, I find this completely embarrassing. A Labour Government should not be taking the vote away from 3.7 million people. It is completely unprecedented for a Labour Government to do that. There is clearly a vested interest for some councillors who may feel, looking at the opinion polls, that they will lose their seat. Some of those councillors will vote for delay. How will the Minister distinguish between that motivation and whether or not there really is a lack of capacity to carry out the elections? I do not believe that any of those councils are unable to hold those elections.
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for the views he expresses, which I will be certain to pass on to the Secretary of State as he takes his decision. In the statement before Christmas, I set out the kind of evidence we are looking for. That is the kind of thing we will take into consideration.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
A year ago, Ministers told council leaders in Essex that it was necessary to postpone elections in order to facilitate reorganisation to “the most ambitious timetable”. A year later, there has been absolutely no progress and we do not even know how many authorities are proposed. Was it not wrong to cancel elections last year and wrong to cancel them again this year?
Alison McGovern
We have made progress on the reorganisation and I anticipate us making strong progress this year. I hear the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes about his own views. Those will be taken account of, alongside other views expressed.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
Local elections will be going forward in full in Milton Keynes this year, and I look forward to continuing to work with my brilliant hard-working Labour councillors. The ongoing process of reorganisation is delaying elections, but it is also delaying the creation of new combined authorities across many parts of the country. Given that, will the Department look again at the fast-track process, and whether places that have already gone through reorganisation and are fully unitarised, such as Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes, should be added to that programme, and that the creation of new combined authorities should be sped up in those places, given that it has taken some time in others?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Coming from an area with a unitary council and a combined authority that is taking steps to improve public transport and other things, I appreciate fully the points he makes and I will pass them on to the Minister for Devolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh).
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Only dictators cancel elections, as well as Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat councils, which are terrified of facing the wrath of the voters. We will be carrying out a judicial review of this appalling decision to cancel elections. Will the Minister confirm that if the noble judges rule in our favour that this is the wrong thing to do, the Government will abide by their ruling?
Alison McGovern
The hon. Gentleman mentions a legal process that I am not at liberty to comment on in detail. We want elections to go ahead, unless there is a strong justification. That is what we have said and that is what we will stick to.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
Many of my constituents do not understand why we have an inefficient, duplicative, confusing system of two-tier councils at the moment. They are looking forward to this process going ahead and to having one council. As we await the process, it is really important that the councils we have remain responsive to our constituents’ needs. To give one example, I am organising a meeting next month about local bus services. I have invited East Sussex county council, run by the Conservatives, as the responsible transport authority, but it is currently refusing to send anyone to the meeting. Does the Minister agree that is unacceptable, particularly because it has been given a record amount of money by this Labour Government—over £10 million—to improve our bus services and my constituents want to tell it their experiences of buses?
Alison McGovern
Given the number of times buses have been raised with me when I have been door-knocking during elections, I am surprised that they do not lead the news more often. I congratulate my hon. Friend on her efforts to get decent bus services for her constituents, and would say to any local authority that if it wants to engage with residents on the things they care about, buses should be top of the list.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Is it just a coincidence that the only three councils in Essex that want to cancel the elections—Basildon, Harlow and Thurrock—are all run by the Labour party, while all the others—Braintree, Chelmsford, Colchester, Brentwood, Epping Forest, Rochford, Southend and Essex county council—want the elections to go ahead? Is the Minister going to listen to the majority?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the points he raises. I have set out the way in which we are consulting with local authorities, and the Secretary of State will take the decision accordingly.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
As the Minister has already mentioned, the previous Government postponed elections in 2021, including in my constituency. Does she agree with the words of the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who was the Communities Secretary at the time—and whom I note is not in either of his recent places in the Chamber this afternoon—that holding elections “in such circumstances”, namely local government reorganisation, risks
“confusing voters and would be hard to justify where members could be elected to serve shortened terms”?—[Official Report, 22 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 24WS.]
Alison McGovern
I do not know about agreeing with the right hon. Member for Newark, but I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, who gets to the point we are trying to make. We are acting in accordance with precedent. She makes that point very well.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
In Eastbourne, Conservative-run East Sussex county council is one of the worst in the country for potholes, with the second highest number of compensation payouts in total. It has resurfaced zero roads in the past year, making it the worst. Yet the people of East Sussex do not currently have a say. When can they expect to hear from the Minister or the Secretary of State about when they can kick out the Conservative council that is squatting in County Hall?
Alison McGovern
Potholes are probably second only to buses in the list of important issues. We will not have any undue delays. The Secretary of State will have more to say quite soon.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
The truth of the matter is that there is actually a lot of false information flying around—does the Minister agree? In Bolton, we are very much looking forward to having local elections in May. Can the Minister confirm that that has always been the case, as it has been in the other nine boroughs in Greater Manchester, and that words to the opposite effect are simply false information?
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend is right, of course: elections are taking place up and down the country. I am sure there are lots of people who are looking forward to participating.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The good people of Exeter want their elections to go ahead as planned in May, yet the Labour super-majorities both on Exeter city council and here in Westminster leave no realistic prospect of fighting the decision. Does the Minister agree that Exeter city council is quickly losing its democratic mandate and is moving to some form of local tinpot autocracy?
Alison McGovern
Let me thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I do not agree with him on the substantive point he makes, but I have heard his views and will pass them on to the Secretary of State.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
“No taxation without representation.” Councillor Kevin Bentley, the dynamic Conservative leader of Essex county council, has been adamant that elections should go ahead. On 14 January, he wrote to the Minister:
“You may be aware that at our Full Council on 9th December I stated that Essex County Council would not be calling for the postponement of elections in May 2026. This continues to be our position.”
What was ambiguous about that? Is Labour simply running scared?
Alison McGovern
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for relaying the words of Councillor Kevin Bentley, whom it has been a pleasure to meet on a number of occasions. Getting a clear position is obviously important. We will do that quickly, and the Secretary of State will —[Interruption.] I don’t know; there may have been more context than that one quote, but the Secretary of State—
Alison McGovern
No, you’re fine. The Secretary of State will take into account those representations and others, and make a decision without any undue delay.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
For the second year running, Conservative-run West Sussex county council has applied to cancel local elections, in which the Conservatives face wipeout. Their excuse is that it would be too hard to organise, but it is the seven district and borough councils that run the elections, not the county council, so will the Minister speak to the councils that have an actual democratic mandate, rather than the county administration, which is trying to cling to power long past its sell-by date?
Alison McGovern
We are in regular contact with local authorities. The Department and the Secretary of State will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said, and we will make sure that those views are fed in.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
As the House may be aware, I was a local councillor at three different levels: parish, district and county. Several right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the proposals as being either single tier or two tier. I gently remind them that parishes and towns will remain, so two tiers is the minimum. I repeat the question that was asked earlier: when will all these councils know for definite if and when their elections are going to be held later this year?
Alison McGovern
Again, we have moved quickly. We are getting the information that we need, and the Secretary of State will move as quickly as he can to take the decision. It is good to know that we have Members with extensive experience in the House. I thank the hon. Gentleman for all that he has done down the years.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Conservative-run Broxbourne borough council wants its elections to go ahead, and the people of Broxbourne should be allowed their choice on 7 May. However, devolution plans could see us merge with Labour-run Stevenage borough council and the Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition-run Welwyn Hatfield borough council, which both want their elections to be cancelled. Conservative-run Broxbourne council wants its elections to go ahead. I, as the Conservative Member of Parliament for Broxbourne, want the elections to go ahead. The people of Broxbourne want their elections to go ahead. Can the Minister categorically confirm to my constituents that local elections in Broxbourne will go ahead on 7 May?
Alison McGovern
I have said on a number of occasions that we want the elections to go ahead unless there is a justified reason. The hon. Gentleman makes his point on behalf of his constituents, in the context of reorganisation. I will take that under advisement as we move forward.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
If a future political researcher decides to write a thesis about the influence of adverse opinion polls on the cancellation of local elections in Britain, will the Minister, amiable as she always is, make herself available?
Alison McGovern
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind question. I hope that at that point I might be doing something other than politics, and perhaps I might not quite have time.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
People in Northern Ireland on a day-to-day basis know well how casually the democratic process can be set aside, not just by this Government but by the previous Government, who gave the EU permission to impose its laws on the people of Northern Ireland without any say at all. Now the people of England are beginning to experience that—3.7 million people, who would want to vote against the £280 million of additional taxes imposed on them by Labour councils, will now be denied the ability to have their say. Are the Government running scared of Reform, or do they simply not want to be held to account? Do they not realise that behaving like this turns the United Kingdom into some kind of third-world dictatorship?
Alison McGovern
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, which I take in the serious terms in which it was meant. The vast majority of elections are going ahead. It is very important that people have their say. I hope that he will appreciate, as I have set out previously, the reason we have taken these steps and the manner in which we will take the decision, but he makes a very important point about the centrality of democracy, which I take seriously.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving Isle of Wight councillor. Local government reorganisation in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight is a mess. Meanwhile, the Government propose to cut £13 million of funding from Isle of Wight council. We are due to have elections in just three and a half months’ time. Our council wants those elections to go ahead and wants to prepare for them. Will the Minister confirm that we can do that, and that those elections will go ahead on the Isle of Wight in May?
Alison McGovern
As I have said to other Members, where councils want to go ahead, and they have the capacity and there are no issues, that is fine. Elections go ahead unless there is a strong justification for them not to, which is what I—[Interruption.] Where councils want the elections to go ahead, that is fine. We will listen to what they have to say. The issue that the hon. Member raises about funding and capacity is an important one, not least in a place as unique as the Isle of Wight. We are currently in a process of considering the local government finance settlement, and he will know that we are working very hard to get that right.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Last year, a junior Housing Minister, the hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), stood at the Dispatch Box and said that
“local council elections are happening in 2026. We are cracking on with it”.—[Official Report, 4 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 1164.]
For some communities, this is the second year in a row that elections have been cancelled. How does the Minister expect the British people to believe anything this Government say, or have any faith in their commitment to democracy?
Alison McGovern
Elections will be happening up and down this country in May. We are committed to democracy and it is very important that people have their say.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Lady is indeed a very honourable lady, in her response and in the way that she does things in the House, but the fact is that, whether it be down to reorganisation or a new strategy—whatever reasons the Government put forward—3.7 million people will be denied the right to cast their vote. They will see it as a denial of their franchise, which will reduce their confidence in the Government, the Minister and local government. What will she and the Government do to restore that confidence, in the light of the denial of people’s franchise and their right to express themselves democratically?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the attention and care that he gives to these issues. He gives me the opportunity to come back to the underlying reason for this whole process, which is reorganisation to get councils in a good position. In those areas that are undergoing reorganisation, once we have got the new institutions set up, which we are doing without delay, people will be able to elect representatives to those new institutions. That is what happened when we had reorganisation previously—as has been mentioned, this process has been gone through recently—and it will mean that people can elect their councillors, and have their say about the kind of public services they want in their area.
Sir James Cleverly
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister referred earlier, and did so again in her final comments, to the cancellation or delay of the 2020 local government elections as being justified by the reorganisation of local government. That is a factual error; they were, quite unambiguously, delayed because we were in the middle of a global pandemic. How is it best to correct the record with regard to the reason those elections were delayed?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. That is a continuation of the debate, and I am not responsible for the Minister’s comments; however, he has put his point of view on the record.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Forgive me, but I must correct the record: Harlow council is a Conservative council, but it is the exception that proves the rule that they are otherwise all Labour councils.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He has now corrected the record.
Proposed Chinese Embassy
(1 day, 9 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
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on representations made to Five Eyes partners on the potential risks posed by the proximity of sensitive cabling infrastructure to the site of the proposed new Chinese embassy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to it. She will know that discussions with Five Eyes partners relating to domestic security matters are primarily a responsibility for the Home Office. The decision on planning permission for the proposed Chinese embassy at Royal Mint Court rests solely with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in his quasi-judicial capacity. He has set 20 January as the target date for his decision, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham will agree that it would not be appropriate for me to cut across that process.
I appreciate that there has been significant interest in our engagement with allies and partners on this matter. As my hon. Friend knows, we never comment on conversations with allies regarding intelligence matters. I can nevertheless reassure her and the House that we continue to work closely with our Five Eyes partners and other like-minded countries on a wide range of issues, including those pertaining to domestic security. These partnerships are essential for our shared security.
We have been consistently clear that national security is the first duty of Government, and it has been our core priority throughout the embassy process, with the close involvement of the security and intelligence agencies. Our intelligence services have been involved throughout, and a range of measures have been developed and are being implemented to protect national security. The Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary also publicly identified two issues: the consolidation of China’s diplomatic estate in London and public access. Those require resolution before a decision could be made. In November, they wrote to confirm that appropriate resolutions to those issues had been reached. As the director general of MI5 commented last month, our security services have over a century of experience of managing the risks that arise from foreign embassies on UK soil, and I have full confidence in their ability to do so effectively.
Sarah Champion
I hear what the Minister has said, but I am not reassured and neither are our partners. We have now had interventions from the Dutch Government, the Swiss Parliament, and the Swedish Parliament, and we have had two interventions from the White House on the risks posed to UK infrastructure by the cabling that runs along Royal Mint Court. Last year, a Minister said that reports regarding the cables were inaccurate. Does the Minister still believe that to be the case? I understand that we are now briefing Five Eye partners that
“no sensitive government data is transmitted through cables”.
Would the Minister confirm that? Surely, that line is a tacit admission that financial services based in London could be affected by Chinese proximity.
Minister, what were the mitigations that MI5 and MI6 suggested to avoid espionage risks, and will their implementation be conditional for planning approval? I remind the House that the US has confirmed three major infrastructure hacks in the past 18 months, while we have faced hacks on the Electoral Commission, the Foreign Office and parliamentarians, to name just a few. A Chinese mega-embassy in the heart of London is an issue of national significance, not purely a planning issue as the Government try to present it. Combined with the heightened risk to dissidents, campaigners and the wider public, is this really a risk we should be taking? Can the Minister offer reassurance to my British Hong Kong constituents that transnational repression will not increase if this mega-embassy is approved? Once planning permission is given, we cannot take it back; we will have lost control. I know I speak for colleagues across the House and the wider country, because they have contacted me, when I say that this is not a risk we can afford to take and the Government should refuse this disastrous plan tomorrow.
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks. I reiterate that our intelligence services have been involved throughout. A range of measures have been developed and are being implemented to protect national security. She will also know that the Government are still to make a decision. That planning decision will be made independently by Ministers from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on planning grounds.
It is also important to recognise that we have set clear red lines through this process. That has included, for example, the consolidation of the diplomatic presence of China from seven buildings to one, which will have security benefits. It is also important to say that we do routinely engage with our allies, including the US, which is our closest ally, on a range of issues, including security and intelligence in relation to China. It is important to recognise that we do that routinely and that it is important to discuss national security factors that we may consider.
My hon. Friend referred to transnational repression. She will know that the UK Government will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, especially in the UK. We continually assess potential threats in the UK, and we take the protection of individuals’ rights, freedoms and safety very seriously.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on her question. One could be excused for feeling that this is groundhog day, because once again the House has gathered to share our collective concern about plans to approve the Chinese Communist party’s mega-embassy and once again the Home Office has declined to answer. I did consider rereading my speech from last week, but as I hope we will get some answers, I have gone back to the drawing board.
The Chinese Communist party’s plans are not normal diplomatic renovations, and it would be laughable to suggest that they are, given the location. Did the Minister see the unredacted plans before their publication, and can she genuinely say that she would have no concerns about her Government approving this shadowy network of 208 secret rooms? Given the claims that the Government and Ministers had not seen these plans until last week, surely the Government need time to review them. Would the Minister confirm that there will be a delay to the decision, which is due tomorrow? No one would seriously suggest that, in the week that has passed, the Government have identified all the mitigations needed to protect our cables and militate against these secret rooms.
The Government have so far shielded themselves behind the mundane language of planning policy, but this is not a normal application. Can the Minister confirm whether our allies have been consulted on the unredacted plans, and if so, who? Can she confirm whether UK Government officials previously denied the existence of these cables to the United States in discussions?
Last week, I asked whether the Chinese Communist party’s ambassador had been démarched and forced to explain his party’s duplicity in the application. The Minister declined to answer. It has now been a week. Has the Minister—not officials—finally found time to prioritise national security and haul in the Chinese ambassador? If not, why not, and what message does that send to China? Not once have this Labour Government démarched the Chinese ambassador since they came to power, despite cyber-attacks, spies in this place and bounties on the heads of Hongkongers. What does the Chinese Communist party have to do for this Government to defend us and act to deter future hostile acts? The Government tell us that security concerns have been addressed, including ones that they only knew about a week ago. Tell us how.
Finally, the Prime Minister has not yet publicly confirmed his vanity visit to Beijing. Has the Chinese Communist party made approval of the new embassy contingent on the visit going ahead? The Government have a duty to protect our country. Without national security, there is no economic security. This House clearly speaks with one voice on this issue and that voice says no, so will the Government join us or will they choose a dereliction of their duties?
Seema Malhotra
I thank the shadow Minister for her remarks. First, in relation to the Prime Minister’s visit, any prime ministerial or ministerial travel will be confirmed in the usual way. Secondly, it is right, and we are clear, that the planning decision is one for the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to take independently and that that decision is made in a quasi-judicial capacity. It is also important to say that the decision on the embassy will be taken in the proper way, regardless of any attempts at pressure from anyone, and we have been clear throughout that this is a planning decision for MHCLG Ministers.
It is important to recognise that national security is the first duty of Government—the shadow Minister will understand that more than anyone, given her own background—and we will always act to protect it. It is taken extremely seriously by the Home Office and the Foreign Office. It will be important that we continue to ensure that we have conversations, as we do routinely, with our allies and with the US, and that we take into account any security and intelligence, which we also share on a routine basis, in relation to China. As I have already mentioned, where there are concerns about national security, it is important that our intelligence services are involved throughout, and a range of measures have been developed and are being implemented.
I am sure that these matters will continue to be part of the debate, and that the Minister for Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), will address them further. It is also important that we continue to ensure that there is a focus on security and, in relation to concerns about those who may experience attempts under transnational repression, that we continue to stand up for the safety and security of all our people in the United Kingdom.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will be aware that the site of the proposed embassy is in my constituency. I have relayed the concerns of my constituents to the Government on a number of occasions. They are concerned about the security issues, about the human rights record of the Chinese Government and about local disruption as a consequence of the development. As she will be well aware, these concerns have been highlighted on several occasions, including in statements in the House. What assurances can the Government provide to my constituents and others with serious concerns about the proximity of the proposed embassy to critical and sensitive communication cables serving the City of London and the local area? I would be grateful if she could take that into account.
Seema Malhotra
I know that my hon. Friend has raised her concerns a number of times. I reiterate that national security considerations are always the first duty of any Government, and the security and intelligence agencies have been involved throughout this process. As I noted in my opening remarks, the two national security issues that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Home Office made public as part of the planning process have now been addressed. If the planning application for a new embassy in Tower Hamlets is approved, China has committed to replace seven sites that make up its diplomatic footprint in London with the new embassy, which will also bring clear security advantages. I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to have conversations with her local council and with the Government in due course.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats have made it clear from the beginning of this saga that the approval of China’s super-embassy would be a terrible betrayal of Hongkongers who moved to the UK to escape the very repression that the Government are now inviting to their doorstep. The Government must halt the application and summon the Chinese ambassador to make it clear that we will not accept Beijing’s efforts to spy on our Parliament or to intimidate and harass Hongkongers in our community.
On the specifics of the application, in a 2018 letter the then Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson granted diplomatic status to Royal Mint Court. That letter made no mention of a condition relating to planning permission and, under section 1 of the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, represents a fulfilment of the condition to provide express consent. Eight years later, we are now being told that consent was somehow conditional on planning permission, based on a secret note verbale from May 2018 that has not been published. Will the Government release that note verbale, which is the only evidence that diplomatic status was provided conditional on planning permission and, therefore, that the application was not prejudged by the Government?
Seema Malhotra
It is important to agree that the decision to provide China with consent to use the Royal Mint as diplomatic premises was made in 2018 by the previous Government under the former Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, and was subject to planning permission. China purchased the site on that basis. That is what my colleague Baroness Chapman has also shared. It is important to recognise that the decision will be an independent one made by MHCLG through a quasi-judicial process.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
I think I heard my hon. Friend say clearly that the Government would not stand for coercion by the Chinese diplomatic service. Has the Foreign Office not been looking at what has been going on over the last 10 years? At the consulate in Manchester, people who were demonstrating against the Chinese Government were dragged into the grounds and beaten up, and the diplomatic staff were left alone, with nothing happening to them. There are pop-up police stations all over the country that intimidate members of the Chinese community, whether they are British citizens or from Hong Kong or other parts of China. There should be a simple answer to this application. There is no need for an embassy of this size for the Chinese diplomatic community in this country. It is there to intimidate Chinese people and undermine the elected representatives in this Chamber.
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend is right that we must not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate or harass. He has highlighted some examples that have caused great concern and that we take extremely seriously. We continue to assess potential threats in the United Kingdom, and the protection of individual rights and freedoms is a matter of great concern for the Government. Indeed, freedom of speech and other fundamental rights of all people in the UK are protected under domestic law. The police and security services monitor these issues closely.
The UK has a broad suite of powers available to counter foreign interference, including acts that amount to transnational repression. We continue to implement measures in the National Security Act 2023, which strengthens our legal powers and makes the UK a harder target for states that seek to conduct hostile acts. The Security Minister announced last year that counter-terrorism policing is offering training and guidance on state-threats activity to all 45 territorial police forces across the UK. This will enhance the ability of frontline police officers and staff in the identification of state-directed crimes and the actions that can, and must, be taken to escalate matters and mitigate such activity.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Intelligence and Security Committee was set up specifically to fill a gap in oversight whereby this House could not directly look at highly classified and sensitive information. Having chaired that Committee throughout the previous Parliament, when we undertook our very detailed and sensitive inquiry into China—the published version of which was quite well received, to put it mildly—I can assure the Minister that absolutely no aspect of this matter could not be shared with the ISC. Can she tell the House whether the National Security Adviser has discussed with the ISC and briefed it on the security aspects of this proposal, the proceeding of which enjoys such hostility on both sides of the House?
Seema Malhotra
I recognise and acknowledge the right hon. Member’s deep experience in the House and from chairing the ISC. Matters of security and intelligence continue to be the first priority of this Government. In relation to national security and in respect of the National Security Adviser, our partners abroad and Five Eyes—which was included in the urgent question—it is important to recognise that we continue to have conversations about security and intelligence in respect of all areas of concern to the United Kingdom and, indeed, in relation to China.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
The Speaker of the US Congress, Mike Johnson, was here today in Parliament. Last night, when asked about the Chinese embassy application, he said:
“I’m concerned about it…But if it were me, I would be very cautious about that.”
The Minister has heard the caution in this House and from the US Speaker, the White House and many others about the proposed Chinese embassy, which would give China a much greater ability to undertake transnational repression and espionage and to attack our critical national infrastructure. I ask the Minister again: are she and the Government listening to all the voices before making this decision? Once Pandora’s box is open, it cannot be put back.
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend will know from his own discussions that we continue to routinely engage with and discuss a wide range of national security issues with the US. Indeed, the US has also had its own relatively recent experience of China building a new embassy in its capital. I recognise the importance of ensuring that views across the House are heard, and we have had a number of debates on this issue, but it is also important to recognise that we have made it clear throughout the process that this is a planning decision that is for MHCLG Ministers to make in an independent, quasi-judicial capacity.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Circumstances have changed dramatically since 2018, and the Minister cannot simply dismiss this as a planning application, just like it were a conservatory—it is a matter of national security. Will the Government at least concede that if the building goes ahead all the cabling along Mansell Street at the Wapping exchange should, as a condition of any planning permission, be relocated at the applicant’s expense?
Seema Malhotra
Our intelligence services have been involved throughout the process and are advising on a range of measures that are being implemented to protect national security. It may be useful to mention, including for the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), that we have engaged with the Intelligence and Security Committee on this matter, most recently as part of a cross-HMG appearance before the Committee on 26 November.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
Does the Minister personally share any of my concerns that the proposed so-called mega-embassy risks becoming not only an excessively large diplomatic site, but a focal point for the intimidation and surveillance of Hongkongers and members of the Chinese, Uyghur and Tibetan diaspora—over 700,000 people in total—given that we know China’s track record of transnational repression, such as the million-dollar bounties on UK Hongkongers? If not, why not? If so, how is that being prioritised in the decision-making process?
Seema Malhotra
I will make two comments in response to my hon. Friend’s questions. First, the UK has a broad suite of powers—important powers—available to counter any foreign interference. It is extremely important that our security services and law enforcement agencies are armed with the tools they need to deter, detect and disrupt modern-day security threats. As the Security Minister announced in March last year, counter-terrorism policing is now offering training and guidance on state-threats activity to all 45 frontline territorial police forces. Secondly, on the planning application, there is clearly a security advantage if we see China replace the seven different sites and have one diplomatic footprint in London with the new embassy.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Following on from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), I too would be very surprised, as a co-author of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on China, if the Committee had not seen the National Security Adviser on such an important issue.
The director general of the Security Service gave a speech some time ago in which he spoke about China using a “whole-of-system” approach. I encourage the Government to do the same when it comes to our own national security and deliberately juxtapose planning with national security, to ensure that our nation is kept safe. One easy way for the Government to act to ensure that we are safe from the malign influence of Chinese spies operating in this country is to ensure that the number of diplomats at the new embassy, which will be the largest Chinese mission in Europe, is commensurate with the number of UK diplomats in China.
Seema Malhotra
It is right to say that national security is the first duty of Government. We will always act to protect it, and it is a matter of great concern for the FCDO and for the Home Office. The UK does have control over the number of diplomats in the United Kingdom, as per the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations. We follow our legal obligations and have in place robust systems to ensure that any diplomatic positions at the Chinese embassy are approved on a case-by-case basis.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I think this House has grown tired of the Government’s insistence on framing this as a mere planning application —as a quasi-judicial process about which national Government can do nothing. That is simply not the case. This is a test of this Government’s resolve to stand up to the threat that China poses to the UK. The Prime Minister clearly thinks that handing this gift over to the Chinese in Beijing will strengthen his hand in trade negotiations, but I believe that China will just smell weakness. I challenge the Government to reject the mega-embassy, cancel the visit, and not go back there until Jimmy Lai is back on these shores.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I would challenge him on it. He will know that it is possible for the Government to uphold both national and economic security as a priority, and that national security must always be the first duty of any Government.
We have talked extensively about our serious, clear-eyed approach to a relationship with China that is in our long-term interests—one in which we co-operate, challenge where we must, and compete. This is not just about balancing that; it is about being strong on security and on the economy, through engagement. The hon. Gentleman will also know that China is the world’s second largest economy and the UK’s third largest trading partner, so not engaging is no choice at all.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The urgent question secured by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), which Mr Speaker granted, explicitly refers to our Five Eyes partners. The first thing that the Minister said when she got to her feet was that she could not answer any questions about the Five Eyes partners, because that was a Home Office responsibility. Why did she come? Did she argue with those who sent her? Did she say, “Bagsy not me; I can’t answer that question”? The fact that she came, willingly or unwillingly, is an insult to this House.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the right hon. Member for his question. It is important to acknowledge that we work with our Five Eyes partners on a range of security matters. It is important that we have that trust, and share security concerns and intelligence. It is also important to recognise that some of those matters are primarily a responsibility of the Home Office. While we routinely engage with our partners—including the US—on matters relating to security and intelligence, those matters cannot always be shared in the Chamber, but they are important to the functioning of Government.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The UK Government do not seem aware of the message that disregarding safety and approving the Chinese mega-embassy would send to Tibetan, Uyghur and other exile communities in the UK who face intimidation, surveillance and abduction attempts almost daily. On transnational repression, we have heard warm words about upholding various measures, so let me be more specific: what assessment have the Government made of the risk that the proposed embassy will be used to facilitate transnational repression, bearing in mind that there will be hundreds more diplomats there, and what specific safeguards have been put in place to prevent that?
Seema Malhotra
We continue to raise all human rights concerns at the highest levels of the Chinese Government. It is important to say that any new diplomatic positions at the Chinese embassy must be approved, on a case-by-case basis, by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s protocol department. The UK has control over the number of diplomats in the UK, as per the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations. We will always take the security of all those in our country extremely seriously.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Minister said that the intelligence services are engaged, but she has not given any information about whether they are happy or able mitigate any risks. Why can she not give us that information? On the timeline, the first application was rejected in 2022; the revised application was submitted in 2024, and was called in; and we are now in 2026. A decision has been made within a week, based on the unredacted plans we saw a week ago. Why such a quick turnaround?
Seema Malhotra
Let me reiterate: the decision on the embassy must be taken in the proper way. It is a matter for Ministers at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and it is an independent process. We have been clear on that throughout the process.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
The Minister stated several times that national security is a priority for this Government, so why are they letting a hostile state that wants to sabotage and spy on us into the very heart of Government?
Seema Malhotra
Is the hon. Lady referring to Russia, or to another country? In relation to the China, I will say again what I said earlier: China is the world’s second largest economy and the UK’s third largest trading partner, and not engaging with China is no choice at all. Through engagement, we can be strong on security and on the economy.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Can the Minister not hear herself, and not see how absurd it is for the Government to insist that they should treat the decision on the embassy as a quasi-judicial, independent planning question? It is not a planning question; it is a question of national security, and if the Prime Minister had any backbone, he would own it, decide it one way or the other, and then talk to the House about it.
I do not know how up to speed the Minister is on her Greek mythology, but before the Trojan horse was pulled into Troy after a 10-year siege, one priest, Laocoön, said that the horse should not be pulled in because it would spell the end of the city. That is the role that this House is playing today. Does the Minister think that the decision about whether to pull the Trojan horse into Troy should have been treated as a veterinary issue?
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Member for his lesson in Greek mythology, most of which I am familiar with. It is important to have a serious debate about our relationship with China, and to continue to have a consistent and pragmatic approach to our engagement. I have already said that China is our third largest trading partner, but also all G7 nations engage with China economically and diplomatically, and it is important that we continue to do so.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
Foreign interference in British politics is of enormous concern to most Members, following the conviction of Reform politician Nathan Gill, who betrayed our country for a genocidal Russian dictator. In response, the Government announced the Rycroft review to investigate foreign interference, including by China. Will they delay the decision on the super-embassy until the Rycroft review has reported?
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Member will not be surprised to hear me say that the decision on the embassy is an independent process, but I will just emphasise to him that the UK has a broad range of powers to counter foreign interference, including acts that amount to transnational repression, and it is important that we take that extremely seriously in government and across the House. On the Minister for Security’s announcement last year about the training and guidance on state threats that Counter Terrorism Policing had offered to all 45 territorial police forces across the UK, it is important that that training is taken up, and that frontline police officers and staff have an enhanced ability to identify state-directed crime and the actions that must be taken to mitigate it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her answers. In last week’s urgent question on the Chinese embassy, I highlighted that while the consulate is entitled to facilities that enable its citizens to get consular help, the Chinese are not entitled to facilities that pose any type of threat to national security. The information provided this morning again demonstrates the potential for risk to our national security. Will the Minister take steps that are well within the Government’s power, act in the national interest, and make it clear that the consulate as proposed is not necessary for the carrying out of consulate functions, and is therefore not acceptable?
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Member for his question. It is important to emphasise again that national security is the first duty of Government, and we will always act to protect it.
Alicia Kearns
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I asked an urgent question about this important issue last week, it was shunted to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Today when the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) asked the question, it was shunted to the Foreign Office. The Minister opened her answer by saying that she could not answer the fundamental question being asked in the Chamber. When I asked her directly whether she had démarched the Chinese ambassador, because that is within her brief, no answer was given, so Ministers will not answer on other people’s briefs, despite collective responsibility; if they will not answer on their own briefs, how are we to get answers in this place?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Lady for advance notice of that point of order. As she will know, the Chair is not responsible for the content of Ministers’ answers—if only we were—but she has most definitely put her point on the record, and the Minister might wish to respond now.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The Minister has declined to respond now. No doubt those on the Treasury Bench will feed that point back to the Ministers responsible.
Arctic Security
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
I begin by expressing my condolences to all affected by the terrible train crash near Cordoba last night and thanking the Spanish emergency services who responded overnight and throughout today. I am sure the House will join me in thinking of the people of Spain at this distressing time.
With permission, I will make a statement on Greenland and wider Arctic security.
On the evening of Saturday 17 January, President Trump announced the intention to impose 10% tariffs on goods from Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the UK over the future of Greenland. This is a serious moment for our transatlantic discussions and partnerships, so let me outline to the House the UK’s response, which rests on three key principles. First, Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Its future is a matter for Greenlanders and the Danes, and them alone. This reflects the fundamental principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity to which the whole House is committed. Secondly, the use or threat of tariffs against allies in this way is completely wrong, unwarranted and counterproductive. Thirdly, Arctic security is a shared concern and a shared responsibility for both sides of the Atlantic. It can be effectively addressed and maintained only through co-operation between transatlantic allies and, crucially, through NATO. So instead of divisions that only aid our adversaries, we now need a serious and constructive dialogue about our Arctic security that is built on respect for sovereignty and collective security and the rules that underpin our alliance.
As the Prime Minister set out this morning, the north star for the Government’s foreign policy is to stand up for the UK’s national interest and to defend and advance Britain’s security, Britain’s prosperity and Britain’s values, and we do so through the alliances and partnerships we build abroad that make us stronger here at home, including alliances where that transatlantic co-operation between Europe and North America has long been vital. As the Prime Minister has made clear, our close and deep-rooted partnership with the United States is a hugely important part of our security and our prosperity. The depth of our co-operation on intelligence sharing and defence helps keep us safe, and our trading relationship and the new agreements we have reached in the last 12 months are driving billions of pounds of investment in the UK, supporting jobs across the country. But the Prime Minister has also made it clear that we will be very direct about our differences, as he was in speaking to President Trump yesterday, because standing up for the UK national interest means defending the principles that underpin stable and enduring international co-operation. That means respect for sovereignty and respect for long-standing allies.
Denmark is a close ally of the United Kingdom and the United States. Indeed, Denmark has long been one of the US’s closest allies, a proud NATO member that has stood shoulder to shoulder with the UK and the US, including at real human cost in recent decades. Rooted in that partnership, the US already has in place a 1951 treaty with Denmark that provides for an extensive US security presence in Greenland. Alliances endure because they are built on respect and partnership, not pressure, and tariff threats like this are no way to treat allies.
The tariff threat has come following the co-ordinated preparations for the annual Danish programme of activities under the Arctic Endurance framework, which is focused on addressing Russian security threats in the Arctic. Last week, at the request of the Danish Government, one UK military officer currently based in Denmark joined a planning group visit in an observational capacity. These sorts of visits are a regular part of military planning ahead of exercises and operations—work among allies to strengthen Greenland’s security that should be recognised for its importance, not used as a reason to impose economic pressure.
A trade war would hurt workers and businesses on both sides of the Atlantic. It would be in no one’s interests. Both sides of the Atlantic should be working together on Arctic security, not moving apart. That is why the Prime Minister and this Government are working intensively in the UK national interest to prevent this from happening and to reach a resolution.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister spoke directly with President Trump, the Danish Prime Minister and other close allies and international leaders. Today, I welcomed Danish Foreign Minister Lars Rasmussen here to London for valuable discussions, and the Europe Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), has been in touch with the Greenland Foreign Minister. I have also been in direct contact with the US, Canada, France, Germany and other European colleagues, and on Wednesday my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary will visit Denmark. We will continue with this urgent diplomacy in pursuit of the principles I have set out.
We will also argue for the strengthening of our multilateral co-operation around Arctic security, because the Arctic is the gateway for Russia’s northern fleet to threaten Britain, western Europe and North America—threats to undersea cables and to critical national infrastructure. We have seen a greater presence of Russian ships and submarines making their way to the north Atlantic. We have seen Russian aircraft testing our air defence as shadow fleet vessels pass through our waters, trying to evade our sanctions and continuing to fund the war in Ukraine. Northern Norway, Finland and sea routes through the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap have long been strategically significant when considering Russian threats. We know that the strategic significance of the Arctic is likely to grow as the melting of Arctic ice stands to open new routes through the Arctic ocean, and with new-found geo-economic competition for critical minerals and rare earths.
Arctic security is crucial not just to the UK but to the entire NATO alliance—of the eight countries north of the Arctic circle, seven are NATO allies—so across our alliance, working together, we can and should do more. That is why last week I travelled to Finland and Norway to discuss the threats they currently face, and my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary was also in Sweden.
In Helsinki, I met the Finnish Foreign Minister and was briefed on Finnish border force activities to tackle a Russian ship that had damaged undersea cables between Finland and Estonia. In northern Norway, I met the Norwegian Foreign Minister. We signed a new agreement to strengthen our co-operation to tackle Russia’s shadow fleet, and we travelled together to Camp Viking to see the work of the Royal Marines and their Norwegian partners.
In the bitter cold of that unforgiving landscape, our commando forces are training and exercising, and preparing for contingencies. For more than 50 years, the Royal Marines have trained in the Norwegian Arctic, but we are increasing that commitment by doubling the number of marines there from 1,000 to 2,000 in the space of three years—I pay tribute to their phenomenal work. Alongside that, the landmark Lunna House defence agreement will see the UK and Norway jointly operate a new fleet of Type 26 anti-submarine warfare frigates to hunt Russian submarines and protect our critical undersea infrastructure.
In the autumn, the UK-led joint expeditionary force saw thousands of troops, including over 1,700 British personnel, dozens of ships, vehicles and aircraft, deployed from the Baltics to Iceland. The UK plans to contribute to a range of exercises in the north Atlantic and High North throughout 2026, because that is how we believe we will best strengthen our Arctic security for the sake of western Europe and North America—together, through alliances and partnerships, not through threats on tariffs or on sovereignty that simply undermine our collective security.
I welcome the messages of cross-party unity and the shared conviction that the future of Greenland must be determined by the Greenlanders and the Danes. Whether on Greenland, on tariffs or on wider Arctic security, we are clear in our views, firm in our principles and steadfast in our commitment to safeguarding UK interests. The UK will continue to pursue constructive ways forward, collaborating intensively with our partners and allies and pursuing our security, our prosperity and our values every step of the way. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I begin by expressing our condolences to the people of Spain following the devasting train crash yesterday.
The Conservative party is clear that the US Administration’s decision to announce tariffs on the UK over Greenland is completely wrong. People in the United Kingdom and the United States will face higher costs because of the proposed tariffs. The tariffs will be yet another burden for businesses across our country, and they go against the United States’ recent national security strategy, which says:
“It is natural and just that all nations put their interests first and guard their sovereignty…We stand for the sovereign rights of nations”.
We respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Greenland and Denmark. The future of Greenland must be for its people and Denmark—and for them alone—to decide. Denmark is a valued NATO ally and a leading contributor to Ukraine; indeed, it is one of the highest per capita donors. We have also worked with Denmark on Arctic security, and it is imperative that we and our European NATO allies now show a determination to go much further and back up our words with actions.
The security challenges in the Arctic must be tackled head-on, particularly the threat of Russia. Greenland is of geopolitical significance to every NATO member state, including the United Kingdom. The best way to tackle threats is to work together in unison, as NATO allies, because America’s national security is indivisible from NATO’s—they are one and the same. That collective security is the basis of our national defence architecture.
Collective action in the immediate term is how we should work together to address those challenges, so will the Foreign Secretary say what resources the Government will put in place to prioritise or repurpose their inventory to contribute to NATO’s High North missions? What are the Government doing to look at how, working with the US, we can build on existing joint defence agreements to broker a greater consensual military presence on Greenland from both sides of the Atlantic? What is the Government’s plan to help lead international efforts to secure the safety of Arctic shipping routes as they become more open, stave off exploitation of Greenland’s critical minerals by malign actors, protect the region’s fisheries, and boost digital connectivity and security, particularly at sea?
Has the Foreign Secretary discussed this issue with Secretary Rubio and, if not, what will she propose when she speaks to him, including on the security issue in the High North? UK leadership matters at this challenging moment for NATO, and we should advance a push from all NATO allies to thwart Putin’s ambitions in the High North. It is incumbent on the United Kingdom to help to lead that charge, and our ability to convene outside the EU is a strength that we should put into play.
The Conservatives have also called on the Prime Minister to push for an urgent NATO meeting that includes the United States especially. Will the Government pursue that, so that a position can be reconciled behind closed doors and we can present a united front to our adversaries?
It is important for our economy and for businesses that the Government secure a reversal of the position on tariffs. This is not a moment for megaphone diplomacy, but can the Foreign Secretary share the Government’s strategy for bringing the US round to revoking those tariffs before their kick-in date? Can she also confirm the UK’s position on countermeasures?
Under the tariff deal agreed in the spring, the UK secured a reduced 10% tariff for 100,000 vehicles. Does the Foreign Secretary expect the 10% Greenland tariff to be added to that existing 10% tariff, effectively doubling the tax on British car exports to 20% from 1 February?
Pharmaceuticals were also a cornerstone of the agreement on tariff-free exemptions. Does the Foreign Secretary expect life sciences to be protected from the new baseline tariff, or will the 100% tariff threatened in late 2025 now be accelerated? What specific support will her colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade provide for small and medium-sized business exporters, which could face an overnight increase of 10% in the costs for their largest export market? What assessment have the Government made of the potential economic impact of tariffs, and what can be done to mitigate that?
This is a time for cool but determined heads, because the stakes are significant and enormous for our country. This is not just a big geopolitical moment; it is a moment of real concern for businesses and exporters in our country. We are counting on British diplomacy to reverse the tariff situation and bring a swift end to the debacle over Greenland. The US is our closest ally: the way that our security agencies operate together is unparalleled in modern history and our bilateral trading relationship dwarfs every other. In this moment, we need to summon and leverage the strength and depth of that special relationship.
Yvette Cooper
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her response and welcome her support for the sovereignty of Greenland and Denmark and for the strengthening of support for Arctic security against the Russian threat, which she is right to highlight. She asked what work can be done to establish constructive discussions, and indeed, I talked to the Danish Foreign Minister about that today. Denmark has set out a process to have detailed talks with the US on how to strengthen security around Greenland, being very clear that the issue of sovereignty is non-negotiable, but that there are many issues to be discussed around strengthening security.
I spoke to Secretary Rubio today and we agreed to take forward further discussions on the issue. I assure the shadow Foreign Secretary that we will be pursuing every avenue for discussions directly with the US and with all our close allies, the purpose being to prevent the tariffs and the trade war that would be in no one’s interest, and to replace the threats about sovereignty and tariffs with a constructive, shared approach to our security, including security in the Arctic.
There is a critical issue here. The Arctic is the gateway for the Russian northern fleet to be able to threaten the UK, western Europe, the US and Canada. That is why this is a shared threat and requires a shared response. That is why, as part of the discussions in Norway and Finland last week, I proposed that NATO should establish an Arctic sentry, similar to the approach that NATO has taken to the Baltic Sentry and the Eastern Sentry, with co-ordination that brings together and looks in a strategic way at all the issues around security across the Arctic. We believe that it is through those partnerships and alliances that we can best strengthen our shared security against the threats that should concern us most.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The main purpose of the Prime Minister’s statement today was to send out an international message, and I thank the Foreign Secretary for the skilful way in which she has amplified that message this evening. However, there is another audience who deeply appreciate what the Prime Minister has had to say. Many ordinary British people are becoming increasingly anxious about the threats being made by one of our most important friends to one of our allies. They are frightened by the dark turn that international relations seem to have taken and the potential chaos that we may be heading for. In fact, a friend of mine texted me today to tell me that as she was watching the Prime Minister live, she was weeping—she has found this very frightening. Will the Foreign Secretary convey the thanks of so many of us to the Prime Minister for his clarity, calm and leadership?
Yvette Cooper
I thank my right hon. Friend for those remarks, and I will convey that message to the Prime Minister. We have clearly seen that our Prime Minister is standing up for the UK national interest, our security and prosperity and British values. We know that our security and prosperity are strengthened by alliances and partnerships, not by pulling apart.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
May I associate myself and my party with the comments made by the Foreign Secretary about the terrible rail crash in Spain? I thank her for her statement.
President Trump is acting like an international gangster, threatening to trample over the sovereignty of an ally, threatening the end of NATO altogether and now threatening to hit our country and seven European allies with outrageous, damaging tariffs unless he gets his hands on Greenland. This is an incredibly grave moment for the United Kingdom, Europe and our world. Without provocation or justification, the President of the United States is attacking our economy, our livelihoods and our national security. Trump has put British businesses and jobs on the frontline in his unprovoked aggression. The only people cheering him on are Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. Only a few months ago, Trump hailed the special relationship at Windsor castle. Now, thanks to his actions, it is nearly in tatters.
How do we stop Trump’s damaging trade war? For a year now, the Prime Minister has tried a policy of appeasing Trump, flattering him, fawning over him and refusing to stand up to him, because—he argued—Trump would otherwise hit us with damaging tariffs. Well, the Prime Minister has tested his approach to destruction, and it has failed. It is time for the Government to change course.
We have to finally be clear-eyed about the sort of man Trump is and treat him accordingly. He is a bully. He thinks that he can grab whatever he wants, using force if necessary, and he is corrupt—the most corrupt president that the United States has ever seen. There are only two ways of getting him to back down: bribing him—with a new jet, perhaps, or a few billion in his crypto account—or standing up to him, like we would with any other bully, and standing together with our European allies to make him back down. That is the choice. Which one, Foreign Secretary?
Yvette Cooper
This is clearly a serious moment. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman actually saw the Prime Minister’s response this morning. He should know that it is because this is a serious moment that we respond in a serious way and that this Prime Minister responds in a serious, calm, robust and hard-headed way about what is in the UK’s national interest and how we work together in the alliances that are crucial for our security and prosperity and are underpinned by our values. That is why the Prime Minister has been so firm in the United Kingdom’s response and why I welcomed the Danish Foreign Minister to London today.
The right hon. Member’s description of the response of our Prime Minister and our UK Government is inappropriate. This is a really important time for parties to come together on how we ensure that we can respond to the situation that we are in, work closely with our allies and create a constructive approach to our Arctic security. That ultimately will depend on transatlantic co-operation and ensuring that those alliances and that transatlantic alliance respect the principles of sovereignty and collective security. We will do that in a sober and serious way.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
European nations, including our own, are witnessing a very rude awakening: if we do not invest in sovereign capabilities for defence and security and rely instead on others, sooner or later we will be bullied or blackmailed by larger nations. The question for us is: will we just kick the can down the road and trundle along with small, gradual increases in defence investment, or will we chart a path to spending 3% of GDP on defence in this Parliament?
On Arctic security, the Foreign Secretary intimated that only one British officer was involved in the Danish-led Operation Arctic Endurance in Greenland. Will she update the House on our current and future planned participation? Are there any political or practical constraints on that future participation?
Yvette Cooper
On the specific issue that my hon. Friend raised, that was not an operation; it was a planning process, as takes place very routinely, and that continues to be the case. We are arguing for a broader approach to Arctic security. In fact, the UK’s strongest contribution is around the north of Norway. Our partnership with Norway is really unrivalled. We have the commandos and the excellent work that I saw at Camp Viking and elsewhere, as well as the joint frigates. For a non-Arctic nation, our contribution to Arctic security is unrivalled. We see that as being part of the Arctic sentry and a wider approach to collective Arctic security.
My hon. Friend also raises the issue of investment. That is exactly why we have put forward the biggest increase in defence spending for very many years.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I am afraid that the Foreign Secretary is being rather mealy-mouthed about a situation that the President of the United States obviously sees as very simple. He believes that through extortion or military force—he is not denying that he may use military force—he can acquire Greenland, whichever way we look at it. As the Foreign Secretary will know, significant military assets owned by the United States are based here in the United Kingdom. Could they be used as part of an invasion of Greenland against our will? Does she recognise that when tariffs were first wielded as a weapon against the Canadians, we should have stood with them, rather than cut a snivelling deal?
Yvette Cooper
First, that is clearly not the situation we are talking about. We have been very clear about the importance of both sovereignty and collective security—that they are not just part of the NATO alliance, but fundamental principles that we stand for.
Turning to tariffs, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the work that the Prime Minister has led has been effective in addressing tariffs in the past. We will show the same determination and robust approach again, as we have done on other issues. It is important that we focus on the results that we can get by taking a hard-headed approach, and that is what we are continuing to do.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Knocking on doors in Denton, Westerhope, Arthur’s Hill and Wingrove, I found that, for the first time in my 15 years as an MP, the No. 1 issue was global insecurity. President Trump has succeeded in uniting the British people against his unwarranted attack on a close ally. My right hon. Friend is right to be calm and diplomatic, but will she reassure us that given the current President’s volatility, she and her Government will ensure that our sovereignty is not dependent on US capability, and specifically that our technology procurement —both civil and defence—will reflect this?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to talk about the very strong feelings on this matter right across the UK—of the need to protect sovereignty for the people of Greenland and the people of Denmark more widely, and the sense that to propose tariffs in this way is just deeply wrong. It is counterproductive to our collective security, but it is also deeply wrong.
My hon. Friend has also raised issues of UK resilience. She will know that on things like the Five Eyes partnership, there is very deep, long-standing co-operation and shared technology, but there are also areas in which we agree that Europe needs to do more for its own defence and its own investment, and that is what we are doing.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Greenland. President Trump’s threat to annex Greenland either “the easy way” or “the hard way” is pushing Europe to the verge of one of the biggest political and security crises we have faced in decades. Now, his threat to impose punitive tariffs on those opposing his illegal annexation means that the President of our closest ally is using economic and military threats against the UK and other European nations simply for defending sovereignty, self-determination and international law. On what basis do this Government view this particular President as being a trustworthy and reliable ally?
Yvette Cooper
We have made it very clear that threats to Greenland’s sovereignty are wrong, and that threats of tariffs and economic pressure are also wrong, because allies should stand together and not face the kinds of threats we have seen. That is a particular issue for the UK, but also for Denmark, which has been such a close ally to both the UK and the US. We are taking a very robust, hard-headed approach to this matter, to work through what is in the UK national interest and get a resolution that can protect, defend and strengthen Arctic security, as well as UK security more widely. That is the right thing to do.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Colleagues need to shorten their questions. Many Members want to get in, and that will depend on the length of your questions.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for setting out the UK’s position that the future of Greenland is for the people of Greenland and the Danes to decide. It is not right that one of our closest and oldest allies is threatening us with economic sanctions, so I have two questions for the Foreign Secretary. First, how will she explain to the US Administration our interests and our actions at this time, and stop the sanctions and resolve the situation? Secondly, building on the excellent question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), might the Foreign Secretary take an interest in the Franco-British fast jet replacement programme and a company called Aeralis, so that we do not have to rely on an American solution?
Yvette Cooper
We have been very clear, both to the US and more widely, about the importance of countries working together to strengthen security. That is exactly what Denmark has been seeking to do—to strengthen the security of Greenland as part of strengthening Arctic security against the Russian threat. Where countries come together to do so, that should be recognised as important and valuable, because Arctic security is a multilateral issue, not a unilateral one. It will only be strengthened by countries working together, so this is about our interests in that shared, collective security, but also our values of defending sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister, NATO, the Danes and others have been commended for responding to this situation through the usual channels and the usual means. That would be fine if we had an occupant of the White House who understood and respected all that, but he laughs now not just behind his hand but blatantly, in our faces, as a result. While all that continues, we need to try to work out what makes this man tick. He is thin-skinned, he has an ego, and he does not like to be embarrassed. Should the state visit go ahead this year? Should football teams play in American stadia for the world cup? These are things that would embarrass the President at home. We now need to fight fire with fire.
Yvette Cooper
We heard from the Prime Minister this morning the approach he is taking. The approach that our Prime Minister and this Government have taken has already led to very big changes in the United States’ initial proposals on tariffs, which were substantially reduced and changed as a result of that engagement. As a result of our engagement we have also seen big changes in the US approach to Ukraine: considerable work has now been done to secure agreements around security guarantees that have been immensely important. That is the result of continued engagement, not just by the Prime Minister but by others more widely. We are clear about the importance of working in the UK’s national interests and pursuing different issues to make sure that we protect UK businesses and UK prosperity, as well as our shared values, including sovereignty.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
As a proud member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, I thank the Foreign Secretary for her visit to our Marines at Camp Viking in Norway, and for her unequivocal stance in support of collective security with NATO at its heart. I welcome the Rycroft review of foreign interference in our politics. In the context of NATO and Arctic security, does the Foreign Secretary agree it is vital that we get to the bottom of the role that Russian money plays in trying to subvert our public discourse on these hugely important issues?
Yvette Cooper
I know that my hon. Friend and others have been raising this issue, particularly about the hybrid threats from Russia. There are the direct threats we see in the Arctic, but also broader hybrid threats, which range from sabotage—of undersea cables, for example—to foreign interference, including information interference. The Foreign Affairs Committee is doing an important inquiry into this issue, and I look forward to its conclusions, but we have substantially increased UK sanctions to address some of the interference threats.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The post-war world order was based on the premise that like-minded western liberal democracies would stand up for each other, expand democracy wherever we saw it and lower the barriers to free trade, and that through NATO we would engage in collective responsibility—an attack against one was an attack against all. It is clear that the President of the United States does not share those values. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the UK should be closening our military and economic bonds with the European allies that do share those values?
Yvette Cooper
The transatlantic security relationship of North America—the US and Canada—and western Europe, and the whole of Europe working together around security, has been immensely important for a long time. We continue to have shared interests and shared threats—for example, Arctic security is clearly a shared security interest—but we are also strengthening our direct security and defence co-operation with Europe. Central to the EU reset was strengthening defence co-operation with our European allies, with whom we are bound by our close geography, as well as our shared values and interests. We will continue to strengthen those relationships.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Donald Trump’s appalling threats to seize Greenland, along with his disgusting bombing of Venezuela, are a new form of gangster politics that are set out in his new national security strategy, which also speaks of boosting support for the far right across Europe. We have to deal with that reality, and Trump’s threats of tariffs this weekend show how little we can rely on the so-called special relationship. Instead of blindly following US policy, as we have done all too often in the past, with disastrous consequences, is it not now time to stand up to Trump and forge a new independent foreign policy based on international law, peace and co-operation? Those important values are the antithesis of what Donald Trump stands for.
Yvette Cooper
I caution my hon. Friend against somehow suggesting equivalence in a whole series of different areas. I am disappointed that he has not, as part of his question, recognised the scale of the threat from Russia, which is the most serious threat the UK faces.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
We have to ride the Trump tiger as best we can until November 2028, but the future of Greenland is for Greenlanders. However, when the Foreign Secretary talks to her Danish interlocutors, can she ever so gently point out that small countries such as Denmark have historically spent little on their defence and on collective defence? Will she also, perhaps equally as gently, admonish Denmark? Along with most member states of the European Union, it has administered something of a punishment beating to this country since 2016.
Yvette Cooper
I was delighted to see the Danish Foreign Minister in London today. He is a friend, and Denmark is a close friend of the UK. Denmark has stood firm alongside the UK and the US, including by putting its armed forces’ lives at risk in Afghanistan and in other conflicts to support close allies. The Danes have shown immense dedication to the principles of collective security, they continue to show substantial support for Ukraine against Russia, and I want to strongly show Denmark the UK’s support.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
This week’s tensions highlight the strategic importance of the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap and the urgent need for Europeans to fill the gaps in their ability to defend that space. Currently, that can be done only by the United States of America. Will the Foreign Secretary update us on the Government’s discussions with our European counterparts on strengthening our defence industries? What discussions have there been on full access to Security Action for Europe?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend has immense expertise in this area and is right to highlight the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap as being crucial to maintaining the security of the Atlantic and as the basis for a lot of Arctic security issues. That is exactly why the UK and Norway are now jointly building new frigates as part of a major investment programme. It is one of the biggest defence contracts we have ever had. Norway is investing not just in jobs in the UK but, crucially, in an unrivalled partnership to strengthen our maritime security.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Madam Deputy Speaker:
“I will happily accept tariffs to oppose Trump and his corrupt regime.”
Those are not my words, but those of a Bath constituent who emailed me today. Does the Foreign Secretary not recognise the strong feelings of so many of our constituents? They are ready to stand up to the bully that Donald Trump is, and they want the Government to do the same.
Yvette Cooper
Across the country there are strong feelings about the tariff threats we have seen. That is why we have been clear that they are completely wrong. The impact of tariffs is felt by businesses, by consumers and by ordinary families in the US, in the UK and in other European countries. That is why tariffs are completely counterproductive, as well as being completely wrong.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s calm diplomacy this morning. It is right that only adversaries stand to gain from the fracturing of NATO. The Government do not believe that the US President is serious about using military force to seize Greenland, but even in just the past hour he has refused to rule that out. My right hon. Friend will also know that the President spoke about wanting Greenland in his previous term in office; he has long been serious about it. As the UK is the lead nation in the joint expeditionary force, can she assure me that, alongside NATO-level discussions, we are engaging fully with our JEF partners?
Yvette Cooper
We regularly engage with joint expeditionary force partners. Indeed, there were meetings around the joint expeditionary force last week, and I believe there are further such meetings later this week, which the Ministry of Defence is heavily involved in supporting. That is exactly because we take these shared security issues so seriously. We know that for a country like the UK our security depends on the alliances we build, including with close European allies through the JEF.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
Greenland is being offered two options: to be sold or to be annexed. This is naked imperialism. The Government of Greenland have made clear that they will work with the US in any way necessary to protect our security and that of Europe, but I am afraid that beyond the vague diplomatic assurances of diplomatic activity and claims of being hard-headed, I am no clearer, from the statement, about what the Government are doing to keep us safe from tariffs and, more importantly, to protect our security and the sovereignty of Greenland.
Yvette Cooper
To be honest, I am surprised by that question from the hon. Lady, because she has experience in foreign affairs. She knows how diplomatic discussions take place and the urgency with which those discussions are taking place right now. She will understand the importance of those discussions. She will understand the importance of the collaboration with our allies and partners and how those discussions take place. She will also have seen the results of taking a similar hard-headed and robust approach to previous issues and the previous discussions we have taken forward. We will continue to do that. In terms of the people of Greenland, we have seen the protests on the streets in Greenland, and we have seen the strong views expressed by the people of the Kingdom of Denmark more widely. We will continue to support them and their sovereignty.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Section 21 in chapter 8 of the Greenland Self-Government Act 2009 states that decisions
“regarding Greenland’s independence shall be taken by the people of Greenland.”
Therefore, no external coercion should be applied to Greenland’s people. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking with our European allies to ensure that that Act is respected and that no major power can pressure the Greenlanders over their constitutional status?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s point. That is exactly why the Minister for Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), has been in touch with Greenland’s Foreign Minister, and why I had many discussions today with the Danish Foreign Minister about our support for the sovereignty of the people of Greenland. It is for them and the Danes, side by side, to decide their future, and not for anyone else.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I agree with the Foreign Secretary that we should be working with our allies—I welcome that approach—but I fear that Donald Trump does not agree with her. What are the Government doing to harden our infrastructure? We are heavily dependent on several American IT systems, including Palantir, controlled by Peter Thiel, who is well inside the coterie of Donald Trump’s Administration. On sanctions, we have seen that they could switch off Microsoft’s provision of services to the International Criminal Court. Will the Government look into ensuring that Palantir is not a single point of failure in our critical systems—in the health service, defence, the Cabinet Office and now the police?
Yvette Cooper
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we take all issues involving critical national infrastructure immensely seriously. There are areas—for example, our security and intelligence Five Eyes partnership—where our technology partnerships go back many generations. I remember my first Five Eyes meetings in the United States to discuss these matters, more than 25 years ago, and those technology partnerships have strengthened since then. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should also consider key areas in which critical national infrastructure needs to be strengthened.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I associate myself with the Foreign Secretary’s statement that the future of Greenland is a matter for the Greenlanders and the Danes alone. We all know that the geo-security issues in the High North are due to Russia’s threat to NATO. I am very pleased that the Foreign Secretary went to Norway last week, because we have two Russian bases on NATO territory in Svalbard. What discussions did she have with her Norwegian counterparts about the possibility of ending the Russian presence on that NATO territory?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to point out that the issues in the High North are about the Russian threats. That has long been the case, but we have seen those threats grow. There was a time at the ending of the cold war when, I think, everyone was optimistic that this might fundamentally change. Sadly, many years on, that has proved not to be the case, which is why the partnership between the UK and Norway is crucial for our security, the security of the whole of NATO, and the security of many of our allies as well. I can assure my hon. Friend that we keep a range of issues under discussion.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
The Foreign Secretary is, of course, absolutely right to insist that the future of Greenland is a question only for the people of Greenland, but does she acknowledge that this crisis is the consequence of our weakness—of decades of failure on the part of Europe and the UK to invest in defence, and, indeed, of a historic failure of statecraft on the part of the United Kingdom? One naval officer went to Greenland, and as a consequence, 10% tariffs are to be imposed on us. The Foreign Secretary mentioned a conversation that she had in Scandinavia last week. Did she offer to do more than simply co-operate with our partners and neighbours, and to actually lead in the defence of Greenland by committing a proper joint expeditionary force, led by the UK, with a proper commitment to ensuring the safety of Greenland?
Yvette Cooper
The biggest threat to Arctic security comes from Russia, and the hon. Member would have a lot more credibility in talking about any of these Arctic security issues if he and his new party looked inward at themselves and carried out the long-needed investigation of Russian influence in that party.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s strong response, and the assurances that we have heard from the Foreign Secretary today. She has rightly made it clear that Donald Trump’s claims to need to possess Greenland for security reasons are complete and utter nonsense. The United States already has access. The Foreign Secretary spoke of a multilateral approach to Arctic security; there is also the critical minerals element, which I suspect has a great deal to do with Donald Trump’s interest in the country. What are we doing to adopt a similar multilateral approach to critical minerals, as we seek to divest ourselves of reliance on China?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to raise the broader issue of critical minerals. Many of the issues relating to Greenland are long-term issues, as opposed to immediate critical mineral issues, but there is a wider need to ensure that we have security around our critical mineral supply chains, and to work with other countries to prevent any country from having a chokehold on the supply of those critical minerals. That is crucial in connection with new green technologies, but it is also crucial more widely when it comes to our economic prosperity and economic security for the future.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
All relationships, particularly special relationships, must have a foundation of respect and mutual consent. What is the view in NATO on economic measures being used to force the annexation of a sovereign NATO territory?
Yvette Cooper
NATO allies need to respect each other. That is a core part of the NATO alliance, and it is what makes the alliance effective. Not to do so simply aids our adversaries.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I welcome both the Foreign Secretary’s statement and the Prime Minister’s remarks this morning. It may be surprising that neither Greenland nor the Arctic featured as a strategic priority in the United States’ national security strategy, published in November, although transatlantic trade did. Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear to the United States Administration that its goals of prosperity and the long-term security of the Arctic can be achieved only through close co-operation with allies—not through dangerous rhetoric, and actions that risk weakening the collective strength on which we all rely?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with my hon. Friend. The economic prosperity of the UK, Europe, the United States, Canada and our other NATO allies is strengthened by trade, rather than by tariffs, and our security is strengthened by co-operation through NATO, and by respect for each other’s sovereignty and collective security.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Foreign Secretary is right to say that NATO allies should not threaten one another, and she is also right to highlight the threat and potential harm caused by trade wars and the imposition of tariffs, but does she understand the bemusement of Northern Ireland Members? She talks strongly about sovereignty, but it was this House that diminished the sovereignty of Northern Ireland and placed us in the European Union customs code, and I hope she recognises that there is a double-edged sword when it comes to tariffs for Northern Ireland.
The Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, who will address Parliament tomorrow, said very clearly at the weekend that while he has heard what President Trump has said, he does not know what his aspirations are in relation to Greenland. Does the Foreign Secretary?
Yvette Cooper
I hope that everyone, not just in the United States Administration but throughout the United States, would agree that we should have shared aspirations for our shared security in the Arctic. We should recognise that that includes respect for sovereignty and for collective partnership. Addressing the Arctic security threat, much of which is maritime, depends on countries working together. It depends on an ability to address issues relating to the eastern end of the Arctic, northern Norway, the western end of the Arctic, and the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap. Only through co-operation is it possible to keep the Atlantic safe, and to keep all our countries safe.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
As possibly the only MP with American grandchildren, may I ask whether the Foreign Secretary agrees that whatever disagreements may arise between this Government and the Government of the United States about Greenland, the bonds of friendship and kinship between the peoples of this island and the peoples of the United States are historic, vital and enduring?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the strength of our people-to-people bonds, but also the deep historical bonds and the continuing bonds of co-operation. Even today, the US and the UK have been discussing terrorism threats in northern Syria and the need to tackle Daesh. We have so many shared interests and a shared history, which is why it is so important that we pursue this disagreement in a robust and constructive way.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
In pushing back against the tariffs, will the Foreign Secretary and others make it clear to the US that it is not just the potential imposition of these tariffs, but the bandying about of the threat of tariffs, that is so disruptive and difficult for major British businesses that export to the US, such as those in the Scotch whisky industry? The tariffs might be just game-playing or tactics, but they are causing real damage right now.
Yvette Cooper
I agree with the right hon. Member about the impact that threats can have, and the instability that they can cause. Stability and respect in relationships is a crucial underpinning of the economy.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
If this was truly a debate about the security of the Arctic, we would be talking about more than the sovereignty of Greenland, which is clearly a matter for the Danes and the people of Greenland. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that our collective interests and security are best served by working collectively through NATO, rather than creating division in that alliance, which will only help those who want to do us harm?
Yvette Cooper
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I saw for myself the immense co-operation between the Royal Marines Commandos and our Norwegian colleagues in the north of Norway. They briefed me on where the threats and concerns are, the way in which we need to respond to them, and the way in which the response in the north of Norway also helps with security right at the other side of the Atlantic, in the US and Canada.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Trump is certainly an unreliable and unpredictable ally, and his comments yesterday about the Norwegian leadership make us all wonder whether he is of sound mind, but what can we do? We have to deal with him.
I am sure it has not escaped the Foreign Secretary’s notice that the messaging from Congress is quite different from the messaging from the White House. Divisions were exposed in the passing of the Defence Appropriations Act before Christmas. Can she reassure me that conversations are being had, not just with the Administration but right across Congress, in which we have quite a lot of allies who are willing to support our position?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member is right to say that there are many different perspectives across the US system, both in the Administration and in Congress. As he will know, we have always had very close engagement with all aspects of the US system, including Congress. Indeed, the House Speaker is in Parliament today.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I want to put on the record my gratitude for the leadership that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have shown on this issue as it evolves. Does she share my confusion about why Members of this House who claim to be patriots would join a party that blames NATO for starting the Ukraine war, that has a leader who admires Vladimir Putin, and that has a former leader in Wales who is serving 10 years in prison for taking Russian bribes?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with my hon. Friend. We need to be very clear about where the threat to UK security comes from, the threat from Russia to our security—be it through the Arctic or through Ukraine—and the impact that has on Europe. Frankly, the fact that Members of this House who call themselves patriots have joined a party that is so soft on Russia is just astonishing.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Donald Trump rides roughshod over international law and international alliances. The PM has said that a trade war is in no one’s interests, but we all know that if you give ground to a bully, you get bullied even more. Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that after a full year of attempting to appease Donald Trump, the strategy has comprehensively failed; that it is time to replace submission to the US with strength and solidarity with our European partners; and that the UK needs to make it clear to Donald Trump that there are red lines, and that if he engages in hostile activity towards the UK, it will have practical consequences, not least in trade?
Yvette Cooper
The UK’s security is strengthened by the NATO alliance—the transatlantic alliance. I know that some want to reject Europe, and some want to reject the US and North America. We know that the transatlantic partnership keeps us safe and is crucial, which is why we believe in continuing with NATO. I know that some parties want to ditch it.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I welcome the calm and robust approach to our American allies from the Foreign Secretary, and from the Prime Minister this morning. State sovereignty, respect for territorial integrity and the right of self-determination have been the bedrock of global affairs since the end of world war two; indeed, it is why a Ukrainian victory against Russian aggression is so important for global stability. Can the Foreign Secretary set out how, in order to deter further Russian aggression, we are working with our Arctic partners—in Norway and Finland, for example—to further protect our own continent?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. We are doubling the number of UK marines based in the north of Norway in the space of three years, we are jointly building frigates in order to strengthen our Arctic security, and we are working through NATO, through the coalition of the willing and with the US on security guarantees for Ukraine, because that is crucial to delivering a just and lasting peace.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
The western world must remain united to keep us all safe from both Russia and China. Regrettably, we are far from united right now, and many of our constituents will be concerned about the risk to our country and critical infrastructure. At the same time as trying to reinvigorate our relationships with our NATO partners, should our worst-case planning assumption be that the USA may not be by our side if and when we need it in the future? If it was not clear before this week, surely it is clear now that spending on defence must rise immediately to at least 3% of GDP. Does the Foreign Secretary agree?
Yvette Cooper
This Government are responsible for the biggest increase in defence spending for many years. The hon. Gentleman will know that, under the previous Conservative Government, the level of investment in defence did not reach 2.5% of GDP throughout their period in office and the defence infrastructure was hollowed out for too long. It is right that we invest in it for the future, but it is also right that we build our partnerships.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
As the Foreign Secretary has alluded to, the 1951 agreement allows the US to construct and operate military bases across Greenland, house personnel, and control the movement of ships and aircraft. Will she do all she can to urge US counterparts to use that agreement to provide enhanced protection for NATO’s northern borders and to drop the outrageous threat of tariffs, which is causing very damaging uncertainty for our industry? If implemented, they would not only hit our industry but further fuel inflation for the US consumer.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. The 1951 agreement has huge flexibility and provides for considerable joint working between the US, Denmark and Greenland on strengthening security in that part of the Arctic. I know that many countries will be keen to work with them on exactly that, which is why we think the talks that began last week between the Danish Foreign Minister and the US Secretary of State and Vice-President were an important opportunity to explore the 1951 treaty.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Diplomacy relies on rational actors, yet even in the last fortnight we have seen Donald Trump declare that he is not bound by international law, only by his “own morality”. He has deployed paramilitary forces against his own people, and he speaks of cancelling elections. How apt! We have also seen the unilateral kidnapping of the President of an independent country. We are not dealing with a rational man; he responds only to shiny baubles, as we have seen with the incredible saga of the Nobel peace prize. I agree with the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and ask the following question: will the Government consider removing the King’s visit to the United States and boycotting the world cup? The only thing to which Donald Trump responds is his own pride.
Yvette Cooper
We have long had deep interests and partnerships with the US that go back many years. The engagement the Prime Minister has led with the US Administration and the President has led to important results, including billions of pounds of tech investment in the UK and crucial security co-operation—for example, on Ukraine, with the development of security guarantees in support of the work of the coalition of the willing. However, this is an issue on which we strongly disagree, and the Prime Minister has made that absolutely clear. We will be very direct about the areas on which we disagree, and we will set those out. We will also work intensively with our allies to address them, because the sovereignty of Greenland is a vital principle that we will defend.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
President Trump’s threats to Greenland must be taken very seriously. Given Trump’s banditry in Venezuela, I fear the Prime Minister’s hopes of “calm discussion” may fall on deaf ears. Will the Government stand firm with our European allies and the people of Greenland in opposing rampant American territorial expansionism?
Yvette Cooper
We work closely with our European allies, which is exactly why I have had discussions with the Danish Foreign Minister today. I have also had discussions with the US Secretary of State today, and we will have further discussions. It is also why the Prime Minister has had discussions with European leaders and President Trump. However, I say to my hon. Friend that the role of the Government is to pursue the UK’s interests in a calm, robust and hard-headed way, which is about getting results and ensuring that we build the partnerships, including with the US and with Europe, that make all of us stronger together.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Trump and Putin both respect strength; neither of them respects international law. In the light of that, I welcome the work undertaken by the Prime Minister and leaders from Canada and Europe on the coalition of the willing. The Secretary of State has outlined what we are doing to strengthen our capabilities and those of our neighbours, but can she explain how the coalition of the willing will become the coalition of the capable to make us stronger?
Yvette Cooper
I thank the hon. Member for his support for the coalition of the willing. He will know that the UK and France set out a declaration of intent, and further work is under way on the security guarantees. I caution him against drawing an equivalence between the US and Russia, which I hope he did not mean to do, because it is obviously Russia that poses a significant threat to Ukraine and the whole of Europe, while the US is a long-standing and close ally in defending security in Europe.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the strong statement she has made. I have been disappointed to hear so much politicisation of a national security issue in this House, but can she confirm that, just as the future of Ukraine should be determined by the Ukrainians, the future of Greenland should be determined by Denmark and the Greenlanders?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is exactly right that there are principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, underpinned by the UN charter, but also by the rules underpinning so many of our alliances, including the NATO alliance. At the heart of this is the very simple principle that the future of Greenland is for the Greenlanders and the Danes alone.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, but in all sincerity can I ask her how, as per her statement, she intends to have
“serious and constructive dialogue…built on respect”
and rules with a man who wants to drop peace and go to war simply because he did not win a prize?
Yvette Cooper
In NATO, we have a long-standing alliance—a long-standing partnership—not just with the US, but with western Europe, and we continue to discuss with the US the issues affecting peace around the world. I would give the hon. Member the example of Sudan, which I do not think has had the level of international attention it needs. However, the US is putting in considerable efforts to seek a ceasefire in Sudan, and the UK is working not just with the US, but with other members of the Quad to support a desperately needed ceasefire.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Last week, I was delighted to lead a debate on the very topic of the High North and Arctic security, highlighting that, because of our geography, the UK should be considered a frontline nation in the ongoing war with Vladimir Putin and that we cannot afford to sleepwalk unprepared into a geopolitical High North and Arctic. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, as a frontline nation, we must urgently increase public awareness of the threat we face and the effect that will have on our constituents? Will she discuss with the Defence Secretary and our allies the possibility of urgently increasing the capability of the joint expeditionary force to defend both the UK and our High North allies? I know that would be welcomed by countries such as Estonia, which I visited at the start of the year.
Yvette Cooper
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Increasing our presence in the north of Norway—increasing the number of marines from 1,000 to 2,000 over three years—helps support the joint expeditionary force. It is also a crucial part of our co-operation across not just the Arctic, but the Baltic, and that work was welcomed in both Finland and Norway, where I was last week.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
President Trump has stated that he no longer feels an obligation to think “purely of Peace”. He has threatened a trade war with the UK and Europe, and he has refused to rule out military force against Greenland. This shows that President Trump and his Administration cannot be trusted. Will the Government therefore consider a review of the UK’s intelligence sharing with the US at this very dangerous and volatile time, and until Trump is no longer in power?
Yvette Cooper
Let me be really clear with the hon. Member: our Five Eyes intelligence and security partnership is vital and keeps us safe. It keeps us safe every single day of the week and every single day of the year, and that is vital. It is particularly close with the United States, but it is also with Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and our security depends on sustaining and continuing that Five Eyes partnership.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister for their clarity today on the future of Greenland. Does the Foreign Secretary agree with me that, while recent comments from the United States have generated understandable concern, the correct response is not panic or escalation, but calm diplomacy grounded in the clear, simple principle that Greenland’s future is a matter for the Greenlandic people? Does she also agree that the real strategic challenge in the High North remains Russia, with its militarisation and aggression, which NATO must continue to confront together as partners, not opponents, of the United States?
Yvette Cooper
I do agree with my hon. Friend. We need to be purposeful in our response. It is for all of us to recognise that the greatest threat to UK security, as well as to European security and North American security, does come from Russia. We have shared alliances, and the US is a close partner in strengthening our security against Russia.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I absolutely agree with the sanctity of territorial integrity and how fundamental it is to sovereignty. Indeed, those principles provide a powerful basis to challenge the US’s posturing. I do not at all dissent from the Foreign Secretary’s statement. However, I am intrigued as to how this Government are properly so exercised about America’s disrespect for the territorial integrity of Greenland, but so disinterested about the disrespect of the territorial integrity of our own country, whereby the European Union imposes its laws, as on a colony, in 300 areas of law on a part of the United Kingdom and insists on an international customs border to partition this United Kingdom. Now that the Government have got hold of the importance of territorial integrity, can we look forward to their reasserting it in respect of our own country?
Yvette Cooper
I know the hon. and learned Gentleman’s views, but the Windsor framework was about sustaining the Good Friday agreement, which was a shared agreement underpinned by principles and peace.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for her statement, as well as to the Government for their commitment to Arctic security and recognition of the threats that we face. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the partnership with Norway—that includes the £10 billion contract for Type 26 frigates secured by this Government and set to be delivered on the Clyde, including by some of my constituents—makes clear that, beyond the rhetoric we are hearing at present, the Government are absolutely committed to playing their part within NATO to uphold our collective global responsibilities?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to welcome the £10 billion contract. That will support thousands of jobs in his constituency and across the UK. It is driven not just by the strength of our defence industry, but crucially, by the strength of our joint co-operation with Norway and the shared operations we will be able to take forward in future.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and her commitment to Greenland, which is not for sale. President Trump’s threat of tariffs is an alarming escalation and strange behaviour from someone who the Foreign Secretary describes as a close ally. France and Germany have suggested imposing retaliatory tariffs, but our Prime Minister has dismissed this. He says that he does not want to start a trade war with the US. Could the Foreign Secretary tell the House which side the UK will be on, if our European friends and neighbours decide to pursue this retaliatory course of action?
Yvette Cooper
We have always been clear that a trade war between any nation—certainly between the US and European countries—is deeply damaging and not in anyone’s interest. That is why our first priority right now should be to stop this happening and stop the tariffs, and to build a shared sense of security.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should send a message of reassurance to our children and young people, who will undoubtedly be feeling concerned and scared about the developments in the Arctic and Greenland, and more broadly regarding our international system? Does she agree that they know instinctively that international co-operation, standing up for our allies, international friendship and defending a rules-based system is the right way for our world? Does she agree that they should take some reassurance from the fact that our Government, this House and our allies agree with them?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s framing of this around the interests of our young people and the values of shared co-operation. It is co-operation with allies that makes us stronger.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I commend the Government for standing firm with our European allies in supporting the principle that the future of Greenland is a matter for her people and her people alone. I know that the Government will make every diplomatic effort to avoid the imposition of these punitive tariffs, but if they were to be imposed upon us, will it be the policy of the Government to pursue a co-ordinated approach with our European allies in any countermeasures that may prove necessary?
Yvette Cooper
At all stages, we have discussions and co-ordination with our allies, but the Prime Minister made it clear this morning that our focus has to be on preventing a trade war and additional tariffs being introduced, and on building a constructive approach to our shared security.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
How many times do my Lib Dem colleagues and I need to come to the House and tell the Government that Trump cannot be trusted? His behaviour is that of a spoilt child, bullying his allies while looking to swell the coffers of those closest to him. By working with our European partners in NATO, we must persuade Trump that his aggressive approach to Greenland and the threats of tariffs is not acceptable behaviour from our closest ally. I ask the Foreign Secretary to try to persuade the Prime Minister that we need to stand up to this bully in the White House before he causes untold damage to the UK and to Europe.
Yvette Cooper
The job of Government is to pursue the UK national interest and build alliances to work with our allies both in the US and in Europe to promote the UK’s prosperity, our security and our values. We do that in a serious, hard-headed way, and not in the way that, unfortunately, the Liberal Democrats have taken.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
To say the very least, Donald Trump’s actions in Greenland and the related sanctions on the UK are not befitting of a trustworthy ally. Does the Foreign Secretary now accept that President Trump does not respond to weakness, and that, as Canada has shown, we must stand firm against this bullying behaviour and, as the Liberal Democrats have argued for months, work more closely with our EU allies?
Yvette Cooper
Again, I would say that our strength, security and prosperity depend on things such as the NATO alliance, in which we work closely with our North American allies—the US and Canada—and our European allies. That strong relationship, and the fact that the UK works so strongly at the heart of that relationship, as opposed to rejecting one side or another, is what makes us stronger.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
President Trump questioned the Danish right of ownership of Greenland, saying:
“There are no written documents, it’s only a boat that landed there hundreds of years ago”.
Although Trump may today be challenging Greenland, on that basis, what assurance can the Foreign Secretary give that our overseas territories and those of our other allies would not come under a similar challenge from President Trump?
Yvette Cooper
We have been very clear that the principle of sovereignty—of territorial integrity—is fundamental. That is why the Prime Minister has made clear our strong disagreement with President Trump on this issue, the importance of issues such as Arctic security being collective, and that threats are no way to treat allies.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
The Prime Minister insists that a trade war is in no one’s interest, yet we know that the US has declared sanctions on our economy, in spite of the so-called special relationship. If these sanctions come to pass, can the Secretary of State say what concrete measures will be put in place to protect UK businesses from their detrimental effects?
Yvette Cooper
The Prime Minister has already discussed this issue with President Trump and made clear our position, and we are working through diplomacy and continued different avenues to stress the importance of respecting sovereignty, collective security, and the fact that tariffs benefit no one and are completely wrong in this situation.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Secretary of State has rightly outlined the importance of co-operation with our allies over this serious issue, but as we have seen, there is not a consistent approach on retaliatory tariffs. Can she describe to the House the discussions that the UK Government had with our European allies before ruling out retaliatory tariffs?
Yvette Cooper
The UK is continuing to hold discussions with European allies, exactly as I have been doing today with the Danish Foreign Minister, and as the Prime Minister has been doing throughout the weekend. He also made clear our strong view to President Trump and the US that we need to prevent these tariffs in the first place, and that we need to take action together to make sure that that happens.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
Exactly two weeks ago, the Foreign Secretary told me that I was quite wrong to describe Donald Trump as a threat to liberal democracy. Since then, we have seen the horrifying shooting of Renee Good, trumped-up charges against the chair of the Federal Reserve, and direct threats to Denmark and this country. I understand that the Foreign Secretary cannot publicly agree with me, but if the Government are serious, why are we not seriously re-arming, especially when that will help our economy anyway? Is the Foreign Secretary worried that the hour is getting too late to act?
Yvette Cooper
I think the question the hon. Member raises is about the increase in defence spending, which is exactly what we are doing. We are investing—we are introducing the most substantial increase in defence spending for many years. Defence infrastructure was hollowed out under previous Governments, and that is exactly why we are increasing investment now.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
A week or so ago I asked the Foreign Secretary at the Dispatch Box: where was the red line? What was the Rubicon that would have to be crossed to lead the UK to hang together with our values-based allies in opposition to the imperialist ambitions of Donald Trump? I have to confess that I felt a brief moment of pride yesterday when I thought that Rubicon had been reached, but I have been filled with increasing fear today. I fear that we might again allow ourselves to be picked off, that we might allow ourselves again to prostrate ourselves in front of the President as we beg not to be treaded upon. So, I ask the Foreign Secretary again: what is the Rubicon that would have to be crossed? This is not just an academic question. We are, through our overseas territories in the Caribbean and in the south Atlantic, a western hemispheric nation. Is the red line the Falkland Islands?
Yvette Cooper
I just say to the hon. Member that what we have seen from our Prime Minister is a serious level of international leadership that is immensely important: a robust and hard-headed approach to the UK’s national interests that is the way we achieve results and have achieved results in a series of different areas. He set out this morning the principles that guide us, including the strong defence of the principle of sovereignty, and that the future of Greenland is for the Greenlanders and for the Danes to decide.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Foreign Secretary has talked a lot about military co-operation today, less so about economic security co-operation. She will remember that the Prime Minister abolished the National Security Council sub-committee on economic security. I was pleased that the Minister with responsibility for economic security was here for a time, but he is not part of the National Security Council. How are these economic security questions and co-ordination with partners being handled and managed in Government?
Yvette Cooper
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, as the Foreign Secretary, I take economic security issues immensely seriously. It is why we are strengthening the work around critical minerals and the economic security that comes from international supply chains. He will know that there are issues around critical national infrastructure that also underpin our economic security. This is taken immensely seriously right across the Government, including on the National Security Council.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your patience in getting us all in; it is much appreciated. I also thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. I agree that the sovereignty of Greenland is a matter for her own people, but I understand the dangers present, with the Russian threat and aggression. Rather than simply making statements of support for Greenland’s sovereignty, will the Foreign Secretary outline how we in this country, as close allies of the USA and as a nation that relies on the security of that area, will liaise with the USA and Greenland on enhancements of security and greater strategic facilitation, recognising that diplomacy is more than words but action, and actively seek solutions we can achieve?
Yvette Cooper
This is an important question to finish on, because the UK is proposing an new Arctic sentry as part of NATO. We already have a Baltic Sentry and an Eastern Sentry that pull together operations and co-ordination in a strategic way to look at the defence of those regions and how all NATO allies can pull together to support that. We believe the same is now needed for the Arctic. The Arctic is the gateway for the Russian northern fleet to threaten the whole of the transatlantic alliance. That is why we believe an Arctic sentry would be in everyone’s interests.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the next steps for the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, also known as the Hillsborough law.
As Members will be aware, the Bill was due to return to the Chamber today for its remaining Commons stages. From the very beginning we have been clear: it is a Bill for families, and it must have their voices and views at its heart. We remain absolutely committed to making meaningful changes for the families of Hillsborough, the Manchester terror attack, the Grenfell Tower fire, the sub-postmasters and, sadly, so many more.
The Bill is about something very simple: what people should be able to expect from the state when the worst, sadly, happens: candour, transparency, frankness and a system that stands with families, not against them—not a battle against the full might of the state. That is why the Bill is so important and is so long overdue, and it is why we will always be open to listening.
On Second Reading, the Prime Minister made a commitment that the Bill would not be watered down, and that any changes made to it will only strengthen it. We have always been clear that the Hillsborough law will apply to all public authorities, including the intelligence services. The Prime Minister was clear on Second Reading that the duty of candour would need to apply differently to the intelligence services, to get the right balance between transparency and national security. Last week, the Government brought forward several amendments to strengthen the Bill, including to extend the duty of candour directly to individuals working for the intelligence agencies, as well as to the authorities themselves. This was a direct response to concerns raised by MPs and campaigners.
There have been reports in the press that the Government wanted to water down aspects of the Bill. I want to take those claims head on, because, with respect, that was never, ever our intention. It is not what the amendments we proposed would have done. The amendments aimed to strengthen the Bill by extending the duty to individual employees of the intelligence services, as well as to the services as organisations. However, it is clear from our conversations with the families directly and with the stakeholders that there are concerns about how the accompanying safeguards we proposed will work in practice.
There will be questions about why we could not find a solution and why we need to delay when families have been clear on their views. I want to be clear that this is an incredibly complex area of policy. Across Government, we must think about all the possible scenarios and unintended consequences for national security, and then work together with Parliament, the Intelligence and Security Committee, the campaigners and, most of all, the families to find a way through.
It is right to acknowledge that this is not a simple issue to resolve. We are absolutely committed to the principles of the Bill: ensuring clear standards for all public servants and accountability for anyone who seeks to lie or cover up the truth. At the same time, our primary duty as the Government is to keep this country safe and secure. We must be able to assure our citizens and our allies that national security information will always be protected.
The Government remain resolutely committed to finding a way forward on this issue, which is why we have taken the decision to delay the remaining Commons stages of the Bill so that we can find a solution and bring it forward in this House. This pause is not a step back from our principles; it is a commitment to getting this right. I know that families have waited too long already. This decision is not one we took lightly, but we believe it is better to take the time needed to resolve the complex issues, rather than rush the Bill through.
I want to place on the record my deepest thanks to the families and stakeholders for all their continued work with us. It has been the biggest privilege for me, personally, to have had the opportunity to get to know them and to work alongside them over the last year—in particular Margaret Aspinall, Charlotte Hennessy, Sue Roberts, Steve Kelly, Jenni Hicks and Hilda Hammond, who I now personally count as my friends, and I hope they feel the same.
The Bill is about restoring trust between the public and the state. That trust cannot be demanded: it must be earned. It must be earned by showing the families that this legislation is not about appearances, not about headlines, not about being seen to act; it is about making real and lasting change. By listening to the families, and by taking time to get this right, that is exactly what we are doing. Because when things go wrong, the truth must come out. Accountability must follow and families must never, ever again be left to fight or walk alone. That is what the Bill will achieve, and I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State for Justice.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
What an absolute shambles. The Government have had long enough to work this out: the campaign for a Hillsborough law started 10 years ago, in 2016; Labour MPs started campaigning for it a year later, in 2017; in 2022, the Prime Minister adopted it as a formal Labour policy; in 2024, he put it in his manifesto, promising it would be one of his first acts as Prime Minister. Yet here we are today, after another set of rushed amendments, with yet another delay and another promise to get it right, but absolutely no idea what the Government are going to do or even when they are going to do it.
This problem was not some bolt out of the blue or unforeseeable surprise. How the Bill applies to the intelligence agencies is an obvious question that has been known for years, but it is a question that the Prime Minister—the man they used to call Mr Forensic—never thought to answer. Instead, he did what he always does: he made the campaigners one promise and made the intelligence agencies another. That is why, when the Bill’s Report stage was due last week, the Government pulled it. It is why, when it was due again today, they pulled it again, late last night. It is why, just now, the Minister was unable to say when the Government will bring forward their next attempt to get this right.
Right now, in the bowels of Whitehall, the Government are trying to draft their way through the problem—trying to find a form of words that will satisfy both the campaigners and the spooks. But I have news for the Minister: they cannot draft their way out of this problem. There is a choice to be made. If the Prime Minister believes it is dangerous to apply this law to the intelligence agencies in full, just as it is applied to other public bodies, then he simply should not do that. He needs to make a decision.
I have five questions for the Minister. I am not asking for classified information, so she need not use that defence. These are reasonable questions that she can answer. First, by what specific date will the Government return to Parliament with a new amendment to address this question? Secondly, do the Government still believe it is appropriate for the heads of the intelligence agencies to determine what information is provided to an investigation?
Thirdly, if the Government believe that somebody else should decide, who do they think that should be? Fourthly, if the Government believe that the decision rightly lies with the intelligence agencies, and that this is necessary for national security, are Ministers prepared to assert that difficult truth to the campaigners? Fifthly, what representations have the Government received from the Governments of other Five Eyes countries that do not have laws like this?
There are five questions; five clear answers are needed. After all this time, we deserve answers for the families who have suffered terrible tragedies, for the brave men and women who work every day to keep us safe, and for the country as a whole.
This completely avoidable situation is the fault of a pointless Prime Minister who has no idea what he wants to do and, even if he did, no idea how to do it. He made a promise but had no idea how to keep it. He made that promise not once, but five times in this House alone. As with tax and spend, jury trials, ID cards and more, the contradictions are piling up. The Government talk about a duty of candour, but if the Minister was to show some candour now, she would admit that this has been, from start to finish, an absolute mess.
Alex Davies-Jones
I do not know how the Opposition dare. It is utterly shameful. I know that the shadow Secretary of State knows how complex this all is and how much it means to everyone involved. His party did nothing to solve this issue—the Conservatives did nothing for the families or to bring forward a duty of candour. He asks me to be candid, so I will be candid. This is about righting an injustice and preventing people wronged by injustice from going through absolute hell. To try to make political hay from this matter is disgraceful, and he should be called out for it.
The hon. Gentleman has been in the job for only a few days, and I was going to sincerely welcome him to his position and hope that we could work collegiately on this legislation for the families and the victims of these horrendous state cover-ups. However, I advise him that following in the footsteps of his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), by attention seeking at all costs does not end well.
To answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions, we will continue to work with the families, to listen and to work with the intelligence services and other partners to ensure that the Bill is brought back to the House when it is fit and proper.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
I must say to the new shadow Justice Secretary that we have been trying to do this since I was elected in 2019, and we could not even get a seat at the table with the Government then, so to cast aspersions—[Interruption.]
Ian Byrne
I’ll move on.
I thank the Minister for the statement and for the pause. A lot of people were extremely concerned about what was happening over the weekend, myself included, so I think the pause is the right thing to do. This is not just a law or a piece of legislation; this is a legacy. This is about the 97 men, women and children who died at Hillsborough, but also those who have been wronged at the hands of the state. This is hugely important, and it is not party political. It is for the whole House to make sure it is done right.
I would like to ask the Minister why amendment 23, which I tabled and which has the full support of everybody connected to Hillsborough, has not been adopted by the Government. Why is it deemed not to be right and proper to be adopted by the Government? It would solve all our issues. Any clarification on that would be great.
Could the Minister also give us a timeline? As she rightly stated, we have waited a long, long time for this, and there is a real concern now that the Bill could be kicked into the long grass. I know the Minister does not want that; she knows I do not want that. All the families and campaigners do not want that either. I just ask for a little clarity on those two questions.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank and pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his diligent campaigning on this matter throughout his entire life as a parliamentarian, and for his commitment to ensuring that the voices of the families are always heard inside and outside this place. I make the commitment to him that the Government are listening to the campaigners and committed to doing all we can to work on a way forward. We will work with him, with other parliamentarians and with the Intelligence and Security Committee to find that way forward on this complex and difficult issue. I am committed to having a meeting with him to discuss that further.
On a timeline, we know that families have waited too long. The Bill is not just overdue; it is far too overdue, and it is needed more than ever. However, it has to be right, and we have to get the balance right. We are not kicking the Bill into the long grass; we are committed to doing this as soon as possible, but we have to get it right. I am not setting an arbitrary deadline here—the families have asked me not to, because they want us to get it right. We are committed to doing that and to getting this policy correct. As soon as we have more information, I will bring that forward to the House.
My hon. Friend mentioned his specific amendment. Again, I am happy to speak with him on that and discuss it going forward. Again, I make the commitment that we will work together to get this right.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Liberal Democrat Members recognise that the Minister has worked to move the Bill forwards, and has given a lot of care and attention to trying to get it into this place, but the situation is frustrating for those on both sides of the House. This landmark legislation will transform the relationship between public bodies and victims of horrendous tragedies. It was this Government and this Prime Minister who committed to its implementation in full in the Labour manifesto, yet we find ourselves again in limbo.
The carve-out for security services is completely unacceptable and has ground this process to a halt. It is vital that the legislation includes clear, binding provisions to ensure that the security services are subject to the duty of candour. Despite much of the rhetoric around this, there are clear ways to include the security services in this duty while still protecting sensitive national security information. We already do it, as the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) alluded to in speaking to his amendment 23, which I am pleased to have supported.
Provisions already exist to allow evidence that is too sensitive for public disclosure to be heard in closed proceedings before a judge in inquiries, so there is no issue there. Heads of service must be held to account if they refuse to provide relevant information to inquiries and investigations, but it is not for them to decide what is relevant to an inquiry or investigation; that is up to the independent chair of that inquiry. Campaigners raised this issue as early as last September, and Ministers were made fully aware that this was a red line for victims and their families.
I trust that the Minister has had the families at the forefront of her mind in everything that she has done, so I ask her: when the Government present their Bill to the House of Commons, will the duty of candour apply to all in the intelligence services? Will she commit to ensuring that Report and Third Reading of the Bill will take place as soon as possible, so that there is a chance that the legislation will pass prior to the end of this parliamentary Session and the next King’s Speech, as promised, and will she give a cast-iron guarantee that it will be in this place that we put the full Hillsborough law forward, not the other place, so that elected representatives can fully scrutinise the finished legislation?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions, for their tone, and for her candour; it is appreciated by the Government. I recognise and share her frustration, and that of the House, about how this process has been conducted. This is no ordinary Bill; it is something more than that, and it deserves proper scrutiny in this place, which we will ensure it receives. The Bill will come back to the House of Commons for adequate scrutiny before it goes to the Lords—we have made that commitment today.
There has never been a carve-out for the intelligence services. The duty of candour and assistance has always applied to them. The amendments that the Government tabled apply directly to individual employees of the intelligence services. The difference has always been on the procedures in place for how we handle secure information, but we are committed to finding a way forward for the benefit of everyone, and to doing so as soon as possible. I cannot give a definitive timeline, but we will do it at pace, with the families and the intelligence services. We have to get this right. The Bill will come to this House first, and I am committed to ensuring that it applies to all public servants.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the families, some of whom are in the Public Gallery; to Elkan Abrahamson and Pete Weatherby KC, who have done phenomenal work for the past 37 years; and of course, to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), and to the Minister for the work that she has done on this.
While I am pleased that the Government have paused proceedings on the Hillsborough law, I am increasingly concerned about the direction of travel. In March last year, the families of the 97 and Merseyside MPs made it clear that we would not accept anything less than the Hillsborough law. We all understand the importance of national security, but this Bill is not incompatible with national security. As has been said, provisions already exist, and quite frankly, nobody is above the law. A carve-out for the security and intelligence services would only allow the behaviour exposed by the Manchester Arena inquiry to happen again, whereby MI5 were able to withhold information and avoid accountability.
The Minister has been very patient in her responses, but I urge her to continue to work with the families, and with Elkan Abrahamson and Pete Weatherby. Please, Minister, bring the Hillsborough law back to this House, so that we can all pass it, because as a Liverpool MP, it would devastate me to vote against the Hillsborough law.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her questions, and I make that commitment to her. The Prime Minister was clear on Second Reading that the Bill as introduced was agreed with Hillsborough Law Now and the families, and would not be watered down. We will do all that we can to strengthen the Bill. We will continue to work with the families. I, too, pay tribute to Elkan Abrahamson and Pete Weatherby, whom the Government met this morning to discuss next steps. We met the families again today to discuss ongoing collaboration, which will continue. The families will be at the forefront of this, because this is their Bill. This is a legacy, and we want to ensure that we do right by them and bring forward the Hillsborough law.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her statement, and ask her for two points of clarification. Does she believe that it is appropriate for the heads of the intelligence services to determine what information is provided to an investigation, or should that be determined by someone else, and does she accept that in the early stages of the Bill, the Government were clear that it would not be possible to make the Bill applicable to individual agents? How can the House have confidence that we can now do that without creating unacceptable risks to national security?
Alex Davies-Jones
The primary objective of this Government, and I hope of every Government, is to protect national security and to keep our citizens safe. That is, and will continue to be, of utmost importance to this Government and to this Prime Minister. We will continue to work with the intelligence services. We have had a very collaborative working relationship with them during the development of this Bill. That relationship will continue. We would never do anything that would jeopardise or undermine national security; we have been very clear about that. The families have also been very clear that that is not their intention, and they totally understand this. We think there is a way forward. The Government introduced amendments to ensure that the Bill applied to individual agents, and we did that by working with the heads of the intelligence services directly and with the security services. We will continue to work collaboratively with them and with the families on finding a way forward.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
The response of the shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), while families are sitting with us in the Public Gallery, was one that he should be ashamed of. As the Minister knows, for me, this has always been about families first. It is crystal clear that the Government cannot progress the Bill without the full confidence and support of the families who have fought for decades for justice, and it is right that the Government listen to the families and pause today. The Prime Minister made a direct promise to those families that the Hillsborough law would be delivered in full. Any amendment that fails to satisfy the families on the duty of candour of individuals in the security services is a red line for me and for so many other colleagues in this place. Will the Minister promise me that she will work like the clappers with the families to introduce an amendment that has their full support, and that she will deliver justice for all victims of state cover-ups, so that we can finally say, “Never again”?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend, and commend her on her tenacious campaigning on this issue. She has been a true champion for the Hillsborough families, and for all the families impacted by state failure and state cover-ups. She is a true friend to everyone who needs their voice to be heard in this place. I can make a commitment to her that we will continue to work with the families, the intelligence services and the Intelligence and Security Committee to find a way forward. I am committed to working with her and other parliamentarians on this issue. This has always been a collaborative process. I am always keen to work cross-party, despite what the official Opposition have to say, because this is above party politics. It always has been. It is about ensuring that we find a way forward that can benefit the families and be a true legacy, while ensuring that we protect national security.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
In my past life, I spent a good deal of time working on matters affecting victims of child sex abuse and trafficking, so I have a lot of sympathy with the Government’s desire to ensure that the Bill, in its final form, is workable, but it seems there is already a serious risk of ambiguity around the accountability at the heart of the Bill. How does the Minister propose to ensure that there is effective oversight of the decision-making process about disclosure? If it is her view that it is not the heads of the intelligence services who should make that decision, can she share with the House her view on who should make that decision, so that we can be confident that there will be appropriate oversight of the disclosure process?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He knows that this is a very complex issue, and that it is not an easy problem to solve, but we are committed to solving it, and we will continue to work with the heads of the intelligence services, the Intelligence and Security Committee, parliamentarians, the families, the Foreign Office, the Home Office and all Government Departments to ensure that we get this right and that there is protection, oversight, accountability and an amendment that the families can support. They do not want to see national security compromised. No one does. We are not prepared to go there, but we are prepared to do the right thing, and to ensure that there is candour across all public authorities.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
The Minister was right when she said that trust has to be earned. I believe that she is really putting her heart and soul into earning the trust of the families. I thank her for her work in doing so, and I hope that it leads us to a satisfactory conclusion. Not everyone affected by Hillsborough is as close as the Minister is to the very important considerations that she has to balance, or indeed to the vagaries of parliamentary procedure and the way that Bills pass into law. Our constituents might only read the lurid headlines, or about the party political point scoring, and they see stories about the Bill being watered down or delayed. It is not great for people to read that, so I urge the Minister to make sure that the next time she, or anyone in the Government, makes a statement publicly on this Bill, it is to say that agreement has been reached, and it can go ahead.
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome that question from my hon. Friend, who, as the MP for Merseyside and Ellesmere Port, has been a vocal champion for the families at every stage of this process. It has been a privilege to work with him and other colleagues on this directly. He is right. This Bill might colloquially be called the Hillsborough law, and many people outside this place who are not aware of the issues might think it is about a tragic football match that happened 36 years ago, but it is about so much more than that. This Bill will provide the biggest expansion of legal aid for a generation to anyone who has been affected by a death in which the state had a role, and it will be non-means-tested legal aid for the first time ever.
The Bill will also ensure that all public servants and authorities are bound by a legal and criminalised duty of candour. It will bring in new criminal offences of misleading the public and of misconduct in public office. This will be a truly landmark Bill that will change the culture of British life for the better, forever. That is what is at stake here. That is why this Bill is so important, and we are committed to bringing it forward as soon as possible, but we need to get it right for everyone. That is what the Government are committed to doing.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I thank the Minister for her statement. I know that she is a woman on a mission, and let us hope that we get to the end of this before terribly long. We know that the Government are struggling with accepting the families’ wish that we should pick up amendment 23 and its consequential amendments. I am mystified about the business of a balance being struck between intelligence services personnel being transparent and the protection of national security, because my understanding was that we already had that balance; national security is safeguarded by the fact that in any inquiry, the release of sensitive information happens in closed session, via a High Court judge.
Schedule 1 includes a carve-out for the intelligence and security services, who are proven not to have told the truth. That is a dreadful shame. I am told that we have to trust what is said, but that seems entirely inappropriate, as the heads of the security services have unfortunately shown themselves not to be trustworthy. People talk about our allies being able to trust us, but if the heads of the security services are lying, I do not know how our allies are meant to trust us. Will the Minister please tell us what the problem is with amendment 23? It has been put together by Pete Wetherby, Elkan and others, and the families support it. Why can we not just agree to it?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for her service on the Public Bill Committee. Her thoughtful contributions there have made the Bill better. I will cite the great Pete Wetherby KC now at this Dispatch Box, and I hope I do him justice: there is no balance to be struck on national security, because national security should always come first. That is Pete Wetherby’s position, that is the families’ position, and that is the Government’s position. The Government always have to protect national security, and we will always do that, but the families have a right to the truth. I want to restate that there is no carve-out in this Bill for the intelligence services. They will be bound by a legal duty of candour, and it will apply to individual agents. All we need to do is find the mechanism by which that information is passed on to an investigation or inquiry. We are working at pace with the intelligence services and the families to find a way forward. This is very complex. It sounds simple, but I assure the hon. Lady that it is not. I am a woman on a mission, and I am determined to do this as soon as possible, but we need to get it right, and that is what this Government will do.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her statement, and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for the leadership that he has shown on this. It is right that we have a pause, but the Minister will know how distressing this is for the families, and about the emotional and physical toll that going back and forth to and from Parliament for decades has had on them. They came so close to this Bill being passed, only to encounter further disappointments and setbacks. This is the only experience that my constituents whose children were killed in the Manchester arena attack have had of meetings in Parliament to date, so can she assure us that when the Bill comes back, every single part of it will have the full involvement and support of the campaigners and families, and that there will be no more short-notice, unexpected amendments from the Government?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I want to place on the record my sincere thanks to her for all her tenacious campaigning on behalf of her constituents who have been through the unimaginable pain, trauma and grief of losing their children in the most horrific circumstances and then being denied the truth. It was a privilege to meet her constituents with the Prime Minister last week and to hear their truth, and I thank them again from the Dispatch Box for sharing their pain with us and sharing directly why this Bill is so important and why we need to get it right. Hearing their truth and hearing from the families is exactly why the Government have taken the decision to pause this legislation so that we can get it right. We are determined to do that by working with the families and hearing from them, and by working with the intelligence services.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Looking at the wider implications of the Bill, the Minister talks about the intelligence services. Can she confirm whether there is a carve-out for military intelligence services in any way? Looking at that more broadly still, will it also apply to special forces operations and personnel, and will it be applied retrospectively?
Alex Davies-Jones
It is important to put on the record that there is absolutely no carve-out here. The Bill will apply to all public authorities, including the armed forces and all intelligence services. We have worked collaboratively with our armed forces and with the Ministry of Defence in the design and creation of the legislation, and we will continue to do so. As I have said, the primary objective of this Government is to protect national security, and we will do that at all costs, but we also need to ensure that the families’ experiences are reflected in the Bill and that we get the legislation right, and that is exactly what we will do.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I welcome the delay to the Bill. Too often Governments soldier on even when they are not getting things right, and that leads to bad legislation. This is something that we should get right before we send it to the other place.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) said, this is not just about the Hillsborough families, and I pay tribute to them for what they have done on behalf of others who have been wronged by the state. I say as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood that it is also about the people who were wronged in that scandal. It is about the nuclear test veterans, those wronged in the Horizon scandal in the Post Office and many others. What they have all shown us is that the state will lie to defend itself, and we do need this duty of candour for all, including the security services, who can give evidence in camera, so that they tell the truth to the public when they get things wrong, and so we can learn from it and move forwards.
Alex Davies-Jones
My hon. Friend is right. This is a Bill for everyone who has been wronged and lied to and who has been subject to failures of the state when it was meant to protect them. This Bill is for much more than just the Hillsborough families; it is for the victims of the contaminated blood scandal, the LABRATS, the sub-postmasters, the victims of the Grenfell tragedy and, sadly, many more. It is for every citizen in this country who potentially could be caught up in this. It is about looking forward and getting this right for decades to come to ensure that when something goes wrong, the state, which is meant to protect people, tell them the truth and be open with transparency, frankness and candour, does just that. We will ensure that the Bill does that before it leaves the Commons.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I pay tribute to the Minister for the constructive, collaborative and collegiate way in which she has worked, and I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). That is in stark contrast with the disgraceful words from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), and his behaviour in this statement. This whole process has been marked by parties of all shades and hues working together. In that spirit, I want to reassure the Hillsborough families that that is the way in which we have proceeded on our work in association with the Bill, and we will continue to do so.
I endorsed amendment 23—I think it is sound—and Pete Weatherby has also endorsed my amendment 20, which provides a simple role for the Intelligence and Security Committee. My question to the Minister is simple: when we see the next draft of the Bill, will there be a role for the ISC?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and comments. I pay tribute to him for his collaborative work, collegiate tone and all his constructive work in the Bill Committee—the Bill is better for it. The Bill is and always has been above party politics. For anyone to seek to use it for political gain is truly shameful and disgraceful. It is all about the victims and their families, and it always will be. I will ensure that we continue to work with him and the rest of the SNP, the Liberal Democrats and any party that chooses to work collaboratively as the Bill progresses. I can assure him that there will be a role for the ISC; we will work with all partners and agencies to ensure that we get the Bill right.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her update and her acknowledgment of how important it is that the families who have suffered so much and campaigned so hard are satisfied by the final wording of the Bill. What assurances can she give us that the Government will provide the leadership, training and resources to change the culture of cover-up and minimalist responses, and ensure that people get the full truth the first time around?
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome my hon. Friend’s important question, which goes to the heart of exactly what the Bill is about. It is all very well for us to write fancy words on goatskin and ermine, but if we do not change the culture—the aim at the heart of the Bill—this process will have been pointless. We must change the culture, and the legislation is partly about that, but it is also about ensuring that we get the implementation right. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and I are heading to Liverpool next week to see how we can learn from the world-leading work of the University of Liverpool on changing the culture through a duty of candour for public authorities. We are continuing that work at pace; none of it is stopping. We are continuing to work jointly on the Bill’s implementation, and on getting it right once it becomes law, while simultaneously developing the policy. I look forward to updating the House on that work.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I, too, thank the Minister very much for the statement. I also thank the Liverpool MPs, who have worked very hard to achieve balance in the Bill between citizens and the priority status of security agencies. As the Minister said, it is time for the Government to get this right, and that is what we should be doing.
My colleague Paul Frew, a Member of the Legislative Assembly back home, is taking a candour Bill through the Assembly. The obligation must apply across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. May I ask the Minister a favour, if she does not mind? Will she work with the Northern Ireland Assembly, and with my colleague, to ensure that everyone will benefit, no matter whether they are in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland?
Alex Davies-Jones
It gives me great pleasure to confirm that, to take this forward, we have had fantastic collaboration with the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Government. Everyone has collectively been pursuing the aims of the Bill, which has been a true joy for me as a Member of Parliament from a nation with a devolved Government. All nations have given legislative consent for the criminal offences to apply UK-wide—that is positive. We will bring that amendment forward when the Bill comes back to the Commons. We continue to work collaboratively across the United Kingdom to ensure that a duty of candour applies to all public authorities in the United Kingdom.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The campaign for the Hillsborough law—not “a” Hillsborough law—has been this country’s greatest and most defining campaign for justice led by ordinary people in the modern era. I am very pleased that the Government pulled back at the weekend from what would have been—regardless of any good intentions—a betrayal of that campaign. The choice that the Prime Minister now makes will come to define his domestic legacy when all is done and dusted.
Will the Minister put on the record the understanding that those of us with closer proximity to power than the people who have campaigned courageously for this law have a tendency to be too trusting of others in powerful institutions? The security services sometimes let people down, and they sometimes do not effectively protect the lives of people in our country, so a duty of candour should apply to them, too. Will the Minister confirm that the amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) is not off the table and will now be fully and properly considered before the Bill comes back to this House?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his questions and comments, and I can reassure him and everyone again that the duty of candour will apply to all public servants, including the intelligence services and individual agents. That is the intent and it will be in this legislation. We will work with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) to ensure that we get this right. We will work with the families who have that lived experience. The Prime Minister has heard from them directly about why it is so important that the intelligence services are captured, and they will be by the duty of candour in this legislation. We will work together to ensure that we get the legislation right.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Will the Minister update the House on the progress made in her positive discussions with the Scottish Government relating to the provisions of non-means tested legal aid? Will Scottish families enjoy the same access to justice as those in the rest of our United Kingdom, and at the same time?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that question and again thank him for his service on the Public Bill Committee. It was fantastic to have another Member of Parliament from a devolved nation represented on the Bill Committee to discuss why it is so important that everyone in the United Kingdom should benefit from this legislation. I am pleased to confirm that the Scottish Government have indicated that they would like to be part of the mechanism for legal aid, and they have asked us to include them in this legislation. Those discussions are ongoing. It will, of course, be for the Scottish Government to determine the methodology for how they determine who gets legal aid for their fatal accident inquiries and inquests. Those discussions are ongoing, but we have had very positive discussions with the Scottish Government.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I travelled through Manchester Victoria station on the day of the arena bombing and I saw the young people on their way into that concert. They were young, vibrant, excited, happy—all the things that they deserved to be, doing the most normal thing in the world: going to see a concert. It was one of the most shocking moments of my life a few hours later to hear that they had been the victims of a terrorist attack. It is painful to me that they were let down by the state and by false narratives. Almost a decade later, I am glad that the families are being listened to. I thank the Minister for her assurance that we are going to take the time to get this right. Can she please confirm that the voices of all the victims and all the families of state cover-ups and of these tragedies will be at the centre of any legislation that comes forward from this point on?
Disclosure and Barring Service
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I am pleased to have secured this debate on the Disclosure and Barring Service. It is my hope that I can shine a light on some of the shortcomings of the current system and that the Minister will consider my proposed improvements so we can help families protect their loved ones, reduce the burden on voluntary groups, and speed up employment processes. Tonight, I want to make the case that the DBS system as it currently operates is not fit for purpose. Its loopholes cost lives, undermine trust and leave families exposed. In its current form, the DBS introduced enhanced checks that include not only a search of an individual’s criminal record, but checks against barred lists, providing a more comprehensive assessment of an individual’s suitability for specific roles, especially those involving vulnerable groups. The system is an integral part of employment in appropriate sectors, and should offer assurance to families as well as employers and voluntary organisations.
When a parent drives away from a dance class, a scout group or a swimming lesson, they assume that the organisation has established that the employee or volunteer has no criminal record, and does not present a risk to their child. At the heart of the problem, however, is the fact that thousands of roles involving unsupervised contact with children or vulnerable adults are eligible for DBS checks, but are not required to have them. Eligibility in itself is not protection, and families assume that protections exist where they simply do not.
I want to start by sharing the tragic story of Lauren, a promising performer who lost her life in 2020 after an accidental drugs overdose. In November 2019, two separate safeguarding allegations were made about someone relating to the supply of class A drugs to Lauren and her friend. That person was eligible for—and in my view should have been required to undergo—enhanced DBS clearance, but it seems the relevant information never made it to the Disclosure and Barring Service. The teacher continued to work with the children and allegations of other inappropriate activities were later made. Sadly, Lauren had by then been exposed to drugs and became involved with someone who continued to supply her with them. By August 2020, she had died.
When I made inquiries, the DBS could find no record of the organisation, so I could not establish whether the teacher was registered, or even whether the organisation had obtained checks on any of its other staff. The Disclosure and Barring Service told me that it has no jurisdiction over whether an employer or safeguarding lead should take action; its role is only to record whether the legal duty to refer an incident has been met. It told me that any failure to investigate lay with the employer and whoever regulates the employer, but as there is no regulator for dance schools, I met another dead end.
That raises two issues. First, is it appropriate for someone to provide hands-on, unsupervised sport or dance activities without the expectation of an enhanced DBS check? Secondly, do parents not have the right to know whether someone undertaking such work has clearance to work with children and vulnerable people?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate; I spoke to her beforehand about the incredibly important issues that she is raising. Does she agree that child safety must be paramount? The Government need to clarify paid and voluntary sector rules—for example, how often should screening be done and how often should mandatory child protection training be carried out? Too much is left to best practice, which differs across all the regions, and not enough is clear and unequivocal. The time has come to make obligations crystal clear.
Vikki Slade
The hon. Gentleman is exactly right: assumptions are being made around the country. As the mother of four children, I assumed, as I dropped off my children, that everybody had to be DBS checked. The idea that that is not strictly the case fills me with dread. When I talked to the people from the Campaign for Gigi this afternoon about nursery safety, I shared this issue with them, and they were horrified. Clearly, people working in an early years setting are required to have an enhanced DBS check, but they were concerned about other sectors, too.
As I am sure the Minister can understand, Lauren’s grandfather Paul, who brought this case to my attention, and Lauren’s parents remain concerned that if the coach had been reported to the DBS at the time of the original allegations and potentially withdrawn from working with children, Lauren, who was described as
“a talented singer and dancer with the world at her feet”
may not have been introduced to illegal drugs and could well have been continuing to enjoy a very bright future. Additionally, there does not seem to be a route for the public to report concerns. If the employer has not registered a member of staff, or an organisation has not been deemed to be undertaking a “regulated activity”, as the council told me the dance school was not, there is no one to document the concerns and no register to check.
I welcome the DBS’s new video, which was launched before Christmas, to support faith organisations with the legal duty to refer. The legal duty to refer requires organisations to notify the DBS when they remove a person from a regulated activity because they have harmed or may pose a risk of harm, but it does not protect those in the care of an individual who has not been registered by their employer in the first place. I welcome the changes made in the Crime and Policing Bill, which will close the loophole for supervised staff, ensuring that they will be eligible for checks against the children’s barred list. I also welcome the Minister’s work to ensure that that happened earlier last year.
Those are positive steps, but I have two questions. First, will the Government consider requiring employers and organisations to register their staff, rather than just making them eligible, and will they require the police, local authority or regulator to record allegations made against the organisation where an individual is not registered? Secondly, have the Government considered a simpler system? For example, there could be a system in which an individual applies for a card that could be searched by an employer, a parent or a service user to confirm that an individual has been cleared to work with children or vulnerable people. The card could include a “date of most recent update” section—that way, details of past convictions do not necessarily need to be shared, but a timeline of when people have been deemed safe to be around vulnerable people could be.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
My hon. Friend raises very good points on this matter. There are two issues that I have always seen with the DBS check. First, like an MOT, it is only as good as the date when it is issued, and people do not have to subscribe to the update service. Does she agree that updates should be mandatory? Secondly, a DBS check cannot be passed from one organisation to another—people need a fresh one every time—which seems to be an unnecessary waste of time. Does my hon. Friend agree that her card idea would probably solve that?
Vikki Slade
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. People have to pay extra to be part of the update system. Why would anyone pay extra to put themselves under additional scrutiny? Why is that not automatic?
The other option, which has been suggested by some, is that the Government could consider a right to ask/right to know process for family members. That would ensure that the public could not have free and easy access to information that could be risky, but if they had a concern, there would be a route for them to find out. We were simply stonewalled every time that we tried to find out whether this teacher had been registered and whether those allegations had been made.
Let me turn to another situation, which has come up on a number of occasions, relating to people who are caring for family members. DBS checks currently have to be undertaken by an employer, a registered organisation or an umbrella organisation. That increases costs, adds delays and makes it more complex for families using direct payments for the care of disabled children and for those starting the journey of caring for an elderly relative.
Laura contacted me about the direct payments that she receives to fund the care of her son, noting that she cannot directly access DBS checks. She said that
“my very vulnerable son, quadriplegic with cerebral palsy and profound multiple learning disabilities has a team of 15 carers none of whom have DBS checks.”
She asks why the law does not allow parents to carry out DBS checks on carers, who are
“working often alone in our home”.
Another constituent, Sandra, is in a similar position. She said:
“We had a carer a few years ago, who had been lone working with our daughter at night for over a year, with a current DBS check. We had a call from Child Protective Services—the carer had tried to smother her own child”.
They later discovered that the reason why the carer’s other child lived with grandparents was because she had tried to smother the older child, and they had been removed from her care. The man from the child protection services said, “It probably should have been on her DBS,” but it was not. As a result, Sandra said, “What is the point? There is no reason for me to get a DBS check—it would not have protected my child.”
I have also been contacted by Louise, from another part of Dorset, who approached me due to my dementia champion work. After her husband Richard was diagnosed with dementia, she decided to try to care for him at home. Her job meant that she went away for a few days at a time, and she felt that the best option was to find a carer to stay in her home with Richard. My colleagues in Somerset may remember this story, as it was in the local paper.
Louise’s experience led to her starting a campaign for Richard’s law, which I said that I would take up. The law has three simple pillars—so simple that I was shocked they were not already in place. Those three pillars are mandatory registration of all care workers; mandatory enhanced DBS checks, with all carers required to join the update service; and mandatory, nationally recognised training for care staff in first aid, medication compliance, manual handling, dementia awareness and safeguarding. I find it hard to believe that a person can be a carer without all of those things being in place.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
What my hon. Friend has said puts me in mind of another case in a village not far from where I live, where a cleaner was systematically thieving from elderly and vulnerable residents. This went on for years, and every time the person nearly got caught or was interviewed by the police, they just left their job and moved on. This is exactly why we need to do something to make the system far better, because elderly and vulnerable people have no way to be absolutely certain that when they give somebody their card to get some money so that they can pay the carer, something will not go desperately wrong and the rest of their money will not disappear.
Vikki Slade
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Today, the headline in the Bournemouth Echo is about another case involving a carer, who stole £125,000 from an elderly person. The case I am describing is not a one-off.
Louise told me about a carer who was coming into her home and who she had trusted. The basic DBS check was all she had, but after the carer stole jewellery and cash from her home, it came to light that this woman had three previous convictions for theft and obtaining property by deception, including a suspended sentence for an almost identical offence. In her victim statement, Louise said:
“I welcomed her into our home, believing she was there to help us through one of the hardest chapters of our lives. Instead, she exploited our vulnerability in the most callous way imaginable. The worst thing she stole was my trust. Her betrayal destroyed my ability to believe in the carers who were supposed to support us. I reached a breaking point where I could no longer allow outside help, and as a direct result, I had to make the heartbreaking decision to place my husband in residential care. This was never what I wanted for him, and it has changed both of our lives immeasurably, for the worse. The weight of that decision, forced upon me by her selfishness, is something I carry every day.”
Sadly, Richard Woollam died on Boxing day—Louise contacted me a few days later to tell me that I had not managed to have this debate while he was still with us. However, it seems shocking that family carers who are already sacrificing so much are unable to access DBS checks for those who are coming into their homes, and that someone who is providing such personal care is not automatically required to have such checks and training. Provision of personal registration would allow those who are working directly for their employers—be they carers, cleaners, tutors, babysitters, drivers or personal trainers—to provide security for families, particularly families who are home educating their children, and to work across multiple employers with ease.
Finally, over the past few months, we in this place have spoken on numerous occasions about improving the service provided by Government agencies. From two-year waits for shotgun licences to nine-month delays in responses to MPs’ letters to the Department for Work and Pensions—if the Minister is listening, I have been waiting since February for an answer to a simple request—and a Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency that does not bother to chase doctors’ letters at all, I have been shocked by the poor service experienced by my residents in times of need.
Where an enhanced DBS check is needed for an employee to take up their position, it is so important that it is processed swiftly. In theory, such checks should be completed within a fortnight, but in Dorset, the police are advising that delays can be up to 100 days. Daniel from Wareham has explained that this problem is impacting his ability to move forward with professional opportunities. He said that when he worked abroad, background checks often came back within a few hours, and that the
“current manual processes just feel so outdated and inefficient, especially when so many people—students and employees alike—need these certificates to do their jobs or continue their studies.”
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the speed of DBS checks. My constituent Marcia had a DBS check, but needed an enhanced DBS check to move into a child’s residential home for work, and was at risk of losing that job opportunity if the DBS check did not come back. Given that it had taken seven months to get the original DBS check, Marcia had very little faith that the enhanced one was going to arrive on time. Does my hon. Friend agree that when people are looking for job opportunities, they need to be able to respond quickly?
Vikki Slade
My hon. Friend makes a great point, and it is exactly the situation that Tabitha from Wimborne told me about. She said:
“I am desperate to work…this is a big problem for not only my life and finances but also for others who are surely out there…who are like me, waiting for more than three months… I have been a TA (teaching assistant) previously and all my prior DBSs came back within a month.”
She said it is absolutely ridiculous. Dorset is not alone in this. Across the country, families, volunteers and employers face similar failures, with delays, loopholes and an opaque system that simply does not keep pace with modern care and employment.
The Disclosure and Barring Service exists to make recruitment safer and to protect vulnerable people from those who may present a risk. Those are both worthy aims, but the system is not working. We need: mandatory registration of anyone working with children or vulnerable adults; mandatory enhanced DBS checks and use of the update service; a central, individual-held clearance card; a public mechanism to report concerns; the ability for families directly employing people to access DBS checks themselves; faster processing times via a digital system; and a review of the definition of regulated activity. These failures are not administrative inconveniences; they are risks to life and safety, and they reduce productivity too. The people I have spoken about tonight have paid the price for a system that is too complex, too slow and too optional. We owe it to them, and to every family in this country, to build a DBS system worthy of the trust that people place in it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) very much for securing this debate on an important issue. I am grateful to her and to all others who have contributed this evening. A good amount of ground has been covered, even in the relatively short time available, so I will respond to the various points that have been made.
First, I ask for the House’s indulgence as I set out some of the factual background of the Disclosure and Barring Service. The wider disclosure and barring regime is there to protect children and vulnerable adults through the disclosure of relevant criminal records, helping employers to make informed recruitment decisions about the suitability of an individual to work with those groups. It does so through criminal record checks, with the standard, enhanced and enhanced with barred lists levels. Increasing criminal record information is disclosed at each level. The roles and activities that are eligible for the higher-level criminal records check are set out in legislation owned by the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. During the last reported year, the DBS issued a total of 7.2 million certificates.
The regime also allows for barring by the DBS of those who are considered to pose a risk, as has been covered. If someone is barred, they cannot work in what is defined as regulated activity in our legislation. As has been identified, regulated activity and institutions that are regulated are two different things—I make that completely clear. Examples of regulated activity include teaching, supervising children and providing health and personal care to children and adults. It does not matter whether it is voluntary or otherwise. Through the relevant arrangements, the DBS ensures that those it has barred cannot work in those roles and have access to vulnerable groups. The DBS’s most recent annual report states that 104,000 individuals are on its children and adults barred lists. I should note that the disclosure and barring regime is not, as has been pointed out, a vetting regime.
The disclosure and barring regime focuses on providing employers with information on people, whether that is criminal records, relevant police information or barred list status. This can support robust suitability decisions while allowing ex-offenders to get back into work and employment. As Parliament and the public would expect, the regime is kept under review to ensure that it is effectively delivering on its key objectives, and I am always keen to hear suggestions, especially those, as laid out by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, that are based in real life—IRL, as my children would say—with regard to our constituents.
We are bringing in changes to respond to the DBS-related recommendations from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. First, a measure in the Crime and Policing Bill will prevent those on the barred list from working closely with children, even in supervised roles working alongside somebody with a DBS certificate. Currently, if a role involving teaching, instructing or supervising children is supervised by another member of staff, it is not considered to be “regulated activity” under the legislation. This means that an employer can ask only for an enhanced DBS check, which does not include a check of the barred list. That creates a risk that a barred-list individual could work as a volunteer in a school, or as an employee in a youth club or other setting, if supervised. We agree with the inquiry that the risk is too high, and we are changing the law accordingly.
Secondly, we are enabling self-employed or personal employees to access higher-level DBS checks if they work with children or vulnerable adults. The relevant provision will come into force on Wednesday—completely coincidentally! Before we made that change, people such as private tutors or paid personal carers could only access a basic DBS check, while their counterparts in settings such as schools or care homes would be expected to obtain the highest level of DBS check.
Tessa Munt
Should DBS checks not have a start date and a finish date, so that people who are not particularly worldly are clear about the beginning and the end, and understand that when the end date comes, a new check will be needed?
Jess Phillips
I will come on to that when I pick up some of the issues of portability from one person to another. However, from Wednesday those hiring personal carers, or families engaging private tutors, will have access to the same high level of check, with the same level of information, including information about whether a person is barred by the DBS.
Thirdly, we have enabled the disclosure of an individual’s barred-list status on the international child protection certificate.
Vikki Slade
Will people have to go through some of the umbrella agencies, which can charge a lot of money? Will there be a cost differential for those individuals?
Jess Phillips
That is a very good question. There does seem to be a bit of a discrepancy. I know that when the hon. Lady was looking through different regulated systems to get people checked in her own area, they were found wanting. Individuals, families or those who want to employ a tutor or a carer on a self-employed basis, whether or not that involves direct payments, will have access to the enhanced check.
I pay tribute to Richard and the campaign of his brilliant wife Louise: she is absolutely on the money. The right to ask is a fundamental part of the system, and from Wednesday—give me 48 hours—parents will have that power. If I were sending my child to a tutor—which I have done, like many other people across the country—I would be able to ask whether that tutor had had an enhanced check. It may not be possible to access all the information, but it will be possible to question and scrutinise employers as well, to ensure that that is done. Parents will have that power.
As I have said, we understand that child protection is international. The ICPC, issued by the ACRO Criminal Records Office, is used for individuals who intend to work with children overseas. We changed the relevant legislation on 18 December, reducing the risk that an overseas employer could unknowingly hire a barred person to work with children and thereby meeting the third of the inquiry’s recommendations relating to the disclosure of criminal records.
Overall, our approach is underpinned by an unwavering commitment to safeguarding through the proportionate disclosure of criminal records and other relevant information. It is of course important that we listen to, and when necessary act on, any concerns raised by individuals, including Members of Parliament, and the sectors that interact with the regime.
Tessa Munt
The Minister refers to the fact that the DBS would be able to check whether somebody who was going to work abroad had a problem with their clearance. Will that work in reverse? For example, if someone is trying to employ an au pair from another country—I do not know if people can even do that any more—could the au pair be checked before they came in and worked with children?
Jess Phillips
I will get back to the hon. Lady on the specifics of that. This is about people who are barred from working with children, and ensuring that we have enhanced international knowledge sharing. In the cases raised by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, the fact that it was not known that somebody had all those issues was a real failure in the system.
I want to give some attention to the requirements that the hon. Lady calls for. The Disclosure and Barring Service does one thing. It is not the regulator, and it does not regulate services; it ensures that employers have the right information. The regulation of activities sits with the relevant Departments and institutions. The rules in residential settings are different from those in the Department for Education. We need to make sure that we do not introduce regulation that means that no one can ever start any sort of group—that is certainly something we have been mindful of in our work on the duty to report cases of sexual abuse among children. However, we need to have safeguards in place. The regulation of requirements sits with the relevant individual bodies; it is not for the DBS to say what the requirements should be. However, I am absolutely open to having conversations about what should and should not be regulated when it comes to safeguarding.
I go back to where I started: regulated activity. The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole asks for clarity in the guidance. Regulated activity is activity that involves someone working with children and vulnerable adults. Frankly, I find it quite hard to imagine that the vast majority of the cases that she has raised would not fall under the scope of regulated activity, but I will absolutely take her point away.
Before I finish, I want to pay tribute to Lauren, whose heartbreaking case was mentioned. I speak as somebody who knows what drug addiction can do, and what it costs families. I do not know the full details, but in Lauren’s case, I would consider the activity to have been regulated activity. If someone is teaching children, they are undertaking regulated activity, and parents will have the right to ask whether enhanced checks have been undertaken.
Jess Phillips
I do not think I can take any more interventions, because my time will run out. I am more than happy to meet the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, and to work with her to make sure that we get the DBS to be the best it can be, within all the regulatory frameworks that are needed.
Tessa Munt
Madam Deputy Speaker, can you confirm that we can witter on until 10 o’clock? I believe that we are not limited.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Just to provide clarity, the Minister can indeed continue until 10 pm, but she does not have to.
Jess Phillips
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I woke up this morning, I did not think that this debate would start until 10 pm, so any more time is a bonus. I apologise. The last time I replied in an Adjournment debate, I ran wildly over time, and somebody had to shut me up. I did not want anyone to be put in that position again.
The portability of checks was raised. I think people do not understand quite how many DBS checks are done a year—7.3 million. It gives me some comfort that quite a lot of the workforce in our country are undertaking checks. Incidentally, we do not have to undergo checks as Members of Parliament.
Vikki Slade
There are 7.2 million checks done a year, and I am sure that means multiple checks for individuals. I used to foster, and I obviously had very enhanced DBS checks for my fostering, but I then had to get a separate DBS check to undertake my work as a school governor. Frankly, that seems crazy. As a foster carer, I was being checked in far more detail. We could reduce the burden on the DBS by having a system of single portable checks, because I do not think that 7.2 million people a year are having checks.
Jess Phillips
We recognise that people may want to use their existing DBS check when moving from one role to another, where the new role requires a check. That is exactly the point that the hon. Lady raised. It is possible for employers to accept an existing criminal record certificate, but it must be for the same type of check in the same workforce—in the instance she has given, that would be working with children—such as enhanced with barred lists checks for the children’s workforce. This is to ensure that the appropriate level of information is available. We do not want a random DBS to have been done, and for someone to just say, “Look, I’ve got a DBS”. Over the years, I too have had more DBS checks than I can count.
On the delays, the DBS has a key performance indicator of getting 80% turnaround within 14 days, and it currently reaches 75%. It has been progressively working on that and ensuring that things are done more quickly. The enhanced check relies on police forces undertaking the work, and seven months seems like a very long time, but there can be a variety of reasons why delays may arise. However, the vast majority of checks are done within 14 days. My son had an enhanced DBS the other day, and it came back in three days. I do not think the DBS knew that he was my son.
Tessa Munt
I thank the Minister greatly for giving way. I want to pick up again the point I made about whether these checks will have a clear end date on them. I also have a second question, if I am allowed to ask it. I do not expect an answer now, but it would be nice to have an answer—one of the problems one finds constantly with police forces is that they are required to do checks, but they have no ability to recover the full costs through the charging system. Such a number of checks—7.2 million—will be very expensive. Do we know the cost of a single DBS check?
Jess Phillips
We absolutely understand that. Just to be clear, police forces are paid through the DBS system to undertake the checks. The resources are given by the DBS system to police forces to undertake that work. I will ensure that the hon. Member receives the exact cost, but it comes under the costs of the DBS.
On the issue of exactly how long a DBS check lasts, there is no one simple answer, but we should encourage more people to be part of the updating system and the checking system. This system has been heavily scrutinised over the years, and it deserves that level of scrutiny, but I have seen a real effort to make sure that it is the best and the fairest that it can be, but we are always here to work for any possible improvements.
Question put and agreed to.
Pornography and Violence Against Women
Vale View Day Centre, Lancaster
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
Sale of Fireworks
(1 day, 9 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
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 738192 and 732559 relating to the sale of fireworks.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. It is a privilege to introduce the debate on these two petitions on behalf of the Petitions Committee.
It is not the first time we have been here. In December 2024, I was asked by the Petitions Committee to lead a similar debate on fireworks after more than 120,000 people signed two similar petitions for change. Since then, I have met campaigners and organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, Anxiety UK, Help for Heroes, the British Horse Society and many more. It is clear that public support for change is overwhelming. In this place, Members of Parliament across the political spectrum support calls for change, yet here we are again, debating this important issue. That should be a clear and loud message to Ministers to act right now.
The petitions we are debating today have received more than 183,000 and 193,000 signatures respectively: more than 376,000 signatures when taken together. I have spoken to the lead petitioners—Helen and Graham, who are in the Public Gallery today—about their deep love for animals and the reasons why they created the petitions. It is undeniable that the inappropriate use of fireworks can have a devastating impact on domestic pets, farm animals and the like.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
I want to thank my constituent Robert Branch, who was responsible for starting one of the petitions, and whom I met last week. As a fellow dog owner, I know how important these issues are to local people in High Peak.
Robbie Moore
I thank not only Robert Branch but the numerous deeply concerned constituents; I am sure we all, as Members of Parliament, have received plenty of correspondence about how tougher action must be taken on fireworks. In Riddlesden in my constituency, just before Christmas, fireworks had dramatic impacts—
Alex Ballinger
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. In my constituency, many people have written to me about the impact of fireworks on dogs. Two people in particular, Marianne and Rosleen, wrote about how excessive fireworks around fireworks night cause their dogs to tremble uncontrollably and run desperately away from their owners. Does he share my concern about the impact on animals, and does he agree with the petitioners that the Government must do more to regulate and control the amount of fireworks we see throughout the year?
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. Some hon. Members are standing. It is only convention that Members sit on a particular side of the room. Perhaps there will be a cross-party love-in today; we have started to see one already. If Members want to move to the other side of the Chamber where there are seats, they are able to do so. I will recognise your individual parties, so do not panic.
Robbie Moore
For a moment there, I thought there were some defections to the Conservative party coming across—we can live in hope.
In Riddlesden just before Christmas, fireworks led to the tragic death of a family’s foal, known as King. I know we cannot use images in the debate, but I have an image of King on my desk. It is believed that King, terrified by fireworks, bolted in the night. He was found by local farmer Hannah the next morning, impaled on a piece of farm machinery. Hannah said:
“We had to lift the machinery off him and drag him out, but he sadly died from his injuries. It was just awful, like something out of a horror film.”
Let that be a message to anyone who still says that fireworks are merely a matter of harmless fun—they are not.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful statement about the impact on animals. I thank the petitioners in Epping Forest who have signed the petition, including the Redwings Horse Sanctuary, which triggered this debate and has its Ada Cole stables in my constituency. As a veterinary surgeon, sadly I have seen at first hand the impact of fireworks: small animals go missing and get injured, and farm animal livestock and horses receive horrific injuries. Does my hon. Friend agree that something has to be done to keep people and animals safe from fireworks?
Robbie Moore
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This issue is about the negative impact on animal welfare—our pets and farm animals—but also the human impacts, which I will come on to.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
As a fellow veterinary surgeon, I reiterate what the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) just said. Every vet will have stitched up horses or treated dogs or cats that have been affected. It is not a niche problem or unusual: every vet dreads being on call on fireworks night because they know that they will be busy.
Robbie Moore
I agree with the hon. Member, who I know is a vet and has expertise from the number of dealings he had in a previous life before entering this place.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I pay tribute to my constituent Julie McMillan, who has emailed me with her concerns about fireworks every year for the 19 years that I have been a Member of this place or of the Scottish Parliament. Many other people have raised the same concern. I urge caution about what has happened in Scotland. The Scottish Government introduced a new licensing regime, much of which does not work, and they have had to pause the whole system. Although we need greater control and consistency across the UK, the Minister should not follow what the SNP Scottish Government have done.
Robbie Moore
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. A UK-wide approach needs to be taken on this issue, so I urge the Government to work with the devolved Governments to ensure a strategy that works. We can take those lessons from north of the border.
The death of any animal is upsetting, particularly a family pet, and having grown up on a farm I know all too well that this has an impact on farmed animals too. It is easy to forget that many animals are not just pets. They are much more sensitive to sound than humans, and fireworks can be deafening.
Ms Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Before this debate, I was contacted by more than 100 constituents who raised concerns about animals. One constituent also raised concerns about the impact on her mental health. Does the hon. Member agree that, while a lot of people use fireworks responsibly, there are concerns about the impact of fireworks on people’s mental health and wellbeing, as well as their impact on animals?
Robbie Moore
I agree, and I will talk about that in my speech, as well as the negative implications on veterans and those with anxiety-related issues.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
Given so many people write to us about this issue, it is clear that we all feel the impact. On new year’s eve, my constituent Kim reported that fireworks went on in Whalley Range until 4.30 am. The noise was so loud and persistent that it set off their house alarm. Does the hon. Member agree that the use of fireworks in the middle of the night is clearly antisocial behaviour and more must be done to tackle it?
Robbie Moore
I completely agree. In my constituency we are seeing the antisocial use of fireworks during the night and early in the morning throughout the year. That causes huge disruption to those hardworking individuals who just want to get a good night’s sleep so they can get up in the morning.
Several hon. Members rose—
Robbie Moore
I will make a little more progress and then take some more interventions.
Having spoken to Helen, one of the lead petitioners, who represents the UK’s largest horse charity Redwings Horse Sanctuary, which has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), I know how urgent these calls for change are. It is not just animals that suffer from the antisocial use of fireworks; many veterans can suffer attacks of post-traumatic stress disorder when fireworks are let off, deeply damaging their mental health. Vulnerable children and adults can also be confused and intimated by fireworks. There is nothing more frustrating for a working family than being kept up all night by a constant stream of fireworks. I am seeing that in my own constituency of Keighley.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Brave Derby veterans have contacted me. Those who suffer from mental health or are recovering from PTSD are really concerned about the negative effect that fireworks have on their lives. I am sure that the hon. Member would agree that those brave men and women who have put their lives on the line for our country deserve support when they need it the most.
Robbie Moore
I agree. For those who have anxiety-related issues, fireworks are an absolute trigger point when they are let off. The noise that they create and the resulting heightened levels of anxiety need to be noted by the Minister, who I hope will respond positively.
Peter Swallow
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being generous with his time. I have had constituents contact me about this issue. Many of them recognise the importance of fireworks as a great British tradition on fireworks night and other such nights, but they want more regulation around the times of year at which fireworks can be enjoyed—and until what time in the evening—and around their volume, so that people are able to enjoy fireworks on great occasions in a responsible way that reflects that they are not as enjoyable for those with trauma, and those with pets. Does the hon. Member agree that we can get that balance right?
Robbie Moore
I agree that it is about making sure that we are not only introducing tougher regulation and enforcement but that those who use fireworks are using them appropriately. This does not necessarily need to be about a ban on fireworks; much tougher measures can be brought in with licensing on the decibels associated with fireworks. I urge the Government to look at that and not just respond, “We are going to take this away and think about it,” because that is the response that we have had for far too long.
Several hon. Members rose—
Robbie Moore
I will make a little more progress, then take interventions. We get this problem far too often in my constituency, in places such as Riddlesden, Braithwaite, Bracken Bank, Oakworth, Haworth, Ingrow and Silsden. Just this weekend, I put out a call across the UK asking people to contact me with their experiences of fireworks. I put that out only last night as I was coming down on the train and I received well over 900 responses, which just shows the strength of feeling on this issue. I have received much more correspondence on this issue in preparation for this debate. The stories that I have heard are horrifying. One resident wrote,
“I was at a care home caring for the elderly with Alzheimer’s. There is no respite from fireworks for them and it is so unpredictable. I saw three elderly gentlemen walk around for hours a day thinking it was a gas explosion. Some of the residents tried to leave the building and to run away as they didn’t feel safe. Some of the residents were crying and distressed, some sat with their head in their hands. Meal times are disrupted, every aspect of their life is affected.”
Enough is enough.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I, too, have had lots of constituents contact me about this issue with concern for neurodiverse people, people with mental health issues, veterans with PTSD and animal owners. My constituent Helen sent me video footage of her border collie Alf, cowering in fear under a table. I wonder if the hon. Member agrees that in today’s modern age there are lots of beautiful alternatives for displays in the air that do not require fireworks—not to say that fireworks are not marvellous at the right time—and which can actually be silent. Does he agree that more people should be encouraged to use modern technology to deliver awe-inspiring displays?
Robbie Moore
The hon. Member makes an excellent point. There are many other ways of having entertainment in the sky beyond using very loud fireworks. That gets to the detail of what one of the petitions is about: the decibels associated with fireworks going off.
Several hon. Members rose—
Robbie Moore
I will crack on a bit because I have two more pages, and I want to make sure that hon. Members have enough time to give their own speeches.
In a distressing number of cases, emergency services are also targeted, particularly in Keighley. They come under attack by those showing antisocial behaviour, with fireworks used as weapons. Yet fireworks do not seem to get the same attention as the illegal use of knives; they get a free pass. The time for talk is over and we need action now. Both today’s petitions provide sensible ideas that would dramatically improve the situation for communities facing the inappropriate use of fireworks.
Several hon. Members rose—
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, pay tribute to Redwings Horse Sanctuary, which is headquartered in Norfolk. Norwich North was among the top five constituencies for the number of signatories to the petition. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as Redwings has pointed out, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 does not provide sufficient protection? That is why we need to consider measures such as reducing the decibel level of fireworks, to ensure that protection is there for both animals and people.
Robbie Moore
Following on from the hon. Member’s intervention, there is an opportunity in the animal welfare strategy announced by the Government over the Christmas period. I feel that it does not go far enough in detailing what could be put in place specifically to deal with fireworks in the context of animal welfare over the rest of this Parliament.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Sitting on the Opposition side of the Chamber, I find it difficult to listen to the hon. Member saying what could and should be done now, given that for 14 years a lot of this stuff could have been done but was not. However, my point is this: he has talked about domestic animals, farm animals, veterans and the elderly, but one group that has not been mentioned also needs to be considered—wild animals. Does he agree that we must also consider the perhaps unseen impact of these very loud fireworks on wildlife?
Robbie Moore
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, because a lot of this issue is about data collection. It is very easy to collect data and to demonstrate the impact of fireworks on pets and farm animals; it is much more difficult—almost impossible—to demonstrate the impact on wild animals. Even the data about pets and other kept animals is few and far between so it is less easy to demonstrate to the Government that action needs to be taken. Nevertheless, I urge the Minister to consider the impact on all animals of fireworks being let off.
The current legal limit for loudness of fireworks is 120 dB, which is equivalent to being at a rock concert or standing next to a police siren. By contrast, 90 dB, although still not quiet, is equivalent to a busy restaurant or a hairdryer. It is completely reasonable to suggest reducing noise levels to something more considerate—indeed, 85 dB is the threshold at which humans experience hearing damage. Reducing noise would mean that private fireworks displays could continue, but with be a reduced risk of distressing animals or inconveniencing neighbours.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
In my constituency, over 300 people have contacted me about this issue—100 just this year. I have also been aware of my own dog’s trauma over fireworks. However, there is another issue. What the hon. Gentleman is saying about reducing the decibel limit is the right way to go, but there is also the issue of safety. I witnessed the house opposite mine being set alight on new year’s eve as a result of its close proximity to fireworks; the people involved were made homeless for a time. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should also consider restricting the use of fireworks to public displays, rather than letting them be used in private residences?
Robbie Moore
That brings me on nicely to the next petition. Another option is for people to require the approval of their local council to hold firework displays. That would allow the council to control the number and the timing of firework displays, ensuring that they are more considerate of the whole community. In addition, it is safe to assume that no council would approve a display deemed unsafe; hopefully, requiring a permit for a fireworks display would reduce the number of firework-related injuries.
In addition to the two solutions proposed by the petitions today, I make one further observation.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his great speech and for the excellent way in which he is taking all the interventions. As someone who lives with a cat—I hesitate to say that I own one; it usually seems the other way round—I can see for myself, and from the emails I have had from Dartford residents concerned about their pets, that the disturbance caused by loud fireworks is hugely traumatising for them. Does he agree that we need not only to reduce the maximum noise level for consumer fireworks, as he has already said, but to seek further restrictions on the dates when fireworks can be purchased from both licensed and unlicensed sellers?
Robbie Moore
I absolutely agree. As the hon. Member says, the issue is about tougher licensing as well. I have seen fireworks for sale in pop-up shops in my own constituency of Keighley; it cannot be right that no regulation is associated with that. The pop-up shops could be below residential flats or units and there could be a risk to life if a hazard is associated with that environment. I take the hon. Member’s points on board; these are options that the Minister should explore.
The biggest problem with fireworks is enforcement. Until a firework is lit illegally, no crime has been committed. By the time the police spot and respond to a firework in the sky, those responsible have had plenty of time to flee the scene or to dispose of what little evidence there was to begin with. It is incredibly difficult to enforce laws that regulate firework use, so it is right that today’s petitions—and wider reform—should focus on wider supply regulations. If permits were required by individuals, as opposed to on an event-by-event basis, that added hurdle when purchasing fireworks would deter a larger number of people who are looking for a cheap thrill.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. On his last point, there has been no new legislation to deal with antisocial firework use for over two decades. Some 557 of my constituents signed these petitions. Since being elected I have dealt with 150 separate cases in my constituency of Wolverhampton West; constituents have raised a number of issues, including fireworks going off at midnight or at 6 o’clock in the morning. Does the hon. Member agree that, as a start, the least this Government could do is what the first petition asked for—reduce maximum noise levels from 120 dB to 90 dB? Decreasing the volume of fireworks is one step forward to take now.
Robbie Moore
I have spoken about this issue for the last six years, so if the Government take any action after today’s debate, I will welcome it. I want both the recommendations put forward by the two petitions, which have been signed by over 376,000 people, to be listened to, acted on and enforced.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Mr Bailey
The hon. Gentleman is being extraordinarily generous. A mother in my constituency of Leyton and Wanstead was chased down the high street by some children firing fireworks at her and her kids. Her children spent the evening cowering under a table, suffering trauma. None of them was able to identify the perpetrators of what is clearly a crime. That is a police matter, but does the hon. Member agree that stronger restrictions are necessary to deal with situations where it is difficult to identify the perpetrators of firework crime?
Robbie Moore
I agree. Although enforcement is challenging, those carrying it out can be helped by tougher legislation. We need to learn the lessons from north of the border, up in Scotland, and what the SNP Government have rolled out. However, recommendations upon recommendations have been put forward to Governments of all colours over a period of time. I hope that now we will see action from the Minister.
I say it again: enough is enough. Public support for national change on fireworks is overwhelming. They disturb the peace of entire neighbourhoods, terrify pets and leave vulnerable people trapped in their homes throughout the year. If we choose to continue to ignore the issue, I fear the inevitable: there will be more unnecessary deaths, injuries and traumas for victims of fireworks in the future. In the face of such concern, there must be action, and that cannot occur until we have the full weight of the Government behind us. The Government have the power to end this nightmare for all, and they should do so without delay. I thank hon. Members for giving me the time to take as many interventions as possible. Let us have a good debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members to bob if they wish to speak—I think that is happening right now, so thank you. Given the popularity and importance of this debate, there will be an informal limit of four and a half minutes on speeches.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for presenting this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee.
My constituents were fourth on the list for signatures to these petitions, which call for controls on the decibel levels of fireworks and on the sale of fireworks. Those constituents include Stephen, who told me that his previous guide dog, so frightened by fireworks, dragged him across a main road in a desperate attempt to get away from the noise; and Natalie, who works closely with veterans and spoke about the serious impact that fireworks can have on mental health.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Hundreds of people in Epsom and Ewell have signed the petition and emailed in their concerns. As an ex-service member, I absolutely understand how triggering loud noises can be problematic for individuals with PTSD and mental health problems. Indeed, after coming back from Op Telic 4 in Iraq, I found myself in a prone position on Lewisham High Street after fireworks were being set off and it felt like we were under attack. Many constituents have also emailed to say how concerned they are about the impact of loud bangs on animals. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government must review the maximum noise limit for fireworks and give a clear timeline to do so?
Lizzi Collinge
I absolutely agree that the Government should look at limits on the decibel levels of fireworks and other measures. As the hon. Lady set out, the impact on veterans can be severe.
I was struck by the fact that even the people who are worst affected are not looking to ban fireworks. They understand that it is an enjoyable activity for many people; they just want some common sense around how they are used. One sensible place to start is with limits on decibels. It is entirely possible to have a lovely display, just slightly quieter.
I confess that I am more conflicted about the suggestion in the second petition to restrict fireworks to council-approved events. Of course, I understand the reasoning, but I also recognise that private celebrations bring a great deal of joy, so I am not convinced that removing them entirely is the right way forward. Instead, I would be more inclined to support a proposal that I have raised before and has been supported in comments from my constituents: limiting firework displays to a certain number of days a year, in line with key celebrations. At the moment, bonfire night feels like it stretches from mid-October all the way through to November, so in the same month as we celebrate remembrance, our veterans are being put under avoidable stress by constant unpredictable explosions.
Warinder Juss
I have spent many years celebrating with fireworks in my garden, as my hon. Friend mentioned, and I have had the pleasure of having firework displays with my children. However, does she agree that things have got a bit too far in that we are seeing fireworks throughout the year? Of course, we expect fireworks to go off during events such as bonfire night, Diwali and new year, but they are happening throughout the year and at all times of the day. Does she agree that it is time to limit the period during which fireworks can be used?
Lizzi Collinge
I absolutely agree. Time and again, people have told me that it is the unexpected nature of fireworks that causes the most harm. Just giving people the opportunity to plan and prepare for fireworks would be an enormous step forward, and we can achieve that by introducing set days for displays. For example, they could be on bonfire night and the nearest Saturday, and we could replicate that across the year for important events such as new year’s eve, Diwali and so on.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
I am so glad that we are having this important debate, because my constituents have contacted me to say how concerned they are about the decibels issue. The hon. Lady’s proposal to limit displays to a certain number of days a year, which everybody can plan around, is important, and we should consider whether silent fireworks or reduced decibels are the way to go. I am glad that she has raised those points.
Lizzi Collinge
I must confess that I love fireworks—I absolutely adore them—and I want people to be able to experience that joy, but not at the cost of other people’s safety and security.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
I wonder if my hon. Friend prefers the whoosh as fireworks go up, rather than the bang; I think that is what most people are there for. My constituents get in touch with me to say that when they complain, they feel as if they are passed from pillar to post between the council and the police. Does my hon. Friend agree that it should be easier and simpler for my constituents to know who to make a complaint to?
Lizzi Collinge
I absolutely agree that for any issue, fireworks or otherwise, it needs to be clear to people who is responsible and who they can go to. Unfortunately, too many of our constituents, whatever their situation, get passed between different organisations, and that is unfair.
By placing some sensible regulations on noise levels and imposing a bit of predictability, it is entirely possible to allow people to enjoy fireworks as the spectacular displays that they are, while protecting people and pets from their worst effects.
I would also like to mention working animals; my constituency is partly agricultural, and we have a huge number of working and farm animals.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I am thankful to the more than 450 people from Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme who signed the petition. In the 100 emails I have received, there is a lot of talk about livestock in particular. This is not just about safety; it is about our farms losing animals and the impact on our trading organisations. Does my hon. Friend agree that when the Minister considers these petitions, she should consider the business case, in terms of the impact on small and medium enterprise, as well as the safety and welfare cases?
Lizzi Collinge
I absolutely agree that the impact on all groups, including businesses, must be considered.
As time moves on, I hope that more organised displays use moving drones, which are quiet and absolutely spectacular.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Before I call Gagan Mohindra, let me say that, while the screen on my left is not showing the time, the screens behind me and on my right are. Members should be conscious of others when speaking.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on opening this important debate and thank the many petitioners who have brought this issue before Parliament. It is nearly a year since the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) brought this issue up in the Chamber, and it is refreshing to see the Minister at the time, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), here showing his continued passion for this topic.
I wish to reflect the strength of feeling among my constituents in South West Hertfordshire that the balance between the enjoyment of and the disruption caused by fireworks is not being struck and that they are in fact causing harm. In the autumn and winter of 2025 alone, continuing into this year, over 200 of my constituents have contacted me directly to raise their concerns about the impact of fireworks in our area. Their concerns focus on the serious distress caused to pets, livestock and other animals, as well as the effect of loud and unpredictable fireworks on people with mental health issues including PTSD and heightened sensitivity to noise.
My constituents are not calling for an outright ban. Instead, there is overwhelming support for alternatives such as quiet or low noise level fireworks, which preserve visual enjoyment while significantly reducing harm. Others have mentioned the replacement potential of drones.
In South West Hertfordshire, 383 constituents have signed petitions calling for the maximum noise level of fireworks to be reduced from 120 to 90 dB. A further 293 people have supported limiting the sale of fireworks to councils or licensed events. My only word of warning about licensed events is about ensuring that displays advertised in posts on social media, including in Facebook groups, actually happen. I am conscious that over the new year and in the run-up to fireworks night, there were some fake posts suggesting that fireworks displays were going to happen and a lot of people were disappointed, although that happened in the midlands rather than in my constituency.
Given the development and increasing availability of quiet fireworks, it is right to reassess the current balance between celebration and protection, including lowering the legal noise limit from 120 dB. Others have mentioned significant religious events; I represent a multicultural community, and sometimes there will be fireworks outside the normal cycle for things such as weddings and family celebrations. However, if we could mitigate the noise, no one would lose out: people could enjoy marking significant milestones in their lives without scaring the animals and the vulnerable in our communities.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
My constituents, like those of so many of us, have written to me about this. I want to talk about Jessica, who wrote to describe how the impact that fireworks had on her father reduced him to a near panic attack. She also has a friend who served in multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a dog who is reduced to panting and drooling to the point where she fears that he is going to have a heart attack. At the weekend, the owner of Eden Valley Pet Foods spoke to me because the impact of fireworks on one of his dogs—a gundog—leaves him very traumatised. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is not about backing a ban, or banning the bang, but about achieving a solution that balances enjoyment with mitigating the trauma that so many people and animals experience?
Mr Mohindra
The hon. Member is 100% correct. None of us is looking to be a killjoy. We are trying to balance the requirements of all parts of our communities, so that people who wish to enjoy the lights and noise associated with fireworks are not doing so to the detriment of vulnerable humans or animals.
The Government must consider whether additional measures, such as reducing the legal noise limit, could encourage the use of fireworks in a way that helps to strike a better balance between celebration, animal welfare and community wellbeing. I have already mentioned the potential for more widespread use of drones to ensure that people can continue to celebrate without negatively affecting other parts of the community.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. It is also a pleasure to follow my friend the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), who is a committed campaigner on this issue.
Here we are again, though: another fireworks petition, another debate and, unfortunately, another year without meaningful change on the important issue of fireworks laws. I said last year that we would have to have this debate every year. I know that the Minister will listen, and I hope that we will not all be here again in 2027. We are going to continue banging on about this, and I thank the campaigners and all the petitioners, particularly the Firework Impact Coalition, a cross-sector coalition of charities for veterans, vets, pets, animals and children, all of which want to see change in the law.
Fireworks laws are not fit for purpose—there is cross-party consensus on that. It was true in 2022, when I tabled the Misuse of Fireworks Bill on the enforcement of fireworks, and it was just as true in 2024, when I tabled the Fireworks Bill on the licensing of fireworks. We know that it has been a really hard year for many people, and the misery of fireworks has added to that. The last August to December period was one of the worst that I can ever remember, with families being kept up at all hours by huge, loud displays and fireworks being aggressively marketed on TikTok, not as family-friendly events, but as weapons and instruments of antisocial behaviour. The impact of that is huge.
There are impacts on animals, whether wildlife or pets, and in rural areas and the countryside. There are impacts for those with mental health issues, such as PTSD. It is not just veterans who serve in warzones, but those who work in charities and humanitarian organisations, who have contacted me to say that they have been traumatised by fireworks. There are also impacts on children. When I visit schools, particularly primary schools, I ask how many children are kept up each night because of fireworks, and every single hand goes up. If it is not the fireworks waking them up, they are woken up by their pet being absolutely terrified. That has a really bad impact, particularly on children with special educational needs.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech about the need for change in the law, and the impact on humans and animals. One of my constituents got in touch with me to talk about the massive detrimental impact that the irresponsible launching of fireworks had during bonfire night weekend. She talked about how the next day her horses were spinning around in their stables and sweating profusely, displaying flehmen responses and windsucking on doors. When she spoke to the Greater Manchester police, they essentially said in writing that the lack of legislation meant that they could not act. To quote my constituent, it was obvious from speaking to “so many different professionals” that all they could really say was that “their hands are tied”. It is clear to me, from the contributions we have heard today, that it is imperative for the Government to change the law, to protect the individuals and animals that are so detrimentally impacted by fireworks.
Sarah Owen
I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that horrific example, an example we will have heard time and again across the country. We hear of it throughout the year, but particularly on bonfire night and during the seasons when fireworks are most prevalent. There is a perverse loophole in our law, which my private Member’s Bill would tighten, allowing unlicensed sellers to actually go and sell fireworks during the busiest times for them. In Luton, during that period when unlicensed sellers can sell fireworks, we had somebody marketing them online with a balaclava on his face. The aim was to cause damage, not happiness and joy.
We absolutely need to close that loophole and we need to lower the decibel limits to 90 dB. Not only is that popular—one third of Brits want to see that happen—but it is necessary for animals, people with PTSD, veterans, and those who have sustained burn injuries as a result of fireworks. A change in the law cannot come soon enough. We have seen a change in the law in the Netherlands, where injuries and serious burns incidents have gone down considerably.
My Fireworks Bill is still on the books. Although it is not likely to progress, I suggest to the Minister that it is a really good place to start, and I am willing to work with anybody to see that happen. When we look at our fireworks laws, I know that everybody is onside with wanting positive change, not just for ourselves, but for our communities, for our animals and for residents who have frankly had enough.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member from Yorkshire, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for introducing this important debate. I stand here today to speak in support of the two petitions, both of which have attracted significant backing in my own constituency. More than 200 constituents signed the petition calling for a reduction in the maximum noise level of fireworks and more than 230 signed the petition seeking to limit their sale to local authority-approved events. Those numbers and the popularity of this debate reflect a genuine and deeply felt concern about the troubling effects that fireworks can have in our communities.
I have also had more than 100 emails since I was elected in July 2024. Paula, one of my constituents, wrote to me:
“They are constant, nearly every night…getting louder and are being let off at all hours. They are not only antisocial; they are harming my dog.”
Such stories are repeated across our nation.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
I am very clear that I am owned by a chocolate labrador. Coco is 12 now and the problem seems to be getting worse every year. That is why the reduction in decibels would be the most effective way of dealing with the problem. People could let fireworks off when they wanted and where they wanted, as long as the sound was reduced. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Iqbal Mohamed
I completely agree that the biggest harm for pets, animals, children and veterans comes from the loud noises—and they are going off at all times of the day. I do not know how it is across the country, but I have people in my constituency setting off fireworks during daylight hours. What is the point of that? What should be a joyous moment of celebration has now become a source of fear, distress and disruption. The harm caused by fireworks is well evidenced and widely documented. Sudden, unpredictable explosions cause severe distress to animals, triggering panic responses and long-term behavioural trauma.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The hon. Member is making very good points. My guide dog Jennie is not bothered by fireworks—she seems to enjoy them—but Pepsi, my wife’s guide dog, is terrified of them. That is not only awful for the dog, but it means that at firework time, my wife cannot go out and socialise or conduct her business as a local councillor in Torbay. Would the hon. Member reflect on the idea of firework-free zones? I also have the pleasure of having Paignton zoo in my constituency, and the impact on zoos is massive.
Iqbal Mohamed
I completely support the hon. Member’s call for firework-free zones. I have in my constituency urban, industrial and rural areas and there are places where fireworks are not appropriate and cause more harm in certain areas, so I completely support that call.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
The hon. Member is being very generous in allowing interventions; I thank him for that and for his passionate speech. Like him, I have had many constituents get in touch about the havoc created for months, not just on bonfire night, but around the year, by fireworks. They are asking Glasgow city council to take more action, and to put on public displays so that people can enjoy the fireworks without disrupting neighbours and communities. Does he agree that that is the sensible thing to do, and will he recognise that it is often local community councils, including in my case Pollokshaws & Eastwood community council, that bring issues caused by firework-related disorder to the fore?
Iqbal Mohamed
I agree that council-approved, community-organised events bring people together. Those who are going know what they are going to, and any pets that will be affected can be kept away from that area for that period. The timing of those displays is also critical. There should be a watershed, whereby fireworks are allowed beyond a certain time of day. I fully support the hon. Member’s acknowledgment of the role of councils in helping communities to enjoy fireworks in a responsible and less damaging way.
We have heard that fireworks can be equally distressing for people, including veterans with PTSD, autistic and neurodivergent individuals, young children and the elderly. For those people, loud and unexpected noise can provoke severe anxiety. Worse still are the routinely reported cases of emergency workers being attacked with fireworks. Those impacts are not confined to a single night, but repeated over weeks and months, creating prolonged periods of stress. The harms that emerge from fireworks are not hypothetical—they are recurring, predictable and preventable.
The petitions do not call for some totalitarian overreach by the state by pushing for an outright ban. They recognise the cultural importance of fireworks in bringing communities together, but rightfully argue that public access, in its current form, is outdated and irresponsible.
There was an incident in my constituency during the last bonfire night—well, not a night; it is more like weeks—when a firework rocket had been let off at the wrong angle and pierced the windscreen of a parked car. Thankfully, nobody was hurt, but the rocket was lodged in the windscreen. I do not know what the owner’s insurance company said about that, but that could have been a child, a human being or an animal, and the results would have been catastrophic.
Other European countries have introduced more stringent restrictions, leading to fewer injuries and continued public support. Even within the UK, Scotland and Northern Ireland have stricter regulations than England. Alternatives such as organised displays, quieter fireworks and modern light or drone shows harnessing technological developments are increasingly popular and far less harmful. Responsible celebration should not come at the expense of animals, vulnerable individuals or community wellbeing.
I therefore urge the Government to listen carefully to this recurring debate. It is the first one I have taken part in; I was not able to take part last year, but I know from research that this subject comes around every year, and it is really important that we do something about it. I urge the Government to listen carefully to the petitioners, to conscientious animal welfare experts and to those who diligently advocate for persons with disabilities, and to bring forward meaningful reform that strikes a better balance—
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Tom Gordon
I completely agree with the hon. Member, and I appreciate the hundreds of people in my constituency who have signed the petitions. When we talk about Government action, does he agree that if we end up with a licence scheme, it must give local authorities the money to enforce these provisions? If not, we will all be going back to our constituencies, picking up the phone to our council chief executives and saying, “This is the law, why are you not enforcing it?”.
Iqbal Mohamed
I completely agree. Councils are overloaded and overburdened; they are asked to do more with less, and it is really important that any legislation giving them the authority and powers to help with fireworks is backed by finance and teeth.
To conclude, let me repeat that I hope the Government will listen to the petitioners and introduce reforms that strike a better balance between celebration and compassion.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. It seems to me that we have been discussing the possibility of restricting the use of fireworks to organised public events for many years and, while we talk, more people suffer life-changing injuries that could be avoided if we had tighter restrictions on the use of fireworks. In my constituency 869 people signed the petition to limit the sale of fireworks to those running local council-approved events. I agree with them. The easy availability of fireworks, which are marketed and sold in the same way as sweets or toys, belies the fact that they are in fact dangerous explosives.
On the beaches in my constituency it is the custom for the public to gather and let off fireworks on days such as bonfire night and new year’s eve. I am not sure whether people understand that they could be taking their lives into their own hands if they go on to the beach. I vividly remember running for cover with my children on Tate Hill beach in Whitby, as rockets were let off sideways. Tragically, last year two young men suffered life-changing injuries when fireworks were let off on the Scarborough foreshore near the lifeboat station. Sadly, incidents like those are frighteningly common. In 2025, there was a fourfold increase in firework-related burns to children compared with the previous year—the highest admittance rate in a decade. Most injuries are to the eyes, head or hands, resulting in loss of sight, life-changing injuries and psychological impact.
Some of my constituents will disagree with my call for fireworks to be restricted to organised displays; they will say I am spoiling their fun. I humbly disagree. The United Kingdom is out of step with other countries that have already put safety first. The Netherlands is the latest country to implement a nationwide ban on consumer fireworks, joining Germany, the Republic of Ireland, Australia and other countries that have significant restrictions or bans on public sales. Since that implementation, the number of firework-related injuries has been consistently lower.
The public are telling us that fireworks are no longer essential for celebrations. A recent poll by the Social Market Foundation found that 91% of the British public would be open to partial replacement of fireworks with alternatives such as drone or light shows. I recently attended a spectacular drone display at Scarborough castle to celebrate 400 years since the spa waters were discovered, and I am certain that not a single person watching will have felt short-changed.
Alongside the safety aspect, as we have heard, there is also the impact that the increasingly noisy fireworks have on vulnerable people and animals. Veterans have written to tell me that fireworks trigger their PTSD, and that the impact is even worse when they are set off randomly and on no particular special occasion. As an owner of a rescue dog and cat, I know how scared animals can be by fireworks. Research by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has shown that 66% of animals are negatively impacted.
Warinder Juss
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. A constituent of mine has a dog that is terribly frightened whenever fireworks are going on. She is simply saying, “Can we not have some kind of a limit, where fireworks don’t go off after 11 pm, for example?”. She recalls an occasion where she had to get up at four o’clock in the morning to go to work, but could not because she had been disturbed by fireworks during the night. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about public displays; as someone who has enjoyed having fireworks in the garden, I get much more joy now from going to a public display, being with other people and seeing much better fireworks than I would be able to at home. Does she agree that the problem is that we have no control whatsoever and that steps need to be taken now?
Alison Hume
My hon. Friend makes an important point, as have others in the debate, that we have passed the point where we used to watch fireworks safely in our back gardens. Fireworks are being let off all the time, every day—all day, sometimes—and I too have seen the terrible effect on animals, particularly dogs that, despite being sedated or whatever the vets recommend, are terrified out of their skins.
The time for talking is over. The evidence is clear. The current guidance and legislation need to be urgently reviewed. The maximum decibel level must be reduced immediately to 90 dB, and I call on the Government to review fireworks regulation in England and Wales urgently with a view to limiting the dangerous and antisocial use of fireworks in private and public spaces.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
I will call Sarah Dyke, then Juliet Campbell, and then Gideon Amos.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I thank the Petitions Committee for bringing this debate forward and the combined 671 petitioners from Glastonbury and Somerton.
Firework displays have long lit up the skies in celebrations throughout the year, with illuminations capturing the imaginations of young and old alike. Many enjoy the spectacle, but we must also recognise the negative impact that such displays can have on people, animals and nature. Mel, from Street, recently told me that one loud bang will send their beloved dog into a state of severe anxiety—shaking, panting and fainting, with the seizures sometimes lasting up to 24 hours.
In rural communities such as Glastonbury and Somerton, it is not just pets that are impacted; fireworks can have a horribly damaging impact on livestock, too. Research into the impact of fireworks on farm animals found that sudden and unexpected loud or novel noises can be highly stressful, because animals are more sensitive to high-frequency noises than humans.
The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 state:
“Pigs must not be exposed to constant or sudden noise”,
and
“Noise levels above 85 dBA must be avoided…where pigs are kept.”
It is also illegal to light fireworks near fields and barns where animals are housed, yet every single year we hear about livestock being impacted by fireworks. Cows and sheep often panic and try to flee when they hear fireworks, often injuring themselves. Pigs, hens and chickens often instinctively huddle, which can lead to some being smothered or suffocated in the chaos.
Vicky, a dairy farmer, contacted me last autumn after fireworks were set off by her neighbour, scaring her cattle. Twenty of her cattle escaped; one heavily pregnant cow died; and another needed emergency veterinary treatment shortly after, and sadly had to be slaughtered a few days later because it had stopped eating, moving and ruminating. Vicky told me that her cows wear health collars, and all indicated high stress levels at the time that the fireworks were set off.
Like many rural communities, Glastonbury and Somerton is home to many horses. As with livestock, a horse’s reaction to fireworks is often to bolt, which can result in injury or, worse, death. I was alerted to a heartbreaking story that took place near Curry Rivel, where a horse bolted in panic from fireworks, broke its neck and had to be put down, leaving the owner distraught by the painful and quite unnecessary death of their treasured steed.
Sensible precautions can be taken with domestic animals, but of course it is not possible to do so with livestock and horses. Concerningly, many livestock and horse owners report to me that they are not warned of local displays. Much more must be done to adequately alert people to organised public displays, and I thank all the responsible organisers who do so. However, the real difficulty often lies with the increasing number of small private displays. The Liberal Democrats share concerns that the current noise limit on private displays does not go far enough in protecting pets, livestock and wildlife.
It is not just animals that are impacted by fireworks; it is also people living with PTSD, who often struggle when exposed to fireworks. Some 11% of households in Glastonbury and Somerton are home to at least one veteran. Linda, from Martock, wrote to me regarding her son, who served in the Army for 25 years, detailing how much untold damage fireworks do to him. I am very proud that Service Dogs UK is based in the constituency and does a huge amount of work with veterans who are suffering with PTSD.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for introducing the petition for debate. It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of constituents who have contacted me on many occasions about this very issue: the impact the widespread sale and use of fireworks has on their lives.
The issue clearly resonates not just in my constituency but for people across the country. I have received correspondence from residents, pet owners and farmers who are deeply concerned about the wellbeing of animals. I have a cat myself, and she is left inconsolable by the noise on bonfire night, which can cause lots of distress to pets and livestock. However, the problem is not just limited to animals; I have had emails from veterans, people with PTSD, elderly people and others who are sensitive to loud noises, who find fireworks just too distressing. I have had emails from people from Eastwood, Chilwell, Beeston, Bramcote, Cossall, Trowell and Awsworth—from across my whole constituency.
Some constituents have also written to tell me that there have been injuries from fireworks. I will give two examples. One constituent described an incident in which a misfired rocket headed towards a child’s pram. It was only because of the quick thinking and actions of a bystander that the child was unharmed, although that courageous bystander suffered burns himself. Another constituent described how her son was shot at with fireworks on his way home from school. We can only imagine the distress that that caused. I am sure that many Members around the room will have equally troubling accounts from their constituents. Stories such as those show us why stronger measures are now essential.
That said, I do acknowledge the importance of fireworks in community celebrations such as new year’s eve and bonfire night. Those occasions bring people across Broxtowe and the UK together, so it is vital that we do not diminish them, but it is clear that we need regulations.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
There is clearly a consensus across the Chamber on finding that balance between people enjoying firework displays and the wellbeing and safety of animals, people and communities. Does my hon. Friend agree that in finding that balance, we must prioritise the welfare, safety and wellbeing of communities, people and animals?
Juliet Campbell
I absolutely agree that the priority with any changes in policy or legislation must be to take into account all those who are impacted, including animals, as well as the behaviour of people making things dangerous for others.
Any policy put forward on this issue must strike a clear balance between appreciating the events I spoke of earlier and ensuring a long-term reduction in the potential harm of fireworks and in the noise they create. We could learn from our international counterparts, such as the Netherlands, Poland and parts of Italy, where low-noise fireworks have been mandated in certain places and people have felt the benefits.
In conclusion, I hope the debate results in practical, beneficial changes, and that consideration will be given to the valuable contributions made today.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
I call Gideon Amos. I will then call Amanda Hack.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. Thank you for the innovative heads-up on who is next on the speaking list. I too extend my thanks to the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for opening the debate and taking so many interventions.
Noisy fireworks, especially at times when they are not expected—outside the given days for fireworks, such as new year’s eve, Diwali and Chinese new year—cause real distress and, as we have heard, injury. I thank the 269 and 276 from Taunton and Wellington who signed the petitions on firework noise and on organised displays respectively for bringing the issues to Parliament’s attention. Particularly affected, as hon. Members have said, are those who suffer from PTSD and those with autism. We need to take their concerns a lot more seriously than we have. It is possible for someone to ready themselves if they know that fireworks are coming or that explosions will be happening in their neighbourhood, but indiscriminate use can be really affecting. When it comes to animals, we know that many die as a result, including horses, dogs and wildlife. I agree wholeheartedly with the petitioners’ concerns about the use of fireworks, for all the reasons they set out.
At French Weir Park in Taunton, a private display on new year’s eve nearly turned into a disaster. After a big display put on by private individuals using the park at midnight, a big pack of spent fireworks was placed beside a group of litter and recycling bins, perhaps with the aim of being helpful. Unfortunately, it was left still smouldering; the fireworks had not gone out. The set of bins, encased in timber frame and boarding, went up in flames, with the fire reaching more than 10 feet into the air and coming within a foot of overhanging branches. It also came within two to three metres of the timber-built Centre for Outdoor Activity and Community Hub. Fortunately, as is so often the case, volunteers came out of their homes and the excellent members of Friends of French Weir Park were on the case immediately. The fire brigade was called, the building did not catch fire and the whole issue was safely dealt with.
The main message I want to get across is that it is completely illegal to use the park for private fireworks displays. If people are thinking of doing that, please do not; please go to a professional event instead, and keep our parks and buildings safe. The other thing that this incident shows is that even with really tough laws to prevent these things—breaching the current rules can result in on-the-spot fines of £90, fines of up to £5,000 or imprisonment—individuals still set fireworks off privately. By the time police officers, or in this case the fire brigade, arrive those concerned are long gone and the display is over.
I therefore feel that completely banning the private use of fireworks would not be the right approach. It would curtail enjoyment for people who are acting responsibility but would also be ineffective. However, we urgently need action, and the Liberal Democrats support reducing the noise limit from 120 dB to at most 90 dB, as other Members have mentioned, because it is the noise that causes some of the greatest harm to people and animals. We also need reasonable limits on the shops that sell fireworks, as the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley said, and on the durations and the dates, as other Members have proposed.
I will continue to support a change in the law; it is urgently needed. I hope that Parliament can work together on this issue, so that fireworks do not always have to go out with a bang—sorry about that.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for leading this petition debate.
As the MP proudly representing semi-rural North West Leicestershire—a beautiful constituency at the heart of the national forest, surrounded by countryside and farmland, with an abundance of wildlife and livestock, as well as the main home base for Canine Partners—it is unsurprising that I have been emailed by hundreds of constituents about the need to further regulate fireworks, and that more than 650 constituents have put their signatures to both petitions.
Neither petition calls for the banning of fireworks, which is a common misconception around this debate. We are here to discuss minimising the impact they have on people, livestock, neighbours and pets, and it is important that we focus on that. Most people use fireworks in a responsible, safe and appropriate manner, and laws are already in place to address the misuse of fireworks, limiting their sale to licensed traders and making it an offence to use them after 11 pm and before 7 am without express permission.
However, as a dog owner, I know that that does not go quite far enough. Just yesterday, some loud fireworks went off at 5 pm next to my home, which meant no walk for the dog. Unusually, the cats were also frightened. The issue is not just that animals are scared by the noise, but that horses and livestock are caused distress and harm when fireworks go off. Animals are at risk of injuring themselves on fencing or farm equipment or on fixtures and fittings in housing if startled.
Of course, this issue impacts not just animals, but veterans and vulnerable people. For those suffering from PTSD, the loud bangs are huge triggers. Last year, PTSD UK did a study on the effects of fireworks on those with PTSD; 85% of respondents said that fireworks made them feel unsafe in their homes, and 27.2% had sought medical or therapeutic support due to firework-related stress. Surely this cannot continue.
It is not difficult to be a little more thoughtful and kind to our neighbours—to collectively take a step back to think about those loud noises and the impact they have on so many people. Firework displays can be enjoyed without fear, but we must recognise the volume of fireworks, particularly in Leicestershire, where fireworks seem to go on for weeks. After the last fireworks night, when I was back in London in early November, I realised just how quiet it is here compared with my constituency. That is why I supported the Fireworks Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). I thank her for all her hard work, and share her hope for action going forward.
Reducing the maximum noise level for consumer fireworks from 120 dB to 90 dB, as called for in the Bill and as suggested in one of the petitions, seems such a sensible step forward, and could have real, positive impacts on our communities, veterans, vulnerable people, pets, livestock and wildlife. It would also limit the impact of home firework displays, although I agree that we need to look again at the regulations on the sale of fireworks. Ultimately, we must make sure that people are safe.
Firework displays can still be beautiful and fun if they are a little quieter. It is about being that bit more respectful to those around us. Imagine if people who are frightened of fireworks could go and enjoy them because they are that bit quieter. That would mean that more people could enjoy what fireworks displays can offer.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
I will call Dr Scott Arthur, Sarah Hall, Kirsteen Sullivan and Elsie Blundell, and then I will vacate the Chair for my replacement. I call Dr Scott Arthur.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Pritchard; surely you are irreplaceable.
Dr Arthur
A change in this domain is inevitable. The Government can choose to be proactive, or they will end up reacting to events—perhaps when someone is killed. It is really important to remember that.
When we had this debate last year, I spoke about the lawlessness we saw in my constituency and in Edinburgh more widely in 2024. Across the city, police officers and firefighters were attacked with fireworks, bricks and bottles, our public transport system was heavily targeted, and a red panda in Edinburgh zoo died. In my constituency, disorder in areas that included Sighthill, Oxgangs, Calder Road and Broomhouse left my constituents terrified and afraid to leave their houses, and a care home, petrol station and care dealership were attacked. It is shameful that disorder of that level took place, and that it was in large part fuelled by easy access to large stocks of fireworks.
In 2024, after that disorder, I visited the police. They issued me with photographs of fireworks they had confiscated from a gentleman who had them in the back of his van, and who was selling them to young people for a profit. In 2025, an individual was caught with £42,000-worth of fireworks that he intended to sell to people on the street. Since then, firework exclusion zones have been set up in Scotland, and those are important, but they are ultimately difficult to enforce.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an important point on firework control zones. They were sold as a bit of a silver bullet, but unfortunately I heard from fire chiefs and police officers during my time as a councillor that they had been given no additional resources or funding to enforce them. That is surely a must.
Dr Arthur
Absolutely. The planning and resourcing that goes into enforcing these zones in Edinburgh is absolutely incredible, and I thank the police for the work they do—they often face real risks.
We have to tackle the import and sale of fireworks. Last year, in response to the events of 2024, my office undertook a local campaign where we wrote to all the supermarkets asking them to end their sale of fireworks. I thank Hannah from my office for doing that. I am proud that all the major supermarkets in Edinburgh South West have stopped selling fireworks—that is a fantastic achievement. The same is true across much of the city, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) were able to copy what we did and achieve the same in their constituencies.
Around that time, I was copied into an email from the British Fireworks Association to the chief executive of Asda, which had just agreed to stop selling fireworks in my constituency. The email said that the people behind the campaign in Edinburgh South West—my constituents—were from very small, ill-informed and vocal self-interest groups. These are pet lovers, veterans—we have a lot of veterans in my constituency—people who may be neurodiverse and people who have simply had enough. The email said that regulations ensure that customers are purchasing fireworks from a trusted source, often with clear instructions and safety warnings. “Often with instructions”—it is absolutely incredible.
Thankfully, with the supermarkets’ help, the situation across Edinburgh South West really improved in 2025, and I thank them. While the police were called to some antisocial behaviour incidents, those involved dispersed when officers arrived and no serious offences were committed. That may be because the police were able to prosecute quite a number of people who had been caught. I cannot commend strongly enough the work of community groups and the police in the build-up to 5 November last year. Many months of work paid off, and I am proud of the small contribution that my office made. The level of violence in Edinburgh South West was much lower, at least in part because it was harder to buy fireworks.
The Government have to look at that and think about the role of organised displays, such as Edinburgh’s Diwali and Hogmanay displays, as well as those organised by groups such as the Currie, Balerno and District Round Table. The Government must think about whether anybody else really needs to be able to buy fireworks. Do we want to be proactive as a Government and keep people safe, or wait until more people are injured? It is incumbent on the Government to act. The Netherlands started 2026 with a fireworks ban. Would it not be great if this country did the same to start 2027?
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. When I come to Parliament, I try to bring my constituents with me—not just their names on a petition, but their views, experiences and the reality of life on their streets. In shaping my contribution to this debate, I asked constituents to share their thoughts and experiences of fireworks as they are used today. Many people spoke about animals and their pets: dogs and cats traumatised by loud bangs, hiding for days, injuring themselves in panic or becoming permanently anxious. Other people raised the wider impact on wildlife and livestock, and the distress caused when explosions happen without warning. I also heard from parents about their children with autism and other disabilities, for whom the noise is overwhelming and frightening, often leading to meltdowns and heightened anxiety. Many people expressed concerns about the impact on veterans and others living with PTSD.
Fireworks are no longer confined to one or two predicable nights. Constituents describe them being set off throughout the year, often late at night and often without notice. That unpredictability makes it almost impossible to prepare—to calm a distressed animal, support a vulnerable child or simply feel settled in one’s own home. Fireworks are explosives, and we already accept that they need regulation, but the clear message from my constituents is that the balance is no longer right. No one who contacted me wants fireworks banned outright; they ask for better regulation that reflects how fireworks are used today. There is strong support for quieter fireworks, including silent options, and for a shift towards organised, licensed displays with clear start and end times. These approaches do not end tradition; they make it safer, more predictable and more considerate of others. We have a strong tradition of celebration and commemoration in this country, from bonfire night at Thelwall parish hall to ringing in the new year with Big Ben and celebrating Diwali and lunar new year.
[Christine Jardine in the Chair]
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I love new year’s fireworks, and I recall how enjoyable my local council-run fireworks always were. However, as someone who has had fireworks thrown at them and gets similar reports from constituents, I know how terrifying they can be. It definitely seems that we need more regulation. Constituents complain that because fireworks are not considered serious, the police do not necessarily come when called, or they only come a few days later.
Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the appeal of personal firework displays is that many local councils such as my own have had to cut their budget for firework displays and can no longer hold them, while other firework displays end up being ticketed so people across the area cannot necessarily participate?
Sarah Hall
I agree, and I think this needs to be considered in the round. If regulations are put in place, funding will absolutely be needed to fill the gap.
For too many people, fireworks no longer mean celebration; they mean disruption and nights without sleep. This debate is not about banning joy; it is about listening carefully to the people we represent and asking whether our laws still reflect the reality on our streets, in our towns and in our villages. People are not asking us to end fireworks; they are asking us to regulate them better. That is a reasonable request from my constituents and from thousands of others across the country.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure, Ms Jardine, to serve under your chairship today, and I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for presenting these petitions on behalf of the Petitions Committee. It is clear that there is a strength of feeling about fireworks, not only in this place but up and down the country—not least with the 345 of my constituents who have signed the petitions.
As we have heard, fireworks can have absolutely devastating impacts on our neighbourhoods, leaving families afraid to go out, homes and drivers under attack, and animals in terror. For years Blackburn, in my constituency of Bathgate and Linlithgow, was known to be a hotspot for dangerous bonfire night disorder. Emergency services came under attack, fireworks were routinely used as weapons, and residents were frightened in their own streets and their own homes. When I first became a councillor in 2017, I learned very quickly the depth of fear, frustration and anger within the community. At one memorable public meeting, anger at perceived inaction threatened to boil over into hostility. However, despite the fact that illegal firework sales were talked about widely and there were numerous incidents involving them, police and fire officers had not received any reports. There was a bit of a light-bulb moment as everybody realised that they had a part to play in making Blackburn a safer place around bonfire night.
Instead of allowing frustration to fester, everyone came together. Police and fire services co-ordinated their response with other services, including various council departments and members of the Blackburn community. That led to the establishment in 2019 of the Blackburn bonfire night action group. It worked throughout the year to provide diversionary activities for young people, and to co-ordinate police and fire planning and response alongside that of other services. Crucially, proactive community engagement increased reporting of criminal activity such as illegal sales of fireworks, the creation of dangerous bonfires, and incidents including fireworks being thrown at drivers, pets and so on. In subsequent years, Crimestoppers saw a major increase in reports from worried residents. The group worked because it was a genuine partnership, shaped and driven by the people who lived in the village—people who for years had felt terrorised by a small minority that was hell-bent on causing chaos and fear in the lead-up to 5 November.
Although the problems have not been completely eradicated, there has been a vast improvement on the scenes of 2017 and 2018. The Blackburn bonfire night action group has received national recognition for its work, being praised in the Scottish Parliament for reducing antisocial behaviour during bonfire season. I commend everyone who has played a part in the initiative for their commitment and effort in addressing what has been a very complex issue.
Ultimately, people in our communities and our neighbourhoods know exactly what is going on, and they are the ones who have to live with the consequences. Fireworks policies must be made with communities and not imposed on them, and councils in Scotland and other vital public services, such as Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, must be resourced and funded to deliver those policies. Communities such as Blackburn deserve nothing less.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to raise of the views of my constituents, more than 650 of whom signed the first of the two petitions being considered today. Many of those constituents made their views known to me, this weekend and previously, after I made it clear that I would be speaking in this debate.
Whether on 5 November, new year’s eve or Eid, fireworks are part of our story and have become interwoven in this country’s rich history. So many people enjoy these colourful displays, but some are filled with anxiety each time November comes around. Whether they are veterans working to overcome what they have had to endure while serving, those who work shifts or irregular hours, or families with young children, people have legitimate reasons for being concerned—not only about the level of noise involved, but about the frequent spillover into the days and weeks prior to or after the events themselves. Bonfire night is no longer just a night; as we all know, displays—organised or otherwise—take place throughout the winter months, much to the consternation of many in our communities.
We must also consider the fact that a small but dangerous minority misuse fireworks in antisocial behaviour that strikes fear into the heart of many vulnerable residents and adds further pressure to our emergency services, which are already under considerable strain. It is clear that some individuals have lost sight of what these events are all about; they instead use fireworks to intimidate and threaten, putting themselves and those around them at serious risk.
That is without considering the impact that weeks upon weeks of explosions have on our family pets, local wildlife and biodiversity. One constituent, Pete Knowles, from the Stoney Hill community wildlife area, said that in summer, barely a week goes by without disturbance to wildlife, pets and people in our area. He made clear the acute risk to hibernating wildlife, the local bat population, and nocturnal species such as badgers, foxes and wood mice.
Countless constituents have written to each of us to let us know of the damage that fireworks do to their family members, and I truly believe that we have to find a way to continue our enjoyment while remaining aware of people who hold such strong and genuine opposing views. That requires both common sense and compassion. We need to consider how we can further limit the use of fireworks outside of holidays, so that people do not need to endure weeks of potential anguish. We must also strengthen local enforcement in the run-up to events and crack down on retailers that sell fireworks to anyone under the age of 18. We all know that that continues to happen, and it needs to stop.
We must look more closely at the actions of countries that have legislated for a reduction in firework noise from 120 dB to 90 dB. Some of the explosions are too loud, and we need to remember that behind every door could well be a person or animal being tormented. Finally, by enforcing laws that are already in place, we must prohibit the bulk buying and stockpiling of fireworks. There is no need for it, and it must be urgently curtailed.
As I said, fireworks can bring people together, but there are many who should not have to continue to endure the status quo. It would be remiss of us, as parliamentarians, to stand here again next year and indulge in the same debate without having achieved anything in the interim. I hope that the Minister can touch on some of these points in her closing remarks. I thank my Heywood and Middleton North constituents for their candour in relaying their views on this issue.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the more than 1,000 Shipley constituents who signed the petitions.
The antisocial use of fireworks is a blight on our communities. Since I was elected a year and a half ago, hundreds of constituents have contacted my office. They have been in touch from across the constituency—from Baildon, Bingley, Wilsden, Wrose, Cottingley and Cullingworth. They tell me that loud fireworks keep them awake at night, and cause distress to young and old, as well as to pets and farm animals. For one veteran I met, who suffers with PTSD, they retraumatise him every time.
I have campaigned vociferously to put a stop to this. I have written to Ministers, spoken to the local police, met with campaign groups and raised the matter in Parliament on multiple occasions. In October, I launched my own petition, calling for a reduction in the legal decibel limit for fireworks sold in the UK. That petition is now supported by almost 5,000 people. This is a massive issue, and it needs to be addressed.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I shared my hon. Friend’s petition with my constituents, and I thank her for her campaigning on that issue. On the general petitions website for this Parliament, there are 199 petitions with “fireworks” somewhere in the description. That is an incredible number when we consider that there are 601 on the NHS, which is a huge issue, 553 on housing and 367 on immigration. Does she agree that, compared with those other issues, this one is relatively easy to fix, and that the Government should grasp it?
Anna Dixon
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am sure that the Minister will have heard his plea, along with those made by other Members.
To be clear, this is not about stopping anyone enjoying fireworks. I enjoy good fireworks as much as the next person—in fact, the sparkler is my favourite. Bonfire night, new year’s eve, Diwali, Eid—these festivities are part of our social fabric, and celebrating them brings us together as families, friends and communities. This is about tackling the antisocial use of fireworks.
I am proud that the previous Labour Government did a lot on this issue. The Fireworks Regulations 2004 imposed curfews on fireworks, restricted their sale to certain times of the year for unlicensed sellers, and outlawed their use in public places. When we were last in power, we made great strides, but further change is well overdue. As many of my Shipley constituents would tell us, the antisocial use of fireworks persists, despite the best efforts of Bradford council, trading standards, the fire service and the police in enforcing the current law. In the run-up to bonfire night, some £10,000-worth of fireworks were seized from rogue sellers by West Yorkshire police. Thanks to the tireless work of the West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service, along with partners in the community, on prevention and education, most celebrations in Bradford last year went off without incident.
Other Members—in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume)—have spoken with great passion about safety concerns, and I support a lot of what has been said today, but the most important area, where we want action, and soon, is noise. The volume of fireworks available for sale in the UK is 120 dB, and many Members have spoken powerfully about the need to reduce the noise. That could easily be achieved by a simple amendment to regulation 8 of the Fireworks Regulations, which already prohibits the supply, purchase or possession of category 3 fireworks whose noise levels exceed 120 dB. Furthermore, I would support a ban on the general sale of category 3 fireworks and limiting them to authorised events in the same way as category 4 fireworks.
I urge the Government to make these changes, and I urge the Minister to work closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), who I commend for all her work, to find a way to change the law to reduce the distress that fireworks cause to people, veterans and pets—and to all of us, so that we can all get a good night’s sleep.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on his breakneck introduction, in which he took so many interventions on this massive issue. He was right, as many other Members have been, to observe that we have had these debates year on year. I remember being sat across the Chamber while we were in opposition, I remember being sat in the Minister’s seat a year ago, and now I am here again. Every year, we get more and more Members attending, and more and more members of the public demanding change. I think the case has been made that it is now time to act.
It is interesting to note that despite an increased awareness campaign in the last year, there were 550 child admissions to A&E on bonfire night for burns alone. That shows us that education and information can only get us so far. As we have heard, there are adverse impacts from using fireworks responsibly as well. People are impacted by the noise. For some, fireworks are a nuisance and can interrupt sleep or leisure; for others, particularly those with sensory challenges or conditions such as PTSD, bangs can be harmful. With that in mind, I understand why some want greater restrictions on who can put on displays and on the days on which they can do so.
In my time as the Minister responsible for product regulation, I engaged with businesses, consumer groups and charities to gather evidence on the issues with and impacts of fireworks. I also met with a number of MPs, some of whom are here today, to hear about the impact that fireworks were having in their communities. Of course, there was a wide range of views about what could be done, but my view, when I embarked on those discussions, was that, as a minimum, a relatively straightforward change that we could make would be to reduce the decibel level from 120 dB. Nothing I heard during those discussions, and nothing I have heard during the debate today, changed my view that we should take that straightforward step. The precise level should be determined by consultation, but we have heard strong cases this evening for what that level should be. That would reduce the noise, and the impact on people and animals, without harming manufacturers or impacting the quality of displays.
There have been plenty of other suggestions. One of the petitions calls for a limit on sales to local authority-approved events only. Other suggestions include limiting locations, days and times at which fireworks can be released. However, it is clear to me that those kinds of measures do not work unless we get enforcement properly resourced. The experience in Scotland was instructive: we can tighten the rules, but it does not necessarily deliver change. The reality is that trading standards is overstretched and underfunded, meaning that any form of close monitoring of fireworks sales will be very difficult. I do not think that there is a consensus on how best to move forward on that. There is also a concern that that would simply move sales into the black market.
Reducing decibel levels, as New Zealand has done, is a straightforward, simple step that we can take. I will be candid: I think that some in the Government hold the view that taking action on this is seen as nanny-statism. I think that view is wrong. When I hear today that we are looking to consult on banning social media for under-16s, I do not think that the nanny-statism argument can be consistently held any longer, so I will continue to advocate for a reduction in decibel levels. Sadly, I was not able to do that when I was in office, but I am convinced that taking this step would affect those most impacted by noise—those with certain mental health conditions, those who are neurodiverse and those who care about the welfare of animals—and could be done without taking anything away from the people who enjoy fireworks.
I wish the Minister well in trying to navigate the competing views and administrative blockages that she will face, but I hope that she will come to the same conclusion that I did: that the easiest and best way to address this issue is through a reduction in decibel levels. As we have seen from the consensus across Westminster Hall today, and the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), this will happen through Parliament, whether via Government or Back-Bench action, so I urge the Minister to act now.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for the way in which he laid out the debate, and the petitioners for taking the time to give us their views.
As we have heard, fireworks can be a source of entertainment and play a very important role in cultural celebrations, but, sadly, for many people and animals they are a source of anxiety, distress and danger. Product safety and the sale of fireworks are consumer safety issues and so reserved to Westminster. Current regulations prohibit the sale of fireworks to the public except during certain periods of the year: Chinese new year, Diwali, bonfire night and new year. However, the easing of restrictions, while intended to allow the marking of significant cultural celebrations, creates extended periods when private backyard or back-garden displays can occur sporadically with no prior warning.
The extended easing of restrictions over bonfire night has been highlighted by veterans charities as a particular point of concern. The bright flashes of light, loud bangs and smell of smoke lingering in the air can trigger PTSD in veterans. Moreover, that period of sale coincides with the period during which we remember those who have fallen in war and compounds the distress already associated with that time.
The unpredictability of backyard displays also places an unnecessary burden on vulnerable groups in our society and on pet owners, preventing them from planning ahead and putting precautions and coping strategies in place to limit the distress. In Scotland, when and where fireworks can be discharged is a devolved issue. As we have heard, some measures have been introduced to further restrict their use.
In response to the antisocial behaviour associated with fireworks, the Scottish Government’s Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Act 2022 provides local authorities with the power to designate firework control zones. In Glasgow, three such zones were implemented last year between 1 November and 10 November, although, frustratingly, the bid for a zone in my constituency was rejected by Glasgow city council. Residents living within those zones have reported a calmer environment, a quieter evening and a better experience, but Glasgow as a whole still recorded the highest number of firework-related calls to the police in Scotland—in fact, double the second-highest reported number, which was in Edinburgh. Sound does not observe boundaries and does not understand the limitations of zones, and residents living in control zones noted that firework-related noise continued to be an issue, so there is a question of how to police such areas. To tackle noise and antisocial behaviour effectively, the implementation of a city-wide control zone would have made more sense, but the current legislation does not allow that, which seems to me a real problem.
The Scottish Government’s 2022 Act also legislated for the establishment and implementation of a new licensing scheme, which would require members of the public to obtain a licence before being allowed to purchase, possess or use fireworks. However, at the end of last year the First Minister announced that the implementation of the scheme would be paused due to its complexity, which I understand, and the cost of introducing it.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
In my constituency, on 5 November last year we experienced not only horrific effects on animals but unacceptable criminal conduct and large-scale chaos. Police riot vans were deployed after a 40-strong mob pelted people, local businesses and cars with explosives, and emergency services were attacked at several locations. Bonfire night is just an excuse for antisocial behaviour now, frankly, as are the weeks before and after. Does my hon. Friend agree that the SNP Scottish Government need to get a grip? Their failure to deliver the promised legislative protections has left communities such as West Dunbartonshire exposed.
Patricia Ferguson
I thank my hon. Friend. I was just saying that as well as its complexity, which I understand, another reason for not introducing licensing in the way that the Scottish Government originally wanted to was the cost, which seems particularly ironic given that they have had a record devolution settlement for the second year running. I understand his point, and his constituency neighbours mine. In previous years—fortunately not for some time now—we had instances in my constituency of thugs, frankly, using scaffolding poles to fire fireworks at the police, who ended up having to bring in the riot squad to deal with it. That kind of behaviour cannot be allowed, and any action that is taken must show understanding that not everyone is a good actor.
Apart from anything else, I do not actually think the Scottish Government’s licensing scheme would work. We need measures that are easily understood and easily enforceable. As we have heard, silent or much quieter fireworks and organised displays seem to be the way forward. If we do not listen to what people are telling us, we will continue to perpetuate an environment that detrimentally affects animal welfare and the welfare of vulnerable groups in our society.
This has been an interesting and worthwhile debate, and I hope that we will all resolve, and the Minister will agree, that we should not be back here having it again next year.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for the expert way in which he opened the debate. I think the last time I spoke in a petition debate that he led, Members across the Chamber agreed about mandatory digital ID, so I am hoping for a similar outcome today.
I thank the petitioners, Helen and Graham, everyone else who is in the Public Gallery here today, and the people across the country who have signed the two petitions. In my constituency alone, 361 people signed the petition calling for firework sales to be limited to council-approved events and 227 signed the petition calling for lower noise levels. I have also received 114 emails from Hartlepool residents, all calling for tighter controls or an outright ban on personal use. That tells us something very clear: this is not a niche concern. It is widespread and persistent across the country, including in Hartlepool.
I want to be clear from the outset that I support public firework displays. When they are organised and well managed, they bring communities together. As a child, I loved attending the firework display at Ward Jackson Park in Hartlepool. Hartlepool is fortunate to have a major public display still at Seaton Carew, supported by Hartlepool borough council and sponsored by X-energy, and I am grateful that it continues.
What my constituents are experiencing now, though, goes far beyond a few celebratory nights. Fireworks in Hartlepool begin in September, and intensify through October, November, December and into early January. For weeks at a time, there is no predictability and no break—and that has real consequences: children awoken night after night and elderly residents reporting fear and anxiety. In 2024, Hartlepool police was forced to issue a dispersal order on the Bishop Cuthbert estate where fireworks were being used as weapons, seriously injuring at least one young person. Pets suffer distress, and veterans and others living with trauma are affected by the sudden loud explosions.
Calling for action is not being anti-fun; it is respecting others. There is nothing nanny state about protecting the most vulnerable in our society. Limiting sales to council-approved events would bring order and safety to communities such as Hartlepool. Reducing the maximum noise level to 90 dB is a simple, common-sense approach. Quieter fireworks already exist; alternatives are available.
People in Hartlepool are not asking for celebrations to end. They are asking for balance and fairness. I urge the Minister, who I know has listened intently all afternoon, to listen to the petitions and to the messages from Members across the House and from the people of Hartlepool. The current system is not working and needs to change.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine, and to contribute to this important debate. I enjoyed my close-up view of the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) introducing it, but I am glad to be back on the right side of the Chamber.
More than 740 constituents across Aylesbury and the villages have signed petitions raising these concerns, and I am grateful to them for doing so. That shows clearly how important this issue is to people, and to their pets, farm animals and other livestock, as we have discussed. I also pay tribute to charities such as the RSPCA and Dogs Trust, which have worked tirelessly to highlight the impact that fireworks can have. In their survey, 45% of surveyed dog owners report that their dog has been negatively affected by fireworks. During the bonfire night and Diwali period, Petlog, the UK’s lost and found microchip database, recorded an 81% surge in missing dog reports compared with the prior two weeks, showing the devastating impact that fireworks can have on animals and on the households that own them.
At the same time, I acknowledge that for many families across the country—and for me—fireworks are a source of joy and celebration that mark new year, Diwali, bonfire night, Chinese new year and many other special occasions. In no way would I want to discourage those important moments where our communities come together and celebrate. We do not have enough of those. However, I recognise that the majority of people in Aylesbury and across the country want to celebrate and enjoy those moments responsibly, and I am glad that they do.
The questions seems to be how to strike the right balance between safety and welfare on the one hand and celebration on the other. The Government have done some good work to build on; restricting the sale of fireworks to licensed traders and for certain occasions, alongside the public safety campaigns that we have seen, is a good start. I welcome the Government’s ongoing engagement with consumer groups, businesses and charities to keep gathering the evidence that we need—but for many of my constituents, the evidence already feels clear and they want more action.
One constituent, Patricia Walker, wrote to me describing the distress that her household experienced on new year’s eve. She said,
“Fireworks from 4 pm til 3 am, some sounding like missiles, nobody using fireworks wisely there. My dog shook for hours and was sick. I was up all night. Not responsible or appropriate”.
I ask the Minister to look at three points that have been raised with me. First, as we have heard from others, there is a strong case for reviewing the maximum permitted noise level for consumer fireworks. At present it stands at 120 dB, but that is far louder than is necessary to enjoy the visual celebration. Campaigners and petitioners have called for a reduction to 90 dB; since low-noise fireworks are already widely available, that would not stop celebrations, but it would significantly reduce the harm to animals and the distress to people. Of course, we would need to make sure that that limit was enforceable online as well as in shops.
Secondly, I ask that we look again at how the existing limits on times and days are enforced and whether further clarity might be needed. Many of the most distressing experiences arise from not just one evening, but fireworks being set off repeatedly over several days or late into the night. Clearer enforcement and better public awareness around permitted use would help ensure that more responsible behaviour becomes the norm.
Thirdly, there is more we can do to improve predictability and consideration for others, particularly people who live near farms, stables and animal sanctuaries. Stronger guidance on, or encouragement of, advanced notification of firework use would allow animal owners and vulnerable residents to take simple steps to prevent harm to them. That is already happening in some areas, but it could be promoted much more widely, including in Aylesbury and the villages, and would go a long way to help. I am grateful for the Minister’s consideration—I know she has been listening carefully during this long debate—and I look forward to hearing her responses.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for securing this important debate and speaking so passionately on the issue.
Every year in the weeks leading up to bonfire night on 5 November people suffer life-changing injuries and animals and people suffer stress and fear, which continues throughout the winter. Guy Fawkes night celebrates a failed terrorist attack on the very building we are sitting in. Had it succeeded, the Palace of Westminster would have been destroyed and hundreds of lives would have been lost. Is that really a tradition that we should continue to celebrate in the 21st century?
More than 600 of my constituents have signed the two petitions to reduce firework noise and limit sales. I wholeheartedly support those measures, but I would go further, as the Government in the Netherlands have recently done. As of 1 January, the sale and detonation of fireworks is illegal in the Netherlands, due to the large amount of deaths and serious injuries they cause. One physician spoke of treating a patient in Amsterdam who was “clutching their own eyeball” after a firework injury. The Government there rightly decided that that could not continue. Germany, the Republic of Ireland and many Spanish cities have also implemented heavy restrictions on the sale and use of fireworks. It is time that Britain caught up.
In previous debates on this subject I have spoken of my 20-year career in the NHS, where I saw many, mostly young, people coming into hospital with life-changing injuries, including loss of fingers, limbs or sight. Fireworks are putting increased pressure on our already overstretched NHS, while causing long-term harm to people who have suffered those injuries.
The impact on pets and livestock is both horrendous and heartbreaking. Animals have much more acute hearing than people and are sensitive to high-pitched and sudden loud noises. According to the British Veterinary Association and other surveys, more than 60% of dog and cat owners say their pets are negatively impacted by fireworks and, as a cat owner, I can relate to that.
Local charities and pet rescues such as Stourbridge RSPCA, Stour Valley Cat Rescue and CatsMatter have told me of heartbreaking cases of pets suffering from firework noise. Since 2021, as least 26 horses have died and hundreds more have been injured in the UK as a result of firework-related incidents. There are many cases of cows, chicken, deer and other animals facing awful injuries due to fireworks. Sadly, the Animal Welfare Act has failed to provide sufficient protection against such appalling acts of animal cruelty. It is often difficult to compile enough evidence that the use of fireworks is causing significant suffering, or to prove who set off a firework in a busy urban neighbourhood or where there is a crowd involved.
The petitions highlight the growing support for stronger restrictions on the sale and use of fireworks. A recent YouGov poll found that 91% of those surveyed were open to replacing fireworks with drones or light shows. We cannot keep pretending that fireworks are just harmless fun. Our constituents have spoken, the evidence is overwhelming and the suffering is undeniable. Other nations have acted with courage and compassion; Britain should not be the outlier that shrugs its shoulders while people are maimed and animals are terrified just for the sake of a few minutes of noise and light. Let us build a future where celebration does not come at the cost of people’s wellbeing or animal welfare. Let us ban the public sale and detonation of fireworks, and save them for public organised displays.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for opening this debate. Rochdale has the second highest number of signatures of all constituencies in the country on the petition to limit the sale of fireworks to approved events only—813 people. If we add the 222 who also signed the petition calling for a lower maximum noise level, there are more than 1,000 people in my constituency who take this issue very seriously.
As many hon. Members have said, fireworks are meant to be a cause of celebration but for far too many animals, pet owners and other humans they are a cause of distress and terror. My dog Oscar, like so many others, is absolutely terrified of fireworks. I used to be able to handle that, because the use of fireworks was a rare event, but now it is not a one-off every now and then; it is a regular event, all year round.
Constituents such as Marina Berry from Wardle in my constituency have been in touch with their stories, including of panicking dogs at risk of heart attacks and horses running into barbed wire and causing themselves injury. The data shows that 41% of UK dog owners say that their dog is afraid of fireworks—that is 4 million dogs—while 35% more dogs go missing on bonfire night than on any other night of the year, as do 22% more cats. Janet Gough from Littleborough wrote to me to say
“they started in the middle of October, every night…They are so loud my dog is now a nervous drooling wreck, I’m scared she will have a heart attack or something—it’s getting out of control now.”
Janet is absolutely right: it is out of control now.
I love a fireworks display as much as anyone else. They can be beautiful and spectacular. In Rochdale, we have many displays that we are proud of: the bonfire night celebrations with fireworks on Cronkeyshaw common, at Littleborough cricket club, and at Milnrow cricket club. Everyone enjoys them and no one wants to be a killjoy, but for so many people fireworks are not a matter of joy; they are a matter of fear.
The use of fireworks has gone far beyond being enjoyed a couple of days a year. Many in my constituency have written to say that they heard fireworks every night throughout the autumn months, and often far past the curfew. Such late-night use affects not just pet owners, but shift workers, families with young children, families with children with special needs or autism, and the elderly. Charities supporting veterans have repeatedly raised awareness of the effect that fireworks can have on those with PTSD, as has been said in this debate. Research by Combat Stress and Help for Heroes found that 74% of veterans want tighter restrictions on the days and times when fireworks can be used. Theresa Mitchell, head of the “Hidden Wounds” therapy service for veterans, said:
“Sudden, loud noises, unpredictable flashes of light and the smell of bonfires and fireworks can trigger anxiety. Some people may feel on edge and overwhelmed, others may be reminded of moments in combat and can be troubled by past traumatic events.”
Those former servicemen and women are not snowflakes; they are people who did their duty for this country and they deserve to be treated with respect. Almost a quarter of military veterans say that fireworks have triggered a negative experience for them.
Children suffer too: some 343 children needed specialist burns care between 2019 and 2023—that is specialist burns care in a hospital with a specialist consultant, separate from the thousands who are injured every year.
We should also not forget the impact on our firefighters. The Fire Brigades Union says that, every year, the consequences of fireworks—fires, injuries and the spread of fear—have a direct impact on its members. It says of the current law:
“it is our members who are put into dangerous situations trying to deal with the consequences.”
I have full sympathy for local law enforcement officers, who are already short of resources, trying to enforce the curfews under the current law. The problem is that loud fireworks can effectively be bought by anyone, wherever they like, and set off anywhere. This, ultimately, is also a matter of respect: respect for our neighbours. Most people who hold firework displays for weddings and birthdays, for example, probably are not even aware of the distress that they are causing—but they need to be made aware of it.
I am a Labour and Co-operative party MP, and it is worth pointing out that, years ago, the Co-Operative Group decided to impose a total ban on the sale of fireworks after work with animal charities. Other retailers should take note of that and take action, before any change in the law.
Fireworks at important recognised events throughout the calendar year, such as bonfire night, Diwali, Eid al-Fitr, new year’s eve and Chinese new year, could all still be celebrated, as lots of people have said today, with lower noise levels, with low-noise and no-bang fireworks. Knowing that those specific events are coming up gives pet owners time to prepare for the possibility of noise disruption.
Fireworks are often a way to bring people together but, sadly, they are currently tearing people apart. With tighter restrictions in place, we can do something: we can protect pets, wildlife, and human beings too.
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
Thank you. If contributors could please keep to the informal time limit, it would be a huge help. After Ruth Jones, I will call Rachael Maskell and then Tom Hayes.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for introducing these important petitions, because the sale and use of fireworks is of great concern to my constituents and is frequently one of the top issues in my postbag. Over the last year, I have received correspondence from residents right across my patch, from Newbridge to Blackwood, Abercarn, Cefn Fforest, Risca, Rogerstone, Crumlin and even Bassaleg.
Given that widespread concern, I am not surprised that 700 residents in Newport West and Islwyn signed the petitions up for debate today. The petitions have clear asks: reduce the maximum noise of consumer fireworks and limit the sale of fireworks to licensed events. The changes are backed by 65% of the public, as well as a broad coalition of charities, and could easily be introduced through amendments to regulations. Critically, something must be done to address local communities’ lack of control, as residents can report incidents to their local councils, but they are powerless to do anything about it.
Fireworks are an important part of many celebrations and are enjoyed by millions across the UK each year, overwhelmingly at large organised displays. A startling 78% of the public have never bought fireworks, which highlights the public’s general preference for the safety of organised events. Despite that, residents are still too often exposed to surprise explosions late at night—unexpected loud bangs that startle children, distress older people and frighten pets and livestock. Vulnerable groups, including children with sensory needs, older residents living alone, or those managing health conditions or trauma are particularly affected. Sudden firework blasts can also be deeply distressing for many veterans; 93% of those living with PTSD say that fireworks negatively impact them, and Help for Heroes found that almost a quarter of veterans reported fireworks triggering negative experiences, including panic attacks; similarly, Combat Stress, the veterans charity, sees a 25% spike in helpline calls around Diwali and bonfire night.
Loud fireworks are also a significant concern to pet owners and livestock farmers, as the unexpected explosions and flashes of bright light panic animals into desperate attempts to find safety. These instinctive reactions risk animals fleeing into traffic, injuring themselves or getting lost. As we have already heard, Petlog found that the number of missing dogs doubled between 27 October and 10 November in 2024. Appropriate restrictions on the use and sale of fireworks are essential to safeguard animals’ health and welfare.
Further consideration is also required for the risks posed by the household use of fireworks. While organised displays often use trained professionals and adhere to rigorous health and safety requirements, such protections are not always in place for small events or family gatherings. In 2025, there was a fourfold increase in firework-related burns to children and the highest admittance rates to A&E in a decade, with 550 children admitted in the four weeks around bonfire night. Those stark statistics cannot be ignored.
I need to declare an interest here: as a former physiotherapist working in a burns and plastic surgery unit, I have seen at first hand the long-term difficulties and disfigurement that these injuries cause. These children face a lifetime of impairment. I therefore call on the Minister to heed these clear concerns and the overwhelming evidence supporting a change of approach. Ministers must update the Fireworks Regulations 2004. I look forward to the Minister outlining a clear timetable for these desperately needed changes. We cannot be here again after 5 November this year. Let’s get it done now.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I thank the 636 constituents of mine who signed the petitions. Guy Fawkes hailed from my constituency; in 1605, he came to this place to set the building alight. That sort of antisocial behaviour is what we are talking about today—the harms, not the goods, that come from fireworks. There are two key areas: impact and safety. The whizz, the crackles, and especially the bangs have an impact on animals, people who are neurodiverse and those with mental health challenges or trauma. We have heard about the consequences of that in this debate, and putting in restrictions to safeguard people’s and animals’ wellbeing is a logical step. I welcome set dates, reducing fireworks’ decibel volume from 120 dB to 90 dB, and ensuring that only licensed public events put on displays, to safeguard all our communities.
Having personally experienced a firework being lobbed at me when I was cycling home from this place one night, I certainly believe that we need to ensure that they are placed in the hands only of those who hold a licence. However, I want to turn to another event: the new year tragedy at Le Constellation bar in the ski resort of Crans-Montana in Switzerland, in which 40 young people lost their lives and 100 were hospitalised. It demands a response from this place too.
Over the weekend, I read the research from Professor Ed Galea, who identified 38 similar fires that have claimed about 1,200 lives since the year 2000. Fifteen involved some form of pyrotechnics, and 13 involved the acoustic foam that was present in the Switzerland case. That places new questions on our regulations on using fireworks indoors. We see a sparkler on a birthday cake, someone flambéing food or special effects at theatres as perfectly innocent occurrences, but the events of new year’s day must cause us all to question whether our regulations are fit for purpose for the future.
Although we have pressed on outdoor fireworks in this debate, it is also important that we press on the use of indoor fireworks—it clearly takes just a spark to ignite a building and cause tragedy. Therefore, I ask the Minister also to consider the use of fireworks indoors—perhaps it is time we say no to that—and the consequences surrounding that, and the wider safety measures needed around indoor venues. Exit routes have always been highlighted in these tragedies, as well as the use of foam and cladding—of course, we remember debating that so much in this place—and the human response. Often, people stop to film these events rather than respond; instead of fleeing, they freeze in the face of a fire. We need to ensure that people have the right psychological plan when entering venues.
Of course we understand the impact of outdoor fireworks on our communities, but I ask the Minister to include in her wider consideration the impact and potential risks of indoor fireworks for our communities, and to review the regulations to ensure that we never experience a tragedy like the one that families in Switzerland sadly experienced on new year’s day. Will the Minister look at the use of indoor fireworks as well as those in public displays?
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Nearly two hours into this debate, I am pleased to have the chance to speak. The fact that so many have spoken shows just how much this issue matters to our constituents. I thank the 497 people in my constituency who signed the two petitions, showing just how much this matters to Bournemouth East.
In preparing to speak today, I was struck by what some colleagues have noted: it feels like we have been debating this for a very long time. In fact, as far as I can tell, the first time that Parliament debated fireworks legislation was in 1697. The first regulations to support the public use of fireworks were in the Gunpowder and Fireworks Act 1860. As one who can be frustrated by the pace of change in Parliament, I was a bit concerned that it took just 56 calendar days to get that piece of legislation through, from the First Reading in the House of Commons to Royal Assent. We might be able to learn something from our colleagues way back in history.
In thinking about what my constituents have told me about fireworks, I am struck by the words of Sandra in Muscliff, who described some of her evenings as resembling living in a warzone. Carl, who lives in Townsend, told me at my surgery appointment at Boscombe library the other week about his and his wife’s cat Chester, who suffers significantly during noisy fireworks displays, to such an extent that he has blood in his urine, which is horrible to hear. Carl was asking what more can be done about the intensity and frequency of fireworks, and echoed an awful lot of views that I have heard from my constituents in doing so. I think also of Jeanette Shepperd, who lives in Pokesdown, who has called on me to represent her call for a limit on fireworks, particularly on the Bournemouth fireworks display, which happens annually in Litterdown, where there can be loud and unpredictable displays not just on that evening, but on the days leading up to it.
There are also people on the other side of the argument, such as Gayle on Beaufort Road in Southbourne, who is very clear that she wants a live-and-let-live approach. James in Queen’s Park says that his “very, very beautiful dog Penny”—those are his words as well as mine—has never been bothered by fireworks. That tells us that we need to find a balance, between safety and welfare on one side and the ability of constituents to enjoy coming together and have happy experiences on the other. Let’s face it, our country has been denied many opportunities to join together and to feel a sense of hope and happiness for a long time.
As an animal lover, I have been calling on the Government to do more. I have been calling on Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council in my area to regulate fireworks displays better and, crucially, to enforce existing rules more effectively. There is no point in making regulations if they are not enforced, and we should remember that we do have means of enforcement. The last Labour Government introduced the Fireworks Act 2003 and the Fireworks Regulations 2004, which were about restricting the antisocial use of fireworks. It has been said very well today by a number of colleagues that we are not against people being sociable, and we are not against the social use of fireworks; we are against the antisocial elements, the excessive noise and duration, the significant intensity, and the fact that we do not have reserved days for fireworks, but they happen throughout the course of the year.
I and many colleagues recognise that when one person’s actions cause harm or distress to others, and when individual freedoms come into conflict, we must always consider whether the balance is right. When it is not just the owners of pets, but the beloved pets themselves who bear the consequences, all of us feel the very great need to be compassionate towards them, but this is not just about pets. As we have heard, it is also about veterans, who are triggered as a consequence of hearing loud fireworks displays. It is about pensioners and it is about shift workers; it is about a spectrum in our society.
If the Government move forward with a limitation on the quality, duration, hours and noise of fireworks displays, that would be very much in keeping with our new animal welfare strategy. One of the best things that this Government can do as part of that strategy is to look at this issue again, bring forward the legislation that will finally protect animals, and make sure that we have more cohesive societies and a reduction in antisocial behaviour.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. As all hon. Members here will know, throughout October and November our inboxes and DMs fill up with messages from constituents sharing their concerns about fireworks and to what extent they should be controlled, so I welcome the chance to discuss that today. I thank the hundreds of my Cannock Chase constituents and the thousands of people across the country who lit the fuse on the two petitions. They include pet owners, parents, farmers, veterans and people with disabilities. They all ask a very simple question: why, when the harms caused by fireworks are so well evidenced, do we continue to allow their widespread sale with few meaningful restrictions?
My experience of the issue is perhaps different from that of many people who would pose that question; growing up, I enjoyed many professional displays at council-run bonfire nights, and I married into a family that considers a small fireworks display in the back garden to be a closely guarded new year’s eve tradition. I do not have any pets, and my two children are about as heavy sleepers as it is possible to be. But I am also an animal welfare advocate, so I very much understand the concerns. The Kennel Club has reported an 81% increase in dogs going missing during periods when fireworks are used. Animal rescue centres continue to document animals fleeing in panic, and farmers talk of miscarriages and even deaths among livestock. And we know that wildlife disruption is very significant.
We also have to acknowledge the impact on people. Parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities have told me how distressing it can be when fireworks are set off late at night, especially without warning; how difficult it can be to calm a child in sensory overload; and the effects that can be felt for days and days afterwards. For many veterans and survivors of trauma living with PTSD, fireworks season means the exact opposite of celebration. The organisation Combat Stress has extensive research on how certain bangs, flashes, whistles, smoke and smells can replicate the sights and sounds of warfare. It is telling that polling shows that 74% of veterans support further restrictions on when fireworks can be set off. If we had concrete nationwide statistics on the amount of time and money our police and firefighters spend dealing with accidental and criminal fireworks-related incidents, that would also add strength to the arguments for action on this issue.
Most people, it must be said, use fireworks responsibly, and there are restrictions on what they can buy and who can buy. Yet the fact that we hear the same concerns raised consistently year after year tells us that doing nothing is no longer an option. Members of the public can buy fireworks as loud as 120 dB, roughly the equivalent to a jet engine taking off. As anyone who has been a councillor will know, noise limits are difficult to enforce unless the disruption is repeated, and with sales increasingly happening online information and advice is more and more difficult to give.
Having once been confined to a few days of the year, many of my constituents have noted, the fireworks season is getting longer and longer every year, so I agree with calls to limit firework sales and use to specific periods of the year. I also wholeheartedly support the e-petition that calls for a 90 dB limit on fireworks. The petitions we are debating reflect a shift in public opinion. People are not calling for the end of celebration, but a more balanced approach.
Before I conclude, I acknowledge the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), who, as we have heard, has introduced a Fireworks Bill that I think makes sensible, proportionate proposals. I welcome the fact that Ministers are listening and reviewing the evidence from animal welfare organisations, veterans’ charities, parents, local authorities and the public, which I believe is clear. My ask of the Government is this: commit to meaningful reform. We should reduce permitted noise levels, tackle the ballooning length of fireworks season and tighten controls on sales. Our understanding of animal welfare has evolved. Our awareness of trauma and neurodiversity has grown. Technology has moved on and public expectations have changed. It is entirely reasonable and in fact necessary for the law to evolve, too.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I love watching fireworks, whether it is at East Ardsley cricket club, Morley rugby club for bonfire night or at the Gildersome and Drighlington Christmas lights switch-on events. They are spectacular, certainly when part of an organised display. My son Arthur, who is a year old now, absolutely loved the ones in Gildersome last year and I am certain he would have said thank you to the parish council if he were able.
In the past, I have also tuned in to watch the fireworks in London on new year’s eve on TV, but these days I typically watch them all go off in unison across Leeds from Wortley. I want to be clear that I approach this debate as somebody who enjoys fireworks as much as anybody else, but for a long time now it has become clear that something is not right.
My constituents have been contacting me in great numbers to state that both the volume and frequency of firework use have increased. Consequently, fireworks are having a much more negative impact on constituents’ lives than they used to. Their freedom to live their lives in peace is being restricted at certain times of the year, and it is not just when the big events are on; it is actually the weeks and months of fireworks before and after those events that are driving people to contact me.
Fireworks are set off every day for a whole week straight, and from the same location. There are loud explosions every night, lasting for days on end. People with PTSD, those with special educational needs, and those with pets or other animals constantly have to mitigate the impact of fireworks on their lives. The freedom to buy and use fireworks needs to be balanced against the freedom to live our lives in peace. Fireworks affect people in different ways. One of my constituents, Gareth, has been diagnosed with autism. He told me that fireworks give him sleepless nights and put him in a state of high alert, especially when he cannot plan for when they are going to be set off.
We have also heard repeatedly from Members across the Chamber about another group affected by fireworks. The charity Combat Stress says that 74% of the veterans it surveyed want restrictions on when fireworks can be set off. I have spoken to a veteran in my constituency who served our country with great distinction. I will share their words with the House now:
“November arrives, and I have to adapt my routine to make sure I’ve always got headphones in my pocket...Otherwise I’ll be taken straight back to being on tour, experiencing feelings and emotions that I’d rather never encounter again.
Fireworks trigger the memories, the sounds, the gunfire...scenes replay over and over with every firework. The smell comes back, the noise, the image, the grief....Whilst I understand the joy fireworks bring some and the heritage and history of our country that we should hold on to, I fail to see why they need to be so loud.
I am greatly in favour of planned firework displays, so I know what time they’re going to go off and I can plan ahead... and be ready with my headphones.
I would urge a reduction in the maximum noise allowed and the sale only to be for organised displays.”
Ahead of this debate, I received so many comments from constituents, but I wanted to share those words as they get to the heart of the argument that has been made today.
At this point, I have some questions for the Minister. First, do the Government have any plans to reduce the noise that fireworks make? In addition, do the Government plan to go any further and restrict the sale of fireworks, so that only people using them as part of organised professional displays can get their hands on them? My constituents have also asked me to talk about the enforcement of existing laws. What can the Government do to ensure that no fireworks are set off between 11 pm and 7 am, which is currently the law for every night of the year except key holidays? What will the Government do to crack down on those who sell fireworks illegally, which we know is happening?
Even if the current legislation was enforced, the persistent issues with the frequency and volume of fireworks would endure. My asks today are very straightforward. At a minimum, we must turn down the volume on fireworks sold to the public and enforce existing laws. Beyond that, the Government should seriously consider the merits of going further and restricting the sale of fireworks to those involved in professional displays.
We should all do our bit to support our veterans and other vulnerable constituents. We should continue to enjoy the wonderful firework displays at key times of the year; I know that I certainly will. However, we should readjust the scales to get the balance right between different freedoms: the freedom to enjoy fireworks must be carefully balanced against the freedom to live our lives in peace.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. You were not here at the beginning, so you will not have seen that this was the most crowded Westminster Hall debate I have ever attended. It is a bit of a blast from the past to see Labour Members sitting on this side of the Chamber; we have not seen that for a while. I have to say that it is the first time I have been pleased to have a reserved seat; otherwise, I would not have been able to participate in the debate at all.
In that spirit, I particularly congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), who made a really good opening speech. I am pleased to respond to the debate on behalf of the Liberal Democrats; there can be no doubt about the strength of feeling on this issue out there in the country given the number of people who signed these particular petitions. In my constituency of Richmond Park, there were 217 signatories, but that is a relatively small number compared with some of the other numbers that we have heard about today. The very fact that there were so many MPs in Westminster Hall for this debate shows the extent to which Parliament wants to see movement on this issue.
I am really grateful to all the Members who contributed to the debate for sharing the stories of their constituents. However, I was particularly moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), who talked about her own experiences as a veteran. That really brought home to me the impact that fireworks can have on those suffering from PTSD.
Many other hon. Members talked about the impact of fireworks on people suffering from conditions such as autism and ADHD and on shift workers. I can say from my own experience back when I was a parent of young children how terrifying it was for them and how difficult it was for them to sleep when the fireworks displays went on late into the night.
I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), who gave a really detailed description of the impact on livestock and farm animals, from which I learned a great deal. That is not a common experience in my personal inbox, but we do speak a lot in Richmond Park about the impact on pets. It was interesting to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) about his experience as a vet and that no vets want to be on duty on 5 November because they know that it will be a very traumatic night. In a similar vein, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) talked about the impact on Paignton zoo in his constituency. I can only imagine how incredibly difficult it must be to manage the animals in the zoo on nights when there are lots of fireworks around.
My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) talked about the actual physical dangers of fireworks and gave a very graphic description of how dumped fireworks are an enormous fire hazard. It was—“enlightening” is maybe not a great word to use—interesting to hear everybody’s reflections on the different aspects of this debate.
Fireworks are a sign of celebration. In this country, we typically associate them with Guy Fawkes night, but in my constituency and, I am sure, many other London constituencies, they are increasingly let off during Diwali. I tend to hear more on new year’s eve now than I do on 5 November. The occasions when people let off fireworks are increasing in frequency. Like many Members who have contributed to this debate, the Liberal Democrats certainly do not want to limit people’s enjoyment of fireworks—they remain a spectacular sight and perhaps one of the best expressions of celebration that we have—but there is no doubt that fireworks can have an incredibly harmful impact.
Sarah Dyke
My hon. Friend talked about the amazing firework displays that we have across the country, but there are some fantastic alternatives to fireworks, such as demonstrations using drones and light shows. Does she agree that we should implement a noise limit on fireworks of below 90 dB for those that want to use noise fireworks, because that would make a significant difference to ensuring that people and animals in communities feel safe?
Sarah Olney
My hon. Friend mentioned drones, which I know can provide really spectacular sound and light shows, but I would be slightly nervous about endorsing the use of drones instead of fireworks. Richmond Park has some of the most contested airspace of anywhere in the country. We are very used to the impact of noise from aircraft in my constituency. I certainly do not want to add drones to the congestion in the skies over our heads. I will come to this shortly, but my hon. Friend is exactly right about needing to strike a balance between the enjoyment that fireworks can give and their impact on not just people, but animals.
Fireworks are explosives and can be dangerous, so there are strict rules in place regulating their sale, possession and use. They include essential safety provisions, conformity to the relevant tests and correct application of kitemarks. The 2015 regulations categorise fireworks according to their net explosive content, discharge, safety distances and noise level. Category F1 fireworks present a low hazard and are intended for use in confined areas, although they must not be sold to anyone under the age of 16. Categories F2 and F3 are low to medium hazard and intended for outdoor use. Category F4 is high hazard and can be supplied only to persons with specialist knowledge. There already exists a range of regulations, although the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley made the important point that it is hard to enforce those regulations until after the firework has exploded, by which time it will obviously be too late.
Sarah Olney
And certainly not in London, I can confirm. The hon. Member is absolutely right about the regulations that exist for the sale of fireworks, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether she thinks more could be done to enforce the existing regulations, as the hon. Member suggests, or whether we need to look at a wholesale change of regulations on sale to address some of the issues that Members have raised.
As I mentioned, I represent a constituency that is much blighted by aircraft noise. We know as well as anybody the impact that regular, ongoing noise, particularly late at night and early in the morning, can have on residents’ health and ability to sleep, particularly young children.
Almost every Member here has called for the limit on the decibel level to be reduced it from 120 dB to 90 dB. Whatever fireworks are sold, whatever use they are intended for and whichever celebration they are intended to mark, reducing the decibel limit would strike the right balance between our human need for celebration and our need for sleep and peace of mind.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I start by offering my gratitude to Robert and Helen, the two petitioners who—forgive the phrase—lit the fuse for these petitions to get the number of signatures they did, and enabled this debate today. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), who eloquently set out the reasons why we need to have this debate and the issues involved, which have also been ably raised by many other representatives in this room.
This is not the first time that the House has discussed whether additional restrictions on the use of fireworks are necessary, but with more than 370,000 signatures on the two petitions, including 632 from West Worcestershire, it is clear that the public want a system that better protects people, animals and communities from the misuse of fireworks.
We have heard from almost everyone who has spoken that fireworks bring joy, and I shout out the many responsible groups up and down this country that are committed to the safe display and enjoyment of fireworks. They often raise money for good local causes. However, as we have heard so often in this debate, we cannot ignore the real problems—the dangerous misuse, the antisocial behaviour and the distress that is caused to pets, livestock, wildlife and many vulnerable people. I welcome the Government’s engagement with stakeholders, and their campaign encouraging responsible use and low-decibel displays.
We have heard in all the contributions today that we are a nation of animal lovers. We are also a nation that wants to continue to enjoy firework displays, but we also heard loud and clear that no action is not the answer here. The Government will need to listen to all the points that have been made.
We have heard from across the land—from South West Hertfordshire, Dewsbury and Batley, Glastonbury and Somerton, Taunton and Wellington, Morecambe and Lunesdale, Luton North, Scarborough and Whitby, Broxtowe, North West Leicestershire, Edinburgh South West, Warrington South, Bathgate and Linlithgow, Heywood and Middleton North, Shipley, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Richmond Park, Glasgow West, Hartlepool, Aylesbury, Stourbridge, Rochdale, Newport West and Islwyn, Bournemouth East, Cannock Chase, Leeds South West and Morley and York Central. Every Member here this afternoon represented so well the concerns expressed to them by those in their constituency who have written to them.
We recognise that fireworks are already heavily regulated, but many of the contributions highlighted gaps in enforcement, weak penalties for illegal sales, problems with stockpiling, and the devastating consequences both for property and in terms of burns when things go wrong. The age limits on purchases, which many believe are no longer appropriate, have been shown to be not properly enforced.
There is a clear need for a proper, evidence-led review of the regulations. If reforms are proportionate and grounded in that evidence, I suspect that they will attract unanimous support from across the House. From the point of view of my party, and of many Members in this debate, although a ban on fireworks should not be a first resort, it should not be taken off the table as a last resort.
Through the petitions, the public have spoken loudly. Through their representatives in Parliament, people have spoken loudly. Parliament has raised these issues repeatedly, and communities want action. Clearly, the existing regulations are not doing what society wants them to do. I am keen to hear about how the Minister plans to respond.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for leading today’s important debate, which is based on two petitions, one calling for a reduction in the noise limit for consumer fireworks from 120 dB to 90 dB and another for limiting the sales of fireworks to local authority-approved displays. I have only just over 10 minutes to respond, so I might not be able to take as many interventions as the hon. Gentleman did. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), for putting on record her thanks to everyone who has spoken today—she shaved a good minute off my speech. I thank her for that contribution.
I thank all hon. Members for their brilliant contributions. It has been an interesting debate. It is one of the longest and most well attended debates that I have been to, not only since I was appointed to this role but since I was elected. That shows the strength of feeling on both sides of the House. I thank hon. Members for representing their constituents.
Like other hon. Members, I am regularly contacted by residents who have been impacted by the antisocial use of fireworks, and I thank constituents for continuing to raise the matter with me. I assure them, hon. Members, campaigners and those in the Gallery, who have been with us through this afternoon’s debate, that I recognise the challenges that our communities face, and recognise the direct personal experiences that colleagues and constituents have shared.
I acknowledge the important work of Helen Whitelegg, from Redwings Horse Sanctuary, for beginning this petition as part of her organisation’s work to safeguard horses and advocate for their welfare, and I thank Robert Branch for starting his petition. Animal welfare charities such as Redwings and my local RSPCA branch in Halifax have been calling for a reduction in firework decibel levels for some time. The strength of feeling among the public is clear from the number of signatures that the petitions have received, as many hon. Members have mentioned.
I pay tribute to the family of Josephine Smith, who sadly passed away in October 2021 after a firework was placed through her letterbox. I express my condolences to Josephine’s family, and I am very grateful to her son Alan, whom I met earlier today, for his continued advocacy on this matter.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for her dedicated campaigning and advocacy on this issue. I also thank her and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) for their recent private Members’ Bills on fireworks misuse and on fireworks noise control.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) for their advocacy and engagement with me since my appointment. I know how important tackling antisocial firework use is to them and their constituents.
I also want to express my gratitude to the emergency services. Our firefighters, paramedics and police officers work tirelessly to keep our communities safe during the firework season.
As we have heard from hon. Members, this time of year, and the past couple of months, can be particularly challenging for pets, veteran communities, those with PTSD, those with mental health conditions, those with autism and those who are vulnerable. Members have raised many important ideas to consider: restricting the number of days of fireworks per year; controls on volume and evening hours; date restrictions on sale, purchase and types; further promoting advance notice of firework use; and a ban on indoor fireworks.
On that point, I want to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). I was so saddened to hear about the tragic fire that claimed 40 lives at new year in Switzerland. My condolences go to the families and friends of all who lost their lives in that devastating event. I understand that the investigation into the cause of the fire is ongoing; it has been reported that the authorities have banned the use of indoor pyrotechnics, which my hon. Friend spoke about.
Those suggestions were in addition to the support demonstrated here today for the topics of the e-petitions: noise level and limiting the sale of fireworks to organised displays. That strength of feeling has absolutely been heard and recognised today, and I thank Members for all their contributions.
My aim is to minimise the negative impact of fireworks and to ensure that they are used responsibly and can continue to play a role in celebrations and festivities across our country. There is no doubt that fireworks are a popular feature of community and family events and bring people together. A lot of Members have brought examples of those events to the Floor of the House today. They range from bonfire night and new year to birthdays, Eid and Diwali, among many others. Although many—77%—of our constituents enjoy using fireworks, only 15% believe that the existing regulatory framework is sufficient. Research from the Social Market Foundation found that one solution would be to reduce the noise limit for consumer fireworks. That, of course, is one of the subjects of today’s debate.
The research also highlighted the potential for alternative kinds of light displays, using drones or lasers. The recent new year’s eve fireworks display in London showcased an alternative, pairing fireworks with Hologauze technology. The highly reflective, silver-coated gauze reflects projected images while remaining transparent, allowing viewers to see fireworks behind the visuals. This and the use of drones show how technology is changing our experience of the traditional fireworks season and offering a more sustainable, visually rich alternative for large-scale events. We of course encourage attendance at those organised public displays.
I will touch on current legislation and safe use, and then respond to colleagues’ points. Members will know that, as they are explosives, the sale and use of fireworks is extensively regulated, with controls placed on their import, storage, supply, possession and use. In Great Britain, the Fireworks Regulations 2004 introduced a package of measures to reduce the nuisance and injuries caused by the misuse of fireworks. A lot of colleagues have referred to the 11 pm to 7 am curfew on the use of fireworks. Use later in the night—to 1 am—is permitted only on the traditional firework days, which I have already mentioned. I am grateful that many councils—including Calderdale council, which covers my constituency —have hard-working community safety teams in place to collect intelligence and allocate enforcement officers to hotspots of antisocial usage.
The Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2015 contain provisions about the manufacture, import and distribution of pyrotechnics across the UK. That includes labelling, conformity assessment testing and other requirements to ensure the products’ safety. The legislation also sets out the requirement for manufacturers to ensure that their products do not exceed the 120 dB noise limit.
Robbie Moore
The Minister need not panic, because we have this room until 7.30 pm and so there is plenty of time for her to carry on speaking and to take interventions. She is kindly outlining the legislation that is currently in place, but it is not working. We know that there is a threshold of 11 pm on most nights, but across Keighley, Silsden and the Worth valley, I have constituents who experience fireworks going off throughout the night and throughout the year. Could the Minister explain what action the Government will be taking in response to the petitions that have been debated today?
Kate Dearden
I thank the hon. Member for the reassurance about time. I absolutely recognise the need for enforcement—colleagues have mentioned the existing framework and the regulations that are in place. I will get to the consideration that we are making as a Department of further legislation and regulations, as suggested in the e-petitions, when I focus on antisocial behaviour and the comments that colleagues have made today.
Hon. Members will be aware that retailers storing fireworks must be licensed to do so and are able to sell them to consumers only for a limited period around seasonal celebrations. Retailers who wish to sell fireworks to the public outside those periods must obtain an additional selling licence from their local licensing authority. The brilliant local trading standards and fire and rescue authorities in metropolitan counties like West Yorkshire can take action against those storing or selling fireworks without an appropriate licence. They work closely with retailers to ensure that the fireworks being sold are safe, and they have powers to enforce against those who place non-compliant fireworks on the market.
I am grateful to have met with the Calderdale district fire service to understand the role they play in reducing risk and engaging with my local community. As a Minister, I will also continue to engage with colleagues, stakeholders and organisations on a national level to ensure that this Labour Government continue to work with the Health and Safety Executive and local authorities, including Border Force and trading standards, to take action against anyone who imports or sells fireworks illegally in the UK. That enforcement is important, as is providing them with the resources they need to do their jobs.
As many colleagues have said, among those most impacted by the illegal and antisocial use of fireworks are our pets and veteran community. Colleagues have given some real, personal examples; my labrador Bruno is one of the many dogs that have been deeply impacted by fireworks in recent months. Since October, I have been contacted by hundreds of colleagues from across this House, by charities and campaigners, and by more than 100 constituents who have shared their experiences, including one who had to move away from their home during peak firework periods to protect their family pet. That engagement as a constituency MP, and the stories of colleagues here today, drives my work as a Minister to minimise the negative impact of fireworks.
Following my appointment, I have continued to build on the brilliant work of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), in engaging with groups, organisations, charities and businesses to gather evidence on the year-round impact of fireworks, as we have heard today. I have been continuing that engagement with a wide range of consumer groups and charities. I have also met Members of this House—I thank them for those meetings—and of the other place, and the devolved Governments: I recently met the Scottish Government to understand the recent implications of their policies to build that evidence base. We will consider the effectiveness that further legislation may have in reducing antisocial and illegal firework use, and I will continue to build on that.
Ruth Jones
The Minister has explained what has happened in the past and what is happening now, but we are interested in the future. We need legislation, and we need it before 5 November this year. May I press her for a timeline for what is going to happen next?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and for her powerful speech. I hear and understand the urgency for action, and colleagues’ reflections on having been here in Westminster Hall this time last year, debating fireworks. I am not able to provide a timeline at this stage, but I would of course be happy to work with her and colleagues across the House on next steps as the Department progresses. We will be building on the work and evidence base of my predecessor, working with devolved Administrations to understand the work they are undertaking and their evidence base, and looking at examples from countries that are taking action across the globe to understand, first and foremost, how we can safeguard our communities.
Safety is paramount. One of my first acts as a Minister was to launch a public campaign during firework season, promoting considerate use and focusing on the safe use of fireworks, including their disposal. Colleagues have talked about encouraging responsible behaviour and safer celebrations at private displays.
Dr Arthur
It would be good to see an evaluation of the campaign that the Minister launched, which I thank her for running. It seems that the Government accept that there are impacts on pets and veterans, and they thank the emergency services for all they do and the risks they take on that evening, but all those people—the pet owners, veterans, emergency services and, I expect, even the Minister—must be a little frustrated that there is no timeline for even the start of some action. Does she share that frustration?
Kate Dearden
I am working at pace with my colleagues in the Department, building the evidence base, speaking to as many people as possible, and looking to understand not only those frustrations, but the real life stories that colleagues have shared, today and since I was appointed to this role, as well as those from my constituents.
Robbie Moore
What discussions has the Minister had with Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the animal welfare strategy that has been launched? I have read that strategy, and it does not really address the issue of fireworks. Given that so many animal welfare concerns have been raised, what conversations is she having with DEFRA colleagues?
Kate Dearden
I thank the hon. Member for raising animal welfare, which has come up time and again in this debate. I am proud of the strategy we launched as a Government, and work with my colleagues across Departments on a range of issues in my brief. It is an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to any domestic animal under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. I understand the hon. Member’s reflections and those of colleagues from across the House today on the strategy and where we might be able to go further; we will continue to engage with colleagues on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) mentioned the impact of the campaign, with a total reach of around 130,000; there is always more that we can do. I thank colleagues who shared those social media posts and the guidance that we provided with their constituents. I am keen that we always continue to build on that, regulation aside. As we promote safe and responsible usage, I will continue to work with national charities such as Combat Stress, the RSPCA, the Firework Impact Coalition, Help for Heroes and so many more to ensure that our messaging reaches the general public.
While the majority of people who use fireworks do so appropriately and have a sensible and responsible attitude towards them, as many colleagues have said, a minority of people use fireworks in a dangerous, inconsiderate and antisocial manner. We have heard some horrendous stories today highlighting examples of that. I understand the impact that inconsiderate and antisocial use can have: loud bangs are disturbing communities, particularly those with elderly residents, young children and pets, and in far too many places fireworks are set off late at night, disturbing hard-working parents, waking up children and causing terror to our most vulnerable constituents.
Dangerous misuse is a serious concern. Reports of fireworks being thrown at people—colleagues have mentioned that they have been thrown at prams—vehicles or buildings are completely unacceptable. We will continue to support the work of our council officers and police community support officers who work tirelessly to ensure that the vast majority of those who use fireworks for celebrations—
Sarah Owen
I thank the Minister for giving way on that point. As we have heard, quite often, this falls between the response of the police, post 11 o’clock—and they will not, understandably, come out unless there is a threat to life, especially with scarce resources—and the council, which will treat it as a noise pollution issue. Neither of those are suitable for dealing with nuisance fireworks. Luton council has developed, with Love Clean Streets, the ability to report firework misuse through an app. Yet councils up and down the country are unable to get that off the ground. We need councils and communities to be better resourced to report nuisance fireworks.
Kate Dearden
I agree with my hon. Friend, and that work in Luton to enable people to better report issues outside of those hours is appreciated and valued. Where we can, we should share and promote best practice. She made a valid point about the frustrations and difficulties in doing that on the enforcement side of things, and we would be keen to take that further. Tackling antisocial behaviour is a top priority for this Government. It is a key part of our safer streets mission, which is why we want to take action against those who seek chaos and terror on our streets.
Kirsteen Sullivan
In my contribution, I spoke about the contribution of people from Blackburn to changing what was going on in their community. Will the Minister reassure me that the Government will engage directly with communities, to hear from the very people whose lives are blighted by this antisocial behaviour?
Kate Dearden
I can absolutely provide that reassurance today. I want to hear from as many people and communities that have been impacted as possible, and ensure that they have the opportunity to share their stories directly with me. I thank her for raising that today, and can give her that reassurance.
John Lamont
The Minister is being exceptionally generous with her time. The reality is that we will be back here again this time next year, because there will be another petition calling for the same things. What guarantees can the Minister give about the progress that will be made between now and this time next year on the petitioners’ asks—in terms of decibel levels and the licensing regime? What progress will have been made, fast-forwarding the clock to when we are having this debate this time next year?
Kate Dearden
I am always happy to meet the leads of the petition, campaigners and colleagues in this House to update them and provide the opportunity for them to feed back directly to the Department and me, so they do not have to wait for another Westminster Hall debate—if there is one. I am happy to provide that clarification, as well as my availability today, to ensure that we hear from colleagues on this issue, and that it remains a key priority for me and the Department. We recognise the urgency and passion of colleagues in their desire to see change—we heard it today. I reiterate my thanks to the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, to Helen and Robert for their work in bringing this debate to the House, and to Members for their contributions.
I assure Members and advocacy groups that I have heard their concerns, and will be asking for better regulations and urgency for action. I will continue to seriously consider them as I look to further mitigate the negative impact of illegal and antisocial firework use on our communities. We will continue to gather that evidence and continue to hear from organisations, charities and campaigners to ensure that any changes to legislation are effective.
While I recognise the vital cultural importance of fireworks at a diverse range of festivals and celebrations, I will not apologise for continuing to support our emergency services working to promote their safe usage, raise awareness of the risks and take action against the minority of individuals who use fireworks illegally and antisocially at the expense of their communities. The safety of the public and fireworks’ impact on people, animals and property will be central in decisions and how we proceed with their regulation.
I thank everybody for their contributions today; I again thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley for opening this debate and the campaigners in the Gallery for their patience in listening to colleagues from across this House, and for ensuring that we continue to work closely together. I thank all Members for their contributions.
Robbie Moore
It has been a thought-provoking debate in which we have heard from Members from across the House. There are very few petitions debates where the whole Chamber is full, so I once again thank Helen Whitelegg and Robert Branch for bringing forward two really good petitions—signed by 376,000 people—that enabled us all to discuss this issue. I thank all the charities that have continuously engaged with Members from across the House, and also the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for her consistent work raising this important issue for as long as I have been lucky enough to be a Member of Parliament.
We know the impact fireworks have on our animals—our pets and livestock—as well as on veterans, those with anxiety issues, our elderly, our children and hard-working people who just want a decent night’s sleep. This issue consistently comes back to this House, year after year, at every opportunity. The points that the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) made about indoor fireworks are noted and, dare I say, will control the nature of future debate.
I will end by reiterating some of the points made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), by saying that time is of the essence. I have a lot of respect for my neighbour, the Minister, who represents a constituency next door to my own. I am sure that she gets similar types of correspondence in her inbox. Her speech felt a little bit like it was brought off the shelf, dusted off from Ministers who have come and gone. I say that with the greatest respect to Conservative Ministers, too, who have delivered the same type of speech. I am getting very frustrated that this issue keeps coming back time and again, and I am sure many others in this House are, too. The Minister has not outlined any timeframes or strategy. Is it the Government’s ambition to bring forward a strategy that deals with the licensing and noise reduction of fireworks? I sincerely hope, on behalf of the 376,000 petitioners, that there will be some sort of a positive announcement from the Government—more than just the Minister’s warm words. I say that with the most respect for the Minister, who I know and who has been kind enough to reach out and speak to me many times on this issue. I thank her on behalf of the Petitions Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petitions 738192 and 732559 relating to the sale of fireworks.
Other Correction
Alex Sobel
Ukraine
The following extract is from the debate on Ukraine on 14 January 2026.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
… I spoke with Lesia Vasylenko—I know many people here know Lesia—who chairs the British group in the Rada, and who is in Kyiv. She told me…
“Putin’s invasion nearly four years ago has resulted in millions fleeing their homes, hundreds of thousands of casualties, and relentless attacks on hospitals, homes and schools. This includes Russian state sponsored abductions of Ukrainian children,”
which my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) spoke brilliantly about,
“and the arrest of my colleagues at the OSCE, Dmytro Shabanov, Maksym Petrov, and Vadym Golda,”
who I know my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) is raising as an Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe rep on Ukraine. Lesia is the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly chair of the parliamentary support team for Ukraine. I am happy that we can support her and continue to support the work going on now.
[Official Report, 14 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 1015.]
Written correction submitted by the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel):
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
… I spoke with Lesia Vasylenko—I know many people here know Lesia—who chairs the British group in the Rada, and who is in Kyiv. She told me…
“Putin’s invasion nearly four years ago has resulted in millions fleeing their homes, hundreds of thousands of casualties, and relentless attacks on hospitals, homes and schools. This includes Russian state sponsored abductions of Ukrainian children,”
which my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) spoke brilliantly about,
“and the arrest of my colleagues at the OSCE, Dmytro Shabanov, Maksym Petrov, and Vadym Golda,”
who I know my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) is raising through the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe—my hon. Friend chairs the OSCE’s parliamentary support team for Ukraine. I am happy that we can support her and continue to support the work going on now.
Ukraine: Trade Measures
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
Following Russia’s unprovoked and illegal invasion of Ukraine, in May 2022 the United Kingdom led the world by removing all remaining tariffs under our free trade agreement with Ukraine. In 2024, the Government confirmed that tariff liberalisation would be extended on all goods for five years until 31 March 2029, with the exception of poultry and eggs, where a two-year extension until 31 March 2026 was adopted to reflect feedback from those sectors.
The Russian invasion has impaired Ukraine’s ability to export goods and disrupted its usual supply chains and transport routes. That is why it was so important that the UK acted when it did to liberalise remaining tariffs and provide much-needed economic support to Ukraine. As intended, Ukrainian businesses have benefited from the liberalisation, with goods such as cereal grains, poultry and eggs benefiting from tariff-free trade. Ukraine continues to defend itself against Russian aggression while rebuilding key infrastructure destroyed during the war, and with tariff liberalisation remaining an important component of the UK Government’s wider package of support.
This Government remain as committed as ever to supporting Ukraine in its hour of need. Given that our agreement with Ukraine on poultry and eggs is due to expire at the end of March, the Government have agreed with Ukraine to extend tariff liberalisation on these two products for two years, from 1 April 2026 until 31 March 2028. This will continue to provide much needed support to Ukraine and its businesses. My Department will work with His Majesty’s Treasury in due course to lay the necessary statutory instrument to extend the temporary tariff liberalisation to early 2028.
We will continue to monitor trade flows and market conditions throughout the period of liberalisation and maintain regular engagement with the UK poultry and egg sectors. The agreement extends to the whole of the United Kingdom and the Crown dependencies. As is the case with the current agreement, the extension is reciprocal, with Ukraine also removing tariffs on UK goods entering their country.
This work aligns with the undertakings made in the UK-Ukraine 100 year partnership agreement which was signed last year. As the Prime Minister has made clear, the United Kingdom will continue to do everything in its power to support Ukraine’s fight against Russia’s brutal invasion for as long as needed.
[HCWS1247]
Tour de France and Tour de France Femmes Grand Départs 2027
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
This Government are committed to delivering international events with pride, creating a legacy to inspire the next generation of talent and promoting exercise and healthy living. Major sporting events have a unique ability to bring communities together and to tell our national story, as well as spread significant economic and social benefits across the country.
As part of our pipeline of major sporting events, the UK Government will provide £32.17 million in funding to support the delivery of the Tour de France and Tour de France Femmes Grand Départs in 2027. This funding will support the world’s premier cycling race to return to Great Britain, speeding through Scotland, Wales, and England, connecting our nation and bringing the joy of cycling to the heart of British communities. Government funding will be used to ensure the safety and security of the event, support local authorities and deliver a lasting legacy and impact programme.
Staging both the men’s and women’s Grand Départs in the UK is a historic first for the tour, and will cement the UK’s reputation as a leading destination for international sport. Hosting these events will drive economic growth, attract international visitors, and provide a monumental moment in our sporting history. Over 900 km of free-to-spectate cycling action will pass through towns, cities, and national parks across Great Britain from Galashiels and Caerphilly to Blackburn and Sheffield. By bringing the race to communities across England, Scotland, and Wales, we will ensure that the socioeconomic benefits of the tour are felt in every corner of the country. Past editions of the Grand Départ in the UK have demonstrated significant benefits—the 2014 Grand Départ in Yorkshire, generated an estimated £128 million in economic return—and staging the races in 2027 is forecast to deliver more than £150 million in economic benefits to the UK.
Hosting the Tour de France Femmes for the first time in the UK represents a significant milestone in this Government’s mission to drive a decade of change for women’s sport. Just as the 2014 Grand Départ in Yorkshire sparked a surge in cycling participation, with one million people cycling more as a result, the 2027 races will inspire a new generation of athletes, particularly young girls, to take up the sport and break down barriers to physical activity.
We look forward to working with local authorities, community leaders, and engaging with Members of Parliament and peers to ensure the tour makes a lasting positive impact throughout Great Britain.
[HCWS1250]
Low Carbon Hydrogen Standard
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
I am making this statement to fulfil the commitment to inform Parliament via a written ministerial statement whenever the ambulatory reference to the UK low carbon hydrogen standard in the Hydrogen Production Revenue Support (Directions, Eligibility and Counterparty) Regulations 2023 is updated. A new version of the standard (version 4) has now been published.
The Energy Act 2023 makes provision for the implementation of the hydrogen production business model, which is intended to provide revenue support to overcome the cost gap between low carbon hydrogen and higher carbon counterfactual fuels. The HPBM is designed to incentivise the production and use of low carbon hydrogen, supporting the UK’s net zero and energy security ambitions.
Section 57(1) sets out the overarching power for the Secretary of State to make regulations in relation to revenue support contracts. There are a number of provisions in chapter 1, part 2 of the Act which set out the matters that regulations made under section 57(1) may cover. The provision in section 66(5) of the Act enables revenue support regulations determining the meaning of “eligible” in relation to a low carbon hydrogen producer to make ambulatory reference to published documents, including standards, external to the regulations, i.e. as the documents have effect from time to time. Given the nascency of the hydrogen industry and the need for regulations underpinning the hydrogen production revenue support contracts to provide sufficient certainty to investors, the ability to make ambulatory reference in regulations provides flexibility to help ensure the scheme is in line with the latest technological developments to encourage ongoing innovation and investment. This approach also aligns with consultation feedback to ensure alignment with the UK Government definition of low carbon hydrogen when allocating support to projects under the hydrogen production business model.
The regulations were laid in draft in Parliament on 8 November 2023 and came into force on 20 December 2023. Bar certain exceptions for low carbon hydrogen producers who applied for financial support before the commencement date of the regulations, the regulations determine whether a low carbon hydrogen producer is “eligible” in relation to proposals it makes for the production of hydrogen produced in accordance with the low carbon hydrogen standard. The regulations define “the low carbon hydrogen standard” as the document published by the Secretary of State in April 2023 entitled “UK Low Carbon Hydrogen Standard —Version 2” or such standard as may be from time to time published for the purposes of these regulations by the Secretary of State. The regulations provide that where the Secretary of State publishes a new or revised low carbon hydrogen standard for the purposes of the regulations, the publication of the new or revised standard must include, or be accompanied by, a statement in writing that it is published to replace the previous version of the standard.
The standard sets a maximum threshold for the amount of greenhouse gas emissions allowed in the production process for hydrogen to be considered “low carbon hydrogen”. It sets out the methodology for calculating the emissions associated with hydrogen production using production pathways in scope of the standard, and the steps producers should take to prove that the hydrogen they produce is compliant with the standard.
On Monday 19 January, version 4 of the standard was published and focuses on ensuring that the requirements set out in the standard are clear and can be effectively applied under hydrogen production revenue support contracts. This update reflects lessons learned from the application of the LCHS to the first hydrogen allocation round, stakeholder feedback and evolving policy priorities to ensure that it remains fit for purpose and keeps pace with the growing hydrogen economy.
Version 4 of the standard replaces any previous versions of the standard for the purposes of the regulations. This means that currently version 4 of the standard is the one that is to be used for assessing eligibility under the regulations, bar certain exceptions as mentioned above.
[HCWS1252]
Prostate Cancer: Access to Treatment
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
Today I am pleased to update the House on significant progress in improving treatment options for men with prostate cancer across England.
This Government are committed to improving cancer survival rates. Too many families across the country are affected by late diagnosis, unequal access to treatment, and variation in outcomes, and we are determined to change that. Our national cancer plan for England will set out how we will transform outcomes for cancer patients and improve their experiences of treatment and care.
That is why I am delighted to inform the House that for the first time, thousands of patients in England with prostate cancer will be able to receive the drug abiraterone, as the NHS expands access to this important treatment. Around 2,000 men diagnosed in the last three months with non-metastatic prostate cancer will now be able to receive abiraterone where it is of clinical benefit, alongside prednisolone. An additional 7,000 men each year are expected to become eligible for the drug, given in combination with prednisolone.
NHS England has been able to expand access to the drug for thousands more eligible patients thanks to the health service buying and delivering treatments at better value, following the clinical advice to roll this out last year.
Clinical research shows benefits for patients at earlier stages of the disease. Trials have demonstrated a six-year survival rate of 86% for men taking abiraterone compared with 77% for those receiving standard treatment—hormone therapy with or without radiotherapy. This represents a substantial improvement in outcomes for thousands of families affected by prostate cancer.
The NHS already commissions abiraterone, now available as a lower-cost generic medicine, for advanced prostate cancer, following the commissioning policy introduced in December 2024. Today’s important announcement extends these benefits to patients at an earlier stage of their disease.
I also want to acknowledge the important role of our partners, who have campaigned extensively on this issue and worked closely with NHS England to support this roll-out.
This decision marks a major step forward in our ongoing work to improve cancer outcomes, ensure earlier access to effective treatments, and support men and their families across England.
[HCWS1248]
Tower Hamlets Council: Best Value Duty
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
This Government will do what it takes to fix the foundations of local government. That includes taking prompt and direct action in the small number of councils that are failing their best value duty and not meeting the high standards expected by local residents. In that context, I would like to update the House on the London borough of Tower Hamlets.
On 22 January 2025 Ministers announced a statutory intervention for the London borough of Tower Hamlets, to be in place until 31 March 2028. The intervention was established to secure the council’s compliance with its best value duty following failings identified during a best value inspection in 2024. The statutory support package centred on the appointment of ministerial envoys to act as advisers and oversee improvement work that the council had already begun. The Government were clear that the council would need to drive forward changes at pace and that further action would be taken should it prove necessary. This was reiterated following the envoys’ first progress report in July. One year into the intervention, I welcome the early signs of progress and the council’s constructive engagement with the envoys. However, I am concerned that the council has not understood the severity of its situation or moved beyond planning for improvement into action and impact. These are concerns which have also been raised with the council by the envoys as part of their routine engagement.
I consider that the council is not sufficiently mindful of, or able to assess its own position. This is a view shared by the Local Government Association in its October progress review against the 2023 corporate peer challenge, where it describes the council’s “tendency towards optimism bias”. The council’s external auditor has also observed
“an ongoing reluctance within the organisation to fully acknowledge the scale of the challenge it faces”.
The council will not be able to move forward without a clear understanding of where it is now and how it needs to change.
This is slowing improvement. The council’s auditor has raised concerns about a lack of urgency from the council in response to its statutory recommendations issued in February, as well as a slow response to other significant issues such as the departure of the section 151 officer and investigating serious matters of non-compliance. Where the council has recognised issues and made plans for improvement, such as the developing continuous improvement plan, it is unclear that these are translating into measurable delivery. The Local Government Association also noted in its progress review that the council has “lots of plans” and “a plan for a plan”—but that “consistency, coherence and a strong delivery narrative’” and the “use of evidence and data” are needed to develop and demonstrate the fulfilment of any strategic vision for Tower Hamlets.
I also have material concerns about the council’s financial management and governance, which appears to be deteriorating. The significant weaknesses and statutory recommendations from the external auditor represent areas of serious risk and the auditor highlights the ongoing absence of an effective internal controls environment to safeguard public money. This is in the context of continuing allegations about leadership, governance and culture coming from a wide range of stakeholders. These risk weakening public confidence in the council. While not a best value issue, recent reports of councillors abandoning their constituents to stand overseas will only have further undermined the public perception of members’ commitment to the borough and to the improvement journey. This behaviour demonstrates an appalling lack of respect for residents and should not happen in any local authority.
Having carefully considered the auditor’s November draft annual report and interim value for money report for 2024-25, the Local Government Association’s October progress review against the 2023 corporate peer challenge and other relevant material, I remain satisfied that Tower Hamlets council is continuing to fail to comply with its best value duty in relation to continuous improvement, governance, leadership, culture and partnerships. I am also satisfied that the council is now failing to comply with its best value duty in relation to its use of resources.
I am therefore minded to exercise my powers of direction under section 15(5) and (6) of the Local Government Act 1999 in relation to the London borough of Tower Hamlets council to secure its compliance with the best value duty. Given the evidence of ongoing concerns, I believe that a strengthened and expanded version of the current intervention is necessary to get the council on track for sufficient improvement by the scheduled end of the intervention. This Government are committed to taking whatever action is needed to limit the length of statutory intervention to that which is absolutely necessary.
I am proposing a revised package of statutory support, which builds on the collaborative working to date between the envoys and the council, but recognises that the scale of challenge facing the council requires greater capacity for support and oversight. The proposal is therefore centred around increasing the powers available to the envoys and increasing their overall capacity, including through the appointment of an additional assistant envoy with expertise in finance. In detail:
I am minded to issue the envoys with powers to exercise council functions associated with governance, financial management and the recruitment, performance management and designation of statutory and senior officers. These powers are intended to safeguard the process and to be treated as in reserve, similar to the approach in Warrington borough council, to be used only where necessary to ensure compliance with the best value duty.
I am proposing to increase the allocated working days to 150 days for the ministerial envoy, and 120 days for each assistant envoy. This is commensurate with other interventions and proportionate to the scale of work required.
In order to strengthen the council’s finance function as part of its corporate core, I propose to expand the envoy team through the appointment of an additional assistant envoy with expertise in finance.
The envoys have written to Ministers outlining the terms of a new project designed to address the long-standing allegations made against the council, and unfavourable perceptions of the council’s activities which persist among its staff, stakeholders and the community at large. These perceptions are of real concern to the envoys. They are planning a series of “deep dives” regarding patronage in recruitment and staff promotions, resource allocation (community assets and community grants), housing allocations, licensing and planning decisions, and the structure, functions, activities and roles within the mayor’s office and mayoral advisory team. I share the envoys’ concerns, in particular regarding the mayor’s advisory team, and I am pleased that the council recognises this project as an opportunity to demonstrate transparency. However, considering issues faced by external bodies investigating non-compliance and the council’s tendency towards optimism, I propose to issue new directions requiring the council to support the project to the satisfaction of the envoys. This will ensure the project is appropriately independent and delivers its objectives comprehensively and in a timely manner. To that end, and to more broadly establish appropriate governance for this next phase of the intervention, I am also proposing to streamline all assurance mechanisms to sit under a single improvement board, to the satisfaction of the envoys.
In line with procedures in the 1999 Act, I am inviting representations from the London borough of Tower Hamlets and any other interested parties on the proposals on or before 2 February. The council is due to report to me later this week on delivery against the current directions. I have extended this submission deadline until the end of the representation period, should it wish to make changes. The envoys will also report during this period and I will carefully consider both reports alongside any representations before deciding how to proceed. If I decide to amend the intervention package in the manner described here, I will then make the necessary statutory directions under the 1999 Act and nominate a further assistant envoy. Any directions that I make will be without prejudice to making further directions, should this prove necessary.
This action is not proposed lightly. It is clear that there are some officers and members in Tower Hamlets working hard with the support of the envoys to improve the council for the residents of Tower Hamlets, and this announcement should not deter them from their commitment. Rather, I consider that the proposed package will provide them with the focused support and challenge necessary to hasten the pace of improvement and provide local residents and businesses with greater assurance that the council is on a path out of intervention and towards longer-term stability. This Government are committed to providing the London borough of Tower Hamlets with whatever support is needed to ensure its compliance with the best value duty and to realise sources of growth in the borough. Growth is the defining mission of this Government, and I expect all parties to continue to work in partnership to secure Tower Hamlets’ contribution to a stronger economy.
I will deposit in the House Library copies of the documents I have referred to, and publish the relevant letters on gov.uk. I will update the House in due course.
[HCWS1253]
Modern Digital Government: 2025-2030 Roadmap
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Digital Government and Data (Ian Murray)
I have published “A roadmap for modern digital Government 2025-2030” on gov.uk. The roadmap follows on from the state of digital Government review and a blueprint for modern digital Government that were published earlier this year which set out how we will use technology to fundamentally improve and simplify the daily lives of the people in the UK. Our collective priorities are clear: to enable easier lives, faster growth, firmer foundations, smarter organisations, and higher productivity and efficiency. This roadmap now sets out our plan to 2030 to deliver those tangible benefits for every citizen and business in the UK, committing to the bold action we will take against the six-point plan for reform outlined in the blueprint:
Join up public sector services: we are creating a more seamless, secure and connected experience for people and businesses. This includes enhancing the gov.uk app to provide personalised and proactive services, launching the gov.uk wallet for convenient digital credentials and a national digital ID scheme that will simplify and secure access to services alongside gov.uk one login. Initiatives like CustomerFirst and GDS Local are accelerating system-wide improvements and fostering collaboration across central and local government. Key to all of this is driving digital inclusion for all.
Harness the power of Al for the public good: we are actively building and testing AI tools to boost public sector productivity and improve services, contributing to significant efficiency gains that translate into faster decision-making for citizens. This involves the rapid prototyping capabilities of incubator for AI, establishing an external responsible AI advisory panel, and accelerating AI adoption through the Prime Minister’s AI exemplars programme, which is already testing AI products in areas from job seeking to tax compliance.
Strengthen and extend our digital and data public infrastructure: we are building a secure and reliable digital public infrastructure. We are committed to embedding safety in its very foundations. This begins with gaining a comprehensive view of our digital estate, removing legacy technology, and providing common platforms and shared direction across Government. It involves enforcing “secure by design” principles across all Government systems. We will strengthen cyber defence through new more interventionist models to rigorously protect people’s data, as well as make our infrastructure resilient against evolving threats. Beyond our own systems, we are enhancing strategic supplier agreements to ensure supply chains are resilient by enforcing baseline security standards and raising broader awareness. Furthermore, we are creating new infrastructure like the national data library to unlock the value of public data for economic growth and improved services.
Elevate leadership, invest in talent: we are committed to making Government a leading digital career choice. This includes implementing a new digital pay framework, and equipping civil servants with essential digital, data, and AI skills through programmes like the AI accelerator and TechTrack apprenticeships, ensuring the public is served by the very best digital professionals.
Fund for outcomes, procure for growth and innovation: we are reforming how Government fund, buy and manage technology, working closer with industry to deliver the best outcomes for citizens. By shifting to agile, outcome-focused funding models and leveraging our buying power through the digital commercial centre of excellence, we will ensure public money delivers maximum value and fosters a more competitive and vibrant technology marketplace. Procurement will prioritise resilience through a diversity of suppliers. We will actively support sovereign capabilities in sensitive areas such as AI and leverage UK assets to guarantee secure and resilient connectivity. This coherent approach ensures that our spending not only delivers value but strengthens our national digital infrastructure and supports growth and innovation.
Commit to transparency, drive accountability: we are changing to be more open, accountable, and focused on what matters to the public. We are creating consistent ways to measure service performance, working in the open, and publishing clear information on how and why we are using algorithmic tools through the algorithmic transparency recording standard. This helps every citizen know how their Government are performing and why decisions affecting them are being made.
Work to deliver this plan is already well under way.
The gov.uk app was launched in July 2025 and has achieved over 200,000 downloads and trials for gov.uk chat have recently concluded to explore the use of conversational AI for helping users navigate complex Government services;
The first digital credential was added to gov.uk wallet providing almost 2 million veterans with a secure and convenient way to prove their status and access services from their phone;
As of October 2025, over 13.2 million people have proven their identity through gov.uk one login, and its identity verification app;
We completed a discovery phase for the “Get Britain Working” service transformation to explore how to help people find or keep a job while managing long-term health conditions, which has helped to inform the creation of a new unit that will drive this end-to-end service transformation approach across the public sector;
Our first cohort of 24 data scientists from across Government complete the AI accelerator programme and have upskilled into machine learning engineers;
Over 600 public sector organisations have signed up to our free vulnerability scanning service to help them identify cyber weaknesses:
We recently announced our plans for a digital ID scheme so that everyone in the UK can easily and securely prove their identity to access public and private services, welfare and other benefits.
We will now take this roadmap forward at pace, building on the momentum already in place. By working collaboratively across Government, with researchers, businesses, and most importantly, with the public, we will unlock the full potential of digital and AI to deliver transformational outcomes for citizens across the entire country. This roadmap will be iterative and we will provide annual updates on our progress against milestones and blueprint outcome metrics.
[HCWS1249]
Universal Credit Entitlement: Offenders Detained in Hospital
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
Our welfare system, through benefits like universal credit, provides a crucial safety net to millions of people across this country but it cannot be right that individuals who have been convicted of serious crimes continue to receive substantial support from this system while their living costs are being met in hospital.
It is important that the people of Great Britain see fairness in their welfare system and that it has their confidence. I have therefore made the decision that I intend to bring forward proposals that would remove benefit entitlement for offenders who are detained in hospital following conviction for serious violent offences. I will begin a programme of engagement this month, that will seek the views of experts and stakeholders including clinicians, victims’ groups and the mental health sector on the best way to do this. The Department for Work and Pensions will also work closely with the devolved Governments to ensure there is a consistent approach.
[HCWS1251]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
Good afternoon, my Lords. If there is a Division while the Grand Committee is sitting, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes while we vote.
Pension Schemes Bill
Monday 19th January 2026
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Grand CommitteePension Schemes Bill 2024-26 View all Pension Schemes Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 152-III(b) Amendments for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (19 Jan 2026)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
Before I call the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I point out to the Committee that there is an error on the Marshalled List, in that Amendment 30 is to Clause 10 and not Clause 9, as it says here. It makes no practical difference to the debate, but it will do when we call the amendments later.
Clause 9: Power to modify scheme to allow for payment of surplus to employer
Amendment 23
Lord Davies of Brixton
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
This group raises important issues about the purpose of these proposed changes to the legislation on pension schemes. I am going to move my Amendment 23 and speak to my Amendments 25, 27, 28, 29 and 30—and I thank the Chairman for the correction. I look forward to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, on his Amendment 26, which on the face of it asks a perfectly valid question.
The main amendment in this group, Amendment 25, seeks clarification from my noble friend the Minister about the purpose of Part 1, Chapter 2 of the Bill. This chapter is headed
“Powers to pay surplus to employer”.
Other than that, the Bill and the Explanatory Notes are silent on why the law is being changed. I will come back to that, but first I will address my Amendments 23, 27, 28, 29 and 30, which simply seek a change in the terminology used in the Bill, leaving out the word “surplus” and inserting the word “assets” instead.
I make no apologies for what may appear a pedantic point. Words are important. Later amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, would also change the wording, so I think that there is an understanding that words are important, but what do I mean in this specific case? Let us consider the difference from the point of view of a scheme member between being told that their employer has taken some surplus from their pension fund and hearing the statement that their employer has taken some assets from their pension fund. I believe that the latter statement is a much better reflection of what is happening. “Surplus” suggests that the money is not needed, which is never true in a pension scheme; “assets” suggests something far more concrete.
It is worth emphasising that there is no certain meaning of what constitutes a surplus. It is not a technical term in actuarial speak; it was not a word that I ever used when devising pension schemes as a scheme actuary. It is widely used in general conversation—I sometimes use it myself—but it does not appear in the technical actuarial guidance, except as required by a cross-reference to legislation on surpluses. I suggest that using the word “assets” is a much clearer and more honest reflection of what is happening and I urge my noble friend the Minister to accept the change.
Amendment 24 was tabled to make it clear that the intended purpose of releasing assets is to be for the benefit of scheme members as much as for the benefit of scheme sponsors—if not more, in my view. As mentioned, there is no indication in legislation of why scheme assets might be released. What are the purposes for which surplus assets will be released? What is the purpose of the change in legislation and the facilitation of such release? It is left entirely in the hands of scheme trustees exercising their fiduciary duty. Government Ministers during the passage of the Bill have made reference to that on numerous occasions.
However, I believe that this is highly problematic. Experience tells us that we cannot rely on all trustees to interpret the appropriate purposes of the release of assets. It has to be in the Bill. The title of the chapter,
“Powers to pay surplus to employer”,
illustrates the problem. I have been advised by the clerks that it is not possible to amend those parts of the Bill, but it simply reflects the content of that particular chapter. As I said, this illustrates the problem. It only talks about the employer but says nothing about scheme members.
The absence of any reference to scheme members in the Bill contrasts with what Ministers have told us on numerous occasions. There has been a consistent message from Ministers throughout the passage of this Bill that the change will be of benefit to members. On the release of surplus, ministerial statements have suggested consistently that it is intended that members will share in the benefits of releasing assets. For example, my noble friend the Minister said at Second Reading,
“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”.
So it is not just about employers. In the Government’s own words, it is about members as well as employers. My noble friend went on to say:
“The measure will allow trustees, working with employers, to decide how surplus can benefit both members and employers, while maintaining security for future pensions ”.—[Official Report, 18/12/25; col. 875.]
Scheme members hearing this must assume that, if the employer benefits from a release of assets, they will as well. But there is nothing in the Bill that will make that happen. The Minister for Pensions made a similar statement many times. He has argued consistently, and rightly, that the release of assets—surpluses, if you will—is not just about employers but about delivering better benefits for scheme members.
Look, for example, at the Government’s road map for pensions. It states under the heading “Surplus flexibilities”:
“We will allow well-funded … pension schemes to safely release some of the £160 billion surplus funds to be reinvested across the UK economy and to improve outcomes for members”.
But there is nothing in the Bill that delivers on that promise. The DWP press statement about the Bill said:
“New freedoms to safely release surplus funding will unlock investments and benefit savers”.
Again, there is nothing in the Bill.
Then we find a statement by the Minister for Pensions on 4 September during Committee on the Bill in the Commons:
“It is crucial that the new surplus flexibilities work for both sponsoring employers and members”.—[Official Report, Commons, Pension Schemes Bill Committee, 4/9/25; col. 130.]
Yet again, there is nothing in the Bill. I could go on—there are plenty of examples—but I hope that I have made the point.
If that is the case and the intention is that members as well as scheme sponsors are expected to benefit when assets are released, this objective should be set out clearly in the Bill. This is particularly important because the Bill, as drafted, removes the existing requirement on trustees only to release surplus where this is in the interests of members. We will come to this again when we reach Amendment 37 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. I will support that amendment, but I think that it would be better to put the requirement for members to benefit as well as employers clearly and unambiguously in Clause 9. A defined benefit scheme is a joint endeavour, involving both employees and employer. They should be treated on an equal basis. I ask my noble friend the Minister to accept the point and bring forward a suitable amendment on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I will briefly intervene because the probing amendments here are important to how we look at the precise nature of surpluses. Clearly, the principle of making it easier to return a genuine pension scheme surplus to employers is worthy of support, particularly given how much has historically been paid by employers into DB schemes, often at the expense of capital investment. But safeguards are absolutely critical—this is the point I want to make about the relationship between employers and trustees in this area. It must be a trustee decision to distribute surplus, and trustees must be required to consider how the surplus has accumulated, as was touched on by the proposer. Was it due to employer contributions, member contributions or strong investment returns?
Under the proposed legislation, employers will no doubt apply immense pressure to steer the distribution towards them and not the members. In exercising their discretion, trustees must be unencumbered, properly advised and protected from the undue and inappropriate pressure that sponsoring employers will no doubt place on them. That is a real concern to me. We must be wary of employers exercising their powers to put in place weak trustees, who will not act in members’ best interests. We must also be wary of making it harder for trustees to distribute surplus to members in favour of employers.
Surplus distributed to members through increased benefits will directly improve the position of the real economy through increased domestic expenditure and of course increased tax receipts. If we are to restrict the use of surplus assets away from scheme memberships to employers, we must ensure that surplus distributed to them is used for reinvestment in the UK economy through capital expenditure. I would like to hear the Minister’s view on that.
On what a surplus is, the changes made by the Pensions Regulator to the DB funding code of practice in November 2024 have codified the requirement for pension scheme trustees to fund DB pension schemes very prudently—I think that those are the words that he used. Further, the investments that trustees are strongly encouraged to hold, through that code of practice, mean that the investment strategies are usually much lower risk than the insurance companies that many pension schemes are now being transferred to en masse under bulk annuity contracts.
In June 2025, the Pensions Regulator issued guidance that suggested that excessive prudence or hoarding of surplus could be considered poor governance by trustees. If we are to make it easier to distribute surplus from pension schemes, the bar for that should not be so low that the security of member benefits is weakened and it should not be so high that it requires schemes to be excessively funded. The current bar of buyout funding is, in my opinion, far too high.
Safeguards are important. It is absolutely critical that trustees are required to take appropriate advice and that actuarial advice is compliant at all times with the relevant technical actuarial standards. Trustees must be able to make informed, evidence-based decisions, unencumbered by the interests of the insurance industry and free from undue employer pressure. That particular relationship concerns me most in our probe into the functions of the surpluses. I hope that the Minister can give reassurances about the position of trustees—how they will be protected and by whom—in this particular contest or area of decision-making.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, we come to three groups of amendments. The next two deal with what you might do with the surplus, and I have amendments in those. This group deals with the principle of what a surplus is. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for giving us the chance to consider that.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I will say a little more in our debate on the next group about how surpluses should be used, but we must recognise that employers in defined benefit schemes underwrite defined benefit scheme finances; they are the ones who have been putting in very large sums of money to keep these schemes going for the past 20-odd years. It is only right that we should recognise the interest that employers have in taking money that is no longer required within a scheme.
We have had so many years of deficits in pension schemes that we have rather forgotten that this was like an everyday happening in the pensions world, if you go back to the 1990s, when surpluses arose. Indeed, pension schemes were not allowed to keep pension surpluses; there were HMRC rules which made that rather difficult to do. These were perfectly ordinary transactions in the pensions world which we have just forgotten about because of the deficits that have existed for the last 20 or 30 years, which employers—not employees—have had to bear the burden of.
On the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I understand the technical point about removing assets rather than surplus, but surplus is the language that has always been used in the context of pension schemes; it is in the 1995 Act. The noble Lord’s amendments amend only this Act; as I understand it, they do not go on and amend the earlier Act. It is just language that has been used for a long period; I think people know what it means, and it will be very confusing at this stage to change the language.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for putting these amendments down and speaking in detail about them. We also heard good words from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I almost thought, “Is there any point in getting up and speaking?” but I am a politician.
This group goes to first principles. What is a defined benefits pension surplus and what is it for? For us, DB surplus is not a windfall or an accident, as I think others have said. It is a result of long-term assumptions, member contributions, employer funding decisions and investment outcomes—all those—but above all, it exists within a framework of promises made to members in return for deferred pay. We are therefore concerned about renaming—we keep on coming back to this—“surplus” as simply “assets” available for redistribution.
Language matters here because it shapes both legal interpretation and member confidence. Treating surpluses as inherently extractable risks weakening the fundamental bargain that underpins DB provision. Our position is not that surplus should never be accessed, but that it should be considered only after members’ reasonable expectations have been fully protected. That includes confidence in benefits security, protection against inflation erosion, and trust and accrued rights not being retrospectively interpreted. I have always thought that with DB pensions you need prudence. How far do prudence and good governance go?
Finally, the question for Ministers is whether the Bill maintains the principle that DB schemes exist first and foremost to deliver promised benefits or whether it marks a shift towards viewing schemes as financial reservoirs once minimum funding tests are met. In that case, one has to think, “What is the minimum for the funding tests?” We shall come on to that in an amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, has put down later in the Bill on where companies fail. It is a question of when those surpluses are available, if they are ever available.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, when I entered the department in July 2019, defined benefit pension schemes did, on occasion, report surpluses. However, those surpluses were neither of the scale nor the character that we are now observing. If one looks back over the past quarter of a century and beyond, it is evident that both the funding position of defined benefit schemes and the methodologies used to assess that funding have changed materially.
The surpluses reported today are not simply large in absolute terms but different in nature. They are measured against significantly more prudent assumptions, particularly in relation to discount rates, longevity and asset valuation, than would have been applied historically. It is therefore right that these emerging surpluses are examined with care and transparency. Bringing them into the open is necessary, and I say at the outset that the Government are right to have raised this issue explicitly in the Bill.
That said, we consider that the Bill does not yet fully reflect a number of the practical and operational issues faced by both trustees and sponsoring employers when seeking to make effective use of those provisions. In that respect, our position is not materially distant from that of the Government. Our concerns are not ones of principle but of application and implementation. We recognise that issues relating to potential deadlock between trustees and sponsors are important, but we are content for those matters to be considered at a later stage in the Committee’s proceedings. Our immediate focus is on understanding how the proposals are intended to operate in practice, how decisions are expected to be taken within existing scheme governance arrangements and how these new powers interact with established trustee fiduciary duties and employer covenant considerations.
This is a busy group, and noble Lords have done a sterling job in setting out their reasoning and rationale. I shall, therefore, not detain the Committee further by relitigating those points but will speak to my Amendment 25 in this group. Like a number of our amendments in this part of the Bill, it is a probing amendment intended to seek clarity. Clause 9 inserts new Section 36B into the Pensions Act 1995. The new section gives trustees of defined benefit trustee schemes the ability by resolution to modify the schemes’ rules so as to confirm a power to pay surplus to the employer or to remove or relax existing restrictions on the exercise of such a power.
The clause contains one explicit limitation on that power. New Section 36B(4) provides that the section does not apply to a scheme that is being wound up. In other words, wind-up is the only circumstance singled out in the Bill in which the new surplus release modification power cannot be used. Amendment 25 would remove that specific exclusion, and I want to be clear that the purpose of doing so is not to argue that surplus should be released during winding-up; rather, it is to test the Government’s reasoning in identifying wind-up as the sole circumstance meriting an explicit prohibition in primary legislation.
By proposing to remove subsection (4), the amendment invites the Minister to explain whether the Government consider wind-up to be genuinely the only situation in which surplus release would be inappropriate or whether there are other circumstances where the use of this power would also be unsuitable. If those other safeguards are already captured elsewhere, it would be helpful for the Committee to have that clearly set out on the record. Equally, if wind-up is used here as a proxy for a broader set of concerns, the Committee would benefit from understanding why those concerns are not addressed more directly.
Surplus release is a sensitive issue. The way in which the boundaries of this new power are framed therefore matters. Where the Bill chooses to draw a line in the legislation, it invites scrutiny as to why that line has been drawn there and only there. This amendment is intended to facilitate that discussion and to elicit reassurance from the Minister about how the Government envisage this power operating in practice and what protections they consider necessary beyond the single case of wind-up. On that basis, I look forward to the Minister’s response and any clarification she can provide to the Committee.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for explaining their amendments, and to all noble Lords, who have spoken so concisely—we positively cantered through that group; may that continue throughout the day.
It is worth saying a word about the Government’s policy intent, but let me start by saying that the DB landscape has changed dramatically, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott. Schemes are currently enjoying high levels of funding. Three in four schemes are running a surplus and there is around £160 billion of surplus funds in the DB universe. Schemes are also now more mature. The vast majority minimise the risk of future volatility with investment strategies that protect against interest rate and inflation movements. In addition, the DB funding code and the underpinning legislation require trustees to aim to maintain a strong funding position so that they can pay members’ future pensions. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that is the primary purpose of DB funding schemes: above all, they must be able to pay members’ pensions. That is what is set out quite clearly in the DB funding code and the underpinning legislation. That is overseen by the Pensions Regulator.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. I raised the question of safeguards. There is a lot of evidence in the industry that there is a lot of pressure. The Minister talks about the driving seat, but the actual installation of the driver into the car is at the behest of employers. It seems to me that there is likely to be some pressure here, perhaps more pressure than before. I just want to be sure that the safeguards are in place—we are perhaps going to be discussing these later—including safeguards for the trustees, who have the basic obligation of doing the best for the beneficiaries of the scheme. To what extent are they going to be protected in circumstances like that?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am coming on to that, but I am grateful to the noble Lord for pressing me on it. All trustees are bound by duties which will continue to apply when making decisions on sharing surplus. They have to comply with the rules of the scheme and with legal requirements, including a duty to act in the interests of beneficiaries. If trustees breach those requirements, the Pensions Regulator has powers to target individuals who intentionally or knowingly mishandle pension schemes or put workers’ pensions at risk. As the noble Lord knows, that includes powers to issue civil penalties under Section 10 of the Pensions Act 1995 or in some circumstances to prohibit a person from being a trustee.
The key is that the Pensions Regulator will in addition issue guidance on surplus sharing, which will describe how trustees may approach surplus release, and that can be readily updated. That guidance will be developed in consultation with industry, but it will follow the publication of regulations on surplus release and set out matters for trustees to consider around surplus sharing, as well as ways in which members can benefit, including benefit enhancement. That guidance will also be helpful for employers to understand the matters trustees have to take into account in the regulator’s view. I hope that that helps to reassure the noble Lord.
We will come on to some of the detail in later groups around aspects of the way this regulation works, but I hope that, on the first group, that has reassured noble Lords and they feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply and other speakers who have contributed to this debate, which I think was worth having. I am pleased that I raised the issue on terminology. I recognise that it is a lost cause, but I have never been afraid, like St Jude, to support lost causes. It is an important point that we need to understand the vagueness of the concept of surpluses and that it is actual assets that disappear from the fund.
On the substantive point, I am afraid that I did not find my noble friend’s response satisfactory. As she said—I made a note of it—trustees remain the heart of decision-making. That exactly is the point. I am afraid that I do not share the Panglossian view of trustees. Many of them—large numbers of them—do a difficult job well, but it is not true of them all.
It is enough of a problem, as I can attest from my own experience of many years in the pensions industry, that we cannot rely on trustees to deliver in all cases. The balance of power between members and trustees is totally unequal. Members, effectively, are not in a position to question trustees’ discretion and responsibilities, and they cannot take it to the ombudsman, because it falls outside the remit.
When my noble friend says that the Government have been clear, that was exactly my point: they have not been sufficiently clear and have frequently given the members a reasonable expectation that they will share in the release of assets. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Altmann
“(7A) Regulations may provide that payment of surplus to the employer may only be made to the employer on the condition that—(a) enhancement to member benefits particularly relating to provision of pre-1997 inflation increases, or (b) one-off payment to reflect lack thereofis simultaneously provided by the employer.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow regulations to require employers to enhance member benefits (including provision of pre-1997 inflation protection or offer a one-off payment) if they want to extract surplus payments from the scheme.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 26, I shall speak to my similar Amendment 39, to both of which I am grateful for the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, adding her name. To follow on from the words of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I am introducing these amendments as a marker, because I genuinely believe that it is important, if we are talking about distributing assets—I agree with the noble Lord on that terminology—to employers, that members should participate in the benefits that the excess funding has delivered.
My particular concern revolves around protecting members’ pensions against rises in the cost of living over many years. To go back to the Goode committee report of 1993, which followed the Maxwell scandal, that was the first talk of protecting private pensions in a similar way to state pensions, which would automatically be expected to have some kind of protection against either rising living standards or the rising cost of living. The protections put in place for pension schemes, however, were watered down to some degree and not introduced until 1997, so there are many people now retired who have a significant chunk of their private pension without any inflation protection at all. As inflation has become a much greater concern in recent years particularly, I hope we will be able to agree that attention should be paid to looking after what will be the most elderly of the pensioner population—those with pension accruals since before 1997. If there is to be an enhancement of member benefits, I would argue that the first consideration should be helping to rectify and remediate the shortfalls that many of these people face when trying to afford to live in 21st-century Britain.
I have included in the amendment the option of a one-off payment instead of enhancing the actual pension. In Amendment 26, it is a “may” rather than a “must”. The aim would be to make sure that some money is received by the member who has lost out, while bearing in mind that immediately lifting the pension from the pre-1997 accrual—which could be half or more of the person’s pension—up to a new level and then requiring the employer scheme to continue enhancing from that position, could add a significant extra strain on the scheme in the future if funding deteriorates.
However, we know that currently, in a scheme considering distributing surpluses, there is much more than is required on the current expectations, and for the likely nearer-term future, to meet the liabilities that will arise in, say, the next five to 10 years. Thereafter, one does not know; many of the members affected will not, sadly, be with us in that timeframe. But if actuaries are concerned about a permanent rise in the base level of pensions that must be paid by the scheme and then ongoingly increased over the very long term, payment of a one-off surplus amount to reflect the lack of inflation linking that the member has suffered over past years would, in my view, be easier to absorb but would also significantly enhance the well-being of the members themselves.
These amendments do similar things, although one is more definite than the other. I hope the Government and Minister can confirm that there is sympathy with this idea. Obviously, in a wider context, we will talk about enhancing members’ benefits more generally—I will come back to that on the next group—but, on that basis of the need for inflation protection in particular, I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, I rise principally to speak to my Amendment 38 in this group and to support my noble friend’s Amendment 44, to which I added my name. I am in broad sympathy with the mover of Amendment 26.
I think we can all agree that we would like to deal, if possible, with inflation eroding the purchasing power of a pensioner. As was said on the last group, there is basically a contract between the employer and the employee in a DB scheme, where the employee expects to receive a certain pension. The case I raise in my amendment stems from the many pension schemes that do not offer an absolute inflationary rise as part of their terms and conditions. Quite a number do, but some say in their terms that there would “normally” be an increase of an inflationary amount, but it is not guaranteed. There are a number of schemes where the literature at the time the person went into the scheme—in the 1980s, 1990s or whenever—indicated that they may reasonably expect to get inflationary increases, but they did not.
In this instance, I am grateful to the BP Pensioner Group, which brought its case to my attention and helped with the drafting of this amendment and my others. Broadly behind its request is the fact that the BP scheme, which is now closed, is an extremely good scheme with quite a large surplus in it. It is very well funded and therefore, as per the last group, may well be something that could go back to the company in part. But it has chosen for a number of years to refuse the request of the trustees to make discretionary increases.
It is worth noting just how pernicious the effect of inflation is on these incomes. I used the Bank of England inflation calculator to see what had happened. Bearing in mind that the statutory amount is 2.5%, if you go back with the inflation calculator to 2005, it is 2.8%—you might say that is not too bad—but inflation from 2015 to 2025 was 3.11% and, from 2020 to 2025, it was 4.35%. In every year there has been a modest but rising and quite large difference between what the statutory cap would allow and what the actual inflation was.
Of course, that compounds every year. So, every year, the loss is compounding up. Today, a pensioner may well be significantly worse off than if they had been getting something. By definition, surpluses comprise funds in excess of those required to meet the totality of members’ entitlements in full; they are, therefore, the resource out of which discretionary payments can be made. As such, any payment of surplus to the employer could prejudice the possibility of a discretionary payment to members. What I am seeking, and what my amendment seeks, is to make sure that that is in balance.
As I mentioned, since 2021, inflation as measured by CPI has been well over 4%, much ahead of the cap of 2.5%. The Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association’s survey indicated that, during the recent period of exceptional inflation, only 12% of UK pension funds made permanent discretionary increases to protect the purchasing power of members. In looking at surplus being distributed in part to employers and in part to members, the economic good if the part of the surplus that goes to the employer is used in investment is obvious, but let us not forget the economic good in increasing the purchasing power of the pensioners. There is an equal economic good on both sides of this argument.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made the valid point that a great many companies supported their pension schemes during the difficult times of the late 1990s and early 2000s, but I would argue that that was in their contracts because they had contracted to make the payment at the end. We are now in a situation where, through the far better quality of trustees, the training offered by the Pensions Regulator—I have taken it and can attest that it is well worth doing—and the governance rules that have been brought in, we have the ability to make those surpluses available.
What this amendment would do is add to Clause 10 that the regulations to be made by the Secretary of State would include the words on the Marshalled List, which would mean simply that the Secretary of State could regulate to ensure that trustees took inflationary pressures into account. That is pretty modest, on the scale of the amendments that are being put forward, to deal with the surplus. Although the amendment is probing at this stage, if it is not met with some sympathy now, it may become a bit more than probing as we go on.
My noble friend Lord Palmer’s Amendment 44 is along the same lines, although it addresses pre 1997, which my amendment does not specifically do; I will leave my noble friend to argue the case for that. In passing this legislation, we owe it to those pensioners who have been left behind to do something to help them catch up.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I understand the motivation behind the amendments in this group, which call, in one way or another, for inflation protection, in particular for pre-1997 pensions that do not benefit from indexation to have a first call on pension scheme surpluses. I do not, however, support these amendments.
When compulsory indexation was first introduced by statute, it was applied only to pension rights which accrued after April 1997. That was a deliberate policy choice by government at the time. Although the cap and the index have been tinkered with over time, the basic policy choice has remained intact. The 1997 change was itself quite costly for those employers that had not previously included indexation or inflation protection in their pension offer to employees, which was quite common at the time. I am sure that the Government at the time were aware that imposing indexation on all accrued pension rights would have been very expensive for employers and would very likely have accelerated the closure of DB schemes.
The period after 1997 saw the evaporation of the kind of surpluses that used to exist, which, incidentally, vindicated the 1997 decision to exclude the pre-1997 accrued rights, because if they had been included, that would almost certainly have accelerated the emergence of deficits, which led in turn to employers considering how they could cap their liabilities by closing schemes entirely or future accrual. As we know, the period of deficits lasted until the past couple of years; they lasted a very long time.
Alongside this period of deficits emerging, there was a mutual interest among trustees and employers to de-risk pension schemes. That is why they shifted most of the assets into things such as gilts, which, in turn, increased the sensitivity of the defined benefit schemes to gilt yields, as we saw in the LDI crisis, and resulted, when interest rates started to rise again, in the surpluses starting to emerge. It was not the only cause but a very significant cause of the surpluses that we now see. We now have schemes in surplus: DWP figures suggest £160 billion—that figure will probably change daily as interest rates change—but that was only after significant employer support throughout the 1990s and the noughties was required, when significant deficit recovery plans had to be signed up to by employers to keep their defined benefit schemes afloat.
The amendments in this group seem to be predicated on the thought that these surpluses are now available for member benefits, as though employers had nothing whatever to do with funding their emergence. Because DB pension schemes are built on the foundation of the interests of members, it is obvious that the surplus will have to be shared between the two—that was partly covered in the previous debate—but the one thing we must always remember is that they have emerged largely from the huge amount of funding that has had to be put in since 1997 to keep the schemes afloat. That the surpluses have emerged does not mean that they are available for whatever good thing people want to spend them on. I certainly do not think it is right to use surpluses to rewrite history to create rights that deliberately were not created in 1997, for the very good reasons that existed at the time. For that reason, I do not support these amendments.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I want briefly to enter this discussion to identify another group not captured in the neat divide of employers and scheme members. When there is £160 billion knocking around, people tend to work out elegant arguments for why some group or another has a claim on that money. I understand the arguments for the pre-1997 claims, but I have to say that what my noble friend Lady Noakes just said is a very accurate account of the history and the thinking at the time. There is indeed an argument that, looking back, there was a fundamental change in the character of the defined benefit pension promise with that legislation then, which probably ended up as the reason for their closure. A with-profits policy became one where you had a set of rights, which were more ambitious and have proved in many cases too onerous for employers.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
May I ask my noble friend a couple of questions? I totally accept the rationale for the change happening only post-1997, but does he accept that because we now have surpluses and there is this gap, a one-off payment would be a potential way of recognising the problem faced by the pensioners without changing the long-term funding position of the scheme?
Lord Willetts (Con)
I am not against such payments. As I say, I think this is highly discretionary—there would be a negotiation. I absolutely understand that argument, and we have all received letters from the people suffering financial distress in some circumstances because of not having pre-1997 inflation protection. But I just want to bring in another consideration and try to find out where it would fit in when the employers or the trustees are reaching a decision.
The Government have a policy, or rather we now have on a cross-party basis, a successful policy of auto-enrolment. The levels of pension contribution to the next generation, who are not in these schemes, are way lower than the pension contributions that have generated these large surpluses. It would be great if we could see increasing contributions. Where might a decision fall if an employer says, “We have now turned our scheme into surplus because of the work of the company, and one thing we could do with the money is to put some enhanced contribution into the auto-enrolment pensions of the next range of employees, whose pension rights at the moment will be far lower than those of the people covered in this debate”?
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
I am quite pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, because I feel that we are fishing slightly in the same pond. I added my name to the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and I support doing something for the pre-1997 people. When you look at something as long-term as pensions and you have different cohorts coming in, moving along and coming out, you have to somehow get into cohort fairness. You will always have the circumstance that people have paid into something and then they get something out when there is something else in the pot. We will come to this even more so when we start to deal with private assets, so I shall not go on at length here, because I will go on at length there. I am in the same camp as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, in thinking that you do not say that it is clean cut and these people are in and those people are out—you have to look at fairness more broadly across the piece.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I first became a pension fund trustee in 1997. The trustees at the time knew that there was a turning point, and it was probably just as well to get someone who might be alive 30 years later at least tutored in the principles of pensions at that moment—so it was clearly a moment in time. How right they were, because 30 years later, here I am.
I recall that it was a difficult moment for the scheme of which I was a member, and the private company for which I worked. Since the Barber reviews of 1991, with regard to the benefits payable in the final salary scheme, which was still open, it was the will of the directors that at all costs the final salary scheme should remain open and open to new accruals. Progressively, the benefits were diluted from RPI to RPI capped at 5% to RPI capped at 2.5%. Every step was taken and every sinew strained to keep that scheme open. But in 2003, the actuary reported that, on a scheme with assets of just £5 million, £4 million extra had to be tipped in; that was a sucker punch, and the scheme was inevitably at that stage closed to new members.
It turns out that the assumptions that were made, with the benefit of hindsight, were overly prudent. The deficit was exaggerated. But notwithstanding having put more than £4.41 million—that is the number that sits in my mind—into the scheme, three years later there was another £2.6 million to find as well. My goodness, the company could have made much better use of that capital to grow the business, rather than to fill a hole that history tells us was not there to the extent that it appeared.
We are in a situation where our scheme, which we kept open as long as we could, could not stand it any longer when we got to 2003. There was another turning point in 2006, in “A-day”, but I shall park that to one side. All that money was tipped in—and the suggestion that all the money that has gone into the scheme is some sort of pot to be shared now down the line, equally or in some proportion with the members as well as the company, is a false premise. Without the commitment of these private companies in those darkest days, the schemes would have closed much earlier and members would not have participated for those extra increments that they did.
I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, who asked what happens for all those people in the pre-1997 schemes. Well, here is the GMP rub. Astonishingly, I received a payment in the past six months, wholly unexpectedly, from my pre-1997 accrual, for the guaranteed minimum pension. So the suggestion that members are not sharing in any of the benefits of the pre-1997 scheme is a further false premise.
I am no longer a trustee of the scheme, but I know the trustees. The professional and actuarial costs associated with calculating these GMPs have been quite extraordinary. In fact, it would be much better for the trustees to have just made an offer, forget the GMP, and everybody would have been much better off.
The GMP issue illustrates the folly of going down the path that this amendment would lead us. All it is going to do is drive trustees into having more expensive calculations, actuarial adjustments, assessments and consultations, whereas, for the most part, the trustees are minded to make some sort of apportionment and that apportionment needs to be balanced, individual for the scheme in its own circumstances, based on how much excess money was tipped into the scheme for all those years in the post-1997 world. It is about having some sort of fair assessment, a fair apportionment. For the most part, the trustees of private schemes have the benefits and the interests of the members completely at heart and I do not see any circumstance when that does not happen.
This amendment is unnecessary for two reasons. On the one hand, trustees take these things into account. Secondly, that money is truthfully the employers’ money because they went above and beyond, listening in good faith to the professionals, the actuaries and everybody else who had put their oar in on the overly prudent basis, as it now turns out, to make good deficits that were not actually there. I say to noble Lords that for all the pounds that were put in post-1997, when other things happened in the macroeconomy and the Budget—which I will not detain noble Lords with—this country’s pension schemes could have been in a significantly stronger position than they are now had the trustees carried on as they were and not listened to some of the siren voices in government and the so-called professional advisers.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I strongly support Amendments 26 and 39 from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. I have a question on Amendment 39, the proposal that trustees should be able to make one-off enhancements. I understand that there has been some recent change in the tax treatment of such payments, and I wonder if my noble friend could update the Committee on where we are with that.
The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, made the point that we are referring to an issue which will depend on the regulations—one of the problems we face is that this is a skeleton Bill. As I understand it, the question is, in essence: can the trustees use the surplus assets to pay the DC contributions of people who are not in the DB scheme? There is a particular quirk with that. Purely randomly, some schemes established the DC arrangement as part of the DB scheme, and other employers established the DC arrangement as a separate legal entity. It is pure chance which way they went; it depended on their advisers. I have questions about it in idea and principle, but if we are going to admit that, it would be wrong to distinguish between the chance of the particular administrative arrangements that were adapted. I wonder if my noble friend is in a position to comment on that point.
I have significant reservations about the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for free advice being paid for by surplus. Most members of DB schemes do not need advice—which is the entire point of being in a DB scheme. You just get the benefit. That is what is so wonderful about them. Advice rather than guidance is extremely expensive. The idea that a free, open-ended offer of providing advice should be made needs to be looked at extremely carefully. We have the slight difficulty here in that I am replying to the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, before he has made them, but I have to get my questions in first, and maybe he will comment on that point.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
This seems like a good moment to come in. I first ask the Minister: do the Government agree that a responsible use of surpluses should strengthen confidence in DB schemes and not leave members feeling that prudence has benefited everybody but them? In this, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, because people do feel aggrieved.
I have three amendments here. Amendment 32 is designed to ensure that regulations take account of the particular circumstances of occupational pension schemes established before the Pensions Act 1995. Members of pre-1997 schemes, so often referred to in this debate, are often in a different position to those in later schemes. These schemes were designed under a different legal and regulatory framework. Current legislation does not always reflect those historical realities, creating unintended iniquities.
Amendment 32 would require regulations under Clause 9 to explicitly consider—that is all—these older schemes. It would allow such schemes, with appropriate regulatory oversight, to offer discretionary indexation where funding allowed, so it would provide flexibility while ensuring that safeguards were in place. It would give trustees the ability to improve outcomes for members in a fair and responsible way, and it would help to address the long-standing issue of members missing out on indexation simply because of their scheme’s pre-1997 status. It would also ensure that members could share in scheme strength where resources permitted. Obviously, safeguards are needed, and Amendment 32 would make it clear that discretionary increases would be possible only where schemes were well funded. Oversight by regulators ensures that employer interests and member protections remain balanced.
My Amendment 41 is about advice. When you are as knowledgeable as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, you do not need the advice, but many pensioners are missing it. This amendment would allow a proportion of pension scheme surplus to be allocated towards funding free—
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
The amendment talks about surpluses, so it is talking specifically about defined benefit schemes. It is not talking about DC schemes because such schemes do not have surpluses. I just want to be clear.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
I thank the noble Lord; it is just that impartial pension advice for members is not always available to everybody. Many savers struggle to navigate pension choices, whether around a consolidation investment strategy or retirement income. Without proper advice, members risk making poor financial decisions that could damage their long-term security. If you are in the business, you have to take the good with the bad, but we would like to give members a bit of advice if the money is available. Free impartial advice is essential to levelling the playing field.
Surpluses in pension schemes should not sit idle or be seen simply as windfall funds. Redirecting a small—I stress “small”—proportion to fund member advice would ensure that surpluses are used in a way that benefits members directly. Amendment 32 would not mandate a fixed share; it would simply give the Secretary of State powers to determine what proportion may be used. This would, I hope, create flexibility and safeguards so that the balance between scheme health and member benefit can be properly managed. Further advice from surpluses reduces the need for members to pay out of pocket and it builds trust that schemes are actively supporting member outcomes beyond the pension pot itself.
Amendment 44, to which my noble friend Lord Thurso referred, would insert a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to publish
“within 12 months … a report on whether the fiduciary duties of trustees of occupational pension schemes should be amended to permit discretionary indexation of pre-1997 accrued rights, where scheme funding allows”.
It aims to explore options for improving outcomes for members of older pension schemes. I maintain that this amendment is needed because many pre-1997 schemes were established before modern indexation rules. Trustees’ current fiduciary duties may limit their ability to avoid discretionary increases, which is what this amendment is about. Members of these schemes may be missing out on pension increases that could be sustainable and beneficial. I will not go on about what the report would do, but there would be many benefits to this new clause. It would provide an evidence-based assessment of whether discretionary indexation can be applied safely; support trustees in making informed decisions for pre-1997 scheme members; and balance members’ interests with financial prudence and regulatory safeguards.
The amendments in this group are clearly going to progress on to Report in some way. Sometime between now and then, we are going to have to try to amalgamate these schemes and take the best bits out of them in order to get, on Report, a final amendment that might have a chance of persuading the Government to take action on these points. Many of the amendments in this group—indeed, all of them—follow the same line, but there needs to be some discipline in trying to get the best out of them all into a final amendment on Report.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for their amendments in this group. I also thank other noble Lords for all their other contributions in Committee so far this afternoon. Our debate on this group has stimulated a most valuable discussion. Of course, I look forward to the Minister’s responses to the points that have been raised.
I wish to start off by saying that I thought it was helpful that the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, steered the Committee—my words, not hers—towards a focus on scheme members. The debate went a lot beyond that, but I just wanted to make that point at the outset. I wish also to take this opportunity to set out our stance on indexation, as well as some of the related questions that we for the Opposition have for the Government on this point.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, said, these amendments raise understandable concerns about fairness, inflation and the use of defined benefit surpluses. But our core line is simple: mandating how trustees and employers use DB surpluses would be overly prescriptive and risks being actively anti-business. Many employers are already using surpluses constructively, improving DC provision for younger workers, supporting intergenerational fairness, strengthening scheme security through contingent assets, SPVs or insurance-backed arrangements, or reducing long-term risk in ways that benefit members as well as sponsors. Employers have also borne DB deficit risk for many years, as we have heard a bit about this afternoon. If they carried the risk in the bad times, it is reasonable that they can share in the benefits in the good times, provided that decisions are taken jointly with trustees.
I will explain this through a simple analogy—I say at the outset that it will not be up to the standard of the buckets analogy utilised previously in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, but here we are. The employer and members walk into the casino together. The bets are placed and the investment strategy, funding assumptions and longevity risk are collective decisions overseen by trustees. If the bet goes wrong, the employer must cover the losses, often over many years, through additional contributions and balance sheet strain. If the bet goes right, however, some argue that the employer should be excluded from any upside and that all gains must automatically be distributed to members.
That is not, we believe, how risk sharing works. In any rational system, the party that underwrites the losses must surely be allowed to share in the gains—I know there are other arguments, but I believe this was the one posed by my noble friend Lady Noakes—otherwise, incentives are distorted, future participation is discouraged and employers become less willing to sponsor schemes at all. The fair outcome is that neither the employer nor the members take everything and that surplus is discussed and allocated jointly by trustees and employers in a way that balances member security, scheme sustainability and the long-term health of the sponsoring employer. I think this was the central argument of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and, in a different way, my noble friend Lord Fuller. Legislation should support that partnership, not override it.
My noble friend Lord Willets made an interesting point. He asked whether it is fair that, in DB schemes, current employees often contribute to enhancing or rescuing the surplus position of pension schemes, making up for past mistakes—or deficits, perhaps—and the potential consequence of that linking to lower remuneration for those current employees. I add one more thing, which is probably a bit unfair because it is slightly hypothetical: if that current employee, having perhaps been paid less, is then made redundant, that is a double whammy for them. The question is whether the surplus should be used for helping current employees or giving them a better deal, as well as, or instead of, looking to help the pre-1997 members. That is the way I look at it.
Against that backdrop, amendments that would make benefit uplifts—whether pre-1997 indexation or lump sum enhancements—a statutory condition of surplus extraction raise real concerns. Automatic uplift would ignore wider economic impacts, including higher employer costs; increased insolvency risk, ultimately borne by the PPF; knock-on effects on wages, investment and employment; and potentially higher PPF levies.
For PPF schemes, mandatory uplift is manageable because the employer covenant has gone and Parliament controls the compensation framework. Imposing similar requirements on live schemes risks destabilising otherwise healthy employers. Uplift should therefore be an option and not an obligation. That said, focusing on choice does not mean ignoring power imbalances. In some schemes, there is genuine deadlock. Trustees may be reluctant to deploy surplus for fear of sponsor reaction or member backlash, so instead sit on it and de-risk further. That may be a rational defensive response, but it is also a deeply inefficient outcome. The Government should be looking at how to enable better use of surplus by agreement, rather than mandating outcomes.
My questions to the Minister are as follows. How do the Government intend to preserve flexibility while avoiding blunt compulsion? How will they support trustee-employer partnership rather than hardwiring outcomes into legislation? What consideration has been given to mechanisms for breaking deadlock—including overprudence, if that is a term that can be used—so that surplus can be used productively rather than simply locked away?
To conclude, these amendments raise important issues. Our concern is not with the objectives but with the method. Choice, partnership and proportionality should remain the guiding principles. I look forward to the responses from the Minister.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords— that was a very interesting debate. I will come to some of the detail in a moment. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for explaining their amendments.
We do not have a smorgasbord here, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, observed. Essentially, Amendments 26, 32, 38 and 39 would, in different ways, allow regulations to require member benefit enhancements prior to surplus release, require regulations to do so, and require trustees to consider indexation and the value of members’ pensions before making a surplus payment.
I say at the outset that I understand the concerns of scheme members whose pensions have not kept pace with inflation. They may have made contributions for many years and are understandably upset at seeing inflation erode the value of their retirement income. But I am afraid that I am not able to accept these amendments, for reasons I will explain.
I will give a bit of context first, because it is worth noting that over 80% of members of private sector DB schemes currently get some form of pre-1997 indexation on their benefits. However, as I explained in the previous group, we think the way forward is that our reforms will give trustees greater flexibility to release surplus from well-funded DB schemes and will encourage discussion between employers and trustees on how those funds can be used to benefit members.
In response to the final question from the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, about deadlock-breaking, we do not think it is necessary because, in a sense, it is not a balanced position between employers and trustees. Trustees are in control. Employers cannot access surplus directly. Trustees are the ones who make a decision. If the trustees do not agree to release the surplus, the surplus is not being released. In a sense, it is quite intentional for the power to sit with the trustees, and that is the appropriate way to manage that issue. We think that that way of putting trustees in the driving seat is a better approach than legislating for how surplus should be used. I found that discussion of history, from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, the noble Lords, Lord Willetts and Lord Fuller, and others, very helpful.
The DB landscape is a complex situation. It has a varied history and there are variations within it: within schemes, over time, between schemes, across time and across the landscape. Benefit structures have varied, in many cases over the course of a scheme’s history. Although some schemes may not provide pre-1997 indexation, they may have been more generous; they may have been non-contributory or may have provided a higher accrual rate at different points in time. All schemes are different. That is why we do not think it is possible to provide an overall requirement on schemes for indexation. We think it is better that trustees, with their deep understanding of the knowledge of individual schemes, their characteristics and history, remain at the heart of decision-making in accordance with their fiduciary duties. In addition, of course, as I keep saying, they must act in the interests of scheme beneficiaries.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation. However, does she agree that a case where the employer has the right to prevent the trustees making a payment—with some surpluses, the trustees may wish to make a payment but the employer can stop it if it is not going to them—is a special case, which needs to be looked at slightly differently?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I will need to come back to the noble Viscount on that specific point. Obviously, at the moment, a minority of trustees have the power in the scheme rules to release surplus; our changes will broaden that out considerably. If there is a particular subcategory, I will need to come back to the noble Viscount on that. I apologise that I cannot do that now—unless inspiration should hit me in the next few minutes while I am speaking, in which case I will return to the subject when illumination has appeared from somewhere.
It is worth saying a word on trustees because we will keep coming back to this. It was a challenge in the previous group from my noble friend Lord Davies. The starting point is that most trustees are knowledgeable, well equipped and committed to their roles. But there is always room to better support trustees and their capability, especially in a landscape of fewer, larger consolidated pension funds. That is why the Government, on 15 December, issued a consultation on trustees and governance, which, specifically, is asking for feedback on a range of areas to build the evidence base. It wants to look at, for example, how we can get higher technical knowledge and understanding requirements for all trustees; the growth and the use of sole trustees; improving the diversity of trustee boards; how we get members’ voices heard in a world of fewer, bigger schemes; managing conflicts of—
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Sorry. Corporate trustees are a specific issue. Does the consultation include the particular responsibility of single corporate trustees?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
Absolutely. There may be—I am not saying that there are—risks that need to be explored around the use of sole corporate trustees. The consultation will look at that, and at generally improving the quality and standards of administration to improve service quality and so on. That runs until 6 March. My noble friend may wish to contribute to it; I commend it to him.
On safeguards, trustees will need to notify the regulator when they exercise the power to pay surplus. As part of that notification, we anticipate the provision to be made in regulations for trustees to explain how, if at all, members have benefited because that will help the regulator monitor how the new powers are being used.
In response to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, the Pensions Regulator has already set out that trustees should consider the situation of those members who would benefit from a discretionary increase and whether the scheme has a history of making such increases. Following this legislation—and as I may have said in the previous group—TPR will publish further guidance for trustees and advisers, noting factors to consider when releasing surplus and ways in which trustees can ensure members and employers can benefit.
On that broader point, we feel that it must be a negotiation, because increasing indexation would increase employer liabilities, so it is right that it ends up being a negotiation. All the safeguards are already there. My noble friend Lord Davies asked what advice trustees should take. We expect trustees to take appropriate professional advice when evaluating a potential surplus release and making a payment. As well as actuarial advice, this should also include legal advice and covenant advice to enable trustees to discharge their duties properly. Let us not forget that a strong covenant is the best guarantee a scheme has; not undermining the covenant, or the employer that stands behind it, is crucial to this.
Amendment 44 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on whether trustees’ duties should be changed to enable trustees to pay discretionary increases on pre-1997 accrued rights. It is not clear to us why this would be needed as the scope of trustee fiduciary duties do not prevent trustees paying discretionary increases, where scheme rules allow them to do so. We expect trustees to consult their professional advisers, including lawyers, on their duties if they are not sure.
Amendment 41 from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, highlights the importance of ensuring that members have access to good quality pensions advice. Although we understand the intention, we remain clear that we will not be mandating the use of surplus released from schemes. My noble friend Lord Davies made the good point that, in some ways, the greatest need for support is on the DC side rather than the DB side. DB scheme members expect to receive a lifelong retirement income, which trustees must regularly and clearly communicate to members. This is typically based on salary and length of service, offering strong financial security. For DB, the benefits they will receive on retirement are generally known.
The Government recognise the importance of robust guidance, however, and we already ensure that everyone has access to free, impartial pensions guidance through the Money and Pensions Service, helping people to make informed financial decisions at the right time. The MoneyHelper service offers broad and flexible pensions guidance that supports people throughout their financial journey.
A couple of other questions were asked, including what employers will use the surplus for. The Pensions Regulator published a survey last year, Defined benefit trust-based pension schemes research. In a sample of interviews, it found around 8% of schemes with a funding surplus reported having released a surplus in the last year. That equates to nine schemes. Of those nine, seven schemes used the surplus to enhance member benefits. One used it to provide a contribution holiday for future DB accrual and one to make a payment to a DC section established in the same trust. None of the nine schemes stated that the surplus was released to the employer.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and my noble friend Lord Davies, it was always the case that it depends on the scheme rules. I want to make sure I get this right. I had a note somewhere about it, but I am having to wing it now so I will inevitably end up writing and correcting it. If there is a DB and a DC section in the same trust, it could be possible, depending on the scheme rules, for trustees to make a decision to release funds from one to the other. But trustees may not be able to agree to that; it would obviously depend on the circumstances. However, as I understand it, there is nothing to stop an employer releasing funds—surplus released from a DB scheme back to an employer. The employer could then choose to put that money in, for example, a DC scheme. I understand the tax treatment would be such that the tax payable on one can be offset as a business expense on the other, making it a tax neutral proposal. In any case, as noble Lords may have noted, the tax treatment of surplus rate has dropped from 35% to 25%. A decision has been made to make that drop down. If by winging it I have got that wrong, I will clarify that when I write the inevitable letter of correction.
My noble friend Lord Davies asked about tax treatment. I will read this out, as it is from the Treasury, and I will be killed if I get it wrong. Amendments to tax law are required to ensure these payments—one-off payments—qualify as authorised member payments and are taxed as intended. The necessary changes to tax legislation will have effect from 6 April 2027. Changes to tax legislation are implemented through finance Bills and statutory instruments made under finance Acts. There will be consequential changes to pensions legislation where necessary, which will be dealt with through regulations. I hope that satisfies my noble friend. If it does not, I will write to him at a later point.
I hope I have covered all the questions. I am really grateful for that contribution; it is one of the ways in which this Committee illuminates these matters. But I hope, having heard that, the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for her explanation. Although it is rather disappointing, I understand where she is coming from. I also thank all noble Lords who have participated in this group. There is a general feeling across the party divides—but obviously not unanimity—that lack of inflation protection is an issue. How or whether it is dealt with is the big question. I hope that maybe we can all meet and discuss this and how it could best be brought back on Report, if it is going to be brought back. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment which seeks to determine why the Secretary of State is permitted to change the conditions for paying surplus using the negative procedure after the initial conditions are first set using the affirmative procedure and to question the extent and scope of the Secretary of State’s regulatory power in setting the conditions for surplus release.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, we come to another busy group, in which the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, and I have amendments. I will speak only to our amendments so that other noble Lords have time to set out their reasoning and questions to the Minister. I look forward to hearing them. Essentially, this group covers surplus release, how it will operate and precisely who will oversee the rules of this. We are also concerned about the very wide delegated powers within this area.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 34 and 37 and will briefly comment on the other amendments. Quickly, before I do that, I seek to assist the Minister with the question I asked her on the last group. I was written to by people who came together as a small group to protest against the failure of a trustee and an employer to award discretionary increases, contrary to their joint policy of matching inflation, originally published in 1989 and repeated in pensions guides and newsletters over the years. For the last four years, the employer has refused consent to modest discretionary increases recommended by the trustee and supported by the independent actuary. That is the situation I am looking at. I hope that is helpful.
I turn to the current group. Let me say, first, in response to the noble Viscount’s amendment and his Clause 10 stand part notice—as he said, both are probing amendments—broadly speaking, I concur with him. If we had had regulations, draft regulations or just something to look at, an awful lot of these questions would not have needed to be put at this stage. As a matter of principle, I am always in favour of the affirmative procedure, rather than the negative one; I shall leave that there.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will speak eloquently to his own amendments in a moment, but they are a bit of a variation on the theme of the ones in my name. My Amendment 34 would, in Clause 10 and at line 23,
“after ‘notified’ insert ‘and consulted’”.
What that would do is to say that the trustees would have not only to notify the members but to consult them. My Amendment 37 is very much along the same lines. It would insert, at the end of proposed new subsection (2B), a new paragraph—paragraph (e)—
“requiring that the trustees are satisfied that it is in the interests of the members that the power to pay surplus is exercised in the manner proposed in relation to a payment before it is made”.
Both amendments seek to explore the relationship between the employer, the members and the trustees.
I have listened to the arguments where it has been put forward that the employer has underwritten the surpluses, almost, and is at the mercy of the trustees. The case that I have put forward shows that, actually, there is often a power imbalance between the members—they are probably at the bottom of the pile—the trustees and the employer. I completely concur that the idea of mandating a response is wrong, but it is open to have regulations that require the trustees both to have regard to and to look at that, so that we reach a situation where members’ interests have at least equal value, in the eyes of the trustees, as the requirements of the employer.
I feel that these amendments are very modest. Who knows what might happen later on, but this stage the amendments are designed to reinforce members’ ability to be consulted and know what is going on.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My amendments address how members’ interests can best be represented whenever a release of assets is under consideration.
As the Bill stands, the first members will know about such proposals is when they are a done deal—that is, when the decision has been made by the trustees, having talked to the employer. That is what the Bill says, and that is clearly wrong. There is also nothing in the Bill about any involvement of members in the process, such as consultation. This is obviously unacceptable; they should be involved fully from the start. I support the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso.
I would probably oppose Amendment 42 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, but, obviously, I shall wait to hear what she says before coming to a conclusion—although the noble Baroness’s remarks on the previous group gave me the gist of what is proposed. Finally, I shall await my noble friend the Minister’s response to the questions raised by the amendments in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie.
My Amendment 36 is relatively straightforward and, I hope, uncontentious. Members need to be told before, not after, a decision is made by the trustees and agreed by the employer. This is a point of principle. Scheme members are not passive recipients of their employers’ largesse; they should be equal partners in a shared endeavour, and they have the right to be involved.
My other two amendments would bring scheme members’ trade unions into the process. A question has been asked a number of times during the passage of the Bill in the Commons: who represents members when a release of assets is proposed? The answer, of course, is their trade unions. This is a matter of fact. Consultation is inherently collective and there is now extensive and detailed legislation on how members are to be represented collectively. This applies here, as it does to all other terms and conditions of employment. I should emphasise that this is a requirement to consult on the employer, not the trustees. It applies to trade unions recognised for any purpose under the standard provisions of employment law.
Amendment 36 is relatively straightforward. It would simply require the employer to inform recognised trade unions at the same time as scheme members of the proposals that it is considering in discussion with trustees to release scheme assets. Amendment 40 would go further; it would require an employer to consult with those recognised trade unions before reaching any agreement with the trustees. The requirement to consult with trade unions about changes in pension arrangements that they sponsor is not a new provision. I am not proposing anything radical or new. Pension law already requires consultation with trade unions in this particular form; it requires them to take place before major changes in employees’ collective arrangements. My case is simply that the decision to release assets is a major change and hence it should be brought within the consultation requirements that are already set out in legislation.
This is all in accordance with Section 259 of the Pensions Act 2004 and the regulations under the Act. These are the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Consultation by Employers and Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2006, that is SI 349 of 2006. These regulations require employers with at least 50 employees to consult with active and prospective scheme members before making major changes—known as listed changes in the legislation—to their pension arrangements.
The key requirements set out in the legislation includes a mandatory consultation period. First, employers must conduct a consultation lasting at least 60 days before a decision is made. Secondly, there must be a spirit of co-operation. Employers and consultees are under a duty to work in the spirit of co-operation and employers must take the views received into account. Thirdly, the affected parties consultation must include active members, those currently building benefits, and prospective members—eligible employees not yet in the scheme. Deferred and pensioner members are generally excluded, which I have always regarded as a shortcoming in the legislation.
The listed changes that currently trigger statutory consultation are: an increase in the normal pension age; closing the scheme to new members; stopping or reducing the future accrual of benefits; ending or reducing the employer’s liability to make contributions; introducing or increasing member contributions; changing final salary benefits to money purchase benefits; and reducing the rate of revaluation or indexation for benefits. It should be noted that this is not just about changes in benefits; it is about changing the financing of the scheme. A release of assets is a change in the financing of a scheme, and so it should be included in the list in these regulations. My amendment would simply direct that regulations should be laid that will add release of assets to the list of these listed changes.
There are consequences under the legislation for employers that fail to comply with it, but the spirit here is one of setting out a process of working together, in order, as far as possible, to reach changes to the scheme that are accepted to both sides of the employment relationship.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I want to comment briefly on Amendment 35, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, where he seemed to characterise the need to have members in the room alongside employers and trustees. He seems to forget that trustees’ responsibility is to act for the members. The members are fully part of the negotiation through the trustees. I personally do not agree with his amendment requiring formal consultation, as with some of the existing listed changes to pension schemes. But there was a good reason why the release of surpluses was not included when that legislation was first drafted, and I have seen no reason to change that.
My Amendment 42 is rather unlike other amendments in this group, which is why I spoke in the previous group and probably should have asked for my amendment to be grouped there. I reiterate my remarks in that group on the importance of the interests of the sponsoring employers, who have for the most part provided the funding which has now led to the surpluses emerging, which is the subject of these clauses in the Bill. My Amendment 42 simply says that regulations made under new subsection (2A) of Section 37 of the 1995 Act may not replace restrictions on employers once surpluses have been paid to them.
The DWP’s post-consultation document on the treatment of surpluses said:
“Employers could use this funding to invest in their business, increase productivity, boost wages, or utilise it for enhanced contributions in their Defined Contribution (DC) schemes”.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, referred to that being used elsewhere as a justification for these new release powers. I agree that they could use it for those things, but there are also other things that they could use it for. For example, they could use it to fund a reduction of prices in the goods and services they sell to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace.
The thing that concerns me in particular is whether the funds are used to pay dividends or to make a return of capital, because companies have shareholders and that would be a fairly normal use of surplus funds. My key concern is that the Government would use the power in new subsection (2A) to specify that employers could not use the money in the way they chose, and in particular in relation to dividends and share buybacks.
I completely understand the Government’s desire to see more investment, but holding money within the company might be the economically illiterate thing to do. Businesses make investments in assets, productivity or people if they think they have a reasonable prospect of making a return. They do not invest because they happen to have some surplus cash lying around. If they cannot be reasonably sure of making a decent return themselves, the right thing to do is to return the money to the shareholders and let the shareholders recycle that into other investment opportunities which make a reasonable return. That is why low-performing companies are often under pressure to return capital to the shareholders. In the context of the whole economy, that is the sensible thing to do, because it gets capital to the right place in the economy. Therefore, I hope the Minister can reassure me that new subsection (2A) will not be used to restrict what companies do with the surpluses extracted from pension schemes.
The Minister made some quite helpful remarks in the first group about the Government not telling people what to do with the surpluses, but I hope she can be specific in relation to the use of the power in new subsection (2A) that that would not be used to restrict what companies can do.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I support my noble friend Lady Noakes in her assertion that members’ interests are already taken into account on many trustee boards. In fact, all but the very smallest schemes have procedures and requirements to appoint member-nominated trustees. It is almost so obvious that it is hardly worth saying, but it is the truth. It is the job of the member-nominated trustees, not the unions or the members themselves, to represent the interests of that cohort. Even the local government scheme has arrangements whereby the needs of the employers and the employees are balanced, so it is not just a question of the private schemes; all schemes have those balances as a principle, and that is entirely appropriate.
I am disappointed to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, because I felt we got on so well in the previous two days in Committee, but, on this occasion, I part company with him. I do not think his amendments are needed, because of the existence of that member-nominated trustee class. It is their job, and if the members do not like it, they can get another one.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on these amendments to Clause 10. Having previously set out the Government’s policy intent and the context in which these reforms are being brought forward, I start with the clause stand part notice tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger. As he has made clear, it seeks to remove Clause 10 from the Bill as a means of probing the rationale for setting out the conditions attached to surplus release in regulations rather than in the Bill. It is a helpful opportunity to explain the scope and conditions of the powers and why Clause 10 is structured as it is.
The powers in the Bill provide a framework that we think strikes the right balance between scrutiny and practicality, enabling Parliament to oversee policy development while allowing essential regulations to be made in a timely and appropriate way. It clearly sets out the policy decisions and parameters within which the delegated powers must operate. As the noble Viscount has acknowledged, pensions legislation is inherently technical, and much of the practical delivery sits outside government, with schemes, trustees, providers and regulators applying the rules in the real-world conditions. In pensions legislation, it has long been regarded as good lawmaking practice to set clear policy directions and statutory boundaries in primary legislation, while leaving detailed operational rules to regulations, particularly those that can be updated as markets and economic conditions change and scheme structures evolve, so that the system continues to work effectively over time.
In particular, Clause 10 broadly retains the approach taken by the Pensions Act 1995, which sets out overarching conditions for surplus payments in primary legislation while leaving detailed requirements to regulations. New subsection (2B) sets out the requirements that serve to protect members that must be set out in regulations before trustees can pay a surplus to the employer—namely, before a trustee can agree to release surplus, they will be required to receive actuarial certification that the scheme meets a prudent funding threshold, and members must be notified before surplus is released. The funding threshold will be set out in regulations, which we will consult on. We have set out our intention and we have said that we are minded that surplus release will be permitted only where a scheme is fully funded at low dependency. That is a robust and prudent threshold which aligns with the existing rules for scheme funding and aims to ensure that, by the time the scheme is in significant maturity, it is largely independent of the employer.
New subsection (2C) then provides the ability to introduce additional regulations aimed at further enhancing member protection when considered appropriate. Specifically, new subsection (2C)(a) allows flexibility for regulations to be made to introduce further conditions that must be met before making surplus payments. That is intended, for example, if new circumstances arise from unforeseen market conditions. Crucially, as I have said, the Bill ensures that member protection is at the heart of our reforms. Decisions to release surplus remain subject to trustee discretion, taking into account the specific circumstances of the scheme and its employer. Superfunds will be subject to their own regime for profit extraction.
Amendment 37, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, seeks to retain a statutory requirement that any surplus release be in the interests of members. I am glad to have the opportunity to explain our proposed change in this respect. We have heard from a cross-section of industry, including trustees and advisers, that the current legislation, at Section 37(3)(d) of the Pensions Act 1995, requiring that the release of surplus be in the interests of members, is perceived by trustees as a barrier because they are not certain how that test is reconciled with their existing fiduciary duties. We believe that retaining the status quo in the new environment could hamper trustee decision-making. By amending this section, we want to put it beyond doubt for trustees that they are not subject to any additional tests beyond their existing clear duties of acting in the interests of scheme beneficiaries.
I turn to Amendments 31 and 43, which seek to clarify why the power to make regulations governing the release of surplus is affirmative only on first use. As the Committee may know, currently, only the negative procedure applies to the making of surplus regulations. However, in this Bill, the power to make the initial surplus release regulations is affirmative, giving Parliament the opportunity to review and scrutinise the draft regulations before they are made. We believe that this strikes the appropriate balance. The new regime set out in Clause 10 contains new provisions for the core safeguards of the existing statutory regime; these are aligned with the existing legislation while providing greater flexibility to amend the regime in response to changing market, and other, conditions.
Amendments 35 and 36 seek both to prescribe the ways in which members are notified around surplus release and to require that trade unions representing members also be notified. I regret to say that I am about to disappoint my noble friend Lord Davies again, for which I apologise. The Government have been clear: we will maintain a requirement for trustees to notify members of surplus release as a condition of any payment to the employer. We are confident that the current requirement for three months’ notification to members of the intent to release surplus works well.
However, there are different ways in which surplus will be released to employers and members. Stakeholder feedback indicates that some sponsoring employers would be interested in receiving scheme surplus as a one-off lump sum, but others might be interested in receiving surplus in instalments—once a year for 10 years, say. We want to make sure that the requirements in legislation around the notification of members before surplus release work for all types of surplus release. We would want to consider the relative merits of trustees notifying their members of each payment from the scheme, for example, versus trustees notifying their members of a planned schedule of payments from the scheme over several years. Placing the conditions around notification in regulations will provide an opportunity for the Government to consult and take industry feedback into account, to ensure the right balance between protection for members and flexibility for employers.
I understand the reason behind my noble friend Lord Davies’s amendment, which would require representative trade unions to be notified. They can play an important role in helping members to understand pension changes. However, we are not persuaded of the benefit of an additional requirement on schemes. Members—and, indeed, employers—may well engage with trade unions in relation to surplus payments; we just do not feel that a legislative requirement to do so is warranted. The points about the role of trustees, in relation to acting in the interests of members in these decisions, were well made.
Amendment 34 would require member consultation before surplus is released. I understand the desire of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, to ensure that members are protected. The Government’s view is that members absolutely need to be notified in advance, but the key to member protection lies in the duty on scheme trustees to act in their interests. Since trustees must take those interests into account when considering surplus release, we do not think that a legislative requirement to consult is proportionate.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Just to be absolutely clear, the three-month notification period relates to the notice of implementation; it is not three months’ notice of the decision being made.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I believe so; if that is not correct, I shall write to my noble friend to correct it. Coming back to his point, the underlying fact is that we believe that the way to protect the interests of members is via the trustees and the statutory protections around trustee decision-making.
I apologise to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, as I misunderstood his question in our debate on the previous group. I am really grateful to him for clarifying it; clearly, he could tell that I had misunderstood it. At the moment, when a scheme provides discretionary benefits, the scheme rules will stipulate who makes those decisions. In many cases, that involves both the trustees and the sponsoring employer, as may be the case in what the noble Viscount described.
When considering those discretionary increases, trustees and sponsoring employers have to carefully assess the effect of inflation on members’ benefits. But, as the noble Viscount describes, if it is not agreed, the employer may effectively in some circumstances veto that. We think the big game-changer here is that these changes will give trustees an extra card, because they will then be in a position to be able to put on the table the possibility for surplus being released not to the member via a discretionary increase but to the employer. However, they are the ones who get to decide if that happens, and therefore they are in a position where they suddenly have a card to play. I cannot believe I am following the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, in using the casino as a metaphor for pensions, which I was determined not to do; I am not sure that that takes us to a good place. But it gives them an extra tool in their toolbox to be able to negotiate with employers, because they are the ones who hold the veto on surplus release. If they do not agree to it, it ain’t going anywhere. So that is what helps in those circumstances.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Committee for the discussion on this group, which goes to the heart of how Clause 10 is intended to operate in practice. I have a few closing remarks, but I just say at the outset that I think we all realise that it was for the Minister to answer the very concise questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and my noble friend Lady Noakes. Across these amendments and our stand-part notice, our concern has been a consistent one, which is that Clause 10 confers wide powers on the Secretary of State to determine the conditions under which surplus may be paid to an employer and to alter those conditions over time, largely through regulations. That is a significant delegation of authority in an area both technically complex and deeply sensitive for scheme members.
Although we recognise the case for flexibility, that flexibility must be balanced with proper safeguards. When changes to the surplus regime could materially affect member protections or the balance of interests between employers and members, it is not unreasonable for Parliament to expect a meaningful and continuing role in scrutinising those changes, not merely at the point when the framework is first established.
I listened very carefully to the Minister in her responses in terms of the legislative process, and I take note of the fact that she says that the measures are in line with existing legislation. I will reflect on that and read Hansard, and I will look more deeply at her points about the negative procedures having been used in the past, and the fact that she says that this is different and the Government are bringing forward an affirmative procedure before the negative procedure, if your Lordships see what I mean. I shall look at that.
As I said at the outset, our amendments have been probing in nature. They are intended to test the rationale for the proposed approach to parliamentary procedure and seek reassurances that the level of scrutiny will remain commensurate with the importance of the decisions being taken.
Finally, given the nature of the Bill as a framework Bill—a theme that we have been promulgating on the first two days in Committee, and which the Minister herself explained on Monday—I hope that the Minister will anticipate that we and other noble Lords will be bearing these questions in mind on many other parts of the Bill. I hope that in raising this and flagging it, she can continue to respond to these issues in the round, explaining why this structure was adopted in the first place throughout the Bill, what constraints the Government envisage placing on the use of these powers, and how Parliament will be able to satisfy itself that future changes to the surplus regime remain appropriate and proportionate. With that rounding off, I withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Altmann
“(ca) requiring the relevant actuary to confirm that work to comply with Technical Actuarial Standards issued by Financial Reporting Council on risk transfer processes has been completed,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will ensure that prior to a surplus payment being made the trustees and sponsor have considered the impact on bulk transfer and run-on strategies currently required under TAS300V2.1 P5 other financial considerations for the scheme and the sponsor.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will understand as I go through my remarks that I believe my Amendments 33 and 33A are incredibly important to the future of defined benefit schemes and the aims of the Bill.
Clause 10, which is about the restrictions of power to pay surplus, specifies in new subsection (2B)(c) a requirement for
“the relevant actuary to give a certificate”.
My Amendments 33 and 33A seek to add a strengthening of the trustee considerations of alternatives, rather than just having a certificate from the actuary. Amendment 33 would state that the actuary must confirm that the required technical actuarial standards work has been completed. Amendment 33A is about the trustees, who must ensure that they receive the report on the relative merits and consider alternative options such as buyout, superfunds or even a change of sponsor—I will come to that in a moment—before making payment of surplus.
Why are these amendments required? There are standards in place, but I have been careful not to specify a number for the standard. I am talking about today’s technical actuarial standard, TAS 300, but of course these standards change—there is already version 1 and version 2—so the amendments aim to see that the standards are applied, taken notice of and fed into the consideration before any irreversible changes are made to the scheme.
The trustees obviously have a fiduciary duty to consider members’ best long-term interests, but it seems that they do not already receive the depth of analysis required in many cases. The calculations done for the TAS 300 are not consistent; they are not applied consistently, according to the information that I have received from those in the market. There is no standard calculation methodology, but the DWP regulations that were changed recently require trustees to set funding and investment strategies. In my view, TAS 300, as it stands, should be part of that.
Before any surplus is paid out, or a decision to buy annuities, enter a superfund or change sponsor is made, a proper risk assessment should be carried out looking carefully at the downside risks of any potential move versus the upside potential. The actuarial calculations to quantify these, which are specified in the Financial Reporting Council’s technical standards, do not necessarily become applied, and there are regulatory gaps. The technical standards require actuaries to provide TAS 300 comparative advice, but it is not clear how, when or whether the trustees must consider them.
Consistent application of the assessment, in my view, could be significant in changing the standard mindsets about the best choice for the future of DB schemes. But, even today, there is no consistency, no agreed pro forma, no standard template and no detailed implementation guidance, even, from the Financial Reporting Council or other bodies. It has long been recognised that there is a lack of co-ordination and scrutiny of technical actuarial standards. The Kingman report in 2018, the Morris report and the Penrose report, dating back to 2000, all proposed urgent improvements but not much has changed.
There are seven regulators reporting to three government departments. The Pensions Regulator and the PPF report to the DWP; the FRC and the CMA to the Department for Business and Trade; the PRA and the FCA to the Treasury; and the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries is self-regulating. These regulators need to work together to address this massive pool of assets and national wealth. My amendments are an attempt to help this integration and move it along.
Currently, there is over £1 trillion-worth of assets in these schemes. Since 2018, £350 billion of the value in defined benefit schemes has been transferred to insurance companies, many of which are now offshore. The scrutiny and regulatory control over those massive amounts of money is being diluted, and that has not been recognised. It is still considered that the gold standard for the future of defined benefit schemes is annuities, whether a buy-in or a buy-out; that is meant to be the no-risk option. That is not necessarily the case any more. The Bank of England itself has stated that there are risks in terms of the offshore insurers.
This TAS 300 exercise could become part of a crucial element in deciding what the future of these schemes will be. Currently, the transfer of assets to insurance companies, which is so frequently being carried out—we are told that there may be another £500 billion in their sights from DB schemes in coming years—is handing the surplus assets of these schemes to the insurance companies. I argue that proper use of the TAS 300 exercise could help the surplus be used for national investments, for improving member benefits and for improving the resources of corporate UK.
It is estimated that the scheme assets which are currently being transferred to insurers are invested in such a low-risk manner that their aim—this is the Pensions Regulator’s recommended strategy for low dependency to attain a return of gilts plus a half or so—as soon as the insurer takes these assets in, is to re-risk, invest in other assets, and sell the gilt and aim for a return of gilts plus, say, one and a half. Every £100 billion of assets transferred to an insurance company is the equivalent of about £200 million of scheme assets that are not going to members or employers but are transferring offshore.
Stagecoach, which uses this TAS 300 exercise, actually managed to justify changing the sponsoring employer, while enhancing member benefits and paying extra out in surplus. That could be the way of the future if we get away from the current obsession, which states that the no-risk option is annuities and everything else is risky. This is a huge amount of money. These schemes have changed fundamentally. The outlook has changed fundamentally: we are no longer worried about deficits and employer covenants. We should be talking about using this national pool of wealth to boost Britain.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I find myself in some difficulty in speaking to these amendments. First, although I declared my interests as a fellow of the Institute of Actuaries at the beginning of Committee, it is appropriate, in accordance with practice where there is a specific interest involved in the amendment, to declare it again. I am not a practising actuary at the moment, but I could be, and this would bear directly on my ability to earn money.
I support what I think is behind the proposals being made by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. We should consider ways of strengthening trustee consideration of the way forward, whatever it is. More specifically, an automatic response to go to annuitisation is clearly wrong. If trustees do not consider the other options, they are not acting properly and are not discharging their fiduciary responsibility. The suggestion is that this is happening too often at the moment.
Broadly speaking, I agree that there has been a rush to buy out, but that has happened for a wide variety of reasons, of which I would suggest that the presence or absence of particular actuarial advice is only a small part. To overemphasise this part without looking at what else is going on is a problem. Trustees should be supported to make better decisions, and part of that process is the actuarial report that they produce from their scheme actuary.
Just to provide a bit of background, we need to understand that actuarial regulation is just a little confusing. We have two regulators for actuaries. There is the institute itself, which is responsible for professional standards—“you should not bring shame on the profession and you should make sure that you know what you are talking about before you provide advice”. All that side of things is handled by the profession itself. Technical standards, such as what should be in a valuation report, are the responsibility of the Financial Reporting Council, a completely separate body that is not part of the actuarial profession. Although there are actuaries involved in the work of the FRC, it is not an actuarial body but an independent body. I will not go into the history, but, for whatever reason, it was decided to take that technical supervision away from the institute and place it with the Financial Reporting Council.
The particular standard referred to here is the technical actuarial standard, or TAS 300. That does not mean that there has been a previous 299; it starts at 300. There is a 100, and there are other numbered standards that come and go. This is the one that relates to advice to trustees, not just for valuation purposes but for calculating what basis the fund should use to calculate transfer values, commutation rates and so on. So there is this technical standard, set by an independent body.
I understand that that standard is controversial, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, reflected some of that controversy in her speech. It would be fair to say that views differ. It is also important to understand that the current edition of TAS 300 was issued after extensive consultation last July and came into effect only on 1 November last year. It is always open to debate what the standard should say. My concern is that that standard is intended for actuaries, to tell them how they should provide actuarial advice to trustees. Its role is not to tell trustees how to behave. The problem, which I recognise, and which has been suggested as a reason for these amendments, is that trustees are not behaving properly—or it could be that they are being ill-advised by actuaries. That is not something that I am going to endorse but, if that is true, there is a disciplinary process under the Financial Reporting Council. Again, that is not part of the actuarial profession; it is a separate disciplinary process for anyone identified as not complying with the TAS. The issue can be raised with the FRC, and it may well be that it should have been raised more often, because that is really the first port of call if you think that the advice is wrong. It is not to put it into a piece of legislation.
I am very sorry to find myself in contention with the noble Baroness but, if trustees need to be regulated, it is not the job of the Financial Reporting Council to do it. It is not its job to tell trustees how to do their job. That is an issue that I am sure that we could debate extensively. I recognise the problem, but I am not convinced that we have been presented with the correct answer.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I know that this is a technical amendment, and in the last group I disagreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, but on this one I totally agree with her analysis, particularly her identification of the groupthink that trustees suffer, bamboozled and pressured by the FCA, TPR and actuaries, and sometimes investment managers, to be overly risk-averse in some of their investments. In particular, there is a drive—it is explained that it is prudential and that the regulations require it, which means that we need to look at the regulations—for pension funds to apply an increasing proportion of their assets to liability-driven investments.
If your scheme happens to be in deficit, these LDIs will anchor you in deficit for the rest of time, because that is how they work. That is wrong, because the trustees have no control over what the interest rate, discount rate or gilt rate might be. They can adjust—plus or minus, in the case of gilts—but, ultimately, liabilities are driven by the gilt rates. They have no control over that, but they do have control over how the assets in their scheme are invested for the greatest return.
However, that is not how their schemes are valued at the triennial, which is valued on the gilt rate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said, the value of their assets is depressed by virtue of being in a scheme. As people buy out and are forced to buy out—Amendment 33A contemplates what happens when you approach a buyout—schemes are being mugged. Members are being short-changed by this artificial diminution in the value of the assets, which at the moment pass into the hands of an insurance company, as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said. No longer impeded, weighed down or anchored from being in a scheme, they can be let rip. The uplift happens quickly, and there is an immediate profit to the insurance company.
It is perverse that the entire regulatory advisory industry is mandating schemes to go into overly prudent investment products, almost suckering them down so that they have to pay a premium to be bought out, and all the profits go somewhere else. That is not prudence; it is short-changing the members of the schemes and diverting huge amounts of productive capital for the engine of our economy and the private businesses that generate wealth and pay taxes.
Regarding Amendment 33A, it is really important that trustees have imagination and are encouraged to think as widely as they possibly can, asking, “What does this mean? Are we in the appropriate asset mix? Should we be rammed into LDIs because we are chasing a deficit, or should we be invested in growth to pay benefits for members?” That is the dilemma, and this amendment shines a light on it almost for the first time in the Bill. Trustees in as many schemes as I can think of are being misdirected, ostensibly to reduce risks. But they are not reducing risks; they are reducing the sustainability of their schemes and their ability to pay for today’s members, including, most importantly, the youngest members of their scheme, who have the longest to go to retirement. Following the dismal, dead hand of these regulators is prejudicing the ability of these schemes to pay out for their youngest members in 20, 30 or 40 years’ time.
I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, is not in his place, but he made this point in a previous group. This is the generational problem that we have, between the eldest and the youngest people in the scheme. We need to strengthen and empower our trustees to play their roles simply and straightforwardly and not as though they are not competent or do not feel confident to resist the so-called advice they are getting from regulators, which are acting in groupthink and not in the scheme’s best interest, or the interests of either members or companies.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, we understand that these amendments are doing something that is really quite straightforward and, in our view, sensible. The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, would ensure that, before any surplus is extracted, the relevant actuary has confirmed that the work required under the Financial Reporting Council’s technical actuarial standards of risk transfer has been completed. In other words, they would ensure that trustees and sponsors have properly considered the scheme’s credible endgame options, whether that is bulk transfer, run-on or another long-term strategy, rather than looking at surplus in isolation.
I was pleased to listen to this interesting debate, commenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, with her strong reference to the TAS 300 exercise and the link to insurance. She mentioned the reinsurance market and the subsequent debate, as well as the amount of money potentially in play—£200 million, I think. Surplus extraction ought to sit within a wider assessment of the scheme’s long-term direction, the securities of members’ benefits and the financial implications for both the scheme and the sponsor. Requiring confirmation that this work has been done would help anchor surplus decisions in that broader context.
This has been a very brief speech from me. We see these amendments as a proportionate safeguard, reinforcing good governance and ensuring that surplus payments are considered alongside—not divorced from—the scheme’s long-term endgame strategy. I look forward to the response from the Minister.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for setting out her amendments. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I must admit that I have learned more about actuaries in the past week than I ever knew hitherto, but it is a blessing.
Three different issues have come up. I would like to try to go through them before I come back to what I have to say on this group. In essence, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has us looking at, first, actuaries: what is their role, what are the standards and how do they do the job? Secondly, what are the right endgame choices—that is, what is out there at the moment? Finally, what should be in the surplus extraction regime? We have ended up with all three issues, although the amendments only really deal with the last of those; they deal with the others by implication. Let me say a few words on each of them, then say why I do not think that they are the right way forward.
We have just finished hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. Obviously, we are talking about the position now. DB schemes are maturing and, as such, are now prioritising payments to members. Given this context, they are naturally more risk-averse, as they are now seeking funding to match their liabilities. Since the increases in interest rates over the past five years, scheme funding positions have—the noble Lord knows this all too well—improved significantly in line with their corresponding reductions and liabilities.
However, when setting an investment strategy, trustees must consider among other things the suitability of different asset classes to meet future liabilities, the risks involved in different types of investment and the possible returns that may be achieved. The 2024 funding code is scheme-specific and flexible. Even at significant maturity, schemes can still invest in a significant proportion of return-seeking assets, provided that the risk can be supported.
On actuaries, actuarial work is clearly an important part of the process. It helps set out the picture, as well as highlighting the risks, the assumptions and the available options, but it does not determine the outcome. My noble friend Lord Davies is absolutely right on this point. Decisions on how a scheme uses the funds are, and will remain, matters of trustee judgment. The role of the actuary is to support the judgment, not replace it. Trustees are the decision-makers, and they remain accountable for the choices that they make on behalf of their members.
Of course, in providing any certification, actuaries will continue to comply with the TAS standards set by the Financial Reporting Council. I am not going to get into the weeds of exactly how the standards work but, on the broader points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, we agree that the requirements and the regulations must work together. As my noble friend said, after the funding regime code was laid, the FRC consulted on revisions to TAS 300 covering developments; it has now published the revised TAS. These are complex decisions. Regulators need to work together. We will come back to this issue later on in the Bill, following an amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.
In terms of the endgame choices, the independent Pensions Regulator has responsibility for making sure that employers and those running pension schemes comply with their legal duties. Obviously, the Government are aware of the recent transaction that resulted in Aberdeen Asset Management taking over responsibility for the Stagecoach scheme; we are monitoring market developments closely. Although we support innovation, we also need to ensure that members are protected. Following the introduction of TPR’s interim superfund regime and the measures in this Pension Schemes Bill, we understand that new and innovative endgame solutions are looking to enter the DB market and offer employers new ways to manage their DB liabilities. I assure the noble Baroness that we continue to keep the regulatory framework under review to ensure that member benefits are appropriately safeguarded.
Then, the question is: what is the right thing to be in the surplus extraction regime? I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, is concerned that, following these additional flexibilities to trustees around surplus release, trustees continue to consider surplus release in the context of the wider suite of options available to their scheme, including buyout, transfer to a superfund or other options beyond those. Following these changes, trustees will remain subject to their duty to act in the interests of beneficiaries. As such, we are confident that trustees will continue both to think carefully about the most appropriate endgame solution for their scheme and to act accordingly. For many, that will be buyout or transferring to a superfund, rather than running on.
Let me turn to what would happen with these amendments specifically. Amendment 33 would link the operation of the surplus framework to existing standards on risk transfer conditions in TAS. In essence, it seeks to ensure the scheme trustees have considered a potential buyout or other risk transfer solution before surplus can be released. Amendment 33A has a similar purpose; again, it aims for trustees, before they can release surplus, receiving a report from the scheme actuary assessing endgame options and confirming compliance with TAS.
Although I appreciate the noble Baroness’s intention to ensure that trustees select the right endgame for their scheme, these amendments are not needed because trustees are already required, under the funding and investment regulations, to set a long-term strategy for their scheme and review it at least every three years; that strategy might include a risk transfer arrangement. Furthermore, although I know the noble Baroness has tried to minimise this, hardwiring any current provisional standards into the statutory framework could have unintended consequences, including reducing flexibility for trustees and requiring further legislative or regulatory changes to maintain alignment as these standards evolve over time.
We are back to the fact that, in the end, trustees remain in the driving seat with regard to surplus release. As a matter of course, TPR would expect trustees to take professional advice from their actuarial and legal advisers; to assess the sponsor covenant impact when considering surplus release; and to take into account relevant factors and disregard irrelevant factors, in line with their duties. We are working with the Pensions Regulator regarding how schemes are supported in the consideration of surplus-sharing decisions. The new guidance already considers schemes as part of good governance to develop a policy on surplus. TPR will issue further guidance on surplus sharing following the coming into force of the regulations flowing from the Bill, which will describe how trustees may approach surplus release and can be readily updated as required. Alongside the Pensions Regulator, we will work with the FRC to ensure that TAS stays aligned.
I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s contribution and the wider debate, but I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister and everybody else who has spoken. I have enormous respect for the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and take what he says seriously. I am most grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller.
I make no apology for the technical nature of these amendments, but I apologise that they had to be shoehorned in; this is such an important issue, though. This environment of higher inflation risk, excessive prudence and hoarding of surpluses is damaging pension adequacy. The de-risking overshoot has sucked innovation, energy and impetus out of the pension system and the economy. Indeed, the chair of the trustees of Stagecoach described to me that he faced what he termed co-ordinated and insidious behind-the-scenes lobbying against the trustees’ aim to try to obtain better pensions for their members; he also said that the lobbying was in favour of annuitisation as the best option for the scheme.
There is no lobbying for either improving member benefits or giving a lot more money back to employers at the moment. If we were able to get an amendment such as this one into the Bill, so that everybody must consider the range of available options plus innovative strategies, I would hope that the outcome of the Bill would be much better, more productive use—which is the aim of the Government: the Minister, Torsten Bell, has rightly talked about using surpluses in a productive manner.
The FSCS backs annuities. It has no government guarantee. I hope that, on Report, we may come back to the spurious safety of the current recommended future for this enormous amount of assets and find ways in which the Bill might be able to accommodate the need for a mindset change in this connection. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Independent review into state deduction in defined benefit pension schemes(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, commission an independent review into the application and impact of state deduction mechanisms in occupational defined benefit pension schemes for banks.(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations set out the terms of reference for the review, including the bank or banks to be investigated.(3) The regulations in subsection (2) must make provision for the terms of reference to include —(a) the origin, rationale and implementation of state deduction in bank pension schemes,(b) the clarity and adequacy of member communications regarding state deduction from inception to present,(c) the differential impact of state deduction on pensioners with varying salary histories, including an assessment of any disproportionate effects on—(i) lower-paid staff, and(ii) women, (d) comparisons with other occupational pension schemes in the banking and public sectors, and(e) the legal, administrative, and financial feasibility of modifying or removing state deduction provisions, including potential mechanisms for redress.(4) The Secretary of State must ensure that the person or body appointed to conduct the review—(a) is independent of the banks investigated and its associated pension schemes,(b) possesses relevant expertise in pensions law, occupational pension scheme administration, and equality and fairness in retirement income, and(c) undertakes appropriate consultation with—(i) affected scheme members,(ii) employee representatives,(iii) pension experts, and(iv) stakeholder organisations.(5) The person or body conducting the review must—(a) submit a report on its findings to the Secretary of State within 12 months of the date the review is commissioned, and(b) the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before Parliament and publish the report in full.(6) Within three months of laying the report before Parliament, the Secretary of State must publish a written response setting out the Government’s proposed actions, if any, in response to the report’s findings and recommendations.(7) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative procedure.(8) For the purposes of this section—“state deduction” means any provision within a defined benefit occupational pension scheme that reduces pension entitlements by reference to the member reaching state pension age or by reference to any state pension entitlement;“defined benefit pension scheme” has the meaning given in section 181 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review into clawback provisions in occupational defined benefit pension schemes, for example, the Midland Bank staff pension scheme.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
This proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review into the application and impact of state deduction mechanisms in occupational defined benefit schemes. It is a very narrow request that focuses specifically on clawback provisions in the Midland Bank staff pension scheme.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morgan of Drefelin) (Lab)
My Lords, there is a Division in the House—we all knew it was coming—so we need to adjourn. If it is acceptable to the Committee, we will adjourn for 20 minutes because there is, I believe, a number of Divisions coming.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I will try to make this quick. Proposed new clause in Amendment 45 requires the Secretary of State to commission an independent review into the application and impact of state deduction mechanisms in occupational defined benefit pension schemes. It focuses on the clawback provisions, particularly in the Midland Bank staff pension scheme and associated legacy arrangements.
Why is this review needed? State deduction provisions can reduce members’ pension entitlements, sometimes in ways that are complex or unclear. There are concerns about fairness and transparency and a disproportionate impact, particularly on lower paid staff and women. It ensures members, regulators and Parliament have clarity about the origin, rationale and effects of these provisions.
The review will examine the history and rationale for state deduction in a Midland Bank staff pension scheme and assess clarity. It will be conducted by a person or body independent of HSBC and associated schemes. We will also try to ensure that it must consult affected scheme members, employee representatives, pension experts and stakeholder organisations. I beg to move.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, we are broadly supportive of the purpose behind this amendment. It raises an important set of questions about whether members of defined benefit schemes have been given clear, timely and accessible information about state deduction or clawback provisions, and whether the rationale for those provisions has been properly explained to them over time.
Of course, individuals must take responsibility for managing their own finances and retirement planning. But that responsibility can only be exercised meaningfully if people are properly informed in advance about what will happen to their pension, when it will happen and why. When changes or reductions are triggered at state pension age, members need adequate notice so that they can make sensible and informed financial decisions. In that context, a review of the adequacy of member communications, the transparency of the original rationale and the accessibility of this information is welcome. While we may not necessarily agree with some of the more precise parameters and timetables set out in the amendment, as a way of posing the question and prompting scrutiny, it is a reasonable approach.
That said, we have spoken to someone who has intimate, working knowledge of the Midland Bank pension scheme and has experience of the workings of the scheme. They confirmed to us that they were fully aware of this provision, because it was in all the literature they were sent when they were enrolled. Given this, can the noble Lord give some more insight into why he thinks some members of this scheme were aware, and others not, and how could this be addressed?
I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether she has any initial views on the issues this amendment raises. In particular, how accessible is this information to members in practice today, and what steps, if any, would the Government or Department for Work and Pensions take if it became clear that these arrangements are not well understood?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for introducing his amendment and drawing attention to this issue, which is of real importance to some members in integrated schemes. After a lifetime of work, people rightly expect their pension to provide security and stability in retirement. For many, their occupational pension forms a key part of that.
Integrated schemes can feel confusing or unexpected to those affected, particularly when their occupational pension changes at the point when their state pension is paid. These schemes are designed so that the occupational pension is higher before state pension age and then adjusted downwards once the state pension is paid, because the schemes take account of some or all of a state pension when calculating the pension due. However, if it is not clearly explained, the change could come as a surprise. I acknowledge that and the worries some members have expressed. It is important to be clear that members are not losing money at state pension age. The structure of these schemes aims to provide a smoother level of income across retirement by blending occupational and state pension over time.
Concerns have been raised that deductions applied within integrated schemes may represent a higher proportion of income for lower-paid members, many of whom are women. This reflects wider patterns of lower earnings during their working lives, rather than any discriminatory mechanism within the schemes themselves, but I appreciate why this feels unfair to those affected. The rules governing these deductions are set out in scheme rules. Employers and trustees can decide on their scheme’s benefit structure within the legislative framework that all pension schemes must meet. The Government do not intervene in individual benefit structures but do set and enforce the minimum standards that all schemes must comply with.
Although this type of scheme is permitted under legislation, it is essential that members understand how their scheme operates. Therefore, it is extremely important that people have good, clear information about their occupational pension scheme so that they can make informed decisions about their retirement. What matters just as much as the rules is that people understand them. Good, clear information is essential so that members are not taken by surprise when they reach state pension age.
If a member believes that the information they received was unclear or incomplete, they are not without redress. They can make a complaint through their scheme’s internal dispute process or, if needed, escalate their case to the Pensions Ombudsman for an independent determination.
The Government absolutely share the desire for people to have confidence in the pensions they rely on, but, given the protections already in place and the long-established nature of schemes, we do not believe that a review is necessary. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
I thank the noble Baroness and withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sikka
“Insolvency within 10 years of payment of surplus: prioritisation of pension scheme above other creditors (1) Where—(a) an employer has received payment of surplus under section 36B of the Pensions Act 1995 (inserted by section 9 of this Act) and goes into insolvency within 10 years of receiving such payment, and(b) at the point of insolvency, the employer’s pension scheme has a deficit,the Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision to ensure that when the employer sells assets to repay creditors, the pension scheme from which the surplus was initially distributed is paid before any other creditor.(2) In order to fulfil their duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State may amend the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Enterprise Act 2002 to alter the hierarchy of creditors in the circumstances described in subsection (1)(a) and (b).(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that, if a company goes into insolvency within 10 years of receiving a payment of surplus from the pension scheme and the pension scheme has a deficit at that point, then the pension scheme must be prioritised as a creditor.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment deals with a gap in the Bill. The transfer of surplus to employers could leave employees in jeopardy, especially when an employer enters bankruptcy. I will lay out a scenario. Suppose a pension scheme surplus is distributed to an employer but, soon afterwards, the pension scheme is in deficit and the employer enters bankruptcy. Under the pecking order at insolvency, as specified in the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Enterprise Act 2002, pension schemes rank as unsecured creditors, which is near the bottom. This usually means that they will receive little or nothing from the sale of assets of the bankrupt entity, and employees could lose some of their pension rights. A pension scheme with a deficit can be bailed out by the Pension Protection Fund, but the bailout is restricted to a maximum of 90%. This means that future retirees will lose some of their pension rights. Those already retired may lose some value compared with their original scheme, as the PPF annual increase could be lower than the rate of RPI or CPI.
There is nothing in the Bill that enables a pension scheme to claw back surpluses taken by employers during the last few years—the amendment mentions 10 years, but I am happy to change it to five if that persuades some noble Lords to support it. In any case, if the employer is insolvent, there is no chance of recovering the deficit from the employer anyway, so the only possibility is to prioritise payment to the pension scheme from the sale of the assets of the bankrupt entity. In other words, the pension scheme must be paid before any other creditor.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
Just to recap quickly, I was looking at a scenario where an employer had received a surplus from a pension scheme but soon afterwards became bankrupt. Normally, the PPF will rescue, but that is limited to 90%, which means that employees will face a haircut in their pension rights. So the only possibility to help to protect employee pension rights is to prioritise payment to the pension scheme from the sale of the assets of the bankrupt entity. In other words, pension schemes must be paid before any other creditor.
Deficits on pension schemes of bankrupt companies are not uncommon. I was adviser to the Work and Pensions Committee on the collapse of BHS and Carillion, and we looked at that closely. I also wrote a report on the collapse of Bernard Matthews for the same committee. Basically, they showed all kinds of strategies used by companies to deprive workers of their hard-earned pension rights.
This probing amendment seeks to protect employees by ensuring that pension scheme deficits not met by the PPF are made good by being first in line to receive a distribution from the sale of the assets of the bankrupt company. This applies only where the employer has taken a surplus in the last 10 years. As I indicated earlier, there is nothing sacrosanct about 10 years; if noble Lords wish to support this, it could be changed.
From a risk management perspective, it makes sense to put pension scheme creditors above other creditors. Unlike banks and financial institutions, employees cannot manage their risks through diversification. Their human capital can be invested only in one place. Employer bankruptcy is a tragedy because employees lose jobs and pension rights. For those of your Lordships who are not familiar with portfolio theory, the basic message is that there is a correlation coefficient of plus one, and it multiplies their risks. As human labour cannot be stored, employees will have no time to replenish their pension pots, and as we all get older, our capacity to work is also eroded. So, despite making the required contractual payments, employees will face poverty and insecurity in old age.
I urge the Government to protect workers’ pension rights. They should not be left in a worse position after the extraction of surpluses by employers. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I do not support Amendment 45A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. I am not sure that the kind of regulations envisaged in this amendment could actually create a creditor which has a priority in insolvency where a creditor does not exist at present. At present, a deficit in a pension scheme is generally not as a matter of law a creditor if the sponsoring employer goes bust.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
This amendment raises a very important point. The question, though, is when the surpluses could be paid out. If the company seems to be in a robust way, there is no reason why the pension fund should be overprotected. While everything in the garden is lovely, there is no reason to give them a 10-year position when things may have deteriorated in subsequent years. So, I agree in principle with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, but 10 years is far too long, because in those 10 years, all sorts of things can happen. If it was five years or fewer, it would be very good, but while everything in the garden—in the company—is lovely, the pension fund should not be overprotected for the extent of 10 years.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have enormous sympathy with the thoughts behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. However, I share the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in that it is not clear how that would work, because this would then need to be a contingent payment or some kind of conditional payment which can be recouped, and that would impact creditors or debt holders of the company as well. Does the noble Lord feel that if, as a consequence of the surplus payment, members also got enhanced benefits, that would in some ways compensate for the future eventuality of what he is concerned about?
Finally, in the days before we had a Pension Protection Fund, I was very much in favour of increasing the status of the unsecured creditor position of a pension scheme. But in the current environment, where there is a Pension Protection Fund, and where the Bill will be improving the protections provided by it, it is much less important to increase the status on insolvency of the pension scheme itself than it would have been in past times. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that if there were to be any such provision, it should be a lot less than 10 years.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for tabling this amendment, which is clearly motivated by a desire to protect scheme members and guard against the risk that pension surpluses are extracted prematurely, only for employers to fail some years later. I suspect that there is broad sympathy with this objective across the Committee. However, I have a number of questions about how this proposal would operate in practice and whether it strikes the right balance between member protection, regulatory oversight and the wider framework of insolvency law. My noble friend Lady Noakes, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, have all raised points connected to this amendment. I hope I am not duplicating their questions, but I will ask mine.
First, can the noble Lord say more about how this amendment would interact with the existing hierarchy of creditors under the Insolvency Act 1986? As drafted, it appears to require pension schemes to be paid ahead of all other creditors, including secured creditors and those with statutory preferential status? Does the noble Lord envisage this as a complete reordering of creditor priorities in these cases? If so, what thought has he given to the potential consequences for lending decisions, access to capital or the cost of borrowing for employers that sponsor defined benefit schemes?
Secondly, I would be grateful for further clarity on the choice of a 10-year clawback period, which other noble Lords have raised. As has been said, 10 years is a very long time in corporate and economic terms, and insolvency occurring at that point may bear little or no causal connection to a surplus payment made many years earlier, perhaps in very different market conditions. What is the rationale for that specific timeframe, and how does the noble Lord respond to concerns that this could introduce long-tail uncertainty for employers and their directors when making decisions in good faith?
Thirdly, how does the amendment sit alongside the existing powers of the Pensions Regulator? At present, trustees must be satisfied that member benefits are secure before any surplus is paid, and the regulator already has moral hazard powers to intervene where it believes scheme funding or employer behaviour to be inappropriate. Does the noble Lord consider those tools insufficient and, if so, can he point to evidence of systemic failure that would justify addressing this issue through restructuring insolvency priorities rather than through pension regulations?
I am also interested in the practical operation of this provision. Proposed new subsection (2) would allow amendments to both the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Enterprise Act 2002 to achieve the intended outcome. That is a very broad power, even acknowledging the use of the affirmative procedure. Has any thought been given to how this would operate in complex insolvencies; for example, where surplus has been paid to a parent company, where assets are held across a corporate group or where insolvency proceedings involve cross-border elements?
Finally, although I understand the protective instinct behind this amendment, I wonder whether there is a risk of unintended consequences. Might the creation of a potential super-priority for pension schemes discourage legitimate surplus extraction, even where schemes are demonstrably well funded, trustees are content and regulatory requirements have been met? If that were to occur, could it inadvertently weaken employer covenant strength over time rather than strengthen it?
None of these questions is intended to diminish the importance of member protection or suggest that concerns about surplus extraction are misplaced. Rather, they are offered in the spirit of probing whether this amendment is the most proportionate and effective way of addressing those concerns, or whether there may be alternative approaches, perhaps within the existing regulatory framework, that could achieve similar objectives with fewer systemic risks. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord’s response and the Minister’s comments.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Sikka for introducing Amendment 45A. For clarity, I will speak to the amendment as if intended to address the power to pay surplus under Section 37, as Section 36B contains the modification power.
I fully recognise the concern that members’ benefits must remain protected when surplus is paid and that trustees take a long-term view of scheme funding and employer covenant. This is why there are strong safeguards, which I have described, as set out in Clause 10. Before the release of any surplus, trustees will need to make sure that the scheme is prudently funded and seek advice and sign-off from the scheme actuary, and other advisors, about the viability of any release and the impact that may have on the long-term health of the scheme.
While trustees perform an essential role in safeguarding members’ benefits, prioritising them above all other creditors in these circumstances risks distorting the already established insolvency regime. It creates uncertainty for businesses, ultimately harming the very members we all seek to protect.
On the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, it is our concern that placing trustees ahead of other unsecured creditors could create significant uncertainty, increased borrowing costs and restricted access in future to finance, especially for smaller businesses. In the long term, this could potentially weaken employer support for pension schemes and threaten their sustainability, rather than strengthen it.
It is important to recognise that the current system already provides significant security for pension scheme members. Pension funds in UK occupational schemes are held in trust and are legally ring-fenced from the employer, so they cannot be accessed by creditors in an insolvency. The PPF exists precisely to offer a safety net to members who would otherwise risk losing their pensions when their employer fails.
Following the Chancellor’s announcement at the Budget, this Bill will also introduce annual increases on compensation payments from the PPF and FAS on pensions built up before 6 April 1997.
The insolvency regime is designed to operate alongside the compensation system. The structure of the pension protection levy already reflects the risk of employer failure and spreads that risk fairly across eligible schemes. The PPF assumes the creditor rights of the pension scheme trustees in the event of insolvency of the sponsoring employer and seeks to maximise recoveries from the insolvent employer’s estate.
Pension schemes, backed by a strengthened PPF, are already in a stronger position than many unsecured creditors. Giving trustees priority would leave small suppliers, contractors and even some employees with significantly reduced recoveries, despite having far fewer protections. We should not create a system where small businesses and individual workers bear disproportionate losses because a pension scheme deficit overrides all other obligations. There is also the risk of moral hazard, where trustees could be less prudent when deciding to release surplus, knowing that, under employer insolvency, they would have guaranteed priority above other priorities.
The amendment could affect the employer’s business plans as creditors may be less likely to lend money to the employer. Equally, banks may place conditions on borrowing to prevent surplus release if trustees were given priority. That dynamic could push companies towards insolvency earlier, not later, having a knock-on effect on members.
The only other thing I will add is that there are other tools open to trustees that are concerned about the strength of the employer covenant and the security of benefits. It is open to trustees during funding discussions or other negotiations to seek a fixed or floating charge over the employer’s assets, which would, in effect, elevate the scheme’s position in the insolvency priority order, providing additional protection should the employer become insolvent.
I want to be clear that trustees will have the final decision on whether to release the surplus. Before they can do so, the Bill stipulates statutory safeguards before a surplus can be released. I thank the noble Lord for his concern but for the reasons I have outlined, I ask that he withdraw his amendment.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords for their observations, comments, suggestions and many questions. I will briefly address some. Does this risk distorting insolvency law? It is already distorted. Pension scheme members are unsecured creditors. People who cannot hold a diversified portfolio lose their job, lose some of their pension rights and have no opportunity to rebuild their pension part. It is already distorted and already against them. I am trying to offer something right to, generally, the weakest of the creditors. Sure, banks that are secured creditors may get a little less if you pay pension scheme creditors first, but banks hold diversified portfolios. They are in a better position to manage the risks compared to employees. Creditors are less likely to lend money to companies.
Do we have any evidence to show that, if you change the order and empower some creditors, somebody takes secure charge number one, somebody takes number two and somebody takes number three—the whole hierarchy? That does not seem to persuade creditors to lend less just because there is a new hierarchy; it does not seem to support that. Changing it to five years is a possibility. A pension scheme creditor comes into existence as and when an employer goes into bankruptcy. Therefore, the pension scheme is basically a creditor.
Introduction: Lord Pitt-Watson
Equality and Human Rights Commission: Code of Practice
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strasburger
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they plan to publish the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s code of practice on single-sex spaces.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Strasburger, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Minister of State, Office for Equality and Opportunity (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations provides guidance on all protected characteristics, not solely sex and gender reassignment. The Government are considering the draft updated code, and if the decision is made to approve it, the Secretary of State will lay it before Parliament. Parliament will then have 40 days to consider the draft code. It is important that the correct process for considering the code is followed to ensure that the Secretary of State can make an informed decision.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the Education Secretary—the Minister, supposedly, for Women—has run out of road, with her procrastination, excuses and flannelling the object of ridicule. Organisations are using the Government’s refusal to lay the guidance as a pretext to stick with the Stonewall law, which has been wrong for a decade. This means that women encounter situations which compromise their safety, privacy and dignity in changing rooms, toilets and leisure centres, because these are not guaranteed to be single-sex. Why are the Government continuing to fail women and defy the rule of law?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, the Secretary of State for Education and the current Minister for Women has a proud and lifelong record of representing women. She also understands that in order to be able to do that, we need a code of practice that is both clear and legally defensible. I would have thought that anybody with women’s best interests at heart would agree with that.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, proportionality, as I am sure the whole House recognises, is central to the Equality Act. But, of course, it will be difficult to apply. Can my noble friend the Minister assure the House that the Government promote a consistent and lawful understanding of proportionality across policy areas, particularly where rights appear to be in tension, while ensuring that decisions remain fair, evidence-based and respectful?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, that is an important principle in terms of the interpretation of law and the sometimes difficult ways in which law is applied. The For Women Scotland judgment on the definition of “sex” within the Equality Act was clear, but it is important that it is applied in a way that both has legal clarity and respects the rights and dignity of all those involved.
Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green (CB)
My Lords, on a number of occasions in this House the Government have outlined how they are carefully considering the draft code and following proper process. Can the Minister clarify how the Government understand the balance between the independence of the EHRC and the Minister’s statutory role in approving a code and laying it before Parliament? I think that there is some confusion.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It is for the independent commission to consult on and put forward the code to the Minister, as it has done. The full code, following the most recent judgment, was received on 3 September by the department. It is important that it is then properly reviewed. As I have outlined previously, various elements must take place; for example, consultation with the devolved Administrations. Then it is the Minister’s responsibility, if satisfied with that code, to lay it before the House under the process set out in the Equality Act.
Baroness Cash (Con)
We have had a number of Questions now on this matter so it would be very helpful to the House if the Minister could finally provide a timetable to indicate when we might have this laid before Parliament.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I have been pretty clear every time that I have answered. People might not like the answer. But ensuring that what is laid before Parliament is legally defensible will enable those who need the protection of this code and of the Equality Act to receive it without us being bogged down in lengthy legal proceedings. I think that is a sensible thing for any Government to be spending a bit of time on getting right.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare an interest. I am paid to advise the Metropolitan Police on culture and leadership. I joined the Metropolitan Police as a constable 50 years ago in 1976—I tell people I joined when I was seven. One of the things that undermine public confidence in laws and those who enforce them is when rules and regulations, however legally sound and well intentioned, are not enforceable in practice. How sure are the Government that the EHRC Code of Practice is actually workable?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Workability is one important criterion; so is a certainty that the code fulfils the legal requirements and the clarity that has now been brought into the law by the For Women Scotland judgment. But the noble Lord is right that what can be very clear in law may be more complex in terms of its application in every single circumstance. It is important that that is clear through the process of the code.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her very clear answers so far. Does she agree with me that although the Supreme Court is definitive on the meaning of the Equality Act, it was silent as to other continuing obligations—for example, to trans people under the Human Rights Act—and that navigating coterminous legal obligations is one of the complex challenges of the guidance and that it has to be got right?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is right that it is important, and it is the basis of the Equality Act, to recognise the rights of all those with protected characteristics within it. What was helpful in the Supreme Court’s judgment was the absolute clarification that trans people’s rights remain protected within the Equality Act 2010. We have been clear that the laws to protect trans people from discrimination and harassment will remain in place and that trans people will still be protected on the basis of gender reassignment, which is a protected characteristic written into the Equality Act.
Work is already under way to fulfil our commitment to advance the rights and protections afforded to LGBT+ people, and that includes delivering a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, working with the Home Office to deliver our commitment to equalise all existing strands of hate crime, and working with the Department of Health and Social Care to improve services for trans people.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, does the Minister have any advice for women such as Miranda Newsom, who, assuming that the Supreme Court had settled the matter, challenged a biological male in the female-only changing room at a council-run leisure centre in Southwark and received a torrent of abuse from the man, yet it was she who was punished and barred from the gym? Can the Minister assure the House that after the victory of the Darlington nurses the Government are urgently instructing NHS bodies to bring their policy fully into compliance with the law? If they do not, they are complicit with unlawful behaviour of service providers.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The Government have been clear that the judgment provides clarity around the definition of sex within the Equality Act. We have been clear that therefore all providers should be following that, taking specialist legal advice where necessary, and ensuring that, with respect for everybody’s rights and dignity, we can make progress on this in a way that respects the law but also ensures that everybody is able to have the rights and protections that the Equality Act so importantly laid down in 2010.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, in the wake of the Sandie Peggie v Fife Health Board and the Darlington nurses v County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust decisions—the participants are in the Gallery—does the Minister accept that there is also an urgent need for all NHS trusts to update their policies in the light of the Supreme Court ruling? Have the Government sought this? As my noble friend Lady Cash set out so well, what timetable have the Government set up for compliance? How much longer do we have to wait? With all respect to the House, if my grandmother was saying this, she would say that Nelson will get his eye back before this happens.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As I have already been clear today and previously when responding to this, it is important that all bodies, public and private, consider the clarity of the For Women Scotland Supreme Court judgment and review their policies in line with that. That goes for the NHS, and it goes for other organisations as well. I just emphasise that the fact that some people have found it necessary to revert to legal cases to get their rights is precisely why we need to make sure that the interpretation of the most recent judgment is clear and not going to mean people having to take their rights through the courts to have them realised in future. It is in order to ensure that that is more likely to be the case that the Government are taking the time necessary to get this right.
Public Inquiries: Costs
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Spellar
To ask His Majesty’s Government what was the cost of public inquiries in 2025, and what were the Government’s legal costs for representation in public inquiries.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, individual inquiries report their own costs. The Covid inquiry, for example, spent approximately £31 million in the first two quarters of the 2025-26 financial year, whereas the Post Office/Horizon inquiry reported spending of approximately £26 million in the 2024-25 financial year. The Cabinet Office also published Covid-19 inquiry legal response costs of £25 million for the 2024-25 financial year. Public inquiries remain vital for investigating serious concerns, shedding light on injustices and spurring change, as well as getting answers for victims and their loved ones.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the response, but the public will be slightly concerned that the Government do not seem to have an aggregate figure for the cost of inquiries, let alone the costs of their own legal expenses and of Civil Service time. At a time when cash is immensely tight, it would be a very good idea to tighten this up. Would it not be much better for future inquiries to set a fixed limit on how long they will take and a fixed budget that they cannot go beyond?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend raises some interesting points. It may help him to be aware of two developments that this Government have done in recent months. First, changes to the Ministerial Code have made it clear that, since October last year, any government department that wishes to bring forward a public inquiry has to bring forward a business case to a Cabinet Office Minister before the request goes to the Prime Minister. This is so that we can ensure that best practice is achieved. We have also updated the practitioners’ handbook with guidance for sponsor teams and inquiry staff on the set-up and operation of inquiries, the results of which will be published shortly.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I hesitate to go too far back in the past, but the key to the inquiry following the Piper Alpha disaster and the Dunblane inquiry, which I commissioned, was appointing a judge with experience and having terms of reference that were clear and precise. In that way, one can get an inquiry that produces important results and which is conducted in time and well within reasonable expenditure.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a genuinely important point, in remembering that this is also about value for money. But I remind all noble Lords that this is truly about getting answers for people who have been victims of potentially horrendous and heartbreaking experiences, and about rebuilding trust in the state. He is absolutely right that it is key to make sure that we have learned best practice; however, I gently say to your Lordships’ House that it is also key to ensure that we implement the recommendations from each inquiry, to make sure that they are not books that sit on shelves, as has happened historically in some cases.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
Could the Minister tell us how many public inquiries are on at the moment? Picking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, the cost is not just to judges, but to the number of public servants who have to be removed from their current work to service the inquiries.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. The responsibilities on everybody to truly participate to provide evidence is key. To answer her specific question, there are currently 21 public inquiries on the statute book, of which 16 are active, 12 are statutory and eight have been initiated by this Government.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, there is a danger that public inquiries end up like the royal commissions of old: taking minutes, lasting years and losing public confidence. Is there not now a case for looking at the way that public inquiries are handled and at how one can make sure that at least some of them conclude more quickly, so that we do not have to wait several years, as well as looking at the questions of overall cost and time spent?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I absolutely agree. We have seen, whether in the infected blood scandal or the Horizon scandal, that people who genuinely wanted answers had to wait years before we even got to the point of a public inquiry. The Government have an opportunity to help rebuild trust in the institutions that should matter to people. At a time when there are significant threats to our democracy, it is incredibly important that people have trust in them. So, expediting this is key.
One of the things we have also done brought forward the dashboard where people can see what recommendations have been made by some of these public inquiries, to make sure that the recommendations are being implemented. There is a balance here. We must listen to people and ensure that they have their day and have their issues heard, and we must also act on the recommendations of the inquiries.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, some of the most serious matters considered by public inquiries inevitably touch on the actions or knowledge of the intelligence and security agencies. Can the Minister explain how the Government ensure that bodies such as MI5, MI6 and GCHQ are able to participate fully and properly in public inquiries by providing relevant evidence and assistance while also preserving their essential national security duties and statutory obligations? In particular, how do the Government ensure that national security considerations do not unduly limit an inquiry’s ability to establish the facts and command public confidence in its conclusions?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness will be very aware of the pre-existing processes that are in place through the public interest immunity certificate and the fact that, in statute, chairs of committees can see intelligence reports that allow them to work to ensure that nothing is being hidden and that key findings are made. PII certificates are a mechanism for Ministers to withhold highly sensitive material from disclosure in court proceedings, and they can be used in relation to statutory inquiries. It is fundamental that we make sure we get the balance right between ensuring that everybody is duly held to account while at the same time protecting the people who strive every day to keep us safe.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, in relation to my noble friend the Minister’s earlier remarks about the implementation of the recommendations of public inquiries, many of us would have liked to have seen the Leveson 2 recommendations implemented. But I commend the Government for the work they have done on the Hillsborough law, which of course derives directly from the outcome of this sort of public inquiry. Can the Minister update the House on the latest position with regard to the security services and the Hillsborough law?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I think I thank my noble friend for that question. A Statement will be made in the other place this afternoon that will update us. I reassure your Lordships’ House that this Government are completely committed to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. Obviously, there are ongoing discussions with key stakeholders, not least the families. My honourable friend in the other place will report this afternoon on next steps.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest, having been a member of the Statutory Inquiries Committee. No one doubts the value of these committees, but a common concern of all committees, which has been noted here, is the degree to which Governments are prepared to implement their recommendations. In our committee, one of the key recommendations was the setting up of a new, independent committee of Parliament to have oversight of public inquiries and to monitor the publication of government responses on implementation. Has progress been made on that?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for the work she has done in this space: it was an excellent report that is feeding into the Government’s thinking about next steps. She may be aware that the PACAC in the other place currently has a call for evidence. I urge all Members to contribute on how we should do this. But, obviously, how we scrutinise the Government is a matter for Parliament. Having said that, we do appreciate that more scrutiny is required.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
My Lords, public inquiries have had a bad rap recently, partly because of the eye-watering sums of money spent by the Post Office on its legal fees and the Post Office inquiry. But the Post Office inquiry, so far as I can tell, has been doing a really good job. There is one problem the Minister might consider: public inquiries can be used as an excuse for organisations, such as the Solicitors Regulation Authority, not to take action until the public inquiry reports. I understand why that is, but what can we do about it?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord has been an incredible campaigner for those people who have been the subjects of the appalling IT disasters within the Post Office. His specific point is genuinely important. We have seen this throughout several of the inquiries and their impact. People feel that some of the inquiries have been pushing the can down the road. This is a genuine thing we need to reflect on. I will speak to Ministers in the Cabinet Office and come back to the noble Lord.
Domestic Violence Against Children
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce domestic violence against children, and prevent such behaviour being learned and repeated by those under 16.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
Tackling abuse in teenage relationships and preventing abuse before it happens is a priority for the Government. The recently published violence against women and girls strategy commits to ensuring that all children learn about healthy relationships and consent in school, provides a helpline for young people concerned about their own behaviour to provide support and guidance, and delivers interventions for young people which challenge and change harmful attitudes and behaviours.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
I thank the Minister for his Answer. Can he give an update on the Government’s response to calls to lower the statutory age at which individuals can be seen as victims of domestic abuse? This is otherwise known as Holly’s law, named after the Northumberland teenager, Holly Newton, who was murdered by her ex-partner.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am very aware of the murder of Holly Newton, and my thoughts are with her family and friends. As the right reverend Prelate may know, the Home Office is undertaking a scoping review into the legal framework of domestic abuse to ensure that it captures the experience of adolescents in particular. This includes—the point that the right reverend Prelate mentioned—reviewing the age limit in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The review will conclude during the course of this year, and I will be able to report back in due course.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Non-Afl)
My Lords, there is always, quite rightly, multi-agency involvement in these distressing cases, but there can be a problem when victims fall through the cracks and the joined-up approach fails. How can we be assured that this is being improved? This is difficult for the Minister to answer, but it is an important point to air because we see, over and over again, how there are problems with the joined-up approach with one agency talking to another. I wondered if the Minister might have some views on that.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
All agencies have a responsibility to provide safeguarding for young people. Co-operation between agencies—by that I mean schools, social services and, potentially, the police—is extremely important. In the violence against women and girls strategy, we are trying to look at how we can do this better. I would refer the noble Baroness to that document, because there are potential steps in there that we are seeking to achieve, but it will be not an easy or quick solution.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the VAWG action plan proposes increasing the number of family help lead protection practitioners—that is a senior social worker—but children’s services teams across the country are severely stretched now. Can the Minister say how many more children’s social workers will be needed to deliver family support? Will the Government guarantee that funding for it will be ring-fenced inside local authorities?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness will know that I cannot give a figure on that today. We have put an extra £20 million into the violence against women and girls strategy to deal with the particular issues that are the focus of this Question. There is a need—to go back to an earlier point made by the previous noble Baroness—to have co-ordination between local authorities, education and, in some cases, the devolved Administrations. I cannot give a definitive answer, but I will take the point back to my right honourable friend Jess Phillips, the Minister with direct responsibilities, and ensure that the noble Baroness receives an answer.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that one of the issues to be solved by the points that have already been raised is information sharing between the police, social workers and teachers? We could also make better use of school nurses and educational psychologists in getting support to vulnerable young people at risk. Could my noble friend’s department really drill down on this, find out what the best practice is and share it with others so that we can all learn from it?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very good point. She will know that the Home Office has invested £13.1 million to fund and launch a new National Centre for Violence Against Women and Girls and Public Protection to improve the response, particularly in relation to child sexual abuse. That goes to the heart of the point that both the noble Baroness and my noble friend have mentioned about co-ordination, and it is important that we try to resolve this. The strategy was published just before Christmas; it is a 10-year strategy; there is a lot of stuff in it, but the objective is one that my noble friend has pointed to and one that we share.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, will the Government undertake to work with the AFRUCA organisation? Often, a problem for girls with skin of colour is that bruises do not show. Therefore, the people who may encounter these girls with early signs of abuse, which then escalates, do not easily have the triggers to open the conversation and allow the girls to express that they are at risk.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point. Again, one of the areas that the violence against women and girls strategy is looking at is how we can improve training for professionals who come into contact with people who may be involved in that type of abuse. The particular point she mentions related to people of colour is extremely important, and I will take it away.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, a Guardian article last week said, in reference to the Sentencing Bill, that the Victims’ Commissioner feared that
“plans to radically change sentencing could leave victims of domestic abuse in danger”.
Is the Victims’ Commissioner wrong?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Victims’ Commissioner has a statutory duty to comment on any issues that she wishes. She made representations regarding the Sentencing Bill. This House has completed its proceedings on that Bill, and the Minister for Justice, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, has reflected on the comments that the Victims’ Commissioner made at that time. That point is self-evident but one that I do not wish to comment on further.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, it is a particularly sad feature of domestic violence cases that adults are doing what was done to them as children. Indeed, their children are in turn exposed to similar violence and come to see it as normal and acceptable. This difficult problem is recognised in the Government’s strategy, but can the Minister indicate what more specifically they hope to do to address these cycles of intergenerational violence?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
One of the key areas is ensuring that, through the education system, we strengthen relationship education, personal relationship education and, in particular, respect for young girls. That is a very difficult job, because there is a mass of social media that has an exact opposite approach to the type of things that we wish to see within the education system, so we are also, through the Online Safety Act, looking at what we need to do with online harm, because the world has moved on, even in the past 10 to 15 years, and will continue to do so. That is a very important point and one that the Government are very much apprised of and trying to find some resolution to.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is quite correct to say that social media has much more impact than government policy in this area, but is he confident that the regulator, which has continued to fail to do anything about this, will be up for the job that it now has, with the changes in the policy direction, and that it will do the job that it is supposed to do to protect the public?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Ofcom, which is the appropriate regulatory body, is determined to ensure that the existing Online Safety Act legislation is implemented and, in particular, that social media companies are held to account for their performance on it. Again, on the violence against women and girls strategy and other matters such as fraud, which is within my direct remit, we are looking at whether we need to give additional powers and support to Ofcom to ensure that it performs those tasks properly.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, the Question was about domestic violence, and it seems we have strayed slightly off the subject. Does the Minister agree that most harm that comes to children is within the home? We hear an awful lot about social media and other forms of harm, but children are usually most at risk from a relative or a close friend of the family.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is. The Question was phrased in relation to teenage-on-teenage violence, but it is important that parental responsibility is also managed effectively. In the violence against women and girls strategy, that is certainly recognised, and I hope that the right reverend Prelate will be able to support us over the 10-year period to try and do so.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Female genital mutilation is outlawed. The Government are taking steps, through the Home Office in particular, to give advice and support and to look at issues to do with individuals and sentencing as well. There is a programme to deal with female genital mutilation, including spotting the signs of abuse. We have recently taken steps at the border to ensure that checks are made on individuals who may be going in or out of the country for the purposes of being impacted by female genital mutilation. It is an abhorrent practice and one that we will continue to crack down on.
High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have for the National Nuclear Laboratory to work with the Japan Atomic Energy Agency to achieve early deployment of high temperature gas-cooled reactors in a mutually beneficial manner.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy and Net Zero and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
The Government will publish very soon the advanced nuclear framework, setting a pathway for privately led advanced nuclear projects. The framework will introduce an assessment process, identifying credible projects that are potentially deliverable within the UK. We would welcome a proposal regarding deployment of a Japanese HTGR, Japanese-led or alongside a UK partner. UKNNL is open to proposals from any country, including Japan. Any developer can approach UKNNL to discuss support.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank the Minister for that encouraging Answer and welcome him and all Peers to nuclear in Parliament week—my happy place. The Minister will know that HTGRs are classed as AMR technology and the UK is on track to be the first country outside Russia to produce HALEU, the base fuel for AMRs. I think the Minister will agree that the MOC between NNL and JAEA signed in 2023 is too modest. Does the Minister agree that it would be highly desirable in terms of securing the UK supply chain and employment to accelerate the commercial development of Japanese HTGR technology in the UK? In this regard, would he perhaps undertake to engage with his Japanese counterpart to provide the necessary commitment to progress this technology?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
We have two MOCs with Japan. One, as the noble Baroness rightly said, was signed in 2023, and a second, on HTGRs and fuel, was signed in 2024. We have regular meetings with our Japanese counterparts. Japan has long been held as an important collaborator for us in nuclear. The last of those meetings, the 14th, was held on 3 December last year, and we will continue with regular interactions with the Japanese, who we certainly view as extremely important partners, particularly in this area.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, our much vaunted nuclear revival is based on the deployment of pressurised light-water reactors. These are grossly inefficient in their use of uranium fuels, which will be in short supply within a decade. They will need to be replaced by safer and more efficient reactors, such as thorium reactors and fast-neutron reactors that breed their own fuels. However, within the past 12 months we have seen the departure from the UK or the closure of projects aimed at developing such reactors. Are there any remaining prospects of developing advanced reactors in the UK, or will we be dependent in future on foreign technologies based on technologies pioneered in the UK?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
My noble friend is right that there are many different technologies coming along, and one of the reasons why we put the advanced nuclear framework together is to make it possible for all those technologies to have a pathway through to production in the UK. This is an important moment, when private-sector leadership of nuclear is real and can happen because of the new designs. We welcome all the different technologies as part of that framework, which, as I say, will be published shortly.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps in contrast to my noble friend, I congratulate the Government on the final investment decision on Sizewell C and the SMR programme by Rolls-Royce at Wylfa. This is the foundation for a fantastic new nuclear industry in the UK. But does he agree that in welcoming private-sector investment, we need to look at siting policy and making it more flexible, as the recent taskforce recommended?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
On the first part of my noble friend’s question, he should partially congratulate himself, because he was very involved in making that happen, and I join him in congratulating him. We have a very significant nuclear programme with SMRs coming along; and the Fingleton review and a series of other processes, including EN-7, which was laid on 18 December, make planning and other aspects much easier. Siting is very important. A siting review, by GBN, is going on at the moment, looking at potential sites for future gigawatt production as well; it will report in the autumn.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister outline how the continued co-operation with Japan on HTGR reactors will contribute to achieving the Government’s net-zero ambitions and improving our long-term energy security, in particular by providing a reliable low-carbon heat and power source to decarbonise industrial sectors that are otherwise particularly hard to abate, such as steel-making and hydrogen production? What assessment will be made of the cost-effectiveness of alternative types of technology?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The point raised about the heat production of HTGRs is very important. This is not just about the electricity; it is about the heat and what can be done with it. It is why we are keen to encourage advanced modular reactors in the UK. There is also an opportunity to make them much smaller and to site them in different places, which will free up the link directly to industrial purposes. The advanced nuclear framework lays this out very clearly and encourages the private sector and others to join in putting forward new technologies.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, given that the Minister has mentioned new technologies, is he aware that the Japanese high-temperature gas-cooled reactors operating at 950 degrees—he mentioned the importance of heat—produce hydrogen at scale and at reasonable cost? Would it not be beneficial to co-operate further with the Japan Atomic Energy Agency on multi-purpose nuclear heat applications, especially hydrogen production, using its high-temperature engineering test reactor, since the low-cost production of energy should be our overall policy objective?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
We have had two collaborations with the Japanese over the last couple of years, one on HTGRs and one on coated fuels, and we have an ongoing one on robotics. The point made about heat production is crucial. The Japanese, through our collaboration with them through UKNNL, have the demonstrator HTGR ready to go in 2028, specifically focused on hydrogen. We will keep in close contact with them over that, because that production of green hydrogen through nuclear is a very interesting opportunity.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister update the House on the plans to replace Russia in the nuclear fuel supply chain, given that it has a very dominant place there at the moment?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
We have a committed ban on using any import from Russian nuclear fuel by 2028. As of now there is no direct use of Russian fuels; by 2028 indirect use will be eliminated as well. By that I mean fuel processed elsewhere that may have originated in Russia. We have also invested £300 million in making sure that we have our own fuel production, particularly high-assay low-enriched uranium, which is going to be particularly important. That is a major step forward in becoming self-sufficient in some of this fuel.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, the Government have done a considerably good job in this area in the limited time they have been there. There is a problem, in that I am not sure the general public understand, and they are still worried about, the development of nuclear in a variety of areas. Can the Government reassure us that they will look hard at that so that we can at least begin to reduce the extensive time for consultation that is holding back a fair number of developments?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I think public opinion is changing, and it has changed quite a lot in the past few years, but the noble Lord is right that there remain a lot of obstacles to moving fast in this space. That is why the Fingleton report, with its 47 recommendations, is so important. We will be responding fully to that within the three-month period—that is, by the end of February—and will propose to drive that forward as fast as we can, for exactly the reasons he has raised.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Labour Benches.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s impetus on the nuclear programme is extremely welcome, but would it not be even better for the nations and regions of this country, and for our important manufacturing industry, if our world-leading position were being reinforced by doing the maximum amount of engineering for the construction of these projects here in the UK?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The short answer is yes. The slightly longer answer is that, as we move towards contract completion with Rolls-Royce for the small modular reactors, we want to ensure that 70% of the supply chain, both onsite and offsite, is through British construction.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, is not some of the work that would be done by the project that is the subject of the question of a highly sensitive nature? Is it properly protected?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
Sorry, I missed the middle of the noble Lord’s question. Is what properly protected—the fuel?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
Yes. There is a big focus on security of information across the nuclear space, including of course cybersecurity, and on making sure that we retain the intellectual property and the know-how that are so crucial for the safety of this technology.
Greenland: Proposed US Tariffs
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
To ask His Majesty’s Government, in light of recent developments in relation to Greenland, what assessment they have made of the impact of proposed US trade tariffs on the UK economy, and what diplomatic efforts they are making to ensure the sovereign rights of nations to their territories.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. It is always good to hear him speak on these issues. As the Prime Minister stated this morning, the use of tariffs against our allies is completely wrong. It is not the right way to resolve differences within an alliance. Any decision about the future status of Greenland belongs to the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark alone. The Prime Minister spoke to both President Trump and Prime Minister Frederiksen yesterday, as well as other key partners.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said and fully align myself with it. I think I speak for most, if not all, in your Lordships’ House in saying that we are at one with the Government’s position on the issue, and I welcome the recent statements by all political leaders in this respect.
I would like to press the Minister further. First, what are the implications of the tariffs, particularly for the negotiations on the existing agreement that has been made for exports such as car manufacturing? Some 17.4% of our exports go to the US and the sector needs to have long-term planning. What assessment has been made in that respect and what briefing has been given? Secondly, bearing in mind that the President of the United States is going to be in Europe at Davos, surely now is the time for the British Government to convene an emergency meeting of the NATO alliance to address the issues of the alliance’s long-term security and, importantly, not just the sovereign rights of Greenlanders and of Denmark but of other territories around the world.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As noble Lords would imagine, we are speaking constantly—this is happening in real time—with our friends, allies and partners in NATO and beyond. Any meetings that are needed to be convened will, I am sure, happen. The impact of these tariffs would be extremely damaging, not least to our car industry, aerospace, the life sciences and steel. It is not something that we wish to see happen and we hope that this proposal can be averted.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I feel that it is obvious to everyone that the US President is an unserious person whose actions have very serious consequences. The threat from the US to not only a very close ally in the European Union but a NATO partner—and then punishing us for standing with it—is utterly reprehensible. As the Minister said, the PM has said that the actions are “completely wrong”, but the Government refuse to raise a formal complaint to the WTO, the rules of which these actions are trashing. The Prime Minister said that they are completely wrong because they are economic coercion, but has refused to put in place protective anti-coercion measures. What is the point of saying something is completely wrong when you do completely nothing as a result of it?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is called diplomacy. Our aim is to de-escalate the situation and not take measures which would inevitably cause this to escalate and become more damaging for our manufacturers and for people’s jobs and livelihoods in the United Kingdom.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests. I congratulate the Government on the line that they are taking. If the US were to ask nicely then it could have all the military bases and all the military personnel it would wish for. It chose to withdraw the personnel after the Cold War. My understanding is that China has negotiated contracts to extract minerals in Greenland. If the US were to barge in, in an aggressive way, what does the Minister think would happen to the Chinese rights to mine which have already been negotiated?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I appreciate that the noble Baroness takes a strong personal interest, for reasons that I understand, in what happens in Denmark and Greenland. I do not think it helps anybody to speculate about what we would do if certain things were to happen. I must also thank, as I should have done in my initial remarks, the leader of the Opposition, Kemi Badenoch, for the support that she has given to the Government in regard to the position we have taken this morning.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Prime Minister has said that Greenlanders must have a say in what is happening, and I fully accept that. What is the difference between this and not allowing the Chagossians to have any say at all in us buying and selling off the Chagos Islands and paying for the pleasure of sending them to Mauritius?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As I think we examined at length through the progress of the Bill, the right to self-determination is not something that you can claim for yourself; it is something that can be legally determined. When this question was tested before every court which has considered it so far, including here in the UK—we can all have our own personal feelings and emotions and reaction to this, as I know I do—the legal situation was found to be that Chagossians do not have the right of self-determination as regards to the Chagos Archipelago. Greenlanders have the right to self-determination and we respect that right. What happens to Greenland is a question for it and for the Kingdom of Denmark.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I will resist the temptation to pursue that last question, the Minister will be relieved to know.
The Prime Minister is right to tell President Trump on this occasion that he is wrong. Imposing tariffs for pursuing the collective security of NATO and supporting the absolute right of self-determination for the people of Greenland is madness. It is the case that many Members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, also think that Trump is wrong on this. Will the Minister tell the House what steps we are taking to utilise our considerable diplomatic presence in Washington to build on that support in helping to persuade Trump to back down?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We talk with relevant partners as appropriate, but the main conversations that have happened between the United Kingdom and the United States have taken place between our Prime Minister and President Trump—most recently yesterday, and there may have been more contact since then that I am not aware of. That is the right level at which to address such a serious situation.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I have never been one to underplay a threat, but does my noble friend the Minister agree that there seems to be no intelligence assessment whatever to say that there is an immediate threat to the mainland of Greenland? It is extraordinary that things are being done at this pace. We need to take a deep breath, look at the intelligence assessments, and assess the real threat and the real situation before doing anything.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord is encouraging us to be calm and to respond thoughtfully but clearly. Luckily, that is the approach that our Prime Minister is taking.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, there is a notable difference in tone between the response of many of our European allies and that of Sir Keir Starmer to the actions and words of President Trump. Does the Minister think that the softly-softly approach of the United Kingdom is having a positive impact, or is it inviting further aggressive actions and words?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I watched the Prime Minister’s statement this morning and I would not at all describe it as softly-softly. It was made very clear what the United Kingdom stands for and what we think of this proposal. The Prime Minister stood there publicly and laid it out for people to make their own assessment of where they think we are. The right thing to do is to carry on in that vein. That has served us well up until now. Our Prime Minister has a good relationship with and the respect of President Trump—much to many people’s surprise, I might add. Nevertheless, that is where we are. He is someone I know quite well, and I would say that he is quite well suited to this kind of diplomacy.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, to hear the Minister talk about diplomacy is reassuring, I am sure. However, does she agree that, to back up that diplomacy, bringing forward a credible plan as to how we are going to meet our spending obligations in defence to meet our NATO obligations would be sensible, and that publishing the defence industrial plan now would be a good way of backing up that diplomacy?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is Monday, and these announcements were made at the weekend, so further announcements will be made. I agree that the defence investment strategy is incredibly important, but it should be published when it is ready and we should not be rushed into doing things before that.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I agree with many noble Lords who have spoken about the importance of diplomacy in this, yet I feel that there is a danger that diplomacy takes place at a high level, over the heads of the Greenlanders themselves. It was only a few days ago in this Chamber that my right reverend friend the Lord Bishop of Chester, who unfortunately is not able to be with us just yet this afternoon, asked whether we could strengthen our diplomatic ties in Nuuk with the Greenlanders directly. That would give a lot of moral support and would mean that Britain’s Government would have a much better understanding of what the Greenlanders themselves are thinking, rather than what other people are telling them to think.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I agree that this needs to have the Greenlanders at the heart of it. I am pleased that many Ministers have met their counterparts in Greenland, not just in response to recent events but as part of a long-standing arrangement. The right reverend Prelate makes a strong point that diplomacy should never happen somewhere else. What recent events have proved is that geopolitics is not something that happens out there, away from here. It has a direct impact on people’s jobs and livelihoods, our manufacturing industry and almost every element of life in the United Kingdom. That is why this is being taken quite so seriously by the Government.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, much of what has been said so far is of the respectful and firm way in which the intergovernmental dimension of the relationship is reacting to this news. Tomorrow, of course, we have the opportunity for someone from the interparliamentary dimension to react, with the visit of Mr Mike Johnson, who is speaker of the US House of Representatives. Does the Minister feel it is helpful if we, as parliamentarians, reflect the same respectful and firm tone on this issue in an interparliamentary dimension as well?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I would not dream of advising noble Lords or my good friends at the other end of the building on what they should and should not say to a visiting speaker from the United States. The noble Earl makes a good point about having clarity in the position—which I think is widely, if not unanimously, held, at least within this Chamber—as regards Greenland.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I revert, if I may, to the matter of NATO, referred to by my noble friend Lord Ahmad. A defensive and strong alliance such as NATO requires, in addition to resource, two vital components: unity of purpose among the members and seamless cohesion among the members. The recent pronouncements by President Trump have, frankly, thrown a bucket of sand into the engine room. Will the Minister discuss with her colleagues in the Ministry of Defence convening an urgent meeting of NATO, if only to reassert what all of us believe NATO to exist for and to underpin that, while one member may have an aberrant view, the rest of us are totally united in why we need NATO, why we want NATO and why we support NATO?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I completely agree with the noble Baroness on what she says about unity of purpose. That is why the Prime Minister made the statement that he did this morning. When it comes to what meetings to hold, who should convene them and when that should happen, I will leave that to others to determine. She can rest assured that I am speaking regularly to colleagues in the MoD about this and other issues.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, could the Minister assist the House by informing us which eight wars President Trump has ended?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am afraid I am not responsible for interpreting statements of anybody other than myself.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Could the Minister confirm that, under the 1951 agreement between the US, Denmark and Greenland, the United States has considerable existing powers to establish military bases in Greenland? Has the Prime Minister emphasised this point to the President?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
There are many ways that the current situation and the concerns that the United States has could be resolved. What matters is that that is done collegiately, diplomatically and in a way that is respectful of the alliance that we are all part of. We are hopeful that that is what can come about.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, if defence of diplomacy, as the Minister said, is the foremost approach of the Government, and to continue the line of questioning of my noble friend Lord Purvis, when will the WTO be brought into that diplomacy? Have the Government already reached out to the WTO about these tariffs?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My response is the same, essentially. Decisions on the measures we use and the institutions we involve will be made using the test of whether those decisions are likely to improve the situation, de-escalate and bring us closer to resolution or make negotiations more difficult, raise the temperature and make a straightforward resolution harder to achieve. That is the test that we will apply at every stage.
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill
Monday 19th January 2026
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberBiodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill 2024-26 View all Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 157-I Marshalled list for Report - (8 Jan 2026)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to update the House that both the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly have now granted legislative consent to the Bill. I express my thanks to devolved Ministers and their officials for the constructive and collaborative way in which they have worked with us to reach this position.
I also place on record my gratitude to noble Lords from across the House for their careful scrutiny, thoughtful challenge and constructive engagement throughout the passage of this Bill. They have brought considerable expertise to bear on a range of important issues. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who spoke convincingly on enforcement and human rights considerations on the high seas, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Miller, who raised important issues on environmental protections and plastic pollution. I also thank my noble friend Lord Whitehead for his support on the Bill and his thoughtful maiden speech at Second Reading. I am also grateful to the Opposition Front Bench for its constructive approach throughout the Bill’s passage. Beyond Parliament, I pay tribute to the scientific community, from the National Oceanography Centre and the Natural History Museum to researchers across our universities, whose advocacy has been instrumental in demonstrating the urgency and ambition of this legislation and the wider agreement.
This Bill is vital to protecting our ocean, advancing marine science and ensuring that the United Kingdom continues to lead global efforts on ocean conservation. The ocean regulates our climate, sustains global fisheries and produces around half of the oxygen on earth. Protecting it is not simply an environmental aspiration; it is an economic, scientific and moral imperative. By passing this Bill, your Lordships will enable the United Kingdom to take the next steps to ratify the BBNJ agreement in the coming months. This will send a clear and powerful signal that the United Kingdom stands ready to lead in protecting our shared ocean, grounded in science, partnership and international co-operation.
Finally, I take this opportunity to thank the officials and lawyers in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Defra and the Department for Transport whose expertise, diligence and commitment have underpinned the development and passage of this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, our debates on this Bill have been constructive, so I can be brief. I thank the Minister for her positive tone during our scrutiny of this legislation. The origins of the Bill, as has been said, lie in the agreement signed by the previous Government. We are pleased that this Government are following the lead that we set when in office and are delivering on our commitment to play our part in protecting oceans beyond national jurisdiction from environmental harm. This is an important commitment which we hope will ensure that future generations inherit cleaner and more biodiverse oceans.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to our debates. We are pleased to have been able to challenge the Government on sustainable fishing and the maintenance of the marine protected area around the Chagos Islands in Committee. We look forward to constructively challenging the Government as they press ahead with their work, alongside the other signatories to the treaty, to deliver the appropriate environmental protections for those areas of the ocean beyond national jurisdiction that will in future be designated as marine protected areas.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, the treaty came into operation on Saturday, so this is a very appropriate day. My only sadness on this excellent occasion is that, as I said on Report, I believe that this is probably one of the last agreements that we will have internationally from the United Nations in the near future, given the disrespect that we increasingly have for international law and international agreements among the community and certain major players within the United Nations.
Having said that, this is a moment of celebration. We have made an important step forward in terms of biodiversity and the protection of nature across a very large proportion of our planet’s surface, which until now has been—as the Bill says—beyond jurisdiction. There are now 81 ratifications of that treaty, and we will hopefully very soon be among them. We expect the conference of the parties, probably in August, and the plea from our Benches is that the United Kingdom has one of the greatest ambitions at that first meeting and collaborates with other parties that have ratified the treaty to make sure that it really does mean something and makes a real change for our planet and our oceans.
I thank the Minister for her co-operation, help and advice as we have gone through this Bill, and for the way that she has listened. It has been good to have the opposition and government spokespeople speaking as one, generally, on what we have sought to achieve here. I thank my Whip’s Office, particularly Ulysse Abbate for his work, and Members on our Benches for the work that they have done on this Bill. Let us make this something that is really special and really works, allowing us to move towards the global target of a third of our oceans being put aside for protection and biodiversity in one of the most important areas of our planet.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I do not think that any Bill on the ocean would ever have gone far enough for me, but I am very happy that this Bill is passing. I congratulate the Minister on her efforts to keep us calm when we were getting a bit overexcited about what we wanted to see in the Bill. I look forward to watching exactly what happens at the forthcoming meetings.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Very quickly, given that there is such a high level of agreement and support, I thank noble Lords for their co-operation and efforts in getting this done. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said about the conference of the parties; our intention is to play the fullest of roles in making this treaty work. Any time that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, wants a bit of calm or to dull the excitement a little bit, she knows where to find me.
Digital ID
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, following yet another U-turn from this Government, I—and, I am sure, other noble Lords—have a number of questions. First, can the Minister tell the House the Government’s current projected cost of this digital ID programme and whether the £1.8 billion figure previously cited remains the Government’s own estimate? Can he also tell us how many public services now require citizens to use GOV.UK One Login as a mandatory gateway, rather than as an option? Which of those services are legally required to operate only with the DIATF-compliant identity assurance? How many of the National Cyber Security Centre’s 39 cyber assessment framework outcomes does One Login currently meet, and which does it not? What whistleblowing concerns have been raised since 2022 about security clearances, administrator access, overseas development and undetected red team intrusions? What security incidents have occurred, and has any personal data been compromised?
The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for those questions. On costs, the Government do not recognise what the OBR reported as an accurate cost for the programme, because the scope of the scheme, and therefore its cost, has not yet been decided. The design and delivery will be subject to a public consultation, following which we will have a clearer idea.
The noble Baroness asked about the GOV.UK One Login, a subject she has previously raised with my noble friend. It follows the high standards of security for government and private sector services, and about 9 million to 10 million people have been using it. The programme adheres to the National Cyber Security Centre’s advice to ensure that its data is protected, fraud is detected and threats are monitored and responded to. More specifically, we are aware—I think this is the point that the noble Baroness is making—that the nature of cyber threats is changing and that there is an increase in the number of attacks against the United Kingdom. The Government are committed to improving resilience among operators of essential services, including through legislation currently before the Commons that will update the UK’s regulatory framework.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the Liberal Democrats strongly opposed the previous proposal as a serious threat to privacy, civil liberties and social inclusion, so we welcome the Prime Minister’s U-turn in saying that digital ID, after all, will be voluntary. Can the Minister therefore confirm that no citizen will face any disadvantage, delay or reduced access to public services if they choose not to adopt it? Further, given that GOV.UK, which is the foundation of this system, has met only 21 of the 39 NCSC cyber assessment framework outcomes—the noble Baroness referred to that, and I was assured by Ministers that the outcomes will be met by this April—will the Minister halt expansion until independent assurance confirms that it meets all mandatory security standards?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I do not want to repeat what I said to the noble Baroness, but I assure the noble Lord that we are absolutely focused on those standards and on better understanding new threats, which is why legislation is being considered by the other place. After all, we are talking about how people can access government services properly without complicated hurdles to go through constantly. Having one access is important, so the scheme will be available at no cost to the individual and to all British citizens and legal residents from the age of 16, subject to the consultation. It will be introduced after the technical build and primary legislation are delivered in around 2028, and underpinned by robust privacy, resilience and security measures. I stress that all citizens, in time, will be able to get the new digital ID, but it is not compulsory. We will consult on minimum wage.
We are ensuring that it is inclusive and that, whatever the Government do, we maintain inclusivity. Rolling out a free national digital ID will be accompanied by a massive inclusion drive across the United Kingdom. This is an opportunity to empower the vulnerable and the left-behind in our society. Inclusion will be at the heart of the design and delivery, and no one will be disadvantaged as a consequence of the scheme.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, the Minister fell into the same trap as his colleague at the other end of the Parliamentary Estate by saying that the digital ID would be free. He may quibble with the OBR’s assessment of a £1.8 billion cost, but it is not going to be free, is it? Why do the Government think that a government-designed ID system is going to be better than just setting some standards and allowing the private sector to provide solutions that people can use instead?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I repeat that the cost has not been determined yet, because the scope and design of the scheme have not been agreed. That will be subject to consultation. Any cost in this spending review period will be met within existing settlements. The purpose of this scheme is to ensure that all services that the Government provide in the United Kingdom are properly accessible in this new day and age. I do not think that is something we should leave to the private sector. We want to be leading it, so I do not agree with the noble Lord’s assertion.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, this saga, and particularly reading about the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, Darren Jones, in the Times on Saturday, reminds me very much of 20 years ago, when Tony Blair and colleagues tried to introduce an ID card system. The way it was put by Mr Jones was that it is going to offer access to nearly all public services except, crucially, the NHS—that is a big exclusion, so it is not quite as convenient—and that it is a kind of magic bullet that will solve all your problems. It is very reminiscent of what happened 20 years ago. Have the Government learned lessons from that fiasco 20 years ago? Can the Minister assure us that there will not be a centralised database? Actually, he cannot, because there will be a centralised database of everyone’s IDs, which will be a honeypot for cyber criminals.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The world has moved on from 20 years ago. We are talking about recognising the opportunities that this new age presents for us—certainly in the provision of public services. Darren Jones was absolutely right to focus on that. We are not going to create a central database. There will not be that “honeypot” opportunity, as the noble Baroness put it. We are determined to ensure that those systems can talk and communicate more effectively with each other.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister not agree that this is a typical example of what is now alleged to be “broken Britain”? We were moving forward in 2010 to deal with the changes that were taking place, and it was abandoned by the alliance. It was thrown out, and here we are again with the same problems facing us. Can he please give us an assurance that what is now before us will be stuck to and will not be withdrawn or watered down?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I appreciate the comments of my noble friend. We have an absolute determination, and this is what Darren Jones was talking about, to deliver better public services and make them more accessible to all people who have traditionally been excluded and disadvantaged. We are determined to do that. To reassure my noble friend, the whole point is that, fairly soon, we will launch a consultation so that we can hear from all those people who have a concern about public services and how they access them. We are determined to do that, and I am sure that, as a result of that consultation, we will have a better policy and better delivery of public services.
Northern Powerhouse Rail
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, Northern Powerhouse Rail has been with us now for over a decade. During that time its meaning and shape have changed somewhat, backwards and forwards, but nothing very much has been delivered. The Secretary of State in her Statement on Wednesday started with a lengthy castigation of the preceding Government for not having delivered anything despite having originated the concept when George Osborne was Chancellor. One must admit that she has some justification for doing so because the record of the previous Government in delivering major rail projects was not glorious and not something that I stand here with a view to defending.
The other thing that I want to say by way of preliminaries is that this is an ambitious programme and if the Government were to deliver it, the Conservative Party would applaud them—because the people of northern England deserve better rail transport links and this programme would transform what they currently have into something more effective and probably something that would bring greater economic benefits to the area. But that does leave us with quite a number of questions about the Statement made by the Secretary of State, which perhaps the Minister can answer.
When the Labour Party was in opposition, it thought of and presented Northern Powerhouse Rail as an almost wholly new line stretching from Liverpool across to Leeds, but what we have here is not a new line but a series of improvements. The Liverpool to Manchester part of it is to be a new line, but most of it is a series of improvements. Have the Labour Government now abandoned definitively the notion of a new line across the Pennines, which previously they supported?
When in opposition, the Labour Party stated repeatedly that trans-Pennine improvements would not be effective except in combination with the full delivery of HS2—certainly to Manchester and ideally to Leeds. Can the Government say definitively that this view has now been abandoned, that there is no plan for HS2 to be extended and that these improvements that are proposed are the stand-alone project on which they are depending for a transformation of the economy of that area?
My three remaining questions concern money. The Statement announces expenditure of £1.1 billion over the next four years. As I understand it—although I would be grateful for clarification from the Minister—that £1.1 billion is to be spent on preparatory work. By preparatory work I mean studies, scoping and design. I do not mean preparatory work of a physical character. As far as I can make out, none of that money over the next four years is to go on physical works. Am I correct that all the other works that are promised here are to be delivered after 2030 and some even later than that? I am not criticising the need for phasing but asking about the date. Is the £1.1 billion actually going to give us any improvement or will it be simply on preparatory works? Is there nothing to be seen before 2030?
Next, there is a funding envelope promised of £45 billion in total. Now, I ask this question in all sincerity. It happens all the time. Politicians and Governments do it. They say, “This is what something is going to cost”, but they cannot tell you what the something is. Until you have done the £1.1 billion of preparatory works—scoping and design—how can you possibly know what it is going to cost?
We made the same mistake over HS2. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, made the same mistake over HS2 when he initiated it. We had a cost before we had even a line of route. What is the basis for the £45 billion if the preparatory, scoping and design work has not yet been done?
Finally, will the Minister confirm that the £45 billion is to be spent after 2030; that is, wholly by their successor Government? Do the Government not feel the slightest shame in claiming credit for that when they are landing it on another party?
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, as we have heard, the northern powerhouse initiative was launched in June 2014 by the then Chancellor George Osborne. Featuring new and significantly upgraded railway lines, it should be the region’s single biggest transport investment since the Industrial Revolution. Twelve years on, despite various promises by various Prime Ministers, all that seems to have happened so far is lots of talking and planning, but no concrete plans.
On these Benches, the Liberal Democrats fully support measures to grow our economy across every nation and every region. We are supporters of delivering Northern Powerhouse Rail and a new Liverpool to Manchester rail connection. But the only solid information in this Statement, as we have heard, is just over £1 billion be spent over the next four years planning what should be in the final plan, not on spades in the ground.
I absolutely accept that the previous Conservative Government failed to deliver infrastructure projects such as this and High Speed 2, but surely our northern towns and cities were hoping for so much more. Can the Minister confirm that while we can hope that there may be some upgrades to rail infrastructure at some point in the 2030s, there will be no new trains running on new tracks until 2045 at the earliest? Can the Minister assure the House that the Government are not falling into the trap of the previous Government’s playbook of stop-start funding and delay on rail projects?
Safe, reliable and affordable railways are vital for employment, quality of life and economic growth. This is particularly true for the north of England, where the need for investment in infrastructure is clear. How will the Minister ensure that this major transport infrastructure project, no matter how welcome, secures the funding that is needed and does not go wildly over budget and end up years behind schedule? Will some clear strategic thinking by shadow Great British Railways be undertaken now to avoid costly feasibility studies being undertaken by other parties and to ensure a grip on the project?
Northern Powerhouse Rail, if delivered properly, will unlock growth, connect communities and boost employment opportunities. I hope the Minister can provide clear answers that help us all understand what is being promised in this Statement and when it will be delivered.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the Statement by my honourable friend the Secretary of State in the other place last Wednesday set out a practical and deliverable set of railway improvements in northern England related to an economic plan for the northern growth corridor across either side of the Pennines. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, have set out some of the more tangled history of Northern Powerhouse Rail over the past 10 years.
This Government are drawing a line under some uncosted and, frankly, undeliverable plans, of which Network North was the worst, although the Integrated Rail Plan for the North came near it, because there was a little bit of funding but it was not prioritised in any way. We are setting out a realistic plan for the delivery of a better railway for the north of England, which will include more frequent trains—so frequent that you do not need a timetable—more reliable trains, faster journey times and a mixture of using existing lines, upgrading existing lines and, as has been pointed out, a new railway between Liverpool and Manchester.
It is also phased. Noble Lords will note that, on the east side of the Pennines, improvements can come more quickly, because the upgrading will be to existing lines. The line across the Pennines is already being significantly upgraded: the trans-Pennine route upgrade has not so far been mentioned, but £11 billion-worth of railway improvements are being carried out now, with capacity, electrification, reliability and journey time improvements. The plan then sets out a new railway between Liverpool and Manchester, using the northern part of the stalled powers for HS2, which are languishing in Parliament at the moment, together with a new railway from Millington to Liverpool.
Thirdly, upgrades will be made later from Bradford to Manchester and Sheffield to Manchester. The Government believe that the plan, set out in that way, is much more deliverable and practical than any previous plan has been.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asks about abandoning a new railway across the Pennines. Yes, there will not be a new railway across the Pennines because, in effect, the trans-Pennine route upgrade will deliver what is virtually a new railway but on the existing alignment. He also asked about the proposition that, somehow, Northern Powerhouse Rail will not be effective without the delivery of HS2 to Manchester. He will note that one of the things in the Government’s plan and the Secretary of State’s Statement is the reservation of the existing purchase of land from Birmingham to Manchester, because more capacity—note that phrase; it is more capacity, not a high-speed line—is likely to be needed at some stage. It will therefore eventually complement the part of the HS2 alignment that will be used as a result of the new railway from Liverpool to Manchester.
The £1.1 billion-worth is in this spending review period, rather than to 2030, which was referred to last week. It will deliver some enhancements, too: for example, the cost of the new station in Bradford, subject to its business case, will be part of that £1.1 billion. We expect delivery to be well started, because the site is nearly agreed and the proposition is sound. We are also expecting improvements to Leeds station, which is a critical block to having more trains on either side of the Pennines, as a result of this expenditure. But it is true that a lot of that money will be spent on planning, because one of the lessons from HS2, to which this House will return fairly shortly, was the foolishness of starting to build a railway without specifying it and with contracts that make the contractors money whatever they are building and however long they take to build it.
The funding envelope of £45 billion is a very sensible proposition, bearing in mind the experience of HS2, by which government can limit the costs and give some budgetary pressure to those specifying the improvement. As the House will hear fairly soon, one of the difficulties with HS2 was the zealotry with which the original specification was written and the consequent enormous cost. We are not going to make that mistake. The last point of course is that the £45 billion is a sum to be spent after the end of this spending review, so the first part of it will be in this Government’s term.
The Government are working very hard to produce a practical programme of improvements that can be delivered by both the railway and its supply chain. I say to the noble Baroness that we do need to plan first; it is sensible to do that. She asked whether GBR would be involved. It will: very much so. One of the mistakes of HS2 was to regard it as a completely independent railway when, actually, it has to be regarded very much as part of the railway network, which is certainly what this Government envisage Northern Powerhouse Rail to be.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, can I press the Minister on the timetable? Obviously, I have a vested interest as a resident of the north. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that the benefits will be felt by the early 2030s, but I understand that the final project will not be finished until the 2040s, and there may be a change of Government in that time. Can the Minister give a clearer setting out of the timetable, and in particular when the stretch from York to Middlesbrough might benefit?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that railway improvements, sadly, take a very long time. They take a long time to be delivered safely, unlike in the Victorian era when hundreds of people were killed during their construction, and many of them have to be done on the operating railway, which can tolerate some closures but cannot tolerate everything.
The Chancellor spoke correctly in saying that the benefits will start to be felt in the 2030s. In fact, I think some benefits will be felt before then, because we must improve Leeds station and a new station in Bradford will make a significant difference to Bradford’s economic prospects. I cannot tell the noble Baroness precisely when all the parts of the improvement will be delivered, because we need to plan this out properly, but the Government hope that, with a general consensus about the economic prospects of the north of England being improved by better transport, we have for the first time seen a plan that sets that out in a progressive way that enables it to be delivered. The hope is that, whoever the Government are—hopefully, this Government will be here for a long time—it can be delivered over the course of a number of Parliaments.
The noble Baroness will of course recall that the most difficult occasion in the recent history of railway planning was the peremptory cancellation of phase 2a of HS2, which was done, sadly, without any contemplation of a replacement. If future Governments were to modify this plan, one hopes they would contemplate the effects of what they were doing, in order to be able to deliver the plan roughly as it is set out today.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, there is a great deal in this Statement that I warmly welcome: in particular, the bit the Minister has just referred to about what was HS2, the link from Crewe to Manchester. He has repeated, and it is clear in the Statement, that
“we will retain land … already purchased between the west midlands and Crewe”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/1/26; col. 931.]
The only point of retaining the land—I strongly welcome the fact that it will be—is that a railway will be built on it at some stage.
I would like the Minister’s confirmation that, welcome as these improvements to east-west connectivity are—they are very welcome and probably should be taking precedence—they will not in any way help to solve the capacity problems on the west coast main line, which are being solved in part as far as Birmingham but need to be solved between the West Midlands and Manchester as well. What hope can the Minister offer me that a new railway—he can call it HS2 or whatever he likes—will be built to replace HS2 to Manchester and correct the huge mistake that was made when it was cancelled?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend is right: the Government are retaining that part of the land between the West Midlands and Crewe that they have bought for precisely that purpose, because they know that at some stage a railway will have to be built. It will probably not be a high-speed railway. It is certainly not a railway to the specification of High Speed 2 phase 1, which has cost an extraordinary amount of money because of its specification. It might be that only part of that route is needed sooner than the more northern parts.
It is clear that the west coast main line is full of trains. There is no space left. The Office of Rail and Road declined all the open access applications last summer, simply because there was no timetable space on the railway to accommodation them. It is right for the Government to think about the future and to plan to deliver this new railway at a time when it is needed.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I worked at No. 10 as Tony Blair’s strategy adviser in 2005 when an in principle go-ahead was given to an ambitious high-speed rail network for the whole country. Twenty-odd years later, we do not even have one small part of that plan in place. In the same period, since 2008 China has built 48,000 kilometres of high-speed rail.
I am a Liverpool supporter, so I regularly go—
Lord Birt (CB)
It has been a difficult weekend. I regularly visit the north-west of England, as I did at the weekend. I am involved in an east of Pennines business, so I am very familiar with the 19th-century infrastructure of the whole of the north of England. Are we remotely ambitious enough with our rail infrastructure?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The simple answer is yes. What the north of England needs is better, more reliable connectivity, most importantly at a frequency at which a timetable is not needed. This is the intention of this Government’s whole plan. It can be delivered as a consequence of finishing the trans-Pennine route upgrade and carrying out, in sequence, the plans set out by the Secretary of State last week.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
May I remind noble Lords that this is an opportunity to ask questions of the Minister? Can we keep comments succinct? There is plenty of time for everyone to get in if we all keep our questions sharp, so that he can answer them.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for recognising the success of the trans-Pennine route upgrade—which was, of course, started by the last Conservative Government, when a lot of significant work was done. The Minister also had responsibility for that in a previous role.
I have two specific questions. Is the £45 billion pound cost envelope that the Minister mentioned calculated in 2026 pounds, or is it going to be uprated for inflation? That is a very important question, given the length of time HS2 has taken and the significance of that. Secondly, is the delivery authority for the Northern Powerhouse Rail project going to be GBR?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The £45 billion is in 2026 pounds. I think the noble Lord will recognise that, for example, we have been accounting for HS2 in 2019 prices for a number of years, which is clearly a ridiculous proposition. I expect GBR to take responsibility for much of this, except that the Government may well decide to deliver building a brand new route between Liverpool and Manchester separately, as with East West Rail. We have to regard the whole thing as part of the national railway network and not as something dreamt up, delivered from Mars and imposed on the railway, with the consequent loss of connectivity and the ability to change trains at stations for all the journeys people want to make.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I accept the incrementalism of the plan, but can the Minister give us a little more detail about how it will be managed? What will be the role of the northern mayors? Is funding to be solely from the Treasury, or will it be regionally based? Are the Government exploring how the railway can benefit from the development value of the surrounding land, which will then increase greatly in value?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for raising a really important point. First, the mayors are party to the proposal, and there is a compact with each of them in the northern growth corridor. This is really important, because previous proposals have been done to those mayors and not with them. They play an important role because, as it says in the announcement, although there is a funding cap, which has been discussed already, they should have the ability to change or improve the specification in line with the aspirations for their region’s economy, jobs and homes. If they do, they should be able to raise some money, and the Government are going to pursue that with them discussions.
The noble Lord is right that one of the underused features of infrastructure funding so far is not buying into the inevitable rise in value of the land. One of the most difficult things to witness and not comment on is that, as you approach Birmingham, the skyline is full of cranes and buildings but none of the owners or developers of the land has paid a penny towards the railway. That cannot be right.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, I have spoken in the Chamber before about the Leamside line, which is a modest 21 miles of railway in the north-east. Would the noble Lord agree that it illustrates the disconnect between statement and construction timeline? Would it be worth considering prioritising projects such as the Leamside line in order to power up the northern powerhouse, particularly in the north-east, which sometimes feels on the edge of plans?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am delighted that the right reverend Prelate has raised that, because I discussed this very subject with Kim McGuinness two or three times in the last month. The extension of the metro to Washington, which is the northern part of the Leamside line, is proceeding anyway. The development of the southern part of the Leamside line will be pursued alongside the first tranche of Northern Powerhouse Rail, with a view to deriving economic growth, homes and jobs benefits from extending services southwards. I hope I have answered the right reverend Prelate’s question very positively.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord’s statement regarding Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Bradford. There is also Newcastle, as the right reverend Prelate just said. The journey time from Newcastle to Manchester is longer than from Newcastle to London. Is the plan designed to improve that particular journey?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The answer to my noble friend is yes. The trans-Pennine route upgrade will make a significant improvement to the journey time across the Pennines. In addition, the intention is to have trains at higher frequency, which means less waiting time. That journey time will be improved in both respects.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted that the right reverend Prelate raised the question she did because, by pure chance, I have a Question on tomorrow’s Order Paper about east coast main line capacity. What impact, when delivered, will the Statement, which I welcome, have on the east coast main line, as well as on the points raised by other Members about capacity from the Midlands to the north and to the west coast?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I will not spoil the Answer to my noble friend’s Question tomorrow, except to say that the east coast main line has a better timetable with more trains on it. The Government do not see the end of their aspirations for railways in the north to be solely the announcement from last week. There may well have to be further improvements to the east coast main line; if there are, they will only enhance its capacity, both in journeys north-south and in the connections between Newcastle, York, Leeds and places to the west side of the Pennines.
Lord Kempsell (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the update on this important cause. Let us assume that the cap will be busted. If that is the case, and the Treasury’s £45 billion envelope is broken, what assessment have the Government made of the impact on local authorities and businesses that will have to shoulder the local funding uplift?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Let us not assume that the cap will be busted, because the progress on the trans-Pennine route upgrade demonstrates pretty satisfactorily that, planned properly, you can make substantial railway enhancements without limitless additions to the budget. We will come back to this House and the other House in short order about the costs and timescale of HS2, but there are some really substantial lessons to be learned from starting a project with no specification and giving contractors, in essence, a licence to print money. There is no way that this Government are prepared to do that with anything that has been announced in the past few days. One of the consequences of that is to allow ourselves time to plan what needs to be done properly, to cost it properly and to contract for it properly. I do not think that we can tolerate assuming that caps will be busted, because we have a terrible example of it at the moment, and we should leave that example in isolation and deliver projects properly, having planned them first.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I thank every noble Lord who has spoken in this exchange and warmly welcome the Statement that was made last week in the other place. I congratulate the Minister on getting his head around the facts and being able to explain what is happening with such clarity—for example, to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle on her remarkably technical but important question about the Leamside line. Did the Minister see the press coverage at the weekend on the completion of the Chiltern tunnel for High Speed 2, and does he agree that it is time that we started to celebrate such engineering feats? When it is built, the railway is going to have some marvellous engineering—not just tunnels but viaducts as well—which I think will make our railway the envy of the world.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend. There are some remarkable structures, either in the ground or coming out of the ground, for HS2, but he would have to agree with me that you have to be tinged with sadness to stand here and not know how much they have cost so far. That is a shocking weakness, which we will come back to and no doubt debate at some stage. My noble friend is right that British engineering can produce some extraordinary feats, and the tunnel that was in the newspapers at the weekend and the viaduct across the Colne Valley are very elegant structures.
Incidentally, if noble Lords who take a train journey between Manchester and Leeds would like to give me prior notice, I can arrange for them to travel in the cab with the driver, and they can see the extraordinary amount of work that is being done on an operating railway, which is neither trivial nor simple, and get some understanding about what is going on there. My noble friend Lord Faulkner is right to highlight these great structures on HS2, but, equally, what has been going on between Leeds and Manchester and out to York is extraordinary, and it has been done with relatively little disruption to the train service. If any noble Lords—within reason—would like to see it at some time, I will arrange for them to be able to do that.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:42 - Division on Amendment 46 - Ayes: 235 / Noes: 164 - Amendment 46 agreed.
18:54 - Division on Amendment 49 - Ayes: 232 / Noes: 160 - Amendment 49 agreed.
19:15 - Division on Amendment 51 - Ayes: 216 / Noes: 161 - Amendment 51 agreed.
19:52 - Division on Amendment 56 - Ayes: 159 / Noes: 153 - Amendment 56 agreed.
20:02 - Division on Amendment 58 - Ayes: 148 / Noes: 156 - Amendment 58 disagreed.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
“(vi) financial support and financial literacy.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds financial support and financial literacy as services relevant children must be provided access to, as part of “staying close support”.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 35 in my name, and I thank my noble friends Lord Storey and Lord Mohammed and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for adding their names to it. It seeks to extend the remit of Staying Close to include support in helping care-experienced young people to access services that provide financial support and literacy. I want to say immediately that I was delighted to see the Government’s amendments introduced on Report that will amend the information that local authorities must include within their care leavers’ local offer to cover financial support and services that provide financial literacy. This builds very much on our discussions in Committee, and I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward those government amendments. This change will provide greater transparency and will help young people to understand their rights and entitlements better, as well as encouraging local authorities to think about the support they provide to equip care leavers to manage their finances effectively.
In our previous discussions on this topic, we highlighted how young people leaving care are much more likely to be living independently from a young age than other young people with greater financial responsibilities and often without a safety net—the bank of mum and dad that so many parents provide certainly is not there for them to fall back on. These factors, combined with young care leavers often feeling unequipped, unprepared and unsupported to manage the financial responsibilities that come with living independently from a young age, can put care-experienced young people at risk of facing unnecessary financial hardship and insecurity, falling often into rent arrears or debt, all of which can have a long-term impact on their well-being and security.
By seeking to expand the remit of Staying Close, my Amendment 35 would have plugged this gap even further, ensuring that young people who are leaving care are supported. I feel that this change would have real benefit, but the fact that the Government have brought forward these two amendments is an example of how constructive the debate was in Committee on this legislation. I thank the Government for that and for being open to amendments such as my Amendment 35, which would do a lot to improve the lives of care-experienced young people. Perhaps when the Minister responds, to provide absolute clarity, she will be able to confirm that government Amendments 39 and 40 will have the same effect as my Amendment 35, which, obviously, now I will not be pushing to a vote.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I am very grateful that these amendments have been proposed. They may not go as far as my Private Member’s Bill did a few months ago in terms of seeking a better financial deal for care leavers, but Amendment 40 takes us some considerable way towards that. At least it will make local authorities be honest about what they are and are not doing. My only regret is that it will not completely get rid of the postcode lottery that besets so many young care leavers, particularly if they move from one authority to another. But I am grateful for the amendments the Government have tabled, and I hope that they will be swiftly passed.
Lord Storey (LD)
I thank my noble friend Lady Tyler for all the work she has done on this important topic. It shows the real power and strength of this House that, by talking to each other, listening and supporting, we can bring about real change, so I thank the Government for putting down these amendments. As my noble friend rightly said, there are so many young people living independently by themselves, and the most important thing is that they have an understanding of how finances work. I do not like the term “financial literacy”, but it is important. The national curriculum is going to bring that in for every young person, but for these young people it is even more important. So, I thank the Minister for getting to a place where we can all support and get behind this important issue.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, I welcome the amendments that the Government have tabled to Clause 8. I think they will meet the aims of our Amendment 35, so I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the additional support that the Government will offer to care leavers.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and Baronesses for their positive comments today; they are a measure of the fact that all of us in this Chamber want to put the needs of the most vulnerable people in our society at the centre of the Bill. I think the Government have clearly put across that we are strongly committed to improving support for care leavers, both through the measures in the Bill on Staying Close, local offer and corporate parenting and through our other programmes of work, such as the care leaver covenant and the care leavers interministerial board, all of which seek to ensure that young people leaving care have stable homes, access to health services and support to build lifelong loving relationships and are engaged in education, employment and training.
We want to support those in care and preparing to leave care before they reach adulthood, and to ensure that they have the same support as all young people. They will of course benefit from the wider changes that we are making for all young people in this space; we have had some fantastic discussions about the need for financial literacy for all young people in different places over the last few months.
I emphasise that in November the independent curriculum assessment review published its report, along with the Government’s response. As part of the review, we are taking forward recommendations that will help to deliver a high-quality curriculum for every young person. One key recommendation is to embed applied knowledge throughout the curriculum, including financial literacy. We have given a clear commitment in our response to the review to strengthen financial education through both the maths and the citizenship curriculum so that all young people and children have the skills they will need in adulthood. These commitments will benefit those children in care and preparing leave care.
Amendment 35, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, seeks to ensure that Staying Close support includes support to access services relating to financial support and literacy. Having said what I did about the review in general, I acknowledge that care leavers have particular and additional needs in this area. I fully endorse the noble Baroness’s intent with this amendment, recognising the importance of care leavers being properly informed of the financial support available to them as they transition to independence.
We have listened to concerns from both Houses about ensuring that care leavers receive the support they need from local authorities, particularly with financial management, and helping care leavers to develop the skills and knowledge that they require in this area. That is why we have tabled two government amendments to Clause 8. Amendment 39, in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith, adds services relating to financial literacy to the list of services in Section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017, meaning that local authorities will have to publish information about those services as part of their local offer for care leavers. Amendment 40, also in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith, amends Clause 8 to require each local authority to include information about the arrangements that it has in place for providing financial support to care leavers in its local offer. In bringing forward these amendments, I acknowledge the continued advocacy for care leavers to receive assistance with financial literacy and financial support that the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, has provided in this area, and I thank her for that.
Most care leavers already receive a pathway plan before leaving care that should cover their financial capability, money management skills and strategies to develop these abilities. Adding these government amendments will ensure that care leavers are better aware of the services available to them, and it will increase local authorities’ accountability in supporting care leavers to receive the support they need. That further underscores how the Government have listened to the voices of children and young people because, as we have heard and as everyone engaged in this area acknowledges, when we listen to care leavers’ requests for support, the message that comes across loud and clear is that they want more support in understanding their finances. For that reason, we consider Clause 8 the most effective place for the amendment, ensuring a robust and consistent level of support for every care leaver, not only those accessing Staying Close.
Importantly, including the amendments in Clause 8 does not remove or dilute the support for care leavers receiving Staying Close. Financial literacy remains a key factor in helping young people to find and, importantly, keep accommodation and will continue to be considered as part of the overall assessment of their ability to maintain a tenancy. This will be reflected in the initial programme guidance we will be sharing with local authorities before April this year as the national rollout of the programme begins. This has been developed in collaboration with local authorities, stakeholders and people with care experience and will be updated after evaluation of local authority practice and ahead of the publication of final statutory guidance. I hope that this answers the questions that the noble Baroness asked in moving her amendment, that noble Lords are reassured, and that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful and comprehensive response. The fact that the government amendments will go into Clause 8 and my amendment was to Clause 7 does not matter to me. What matters is that those government amendments will be there and that the care-experienced young people will now have access to the financial support and financial literacy that they need. I thank the Government again for their extremely constructive and helpful response. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Review of staying put funding(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a review of the level of funding provided for staying put arrangements (within the meaning of section 23CZA of the Children Act 1989) to local authorities and independent fostering agencies to determine its adequacy to meet its aims.(2) The review must produce recommendations regarding any steps necessary to increase the funds available per young person.(3) The review must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure the Secretary of State undertakes a review into the level of funding allocated to local authorities for “staying put” arrangements to determine if it is sufficient to allow all eligible young people to benefit and meets its aims as set out in Staying Put Guidance.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I am introducing this group as Amendments 37 and 38 are in my name and I have added my name to Amendment 59 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. I will not steal the thunder of the noble Baroness on Amendment 59 so will merely say that the arguments I advanced when a very similar amendment was discussed in Committee seven months ago still apply. I stressed then that, in the long term, there will be a significant cost benefit to the Treasury of young people being allowed to extend Staying Put from 21 to 25.
Four years ago, the MacAlister report quoted figures from 2020 which showed that the average cost of supporting a child in foster care was just 35% of that of a residential care placement. Mr MacAlister is, of course, now the Children’s Minister so he will know that it really is not in the Government’s financial interest to deny support to those between 21 and 25 who want to remain with their foster families. I acknowledge the point made by my noble friend when she replied to my amendment in June that the Government wanted to prioritise filling the gaps in current support, in particular for young people transitioning to independent living. That is admirable but it is exactly what the support of a foster family provides.
Amendment 37 seeks a review of Staying Put funding. That would involve the Government conducting a full and comprehensive review into the level of funding allocated to local authorities for Staying Put arrangements to determine whether it is sufficient to allow all eligible young people to benefit and whether it meets the aims as set out in the Staying Put guidance. A review of funding for Staying Put is certainly overdue, given that the arrangement was introduced as long ago as 2014. The case for such a review is bound up with the arguments in support of Amendment 38, which aims to introduce a national minimum allowance for foster carers offering Staying Put arrangements, which does not currently exist, and to ensure that it matches the amount currently paid for 16 and 17 year-olds.
Recent surveys have highlighted the need for the extension of Staying Put support beyond the age of 17. In fact, a Department for Education report published two months ago—after Committee had concluded—found that in 2024-25, 62% of 18 year-old care leavers continued living with their former foster carers, but that figure halved for those aged 19 and 20. This illustrates that Staying Put is not being provided for as many young people as it could really help as they transition to adulthood and independent living.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, this is an important group of amendments and I am extremely sympathetic to the case that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, has just put forward for his amendments.
Amendment 59, in my name, seeks to enable care-experienced young people to remain living with their former foster carers under what are called the Staying Put arrangements to the age of 25. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Farmer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for adding their names. Staying Put arrangements currently provide an important opportunity for young people to remain with their former foster carers until the age of 21, if they wish to and their foster carer agrees. Evaluation of the programme demonstrates that continuing to live with foster carers beyond the age of 18 can benefit care-experienced young people in a range of ways, including providing a more positive and planned transition from care to independence, a stronger support network and relationships, increased stability, stronger health and well-being, and a reduced risk of homelessness, as well as greater likelihood of remaining in full-time education.
While it is welcome that the introduction of the Staying Close support, through Clause 7, will apply to young people whose final placement was in foster care, this does not enable them to continue living with their former foster families. Many young people and foster carers across the country would like the children they are fostering to stay with them past the age of 21, but cannot at the moment because there is currently no provision in law for this or funding to support it.
Extending Staying Put arrangements to the age of 25, which is what my amendment is about, would provide more continuity for young people leaving foster care in their transition to independent living at a time that is right for them. We all know that strict age points do not work for everyone—everyone is different. It would provide a more stable home, family environment and support network for them as they start adulthood after what has been a difficult start in life. It would align Staying Put with other care leaver entitlements, such as Staying Close, which runs to age 25. I urge the Government to support this amendment.
I have also added my name to Amendment 95, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. This proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a document called the national care offer, which would set out minimum standards of information that local authorities must publish in relation to Section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017. I am going to leave the right reverend Prelate to set out the case—I do not want to steal his thunder. I simply want to say that this is a great opportunity, in my view, for the national and the local care offers to be strengthened. I very much hope that that opportunity will be taken.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I am grateful for the amendments in this group. We are continuing, as the Bill makes progress, to strengthen the offer that is made to care leavers. In the previous group, we discussed matters that, assuming they are voted on in a little while, will improve conditions and improve what local authorities have to publish.
My Amendment 95, which I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, for signing, would simply extend that to make sure that care leavers have a clear understanding of what their local authority is willing to offer and what it is not, particularly given that so many care leavers at age 18 or 19 end up leaving. Some, I am delighted to say, go to university and end up in a different town in perhaps a different part of the country entirely; others, for whatever reason, may decide it is appropriate to move and perhaps go back to be closer to friends from former times.
It is therefore not just the people who are already in a particular local authority who need to really know what the care leaver offer is; it is young people who might be considering moving to that area. As became clear in discussion of my own Bill a few months ago, that is often where people fall through the gap: they move for good and solid reason from one part of the country to another, and in that new part of the country they find that the services they expected are not there because that local authority either chooses not to provide them to anybody or, as is sometimes the case, chooses to provide them only to young people who have been in its care through the previous years.
I hope that we can get some support for Amendment 95. Understanding procedure—I am slowly learning this place, after about six years in—I know we probably will not get to a vote on this tonight, so maybe the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and I can agree between now and Wednesday whether this matter should be put to a Division or not.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate. Having signed his amendment in Committee, I did not manage to catch up on Report, and I encourage him to think about putting it to a vote if necessary when it gets to that stage.
I support all the amendments in this group, but will speak to Amendment 59, which is about continuing the Staying Put arrangements to the age of 25. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said, I have signed this amendment, along with the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, who is not currently in his place, and the noble Lord, Lord Watson. You could say that that is the broadest possible range of political support imaginable for this amendment.
I spoke extensively on a similar amendment in Committee, so I will not go into it at great length here. I cross-reference the horrific tale I told in Committee about Duncan, who was dragged with no notice at all out of his fostering arrangements and dumped into wildly unsuitable accommodation. That is the kind of thing that is happening to young people now. If we are to think of the state as a statutory parent, as it is to children in care, surely we should expect the same kinds of things from it that we expect from other parents, such as the societal expectation that parents will often have their children at home until age 25 or later. That is a reality that the state should be making provision for.
To pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, even this amendment would not finally cover the financial issues here. The Fostering Network notes that three-quarters of foster carers who continue caring after 18 end up financially worse off. The idea that housing benefit or wages—we know how low wages are for young people—might be able to top that up does not reflect the reality of our society.
I was discussing this morning the intrusion of private equity into the fostering system. A quarter of all places in fostering are now provided by private equity-based companies, which are making massive profits. There is a commodification of fostering. We would really like to think about how we can address that issue more broadly and whether there are ways to ensure that massive profits are not being made from this important additional provision that the state should be providing.
Lord Storey (LD)
I very much look forward to the Minister’s reply on this group of amendments. There are 80,000 children in care—12,000 more than a decade ago—all of whom have different needs and requirements, mature at different ages and experience different feelings. I do not think you can put an arbitrary date on when somebody has to leave. Nationally, young people increasingly stay with their family into their 30s and get all the support that a family gives them. A friend of mine and his wife, the Kellys, foster regularly. They had two foster boys; one came to the age to move on and just said, “I am not going—I am staying”. Malcolm, being the sort of person he is, said “Okay”. That child needed that. He needed that support from the family. I hope the Government will consider this carefully.
On the amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, I do not understand what the problem is. Why can this information not be available? It seems to me good, solid practice for society generally and for people in care and care leavers. I do not understand why we cannot say yes. Will it cost more money? Do we think local authorities do not have the expertise to do this? I would be interested to know why the Minister thinks it cannot be agreed.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, we have had a good debate on this group. I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and would be interested to know whether the Minister knows what the cost of this funding would be if it were extended in the way that the noble Lord’s review suggests. One could absolutely imagine a situation where proper funding for foster carers of young people in receipt of Staying Put support might relieve pressures elsewhere in the system.
I also look forward to the Minister’s response on Amendment 59, which, as we heard, would extend Staying Put support up to the age of 25. We agree with the principle underlying Amendment 95 that local areas should constantly be learning from one another about the best support for care leavers, but we are not convinced that it would be achieved by this approach.
I turn briefly to my modest Amendments 41 and 42. I reread the Minister’s argument in Committee that these amendments were not really necessary—a familiar term—as every care leaver should have a pathway plan that would cover accommodation, health and several other important aspects of their life. As she said, the pathway plan covers accommodation, yet the Government have chosen to put the publication of the local offer in relation to accommodation in the Bill, if I have understood correctly, so I am not quite clear about the resistance to minimum commitments in relation to healthcare. To be absolutely clear, my Amendment 41 would create a statutory duty for the health service to set out arrangements for those leaving care so they can be given additional considerations that they deserve as they enter adulthood. The Minister knows very well that children in care tend, through no fault of their own, to have much more complex health needs than those not in care. A lot of the specialist care available to children stops at 18. Taking the time to make sure they understand what support is available to them as adults is surely the minimum we might ask for.
That links to Amendment 42, which would make it explicit that care leavers under 25 need additional support from their GP. The noble Baroness will remember from Committee that the suggestion is that there should be an extended initial appointment offered to those young people as they transition from specialist support to universal systems. They do not have parents to support them through that and, as we all know, their needs are extended. It seems a tiny request that might make a great difference.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their interest in this area. As he opened the group, I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Watson for his sincere interest, as we heard in Committee, when we had a good exploration of the issues.
I will first discuss three amendments together: Amendments 37, 38 and 59. Amendments 37 and 38, tabled by my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie, seek a review of current Staying Put funding and the introduction of a national minimal allowance for Staying Put arrangements. Amendment 59 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, proposes extending current Staying Put duties to the age of 25. We know that the existing Staying Put duties, which continue until a young person reaches 21, enable local authorities to support young people to remain longer in the stable and secure foster homes they know. This continuity helps them to step into adulthood with the same opportunities and life chances as their peers. We recognise that additional stability at a crucial age.
We remain firmly committed to supporting young people in Staying Put arrangements. The provisional local government finance settlement includes continued funding of £100 million through the first multiyear settlement in a decade for local authorities supporting these arrangements. I am sure that all Members who have had local authority experience will recognise that multiyear settlement as crucial in bringing stability back into local government finance. As I said, this will provide greater certainty and enable effective sufficiency planning for Staying Put arrangements.
However—and I emphasise this again—we must also ensure that we prioritise addressing the gaps in current provision with the available resources that we have. That is particularly the case for those moving into independent living at 18 who have not been able to remain with their former foster carers and for those with the most complex needs. This is precisely why we are introducing statutory Staying Close duties. Under these duties, all former relevant children under the age of 25, including those who have a Staying Put arrangement, will receive Staying Close support where their welfare requires it. This will help them find and keep suitable accommodation, and access the wraparound services they need to thrive.
As we introduce a number of new duties for care leavers through the Bill, it is essential that we allow these changes to embed and begin to deliver the outcomes we expect before we review Staying Put and look to amend or include further requirements within the duty. I hope that this gives some comfort to my noble friend Lord Watson. We are not seeking to ignore his comments; we are looking at this in a pragmatic way that will bring things forward.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, asked about the initial cost estimates, which amount to several hundred million pounds. Further proper assessment is therefore needed, and we will not shy away from that. Further assessment of the impact of local authority funding will be needed, in this changing picture, for both residential and foster care. As has been set out, we must prioritise those gaps. I know that this is a difficult message to get across, but we need to make sure that, through Staying Close, we reach as many young people as possible.
Amendments 41 and 42 were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Amendment 41 seeks to require local authorities to publish information in their local offer about transition arrangements for care leavers in relation to health and primary care. While fully supporting the aim of the amendment, we believe that it is not required, as there is already an expectation that local authorities will include details of services that may assist care leavers in relation to health and well-being in their local offer.
Similarly, the Government support the intention behind Amendment 42, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which would require that general practice contracts have due regard to the additional health needs of care leavers under the age of 25 when negotiating general practice contracts in the future. However, again, it is not required, as there are already clear expectations in statutory guidance for local authorities, integrated care boards and NHS England to have effective plans in place for looked-after children to make a smooth transition to adulthood, including continuation of access to the health advice and services they need. Additionally, the corporate parenting responsibilities that will be introduced through the Bill, which we will go on to discuss, will require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and NHS England, as relevant authorities, to be alert to matters that might adversely affect the well-being of looked-after children and care leavers in the exercise of their functions, including negotiating GP services.
Amendment 95, tabled by right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, seeks to introduce a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to consult on and publish a national offer for care leavers. Throughout the Bill, the Government are taking significant steps to ensure that young people leaving care are not left to navigate adulthood alone. Our aim is clear: to ensure that every care leaver has a stable home, access to necessary health services, support to build lasting relationships, and the opportunity to thrive in education, employment and training. These are the foundations that every young person deserves, and care leavers should be no exception.
Care leavers’ legal entitlements are already set out in the Children Act 1989, supported by regulations and statutory guidance. The Children and Social Work Act 2017 strengthened this by requiring local authorities to consult on and publish a local offer for care leavers. Statutory guidance makes it clear that this local offer must include information on both the support that care leavers are legally entitled to and any additional help a local authority chooses to provide. Clause 8 of the Bill further strengthens those expectations. Here I am addressing in particular the argument on local as against national that the right reverend Prelate made.
Most importantly, it is local authorities that are best placed to understand the needs of their young people. Crucially, this support should be shaped in consultation and by understanding the needs of care leavers themselves. Therefore, the amendment risks unintentionally creating a one-size-fits-all approach that leaves care leavers in different areas and with different requirements not getting the support that best meets their needs.
With regard to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I suggest that her comments about the cost of foster caring are possibly more relevant to the next group, under Amendment 110C.
I recognise that we are putting in place measures that will take some time to embed and move forward, but I hope that noble Lords will understand that we are absolutely committed to improving the life chances of all young people and, in this case, particularly of young people in care. With those comments, I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for those remarks. I will just start on the point that she finished on: that the Government are totally committed to ensuring that all young people have the support that they need. I do not question that. It is unfortunate that there seems to be a cohort of young people who are in foster care, and when they reach the age of 17, they may be able to continue with their foster parents, if they want to and the foster parents are happy to keep them, but there will not be the national minimum allowance, which applies to 16 and 17 year-olds. So, it is incumbent on the foster carers themselves to make up that shortfall. In many cases, with the best will in the world, that simply is not financially possible.
It then opens up the situation where some young people, having just turned 18, have to find alternative arrangements. I take the point that my noble friend the Minister made about wraparound care, the local authority’s offer and the Staying Close arrangements. All those are valuable, and most young people in that situation will make use of them and take advantage of them. But there are some who will not be able to do so. I stress the fact that, in seeking for the national minimum allowance to be extended beyond 17, it would apply only to those situations where the foster family felt able to keep the child and the child wanted to keep the family, as it were. It would not apply to every child of that age.
I am not quite sure about the answer my noble friend gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on her question about cost. In my Amendment 37 on a review, there is no cost implicit. My noble friend the Minister gave a ballpark figure of several hundred million. I do not know whether that would be the case or not: it would depend on the outcome of the review. I had hoped that she might say—although obviously it was never my intention that this should go in the Bill—that the Government would undertake that review. I cannot see any harm in undertaking a review of the Staying Put arrangements that have been in place now for 12 years, since 2014.
I cannot avoid saying that I am disappointed in the response. There are many options for young people. The place I am coming from is: how would any noble Lord who had a child who turned 18 feel if they were obliged to leave home—I am not talking about going to university or college—and find other arrangements at that important and psychologically difficult time in their life? It is no accident that children in care are far less likely to go to university than their peers who live with their birth parents and are far less likely to take up training and apprenticeships. I just make that point to my noble friend. I am not saying that she is being unsympathetic, but I hoped we could at least have a review, which might have pointed the way forward to advancing the number of young people who turn 18 and are able to stay with their foster parents. Foster parents do such a fantastic job. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
“(2A) In subsection (2), after paragraph (f) insert—“(g) financial literacy.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add services relating to financial literacy to the list of services in section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017 which may assist care leavers in, or in preparing for, adulthood and independent living, and about which a local authority in England must publish information.
“(ca) providing financial support for care leavers;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add arrangements made by local authorities for providing financial support to care leavers to the information that the authority must publish as part of its local offer to care leavers under section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017 as amended by clause 8.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
“Promoting relationships for looked after childrenIn section 22(3A) of the Children Act 1989 (duty of local authority in relation to looked-after children), at end insert “and a duty to promote the child’s family and social relationships in ways which are consistent with the child’s welfare.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds promotion of a child’s family and social relationships to the safeguarding duties of a local authority.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, this is an important group of amendments regarding family relationships and the appropriate placement of children in care. I have four amendments in my name in this group and will move through them as quickly as I can.
Amendments 43 and 49 are linked. They are about promoting children in care’s family relationships and particularly improving sibling contact, an issue that we discussed at some length in Committee. We know and previously debated that children in care are too often separated from siblings when in the care system. Unfortunately, we have also heard that, for too many children in care, they are not supported to have either consistent, appropriate or high-quality contact with their siblings when they are separated so that they can maintain these most vital relationships and stay connected.
The evidence shows that there is real variability in the type and frequency of contact between siblings. It can be affected by things such as workforce issues, instability and geographical factors—including where children are moved to. As we discussed in Committee, there is a real disconnect between policy and practice here. Amendment 43 seeks, in general terms, to strengthen the duties on local authorities to promote children’s family and social relationships, including with siblings. This would make a real difference to overall family relationships and to a sense of identity for these children.
Amendment 49 seeks to close a specific loophole in the current regulations. Paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 1 of the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010 includes provision for arrangements to promote contact between siblings who are in care but who are not placed together to be set out in children’s care plans. The key point and the purpose of this amendment, however, is that this does not cover the promotion of contact between a child who is in care and a sibling who is not in care. While there is currently limited data about how many children in care have siblings outside of the care system, the charity Become has reported examples from children and young people who have felt unsupported to adequately maintain relationships with siblings who are not in care, particularly when they are living miles away.
This amendment seeks to close this loophole by requiring a child’s care plan to include arrangements for promoting contact with all their siblings, whether they are in care or not, as far as that is consistent with the child’s welfare. For children in care, their relationship with siblings can be the most important relationships that they have, with lifelong consequences. Too often, these relationships are being strained or damaged by a system that just does not support these relationships effectively. This needs to change. These amendments seek to strengthen the policy framework, close a loophole and influence practice to better protect these fundamental relationships.
Amendment 61 seeks to amend the sufficiency duty to prevent children in care being moved far from home when that is not in their best interest. This amendment seeks to amend the sufficiency duty in a number of ways. First, it would place a stronger requirement on local authorities to take “all reasonable steps” to provide children with appropriate local accommodation. It would place a more explicit requirement on local authorities to plan, deliver or commission on a range of accommodation to meet children’s needs locally. It would also require local authorities to plan to keep children near to the local authority if they are unable to be kept within their own local area.
In recent years, local authorities have faced real challenges in delivering sufficient places close to home and in ensuring that they have enough of the right type of homes and carers in the right places at the right time to meet children’s needs and keep them close to the relationships, places and support networks that matter so much to them. Increasingly, for too many children this has meant being moved far away from the people and the places that they love. Last year, 22% of all children in care in England were living more than 20 miles away from their home communities and support networks. This number has increased by over 40% over the last decade. There are also too many children living hundreds of miles away from home. Become’s “Gone Too Far” campaign has highlighted the devastating long-term impact that living far from home can have on children’s relationships and well-being.
Relationships, which is what these two amendments are all about—where children in care live and who with—are pivotal to children’s outcomes and experiences. There needs to be greater accountability and oversight about the extent to which this sufficiency is being delivered to drive real system change, starting with a stronger sufficiency duty, and to keep more children living close to home. I very much hope that the Government will look sympathetically on this amendment.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Hampton, for adding their names to my Amendment 62, which is essentially about the mental health needs of children in care. They often experience dramatically higher levels of mental ill-health than their peers, yet their mental health needs are often underidentified and poorly supported. While current regulations require health assessments to include mental health, they do not require the involvement of health practitioners with mental health expertise. As a result, assessments are often inconsistent and frequently fail to identify need early enough to offer the sort of evidence-based professional responses to address mental health needs and prevent deterioration of a child’s mental health.
My amendment addresses this gap by seeking to ensure that mental health is assessed by a qualified mental health practitioner as a core part of the initial and ongoing health assessment for children in care. This builds on the work of the Education Committee, which has done very important work in this area in its inquiry. It reported that specific considerations around mental health were frequently absent or treated very superficially in health assessments. It is a limited change but an important change. It is asking that mental health is not simply included in the initial health assessment, but that mental health expertise is involved in carrying it out. Because of the importance of mental health to children in care, because of the high prevalence that they have and because of the difficulties that they have in accessing the right sort of mental health support and treatment, I very much hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at this amendment.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 51 seeks to highlight the need to include health agencies in the RCC arrangement.
As I mentioned in my speech in Committee back in June, integrated care boards now have a pivotal role to play in the NHS. The main argument advanced when they were proposed that they should replace the clinical care commissioning groups was that they could unite health, social care and all the voluntary partners that are involved. A lot of discussion took place about health inequalities, delivering holistic care and co-ordinating GP services. The regional care co-operatives are at the heart of the MacAlister proposals and have received widespread welcome and endorsement. Indeed, across parties, the view is that they are a pragmatic initiative and absolutely deserve all-party support.
I will not repeat the arguments that I made in Committee—we have been urged not to go over ground that has been trodden on already—and I certainly will not talk for very long, but I feel that it would be unusual and, indeed, illogical for the new RCCs not to be built on a strong and proactive relationship with the existing integrated care boards. This would indeed be the professional outcome that most people would desire. I say to the Minister: why rely on good will when what I am suggesting could be put in the Bill?
In her response to my amendment in Committee, the Minister fully agreed that it was vital that the sort of co-operation and collaboration I am talking about, between the two bodies, does indeed take place. However, she said that
“Section 10 of the Children Act 2004 specifies that local authorities must make arrangements to promote co-operation with relevant partners, including local integrated care boards, to improve the well-being of children”.—[Official Report, 17/6/25; col. 1925.]
in care. She went on to say that the statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, provides the necessary clarity. In other words, the Minister said that my amendment was not necessary and was surplus to requirements.
However, I would argue that this is a flagship Bill. Indeed, throughout the entire Bill, there is a lot of talk about consolidation, clarification and updating existing legislation, so why not accept that rationale here? I obviously accept that my amendment has an element of “safety first” to it. But surely, we should not be relying on good will among professionals both in local authorities and in the local NHS.
I want to make one final point on the feedback that has come through from the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals, which has commented on this particular clause. I will quote very briefly:
“Children in care are our collective responsibility. As a society, we cannot continue to fail those most in need of our support and protection. … Those who are not able to be cared for by their birth family and do not settle into fostering families or children’s homes often have multiple placements and experience nowhere that they feel accepted and cherished. Many end up in crisis in our acute hospitals, not meeting the criteria for child and adolescent mental health services and not having a home to be discharged back to”.
It goes on to say that the RCCs will now be
“a cornerstone of the governments children’s social care reforms, and a golden opportunity to address the failures of our care system”.
It also points out that
“Two pathfinders are currently testing the models to address the significant difficulties with finding the right homes, with the right care for our most vulnerable children with complex lives”.
It goes on to say that not having, on the face of the Bill, the need for co-operation and integration between these two bodies
“is a strategic omission of significant importance, and runs counter to the inclusion of health as a statutory, and strategic, issue in safeguarding partnerships”.
Finally, it says that the Bill therefore needs to name integrated care boards as partners in the RCCs to
“enable health to take greater direct responsibility for the health outcomes and the life chances of this most vulnerable group of children and young people.”
That is not me; that is the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals.
I just say to the Minister that this is quite a simple amendment, but it is an important one. If the Government do not accept it, I suggest to the Minister that we are missing a very important opportunity, because if we do not put it in the Bill, we will be relying on the good will of hard-pressed professionals up and down the country.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I rise in support of Amendments 43 and 49 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, to which I have added my name.
In Committee, the Minister clearly understood the basic principle of this group was to ensure that young people leave care with supportive and, hopefully, lifelong loving relationships. She assured the Committee that the Government
“are funding a number of family-finding, befriending and mentoring programmes. These help looked-after children and care leavers to identify and connect with important people in their lives and create safe, stable, loving relationships”,
which last. She said:
“The family-finding, befriending and mentoring programme is being evaluated, and this will help to inform decisions about the future of the programme”.—[Official Report, 12/6/25; col. 1607.]
However, I understand funding runs out in March this year for these family-finding, befriending and mentoring programmes, and there is no decision yet on continuation. I am concerned that the good work to date will be wasted, but perhaps she has encouraging news on funding and the results of the evaluation. I particularly want to flag again lifelong links and how this picks up the vital relationships identified by family group conferencing, which is in the Bill.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I wish to speak in support of Amendment 49, specifically relating to sibling contact, to which I have added my name. In doing so, I do not want to repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said, other than to stress, as she did, the importance of maintaining and developing sibling contact.
Where a child has to be separated from his or her parents, temporarily or permanently, the most important viable relationship remaining is often with that child’s siblings or half-siblings. Typically, siblings have shared experience of the parenting they have received, and they have, of course, a relationship which can long outlive the relationship that they have or have had with their parents.
The Children Act created a presumption that children should be placed together, but that is not always possible to arrange or to achieve. Contact between separated siblings, particularly if no longer in the same school or placed at some distance apart, can require commitment not only by their respective carers but by the responsible local authorities. Properly arranged sibling contact typically requires a concrete plan by the local authority and an underlying framework of support. It may, it has to be said, sometimes influence what happens at the next stage after the care proceedings and determine what happens if the children are to be placed for adoption.
Amendment 49 would help, because it would not require or assume that both or all of the children will be in the care of the local authority, and it would thereby sensibly extend the scope of local authority duties towards siblings.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to speak in support of Amendment 62 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler.
The case for this is, really, fairly straightforward. Children in care often have quite strong mental health needs and are not in the best of mental health. Care leavers comprise about 1% to 3% of the general youth population, but that translates into them being responsible for one quarter of the homeless population. That group are twice as likely to die prematurely than the general population, and in many cases suicide is the largest reason for that high death rate. That is a fairly strong causal link between children in the care system, or those going into the care system, having fragile mental health, and that not being picked up as early as it should be. This amendment simply asks that we please ensure that, when children have an assessment of the quality of their mental health, the practitioners who are doing that are qualified in mental health. Only in that way can we be sure that we catch those vulnerable young people at that early stage and that they do not become one of the depressing statistics that I have just mentioned.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 62, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and to which I have added my name. I declare, as ever, that I am a teacher and I thank the National Children’s Bureau for its help on this.
Children do not come into care because they have won the lottery of life; trauma is unlikely to be far from their lives. Yet our assessment processes still rely on professionals who may have little or no training in mental health or trauma-informed practice. Care-experienced young people told the Education Select Committee, as part of its inquiry into children’s social care, that local authorities are not always fulfilling their obligations to include emotional and mental health in their health assessments of children in care. One young person told the committee:
“I feel a lot could be explained if they understood the experience of trauma. It will take time. It will not go away at night, and sometimes before it gets better it could get worse. No one talks about that. You will not be okay if you are going into care; there is a reason why you are there, and so it is important that the minute you go into care every child should have a mandatory assessment, physical and mental, and there should be that on-call support for them”.
Bringing qualified mental health practitioners into the mandatory health assessment of children in care is simple, practical and overdue. I hope that the Government will use this amendment as an opportunity to do more for children in care and to make their lives and, as importantly, their futures better.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I feel a strong need to speak on Amendment 61, this wonderful amendment, on
“Amending the sufficiency duty to prevent children being moved far away from home”.
Especially where a child has been put under a deprivation of liberty order, if you then move them a long way away, it means that parents or even foster carers have quite a difficulty in keeping in touch with the child. So the sufficiency duty on local authorities should be amended from requiring them to take
“steps that secure, so far as reasonably practicable”
to requiring them to take
“all reasonable steps to secure”,
which is a far better phrase that gives some assurance.
As somebody who fostered children and was in touch with other foster carers, I know that children were put a long way away when, under the expression of the Children Act 1989, steps had been taken that were “reasonably practicable”. But, actually, you could scratch under the surface and see the pressure in an area such as Tulse Hill near Brixton, where I was a vicar and where a lot of children were placed in care. The council had a big job to do, and your Lordships and I know that it was extremely busy. It is easy to say, “Yes, I’ve taken reasonable steps and done what is practicable”, whereas “all reasonable steps” should be taken, and you need to catalogue them in case somebody asks questions.
I suggest to the Committee that Amendment 61 would remove a lot of anxiety from parents whose children find themselves deprived of their liberty. Moving them a long way away is almost suggesting that parents will, or maybe will not, find a way of going to where these children have been placed. In the place where I ministered for 13 years, they were always living in a time of financial crisis. Buses were needed, taking a long time, to get to where these children had been put, which was such a huge burden.
I hope the Minister will see that this amendment would actually help our children. They are not someone else’s children; they are our children. As that wonderful African proverb says, it takes a whole village to raise and educate a child. They are ours; would we be happy if they were placed such a long way from home? That would be quite a burden, and I congratulate the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment.
Lord Storey (LD)
I will speak on Amendment 71 in my name. I am grateful to the Minister for her movement on this issue. In her letter to me of 7 October 2025, which was some time ago, she said:
“When used effectively, non-school alternative provision offers tailored support that meets individual needs and helps re-engage children in education, supporting future regular attendance in school. However, in some areas, inadequate oversight is putting already vulnerable children’s safety and the quality of their education at risk. Too often, children whose needs could be met in school are instead placed in unsafe, low-quality settings with no clear plan for returning to mainstream education”.
I do not understand why anything in our society is unregistered—whether a school, a care home or alternative provision. We should not allow that to happen, because we put the lives of people at risk.
Let us understand what alternative provision means. It means that a child or young person who has been permanently expelled or removed from school becomes the responsibility of the local authority. The local authority has to make provision for them. However, in many cases, schools have their own units on site, which is the best model by far. Where that provision is not available, local authorities have to find providers.
Remember that these children and young people are the most vulnerable. They often have special educational needs, are from difficult circumstances or suffer trauma or mental health problems. The Minister realises the issue and has come forward with some suggestions of how we might develop this. I am genuinely grateful for that. I hope that this will be another way that we can deal with this issue.
I will raise a number of issues with the Minister on which I hope she might be prepared either to write to me or to respond in her reply. Unregistered provision cannot be inspected by Ofsted, but we use the same criteria for registered provision that we use with maintained schools, academies and independent schools. This is a very different situation. These pupils require flexible timetables, smaller groups, therapeutic approaches, outreach work, incremental attendance and a curriculum that prioritises core skills, well-being and preparation. Often, inspections of alternative provision already highlight that applying mainstream criteria to alternative providers creates inconsistent judgments, perverse incentives and misunderstandings about what meaningful progress looks like for these pupils. Without adaptation, the strengthened regulatory framework in the Bill may unintentionally constrain innovation, reduce placement availability, push provision back into semi-regulated spaces or penalise alternative providers for not behaving like mainstream schools.
I am sure that the Government and the Minister want to get to grips with this issue, and I hope that their proposals actually deliver what we all want.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments focuses again on children in the care system. As we have heard expertly and eloquently expressed across the House, the focus on relationships is so important for those children, as is allowing them to sustain relationships with siblings and families where it is safe to do so, and not being moved too far from their home and network wherever possible. Obviously, this is most sensitive where siblings do not live together, either because they are not all in care or because they are in different care placements.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, on Amendments 43 and 49, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, everybody who has contributed to the debate today, and certainly the Government, are fully committed to every care-experienced child having loving, life-long relationships with those they care about—particularly with siblings, as several noble Lords have focused on. We recognise that relationships are fundamental to identity, well-being and long-term outcomes.
Although I absolutely support their intent, neither of these amendments is necessary and would duplicate existing legislation. As stated in Committee and referenced today, there is already a legal duty on local authorities, in paragraph 15 of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989, to “endeavour to promote contact” between looked-after children and their relatives, friends and other connected people,
“unless it is not reasonably practicable or consistent with”
the child’s welfare.
Additionally, Amendment 49 would not serve to strengthen the duty placed on local authorities to make contact arrangements between siblings; it requires only that where contact arrangements are made, they are recorded in the care plan—a duty that already exists in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the regulations. Existing statutory guidance, such as the Children’s Social Care National Framework, which sets the outcomes that local authorities should achieve for children, young people and families, already emphasises the importance of family networks. This, alongside other guidance, builds on the legislative duty to emphasise the importance of family networks and listening to children’s voices about who and what is important to them.
It is absolutely right that the care system and professionals involved in the care of looked-after children should help them to maintain relationships, including staying connected to siblings, family, carers and wider community networks. That is why the Government have been taking practical action to unlock any barriers to this and have already made clear commitments in this area. For example, as discussed last week, we are mandating the offer of family group decision-making at pre-proceedings where that is in the child’s best interests, which could of course include considerations about contact arrangements with family members.
The family-finding, befriending and mentoring programme mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, helps children in care and care leavers to identify and connect with the important people in their lives. We are currently funding 46 programmes across 43 local authorities, with 21 local authorities delivering lifelong links. The evaluation mentioned by the noble Lord is ongoing, but the interim evaluation report, published in September 2025, shows a statistically significant increase in reported relationships after children and young people have participated in the programme.
The noble Lord asked about the funding of the programme. We are determined to continue learning from the effectiveness of programmes such as this that support children and young people in care to build and strengthen relationships. Plans for the continuation of this programme beyond this financial year are currently subject to business planning and will of course also be subject to the continued evaluation that we are committed to.
Having said that, our view, and the view of stakeholders with whom we have consulted, is that issues in promoting contact, particularly between siblings, tend to be more practical and logistical than legislative or caused by a lack in legislation. My officials have met the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, who I know takes a very close interest in this, to discuss this important topic and have taken her very useful insights on board, which is why we will commit to identifying and sharing best practice on facilitating sibling relationships to ensure that local authorities support all children in care to have loving relationships with family members. We think that that is the right way to focus on ensuring that this is achieved in practice.
Amendment 61, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, aims to prevent looked-after children being placed far from home through amending the sufficiency duty on local authorities. The Government are clear that ensuring children can remain close to their home, community and connections with loved ones is crucial to improving the outcomes of care-experienced children, as several noble Lords have emphasised. That is why, to support local authorities in meeting their sufficiency duty, over £130 million is being invested in fostering hubs, kinship care and children’s homes.
Additionally, the Bill introduces legislation that will enable the Secretary of State to direct local authorities to establish regional co-operation arrangements to improve the commissioning of children’s social care placements and meet their sufficiency duty. However, the proposed amendment would not strengthen the existing sufficiency duty; in fact, we believe that it would weaken it. It would allow local authorities to provide and rely on more accommodation “near to” their area rather than “within” it, risking increased out-of-area placements and more children being placed far from home, not fewer. We also do not consider that changing the wording in the way proposed would have the effect on the effort required by local authorities that the noble Baroness wants it to have. It would not, in effect, have any meaningful impact on local authorities’ decision-making.
Amendment 62, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, seeks to add a requirement for a registered mental health practitioner to undertake an assessment of every child’s state of health when they become looked after, and for a registered mental health practitioner to be added as a professional who may undertake health reviews of looked-after children. As many noble Lords have identified during this debate, the significant trauma that many children who become looked after have experienced, and the lasting impact this trauma can have, means that providing effective mental health support is absolutely crucial.
Unless a child who is of sufficient age and understanding to consent, refuses to do so, all children must have an assessment of their health when they become looked after. Existing regulations require that this must be completed by a registered medical practitioner. It must include an assessment of emotional and mental health and it must be kept under review. The statutory guidance states that the health practitioner carrying out the assessment has a duty of clinical care to the child. This includes making the necessary referrals for investigation and treatment of conditions identified. So there is already a clear expectation for the necessary referral to be made where a child is assessed as needing investigation or treatment from a mental health practitioner. This means that it is not necessary to add the specific requirement for a registered mental health practitioner to the legislation. However, I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns. This will inform changes to statutory guidance to further strengthen implementation and ensure that children in care receive the services and support they need for their mental health and well-being. It is a strengthening of the position that we took in Committee.
Alongside that, we have also made progress since then. In December, the Health Secretary and the Minister for Children and Families announced that, in a boost for mental health support, the Government will trial a three-year pilot to make sure that children in care have access sooner to the support they need. This will build on existing work across the country, bringing together social workers and NHS health professionals to work together to provide direct mental health support to children and families when they need it most.
In relation to points made by the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Russell, the DfE is committed to understanding and addressing the shockingly high number of early deaths among care-experienced young people. As the department progresses this work, we will carefully consider how to improve the support that care leavers receive across a range of aspects of their lives, including their mental and physical health. We know, however, that there will be more to do to ensure that this focus on mental health is implemented as consistently and effectively as possible. We would welcome a meeting with the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children, which I know has made this a priority, to discuss this important matter and what more we can do. I thank the noble Baroness for raising this important point and for pushing it in the way that she has.
I turn to Amendment 71, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. This amendment is on registration and local authority oversight of accommodation for looked-after children and education provided in alternative settings. This Government are absolutely clear that placing children in illegal, unregistered homes is unacceptable. Looked-after children should only ever be placed in accommodation that is run by a registered provider. For children’s homes and supported accommodation, providers must be registered with Ofsted, the single national regulator that is able to ensure that safeguarding and quality standards are being met. Creating a second registration system run by local authorities, as proposed in this amendment, risks creating confusion and duplication. For this reason, we do not believe that this amendment is the right approach to reduce the use of unregistered accommodation placements.
In his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, focused on non-school, unregistered alternative provision. I welcome the noble Lord’s support for the proposals that we announced last year to strengthen protections for children in these settings, including for those in care. As I set out in the letter to which the noble Lord referred, these reforms comprise creating a new local regulatory framework and national standards. They are substantial and require careful engagement with the sector. Introducing these measures now, in the Bill, would bypass full parliamentary scrutiny. But we recognise the significance of what the noble Lord was saying and, instead, they will form part of our wider SEND and alternative provision reforms in the forthcoming schools White Paper, ensuring that they deliver for children.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comprehensive and helpful response to a large number of amendments. I listened very carefully indeed to what she had to say on family relationships and sibling contact, an issue that is very dear to my heart. I welcome that she talked about sharing best practice on sibling contact, which will certainly be helpful, but I must admit I was disappointed that she was not able to go further, particularly on my Amendment 49. I give notice that, when it is reached, I am minded to seek the opinion of the House. Finally, I thank her for her response on Amendment 62, in particular her commitment to make changes to statutory guidance on mental health and to consult with the APPG for Children. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 43.
Lord Storey
“Adoption and special guardianship support fund review(1) Within one month of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must conduct a review of the level of funding available per child from the adoption and special guardianship support fund.(2) The review must produce recommendations regarding any steps necessary to increase the funds available per child.(3) The review must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the adoption and special guardianship support fund was established in 2015 to provide therapeutic support to families caring for children through adoption and guardianship. Since its inception, the fund has supported over 4,000 families and played a transformative role in so many families’ lives, offering interventions that have helped children manage emotions, process early trauma and build trusting relationships, while equipping parents and guardians with the tools they need to care effectively. In fact, over the past 12 months, the Home for Good charity talked to a large number of families who had used the fund: 67% accessed therapy, such as counselling, play therapy and family therapy; 34% accessed therapeutic parenting support or training; and 33% accessed specialist assessments.
I am grateful to Minister MacAlister for his letter following a meeting with a number of us, in which he said:
“Many children who become adopted or are in kinship care have faced difficulties in early life that mean that they cannot live with their birth parents. These experiences place them at greater risk of mental health challenges, often made more complex by increased SEND prevalence compared to their peers. I am clear that government has a responsibility to these children which I am determined to meet it both now and in the future”.
He also said:
“The Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund has helped children and their families access a wide range of interventions, including play therapy and therapeutic parenting courses”.
Imagine the dismay among those parents that this element of the fund has been reduced.
In Committee, I gave the example of a family living close to me that had adopted two children at a very young age who were absolutely traumatised. Counselling, paid for by the support fund, has created a huge change in those children. Because the fund has been cut, they are not able to continue with that provision.
Interestingly, that has been mirrored by a number of comments from other families talking about the support, who have said: “The support we had so far dramatically helped. Any loss of it would be devastating”; “My child is sick. She needed the help so she grows up feeling accepted and cared for and not angry and let down”; “Both our boys have additional needs. It scares us that we might lose the help they desperately need”; “The recent reduction of the adoption support fund has been a shock and has led to huge stress for the families who rely on it’; “The new financial limits imposed are a major concern. We are already stretched to our limits financially”; and, from a professional, “It is hard, when told by professionals that your child needs more support, and then you realise you cannot access what they recommend”.
My amendment is simple: that element of the fund should be restored, so that parents who adopted and fostered children can get that resource, which those children so desperately need. I beg to move.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in speaking to these amendments, I declare that I am a co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Adoption and Permanence, alongside Rachael Maskell, the MP for York. In 2019, the APPG carried out an inquiry into the fund. I will simply read its recommendation 6, which is headed “Continuity”:
“The department should ensure a continuity of therapeutic support by removing the current annual application requirement, enabling agencies and authorities to apply for support that orients around the needs of children and their families”—
not necessarily the budgeting needs of the department in question.
I know, from carrying out that inquiry and subsequent work that I have been involved in—I am a governor of Coram, the children’s charity, which has a large say in adoption—that the experience of families that have been fortunate enough to access the support given by the fund is that it is literally transformative, albeit in many cases, when the therapeutic support is accessed, there is already a situation within the family where adoption breakdown is potentially a reality. Unfortunately, over the past couple of years, there has been an increase in the level of adoption breakdown. If one looks at the amount of effort, time and emotional expense involved in going through an adoption, one will find it difficult to imagine having, in the end, to admit that it has not worked but has failed—which is devastating both for the adoptive family and for the child or the children. This fund genuinely does make a difference. One of the achievements of His Majesty’s occasionally loyal Opposition when they were in government was getting it on to the statute book.
One of the problems with it is that continuity of support is fundamental; this is not the sort of support that responds well to being stop-start. Unfortunately, because the flow of funding has not been consistent and because, for whatever reason—perhaps through negotiations with the Treasury—the department has been unable to be assured enough of the funding, that makes it extraordinarily difficult for the department to say to the families that are currently getting or wish to get support that it will be available.
It makes the livelihoods of those practitioners providing this therapeutic support very difficult. This support is highly specialised because, in many cases, these children have been, and are, subject to really quite severe trauma. To be able to give the level of care required at the rate required, those professionals need consistency of funding from the Government, to enable them to stay in business and to be able to engage with a family on the basis that they will be able to provide sufficient support, over whatever time required for it to be effective, and to really make a difference. For those reasons, I hope that the Government will look at this carefully.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Russell. As he said, he has played a major role within Coram, the organisation which, as we sit here now, is celebrating the centenary of the Adoption of Children Act 1926. For noble Lords who do not know about this, the celebration is on the Terrace between now and 8 pm. If you get the opportunity, please go along and meet the many people who make such a large contribution to adoption within the UK. It is appropriate to mark the centenary appropriately.
That landmark legislation introduced, for the first time in England and Wales, a legal process by which the rights and responsibilities for a child could be transferred from birth parents to adoptive parents. Because of that, I find it unfortunate to say the least that on the centenary of that Act, the Bill we are discussing this evening features the word “adoption” only four times in 137 pages. I do not understand that. Three of those mentions are just mentions of adoption in other Acts of Parliament. Why that should be the case, I simply do not understand. A Bill with children’s well-being in its title surely should not ignore the key role played by adoptive parents in their children’s well-being. I made this point in Committee and I am not going to repeat what I said then, but those working with adoptive families who have suffered the cut in the adoption support fund to which the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Russell, have referred feel undervalued, despite the important job they do in keeping children out of care and residential homes.
We need to think again about how we approach adoption and give it the respect and resources it deserves. If any noble Lords choose to go down to the Terrace this evening, they will meet people who are very active and hardworking in that sector, who will tell you that they feel undervalued and under-supported. I hope that before long, that will change.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendments 46 and 47 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. In Committee and again this evening, we covered in detail the distress caused to parents and children by the very late timing of the announcement in relation to the support fund and by the cut in the size of the grant. In particular, Amendment 46 gives the Government an opportunity to review how best to use this funding ahead of the grant period in March 2027. I am not aware of any compelling evidence that supports the earlier decision to cut the grant size and to reduce the funding for specialist assessments, but if that exists perhaps the Minister can share it today. Of course, we on these Benches are open to improving the way funds are distributed, but we are genuinely concerned by the lack of visibility on what will happen next year. I hope very much that the Government will address this tonight.
I have also retabled my Amendment 100, which would give foster carers clear delegated authority for the children in their care on practical day-to-day matters. Foster carers have been clear that they would value this and, crucially, it is one of the reasons why we see too many leaving the profession. I hope the Minister can be more encouraging today than she was in Committee on this important point.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As I reply to this group of amendments, I assure noble Lords that I will try not to drench anybody during the course of my response—although I have now decided to set myself an ambition of juggling three bottles of water by the time we get to the end of Report.
Important issues are covered in this group. Amendments 46 and 47 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, concern funding for the adoption and special guardianship support fund and provide a further opportunity to debate these important issues. Around 3,000 children are adopted each year and more than 3,800 enter special guardianship. I salute all those who welcome these vulnerable, often traumatised children into their homes and hope that the centenary celebrations noble Lords have alluded to, taking place here this evening, enable a celebration of that contribution and, rightly, as we have heard in this debate, a challenge about how we can do our best to support those who undertake adoption and special guardianship in future.
Almost 57,000 children have received adoption and special guardianship support since 2015, and many of them more than once. Since April 2025, we have approved applications for nearly 16,000 children. However, it is important to remember that this is not the only source of funding. The Families First Partnership programme will total £2.4 billion over the next three years. That funding is available to both adoptive and kinship families and to the services that support them. We have already confirmed that adoption and special guardianship funding will be continued for 2026-27. Further details will be shared in due course through the usual funding announcements.
As several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Watson, have made clear, we need to think longer term about the future of adoption support, as we promised to Parliament in September that we would—and perhaps even more so as we celebrate the centenary of adoption. We will shortly set out plans to engage widely on this with the aim of understanding how best to support children and young people to thrive in their new families and get the support they need in the most effective way.
I turn to Amendment 100, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and thank her for raising this important issue again. I would have to look back at the record, but I have a considerable amount of sympathy on this, which I hope I shared in Committee. Foster carers offer crucial support to some of the most vulnerable children in our society. They provide love, stability and compassion to children and young people when they need it most. They therefore need to have the ability and the responsibility to make the decisions that they think are suitable for children.
The Government are prioritising fostering. Through the fostering recruitment and retention programme, we have been supporting over 60% of local authorities across England in 10 regional clusters to recruit and support foster carers. We know that we need to build on this to further accelerate foster-care recruitment and retention and we will soon publish a comprehensive set of measures to achieve this with regional care co-operatives and fostering hubs at the heart of these plans.
In relation to the issue specifically covered by this amendment, which seeks to ensure that foster carers have, by default, delegated authority on day-to-day issues, except where an alternative decision-maker is listed on the child’s placement plan, our guidance already sets out that foster carers should be able to make day-to-day decisions about the children in their care. I accept that too often we hear that this does not happen in practice, meaning that children in care miss out on normal childhood experiences and feel as if they are treated differently from their peers. I agree with the spirit of this amendment, but it is not necessary to include this in this Bill. Local authorities should already delegate all day-to-day decisions, and we have clear guidance that sets this out. We will nevertheless be taking further action on this issue as the noble Baroness pushes us to do.
Our upcoming fostering publications will set out our plans for ensuring that foster carers can feel confident in making day-to-day decisions for the children in their care. Our publications will also set out plans to reform the fostering national minimum standards. These will also reflect our position on day-to-day decision-making and how fostering services can support carers to make these decisions. Any changes to the national minimum standards, including those concerning decision-making for foster carers, would benefit from a period of consultation with relevant stakeholders. I accept the noble Baroness’s point that it is important that we make progress in this area.
Given that commitment and our plans on the longer-term provision of adoption support, I hope that I have addressed the concerns of noble Lords and that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful that the Minister agrees with the spirit of this amendment. She highlights that some parents have made up the difference and found the money themselves to carry on with this. I find it perverse that, for children with all sorts of problems who need therapeutic counselling, it is suddenly going to stop because the money is not there. Some parents have made up the difference, but those who cannot afford it are not able to do so. Those who come from a poor background and do not have the money are probably the ones who most need it. Those who have got the money can dip their hand in their pocket and pay the difference. That cannot be right in 21st-century UK. For those reasons, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Storey
“Restoration of funding to the adoption and special guardianship support fundWithin one month of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must increase the funding available per child per year under the adoption and special guardianship support fund to a level equal to or greater than the funding available per child under the fund in March 2025.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would reverse the cut to the adoption and special guardianship support fund.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will want to carry out the wishes of the House and ensure that those parents—all parents—have the support that they need. In the spirit of co-operation, I will not move the amendment.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
“Promoting contact between siblings who are not living togetherIn paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 1 to the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/959) (care plans), for the words from “for” to “together” substitute “whom they are not living with”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment extends requirements to promote contact between a child in care and siblings who are not living with them, including those not in care, so far as this is consistent with the child’s welfare.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, as I indicated during the debate on this vital issue of sibling contact, including siblings both in care and not in care, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
“Children in temporary accommodation(1) After section 213A of the Housing Act 1996 (homelessness: co-operation in certain cases involving children) insert—“213AA Duty of local housing authority in England to notify in certain cases involving children(1) This section applies where a local housing authority in England secures that accommodation is available for occupation by a child, in response to an application for assistance under this Part, unless securing that such accommodation is available means the authority ceases to be subject to the duty under section 193.(2) Except as provided in subsection (3), the authority must ask the parent of the child—(a) to agree to the authority notifying each relevant body applicable to the child that accommodation has been secured for the child as mentioned in subsection (1), and(b) if that agreement is given, to provide the authority with information about those bodies to enable the authority to identify each relevant body applicable to the child.(3) If the child— (a) is 16 or 17 years old,(b) is living independently from their parents, and(c) is the applicant for assistance within the meaning of section 183(2),the authority must ask the child as provided in subsection (2)(a) and (b).(4) If the parent or child (as the case may be) agrees to the authority making the notification mentioned in subsection (2)(a), the authority must take reasonable steps to notify each relevant body applicable to the child within 14 days beginning with the latest of—(a) the day on which the authority receives agreement,(b) the day on which the information about the relevant body is provided to the authority, and(c) the day on which the child is placed in accommodation.(5) The duties in subsections (2) and (4) only arise once in relation to each application for assistance under this Part.(6) In this section “relevant body” means—(a) the general medical practice in England with which the child is registered;(b) the body in the child’s local authority area in England through which health visiting services are available to the child;(c) the appropriate authority of a relevant educational institution in England at which the child is a registered pupil or student.(7) The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations for the purposes of this section—(a) specifying any other description of body as a “relevant body”;(b) specifying any other institution as a relevant educational institution;(c) specifying the appropriate authority to be notified under this section in relation to an institution specified under paragraph (b).(8) In this section—“appropriate authority” means—(a) in relation to an Academy, a non-maintained special school, a special post-16 institution, an independent school or a provider of post-16 education or training, the proprietor;(b) in relation to a school maintained by a local authority or an institution within the further education sector, the governing body;“child” means a person under the age of 18;“parent” in relation to a child, includes any person—(a) who is not a parent of the child but who has parental responsibility for the child, or(b) who has care of the child, disregarding any absence of the child at a hospital or boarding school or any other temporary absence;“parental responsibility” has the meaning given by section 3 of the Children Act 1989;“proprietor” means the person or body of persons responsible for the management of the school or institution;“relevant educational institution” means—(a) an Academy (as defined by section 579(1) of the Education Act 1996) other than a secure 16-19 Academy (within the meaning of section 1B(7) of the Academies Act 2010);(b) a school maintained by a local authority (within the meaning of section 142(1) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998); (c) a non-maintained special school (within the meaning of section 337A of the Education Act 1996);(d) an independent school (within the meaning of section 463 of the Education Act 1996);(e) an institution within the further education sector (within the meaning of section 91(3) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992);(f) a special post-16 institution (within the meaning of section 83 of the Children and Families Act 2014);(g) a provider of post-16 education or training that provides the kind of education or training mentioned in section 123(1)(d) or (g) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006;(h) a provider of post-16 education or training that provides education or training, other than in institutions within the further education sector, which is suitable to the requirements of persons aged 16 or over but under 19 and funded wholly or partly by the Secretary of State.”(2) The amendment made by this section does not apply in relation to a child for whom a local housing authority in England has secured accommodation in response to an application for assistance under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 which was made before the date on which this section comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would insert a new section into the Housing Act 1996, imposing a duty on local housing authorities in England to notify health and educational bodies when a child is placed in temporary accommodation where the parent (or the child in some cases) agrees to that notification being made.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, government Amendment 50 regards notifications where children are placed in temporary accommodation. All noble Lords who spoke to this in Committee saw this as a clearly sensible change to make sure such children can receive the right support when they need it. I am pleased to tell noble Lords that, following extensive cross-government work, the Government have tabled an amendment to introduce a new duty on local housing authorities to notify educational institutions, GP practices and health visiting services when a child is placed in temporary accommodation, if consent is provided.
This underscores this Government’s commitment to break down barriers to opportunity and support all children to have the best life chances. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and my honourable and very good friend Dame Siobhain McDonagh for raising what the House in Committee agreed is a very important issue and for engaging the Government constructively on it. This government amendment builds on the previous amendments, achieving their intent. Children in temporary accommodation are particularly vulnerable and may need additional support. This notification will alert health and education providers, enabling them to respond appropriately in accordance with existing duties and responsibilities and help to mitigate the harmful impacts of living in temporary accommodation.
For example, schools and colleges may wish to consider interventions such as providing pastoral support or practical assistance such as breakfast clubs, after-school activities and homework support. Health services may consider making proactive contact with families in temporary accommodation to ensure they do not experience gaps in healthcare provision. Guidance will follow for local authority housing officers and the public bodies receiving the notifications to ensure that we effectively implement this very important measure. Therefore, I beg to move this amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, this is an improved version of Amendment 165, tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and me. We are all very grateful for this very positive response. Some 41,000 households in temporary accommodation have been placed out of area and 26,640 of them are households with children, so a large number of children will benefit from this.
I have three quick questions for the Minister. First, when she wound up the debate in Committee, she said some technical issues needed to be resolved. I think she said there were some operational issues to see how it can work. I assume those have been resolved. I hope there can be some IT solutions that mean we do not have to do this manually and it will be done automatically. Secondly, under proposed new subsections (6)(a) and (6)(b), the bodies that have to be notified that there is a child in their area in temporary accommodation out of area are medical practices and schools in England. Those living in Shropshire, for example, may be placed out of area in Wales—is there any duty to notify the Welsh authorities that they have children in temporary accommodation living in their area? Thirdly and finally, when will this very helpful amendment come into operation? What is the commencement date? Having said that, I warmly welcome this initiative.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, I tabled this amendment in Committee. I also pay tribute to Siobhain McDonagh for having pursued this for many years and the way in which she has worked with different parts of government to try to work through the issues. It was always really about the children and not about the problems that government has in doing this. I will now make a very lengthy peroration and simply say thank you.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, I supported and spoke to a similar amendment in Committee. Again, I will not be very long.
I want to celebrate this great example of when campaigning works. I pay tribute to Justlife, which worked alongside the Shared Health Foundation for the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Households in Temporary Accommodation. I want to stress the importance of this, and will not apologise for repeating what are such horrific figures. From 2023 to 2025, 80 children died while in temporary accommodation; that was 3% of total child deaths. From 2019 to 2024, temporary accommodation was cited as a factor in the deaths of 74 children.
Having said that, I want to stress, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Young, was hinting at, that it is crucial that this comes into effect as soon as possible. We could potentially save a life if GP surgeries and schools know the situation that children are in. Much more broadly, we need to get to a situation where we do not have children in temporary accommodation for the long periods of time they are now. Please let this be done as soon as possible.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I give heartfelt thanks to the Minister from these Benches for moving this amendment. I have not dared count the number of amendments my noble friend has tabled, but this is a magnificent example of a Minister and a Government listening.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches warmly welcome the amendment and thank the Government for tabling it.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their thanks and contributions. Tabling and discussing this amendment has been an important first step. We are clear that, if it is agreed, as it appears it will be—this goes to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Young, raised about some of the technical areas where we need to ensure that this works effectively—we will continue to work across departments so that it has the impact that the Government desire: to strengthen information sharing so that educational institutions and health providers are aware where children living in temporary accommodation may require additional or different support.
As I said, alongside the legislation we will provide guidance for local authority housing officers and relevant education and health bodies to ensure that the duty is well understood by all relevant bodies. Where possible, we will update existing guidance to minimise burdens and support accessibility.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, it is worth saying that this is one part of the action that the Government are taking with respect to temporary accommodation. Through our homelessness strategy, published in December, we have set out a range of measures to support families with children in temporary accommodation, including protecting record levels of investment in tackling homelessness and rough sleeping, and eliminating the use of bed and breakfast accommodation for families, other than very short-term use in emergencies, by the end of this Parliament. We have set an ambition to cut school days lost for children in temporary accommodation, with a stronger role for pastoral teams to work closely with families in that situation, including preventing unlawful removal from a school’s roll. We have made a clear pledge to prevent deaths caused by gaps in healthcare. To achieve that, there will be proactive health outreach to families in temporary accommodation, and a clinical code to improve data and prevent incidents. We will end the practice of discharging newborns into bed and breakfast, or other unsuitable housing, and work with the NHS on safe and robust pathways.
In response to another question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Young, there is no duty within this amendment to notify the Welsh, but we will look at how we can do that in regulations in the future, if needed. I wholly take his point, given that I come from that part of the country myself, about areas that are close to the border, where moves may be happening across the border.
I will write to noble Lords with an update on the timetable for the implementation of this very important step. I thank noble Lords for the welcome they have given it this evening.
Lord Bellingham
“(2A) Regional co-operation arrangements must include the local integrated care board in their development, delivery and governance.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment aims to highlight the need to include health agencies in the regional cooperation arrangements.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I listened very carefully to what the Minister said. Although she went some way to satisfying me and others who support this amendment, I do not think she went far enough. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Barran
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that children deprived of their liberty have access to education.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, we come to this important group, which covers children who are deprived of their liberty. Noble Lords will remember from our debate in Committee that the number of such children has risen by 11 times in only seven years to almost 1,300 in 2024. Most troublingly, the number of children under the age of 12 deprived of their liberty grew by more than 50% in the last quarter, and 97% of these children are already in care. They are deprived of their liberty, typically for an average of six months, and restraint of those children is permitted in two-thirds of cases. The amendments in my name, and those of the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Meston, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, offer a practical route to turning this tide. They would create greater integration of services, stronger accountability and a focus on recovery rather than containment.
Amendment 56 would place an explicit responsibility on local authorities and health partners to be jointly responsible for the funding of care for children who are deprived of their liberty or at risk of being so. The amendment would make clear, through government guidance, the expectation that agencies work together not only at the point of crisis but at an earlier stage.
Amendment 58 would require the Secretaries of State for Education and Health to lay a report before Parliament annually with transparent data showing how many children are deprived of their liberty, as well as their characteristics, circumstances and outcomes. This would bring crucial transparency to the system and show whether the Government’s initiatives are working.
Amendment 55 would ensure there is comprehensive guidance for placement and care planning in relation to the specific aims when applying for a deprivation of liberty order and, crucially, to how a child’s plan will support their recovery so that they spend the shortest possible time with their liberty removed. Currently, children are stuck in limbo for many months, and this amendment would address that.
Amendment 53 would ensure that children deprived of their liberty receive an education. Amendment 60 would strengthen the role of the independent reviewing officer to make sure that decisions are scrutinised robustly. Finally, Amendment 54 would ensure monthly reviews of every deprivation of liberty order by a director of children’s services or head of social work practice to ensure that it continues only where strictly necessary.
These proposals have not been developed in isolation. They seek to build on the important collaborative work led by the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory, which has brought together representatives from child and adolescent mental health services, children’s social care, regional care co-operatives, NHS England and the Department for Education itself. I urge the Minister not to wait for another review or pilot. These children do not have lobbyists; they do not write to their MP; they do not have front-page advocates. They are, for the most part, invisible. Their lives are bound by locked doors and constant supervision. They cannot ask for change. We must therefore act for them.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I have promoted a number of amendments in this group and signed others, for the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has so elegantly given. I will not waste your Lordships’ time by repeating them. I simply say that, over these last few years, I have become all too familiar with the acronym ACE—adverse childhood experience. We know that any child who has had four or more of those experiences is effectively traumatised, in one way or another, for life. It is a major thing to deprive them of their liberty, so whatever we can do to support these children and ensure it happens as little, for as short a time and with as careful scrutiny as possible will be vital. I therefore urge noble Lords, if these matters are put to a Division, to support them.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I too support these amendments. The debate in Committee threw a light on the working of the deprivation of liberty jurisdiction, which, one could not help noting, was not altogether familiar to many.
Typically, these orders are made when parents cannot provide good enough care and the child concerned needs protection from outside pressures and their own risk-taking behaviour. Before they come to court, the local authority, the guardian and the court have to do their best to provide placement in appropriate settings and to enable the child to maintain significant relationships, both of which are easier said than done. Problems that follow the initial order can include unstable placement and repeated changes of placement. These are not easy to manage. I have read of a child saying that it was pointless to try to build up any relationship in the setting in which she was placed because she knew that she would be moved again or the staff would leave. That is a very unhappy state of affairs.
There can be review hearings by the court, but they are not always satisfactory in my experience. Therefore, sensibly, Amendment 54 would require review by the director of children’s services to ensure proper monitoring and adherence to the objectives of the original authorisation to deprive liberty. Therefore, among this package before us, I strongly support this amendment, which would also comply with the child’s right to regular reviews in accordance with Article 25 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will briefly focus on Amendment 53, on the right to education. I want to bring in the voice of one child who spoke to the Children’s Commissioner in her report on this issue. Talking about the lack of education they were receiving, this child said:
“I don’t think it’s fair that they’re making us miss out on our education because they don’t know where to put us”.
That child understands the situation they are in, and it is just unacceptable. All but two of the children whom the Children’s Commissioner spoke to said they were receiving less education when subjected to deprivation of liberty than they received in their otherwise often very chaotic circumstances. We have to make sure that these children continue with an education.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, this is a very important and sensitive area of law, and valid issues and concerns are raised in the amendments spoken to so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I also pay tribute, as she did, to the work of the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory in this area. I know the Government have been working hard to see what can be done and to give various assurances. I hope the Minister can provide further assurances today so that we can all be satisfied that they are taking this issue very seriously and have a clear plan to tackle it.
Lord Hampton (CB)
I have added my name to Amendment 53. It is vital that children who are deprived of liberty can access quality education. Otherwise, we really are depriving them of hope and a future. I too quote the Children’s Commissioner:
“For the very small number of children where controls on their freedom are necessary in order to keep them or others safe, we must make sure they have not only excellent, individualised care, but also full protection under the law … we have a moral obligation to ensure that children at risk of harm are not simply contained and kept out of the community, but are seen, heard, and given the care and support they need to thrive”.
She continues later:
“Where a deprivation of liberty is authorised, the conditions should include a plan for meeting the child’s specific needs through intensive intervention and work aimed at helping them to be safe in the long-term. This plan should be co-produced by health and social care if appropriate, and could include mental health support, mood and behaviour management, work on addressing risks of exploitation, educational support, and any other specialist therapeutic intervention that is required”.
Once again, adding one word to the Bill could change many futures.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for raising important points regarding Clause 11, which, as noble Lords have identified, relates to some of the most vulnerable children in the country. I know that noble Lords rightly feel particularly strongly about this measure. I thank the noble Baroness for her engagement with my officials ahead of this debate, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield.
It is important to remember that Clause 11 will already make an important change from some of the situations identified by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, correctly and graphically identified some of the challenges with the current operation of the system, which is why this measure seeks to bring more children who would otherwise be deprived of their liberty under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court within a statutory scheme where they will benefit from enhanced safeguards and protections, which many of the amendments in this group are seeking.
Turning to these amendments, I reiterate that this measure is intended not to encourage the practice of depriving children of their liberty but to ensure that there are appropriate rights and safeguards in place to prevent children being deprived of liberty inappropriately or for longer than is absolutely necessary. We are committed to reducing the number of children in complex situations as part of reforms to rebalance the system away from crisis intervention towards earlier help and to prevent children’s needs escalating to the point where they need to be deprived of their liberty, and to ensuring that when they are, it can happen in more appropriate accommodation than has been the case up to this point.
We are grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its scrutiny and have, in government Amendment 57, accepted its recommendation that regulations developed using the powers under Section 25 of the Children Act 1989 be subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring parliamentary scrutiny and approval in both Houses.
Amendment 56 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is about joint funding arrangements between partners for children deprived of their liberty under this measure. The Government wholly agree that care for these children must be jointly funded and delivered through an integrated, whole-system approach, which should include social care, health, education and youth justice. However, we do not wish to restrict pooled funding arrangements in the way this amendment does, tying it to the existence of the Section 25 order. We think pooled funding arrangements would be beneficial to a wider cohort of looked-after children, including those whose order has recently come to an end or who are at risk of needing to be deprived of their liberty. This requires testing first to ensure that the right cohort of children and relevant partners are included.
That is why the Department for Education, with NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care, is leading a national programme to tackle underlying systemic failures and to support local areas to work together more effectively. We are building cross-system integration, starting with the peer collaborative convened by the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory—rightly praised by several noble Lords this evening—which identified key elements for transforming care for children with complex trauma, supporting professionals to stand together so that risk is better tolerated and supported.
West Sussex, part of the South East Regional Care Cooperative, is working closely with the ICB to test how a cross-system team can drive integrated support, build an understanding of need and identify gaps in the current pathways across health, social care and justice for this cohort of children. We are not waiting; we are making quick progress in a way that is most likely to be appropriate and solve the problems. Next year we will expand to pilots, where we will evaluate methods of pooled funding, developing best practices that can be adopted and adapted by other local areas. We know that pooled funding works—such as through the better care fund for adults—but legislating now would be premature. We must first test and refine the most effective approach to ensure that the eventual framework enables the right level of cross-system integration and innovation.
Amendment 55 on recovery plans, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, aims to ensure that there are plans to remove restrictions from a child. The Government agree that no child should be deprived of their liberty any longer than absolutely necessary, which is why there are already several existing duties on local authorities in this regard, including the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of any child looked after by them, and that placement decisions are informed by a care plan based on an understanding of the child’s needs and best interests.
Rather than legislate further in this space, diverting local authorities’ attention toward navigating an increasingly complex statutory framework instead of focusing on the child’s needs, we want to strengthen the way in which existing legislation is applied, re-emphasising the need for a care plan that is co-designed between all the professionals involved in a child’s care and treatment.
As part of the court application, it is the practice of local authorities to submit the child’s full care plan. The court should be provided with both the restrictions they plan to impose and the action and progress required to end restrictions as quickly as possible. The plan should be formulated with input from all those professionals involved in the child’s care and will be scrutinised by the court and used to assess progress. If the court is not satisfied about the level of detail included in the plan to allow it to monitor progress and de-escalation, the court should require further input from the relevant professionals.
Similarly, regarding Amendment 60 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, relating to the abilities of independent reviewing officers to escalate concerns on the implementation of a child’s plan to Cafcass, IROs already have the statutory power to perform this function. They are responsible for monitoring the performance of local authorities in relation to a child’s care plan and must consider escalating cases to Cafcass whenever appropriate. This includes issues related to deprivation of liberty. It is therefore not necessary to legislate to expand the legal duties of IROs.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the Minister for her very full reply and recognise the commitment of the Government and some of the initiatives that she raised.
I do not feel that her response to my Amendment 56 met its aims. She said that it could restrict pooled funding for the group of children to whom it might apply. She knows better than me that the Government can come back with a better version. Until we come to that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 53.
Baroness Barran
“(8ZB) Where arrangements are made for the accommodation of a child under this section, health authorities specified in subjection (8ZC) must make joint funding arrangements under this section for the provision of that care.(8ZC) The authorities are—(a) NHS England,(b) any integrated care board, Local Health Board, Special Health Authority, National Health Service trust or NHS foundation trust,(c) the Secretary of State in relation to his or her functions under section 12 of the National Health Service Act 2006, and(d) any person authorised by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires joint funding arrangements to be made by relevant health providers for the accommodation of children under section 25 of the Children Act 1989. By mandating joint funding from NHS England, integrated care boards, and other specified health authorities, this amendment seeks to ensure that children receive more holistic and joined up support.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
“(9A) In section 104 of the Children Act 1989 (regulations and orders)—(a) in subsection (3A), after “(3B)” insert “, (3BZA)”;(b) after subsection (3B) insert—“(3BZA) Regulations fall within this subsection if they are regulations made in the exercise of the power conferred by section 25(2) or (7).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that regulations made under section 25(2) or (7) of the Children Act 1989 (use of accommodation for restricting liberty) as amended by clause 11, will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
“(12) The relevant Secretaries of State for Education and for Health and Social Care must collaborate to lay before Parliament, annually, a review of the impact of the measures contained in this section.(13) The review must, as a minimum, consider and report on the following matters—(a) the numbers of new section 25 orders made during the last year in England and in Wales, the ages of the children placed under them, and an analysis of whether and where the rate of use is increasing or decreasing;(b) the durations of child detention or other restriction of liberty under such orders (minimum, maximum, mean and median);(c) the types of accommodation in which section 25 orders have been applied, including their registration status with Ofsted or the Care Quality Commission; (d) the approval and use of “recovery plans” for all children to move on from section 25 orders in a short a period as safely possible; (e) the involvement of Independent Reviewing Officers, independent advocates and children themselves in the making and reviewing of section 25 orders;(f) the types of accommodation where children live following the end of a section 25 order.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require a review to be laid before Parliament, outlining the quantity and impact of section 25 orders that year.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, we made good progress this evening. None the less, having an annual report laid before Parliament would bring together the information that we need in a coherent form, which would allow this House and the other place to properly scrutinise what is going on. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
Offshore Wind
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests. I am chair of Amey UK Ltd, Acteon and Buckthorn Partners LLP. As this is the first time that I have spoken to a Statement on an energy debate from the Front Bench since I was Minister for Energy, I inform the House that I have spent my working life in the energy sector. I was also Minister for Energy in the Margaret Thatcher and John Major Governments and aimed to maximise a low-cost oil and gas province in the UKCS, always emphasising production with the highest importance attached to the environmental impact of all offshore activity, while in 1990 simultaneously launching the non-fossil fuel obligation, the renewable support framework and establishing the UK renewable energy advisory group. I place that on record because that political experience informs the contributions that I intend to make and the questions that I will be asking.
It is axiomatic that we should judge the Statement against the principles of creating greater energy security; increased affordability to all consumers, both industrial and domestic; strengthening the base of low-cost, firm power in the grid; and moving towards cleaner energy. Every decision we take should be addressed against fuel poverty. How can this be so when the order promises the highest prices for intermittent offshore wind in over a decade? How can it be affordable to the UK industry when this order is still more expensive than the £80 per megawatt for gas—which goes down to £55 if you deduct the government-imposed carbon taxes? How can it be when the overall price of contract extension is 24% higher than last year? Why are the Government using the levelised cost of energy matrix when we should be using the only true cost comparator, a full systems cost? As it is intermittent power, do the Government acknowledge that we need more firm gas power plants anyway? Is it not the case that the Government told NESO that there need to be 40 gigawatts of backup generating capacity?
Let us look at what is happening this evening. At a time when the wind is hardly blowing, is it not the case that we are here, this evening, generating nearly 60% of our power from firm gas and only 18% throughout the whole of the United Kingdom from intermittent wind? Worse still, is it not the case that we are importing gas from an increasingly unstable global economy and burning more CO2 through imported LNG than we would if we developed our own resources to the full, while this minute continuing to burn biomass in Drax, which is more polluting than coal and comes, at this point in time, to only 50% of the total wind generation throughout the whole of the United Kingdom?
Does the Minister agree with Prime Minister Støre of Norway who, at the same time as the Secretary of State was making this announcement, faced the country and stated that he regarded Norway as facing many similar choices to us in the North Sea? He said:
“gas … is crucially important for Norway, and should be developed, not phased out”.
He also said:
“The oil and gas industry is crucial for Norwegian jobs and our welfare state. At the same time, Norwegian gas has never before been as important for European energy security as after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine”.
Does the Minister agree with him?
Does the Minister agree with Jensen Huang, the CEO of Nvidia, who came to these shores in September 2025 and stated on a visit that the UK will need to utilise natural gas-fired power alongside renewable energy to meet the massive energy demands of new artificial intelligence data centres? For without that strategy, we will have no chance of generating thousands of jobs with competitive new data centres.
We need to keep our eyes open to the economics of energy and to the wider UK economic and political consequences of this Statement and the Government’s energy policy. Does the Minister agree it reduces energy security by increasing the need to buy more foreign LNG to meet the need for firm power; that it increases unemployment through higher energy costs; and that it accelerates the Government’s deindustrialisation of the chemical and petrochemical industries, which was all over the news this weekend, by pricing them out of the market? It drives a coach and horses through affordability for households and industries alike, and it takes us in the direction of significantly increasing the cost of energy when the rest of the world is managing to reduce costs in a highly competitive global market.
Yet, in this order, are we not faced with record subsidy contracts for offshore wind? Is there not a rise in the annual budget for fixed-bottom offshore contracts from the £900 million when the terms were first announced in October—only three months ago—to £1.8 billion last week?
Is the consequence not a poorer UK economy and a loss of jobs from the once prosperous Aberdeen now facing the chill winds of offshore recession? Is it true these are massive wins to the Germans who totally dominated the round and won the lion’s share of the contracts?
I conclude by asking the Minister whether he agrees with the analysis in the FT of the article which covered this round. One reader wrote:
“We have … just about the highest electricity prices in the world despite access to relatively low cost North Sea gas…We have loads of gas boilers…so ongoing gas grid upgrades are required irrespective of…investment in extremely expensive renewables”.
Do the Government agree with Sir Dieter Helm that current UK electricity prices are high because the true system costs of integrating intermittent renewables—wind and solar—plus grid upgrades and back-up are not fully priced in? Does the Minister agree that we all want clean, low-cost renewable energy, and we all want, and can have, domestic gas production which has far lower impact on the environment than imported LNG or high-cost CO2 emissions from Drax? Why can we not strive to deliver a policy built on these three pillars? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I start by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to his position, and I look forward to working with him.
On these Benches, we welcome the results of allocation round 7, which has secured a record 8.4 gigawatts of future offshore wind capacity, including 192.5 megawatts of innovative, floating offshore wind, and seen £22 billion in private investment. This marks an important step forward on our clean power journey and towards our future energy independence—enough clean energy to power the equivalent of some 12 million homes or roughly equivalent to 12% of national energy demand.
This shows that, when properly managed, Britain can lead the world in clean, secure and affordable energy. After the chaos of the previous Government’s failed allocation round 5, which delivered no offshore energy contracts at all, this progress is indeed an enormous relief. This auction confirms what my party has long argued—that offshore wind is the future backbone of our energy electricity system.
Projects such as Berwick Bank in Scotland—set to become the largest offshore wind farm in the world—and the one in Wales, the name of which literally means “sea breeze” and is the first major Welsh project in over a decade, show that progress is being made.
But this is not only about climate targets; it is about our future national energy security. In an increasingly unstable world, every turbine we build reduces our reliance on volatile fossil fuel markets. Securing Britain’s wind power means freeing ourselves from the price shocks of the global gas markets. We should recall that the Office for Budget Responsibility estimated that the UK’s energy support response for the war in Ukraine, driven by fossil fuel prices, cost us £78.2 billion over 2022-23 and 2023-24. In contrast, CBI figures show that the green economy grew by 10% in 2024, and AR7 secures an important future pipeline of continued and sustained green jobs and green British jobs.
The UK has some of the best wind resources in the world and, when we harness our renewables—wind, solar and tidal—we strengthen our energy independence. Despite what some may claim, wind power remains the most effective long-term way to bring down energy bills. The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit reports that, in 2025 alone, wind generation reduced wholesale electricity prices by around one-third. The average strike price in this round, around £91 per megawatt hour, remains extremely competitive. By comparison, building and running a new gas power plant today would cost around £147 per megawatt hour, making wind power roughly 40% cheaper.
However, we must be candid about the challenges that the sector faces: rising bid prices, driven by global supply chain pressures; high interest rates; and soaring material costs, particularly for copper and steel. I therefore ask the Minister what steps the Government are taking to address these issues so that our 2030 onshore wind targets remain achievable.
The contracts for difference mechanism protects consumers and secures inward investment. It is a policy that has stood the test of time, but it can still be improved. Is the Minister considering extending CfD contract lengths from 20 to 25 years? This could provide greater certainty, lower financial costs and ultimately deliver cheaper electricity. Similarly, we think that moving older renewable projects from more expensive renewable obligation certificates to new CfD contracts could save typical households up to £200 a year.
More broadly, urgent action is needed to reduce energy costs by other means. Now that the Government have ruled out zonal pricing, I ask the Minister what alternative market reforms are being pursued to drive down energy bills. Despite rising renewable generation, gas still sets the market price around 97% of the time. Are proposals being assessed to move gas plants into a regulated asset base? As has been suggested, this could save some £5.1 billion a year by 2028, according to calculations done by Greenpeace. If we do not urgently upgrade and streamline our transmission systems, this record capacity will remain stuck in connection queues instead of reaching our homes and businesses. Does the Minister agree that a long-term, properly resourced spatial energy plan is now urgent and essential to ensure that these connections happen at speed?
The Liberal Democrats have a clear vision for 90% of the UK’s electricity to be generated from renewables by 2030. AR7 is indeed a welcome step on the road, but more must be done to ensure that we reach our targets, reduce the cost of energy bills and update our transmission systems.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords for their contributions this evening. They were deeply contrasting in both tone and content: one I substantially agree with; the other I do not at all. We need no guesses as to which is which. I am particularly disappointed by the contribution from the Opposition Benches and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I think I have already welcomed him to his place in Questions, but this may be the first time we have sat across the Benches for a Statement or other debate, so a further welcome would not go amiss. I hope this, as it is shaping up to be, will be the beginning of a good debate between us in the House.
It is worth just reiterating what actually happened in AR7 for the House to judge whether this was the miserable failure that the Opposition Benches appear to suggest it was or the great success that I and, I think, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, think it was.
In AR7, we procured 8.4 gigawatts of new, clean, low-carbon power for this country. That is new capacity over and above what we have at the moment and, indeed, represents no less than 40% of the installed capacity of offshore wind so far. In one round, the amount of wind capacity we have has leapt. That is at a clearing price 20% below the administrative ceiling price—a very competitive auction was undertaken—and that is within the bounds of present energy market prices. In the likely future that we see, it is not only below or around market prices; it is also a stable cost. Whereas, of course, we do not know where gas and other energy prices are going because of the extreme volatility in the world, and of gas prices over the last five years.
Interestingly, between this Statement being read in another place and repeated now, gas prices have leapt by nearly 40%. We are in a volatile gas market. Do not forget, prices went up as high as 600p per therm in the period just after the invasion of Ukraine. Compare the volatile price of gas fuels if we go down the energy route suggested by the Opposition—more purchases of unabated gas-fired power stations. Do not forget that this is not only an auction about energy prices and capacity; it is an auction about low-carbon energy prices and capacity. Among other things, if the Opposition had their way, we would apparently invest in a huge number of unabated natural gas power stations. That means we would be locked into that high-carbon system of generating power for perhaps another 30 to 40 years, which would be completely insupportable in terms of anybody’s energy ambitions.
The noble Lord says that he wants our energy policy to be characterised by security, affordability and clean energy. In this round, we achieved a great step forward for our energy security: this is all homegrown energy, not energy coming in on ships from elsewhere, or that is the responsibility of a dictator or a cabal of overseas energy organisations. This is British home-grown local energy that we have procured, and with it a bright future.
On affordability, the noble Lord referred to the levelised cost of energy, which he said was no longer the way to compare prices. That is a little bit surprising, because that is exactly what the last Government did in previous rounds. In the previous round—AR5—they secured precisely zero low-carbon energy, so compare and contrast, if you will, with what we are talking about today.
It is true, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, says, that the clearing price of this auction ought to be put in the context of what you can do to try to get new capacity on board as far as this country is concerned. You can either buy a series of gas-fired power stations at a cost of £134 per megawatt hour—the levelised cost of energy—or you can procure low-carbon capacity which both meets your climate targets and keeps the prices down on a constant basis of affordability for the future.
The result of the auction is actually good for affordability and for the stability of prices in the future. If we are thinking of building new capacity at £134 per megawatt hour levelised cost of energy as against £91, and we have procured something like five gas-fired power stations-worth of energy output with this auction, as far as we are concerned, there is really no contest.
Finally, as I have said, it is clean energy. This is what I thought we were all committed to for a period in the past. It is extremely disappointing that the Benches opposite appear to have decided to move away from clean energy and go back to gas and dirty energy, which we really cannot sustain as far as our future is concerned.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, for the Green Party I welcome both this Statement and the decisions that it records.
I have a question about a specific area which is going to need vastly more development. The allocation includes two floating offshore wind projects. They have higher prices but there is a clear strategic intent if the Government are going to meet their target for offshore wind. We do not have enough sites for turbines embedded in the seabed and we are going to need these floating turbines.
If the Government are going to move beyond these demonstration-type levels and deliver pipeline depth and cost reductions, this will need to advance very fast. Can the Minister give us a picture and a sense of where the Government see this going in terms of floating offshore wind?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. It gives me an opportunity to confirm the two floating offshore wind projects that have been agreed under this auction round. I might add, by the way, that the auction rounds were not a sort of shoo-in for anybody who wanted to come along and invest, as some people have portrayed them. They were very competitive. The number of entrants to the auction was substantially larger than the number of contracts finally agreed. Among other things, this shows that there is a real appetite for this kind of investment going forward.
That is the case with floating offshore wind. Although the two schemes that were agreed—one in Scotland and one in the Celtic Sea—are not, shall we say, final, full-scale arrays as far as floating is concerned, they represent a tremendous step forward in the development of offshore beyond the continental shelf in the UK. Huge new areas offshore from the UK can be opened up to offshore wind.
Of course, that price is not the same as the price we achieved with the mature, bottom-based offshore wind that we have been talking about, but, if we look at the original administrative strike prices when offshore first took off, they were not dissimilar to the sort of prices that we are now seeing for floating offshore wind. I am confident that, once those arrays get larger, and with the flow of fabrication and assistance which the noble Baroness will probably know is already happening very positively, in the Celtic Sea in particular, the net benefit for Great Britain of floating offshore wind will not just be a large number of jobs and more income coming into different areas of the UK than has been the case for bottom-based offshore at the moment. It will represent a technology that really will allow the whole of the UK to participate in the offshore wind revolution, not just the areas which hitherto have had the main developments in their particular zones.
The Celtic Sea, in particular, is just a taster of what is going to come in the not too distant future—and, by the way, it will be a future in floating offshore wind that will be a British future. Home-grown technology will lead in this particular area, which will not only have an impact in UK but will have a substantial export impact as well.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and his expertise to the Front Bench. He is certainly a very effective parliamentarian, even if I do not agree very much with his narrative. But we will see where we get to there.
I also welcome the Government’s announcement, but it is important that we remember that electricity is only part of this country’s energy need. The other sides are, in particular, transport and heating. I am concerned that, although the Government may remain strong on electricity generation, we are getting whispers of them moving backwards in those other areas, including on electric vehicles, heat pumps and finding alternatives to space heating. I would like reassurance from the Government that that is not the case. I certainly hope it is not. Also, where are we now on the future homes standard? That is absolutely fundamental for how we move forward domestically on energy consumption.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I am afraid the noble Lord will have to wait for about a week before the warm homes plan comes out. That will contain, so I am reliably informed, a great deal of detail about precisely the areas of heat, efficient low-carbon homes, heat pumps—all the sorts of things that are the other side of the energy revolution. We hope they will begin to be combined together into coherent programmes, working with each other to ensure that, among other things, that greatest piece of low-carbon energy—the energy you do not use—is properly incorporated into overall programmes.
I assure the noble Lord that this is uppermost in our minds. We are aiming, as we always have, to develop a comprehensive palette of policies that will deal with all aspects of low-carbon energy, energy security and energy efficiency. Indeed, the noble Lord will note that the AR7 announcement is not complete, inasmuch as there are further pots to be reported on, including solar, tidal, geothermal and various other things, in the next week or so. So I hope we will come back to this Chamber and compare and contrast notes on the picture that we will have when those two things have actually happened. I think the noble Lord will be pretty pleased with what will result from it.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I commend the Minister on this Statement and welcome it very much. It is a welcome return from the terrible days when you put out an auction and nobody played the game. It really was quite heartbreaking when we had those dreadful doldrum days.
I shall focus on something that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised, which is the increased demand for energy, particularly that caused by data and AI centres. The one thing we must not allow to happen is that we accept that that is a given. We have been fairly effective in keeping the whole concept of energy efficiency alive, and the warm homes standard is going to be a good example of that. The question about the predictions of the energy demand of AI needs to be approached in a different way that says we cannot simply see demand increase but must adopt measures that mean that some of these centres are using not only the most up-to-date modern technologies but are encouraging future technologies in order to reduce their impact on the environment, by not only energy use but water use. I would love to say that photonics is the answer if I only knew what photonics is, but technologies are being talked about that will impact on AI demand. I would appreciate a comforting voice from the Minister that at this very new point in seeing a further increase in demand, we will not lose sight of trying to examine seriously possible technologies.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point about the amount of work we still have to do and the extent to which we have to integrate what we are doing into a whole low-carbon system that works. For example, one consequence of the previous Administration’s grievous neglect of grid development and of methods of supporting grid development is that, if we can get grid queues shorter and develop the grid itself and use it more efficiently, a lot of the constraints in the system that we are seeing at the moment will fade away. The system will be used far more efficiently with a greater amount of electricity flowing around it, making much more efficient use of what we have already.
I agree that there are some unprecedented demands coming our way, particularly as far as data centres are concerned, and we need to look at imaginative ways in which we can not only make sure that we are ready for that demand, but start to look at how those data centres can fuel their own requirements, for example, by developing data centres in conjunction with heat sources so that their heat requirements can be dealt with on site. Ways in which local grid systems, outside constraints, can feed into data centre development need to be looked at in the context of a whole system analysis of how an efficient energy system is going to work for the future. We recognise that getting a fabulous result as far as offshore wind is concerned is only part of the issue. It is a much wider issue than that, and one we have got to get right in terms of what we know will be a substantial demand for electricity in the years ahead.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lord, I congratulate my noble and homonymous friend on his new position, which I am sure he will occupy with distinction. The Minister asked a question about dirty energy and how could we possibly promote it. In fact, the truth is the reverse. The Minister is promoting dirty energy. Having deindustrialised this country with impossibly expensive energy, we now buy our steel, our goods and even the solar panels for this renewable energy from China, which makes them using power from energy generation stations fuelled with coal, of which they build one per week. The dirt is going up into the atmosphere and, amazingly, it travels around the world. It does not just hang over China. That is where the dirt is. It is a complete mistake to believe that this side is against clean energy; we are just for sensible energy.
I noticed also that the Minister did not reply to my noble friend’s remark about intermittency and the fact that, right now, we have quite a lot of offshore wind, but it is not being used much because the wind ain’t blowing. Does he think that these new contracts for difference will make any difference to the wind as it decides whether to blow or not? I do not believe so.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that we can lead the world. We are leading the world in high electricity prices right now. Regardless of whether we have offshore wind, we will need gas, as the noble Lord implied earlier, and we are closing down our gas; we are refusing to build new gas wells in the North Sea. So, what are we doing? We are buying it from the North Sea from Norway. It was announced today that Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, its $2 trillion oil fund, has embarked on a major sell-off of its holdings in London-listed small-cap and mid-cap companies, even as Rachel Reeves hails a new golden age for the City, blah blah.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, “In the bad old days nobody played the game; it is great that now they are playing the game”. Can the Minister confirm that the private equity houses, which are the major financiers of these contracts, agreed this very high price, which will further ruin our economy, only if they got 20 years? Is that why the noble Baroness is able to rejoice that somebody is playing the game now, because they got 20 years in which our economy will be ruined?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I do not recognise the scenario that the noble Lord paints. Not only is this AR7 settlement good for energy prices—indeed renewables and low-carbon energy have reduced overall prices by 25% because of the effect of the merit order and the driving of gas to the margins in terms of prices—but the industrial work that will be undertaken will be enormously good for a large number of jobs with the fabrication and erection of piles, jackets and all sorts of things which go with this. By the way, the Government are producing a clean energy bonus to make sure that that work is in Britain, so it is a major industrial step forward for this country in its own right.
The noble Lord mentioned that I had not said anything about intermittency. I thought that I had dealt with that issue by saying that one thing we have to do as far as our energy is concerned is run the whole system smartly. Wind, both onshore and offshore, has tremendously increased its efficiency—ie, the proportion of time it produces wind—and the issue at the moment is not whether wind collectively produces a large output on a reliable basis. After all, we had over 80 days last year when renewables and low carbon completely fuelled our energy economy. The fact is that intermittency is a problem only if you do not have a smart system to use that energy where you have it in the smartest possible way. That is why, among other things, there has been such a development imperative on batteries and other low-carbon forms of storage that distribute the energy in a much more coherent way from the sources that we have.
It really is not a scenario that I recognise. I do not think the British economy is going to be ruined by this; on the contrary, this is going to be a great leap forward for the British economy. After all, as has been said on a number of occasions, the green economy in Britain is growing three times as fast as the general economy. This is where the growth is going to come from over the next period, and is very much a leading part of that growth and the new industrial future.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Minister referred to onshore wind. Under previous Governments, we saw onshore wind come to a grinding halt for reasons of apparent short-term political advantage. Onshore wind has the potential to be part of community energy schemes. Offshore wind inevitably tends to involve large multinational companies, but onshore wind gives communities the chance to decide for themselves how to generate their own energy and use local resources. Can the Minister outline where the Government are going with that?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I am sure the noble Baroness will be aware that one of the first things that the new Labour Government did when we took office was, literally at the stroke of a pen, to remove the ban on onshore wind. We have subsequently made sure that onshore wind enters the allocation rounds. At a local level, Great British Energy will undoubtedly be supporting quite a lot of onshore wind and a number of other community and local renewable resources. The future for onshore is set very fair. After all, it is even cheaper than offshore and just as reliable and long term—indeed, it is marginally better in its overall performance. Onshore is something that we very much want to see as part of the overall package. The noble Baroness will have to wait for about a week before she sees what we have come up with as far as the allocation of further pots is concerned.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran
“(1A) After section 16, insert—“16A Registration of parent undertakings(1) In making an application for registration under this Part, an agency or establishment which is a subsidiary undertaking must ensure that the application contains information about the parent undertaking.(2) If the application is granted under section 13 (grant or refusal of registration), the establishment or agency must ensure that information related to the parent undertaking is regularly updated.(3) The Secretary of State may, by regulations under section 16 (regulations about registration), make provision for the enforcement of the duty under subsection (2).(4) In this section, “parent undertaking” and “subsidiary undertaking” have the meanings given by section 1162 of the Companies Act 2006.””
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords will remember from our debate in Committee that on this side of the House we had considerable practical reservations about the Government’s approach to regulating groups of children’s homes and foster care providers. These two amendments aim to improve the process that the Government plan to embark on.
Amendment 63 would simply require an agency or an establishment to provide information about its parent undertaking when it registered with Ofsted and to keep that information regularly updated. I assume that it would make it simpler for future regulation and enforcement if the identity of the parent undertaking was clear from the outset, given the complexity of the ownership structures of some of these groups.
My Amendment 64 aims to strengthen the effectiveness of the enforcement regime by giving it commercial teeth that would impact on these businesses. One would hope that preventing them expanding and restructuring financially or organisationally when they were subject to an improvement plan would lead to speedier compliance with the regulatory framework, as well as preventing a suboptimal group from expanding. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, in the absence of other comments I will turn to Amendments 63 and 64, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, in relation to the provider oversight scheme. The scheme will enable Ofsted to require provider groups to implement an improvement plan across multiple settings where Ofsted reasonably suspects standards are not being met. If the provider group does not adequately implement improvements, Ofsted will be able to issue it with a fine.
Amendment 63 seeks to ensure that, where an applicant for registration with Ofsted is a subsidiary undertaking, the applicant must provide information about its provider group. This information must then be kept updated and new powers would provide for enforcement of these requirements in regulations. I do not believe this amendment is necessary. There are existing powers in Sections 12 and 22 of the Care Standards Act 2000 which we intend to use to impose requirements on an applicant for registration, or a person already registered to carry on an establishment or agency, to provide information in relation to its parent undertaking—for example, contact details for service of relevant notices by email, and information about other subsidiaries under the same parent undertaking.
Amendment 64 seeks to ensure that, when a parent undertaking is required to implement an improvement plan, it is subject to financial and commercial restrictions, including the limitation on the acquisition of further subsidiaries, the opening of new establishments or agencies, and the organisational or financial restructuring of the parent undertaking while the improvement plan is being implemented. The measure as drafted allows for regulations to set out that a person is not a fit and proper person to carry on an establishment or agency where their parent undertaking—the provider group—has failed or is failing to comply with an improvement notice. This will allow Ofsted to refuse registration applications in respect of new settings that are under the ownership or control of the parent undertaking that has failed to comply with provider oversight requirements. The significant restrictions created by this amendment on parent undertakings which are implementing an improvement plan would not be proportionate, given that the purpose of this measure is to require the provider group to implement change quickly across all settings where concerns have been identified.
I turn to government Amendment 65. It is vital to the safeguarding of children that relevant authorities can quickly and efficiently issue notifications and documents where needed to persons carrying on or managing establishments and agencies and parent undertakings. This measure will amend Section 37 of the Care Standards Act 2000 so that Ofsted notices and documents under Part II of the Act can be served by email, giving the option to choose between delivering notifications by post, by hand or by email. This amendment aligns with our wider aims to deliver efficient technological services. It will bring coherence to communications across reforms and eliminate outdated, costly and time-consuming requirements of delivery only by hand or by post. This will reduce the risk of sensitive financial information being lost, and reduce delays to decisions that could impact the delivery of children’s social care services and to resolving concerns about the care that children receive. I hope I have addressed the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and that she will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the Minister for her remarks. I perhaps accept them more in relation to my Amendment 63 than my Amendment 64, but time will tell how the Government’s plans work out. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
“(5) In section 37 (service of documents)—(a) in subsection (1)—(i) omit the words from “carrying” to “agency”;(ii) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (a);(iii) at the end of paragraph (b) insert“; or(c) by being sent by email to the person’s email address.”;(b) after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) A notice or other document sent to a person by email is, unless the contrary is proved, to be treated as having been served on the working day immediately following the day on which it was sent.”;(c) after subsection (5) insert—“(6) A person’s (P’s) email address for the purposes of this section is—(a) an email address identified for the time being by P, or by a person who manages an establishment or agency carried on by P, as an address for contacting P, or(b) if an email address is not so identified, an email address which the person serving the notice or other document believes is used by P.For the purposes of this subsection, a person “identifies” an email address by providing it to a registration authority or publishing it.(7) In subsection (3A) “working day” means a day other than a Saturday, a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in England and Wales.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow for notices under Part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000 to be served on parent undertakings and others by email.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove provision no longer needed because of the protection provided by the new general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and which came into force on 20 August 2025.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 18, page 35, line 35.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove provision no longer needed because of the protection provided by the new general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and which came into force on 20 August 2025.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 18, page 36, lines 17 to 22.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove provision no longer needed because of the protection provided by the new general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and which came into force on 20 August 2025.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that for the purposes of the care provider offence in section 21 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (as amended by clause 20) “regulated care” includes care or support provided for any child rather than only a child aged 16 or 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 20 at page 38, line 33.
“(i) before ““health care”” insert ““child”, ”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 20 at page 38, line 33.
“(e) to have due regard to the need to remove or minimise the disadvantages suffered by looked-after children and relevant young persons.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment strengthens the current duty to be “alert to” the needs of looked-after children by requiring public bodies to have due regard to removing or reducing the disadvantages they face. It builds on awareness by turning it into action, ensuring that understanding leads to measurable improvement.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate this evening. I will keep it fairly short, given the time.
Amendment 75, in my name, simply seeks to change the current duty of being “alert to” the needs of looked-after children to one requiring public bodies to have “due regard to” removing or reducing the disadvantages they face. There are lots of things that I am alert to; that does not mean that I take any great notice of them. I am alert to them, but I can choose to ignore them. What we need is something that requires local authorities to take this seriously, and the concept of “due regard” is well understood in many other aspects of law. As a bishop, I am used to there being policies of the Church of England to which I am required to have due regard. If I simply had to be alert to them, I do not think that they would get the attention and focus they need. Instead of a duty of being alert, Amendment 75 would put in place something that I think we all understand to be a higher bar, but something that I think is achievable.
Amendment 76 says:
“A relevant authority exercising the duty … must take reasonable steps to avoid, reduce or otherwise mitigate any adverse impact of its policies and practices on looked-after children and relevant young persons”.
The key here is that we are not asking for anything unreasonable. This concerns what it is that it is reasonable for a public body, particularly a local authority, to do, beyond just being aware. The word “aware” is really no better than “alert”. How are they going to take reasonable and practical steps to prevent harm that is being done when some policy is being implemented? This would complement the aims of the Bill and provide a clear framework for shared action and accountability.
Finally, Amendment 96 concerns equality impact assessments. I know it is not practically possible to make being care-experienced yet another protected characteristic in the law, but we need some way of understanding the particular impact that those bits of the law have on children in care, or people who have been in care. There is a misprint, I fear, in the text as printed on the Marshalled List. The very famous Equality Act was of course enacted in 2010, not 2020 —it has been around rather longer than the amendment says. I am sorry; it was my people who put the wrong year in there.
The amendment is asking that we look at the impact on persons under 25 who are looked after by local authorities. Again and again we have tried, through various aspects of the Bill, as I did in my own Private Member’s Bill a few months ago, to say that the impact of care experience needs, at the very least, to be tracked through to the age of 25. We need to support young people up to that age. As was said on an earlier group this evening, most young people are still heavily dependent well beyond the age of 25—including, I fear, my kids, who were still heavily dependent on my wife and me well beyond that age. We are talking here about young people who do not have the bank of mum and dad or traditional parental support. We really need to do our best for them.
I will not delay your Lordships any further. I urge the Minister to give me such assurances as she can possibly give me this evening that will persuade me that I do not need, at this late hour, to test the opinion of the House. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, who has supported these amendments. I hope that he will have something to add in a moment or two.
Lord Moraes (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to introduce Amendment 77 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Lister, who tabled a similar amendment in Committee. I apologise to the House for not being in Committee to speak to this amendment due to a period of illness last year.
The amendment concerns a new statutory duty for corporate parents to be alerted to matters concerning children’s well-being. In this respect, there are a group of children in the UK who are entitled to citizenship but for various reasons do not achieve it. This is not widely understood generally, nor even among parents, foster parents and corporate parents of those children. Achieving their citizenship under British nationality law is good for the children, who gain stability, and for society, which sees the integration of children often in vulnerable situations. Here, I should declare that I am a patron of the non-profit Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens.
We want to ensure in this amendment that there is no duplication of duties on the Secretary of State, while ensuring that duties on corporate parents under Section 21(1) concerning the well-being of young people include appropriate consideration of nationality rights. We do not want to see children being wrongly categorised or treated as if this is wholly a matter of immigration or discretion.
In Committee the Minister placed an emphasis on Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act, which states that the Home Secretary should be the one discharging citizenship in relation to the safeguarding and welfare needs of the child. But this places the sole duty on the Home Secretary; it does not apply to the corporate parents to whom the new duty is to apply. Our amendment understands the importance of Section 55 but would ensure that care providers to whom the new duty is to apply are not left without the protection of any statutory duty altogether in relation to these child citizenship applications.
In Committee the Minister suggested that the Government are reflecting on the requirement to support children in gaining citizenship. That is welcome, and it is welcome that the Government are considering what further steps to take in this area. But this amendment would support those efforts by ensuring that corporate parents could act on whatever new policy or practice was brought forward by the Home Office.
While we welcome the Government’s steps to improve local authority practice in relation to child citizens, the experience of credible practitioners on the ground, such as PRCBC, is that these rights are not widely known or acted on, and any improvements that are seen are not uniform, with some local authorities showing evidence of no improvement at all.
My noble friend the Minister is probably aware that a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Lister, have been pressing the case for children in this situation for many years. Government support for this amendment would ensure that these important children’s rights are not overlooked by local authorities in their role as corporate parents.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I support and will talk to Amendments 75 and 76, which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester set out powerfully; I fully support the arguments. Last week I hosted a meeting in your Lordships’ Committee Room 1, which showcased care experience and protected characteristics. The room was full. Care-experienced people had travelled from across the United Kingdom to be there because they wanted their voices to be heard, and I speak today to ensure that those voices are heard in your Lordships’ House.
Care-experienced people are asking that relevant bodies in the exercise of their corporate parenting duties are required to have due regard, as we heard earlier. One care-experienced person told us: “I deserve to have my voice heard to create real change. Too often decisions are made about us but without us”. Another said: “Care-experienced individuals need recognising because our outcomes are constantly poor yet our insight is rarely used when services are designed”.
At that meeting, Terry Galloway, who often helps and supports these young people with care experiences, offered a simple but striking example. He asked us to imagine driving down a road in a fast car and seeing a child standing in the road. You are alert to that child being there, but you drive straight through them—and you say your duty has been discharged because you were alert to them being there. Contrast that with a duty of due regard. On the same road and with the same child, discharging that duty would require you to stop the car, get out and speak to them. You would seek an understanding of why they are in the road and whether there is something you can do to help them.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendment 77, to which I have added my name. I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend the Minister for the helpful meeting that I and stakeholders had with her to discuss the other issue I raised alongside this in Committee.
As my noble friend has said, I and other noble Lords have been pressing for many years the case of children who have not claimed the citizenship status to which they are entitled, including the high fees that can act as a barrier. Indeed, we have earned the label of “terriers” on the subject. I am delighted to welcome my noble friend Lord Moraes to the noble band of terriers. Like him, I speak as a patron of the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens.
This amendment, so ably introduced by my noble friend, would help to ensure that these children’s citizenship rights are not overlooked by local authorities in their role as corporate parents. As he emphasised, this concerns a statutory entitlement to citizenship and is not a matter of immigration or discretion: all too often, the Government have conflated the two in the past. The consequence of this right not being given effect has been spelled out by the High Court, which noted that children who identify as British but who have effectively been deprived of citizenship can
“feel alienated, excluded, isolated, second-best, insecure and not fully assimilated into the culture and social fabric of the UK”.
I also echo my noble friend’s welcome for the consideration the Government are giving to how better to support these children in establishing their right to citizenship. The White Paper, Restoring Control Over the Immigration System, stated that in the “near term” the Government will ensure that
“children who have been fully in the UK for some time, turn 18 and discover that they do not have status, are fully supported and able to regularise their status and settle. This will also include a clear pathway for those children in care and care leavers”.
This amendment, which also relates to some children born in this country, will make it less likely that children in this situation will turn 18 without having claimed their right to citizenship. So there is a good case for the Government accepting it. Given that the White Paper commitment was made last May, and related to the “near term”, what have the Government done to realise it?
These are important issues for children’s citizenship rights and well-being, so acceptance of this amendment would strengthen the Bill as it relates to some of the most marginalised children in our country.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, as I have many times before on this subject, joining the terrier pack yet again. It is a great pity that that pack still needs to form; all the other occasions were under the previous Government and we were hoping that we might be able to disband and head on to other things.
I join the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, and thank him for tabling this amendment, to which I attached my name very late in the day. I just caught up with this Bill along the tracks.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord have both made the case overwhelmingly for Amendment 77, so I will not go over the same ground as they did. I will just highlight again the campaigning work of Citizens UK in particular, which has focused on the incredible difficulty of the cost of more than £1,200 for a citizenship application and the fact that so many people are unaware that it is necessary.
I will make one additional point. We have seen in the Windrush scandal that the British state failed to meet its responsibilities and failed to do the right thing by British citizens. With the reality of Brexit, many children with European links and European families but with the right to British citizenship risk being trapped in the coming years unless their situation is sorted out before they turn 18. Let us not create another Windrush scandal for those Brexit and indeed other children.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I will talk briefly to Amendments 75 and 76. These amendments are very important, and it is a great pity that we are discussing them at the end of the day. I always think of the saying that
“words without actions are the assassins of idealism”
and I wonder if these are not too general. I do not know what “alert” means. I can be alert to something and do nothing about it, where I actually want something to happen. It says “have due regard to”; I can have due regard to the fact that it is raining and choose not to put my umbrella up or not to warn other people that it is raining. I want something more definite. I think the spirit—dare I say that to an Anglican bishop?—is there in the amendment and I very much understand what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester is saying in this amendment.
I also like that the right reverend Prelate mentioned silos and silo working. I suggest that he talks to those noble Lords who served on the then Children and Families Bill during the coalition period. We came up with education, health and care plans, but the health service was not interested at all. It wanted to work entirely in its own silo, and every attempt to get them to work across failed completely. I do not know what to say further; I am not being very helpful here, I am afraid. It is important to listen to children’s voices and to do things. There must be good practice up and down the country, and we need to know about that. Perhaps the Minister’s department knows about good practices where children’s voices are being heard and something then happens.
From my professional experience, I remember one group of young children in a care home who formed a care children’s council and met each month. Somebody from the education department came along and listened to what they said. They had to report back to the councillors and then come up with an action plan and go back to the school council. That actually brought some results. Not least, it gave the young children the confidence to stand up and speak, and to challenge why things were not being done. These amendments are important, but we need to spend more time pinpointing what we need to do.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, while His Majesty’s loyal Opposition agree that these amendments are sensibly drafted and—as was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Storey—that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester clearly has the best interests of looked-after children in mind in wanting to see stronger duties placed on local authorities to acknowledge, assess and act to reduce the disadvantages they undoubtedly face, we do not believe that Amendments 75 and 76 are entirely necessary given the measures already contained in the Bill.
Amendment 75 would require relevant authorities to have due regard to the need to minimise the disadvantages faced by looked-after children, in addition to the measures already stipulated in the Bill. While we understand that this is absolutely the right thing to do, the Bill contains provisions similar to that aim. Authorities will be required to be alert to matters that adversely affect, or might adversely affect, looked-after children and then to assess what services are available to them. The requirement to be alert and then to assess available steps represents an intention that action be taken to aid children. We believe that this achieves the same aim as that of the amendment from the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed.
Amendment 76 builds on the previous amendment by then placing a duty on relevant authorities to act on policies or practices which may be having an adverse impact. Again, in our opinion, this overlaps with the duties already set out in the Bill. Authorities will be required to assess their services in Clause 21(1)(b), while subsections 1(c) and 1(d) create provisions through which authorities must seek to provide opportunities that enhance well-being and future prospects. Amendment 76 appears, in essence, to seek to ensure that authorities enact policies and practices that are in the children’s best interests. This duty is already prescribed to authorities under the Children Act 1989 and is already legislated for.
Amendment 96, also in the names of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, would include care experience in equality impact assessments. We welcome the intention behind the amendment but, with all due respect, are not convinced by the impact it will have.
The Government already review outcomes for children in need, which includes looked-after children and, as such, we are mindful of adding additional administrative workloads to public bodies. It would very much be our preference not to add bureaucratic layers to public bodies if we are uncertain that they will result in positive outcomes.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, through the Bill, for the first time, key public bodies, from Secretaries of State to schools, NHS organisations and regulators, will be required to be alert to matters that affect looked-after children and care leavers when shaping policy and services. These new corporate parenting duties aim to drive a culture change, tackle stigma and improve outcomes for some of the most vulnerable in our society.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, that the voice of care-experienced young people is crucial in this. The noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, and I are two people in this Chamber who have experience of being corporate parents—I do not know how many others there are. We know just how serious that is. I understand the reference to language, but the responsibilities that come with this are real and important and need to be taken very seriously indeed.
Amendments 75 and 76 in this group were tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. Again, I completely understand where he is coming from, and we have debated this in this Chamber under other debates. These amendments quite rightly seek to strengthen the corporate parent duty by requiring relevant authorities to have due regard to removing or minimising disadvantages faced by looked-after children and care leavers and to take steps to avoid or mitigate any adverse impact of their policies and practices.
We fully share the intent behind these proposals oftackling disadvantage and ensuring that care-experienced young people are not adversely affected by public policy. This is central to our vision for corporate parenting. However, as discussed in Committee, the new corporate parenting responsibilities are broad duties that apply in relation to a corporate parent’s existing functions and can be implemented in a way to fit the unique circumstances of each corporate parent. We believe that our existing measures achieve the aim of tackling disadvantages experienced by looked-after children and care leavers.
Just for a bit of clarity, the current responsibilities require corporate parents to be alert to matters which adversely affect the well-being of the cohort. This will require them to take action as appropriate. I just give the reassurance that this is not just a means of being aware; it comes with responsibilities. Therefore, we anticipate that corporate parents would already consider disadvantages experienced by these young people and how they may be addressed.
We will support implementation through statutory guidance, which will set out the responsibilities and include best practice examples for tackling disadvantage among care-experienced young people. Best practice will draw on not only relevant authorities but wider organisations, including local authorities that have taken action such as representation on governance boards, financial support and discounts, and treating care experience as a protected characteristic. This is the best way to deliver impactful change, not through this amendment, which, as I have outlined, is already sufficiently covered by the clause as drafted. I am delighted to say that we are in contact with Terry Galloway, who is very supportive of the direction we are going in. With his vast experience he will be an invaluable resource, ensuring that we keep moving in the right way.
Amendment 96, also tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, seeks to place a duty on public authorities to include in equality impact assessments an assessment of the impact on persons who are being or have been looked after by a local authority. We are determined to tackle the stigma and discrimination faced by care-experienced young people. This is why the Bill introduces corporate parenting duties for Secretaries of State and public bodies, already requiring them to consider the needs of care-experienced young people with the aim of improving outcomes. Clauses 21 to 25 aim to embed this cohort’s challenges into policy and service design. We will commission an implementation partner to support implementation through provision of training and circulation of best practice, including training on how to effectively assess the impact of policies and practices on looked-after children and care leavers. For this reason, the amendment is unnecessary.
Amendment 77 was tabled by my noble friend Lord Moraes, who I am very pleased to see back in his rightful place in the Chamber. It seeks to amend the exemption on immigration, asylum, nationality and customs functions in respect of looked-after children so that action that would be taken in adherence with the corporate parenting responsibilities in the exercise of these functions would still be taken where it is not already required by Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. It also seeks to distinguish functions in relation to the acquisition of British citizenship by statutory right from other nationality functions when exercising duties under Section 55 and Clause 21.
While I understand my noble friend’s intent with this amendment, I emphasise that, as my noble friend the Minister noted in Committee, our measures require that public bodies named in this legislation be alert to matters affecting the well-being of looked-after children and care leavers, regardless of immigration status, except when performing asylum, immigration, nationality or customs functions. We fully intend on partnering with the sector and care-experienced young people in the immigration system to make sure that our statutory guidance covers their specific needs and vulnerabilities. We will also ensure that our implementation partner develops and delivers training on this cohort to all new corporate parents. As we have heard, my noble friend the Minister recently met with my noble friend Lady Lister and partner organisations, who were greatly reassured by our proposed actions in this area. I hope that this is sufficient reassurance for my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Additionally, Department for Education officials will work closely with the Home Office as it develops its proposals in the immigration White Paper to reduce the financial barriers to young adults who have lived here throughout their childhood accessing British nationality.
Local authorities already follow a separate set of corporate parenting principles and are best placed to take steps to consider whether a young person in their care needs support to seek British citizenship. The Home Office has taken significant steps in recent years to support local authorities in ensuring that children in their care are able to access British citizenship, including by introducing an exception in June 2022 that removed the requirement to pay a fee for an application for citizenship registration by children who are looked after by a local authority.
I want to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that we will continue to work with the Home Office on how we can improve the experience of looked-after children and care leavers in the immigration, asylum and nationality system, building on existing measures that the Home Office has taken in this space. The further efforts will include working on proposals set out in the White Paper published on 12 May, Restoring Control Over the Immigration System, to ensure that children who have been in the UK for some time then turn 18 and discover they do not have status are fully supported and are able to regularise their status and settle. This will include a clear pathway for those children in care and care leavers.
The White Paper also sets out that the Home Office will consider measures to reduce the financial barriers to young adults who have lived here through their childhood accessing British nationality. Applying the duty to the asylum system would not require the Home Office to decide asylum claims for young people as soon as possible. Given the steps we are taking in this area to ensure that looked-after children in the immigration system benefit from the corporate parenting measures, we do not see the amendment as necessary.
Amendment 79A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, seeks to ensure that the corporate parenting guidance issued under Clause 24 is laid in draft before Parliament. This amendment has of course been helpfully raised in reference to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report. Our response to the recommendation explained that guidance issued under Clause 24 will not introduce requirements on corporate parents beyond those enabled by this legislation.
The guidance will help corporate parents understand how the duties could be implemented, using examples of best practice. We will develop statutory guidance in partnership with corporate parents and this will then be subject to consultation. This gives all those affected by the changes, including corporate parents, local authorities, looked-after children, care leavers and all of the above an opportunity to have their say. We will also draw on the expertise of the care-experienced community and representative bodies from within the sector, including those who have campaigned for these amendments, to support guidance drafting.
I can assure the noble Lords that their input will form the backbone of guidance. I hope that with those comments I have addressed the right reverend Prelate’s concern and that he will be able to withdraw his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I am very grateful for the short debate that we have had this evening. It is clear that we are all passionate about the same thing—we would not be here at this time on a Monday night if we were not. We are passionate about getting the best deal we can for care leavers and young people in care, and I am very grateful to hear that. The fact that we are hearing that from all the Front Benches gives me some assurance that this is not something that would float away were there to be a change of Government—at least not one to any of the parties in this Chamber tonight.
Moving on quickly, I really appreciate the guidance that has been spoken of, and I accept the assurances of the Minister that there are many matters that we sought to put in the Bill, as is proper on Report, but which can be dealt with in that way before the Act is implemented in due course.
Were I merely alert to the fact that it is late at night and I do not have the support of the Front Benches, I might still waste your Lordships’ next 15 minutes by pushing this to a Division, but I am not only “alert to”, I am “having due regard to” those factors. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 75 and will not press Amendment 76 either.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove provision no longer needed because of the protection provided by the new general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and which came into force on 20 August 2025.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 23, page 41, lines 9 to 12.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 26, page 45, lines 1 to 5.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove provision no longer needed because of the protection provided by the new general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and which came into force on 20 August 2025.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my other amendment to Clause 26 at page 45, line 6, would amend Clause 26 to change references to a “statutory instrument” containing regulations made by the Welsh Ministers to a “Welsh statutory instrument” to reflect the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Act 2025.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, this group consists of government amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith. They are Amendments 82 to 85, 244, 245, 249 and 253 in relation to consequential provision for Welsh and Scottish Ministers, and minor and technical changes relating to the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Act 2025.
Amendments 82 to 85 relate to Clause 26 on the employment of children in England and Wales, and simply update references to the Welsh statutory instruments and the procedure to be followed in the Senedd in consequence of changes made by the 2025 Act, which came into force on 1 January 2026.
Amendments 249 and 253 do the same for Clause 67. This is a change that we are making to refine the drafting in the Bill and ensure that the terms used align with the latest legislative developments.
Amendment 244 will confer power on Welsh Ministers to enable them to make provision consequential to Clauses 11, 12(5), 20 and 31 to 36 in relation to matters that are within the legislative competence of the Welsh Parliament. Amendment 245 will confer power on Scottish Ministers to enable them to make provision consequential to Clause 11 in relation to matters that are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. This would ensure that if any such consequential amendments are identified, Scottish and Welsh Ministers could make those changes to the legislation.
I am grateful for the continued engagement of our Welsh and Scottish counterparts on the passage of this landmark legislation. I beg to move.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, we thank the Minister for her clarification of the reasons behind these consequential amendments. They seem entirely reasonable, and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support them.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his comments and emphasise again how grateful we are to the devolved Governments for their engagement with the Government on this Bill. We will continue to work closely with them as the Bill progresses through Parliament.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
“(4A) Regulations under section 18 made by the Welsh Ministers are to be made by Welsh statutory instrument.””Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my other amendment to clause 26 at page 45 line 6.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my amendment to clause 26 at page 45, line 11, would update references to the parliamentary procedure for Welsh statutory instruments containing regulations under new section 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to reflect the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Act 2025.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my other amendment to clause 26 at page 45 line 10.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 26, page 45, lines 1 to 5.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 27, page 48, lines 14 to 18.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove provision no longer needed because of the protection provided by the new general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and which came into force on 20 August 2025.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 27, page 48, lines 14 to 18.