House of Commons
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we begin today’s proceedings, I know that the House will wish to join me in acknowledging that today marks the fourth anniversary of the war in Ukraine. This House has always stood with the people of Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression. We must not forget their continuing fight to stand up for their ideals, which underpin a peaceful, stable and democratic world. Our thoughts are with the people of Ukraine, as well as with our colleagues in the Ukrainian Parliament.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Government and Labour Members, may I associate myself with your remarks? Members from right across this House will share those sentiments. As the Prime Minister made clear at Cabinet this morning, and as the Foreign Secretary is making clear in Kyiv, we will stand with Ukraine, whatever is thrown at it, until it has the freedom and security that it deserves.
This Government are restoring the founding promise of the national health service: to bring quality healthcare to all, regardless of how much they earn or where they live. New funding for GPs is being prioritised for areas where the need is greatest, and we are sending more cancer specialists to rural hospitals. As we modernise the health service, the NHS app and NHS Online will bring world-class healthcare to the most remote corners of our country at the touch of a button—lots done, and lots more to do.
Torcuil Crichton
In places like Na h-Eileanan an Iar, going the extra mile to provide care is part of the job, and I pay tribute to the carers in my constituency who travel miles in darkness and bad weather to deliver support for the elderly. In some parts of the Western Isles, and indeed across rural Scotland, there simply is not the working-age population to provide that care, and immigration cannot solve that problem entirely. Does the Minister agree that it is only by increasing wages and paying social care staff properly—something for which Scottish Labour has been calling for some time—that we will increase the number of carers in rural areas, and provide a proper care service?
Wes Streeting
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. This Labour Government are introducing the first ever fair pay agreement for care workers. That is better pay and conditions for care workers, and more people recruited into the profession. It is backed by £500 million, and Scotland will receive extra funding through the Barnett formula. The question for the SNP is: where is the money going, and why is it not going into the pockets of Scottish care workers, as Jackie Baillie has demanded?
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
On Friday, I visited Young Devon, an early support centre in the heart of rural North Devon, where I met young people who told me heartbreaking stories of how they felt left out and let down by the system. Young Devon was quite literally a lifeline for them. It has an open-door, person-centred approach. I am delighted that its funding has been continued for one more year, but it is only one year, and those who run the centre told me that this makes it incredibly difficult for them to plan. Can the Secretary of State clarify what the longer-term plan is for these early support hubs, how they sit alongside Young Futures hubs, and how he can help organisations like Young Devon thrive into the future?
Wes Streeting
I join the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee in paying tribute to Young Devon and the work it is doing. As she will know, I have enormous sympathy for the challenge she raises about medium-term certainty on funding. As was demonstrated on the Floor of the House yesterday by the Education Secretary, my Department and the Department for Education are working closely together to make sure we are better joining up education, health provision and support for young people. There is more to do. I accept the challenge that she sets down around medium-term certainty on funding; that is why we are doing more through, for example, the medium-term planning framework. I accept, in the spirit of this exchange, that there is lots done, but lots more to do.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Last year in Shropshire, which is a fairly typical rural area, 158,000 patients waited more than a month for a GP appointment. That is not surprising, given that, like many other rural areas, we have 50 fewer qualified GPs than we did a decade ago. Meanwhile, already busy GPs are trying to develop integrated neighbourhood teams, but they report that they have not received any dedicated Government funding, and still do not have the model neighbourhood framework. Will the Secretary of State act to ensure that GPs have the resources and guidance that they need to develop those neighbourhood health teams, and ensure that everyone can access an appointment within seven days, or 24 hours if it is urgent, particularly in rural areas, where provision is poor?
Wes Streeting
We have 2,000 more GPs now than when Labour came into office, but the hon. Lady is right to say that we need to ensure that that provision and increased capacity are reflected throughout the country. Because general practices serving more deprived areas receive 10% less funding per needs-adjusted patient than those in wealthier parts of the country, we are reviewing and reforming the Carr-Hill formula to ensure that we can direct the right funding to the areas in greatest need, recognising that amid our rural communities, there is obviously not just plenty of affluence, but enormous pockets of disadvantage and deprivation. Whoever people are and whatever their background, the support and care that they need must be received in the right place and at the right time.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
The national cancer plan, which I launched about two weeks ago, will end the postcode lottery. Wherever people live, they will receive high-quality cancer treatment. We have already invested £70 million in 28 new cutting-edge radiotherapy machines, reducing waiting times and providing 15% more treatments. This allows 27,500 more patients to be treated every year, which means more equal access and better outcomes for cancer patients across England.
Grahame Morris
I applaud the ambitions in the cancer plan, but my question was about improving access to advanced therapeutic radiotherapy. Almost half the cancer centres in more urban areas in England have experienced a staff recruitment freeze, and the figure rises to 60% in more rural and deprived areas such as mine in east Durham. What steps is the Minister taking to end such recruitment freezes and ensure that cancer patients, irrespective of where they live, have access to the lifesaving care that they require?
Ashley Dalton
I commend my hon. Friend’s continued advocacy for radiotherapy. I have met the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and the other members of the all-party parliamentary group on radiotherapy to discuss how the Government will improve outcomes for cancer patients. While trusts retain responsibility for recruitment, we are continuing to increase our cancer workforce: between November 2024 and 2025, it grew by more than 4%. In the cancer plan, we have committed to ensuring that we have the staff where and when we need them, and we are rebalancing cancer training places targeted at trusts in rural and coastal areas—such as east Durham—to improve patient outcomes.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I welcome what the Minister has just said, but we start a long way behind. In OECD countries, the average proportion of people with cancer with access to radiotherapy is 53%. In England the proportion is 36%, and in Lancashire and South Cumbria it is the worst in the country, at just 29%. There is no doubt in our communities in South Cumbria that that is because patients must take three-hour round trips every day to obtain treatment in Preston. Will the Minister support our new plans to bring a satellite radiotherapy unit to Kendal, so that people in our communities can experience shorter journeys and longer lives?
Ashley Dalton
The hon. Gentleman and I share part of that integrated care board area. In the cancer plan, we committed to ensuring that coastal and rural areas receive the services that they need. We are investing more in radiotherapy machines, and we are working with ICBs to ensure that they are providing the services that their communities need, and that we are supporting the recruitment of the cancer workforce who will be able to go into those rural areas.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Cancer is the canary in the coalmine for the NHS. For far too many cancer patients, under the Tories, the NHS was not there when they needed it. Under Labour, an extra 213,000 patients have been diagnosed, or have received the all-clear on time. Much has been done, but there is much more to do. I pay tribute to the leadership of the Minister for primary care and prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), and to her national cancer plan. She has poured her heart and soul into that plan, all while living with and being treated for cancer. We are investing an extra £2.3 billion in diagnostic capacity to deliver 9.5 million more tests by the end of this Parliament. Catching cancer earlier, treating it faster and preventing it is how we will save more lives.
Douglas McAllister
I welcome the focus of the national cancer plan on diagnosing cancer faster. That is needed across all cancers, but particularly for leukaemia. Research by Leukaemia UK has found that one in four patients face an avoidable delay in their diagnosis, and that 37% of patients are diagnosed in an emergency setting. How will the implementation of the plan address delays in leukaemia diagnosis, and what steps will the Department take to reduce the proportion of patients who are diagnosed through an emergency route?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is right that leukaemia patients are disproportionately diagnosed too late. We are working with GPs to ensure that they are better prepared to spot symptoms or concerning blood test results, so that we can cut out avoidable delays. The real difference, however, will come with the introduction of genomic testing at birth. That will allow the NHS to leapfrog rare cancers such as leukaemia, so that they can be caught early, or even prevented. Lots done, certainly lots more to do.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
When I met Big C in King’s Lynn recently, I heard about the anxiety caused; only 52% of local patients are treated within two months, whereas the national average is 71.9%. What action is the Department taking to support the Queen Elizabeth hospital trust in improving its performance for patients?
Wes Streeting
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; this is about not just diagnosis but faster access to treatment. We are meeting the faster diagnosis standard; performance was at 77.4% in December 2025, and we aim to improve that to 80% by the end of March this year. We have to go a lot further, a lot faster, on the commencement of treatment. Although I will be forthcoming about, and proud of, the progress that we are making and the targets that we are hitting, where we fall short—we are still falling far too short, when it comes to access to cancer treatment—we will acknowledge that, address it and make sure that we make more progress, more quickly.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
Mental health issues affect all ages, and the support is not always there. We are determined to change that. We have hired almost 8,000 extra mental health workers since we came into office and increased investment in mental health by an additional £688 million this year. We are also transforming services through community-based 24/7 mental health centres, providing open access to treatment and support for adults with severe mental health needs, expanding NHS talking therapies, and rolling out mental health support teams in more schools.
Dame Meg Hillier
The NHS’s work on this is vital, but I also draw the Minister’s attention to Mind in Hackney, which is pioneering a new approach to make sure that people get two sessions of mental health support within two weeks. They can get more later on, but that is what they get, rather than waiting in a queue for six months for long-term support. For many people, that, along with a long-term treatment plan, is enough. May I urge the Minister to come and visit? It is only half an hour up the road from Westminster; he could fit it in before Prime Minister’s questions.
Dr Ahmed
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s invitation. She is right: we need to think of innovative ways of attacking the mental health issues that face our country, and particularly our young people. Those include digital and face-to-face therapies, both of which we are expanding at a rapid pace. I am delighted to pass on her invitation to the Minister for Mental Health.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Has the Minister had any opportunity to form conclusions about whether excessive involvement with social media and other online potential harms has contributed to an apparent significant increase in the levels of mental health disorders?
Dr Ahmed
The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight this very live issue. As a doctor, a parent and a Minister, it is live in my mind, as it is in the minds of hon. Members across the House. It is important that we follow the evidence, and act safely and proportionately in response to that evidence. The right hon. Gentleman will know this Government’s ambition, and the direction that we want to set to ensure that young people are kept safe online.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Analysis by Rethink Mental Illness of the latest NHS waiting time statistics shows that people are eight times more likely to wait over 18 months for mental health treatment than physical health treatment. Does the Minister agree that waiting 18 months for such treatment is totally unacceptable? What steps will the Government take to cut adult mental health waiting times?
Dr Ahmed
Absolutely; it is unacceptable that there is still a disparity between mental and physical health when it comes to investigation, diagnosis and treatment. That is why this Government are proud to put record amounts of funding for mental health into the NHS. We are also making available £473 million of capital funding for encouraging and establishing 24/7 mental health centres, alongside other capital priorities, so that people can get the right support at the right time, closer to home.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
After my young constituent was left in limbo between child and adolescent mental health services, health services and neurodevelopment pathways, with nobody claiming responsibility for her healthcare needs, her mum called 111 to get some advice. The advice she was given was, “If you’re not happy with the service, contact your MP.” With all mental health and emergency services stretched to breaking point, what tangible action are this Government taking to address the mental health crisis in our neurodiverse population, so that nobody else in my constituency is failed like this young lady?
Dr Ahmed
I think we are all distressed to hear stories like that. It is what motivates us to keep going and ensure that the NHS becomes a match-fit service for the 21st century. To reassure the hon. Lady, in addition to the investments I have already highlighted, we are also investing £13 million to pilot enhanced training for staff, so that they can offer more support to young people with complex needs, such as those she has described.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It should not be so difficult for women to get a diagnosis for a condition that every single one of us goes through. That is why this Government took a landmark step forward by including menopause in the NHS health checks for the first time ever. It is assessed that this will benefit around 5 million women. We are going further next year, when menopause will be one of the first conditions treated through our revolutionary new digital hospital, NHS Online.
Ruth Cadbury
Women in my constituency experiencing symptoms of perimenopause and menopause tell me of very varied experiences of going to their GP—some excellent, and some, frankly, alarmingly poor. I have been particularly concerned to hear about the experiences of south Asian women with perimenopausal and menopausal symptoms. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that all GPs receive thorough and regular training that is appropriate for all London’s communities?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point that many of us will, unfortunately, recognise. We need to address variability in training, through the NHS health checks and training that is being rolled out by both the General Medical Council and the royal colleges. We need to go further. There are some great examples, both in London and across the country, of multidisciplinary teams helping with training for specialist services, and of initiatives like menopause cafés to support women. We need to take those best examples to the rest of the NHS.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Hormone replacement therapy is a godsend for many women experiencing menopause, but there is a dire shortage of HRT implants. These are unlicensed medicines, but they are absolutely essential for treatment, particularly for women for whom other treatments do not work. There are women in my constituency who are suffering very badly with poor mental and physical health impacts as a result. I have submitted a number of written questions and received responses from Ministers, in particular the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed). We really want to know when action will be taken on this, and when we can get the implants that these women so desperately need.
Karin Smyth
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about supply and availability across the country, which is something we monitor regularly to ensure that if there is a shortage of a medicine in an area, there are alternatives available. We will continue to keep that under review, to ensure that women have the services and the medication that they need.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
We know that dentistry was left in crisis by the Conservatives, but this Government are determined to ensure that everyone can access a dentist when they need one. We have recently broadened access to dental appointments, so that patients who need more serious and ongoing treatment no longer miss out. Between April and October 2025, we delivered 1.8 million more treatments than in the same period before the general election.
Callum Anderson
I have a constituent who is awaiting a root canal and crown treatment to save her tooth. She has been quoted £400 for NHS treatment with a 60% chance of success, and £1,300 for private healthcare with a 90% success rate. Hopefully the Minister agrees that this mismatch risks undermining confidence in NHS dentistry. What steps is he taking to reform the NHS dental contract, so that constituents like mine can receive timely and high-quality care that is within financial reach?
Stephen Kinnock
I am very sorry to hear about the plight of my hon. Friend’s constituent, and I would be more than happy to look into the specifics of her case. The sad reality is that after 14 years of Tory neglect and incompetence, we have ended up with a two-tier dentistry system. This Government are determined to ensure that high-quality NHS dentistry is available to everyone who needs it. The 2026 reforms that I announced on 16 December will help patients who have complex needs by creating a new care pathway, backed by tariffs for dentists of between £250 and £700, which could save patients up to £225 in fees. Our 2026 measures, combined with long-term contract reform, will indeed enable timely, high-quality treatment that is within financial reach.
Natalie Fleet
Fourteen years of Conservative rule has consequences for the children in my constituency. A quarter of them have tooth decay—[Interruption.] Conservative Members can shake their heads as much as they like, but this is the real-world impact of the decisions that they made. Those children are some of the most deprived in Derbyshire, and the integrated care board has found that they are more likely than wealthier constituents 3 miles up the road to have tooth decay. I am pleased that we are fixing dentistry. We are getting more urgent dentist appointments and we have the roll-out of supervised toothbrushing in schools, but we need to do more. What more are this Government doing to address this inequality and help the children in my constituency who are in pain?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Conservatives failed our children’s health; tooth decay is the most common reason for hospital admissions for five to nine-year-olds. That is a truly shameful, Dickensian state of affairs. We have provided Derbyshire county council with £82,000 for this year’s supervised toothbrushing programme, with further funding agreed till 2028-29. I am delighted that, of the 42,000 increase in the number of treatments in the Derby and Derbyshire ICB area, 19,000 were for children, and by extending the soft drinks industry levy we will protect kids’ teeth from decay—a policy that is emblematic of the shift from treatment to prevention that is at the heart of our 10-year plan.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
My constituents continue to find it very difficult to get an appointment with an NHS dentist. What steps is the Minister taking to encourage dentists in rural areas, so that my constituents can have access to an NHS dentist?
Stephen Kinnock
We come to this Chamber month in, month out for these oral questions but we never hear an apology from those on the Opposition Benches for the mess in which they left NHS dentistry. For the Conservatives, sorry really does seem to be the hardest word.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s question, we have delivered 1.8 million additional appointments between April and October 2025, compared with the same period before the general election. I would be happy to furnish him with the precise numbers of how many more have been provided in his constituency and his ICB area. He can watch his post box for that information.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
The Daily Mirror reports that of the nearly 1 million urgent dental appointments that have been commissioned by integrated care boards since April, 900,000 have not been taken up because of strict rules around the scope of treatment. Meanwhile, in my constituency and around the country, too many people are going without the treatment that they need. Will the Minister update us on when the Government expect to meet their targets on urgent appointments?
Stephen Kinnock
Our manifesto commitment was about improving access to urgent dental care, and that is precisely what we have done by commissioning hundreds of thousands of additional urgent treatments. It became clear as we were working through that process that the clinical definition was too narrow and out of step with the common-sense interpretation, so we acted on the advice of the chief dental officer and broadened the definition. From this April, urgent care will be embedded in the contract, and of course we continue to work with the sector on long-term contract reform.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Everyone in this House knows that NHS dentistry was allowed to fall apart under the Conservatives, resulting in DIY tooth extractions, people being forced to go to A&E because they are in pain, and children suffering in every corner of the country. Last year, 38,000 children in Shropshire did not see a dentist. In Surrey, that number was 100,000 and in Sussex it was 133,000. That is a disgrace. The Government promised an extra 700,000 urgent appointments to fight this crisis, but that promise looks set to have been broken in the previous year. Will the Minister today highlight in black and white how many extra urgent appointments were actually delivered last year, rather than simply commissioned?
Stephen Kinnock
As I have just pointed out to the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), we have broadened the definition, because the clinical definition of “urgent” was simply not in line with the common-sense interpretation. People removing their own teeth in DIY dentistry were not fitting into the classification of “urgent”. We have changed that categorisation. As a result of that, I am pleased to confirm that we have delivered 1.8 million additional appointments and treatments this year compared with the same period last year—April to October 2025. We will continue to work on that basis of embedding urgent care into the contract, as I announced on 16 December, in the 2026 reforms that we are carrying out.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
We now have ambulances arriving faster, but we know there is much more to do. We have taken action to reduce handover delays by introducing release-to-rescue 45-minute handovers, supporting ambulances back on to the road to respond to patients faster. We have invested in an extra 500 ambulances. I am pleased to announce that as a result of this Government’s investment and modernisation, West Midlands ambulances are reaching patients with conditions such as suspected heart attacks and strokes almost seven minutes faster this winter than last winter.
Sureena Brackenridge
I thank the Minister for her update. I welcome the progress made on ambulance response times and handovers. I recently visited Willenhall ambulance hub to thank the incredible staff and to hear about winter pressures, local handover delays and the strain of late finishes on their family life and childcare. What action is being taken to tackle systemic bottlenecks in A&E departments, high bed occupancy and pharmacy delays to protect staff wellbeing and ensure high-quality patient care?
Karin Smyth
I commend my hon. Friend for visiting her ambulance service, as many hon. Members do, to understand the pressures they are working under. It is a useful visit to understand those wider issues, as she says. She raised an important point about handover delays impacting staff as well as patients. Reducing these delays will ensure that staff are no longer stuck outside emergency departments. On the wider issue about the front door, NHS England’s model emergency department will set out core principles and pathways for high-performing emergency departments, which will improve patient experience and flow with lower waiting times and less overcrowding. We are committed to improving rest facilities to support staff wellbeing.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
In November, I joined a local ambulance crew and saw at first hand the great work they do for our community, but services are under huge strain. Will the Minister designate ambulance stations as critical infrastructure to protect them from closure and set up an emergency fund to support them?
Karin Smyth
I commend the hon. Member for going out with her crews. One of the reasons we have been so successful this year in improving the services is by looking at things such as where ambulances are located and how they operationalise their services. We will continue to work with NHS England on the best model for local constituencies.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
We inherited a broken NHS dental system in which many people were unable to access a dentist when they need one, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency, but we are making real progress, having increased the number of NHS treatments by 1.8 million between April and October 2025 compared with the same period before the general election. As a result of this nationwide increase, I am pleased to report that 89,000 more NHS dental treatments were delivered between April and October last year in the Lancashire and South Cumbria integrated care board area, which of course includes my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Lizzi Collinge
One of my constituents contacted me because their spouse is bedbound and cannot get dental care at home, so he gets no routine care. He recently waited three months for an emergency extraction—something he could have had on the same day if he was not disabled. What work is going on to help my constituents access the care they need?
Stephen Kinnock
I am sorry to hear about the plight of my hon. Friend’s constituent. I will, of course, be more than happy to meet her and look into the specifics of the case. Specialised dental services have a vital role to play in providing dental treatment to vulnerable people in settings such as care homes. In many cases, this is about teamwork and integration, ensuring that primary dental care is working in lockstep with adult social care. There is clearly some room for improvement in some areas. I would be happy to work with her to ensure that this issue gets resolved.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
The 10-year health plan announced ambitious measures to make the healthy choice the easy choice. They include tackling the obesity epidemic through mandatory healthy food sales reporting, business targets to increase the healthiness of products sold and restrictions on junk food advertising.
Naz Shah
In Bradford West, more than one in five children begins primary school overweight or obese. By the time they leave primary school, that figure rises to one in three children. Will the Minister set out how this Government’s world-leading new ban on junk food advertising will help parents to give every child the best and healthiest start in life?
Ashley Dalton
I thank my hon. Friend for outlining the very real crisis of childhood obesity. It is a problem that robs children of the best possible start in life and sets them up for a whole lifetime of health problems. It is why this Government have come down hard and delivered our commitment to restrict advertisements for junk food on TV and online. That action will remove around 7.2 billion calories from children’s diets every single year.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
As the House will know, pharmacies are an important part of the system to prevent ill health. Last week, I raised the challenges that pharmacies in my constituency of South West Hertfordshire and across the country are facing due to rising costs and a lack of funding support. I wrote to the Minister for Care last April and have followed up several times since. How can I arrange a meeting with him to discuss these concerns further?
Ashley Dalton
The Minister responsible runs a regular ministerial surgery and would be more than happy to meet the hon. Member.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I declare an interest as a consultant paediatrician in the NHS. Prevention of ill health is crucial. It is particularly important in children, perhaps most especially when one is trying to prevent ill health in children caused by doctors. I have expressed concerns previously about the puberty blockers trial, as have many in both Houses. The trial has now been paused due to a Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency letter. When were Ministers first aware of that letter and when were they first aware of the concerns described within it?
Ashley Dalton
The regulators are doing their job. This is a perfectly ordinary occurrence in certain research trials. As the hon. Member has made the House aware—I am sure it was already aware—the trial has been paused. We will leave the regulators and the clinicians to do their jobs to ensure that all the trials, including this one, are done in an appropriate fashion.
Dr Johnson
That is a very interesting answer. Before Christmas, the Secretary of State had confidence in an allegedly vigorous and rigorous process. Fertility preservation techniques have not deteriorated over the last few months. The ages at which children reach the Tanner stages of puberty have not changed over the last few months, but the MHRA’s view has. Why? Given that this is such a scrutinised trial, does that not call into question the MHRA’s wider competence and due diligence? Will the Minister publish the MHRA’s letter from November referred to in the more recent correspondence published on Friday?
Ashley Dalton
What the hon. Member highlights is part of this rigorous process. That is what happens. Why the MHRA has changed its view is a question for the MHRA, but it is up to the MHRA to raise these issues through the process. That is why we run such trials. [Interruption.] It is an independent regulator.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
The Prime Minister has made tackling violence against women and girls a priority across the Government and every public service must play its part. In the NHS, we will be supporting GPs to identify, support and refer victims and survivors to specialist services. That will include a specialist support worker for every GP practice to draw on and training GPs to spot the signs of domestic abuse and sexual violence. As part of the Government’s VAWG strategy, the Department will provide an additional £5 million for victim support services and up to £50 million to roll out specialist services for child sexual abuse victims.
Calum Miller
I recently had the opportunity to visit the dedicated staff at Survivor Space, a centre for victims of sexual violence in Oxford that serves my constituents. I was shocked to learn that victims and survivors of sexual violence may wait up to two years for a counselling session. I was further appalled to learn that at least one survivor had been advised that they could not access NHS mental health services until they had first had counselling from Survivor Space. Does the Secretary of State agree that no survivor should have to wait two years for treatment, and would he or one of his Ministers meet me and representatives of Survivor Space to discuss how to get dedicated healthcare funding to the frontline in order to support such services?
Wes Streeting
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member. The voluntary and community sector provides, and should continue to provide, support for victims. The voluntary sector does a brilliant job, in an environment that often feels safer and more inclusive, and we should welcome that. However, the existence of voluntary sector provision does not excuse the NHS from performing its duties. One change that I have led in the leadership culture of my Department is the recognition that investment in services for victims and survivors is a responsibility of the NHS and the DHSC, not of the Home Office, Ministry of Justice or others. We must take responsibility for meeting the needs of everyone. There is of course more to do on waiting times. I would be delighted to ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets the meeting that he asks for.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
We are revolutionising our country’s health and wellbeing through our 10-year health plan, which will deliver the three major shifts, boost life expectancy and improve mental health for everyone, everywhere. We are shifting from prioritising the tackling of sickness to prevention, including through action in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill to create a smoke-free generation.
Dr Cooper
It is great to hear that wellbeing is being built in through the shift to prevention in our national health strategy. Does the Minister agree that we should now champion health in all policies, starting with the mandatory use of the wellbeing indicators available for the Treasury Green Book, which are currently used sporadically at best?
Ashley Dalton
My hon. Friend will know that that is a question for Treasury colleagues. However, we are a mission-led Government committed to healthy outcomes across Government, not just in the DHSC.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has compared GPs’ salaries to that of the Prime Minister. I can understand why he is taking a keen interest in how much a Prime Minister is paid, but can the Government assure the House that the GP contract will include an increase in GP funding over and above inflationary pressures? [Interruption.] They are on the frontline of ensuring that national wellbeing indicators in this country improve.
Ashley Dalton
I am not entirely sure what any of that has to do with wellbeing indicators—
Mr Speaker
Order. Let me do my job and I will let the Minister do hers. Try to answer the question—I did add a caveat to it.
Ashley Dalton
Sorry, Mr Speaker; I did not hear you. I can confirm that a written ministerial statement will be tabled at 4 pm in which the contract for 2026-27 will be laid out.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
Every child with a disability should have the opportunity to reap the health and wellbeing benefits of being active. We are working across health, education and sports to break down barriers to physical activity, including for children with Down’s syndrome. That includes ensuring that they have access to inclusive, sensory-rich activities that they can enjoy with friends, families and carers.
Dr Pinkerton
I recently had a meeting with British Gymnastics, the charity Stepping Stones, and Prime Acrobatics, a wonderful and inclusive gymnastics centre in my Surrey Heath constituency. They told me that young people with Down’s syndrome are routinely prevented from taking part in physical activity and sport because of concerns about neck stability. Might the Minister be willing to take this case on, work with GPs, the NHS and other relevant bodies to review guidance in that area, and remove the barriers that can all too often prevent young people from engaging with the physical and sporting activities that are so vital to their physical and mental wellbeing?
Dr Ahmed
The hon. Member is not the first colleague to raise that issue. Clearly, the safety of patients and children is paramount, but it must be proportionate and led by evidence. I would be very happy to explore this further with him.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her work on raising the profile of this underserved area. It is simply unacceptable that disabled women are at higher risk of neonatal and perinatal mortality and stillbirth, and that they continue to experience adverse outcomes relative to the general population. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has launched an independent maternity investigation, which will help us to understand the systemic issues behind why so many families, including disabled women, experience unacceptable care.
Dr Tidball
Too often, disabled women’s bodies are deemed not to count. In the last year, I have met two incredible disabled women: Carly, a Paralympian, and Sarah, an occupational therapist. Neither found out that they were pregnant until their second and third trimesters respectively because none of their clinicians considered that they might be pregnant. But we are making babies, we are having babies—against the odds; we have a 44% higher likelihood of stillbirth—and we are being brilliant mothers. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss ensuring that inclusive maternity care for disabled women is at the heart of our women’s health strategy so that our womanhood is no longer invisible?
Dr Ahmed
We are so lucky to have my hon. Friend in this place, challenging us to be better—and we can be better. We need to be bolder, and we need to take decisive action to close the gap on inequalities to ensure that all women receive safe, personalised and compassionate care. We know how important inclusive maternity care is for disabled women. I note that my hon. Friend has previously had meetings with the Minister for maternity, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be delighted to meet her.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
A matter of weeks ago, a power cut plunged parts of Eastbourne district general hospital, where I was born, into darkness and forced our maternity unit to temporarily close, particularly affecting disabled women. People had to use their iPhone torches to see. Despite that power infrastructure failure, we are way at the back of the queue for new hospital funding. Will the Minister commit to accelerating the unlocking of that cash, so that women can have the services they deserve—
Mr Speaker
Order. I have spoken before about trying to drag in a supplementary question that is not relevant to the main question. I call the shadow Minister and welcome him to the Dispatch Box for the first time.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Seven months ago, the NHS 10-year plan promised a maternity taskforce. May I ask the Minister how many times it has met?
Dr Ahmed
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it has not met yet, but we are establishing it and it will be meeting soon.
Gregory Stafford
The fact that the taskforce has not even met, seven months later, tells us everything we need to know about how urgent and important the Government consider this issue. In Leeds, families are losing faith in the failing maternity services. The Secretary of State said that he takes the matter “extremely seriously”, yet Donna Ockenden—who exposed the failings in Nottingham, has the support of families, and has said that she is ready and willing to lead the inquiry—has not been appointed. If the Minister and the Secretary of State take this issue extremely seriously, why have they not appointed a chair yet?
Dr Ahmed
I see that the brass neck of the hon. Gentlemen’s predecessor has been transplanted to him. He talks about seven months, but what about the last 14 years, through which the Conservatives presided over the decay and decline of our NHS? They failed our patients and the clinicians who serve them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in regular contact with maternity families and, like me, he takes the matter extremely seriously. He will report to this House on the outcome of his deliberations on a regular basis.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
Through our 10-year health plan and the shift from hospital to community, our new neighbourhood health service will benefit millions. It is underpinned by 120 new neighbourhood health centres by 2030, alongside the supercharging of community diagnostic centres, which will deliver faster, more accessible care, with over 100 sites open 12 hours a day, seven days a week. This massive expansion will transform community access for millions of patients, regardless of postcode.
Alison Griffiths
I am delighted to hear the Minister’s response. Zachary Merton hospital in Rustington was closed temporarily, but that closure became permanent and the site is being progressed for disposal. More than half of residents in Rustington are elderly, and rely on intermediate and step-down care. They have not been consulted on the permanent closure, despite assurances from Sussex community NHS foundation trust and NHS Sussex integrated care board. Will the Minister confirm whether he considers that a substantial variation in NHS services? Will he consider exercising his call-in powers before the site is irreversibly sold?
Stephen Kinnock
I am not familiar with the details of that case, but if the hon. Lady writes to me I would be more than happy to take the issue up. These matters are determined by the ICBs and trusts, and the Government are not in the business of micromanaging what is happening out there in the field. We believe that people who are closest to our citizens are the best people to take those decisions, but we do expect the right outcomes. I would be happy to work with the hon. Lady on that basis.
Ms Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Women with the painful and incurable condition of endometriosis have suffered stigma and ill health for far too long, and despite the condition impacting one in 10 women, a diagnosis takes over eight years on average. Will the Minister make sure that the new women’s health strategy includes stronger training, better awareness, and faster support for women?
Stephen Kinnock
This is a vital issue. Endometriosis is a serious challenge for so many women across our country, and I confirm that it is an integral part of the strategy. I am sure she will be pleased to see the outcome of that strategy as it moves forward.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
The health PFI programme between 1992 and 2015 delivered 126 new acute facilities for the NHS, and over £12 billion of investment in the estate. NHS PFI contracts are held by individual trusts, and the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority publishes annual data on them, including the costs of all those PFI projects. The last PFI contract was signed in 2015. We are not bringing back PFI; we are bringing forward a new public-private partnership model that will draw on lessons learned from the past, to ensure that we deliver the commitments of our 10-year plan.
Ian Byrne
Alder Hey children’s hospital NHS foundation trust in my constituency faces significant financial pressure due to its private finance initiative deal. That is because over 50% of its total PFI payment is going towards interest charges, with Alder Hey still owing £380 million by 2045 for the PFI investment of £189 million. That is nearly £200 million being drained out of Alder Hey over the next two decades, because of the now discredited PFI system. That money should be spent on making sick children better. What assessment has the Department made of the potential impacts of the use of PFI to fund the recently announced neighbourhood health centres?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend highlights an important example, where something is clearly not going well. The Department is working with the team at Alder Hey to help rectify some of those problems. That is why we will not be using that PFI model in future. We have learned those lessons and we will take forward a new PPP model for our neighbourhood health service that will transform care for people in his constituency and across the country.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Today we are publishing a new GP contract. Backed by new funding, it will recruit more GPs and cut waiting times for appointments. The changes and modernisation will diagnose thousands more cases of lung cancer, protect children by boosting vaccination rates, and provide more people with weight-loss jabs on the NHS. That follows an extra £1.1 billion that we have invested in general practice this year, and builds on the 2,000 more GPs that we have recruited since the general election. After 14 years of decline, the Government are fixing the front door to the NHS, bringing back the family doctor, and ending the 8am scramble. Lots done, lots more to do.
Harriet Cross
Inverurie medical practice in my constituency saw its national insurance bill rise by £75,000 thanks to this Government. That has put huge pressure on the practice, which was already operating with one GP for 3,000 patients, which is three times higher than the British Medical Association recommends. When did the Secretary of State last meet the Chancellor to discuss the impact of the NICs rise on GP practices, and what are he and his Department doing about the pressure—
Wes Streeting
I see the Chancellor most weeks. That is why record investment is going into our NHS, which is improving patient satisfaction with access to general practice, cutting waiting lists, and improving ambulance response times—all to fix the mess that the Conservatives left behind. And people should be in no doubt: given the chance, they would do it again. They opposed the investment, they opposed the reform, and they can never be trusted with our NHS.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
We acknowledge the important issue of the potential negative impact that gambling advertising may have on children and young people’s health. My officials continue to work closely with officials at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and I will be discussing the issue with the Minister for Gambling, who is responsible for gambling advertising policy. We continue to keep the public health evidence under review, and to consider suitable action to protect individuals and communities from gambling harms.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
In the plan for change, the Government committed to meet the 18-week standard for routine operations, but the latest data suggests that the Government are not on track to meet that commitment by the end of the Parliament. In December, fewer people were treated within 18 weeks than in the previous month. Will the Secretary of State now accept the reality that patients are experiencing and, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned, that the Government will not deliver their commitment on their key milestone to deliver the 18-week standard?
Wes Streeting
I will never surrender to the tyranny of the low expectations of the Conservative party. We have cut waiting lists by 330,000 since we came to office; they are now at their lowest level in three years. We made progress despite strikes, we made progress despite winter pressures, and we have made progress despite every bit of investment and modernisation being opposed by the Conservatives. Instead of criticising our record, the shadow Secretary of State should apologise for his.
Stuart Andrew
Another leadership ambition, I see.
On 29 September, I wrote to the Secretary of State regarding the late Dr Susan Michaelis’s campaign for better research into lobular breast cancer, but sadly I still have not had a reply. She established the Lobular Moon Shot Project and the last Government committed to support its aims. However, despite meeting the Secretary of State, representatives from the project say that they still have no clarity on how the project and research will be expedited. Will the Secretary of State confirm now Government approval for the funding required for this research, which is critical for so many women in this country?
Wes Streeting
I apologise to the shadow Secretary of State for not having replied to his letter—let me make sure that I do that. There is no disagreement across the House on the substance of the issue. I am absolutely supportive of the project and I want to fund the research, but we have to make sure that the research proposal meets the standards and has the confidence of our funders. We are working with the team to try to get the proposal over the line, but that is the only obstacle here—it is certainly not a political decision.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
This UK Labour Government, at least, are spending billions of pounds upgrading the digital architecture of the NHS in England. That means that over 90% of GPs now offer appointments online, and by 2029 we will have a single patient record for patients and their clinicians to access all their information. That is in contrast with the digital desert that exists in Scotland, which is why it is time for Analogue John to move over and make way for Anas Sarwar as First Minster to save Scotland’s NHS.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Wes Streeting
The hon. Member highlights a real challenge that we have inherited: the disconnection between undergraduate education and training, and the jobs that are available. We are addressing that through our workforce plan. I want to place on the record my thanks to South Western Ambulance Service, which in December improved ambulance response times by just under 30 minutes for category 2 calls. There are still big challenges in the south-west, but the team deserve real credit for the improvement they have led.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
My hon. Friend highlights an important point about the need to have further roll-outs of CDCs, particularly for communities such as hers. We are expanding those and expanding the time available for them. We are also expanding access through the front door through the NHS app and digital. Our new online hospital service will improve the sorts of issues that she mentions so that we bring services closer to her patients and do not expect them to have to travel.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Karin Smyth
I understand the issues that the hon. Gentleman and many other Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), have raised in Grimsby and the Lincolnshire area. It is important that the clinical mapping for their new services is supported by clinicians and local people, and I am happy to continue to talk to the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and others about progress with that. I am in touch with the NHS England team, and it assures me that it is continuing to do that. I also understand the additional difficulties—
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend makes a really important point about how important DEXA scans are for osteoporosis, particularly for women. We have already expanded DEXA scans across the country this year; we have also allocated more capital funding for such capital investment, and we will announce the allocations in due course.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Ashley Dalton
As the hon. Gentleman is probably aware, this Government’s cancer plan, which I launched just over a week ago, is the first ever cancer plan to have a section on children and young people with cancer and to commit to supporting children holistically throughout their cancer journey. I am more than happy to have a conversation with him about the issues that he has raised.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Dr Ahmed
Glasgow is a great place to get medical care—I can attest to that—but people should not have to travel 200 miles to get medical care. My hon. Friend and I have had many discussions on this topic, and I am very glad to continue those discussions. She knows that treatment along the border is subject to service-level agreements in both English trusts and Scottish health boards, but it should be much more porous and accommodating than it is. I am happy to take these discussions with her further later.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Catherine from Redbourn has shared that she has to wait weeks for a GP appointment, yet her village faces an increase in residents of up to 70%, which means thousands of new patients. Some of that is through speculative developments. Does the Minister agree that councils should have the powers to ensure that planning approvals are dependent on first securing healthcare to serve those new residents? Will he commit to ensuring that NHS planning cycles are aligned with housing developments to ensure that communities do not have to wait for weeks, months or years?
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
On the subject of GP access, I am delighted that 75% of patients now say it is easy to contact their GP, which is a sizeable increase of 14 percentage points since July 2024—that is a really positive development that I am sure the hon. Lady welcomes. Turning to planning, it is very important that the integrated care board, the council and the developers are joined up together, and we need to ensure that happens. There is also the primary care utilisation and modernisation fund, which the hon. Lady’s constituents may be interested in.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Dr Ahmed
Mental health support teams provide innovative early support for children and young people in schools and colleges, and I am pleased that these are working well in Bracknell Forest, too. Up to 900,000 additional pupils will have access to that support by the spring, and we are accelerating the roll-out to reach full national coverage by 2029.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Several weeks ago, I received a jaw-dropping email from a local Bromsgrove GP, who told me that a 10-month-old child nearly died after ambulance delays. Worse, the same day, another patient—a 66-year-old driving instructor—suffered a cardiac arrest during a driving lesson and died while being driven to the hospital by his wife. My constituents demand a better service and better response times. What are the Government going to do about this, and will the Secretary of State meet me and the concerned GP who wrote to me to address this issue?
Wes Streeting
Nothing is more sobering than hearing experiences of the life-and-death difference between the NHS being there for people when they need it and it not being there when they need it. People will be aware of a tragic case over the weekend involving a woman in her 90s in the Isle of Wight, which we are looking into. Ambulance response times are improving, but I do not pretend that they are good enough; we have done a lot, but there is a lot more to do, and the hon. Gentleman has painfully and powerfully underscored what happens when the NHS is not there for people when they need it. That is the NHS we inherited, and it is the NHS I am determined to change.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
Crawley A&E’s closure was accompanied by a commitment to a 24-hour urgent treatment centre, a commitment that the trust is now breaking. Can the Minister meet me to discuss how local services can be preserved and improved?
Karin Smyth
I am happy to discuss that issue with my hon. Friend. We are determined to have co-located UTCs; I know that that is a matter for the local commissioner, but I am happy to talk about it further.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Vista is a 160-year-old charity serving people in Leicester and Leicestershire who are suffering from visual disabilities. Last year alone, it served 21,000 people, but sadly, it faces imminent closure if it cannot raise £2 million by the end of March. If that happens, the devastating effect on the national health service and the social care service will be unimaginable, so will the Minister meet me and other local MPs, as well as representatives of University Hospitals of Leicester, to discuss what we can do to save Vista?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, and pay tribute to Vista for the outstanding work it is doing. Improving IT connectivity is a vital part of what we are doing, and the single point of access project is of relevance in that context. I would be more than happy if the hon. Gentleman wrote to me so that we can look at the issue he has raised.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
In Rochdale, we need more midwives to provide the safe staffing levels that our mums-to-be rightly expect, but newly qualified student midwives often find it difficult to find jobs when they qualify. Can the Minister explain exactly when the NHS workforce plan is due so that they can give reassurance to those newly qualified midwives that they will have a career in the NHS?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. The NHS workforce plan will be published in the spring. I recognise the challenge he has set out, and we are determined to address it—we desperately need more midwives, and we certainly need good clinical leadership in this area. That is what the Government are working towards.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Minor injuries units are being phased out in urgent treatment centres such as the brilliant one at West Cornwall hospital in my constituency—its hours were cut under the Conservatives, and have not been restored. Those units clearly help to take the pressure off ambulance and emergency services, so what will Ministers do to ensure that those services are reinforced rather than reduced?
Wes Streeting
One rationale for both the 10-year plan and the medium-term planning we are doing across the NHS is to ensure better integration, with the principle of people receiving the right care in the right place at the right time. Decisions about local configurations are matters for local leaders, but we keep these things under review, and if the hon. Gentleman has concerns, he should certainly write to us.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State knows, Darlington Memorial hospital is part of the County Durham and Darlington NHS foundation trust, which has recently been marred by the scandal of over-operation in breast services. We know that many women came to harm as a result of those failures, but we are yet to find out how many and the full extent of the harm because the trust has not completed the comprehensive look-back. Will the Minister meet me to ensure that our trust has all the resources it needs to learn the lessons necessary to ensure that no women—whether in my area or across the country—have invasive and painful clinical procedures that they do not need?
Dr Ahmed
My hon. Friend and I have had discussions regarding this matter before. Patient safety is of paramount importance, especially when it comes to surgery, including breast surgery. I am happy to meet her to discuss this further at a ministerial surgery.
Points of Order
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to correct the record in relation to something I said during the last Defence orals. On 2 February 2026, I said that the Prime Minister did not work with any of Phil Shiner’s organisations and that his role was limited to working with the Law Society on points of law. However, since then it has been brought to my attention that in 2006 the Prime Minister was instructed to represent an individual by the law firm for which Mr Shiner was the principal solicitor. I would like to take this earliest opportunity to apologise to the House and correct the record.—[Official Report, 2 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 12.]
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for her point of order and for placing the correction on the record.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for not giving you prior notice, Mr Speaker, but during Health questions this morning the Minister said that for the first time ever there will be a children’s cancer strategy as part of the cancer strategy. However, the Government scrapped the children’s cancer strategy that we had put in place, so should the Minister not come and correct the record for having misled the House—
Mr Speaker
Order. That is not a point of order, and we are not going to carry on the debate. It is not for me to say whether there was right or wrong. The hon. Member has certainly got the point on the record. I am sorry we did not get you in for a question—it might have saved us the point of order.
Bill Presented
Online Services (Age Restrictions) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Munira Wilson, supported by Victoria Collins, Ed Davey and Wendy Chamberlain, presented a Bill to make provision to restrict access to online services, including social media, by children in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 9 March, and to be printed (Bill 391).
Food Labelling (Halal and Kosher Meat)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce compulsory labelling of halal and kosher meat and products containing halal and kosher meat; and for connected purposes.
This is a Bill about animal welfare, transparency in meat production and consumer choice. It does not seek to ban halal or kosher meat. It seeks to ensure that it is clearly labelled. It is important that consumers have such information so that they can make an informed choice about what they are buying. Currently consumers do not have that information, and many are purchasing and consuming halal and kosher meat without their knowledge and agreement.
The unique process of halal and kosher meat requires the animal to have its throat slit. In the case of halal meat, the animal is often stunned before it is killed—although it might not be—and for the shechita killing for kosher meat, there is no pre-stunning. This lack of stunning causes the animal to experience severe pain. An individual concerned about animal welfare would want to know if the animal has been stunned prior to slaughter. Likewise, there are many religious groups who want to know what they are consuming too and whether the meat has been blessed by another religion. In all those cases clear labelling is essential to make an informed choice.
Currently, the legislation that regulates animal slaughter is set out in assimilated EU regulation 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing, as well as in the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015. Under these laws, animals must be stunned before they are killed, but exemptions exist for killing without stunning in accordance with specific religious rites. Added to that, there are currently no requirements for such meat to be labelled.
What was once an exemption to the accepted stunning process of animals has become a growing part of the UK’s meat market. The Government’s own figures show that of the 1.035 billion animals processed in English and Welsh slaughterhouses in 2024, an estimated 214.6 million were slaughtered to produce halal meat. The analysis shows that the proportion of meat supplied by non-stun slaughter is about four times greater than the proportion of Muslims and Jews in the UK. Although Government guidance is clear that meat that results from non-stun slaughter
“must be intended for consumption by Jews or Muslims”,
production is clearly going way beyond that, so much so that the UK now exports halal meat. Between 2018 and 2019, there was an almost 700% increase in the volume of sheep meat exported to the United Arab Emirates, all of which is required to be halal.
Clearly, without compulsory labelling of non-stunned meat, slaughterhouses have gone down the route of producing more of it. In effect, a two-tier system has been created, whereby some slaughterhouses comply with stunning laws and others do not, citing the religious exemption, though without ever intending to focus their sale on that market. Unfortunately, a driver of the market for non-stunned meat is the fact that a step of the process is removed, meaning that production of non-stunned meat is cheaper. Supermarkets and food outlets can purchase that cheaper meat without ever declaring it to the customer, which is not what was intended by the legislation. We have seen many examples of this over the last 15 years; Britain’s biggest retailers—such as Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Marks & Spencer and Asda—have sold halal or kosher meat without informing the consumer, as have Domino’s, Pizza Hut and KFC. Non-stunned produce is being used by 17 local councils in schools, the majority of which are not Islamic faith schools, without parents or children having the first idea about it. It is also being served in hospitals and local councils.
In December, Labour put forward its much-vaunted animal welfare strategy, a document lauded for its aim of “preventing animals suffering unnecessarily”, which included the banning of boiling live lobsters, banning the use of carbon dioxide to stun pigs, and steps to ensure the more humane slaughter of farmed fish. I was surprised and alarmed to see no mention of the more humane slaughter of animals and the labelling of halal and kosher meat. There was a clear opportunity to call for the labelling of halal and kosher meat, but it was missed. Nowhere in Labour’s 12,500-word animal welfare strategy was it mentioned. We often hear in the House that the UK holds the status of a world leader in animal welfare, but such a glaring gap shows that this country can no longer make such a claim.
Food and You 2, which is a biannual official statistic survey commissioned by the Food Standards Agency, found that the most common spontaneously expressed food concern in 2024 was “food production method”. In August 2022, almost 99% of respondents to the Government’s call for evidence on labelling for animal welfare said that method-of-slaughter labelling should be introduced. In research from the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, 92% of halal consumers state that clear halal certification is important, so is it not time we updated our regulations and demanded that our meat was clearly and fully labelled, so that we know what we are buying and eating? Surely that is what consumer choice is all about, and I would wager that the overwhelming majority of animal lovers in the UK expect the House of Commons to support this Bill today.
This Bill will give all consumers assurance that they know how their meat was produced. I urge all Members of the House to support this measure.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Esther McVey, Sir Roger Gale, Alberto Costa, Dame Karen Bradley, Sir Edward Leigh, Graham Stringer, Rupert Lowe, Sammy Wilson, Jim Allister, Lee Anderson and Sarah Pochin present the Bill.
Esther McVey accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 July, and to be printed (Bill 386).
Opposition Day
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before we begin the debate, I would like to make a brief statement. I understand that there is huge public interest in this matter, and there has been significant coverage in the media. It is and always has been possible for the House to properly debate these matters within the framework of our existing rules, and there has been no change of convention in that respect. While matters relating to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s recent arrest are currently not sub judice, Members will be aware that there is an ongoing police investigation. I therefore gently say to Members that it would be helpful if they exercised a degree of restraint. I know the House would not wish to do anything that risks prejudicing any possible prosecution. Of course, any comments on the King or the heir apparent would not be in order. I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to require the Government to lay before this House all papers relating to the creation of the role of Special Representative for Trade and Investment and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s appointment to that role, including but not confined to any documents held by UK Trade and Investment, British Trade International (BTI) and its successors, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister’s Office containing or relating to advice from, or provided to, the Group Chief Executive of BTI, Peter Mandelson, the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister regarding the suitability of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor for the appointment, due diligence and vetting conducted in relation to the appointment, and minutes of meetings and electronic communications regarding the due diligence and vetting.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your statement ahead of this debate.
The appalling crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and his associates have rightly stunned the whole world. The scale of Epstein’s operation was shocking—selling human beings for sex, turning hundreds of young women and girls into victims and survivors—and those women are at the front of our mind today as we finally seek transparency, truth and accountability.
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor shamed our country and the royal family, but for too long, Members of Parliament were barred from even raising criticisms of him, let alone properly scrutinising his role as trade envoy, because of the outdated tradition that mentions of any member of the royal family in this House must, in the words of the previous Speaker, be
“very rare, very sparing and very respectful”.—[Official Report, 28 February 2011; Vol. 524, c. 35.]
I encountered this at first hand back in 2011, when I was asked to respond to an Adjournment debate on behalf of Lord Green, who was then the Minister for Trade and Investment. The debate was led by the late Paul Flynn, but even he—an ardent and outspoken republican, as I am sure many of us remember, was not allowed to raise any actual concerns about Andrew himself. Paul called it “negative privilege”, and that is what it was. He said his mouth was “bandaged by archaic rules”, and that had very real and damaging consequences. I am pleased to see the Minister in his place, because I know he was also constrained by those rules when he raised similar issues. In that debate, Epstein’s name was not mentioned once, and there was no chance to debate the substance. Standing in for the responsible Minister, I set out the Government’s position, as it had been for a decade, in support of the prince’s role as trade envoy. Looking back and knowing what we all know now, I am horrified by it. I cannot imagine what it must have been like for the survivors and their families to hear Andrew praised like that, as they did so often all around the world, so I apologise to them, and I am determined to change things.
I was struck by the words of Amanda Roberts, Virginia Giuffre’s sister-in-law, after Andrew was arrested last week. She said this could be a stain on the royal family for the rest of our history, or
“it could be a moment where they, and we, decide that this is the time when cultural change happens.”
As a staunch supporter of His Royal Highness the King and the royal family, I believe we must help to bring about that cultural change now.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The leader of the Liberal Democrats is making a powerful speech. I am sure he will agree that decades of deferential and, frankly, sycophantic treatment by Parliament and state authorities are being exposed as having enabled Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to behave as though he were untouchable. I am sure he will also join me in calling on the Government to introduce independent oversight of those members of the royal family who undertake official duties, and in requiring transparency and scrutiny of anything paid for by the state from now on, because apparently, they work for us.
Ed Davey
I am grateful for that intervention. We must build a culture of transparency and accountability; I think that is essential. I hope that we as a House will look at ending the archaic “negative privilege” rules that Paul Flynn spoke about, and remove the bandages from our mouths. Today, we are free of those bandages, when it comes to Andrew. Our motion focuses on finally getting out the truth about his role as a special representative for trade and investment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I commend the right hon. Member and his party for bringing forward the motion, and for the way that he interviewed on TV this morning. Certainly, he speaks not just for this House, but for this nation. We are all greatly shocked at what has taken place, but does he agree that King Charles, Queen Camilla, Edward, Sophie, William and Kate are members of the royal family who need our support at this time? Does he also agree that now is perhaps the time to tell them that we in this House love them, and that this nation loves them? We understand the pain they are suffering, and we support those members of the royal family who are above reproach on this.
Ed Davey
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I think he probably speaks for the whole House. Indeed, the intention of this debate is to bring this House together. The changes that we think are necessary would protect the royal family and strengthen the monarchy, which in some places has been criticised. That is important, and it is why we need these reforms.
The motion focuses on the start of this—on the appointment of the former Prince Andrew to this role back in 2001. We have seen reporting that says that the King, then the Prince of Wales, expressed his concerns about that appointment. More alarmingly, we have read that Peter Mandelson wrote to the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, as his former Trade Secretary, pushing for Andrew’s appointment—one friend of Epstein lobbying for a job for another friend of Epstein, and a job that might help Epstein enrich himself. We clearly need to get to the bottom of that appointment and the role that Mandelson played in it, and only the papers demanded by this motion will allow us to do that. We need them published as soon as possible, without delay.
There are many questions about Andrew’s conduct in the role, which is now subject to a criminal investigation. As you said, Mr Speaker, we clearly do not want to jeopardise that investigation through anything we say today. We must let the police get on with their work, especially for Epstein’s victims, survivors and their families, who deserve to see justice done at last. However, I would highlight one example of the way that Jeffrey Epstein sought to use Andrew’s role as a trade envoy to enrich himself.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
My right hon. Friend is talking about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s role as a trade envoy. When I was working overseas for the British Council, Mountbatten-Windsor came to an exhibition I had put on about Dolly the sheep, which was a fine example of British scientific innovation, but he stood up in front of Japanese dignitaries and business people and said, “This is rubbish. This is Frankenstein’s sheep.” Would my right hon. Friend agree with me that that was a very poor example of promoting British trade interests?
Ed Davey
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, which shows not only that we need to focus on the scandals we have heard about, but that even greater questions are raised if the trade envoy was actually speaking against British commercial interests. I hope that not just in this debate, but in other debates, and in Select Committees and elsewhere, we will get to the bottom of that issue.
As I was saying, I would like to highlight one example of how Jeffrey Epstein sought to use Andrew’s role as trade envoy to enrich himself. Channel 4 uncovered emails in the Epstein files in which Epstein was trying to meet the Libyan dictator Gaddafi in the dying months of the Gaddafi regime, to help him find somewhere to “put his money”—something that the Minister raised at the time. In other words, Epstein looked at the deadly crisis in Libya and saw a chance to make some money, and he thought his friend Andrew could help. This is what he said in one of the emails:
“I wondered if Pa should make the intro”.
A few weeks later, Andrew wrote back, “Libya fixed.”
Although the Epstein-Gaddafi meeting does not appear to have happened, this shows clearly what these relationships were all about for Epstein: increasing his own wealth and power. The idea that the role of special trade envoy for our United Kingdom may have been used to help him do that—to help a vile paedophile sex trafficker enrich himself—is truly sickening. Again, I pay tribute to the Minister, who tried to raise this at the time, like his colleague, the late Paul Flynn. It shows again why we need to change the rules of this House that govern Ministers and the debate here.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for giving way. [Interruption.] Sorry, the leader of the Liberal Democrats—I stand corrected. [Hon. Members: “More!”] It’s coming.
I asked the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister yesterday in this House about the speed of bringing legislation forward. Victims, Members of this House and Members of the Lords all want this process to happen as swiftly as possible. Does the right hon. Member agree with the Chief Secretary’s comments and that whatever happens with Andrew or anybody else, we must keep pushing to get legislation brought forward swiftly, not in the years to come?
Ed Davey
I am grateful for both the hon. Gentleman’s Freudian slip and his suggestion that we need to speed up action in this area.
Let me begin to conclude. In many ways, this is the first truly global scandal, from the White House and silicon valley to Oslo and Paris. But it is also a deeply British scandal, reaching right to the top of the British establishment. Can there be many people more symbolic of the rot that eats away at the British establishment than the former Duke of York and special trade envoy, and the former Business Secretary, First Secretary of State and ambassador to the United States? Their association with Epstein and their actions on his behalf, while trusted with the privilege of public office, are a stain on our country.
Today, we must begin to clean away that stain with the disinfectant of transparency. Whether it is the President of the United States and his Commerce Secretary, Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor or Epstein himself, their victims and survivors have seen those responsible evade accountability and escape justice for far too long. I hope—I desperately hope—that is ending now, and I hope the House will approve this motion.
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
Let me be clear from the outset: we support this motion. Frankly, it is the least we owe the victims of the horrific abuse that was perpetrated by Jeffrey Epstein and others—abuse that was enabled, aided and abetted by a very extensive group of arrogant, entitled and often very wealthy individuals in this country and elsewhere. It is not just the people who participated in the abuse; it is the many, many more who turned a blind eye, out of greed, familiarity or deference. To my mind, they too were complicit—just as complicit—and I welcome the reckoning that is coming to them now.
I doubt there is anyone in this House who is not shocked and appalled by the recent allegations. Colleagues and many civil servants have told me their own stories of their interactions with Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, and they all betray the same pattern: a man on a constant self-aggrandising and self-enriching hustle; a rude, arrogant and entitled man who could not distinguish between the public interest, which he said he served, and his own private interest. I remember him coming to visit the Sea Cadets in Tonypandy. They were delighted and excited to meet a member of the royal family, but he insisted on coming by helicopter, unlike his mother, who came twice to the Rhondda and by car. He left early, and he showed next to no interest in the young people. That is, of course, not a crime, nor is arrogance—fortunately, I suppose. [Laughter.]
Of course, we knew much of what is now in the public domain a very long time ago. It is all very well for some of us to say, “If only we had known then what we know now,” but I am afraid that doesn’t wash with me. We did actually have plenty of warning. I called on the then Prime Minister David Cameron to dispense with the services of the then Duke of York in this Chamber on 28 February 2011 because of his close friendship with Saif Gaddafi—Gaddafi was just referred to—and the convicted Libyan gun smuggler Tarek Kaituni. I was rebuked by Speaker Bercow for doing so because
“references to members of the royal family should be very rare, very sparing and very respectful”—[Official Report, 28 February 2011; Vol. 524, c. 35.]
I did not disagree with that ruling, nor would I ever disagree with a ruling from the Chair, as you know, Mr Speaker.
Chris Bryant
I am taking your advice, Mr Speaker: I am just ignoring that.
Over the next few days back in 2011, I repeatedly called for Andrew to be sacked in the public domain—on television, on radio and in newspaper articles—citing his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, the mysteriously excessive £15 million paid for his Sunninghill home and many other issues besides. I am afraid the wilful blindness of far too many at that time was absolutely spectacular, and it still angers me. The then Prime Minister, the then Home Secretary and many others in government defended Andrew time and time and time again. I was repeatedly told off, both in the Chamber and outside it.
The broadcaster John Humphrys actually told me on the “Today” programme on 7 March 2011—I think Members will be shocked by this—that Jeffrey Epstein was “not quite a paedophile”, drawing a distinction between sexual abuse of pre-pubescent and other children. Dominic Lawson, writing in The Sunday Times on 11 March, defended Andrew and made the same distinction between Epstein’s involvement with teenage girls and paedophilia, since, as he put it,
“none of the girls was pre-pubescent”,
although he did at least admit that both were “sordid and exploitative”. I gently suggest that that is the least of what we have seen.
Let me be absolutely clear. All of this happened after the photograph of Andrew with his arm around Virginia Giuffre was published in The Mail on Sunday on 27 February 2011—it is after the allegations, not before.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I entirely agree with the Minister on the abhorrence of the comments made in the media back then. Does he agree that we still have a degree of that problem now, because often in the media we talk about “under-age girls” when actually we are talking about children, and we should ensure that when we talk about Epstein’s crimes, we talk about the children who were involved?
Chris Bryant
I agree 100%. I think we should also be referring to statutory rape, because that is what it is. Statutory rape is no better than any other kind of rape. It is rape—end of story.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Minister is speaking very powerfully about this issue and has one of the strongest track records in standing up on these types of issues. I have asked that the Government release the files concerning Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, or whatever his new name is, when he was a trade envoy. That request has been refused. Can the Minister review that decision and ensure that, in the new spirit of openness and transparency, those files are open for all to see?
Chris Bryant
I completely respect my hon. Friend. He has made that point several times, not only in the Chamber but also to me privately, and I agree with him: that is the direction of travel we are going in, which is why we agree with the Humble Address presented today. We are not standing in the way, and we will do everything we can to comply with that as fast as we possibly can. I will come on to a couple of caveats a bit later, but I just want to pursue the point about what we knew in the past.
The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) rightly said that Paul Flynn had a debate on 4 May 2011, to which he responded, standing in for the Minister responsible. However, Paul Flynn initiated another debate, on 17 March in Westminster Hall. It was granted to him by the Backbench Business Committee, which had been set up relatively recently. Because he was finding it very difficult to make any of the allegations that he wanted to make because of the rules of the House, he concluded that
“there really is no point in continuing”.—[Official Report, 17 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 156WH.]
The then Deputy Leader of the House, David Heath—who was another Liberal Democrat member of the Government at the time—made the point, which I think has been made by both Mr Bercow and you, Mr Speaker, that if there were a “substantive motion”, such comments could be made. It would be necessary to find a means of tabling such a motion, like the one that we are discussing today.
Following that, Paul Flynn tried to secure a substantive motion, but managed to secure only a motion for an Adjournment debate, on 4 May. He struggled again, and this is what he said:
“The Speaker would quite rightly abide by the rules of the House and tell me that I was not allowed to make any derogatory statements that might affect the envoy, his personality or his name. It is an illustration of how demeaned we are as politicians and Members of Parliament that I am allowed to make any points about the damage that is done only in an oblique way, by discussing the effects of the holder of the office, his role and the comments that are being made.”—[Official Report, 3 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 647.]
Of course he was angry: he was furious. He wrote a great book about being an MP, which I commend to all hon. Members.
As the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton knows, he responded to that debate. He said:
“I, for one, believe that the Duke of York does an excellent job as the UK’s special representative for international trade and investment. He promotes UK business interests around the world, and helps to attract inward investment.”
He continued at some length, and concluded:
“He has made a valuable contribution in developing significant opportunities for British business through the role, and continues to do so.”—[Official Report, 3 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 649-650.]
Let me say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that if he had followed the debates in the public domain at the time he would, I think, have known better than to make those comments.
Ed Davey
The Minister knows that I apologised for making that comment, having taken a brief from someone else. I really wish that I had not uttered those words, because I am thinking about the victims, and I have praised the Minister for the role that he took. I hope he will acknowledge that two months after that debate Andrew left the role, and it was right that he did. I was not privy to those discussions, but the Government did get rid of him.
Chris Bryant
Yes, he left his post in, I believe, July 2011. It could not have come soon enough for many of us, and it is a regret to many that the Government were not able to listen faster and act faster at that time.
What this whole sorry saga shows is that deference can be a toxic presence in the body politic. Of course we always seek to respect others, and we look for the best in others. There is another instance in that Adjournment debate that illustrates the generosity that we often show. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), whom I told that I was going to raise this, and who is a gentleman to his fingertips and always a very magnanimous fellow, asked:
“Does the Minister agree that one reason why the Duke of York has considerable credibility is his distinguished record as a former member of the Fleet Air Arm who gave valuable service in the Falklands war? That shows a degree of commitment over and above any inherited responsibilities that he might be considered to have.”—[Official Report, 3 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 650.]
Of course I understand the point that the right hon. Member was making back then, but the fear is that when deference tips over into subservience it can be terribly dangerous, because the victims are not heard, respected or understood in the same way as those with grand titles, and that—as the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said—has implications for this House. The conduct of business in the House is entirely a matter for you, Mr Speaker, interpreting “Erskine May” and the Standing Orders with the Clerks. I only repeat the words of Paul Flynn in 2011, when he denounced what he called
“censorship on hon. Members discussing an issue of great importance”.—[Official Report, 17 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 156WH.]
I know that you too, Mr Speaker, would want to denounce such censorship.
Let me issue one caveat about the motion. The Government will of course comply with the terms of the Humble Address in full—as I have said, we support the motion—but, as the House will know, there is a live police investigation of the former Duke of York following his arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office. The House will also be aware that following that arrest on 19 February, Buckingham Palace issued a statement on behalf of the King. His Majesty emphasised that
“the law must take its course”,
and that the Palace would provide its
“full and wholehearted support and co-operation”.
The statement concluded with a commitment that His Majesty and the royal family would continue in their duty and service to the nation, and I am sure the whole House will support that sentiment.
As the police have rightly said, it is absolutely crucial that the integrity of their investigation is protected, and now that these proceedings are under way, it would be wrong for me to say anything that might prejudice them. Nor will the Government be able to put into the public domain anything that is required by the police for them to conduct their inquiries unless and until they are satisfied. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton will agree with that point.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I agree with everything that the Minister is saying, but what is worrying quite a lot of us, in relation not just to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor but to Mandelson, is that because of the ongoing police investigations and because the wheels of justice grind exceedingly slowly, it may be years before we see any of these papers. I would like an assurance from the Government that—notwithstanding what the Minister has just said about the police investigation—they will do their utmost to ensure that there is full transparency, because scandals are made much worse by any sense of a cover-up.
Chris Bryant
I could not agree more. I want to ensure that we move as fast as we possibly can, but I also want to ensure that justice happens, and I do not want to do anything that would undermine the police investigations. I hope that the police will be able to move as swiftly as possible, and we will certainly co-operate with them as swiftly as possible. It is worth bearing in mind, however, that most of the documents that might be envisaged are 25 years old—some are a bit more recent—they may be substantial in number, and many will be in hard copy. I hate to add to the right hon. Member’s fears about the speed with which things may happen, but I think we all want to ensure that we do all this in a proper fashion.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
May I ask for some clarification in respect of the police investigations? The Minister may have noted the intervention made by Gordon Brown on Sunday, when he asked constabularies to consider widening the probe on the basis of files that had been released as part of the data dump. I appreciate that the Minister will not be able to comment on what those police forces are planning to do or not to do, but one of the questions that have arisen is whether all Departments, including the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Transport, would co-operate fully with them in relation to anything that they might need. Can he assure me that every single Department, without fear or favour, will give them whatever they need if they wish to widen the investigation?
Chris Bryant
We will do two things. First, we will seek to comply with the Humble Address as soon as we possibly can, given the caveat that I have already issued about the police investigation. Secondly, we will ensure that every single part of Government co-operates entirely with Thames Valley police and with any other police forces, in respect of whatever they may be investigating. It is not for me, as a Minister, to instruct the police on what they should or should not investigate, or to point them in one direction or another. Former Prime Ministers have a different set of responsibilities. So the hon. Lady is right: I do not want to undermine the investigation, but I also do not want to delay it in any way.
Chris Bryant
I do not want to give way to every single Liberal Democrat Member, but I will, of course, give way to the hon. Lady.
Tessa Munt
I thank the Minister greatly. Does he agree that it is timely, right now, for the Government to press ahead with the Public Office (Accountability) Bill? Amendment 23, which is blocking everything at the moment, seems to present a way through, and to ensure not only that we have transparency and openness but that the Government, and other Members of the House, can be assured that anything that is subject to matters of intelligence or security—and, indeed, matters relating to the police investigation—will not be released. There is an answer in the Government’s hands, and I know not why they are waiting and waiting and waiting to get this sorted out.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Lady might have to repeat what she thinks the answer that thus far evades me might be.
Tessa Munt
I could talk to him about the whistleblowing Bill and the independent office of the whistleblower. People should be able to reveal what they know and should tell the truth. It is shocking that we have to have legislation to tell people to tell the truth, but all this falls under the same remit: people should be free to declare exactly what they know, papers should be released, and there should be an independent High Court judge—that is what happens at the moment and that is what is in amendment 23—who says what may and may not be released.
Mr Speaker
May I suggest that we shorten interventions, rather than make speeches?
Chris Bryant
I return to what I said earlier: we will put everything into the public domain when we can. I do not want to do so at a time that would make it impossible for the police to secure the proper processes that they need to be able to carry out. I am not sure that adding an intervening person helps that process, but I would be happy to listen, Mr Speaker, if the hon. Lady catches your eye later on in the debate. With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate as well, so I will be happy to answer lots of questions.
Daisy Cooper
Specifically on this point, I am grateful that the Minister is willing to comply with the terms of this motion and that he is trying to manage expectations about the speed with which the Government may act. None the less, he will know that there will still be some members of the public who will view that with some suspicion and alarm, worried that the Government might be trying to long-grass it or put it in the too-hard basket. Will the Minister commit, either now or by the end of the debate, to the Government regularly updating this House so that Opposition parties do not repeatedly have to bring Ministers to the House to answer urgent questions? Will he agree to set out, by the end of the debate, how often the Government would intend to inform the House in regular updates?
Chris Bryant
I am happy to commit to updating the House as often as I possibly can in a way that is informative to the House. The hon. Lady is quite right, however, that I am slightly trying to manage people’s expectations about timeliness, partly because of the quantity of material and partly because there is a live police investigation and I do not want to jeopardise that.
Chris Bryant
I will in a moment.
If there are things that are embarrassing to the Government, who cares? I want to make sure that we end up getting the proper justice that is necessary for the victims, and that means that we have to have a proper police procedure. If there are charges brought, that has to go through a judicial process as well and I do not want to undermine that. I am very happy, both privately and publicly, to update the House when I have anything possible to say.
I am trying to get to the end of my speech. People normally like it when I get to the end of my speech—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I have united the House, Mr Speaker, but I will give way to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister).
Jim Allister
I understand the concern about not treading upon the police investigation, but surely that investigation is about the conduct of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor in the role, whereas this Humble Address is about the appointment and the process of appointment. Is there not a distinction there, which means that this Humble Address of itself should not unduly impede any police investigation or be hindered by it?
Chris Bryant
If the hon. and learned Gentleman does not mind, I will quite happily explain to him outside the Chamber precisely why I disagree with him. Again, if I were to explain more fully in the Chamber, that might not be very helpful to either the police or the criminal process. I am happy to explain to him outside the Chamber and I think he might come back in and agree with me.
Chris Bryant
I think he might. Just sometimes, he agrees with me, but not very often. Small mercies and all.
I want to make it absolutely clear to the House that the former Duke of York’s role as a special trade representative was very different to the one performed by the Government’s current trade envoys. That is often confused in the public discussion. Today, trade envoys are appointed by Ministers with a formalised set of rules of conduct, they are unpaid and they work with my Department on attracting and retaining inward investment, while supporting UK firms to take full advantage of new trade opportunities. They are all Members of either this House or another.
I have recently emphasised to all those trade envoys the importance of maximising the programme’s impact and ensuring that it aligns completely with the goals of our trade and industrial strategies. They are under the same obligations as Ministers in adhering to departmental restrictions, guidelines and confidentiality clauses, which are the same ones outlined in the ministerial code. In sum, trade envoys play an important role in boosting economic growth, delivering our industrial and trade strategies, and helping British businesses to export. I will stress this again: the role held by Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was not a trade envoy position as we would understand it today. I am enormously grateful to today’s trade envoys who go beyond the call of duty in promoting UK plc. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s role was a separate one entitled UK special representative for international trade and investment.
There is unanimous agreement across this House that those who may be guilty of misconduct in public office should face the full force of the law. That applies to everyone, regardless of who they are or how they were appointed. This was a point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister prior to the news of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest. One of the core principles of our constitutional system is the rule of law. That means that everyone is equal under the law and nobody is above the law.
I share the anger and the disgust expressed by many at the alleged behaviour of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. What we are seeing now is a full, fair and proper process by which this issue is investigated by the police and in that investigation they will, of course, have the Government’s unwavering co-operation and support. Sometimes it feels to many members of our country that there is one rule for the rich and famous and another rule for the rest of us. Actually, there is only one rule: the rule of law.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) on securing this debate. I should say at the outset that the Conservatives support the motion.
The truth is that the people who helped Jeffrey Epstein by supplying him with contacts and information were the people who enabled him to become powerful. Those people effectively enabled him to build his net of influence, his net of abuse. That network of power, in turn, enabled him to abuse more and more people, so it is quite right that this House is enabled to scrutinise what went on and how it went on.
I listened to the Minister’s remarks. I appreciate the way that he has approached this debate and the way that the Government will constructively co-operate with the terms of the Humble Address. However, this is the second occasion in only a few weeks when the Government have had to be brought here by Opposition parties under the terms of a Humble Address to disclose information that they quite obviously could have disclosed without the need for such an Address in the first place. I acknowledge the humility with which the Minister has approached the debate, but the Government as a whole could have been much more proactive on this issue right from the start. I also appreciate the humble way in which the Minister came to the House and reminded us that he had been right all along.
Alex Burghart
Very humble.
The leader of the Liberal Democrats referred to this as the first global political scandal. Indeed, it is a global political scandal whose tendrils have reached into the operation of many Governments across the west and the east. The fact that our allies in Poland have launched an intelligence investigation into Epstein’s links with Russia and that in the published Epstein papers it is clear that Jeffrey Epstein was supplying people at the very top end of Putin’s regime with sensitive information about the American leadership show that this is an international scandal and one in which our Government and our security services must play their part in uncovering things. However, I know that the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton is a lover of history, so I must gently take issue with his claim that this is the first global political scandal. I think of the Dreyfus affair, the XYZ affair and the Panama scandals—there have been many—but this is, to take his substantive point, a global political scandal.
I associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that we can only be, as a general point, supportive of the royal family’s role in promoting our country. The people who have witnessed the best of the royal family using their awesome soft power to support what we do best can only be in awe of the vast commitment they make to public service and the life of the country. Indeed, if it is the case, as reported in the press, that very senior members of the royal family expressed concerns about the appointment of Mr Mountbatten-Windsor in 2001, one can feel only enormous sympathy with them over what has subsequently come to light.
The revelations surrounding the relationship between Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Jeffrey Epstein, like those surrounding the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, and the arrest of both men on suspicion of misconduct in public office make it right that questions are asked and information is brought before the House. If one looks back to 2001, it is possible to identify the hand of Epstein in Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’s appointment. It is reported that Peter Mandelson first met Epstein in the summer of 2001; Mountbatten-Windsor had, I believe, first met Epstein in 1999. Shortly after Mandelson’s first meeting in October 2001, Mandelson was appointed as trade envoy.
Alex Burghart
The Minister shakes his head, so I will go through the chronology again for him—there is no harm in doing so.
Alex Burghart
Well, Hansard will show it—it may be that the numbers were jumbled up in the Minister’s head.
In the summer of 2001, Mandelson met Epstein for the first time; in October 2001, Mountbatten-Windsor was appointed as trade envoy. It is possible that Mandelson influenced that. As I said, Mountbatten-Windsor had met Epstein for the first time in 1999, so he was already an associate of Epstein. I am glad to have sorted that out—I can go through it again, but I am sure the Minister will be able to read about it tomorrow.
Wendy Chamberlain
By sketching out that timeline, the hon. Gentleman brings to light the reason why we are calling in our Humble Address for information about the actual creation of the appointment, which, as the Minister rightly pointed out, was a unique role created for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Does the hon. Gentleman therefore agree that we are right not only to call out the creation of that role, but to ascertain whether Mandelson had any role in it?
Alex Burghart
Very much so. As I say, it would have been better if the Government had been proactive on this and had not had to be brought to the House by Opposition parties in order to release the information. I am very glad, though, that the Liberal Democrats have learned from the Conservatives’ Humble Address a few weeks ago. It is always good that once the Conservatives have designed a bandwagon, got it up and running and shown that it can move at high speed, the Liberal Democrats scramble up and get on board—better late than never.
If we go through the sequencing very carefully, we can see that it is possible that there was influence from Epstein, who, we must acknowledge, had not been arrested or convicted in 2001, although there were already rumours and reports about him, and who was, in any case, a highly influential foreign businessman. If it was under his influence that Mr Mountbatten-Windsor was appointed as trade envoy, it would be useful to see what the Prime Minister knew when that appointment was made.
Layla Moran
I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to get to a point that deeply concerns me, which is that we need to understand the extent to which the then Prince Andrew was leaning on government for things he wanted. There is an example of this in the recent Epstein files, which contain an exchange between Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein about how Andrew had written to the Ministry of Defence in order to allow their plane to land at an RAF base in Norfolk on 7 December 2000. Andrew’s influence on government predated his appointment. What we want to understand is the extent to which he was already trying to influence government as a prince and what that led to in his role as trade envoy. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is incredibly important to get to the bottom of that?
Alex Burghart
Ah, 2000. Well, I agree with the hon. Lady—that is an interesting point. If one looks at the precise wording of the Liberal Democrats’ Humble Address, however, I am not sure that something like that falls within its context. She may wish to table an amendment to her own party’s motion in order to get at that.
Transparency is essential in all this. That is why the Conservatives very much hope that the Government will give us transparency quickly. I turn to the point made by the Father of the House: there is a danger that the Government will use the police process as a means of not disclosing certain information. I say that not because of what the Minister has said today so much as what the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said yesterday, when, in the context of the Conservatives’ Humble Address, he said:
“I can confirm that those documents will be made available, subject, I am afraid, to the exclusion of one particular item, in which No. 10 asked Peter Mandelson a number of questions. The Met police have asked that to be held back, subject to their investigations…That item will therefore have to be published at a later date, but the documents that are not subject to the Met police investigation will be published very shortly.”—[Official Report, 23 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 44.]
As the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) said, I think it would assist the House if the Government could explain why the Met police has asked that that item is held back.
It would also be helpful if the Government could confirm that there is no bar to them handing that document over to the Intelligence and Security Committee—a point on which Mr Speaker has been very clear. On 4 February, Mr Speaker said:
“the Metropolitan police have no jurisdiction over what this House may wish to do. It will be a matter of whether or not the Government provide the information. I want to let Members know that the police cannot dictate to this House.”—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 375.]
There is a means that was specifically debated during the original Humble Address that enabled Members of this House—that is, the ISC—to be given this information regardless of the police investigation.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very important point. What concerns me deeply in this matter is the fact that my constituents and members of the public are increasingly concerned that what they see is the tendrils—as the hon. Gentleman referred to—reaching into government through this debate. In the handling of these papers and the release of information, we must at all times be aware of the reputational impact not just on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor or Lord Mandelson but on us in this place, as well as on previous and subsequent Governments and Parliaments. Would he agree?
Alex Burghart
Very much so. I know that certain hon. Members across the House will be aware of just how bad it will look if the Government do not provide information as swiftly as possible.
I will give an example of where that is not happening. When we debated the original Humble Address—nearly two weeks ago now—I raised the fact that the Prime Minister had an unrecorded meeting with Palantir in Washington in February last year. He was accompanied on that visit, which did not appear in his register of meetings, by Peter Mandelson. Palantir was a client of the company in which Peter Mandelson held a commanding share. Later that year, Palantir subsequently received by direct award a very substantial contract from Government worth about £240 million.
When I raised this in the House, there was concern on both sides—it was a cross-party issue. I asked the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office to confirm that the Cabinet Secretary, whoever that turned out to be, would investigate what looks like a clear case of conflict of interest, and he agreed to write to me. I still have not received any reply, despite the fact that I brought it up again at the Dispatch Box at the start of this week and was assured that I would receive a response.
I just do not think this is good enough. It is very important that the Opposition can hold the Government to account in a meaningful way. To the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), I think it is extremely important that the Government should be seen to be willingly providing information, rather than having to be pushed every step of the way to do the right thing.
I will make one additional point on this score. While we do very much support the Humble Address being debated today, I ask the Government to be clear that nothing in it—nothing at all—will slow down the process of delivering on the original Humble Address. While there is historic and contemporary interest in what happened in 2001, what this Government did in choosing to appoint Peter Mandelson, despite the information they had at their disposal, is of paramount importance. They must come clean, and come clean quickly. As Buckingham Palace said the other day, no one is above the law.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Unaccountable power must not hide, privilege must not be protected, money must be accounted for and elite networks of men operating here and overseas must meet their reckoning for dehumanising, subjugating, exploiting and sexually assaulting women—women who must have justice. The web of abuse surrounding Mr Epstein and his associates must be brought to book, and Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, as a known associate, must also be held to account for his role as a special trade envoy and for his associations. We have all been revulsed by the stories that we have heard, and that is why today’s debate must also be about the victims and survivors.
I first raised my concern because my constituency carries the name of York and the Duke of York’s ambassadorial associations with our city were causing much concern in my community. I therefore brought those concerns to the House on 21 February 2022, just days after the settlement of the lawsuit to Ms Giuffre, known to be in the region of £12 million. My city—a human rights city, no less—was clearly disturbed, and as a result of that I sought a separation between the title and the city. Later that year, after working closely with the Clerks, I brought forward a Bill to remove the title, but that still has not been done. I brought forward another Bill just last year on the removal of title, this time bringing in the option of removing the title from peerages as well, but I have still not had a positive response.
The reasons I am speaking in this debate today are: first, that in looking into these issues, I realised that the Humble Address was narrow in its scope; and secondly, to ask what we should do with the information once it has been corroborated. Clearly the police investigation must take its course, and I am sure it will be deep and thorough because it runs so far, but ultimately, if we are just looking at the appointment, we must also ask about that period of time when Mr Mountbatten-Windsor carried out the role and the implications to wider networks. I do not want this to end up in the court of public opinion, or perhaps with the media digging deeper and deeper into more and more stories. But what does it do to this place? What does it do to change the way the systems work?
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
I recognise the work that the hon. Lady has done on titles and holding Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to account. She makes a good point about making sure that we do not have a court of public opinion, but I would like to give my thanks to the many media outlets—it does not matter which one you read or what its political slant—that have done tremendous work, trawling through hundreds of thousands of documents. Does she agree that we owe them a debt of gratitude for bringing to light many of the awful things that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is alleged to have been associated with?
Rachael Maskell
I do agree with the hon. Gentleman, because I know that journalists have been up through the night poring over the Epstein files and digging deep to hold power to account. Our media have a vital role in this, and long may it continue. Their scrutiny is also important for this place and the work that we do here.
We need a process of learning from this, and I believe that there should be a judge-led inquiry to ensure that the multiple strands of this global network of power are brought to account so that we can learn and hold to account in this place with regard to concerns about how these associations are formed and the depth to which they infiltrate places like this, the Government and international networks. As we have learned over the last few weeks, sensitive financial information has been shared, and this can impact on our constituencies, markets and trade. That in turn has an impact on the very people we are here to represent.
No longer can these powerful men swan around the world having these conversations, gaining more power and exploiting whoever crosses their path without being held accountable. We therefore need to understand how to create even deeper transparency across all institutions, including all areas of Government, just as we try to do in this place each and every day. As the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) says, this inquiry must be far-reaching and it must pursue all these issues.
I recognise that many Departments have been missed out in the Humble Address. We need to understand, for instance, how transport has been used, and not just civil transport but military transport. We need to see the missing logs to find out who was on those planes, where they were going and where they had come from. We also need to understand the expenses system that ensued and to find out how signing off for massages became a duty of the taxpayer. Individuals questioned this, as we have heard, but the reality is that people did not feel empowered to blow the whistle and raise those concerns. We need to institute processes where people can raise concerns wherever they see them, but at the moment we do not have the confidence that that was undertaken within the systems. How are we going to institute that?
There are also questions about visas—we know that 90 people came in and out of the country during the period that we are looking at today—and of course there must be rigour in appointment processes. Much has been heard about that over the last few months, and it lies at the heart of this Humble Address. We need to ensure that all these appointments are transparent. I heard what the Minister said today, but we have 32 trade envoys and I have never seen one post advertised. I am not aware of the expertise that those individuals have with regard to trade or to their relations with a particular country. What do they actually add? What value do they actually bring, and how can we assess that from this place? I therefore ask for a proper review of all these appointments to assess what they bring, because surely we should have better accountability.
I also want to mention the intelligence services. I cannot believe that our intelligence services were not aware of some of the movements of Mr Mountbatten-Windsor. How do we bring that to account, to ensure that that information is also in the public domain? Where are the minutes of all those meetings? What do they say? How do we find out? There are so many questions in response to the Humble Address being put today, but we have to think about what we want to do from this point on as well. This must not be about just holding and examining the information and commenting in the tea rooms and the corridors; we must ensure that power is held to account, and that those with privilege know that they are answerable for the responsibilities that they hold.
As the light is shone deeper into the darkest networks of the elite’s exploitations, and as the systems are overhauled and reviewed, may the police do their job well and extensively and may we in this place always focus on the women who were exploited, gaslit, traumatised and left broken as we seek justice and seek to hold that power to account.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I want to speak about transparency and accountability in public life and how the system we find ourselves in has been maintained and got us to where we are.
In the early noughties, I was working overseas with the British Council, as I have said. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor visited us as part of his role as a UK trade envoy. Before his arrival, senior staff in both the embassy and the British Council were rolling their eyes—his reputation preceded him. I was told that it was a “containment” exercise, that overseas missions feared putting him out there in case he said something inappropriate, that he was arrogant and that he was not on top of his brief. Rather than looking forward to his visits as an opportunity to promote Britain, it was instead thought that he would do damage.
Moreover, there were rumours about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor—that he refused to stay in the ambassador’s residence, that he would only stay in the Four Seasons or similar top-end hotels, and that he took an ironing board with him when he went overseas. That was a euphemism for a massage table. That was all well known among many officials. It even inspired the BBC TV programme “Ambassadors” in 2013, a couple of years after Andrew was forced to relinquish his role as trade envoy.
It seems that this was known about in the diplomatic circles that I experienced way back at the start of the noughties, and yet Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor enjoyed another 10 years as a trade envoy. Yet when I questioned why this was allowed to happen, I was met with a shrug. “Everyone knows,” they said. As I have said, Andrew came to an exhibition I had put on about Dolly the sheep. At the time, it was the pinnacle of British innovation, and we were rightly proud of it as an example of UK scientific excellence. One of my team was a young Japanese woman who worked for the British Government as a member of British Council staff. Her job—we paid her—was to promote the UK. She showed the then prince around with some Japanese dignitaries. “Dolly the sheep,” he sneered, “It’s rubbish. Frankenstein sheep”. My team member was deflated and did not understand why this representative of the British state diminished what she was rightly proud of.
The talk of Andrew and what he was like came to my own dinner table. My late father-in-law, an air vice-marshal in the RAF, was at a dinner with Mountbatten-Windsor on an overseas trip in the 1990s. He said, in front of many foreign military and diplomatic seniors, “No need for a Royal Air Force”. My father-in-law said nothing, and that was the problem. People could not because of his privileged position. My father-in-law raised it with the Chief of the Air Staff and was told it would be raised with the Palace. What happened next? Who knows? Did diplomats raise the concern to their seniors and to the very top from early on? Did the Palace do its own internal investigation? If they did, was it shared with the Department for Business and Trade? Where did these concerns all go? In doing so, did they—the system—unwittingly or wittingly support protection or cover-up, because of “the way things were done” or because of deference? That is the point of this debate. Some officials knew, or the system seemed to know, but the system seemingly failed to do anything about it for 10 years because of privilege and deference.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
On this point about which Departments had which papers, I note that the Humble Address uses the words
“including but not confined to”.
Surely papers in the royal household that relate to this matter should also come under the scope of the Humble Address. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Monica Harding
I agree. There is a systematic and joined-up failure that we need to unravel, and I will come back to that in my speech.
When there was scrutiny after 2011, there was still a failure of oversight. What does that say about our society, how we protect privilege and what we are prepared to accept on behalf of the British state and our representatives? Can rules be broken by some people and not others? Do propriety and ethics belong to all those who represent the British state?
We have a parliamentary monarchy. That means that if the Palace does not open itself to scrutiny and carry out its own inquiry, Parliament must. I have some questions. On what basis was Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor given the role of trade envoy? Who put him forward and was there resistance to it? While he was trade envoy, what concerns were raised and with whom, from what date and how were they actioned? Money was put up by the royal family to protect him. Does Parliament have a right to understand why that money was put up and that public funds were not used in the civil settlement with Virginia Giuffre? Can Parliament find out that not one penny of public money was used in that settlement?
I know you will share with me, Madam Deputy Speaker, the concern about levels of public confidence in all our institutions and the people who represent them. Parliament must assert itself in this regard, and I, along with my colleagues, call for the full publication of all documents related to Mountbatten-Windsor’s appointment as a special envoy and for an end to negative privilege, so that MPs in this place can speak freely about their concerns and disclose information in the House of Commons, even if that individual is a member of the royal family.
I will end, as I must, with thoughts for the victims of the Epstein scandal, which has triggered so much of this debate, and all those who are victims of power, privilege and deference. They are foremost in our minds as this furore continues. It is thanks to their bravery that we know the extent of Epstein’s crimes and the wider implications for our own establishment.
Wendy Chamberlain
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I am conscious that she was close to concluding, but her words about the victims are powerful. I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group for the survivors of Fayed and Harrods. We have just started our work, but Members may have heard a powerful interview on the “World at One” a couple of weeks ago, which talked about the lack of acknowledgement of what had taken place and the fact that the police did not properly understand trafficking. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), described this as a global enterprise. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to do much more work around this and that it is not just about the victims of Epstein, but other trafficking victims, too?
Monica Harding
My hon. Friend is quite right. This is about systemic failure, and we are at the very beginning of this, not the end. For the victims of Epstein, we must do everything we can to ensure that this investigation and inquiry continue. On behalf of those victims and those who are suffering right now from the same thing, we must ensure that the wider system cleans itself up, and we must facilitate that.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
The release of the Epstein files has shone a light where so many people did not want a light to be shone. Even with millions of documents still to be released, it is abundantly clear that for decades, the rich, the politically powerful and the well-connected have colluded to cover up their utterly appalling behaviours. That light which is now being shone does not just illuminate those who are personally responsible for their behaviour; it reveals those who knew what was happening, who enabled it and who chose to turn a blind eye.
The people of this country are rightly furious. That is why I made the point yesterday, and will make it again today, on the Humble Address on the release of the Peter Mandelson files that with trust in the Government at an all-time low, they only have one chance to come clean about everything they know and they hold pertaining, in this case, to the creation of the role of special representative for trade and investment and the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to that post.
Of course, unlike the Mandelson files which this House demanded be released, the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor did not happen on the current Government’s watch. But Mr Mandelson leaves a long trail, and there may well be information which relates directly to him and which will cause serious embarrassment to many senior Labour party figures who were in power at the time. Let us not forget that the author Andrew Lownie explains in great detail in his book, “Entitled” about how it was former Trade Secretary Peter Mandelson who assisted Mr Mountbatten-Windsor in landing the role of UK special representative, seemingly against the advice of Mr Mountbatten’s brother, the then Prince Charles.
Let me repeat my warning from yesterday that these files must be released and must be released in full, because any attempt to sanitise what is in them and to save face for any Government Ministers, past or present, could have serious long-term consequences for our democracy. That is also the very least that the victims and survivors deserve.
We know that there are serious questions about the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor as trade envoy back in 2001 that need answers. They include: whose idea was it? Who vetted him? Was he vetted at all? What role did Peter Mandelson play in making that appointment happen? What in his previous life made him uniquely suitable for the position of UK trade envoy? What warnings were given before and during his stint as trade envoy about his character and behaviour? Who was he responsible to while serving as trade envoy? Who scrutinised his behaviour and spending? What warnings were given during his time as trade envoy and how were those warnings handled?
In a normal, functioning democracy, we would not have had to wait until Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had been stripped of his titles and evicted from his royal house, and was facing removal from the line of succession, before being able to discuss this issue. There have been serious concerns about Mr Mountbatten-Windsor for decades, many of them relating to his time as trade envoy. There are reports of him requesting that the public purse cover the cost of his massage services. When one understandably angry and unhappy civil servant complained, he was promptly overruled by his bosses. That now retired civil servant commented recently:
“I can’t say it would have stopped him, but we should have flagged that something was wrong.”
Of course something was wrong, but what difference would it have made to us in this House? As Mr Mountbatten-Windsor was a member of the royal family at that time, we were not allowed to question or examine what he was doing as a special trade envoy.
It was not just civil servants who found getting information on Mr Mountbatten-Windsor all but impossible. The author Andrew Lownie has reported that he has had multiple freedom of information requests rejected, including on the grounds that it would be too time-consuming for Departments to go through the volume of information. One rejection actually said that looking at just one year of Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’s time as trade envoy would mean going through 1,927 digital files, each containing multiple pieces of information. Yet until Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’s status changed, we in this House were not allowed to discuss that.
Freddie van Mierlo
The hon. Gentleman is speaking to the fact that the title of prince has protected Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor from greater scrutiny and inspection of his activities. What should we do to ensure that other titles, whether that is Prime Minister, Secretary of State or royal titles, do not protect powerful individuals?
Brendan O’Hara
The answer is quite simple: nobody can be above the law. Everybody has to be equal in the eyes of the law. As the great Paul Flynn said, we have to remove the bandages from our mouths in this place, and I will return to that point. Fundamentally, regardless of rank or privilege, nobody should be above the law.
Many people will be embarrassed by what has happened, not least, as we have heard, the now leader of the Liberal Democrats, who, as Under-Secretary for Business, Innovation and Skills, and, I presume, with his fingers firmly crossed behind his back, was forced to stoutly defend the then Prince Andrew. He said:
“I…believe that the Duke of York does an excellent job”.—[Official Report, 3 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 649.]
He called him a “long-standing success” and said he had been great for British business, but what else could he have said as a Government Minister? We are not allowed to speak the truth about certain individuals in this place. Within three months of the right hon. Member making those comments, Mr Mountbatten-Windsor had resigned in disgrace because of his continued relationship with the convicted paedophile and child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.
It was not just Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s relationship with Epstein that caused concern. In February 2011, the Minister attempted to raise a question about the special representative role and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s links to a notorious convicted Libyan arms smuggler, only to be told by the then Speaker that
“references to members of the royal family should be very rare, very sparing and very respectful”.—[Official Report, 28 February 2011; Vol. 524, c. 35.]
These archaic rules make a mockery of our democracy. The situation we face now was always going to occur, particularly as the royal family can and do both have a constitutional role and involve themselves in the political realm.
Monica Harding
Does the hon. Member agree that it is quite extraordinary that we are urging the Parliament of a foreign country—Congress—to investigate this matter when it concerns our trade envoy and a member of the royal family?
Brendan O’Hara
There is a slight irony here. We call ourselves the mother of Parliaments and the cradle of democracy, yet when it comes to an issue such as this we are bound by archaic rules that mean that we cannot hold the most powerful people to account. Let’s be honest: there may be some very good members and some very bad members of the royal family, but if we believe in the hereditary monarchy, it is pot luck what we get.
I have seen the rules that have led us to where we are now and it is surely time to review them. It is beyond ridiculous that someone in a similar position could be appointed to exactly the same job as Mr Mountbatten-Windsor was, but, because they have been lucky in the great genealogical sweepstake and found themselves born into the royal family, be automatically above scrutiny and accountability and therefore beyond reproach.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I am listening closely to what the hon. Member is saying. Does he agree, given that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is no longer a royal, that nothing is really stopping us having a judge-led public inquiry into his affairs and all that attends them?
Brendan O’Hara
Absolutely; I could not agree more. Isn’t it ridiculous that the King had to strip Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor of his titles and evict him from his home for us to be able to have this discussion? That is what has to change.
In conclusion, I hope the Government not only release everything they hold pertaining to the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor but remove what that great trailblazer, Paul Flynn, the former Member for Newport West, described as the bandages on our mouths so that no one is above the law and no one’s behaviour is beyond scrutiny by Members of this House.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
A lot has been said on the nature of being a trade envoy and the fact that a special trade envoy role was created for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. The Minister quite rightly pointed out that today we would not recognise trade envoys as they were then.
The Minister also mentioned the excellent parliamentarian David Heath, who represented Somerton and Frome, which covered part of my constituency. David was a trade envoy when he served in Government. When he was the trade envoy to Nigeria and Angola, the Government would not pay for his yellow fever jabs in case he went somewhere else with yellow fever when not on Government business and derived some private benefit from the jabs, so he had to pay for his own. His wife Caroline tells me that the only thing he got out of his trips was food poisoning. Although it would be nice to think that there was not one rule for some and one for others, there clearly was. It is important that we understand the nature of the brief given to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor when he became trade envoy, because the others certainly were not getting massages on the taxpayer.
Although this debate concerns Mountbatten-Windsor, it is not about one man; it is really about the structural sexism embedded in our institutions. Violence against women and girls does not persist in this country for a lack of speeches in this Chamber, but because, structurally, it is still not treated as foundational to our policymaking. Many Members across this House are utterly committed to tackling violence against women and girls. Many have dedicated their political lives to this cause, often in the face of horrific abuse. This is not a party political issue, nor is it about individual commitment; it is about whether the system itself is designed to prioritise women’s safety. Too often, it is not. Defence, the Treasury and infrastructure are seen as core business, but violence against women and girls is too often siloed—assigned to one Minister, under one strategy—as if the safety of half the population were a niche concern, rather than a central test of whether the state is functioning.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
A powerful illustration of my hon. Friend’s point is that oral questions to the Minister for Women and Equalities is compressed into just 30 minutes before Prime Minister’s questions every few weeks. Does she agree?
Anna Sabine
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I will come to another example of the way in which such sexism is embedded.
I recently wrote to both the Minister for Housing and Planning and the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls to ask why the recent draft national planning policy framework made no mention of the safety of women and girls, as that document sets out how we design and build the spaces and places in which we live. The response from the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government was jaw-dropping. It said:
“The NPPF is a planning document. It sets out guidelines for housebuilding and planning in England. The VAWG strategy is about protecting women and girls from violence and misogyny. It is unclear as to why anyone would expect the two things to be combined.”
If it is unclear to the Department responsible for planning that violence and women and girls should be considered in its work, we have a structural problem.
That is where structural sexism becomes inseparable from power. It matters who makes the decisions. In this country, a remarkably small circle of people—disproportionately male and drawn disproportionately from the same networks—still make the most consequential choices.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making an important point. On structural violence, women and young girls are the most vulnerable in the face of climate change and natural disasters, because they are exposed to violence and rape when they are displaced from their homes. As trade envoy, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor toured Gulf boardrooms, and met Shell executives and energy conglomerates. That was ermine royal access diplomacy. Just as he showed no conscience in his personal life towards the women and young girls who were victims and survivors of the convicted paedophile Epstein, he did not think in his role as trade envoy about those exposed to structural violence against women and young girls.
Anna Sabine
I totally agree—I could not have said it better.
The people in those circles appoint, defend and rehabilitate one another. Sometimes they do so in ways in which many women looking on would not. When the same small group repeatedly decides what is reputationally survivable, politically convenient and worth overlooking, women’s confidence in our institutions erodes. That is how this circles back to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor: the issue is not only his personal conduct, but the culture of deference, protective networks and systems in which rehabilitation for powerful men can move faster than justice or safety for women. That is precisely why transparency matters. When decisions are taken within small, powerful circles, sunlight is not a luxury; it is a safeguard.
If Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was appointed and maintained as special trade envoy, the public is entitled to understand how that decision was reached, what advice was given, what risks were assessed and who signed it off. We cannot say we are serious about accountability while withholding the very documents that would allow this House and the public to scrutinise how power was exercised. Releasing all correspondence, risk assessments and internal advice relating to his role as trade envoy is not about political point scoring, but about restoring trust. Transparency is the antidote to institutional deference, and without it structural sexism continues to operate behind closed doors.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I pay tribute to all the young women who have risked so much to stand up and push for justice in relation to the vile and corrupt web around the paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and to the crimes and abuse that they suffered as children.
Let me turn to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Transparency about the workings of an organisation is a key way to prevent corruption—sunlight is the best disinfectant—although I appreciate that a police investigation is ongoing and must not be jeopardised. Green MPs support the Liberal Democrat motion. We note that the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) apologised and gave his reasons for saying—when he was in office in 2011—that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was doing an excellent job. That was during the debate held in this House by the late Paul Flynn, the formidable former MP for Newport West, to whom other Members have referred.
The royal family is sheltered from scrutiny in too many ways, and it is now very clear what a risk that poses. We have heard many examples of MPs facing restrictions on what we can ask about royal activity, but it is reasonable and right that we should scrutinise fully any work that they do on the country’s behalf, and consider how those restrictions might be removed. As I understand it, section 37 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 exempts communications between relevant authorities and members of the broader royal family—not just the King—from being released under freedom of information requests. It really is one rule for the rich and powerful and another for the rest of us, a situation which the Minister condemned earlier.
I believe that that serious transparency loophole for royals must be closed. It could mean, for example, that if trade envoy positions are filled by members of the royal family, it would—predictably—be significantly harder for the press, public and MPs to ensure that things are above board, and to get details when things go badly wrong. One example of the effect on transparency is demonstrated in The Guardian today. In a profile piece, the author Andrew Lownie, who wrote the biography “Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York”, talks about stacks of his freedom of information requests being rejected by different Departments. That is why the Humble Address is so important: it would uncover whether those restrictions in the FOI Act were part of the equation in making the appointment.
My early-day motion 2769, which has the support of MPs from six political parties, calls on the King to release all communications between members of the royal family and the paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein. Obviously, that is just the start of what is needed, which is why I am very grateful for this motion. If the reports that the royal family were aware of concerns about Andrew’s financial dealings ahead of his appointment are correct, there are serious questions about whether and how that knowledge matches the King’s statement following Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest, in which he suggested he had only recently learned about his brother’s misconduct. It is reasonable to raise those questions and find out what advice was given from the palace—including from the King—for or against the appointment.
The royal family’s reactive co-operation with any investigation cannot be enough, because it suggests that they are waiting to be asked by the police, rather than proactively checking their records and visitor logs, speaking with palace and Royal Lodge staff to encourage them to share information with the authorities, and ensuring that there is an effective whistleblowing policy within the palace. We also need to be able to scrutinise the exact provenance of the £12 million payout from Andrew to the brave, late Virginia Giuffre.
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor should never have been a trade envoy for this country, but that is not the only matter that requires urgent transparency. His relationship with the child trafficker Jeffrey Epstein has turned the nation’s stomach. We also need to know who in the royal household knew what and when, as well as what he did when he was trade envoy. As part of that, I hope that the Minister will make it clear today that royal freedom of information exemptions—which have for too long allowed royal power to act in the shadows, and to conceal important truths from MPs and the public—also need to go.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I am one of a handful of Liberal Democrat and Labour MPs who were elected in the wake of a political scandal. In my case, in December 2021, it was a financial scandal followed by a cover-up by the then Conservative Government, who tried to get one of their own off the hook. In the midst of my by-election, there were revelations about partygate. It emerged that the then Prime Minister had concluded that a number of the rules that people in this country were subject to did not apply to him. I can remember very clearly knocking on doors during that by-election. I felt my constituents’ anger about the fact that a small group of elite people had concluded that rules that applied to us did not apply to the people at the top of society. I think they would describe that as entitlement. This debate is important because we must restore the trust of the people who voted for me and others elected in by-elections in the wake of scandals. We need to tell the wider British public that we have learned the lessons from the political scandals, cover-ups and entitlement, and we are taking action to restore their trust in what this House is up to and what the wider establishment is allowed to get away with. It is important to hold the powerful to account. Since then, a number of other scandals have further destroyed trust in politics, including the VIP lane for covid contracts, the treachery of Nathan Gill and the appointment of Peter Mandelson.
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was intimately involved with Jeffrey Epstein. We have learned in recent weeks that it is probable that their relationship was deeper and continued for much longer than we first thought. That association with one of the most despicable paedophiles in history, at the heart of the British establishment, is absolutely poisonous. The victims and survivors of Epstein’s crimes must have been retraumatised many times over the years by the complicity of those closely associated with him, who did nothing to bring his crimes to public awareness and hold him to account.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Lady makes a really important point about the victims of crimes perpetrated by people in the public eye. It is particularly difficult for those victims, and almost as if the trauma is repeated again and again when these things come to light in the press and the media. Does she agree that, in particular, we need to support victims of crimes of that nature?
Helen Morgan
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I cannot imagine what it must have been like to be one of those victims—one of those survivors—and to see repeatedly over the years the establishment closing ranks around those who knew Epstein and telling us that everything is okay. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right that this whole process must be extremely painful for everyone involved, so the victims should be foremost in everything we do.
Daisy Cooper
One of the things that I have been struck by as we have heard more and more revelations is that it is difficult for some members of the public to keep up, and that many of them—particularly a number of women—want to turn away from what they see on their screens. Does my hon. Friend agree that what we see unfolding before our eyes is a conspiracy of silence? Horrific acts were allowed to take place in the shadows, and we are increasingly seeing that the arms of the British state protected, facilitated or colluded in horrific acts by people in power. Does she agree that this House must make the boldest statement it can that we will not rest until we have turned over every single stone?
Helen Morgan
My hon. Friend puts it better than I could; she is entirely right. We have seen complicity by people at the heart of the British establishment—we are in the right place to hold them to account—and the international establishment. Either they turned a blind eye to Jeffrey Epstein’s acts, or they were possibly implicated in them—we do not know for sure yet. But those who turned a blind eye must have known what was going on. It is not normal for an older businessman to be surrounded by young teenagers all the time and to receive massages from them—as we know, there were all sorts of other terrible acts. People thought that was somehow normal, acceptable or even admirable. We heard Donald Trump say that some of those girls were “on the younger side”, as if that were something to be applauded. It is appalling. Those people must have known, and if they chose not to look, they are part of the problem.
The decades-long cover-up must have compounded the trauma suffered by those women, who were children at the time. We must put the victims first and allow the police investigations to go ahead, but we need to look at the wider elements of the scandal too.
Layla Moran
Does my hon. Friend share my worry that human trafficking, of which those women were victims, is not currently subject to a police inquiry? It is absolutely right that the police will make their own decisions, but does she agree that the Government must ensure that they have the necessary resourcing so that, if they want to go down that rabbit hole—I urge them to do so actively—they are not stymied by a lack of resources?
Chris Bryant
I urge hon. Members not to speculate on what the police might or might not be investigating.
Helen Morgan
I thank the Minister for that reminder.
I have been astounded by the brilliance of the British media and the journalists who have sifted through thousands and thousands of documents from the Epstein files and, within a really short period, have uncovered a scandal that has rocked the British establishment to its heart, and that has got everybody in this place acting to try to uncover the appalling rot at the heart of the Epstein circle. Yet other jurisdictions have been sitting on those thousands of documents, potentially for decades, and have apparently had no curiosity whatever. That in itself speaks volumes.
The Polish Government have launched an investigation into Epstein’s links with Russia. His links with Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor must be causing enormous concern in the light of that development. It is therefore right that we seek transparency about the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to this role. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) said, this is not about one mistake that led to an individual being in an inappropriate position; it is about the fact that the entire establishment failed to exercise curiosity and undertake due diligence. People put aside what accountants call professional scepticism and carried on with the appointment regardless because an entitled person needed a role.
I am pleased that the Government have agreed to comply with the requests in the Humble Address by publishing the documents. That is really important, because the public need transparency. They need to understand quickly what happened and, crucially, what can be done in the future to prevent such an appointment from being made again. Their trust needs to be restored, including in this place. We need to show that we care enough to hold powerful people to account and ensure that we are always improving public life, not slipping backwards.
The Humble Address seeks answers about how a man with such a questionable reputation came to be appointed to represent the British state, but this debate has highlighted the impenetrable networks of privilege that for decades protected a paedophile and those who surrounded him, possibly for their own gain, and who totally disregarded the victims of his crimes and the wider public, to whom they were apparently indifferent.
When the Government came to power, they promised to clean up British politics, and they have a real opportunity to demonstrate that they are serious about that mission. I hope that they take the opportunity and do the job properly.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
By any measure, this past week has been an extraordinary one in British public life. Within five days, two people have been arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office: one a former member of the royal family, and the other a veteran Labour politician who we now understand to be the man who championed the first’s appointment to his public role.
This motion is not an attempt to prejudice a police investigation. We are clear that we must let the police do their work. That investigation must proceed on its own terms, free from political interference.
Criminal law and parliamentary accountability are not the same thing, and they have never been mutually exclusive. Parliament has its own duty to scrutinise public appointments, to follow public money, and to ensure that the institutions of state are answerable to the people they serve. That duty did not disappear when Thames Valley police opened their case files, so let us ask the question that this House should have been asking for years: how did Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor come to be appointed as Britain’s special representative for international trade and investment in 2001, and what did those responsible for that appointment know?
Here is what we do know. The appointment was, by multiple accounts, controversial from the start. Concerns were raised within Government, within the Foreign Office and, reportedly, within the royal family itself, yet he was appointed. For a decade he travelled the globe on the public purse, meeting Heads of State and billionaires, on expenses described by former officials as lavish and poorly scrutinised. He was effectively given a rubber stamp. All the while, his relationship with Epstein deepened—a relationship that the Epstein files now suggest may have been entangled with his official duties in ways that potentially breach both his duty of confidentiality and even the Official Secrets Act.
The documents that might answer those questions should by now be in the national archives under the 20-year rule, but they are not. Every available exemption has been deployed to keep them sealed—national security, international relations, and more. Some, we are told, have been locked away until 2065, and most of us in the Chamber will not be here to read them if they are. As the hon. Members for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara) and for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry)—she is no longer in her place—have said, the historian Andrew Lownie has spent years attempting to access those files through the proper channels. When asked what he made of that, he said simply:
“Every single reason has been deployed to stop those papers getting out…You have to ask why”.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we are asking why.
Some may ask why, if Parliament has had the tools to scrutinise this issue through a substantive motion, it is happening only now. That is a fair question. No party in over a decade successfully used the parliamentary mechanisms available to force this issue properly. That is not because the rules prevented it; it is because the cultural gravitational pull of deference was so strong that to too many people the sustained rigorous scrutiny of a public figure who happened to be a member of the royal family felt simply not the done thing. The unwritten convention was as powerful, if not more powerful, than the written rule. That is not a procedural failure; it is a failure of political culture, and it is precisely that culture that the motion challenges today.
I came to this place with a background in science, and in any field of systemic inquiry there is an important principle: we cannot correct a failure that we refuse to examine. Institutional failures do not disappear when we look away from them; they compound. The question of how Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor came to be appointed, against objections reportedly raised from multiple directions, and how he was then allowed to operate for a decade with expenses rubber-stamped and minimal oversight, is not ancient history. It is the context in which every subsequent failure of public appointment standards must be understood.
Beyond this motion the Liberal Democrats are calling for structural reforms that match the scale of what has been revealed so far. We want a genuinely independent ethics adviser who is able to initiate investigations, not to have to wait for permission from the Ministers they are supposed to scrutinise. We want an office of the whistleblower, with real legal protections, so that the civil servant who was overruled when they tried to question an expenses claim has somewhere to go. We want a rigorous, transparent confirmatory process for all significant public appointments, with proper parliamentary involvement from the outset, not as an afterthought, and not after the damage has already been done. We want an end to government by WhatsApp, with all official business on the record, all lobbying published, and no more deals done in the dark.
Deference is not respect, silence is not discretion, and secrecy in public life is not safety—it is the condition under which misconduct flourishes. The documents we are asking for should have been in the public domain years ago. This House has the power and responsibility to require their release, and it should do so today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Luke Taylor—I know you are in a lot of pain.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. You will have to forgive me for dancing around to aid my pained back.
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
That quote from 1887 is of the British historian Lord Acton, and its explains how power in its most essential form inevitably corrupts. Today we are discussing how that absolute power, that feeling of invincibility, has led to the behaviour that Members across the Chamber are all so utterly disgusted by.
I speak on behalf of all residents who have been in touch with me over the last few weeks, whether they are a republican, a monarchist or ambivalent to the general principle. We see a scandal that is not just engulfing Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, but dragging in the integrity of the wider royal family. As was said correctly by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), we must ask who knew what and when. What was known about the £12 million that was paid out to Virginia Giuffre in 2022, and how was that allowed to be used to settle a civil suit concerning allegations of Andrew’s alleged offences? How was that allowed to happen in the first place?
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) has said, we have seen one friend of Epstein lobbying for a job for another friend of Epstein, and a 12-year relationship that benefited them both financially, which has resulted in two arrests for misconduct in public office. This Humble Address refers to how that began, and it is absolutely the right place to start. As a politician, trying to convince the public that we are here to serve and represent them, that the conspiracies they read in the darker reaches of the internet are nonsense, and that there is no elite paedophile ring that runs the world’s institutions becomes increasingly difficult when we see links in the files that go directly from the Kremlin to the White House and everywhere in between, including the British royal family.
We talk about standards in public life and integrity, but that is difficult to maintain if such things are known about and the information in the files is understood by the public but we are then unable to scrutinise it or to bring people to this place to ask questions about what has happened. As discussed, the Humble Address covers quite a narrow set of papers about Andrew’s appointment as the special representative for UK trade and industry. However, we have also discussed the parliamentary gymnastics required to get a discussion in the Chamber about the outrageous misdeeds allegedly conducted by that man. We have to call out those parliamentary gymnastics as an outrageous impediment to our performing our job as MPs and we need to dispel them from this place entirely.
We have talked about the implications of Andrew’s position in the line of succession. When the photos of him walking in New York with Jeffrey Epstein were taken in 2011, he was fourth in line to the throne. When that scandal was occurring, he was very close to the throne—it is disgusting. Will the Minister give us an update on legislation that the Government might bring forward to remove Andrew from the line of succession? Andrew is eighth in line now, meaning his position may not be such a worry, but the principle of his being in the line of succession to become our Head of State is obnoxious in the extreme, so I would like to hear an update from the Minister about that.
Layla Moran
People understand that we have a living, breathing, constitutional democracy that grows as society better understands things. If the King does not want Andrew to be a prince, it makes no sense that we still have to bring in legislation to strip him of his dukedom and his earldoms, or that he remains in the line of succession and could potentially be King. There are plenty of other things that we need to be getting on with, but there is a certain logic in this instance that just needs tidying up, if nothing else.
Luke Taylor
I completely agree with my hon. Friend.
I thank the Minister for his early acknowledgment of support for the Humble Address. He has engaged constructively with comments about its scope and exactly what it says. I thank him for his supportive attitude, as there has been across the Chamber.
To return to the point about negative privilege and the fact that we cannot speak freely and have had to use a gymnastic approach to get to the point where we are today, I have submitted a number of requests for urgent questions to the Speaker’s office, which completely understandably has not managed to justify a discussion of the scandal as it has unfolded. By necessity, we have had to phrase the motion as an examination of the prince’s arrangements and his use of property, and there have been all sorts of confusing attempts not to discuss certain matters, which, as has been mentioned, have precluded us from doing so.
Chris Bryant
I hate to add to the hon. Gentleman’s anguish, but there is a convention in the House that we do not refer to requests for urgent questions that have been made to the Speaker.
Luke Taylor
I apologise for breaking that convention, but it is a useful demonstration that, however right the Speaker is in acting with such utter wisdom that we will never question, it remains a challenge to raise issues like this one in the Chamber.
During the debate, Liberal Democrat Members have been clear that we have to have a full statutory inquiry into the whole Epstein affair and the tentacles that it has inserted into our public life. We must allow the criminal investigations to be completed, but the inquiry must be able to compel witnesses to appear, require them to give evidence under oath, and produce documents and other evidence. The inquiry must be used to punish those who have been complicit and have been involved in the heinous crimes we have heard about in the media. To echo the comments made by other hon. Members, the media and journalists have done incredible work investigating the crimes and poring over the files, and their effort cannot be overstated.
To conclude, we have to ensure that the events that have transpired over the last 20 or 30 years as part of the Epstein scandal can never be repeated. The investigation must allow us to fireproof our constitution from similar events ever happening again.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I was going to call Olly Glover, but I was not sure whether the Minister would want to do that, given his earlier intervention.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
This motion is first and foremost about the victims of the appalling crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and his many associates, as well as the importance of protecting people from abuse of power. It also has significant implications for wider political culture.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) articulately outlined, this and previous Governments have been wracked by scandal of many kinds, and the whole Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor affair adds to that by making a very significant contribution to the already severe erosion of trust in our politics and institutions. That is why we are calling for a public inquiry into all aspects of UK and British citizen involvement with Jeffrey Epstein over many years. The inquiry would of course take account of police and criminal investigations, disclosure and the publication of relevant documents, but we must go further.
Daisy Cooper
Many people are talking about the different elements that could be examined during an inquiry, but I have heard some people say that an inquiry could become too big and take too long. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is precedent in this country for having public inquiries in two or more parts? The Government and Government Ministers, who I hope are listening, should consider that structure, so that issues that need to be considered urgently could be looked at sooner rather than later.
Olly Glover
My hon. Friend makes a practical proposal for how an inquiry could be conducted efficiently with appropriate prioritisation, so that the most urgent matters get looked at, rather than being bogged down in something that would take much longer.
We must go further. We must toughen the penalties for breaching the ministerial code. We must create an office of the whistleblower to protect, empower and encourage people with valuable information to come forward and to speak up. I support Liberal Democrat calls for an end to negative privilege protections that have prevented criticism of individuals in the royal family in this House, for the reasons set out during the debate.
Helen Morgan
As I have listened to this excellent debate, it has struck me that our establishment depends on the people at its heart being nice, trusted, good sorts who will not step out of line, and we do not have mechanisms in place to challenge when that turns out not to be the case. Does my hon. Friend agree it is important to have an office of the whistleblower, and to have other statutory bodies that put a code in place regarding our behaviour in this place and in wider public life, because such bodies will mean that we will not just rely on people being “good blokes”?
Olly Glover
I agree that far too much in British political and wider culture relies on taking things on trust and assuming that good motives and good intentions will win the day. Very sadly, the whole Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor affair shows that we cannot necessarily rely on that and that we need strong processes, procedures and protocols to make sure that we have the highest standards in public life.
We all hope that the necessary changes to prevent a repeat of the whole Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor affair, which is an abomination, and the wider Epstein disgrace can be made within the structures of our current system of constitutional monarchy. Should that prove not to be the case, then we risk calls for a change to our constitutional arrangements growing louder and more compelling.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Before we turn to the wider implications of the debate, it is important to acknowledge why the Liberal Democrats are pressing for full transparency today. Serious allegations have been raised about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s conduct during his time as the UK’s trade envoy, including reports that he claimed taxpayer-funded expenses for so-called “massage services” and other inappropriate costs. Former senior officials have described a culture of deference, in which such claims were barely questioned, expenses were rubber-stamped and scrutiny was effectively absent.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
We rightly say that no one in the country is above the law, and recent weeks have reinforced that principle. Surely it must also be true that no one is above our democracy. Does my hon. Friend think that the Government should consider bringing the royal household within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to strengthen confidence in our institutions?
Ben Maguire
I thank my hon. Friend for making that powerful point. That is a really important consideration; I hope that the Minister listened and can respond to it.
These concerns naturally lead to further questions. What did those around Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor know? What did police protection officers, civil servants and officials who accompanied him, travelled with him and were present during official duties observe? What did they record? What did they raise? Crucially, what was dismissed and what was ignored? These are not trivial matters; they speak directly to how an individual in public office was able to behave in ways that would never be tolerated from anyone else and how the institutions around him seemingly completely failed to act.
Luke Taylor
Does the point about what the protection officers knew not show the outrageous power imbalance between a royal and an employee? We are talking about whistleblowing and reporting what has been seen. Is the prospect of having somebody in that situation—whereby they are being held to account for not calling out the behaviour of someone whose privilege and birthright have put them into such a position—not outrageous? Does my hon. Friend agree that this shows how the structure of our constitution has put us into such an outrageous twist and how difficult it will be to unwind that?
Ben Maguire
I completely agree. I suspect that this is just a small start, and that this issue goes much, much wider. I imagine that there is much more information to come.
As the House turns its attention to the matter of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, I want to use this moment to refocus our minds on those who have been most consistently forgotten throughout all this: the victims and survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and the justice they have been denied for far too many years. It is only because of their bravery in coming forward that we know the true extent of Epstein’s crimes and the deeply troubling implications that those crimes hold for our own establishment.
When we talk of these survivors, we must confront an uncomfortable truth: many UK victims are simply too afraid to come forward right now. Their fear is well documented in UK reporting, which describes a
“greater sense of fear and reticence”
among British survivors: a fear of stigma, of being disbelieved and of the powerful networks that have long silenced these women and girls. Yet abuse did happen here in the UK. Epstein carried out wrongdoing during extensive and repeated trips to London. These were not distant or abstract harms; they took place here on UK soil, under UK jurisdiction, and they demand a UK-led response.
Instead of justice here at home, victims were effectively steered, and are still steered, into the US justice system. They are told to seek redress through the Epstein victims’ compensation programme—a fund that ultimately paid $120 million to around 135 survivors, and did so more quickly and confidentially than litigation could. That programme has been open internationally, and victims here in Britain could apply without needing a lawyer, making it less costly and traumatic, but what does it say about our own UK justice system when British victims who were abused here, on British soil, are left seeking justice 4,000 miles away? We are asking traumatised people to navigate foreign bureaucracies because we in the United Kingdom have nothing equivalent to offer them.
What does it say that less than a handful of UK victims even approached a solicitor? That is not because abuse did not happen—we know that it did—but because the absence of any UK prosecution meant that they did not feel empowered to speak. We can draw a stark contrast between figures such as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Peter Mandelson, who have allegedly enriched themselves through their associations, and the survivors, who were left fighting for justice.
The Epstein files reveal a powerful network of wealthy people colluding with Epstein, using their privilege to silence and dismiss survivors—a pattern that has been highlighted by the End Violence Against Women coalition. The files expose how powerful men evade consequences while their victims struggle even to be heard, reinforcing the very fear that continues to keep British survivors in the shadows. Surely the role of this House and of any democratic institution worth its name is not simply to reinforce that silence, but to finally break it. That is why we call clearly and firmly today for the UK to open criminal prosecution and survivor-led inquiries into London-based offences.
These alleged crimes fall squarely in the UK’s jurisdiction. The nationality of offenders and victims is irrelevant; what matters is that the harms occurred here, and those harms deserve justice here. Justice for British victims must not be outsourced abroad. Justice must not be dependent on the bravery of a handful who are willing to defy enormous pressure. Justice must not be conditional on navigating a foreign compensation scheme; it should be delivered transparently, confidently and compassionately here in Britain.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that having a public inquiry would be a very public way for the British authorities and the state to show survivors that they have been the victim of some heinous crimes and to give them more confidence to come forward? We know that survivors of all kinds of sexual abuse and rape across this country—whether they are part of some big scandal, such as those of Mohamed Al-Fayed or Epstein, or something much more local and individual—are being retraumatised again and again by seeing this matter splashed across the front pages of the papers and all over the media, day after day. We have to make a stand and say, “Enough. We will not tolerate this in this country.” We have to stand up to these powerful men who silence their victims and ensure that they have to fight for justice every step of the way.
Ben Maguire
I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention; I could not agree more. We very much need a public inquiry to expose all the harms done to the victims and how the establishment in our country has seemingly played such a central role in that.
If our Government are sincere when they speak of a fairer, safer and more accountable society, they must show leadership rather than continued deference. They must show survivors that they will be believed, protected and heard in the UK. At the heart of this matter are not titles, reputations or institutions, but people—survivors, whose lives, like the victims of domestic abuse, have been shaped by fear, silence and power wielded against them, rather than for them. They deserve far better; they deserve a justice system that will fight for them.
Now is the time for immediate action. Will the Minister please consider not redacting any of the documents that do not relate to the ongoing police investigation? As my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) suggested, will the Government look at a full public inquiry into Epstein and his links to the British establishment? Finally, will the Minister go away and look to end the appalling negative privilege that prevents MPs in this House from speaking freely about members of the royal household?
This matter is a disgusting symptom of the deference that we have shown to those in positions of power at the cost of victims. Our constituents should no longer be silenced in what should be our proud British democracy.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
We have had an extremely powerful debate. I will address a number of the points raised, but I want to start by talking about how the revelations of recent weeks and months have been shattering for the British public and deeply, deeply distressing for many of those directly impacted.
We have listened to the gut-wrenching stories of abuse endured by vulnerable women and girls. We were reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) that we are, in many cases, talking about children. We have learned of the arrogance and cruelty of rich, powerful men who felt that no rules applied to them and who made a mockery of our values and laws. We have seen laid bare the hollowness of a political establishment that was manipulated so easily and that treated state secrets like cheap gossip.
Public trust has been catastrophically undermined by the Epstein saga, and we are now at a crossroads in our public life. If Parliament does not act with courage, faith in our institutions will suffer even more permanent harm, and they will remain under intense public suspicion and unease. To start to repair the damage, we must uncover the full and unvarnished truth. Critical to that process is demanding that every relevant Department comes clean and shares what was known about Mountbatten-Windsor’s appointment as special representative for trade and investment. What concerns were raised ahead of his appointment, did his suitability come into question, and what risks were identified throughout that process? The British people deserve to know what behaviour was tolerated, and by whom.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
On that point, I have been contacted by a constituent who played a public role in the middle east. They said that during their time in that role, they had to go through incredible checks—background checks and so on. Does my hon. Friend agree that the release of these files would enable us to see whether the same background checks that are applied to citizens like us in public life are applied to the royal family?
Lisa Smart
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention, and to her constituent who has contacted her about that important point. My view, and the view of the Liberal Democrats, is that we should get to the bottom of how this role was created and the vetting that was done before the appointment, in order to understand the extent—or lack of extent—of that vetting. If somebody is being paid from the public purse, they should be held to an extremely high standard and there should be transparency about their role and the creation of that role, so I very much agree with my hon. Friend.
The public deserve to know whether sections of their Government at the time put in place systems to shield Mountbatten-Windsor from accountability, even at a cost to the national interest. Of course the police must undertake their work unimpeded, and of course anybody who has committed a crime should face justice if they are found to have committed that crime, but a police investigation—no matter what prosecution it leads to—is not enough. It is essential for the strength of our constitution and our social fabric that we go further and clean up the broken system that facilitated this scandal in the first place.
Daisy Cooper
One point that has been raised this afternoon is that even while the police go ahead with their investigations, there is still a job for this House to do. It strikes me that some of the most basic principles that we assume when we come to this place are being questioned. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is worth restating, for the record and for the public, that there are certain principles in public life that we have to make sure remain in place, as this case highlights? No one is above the law; taxpayers’ money and public office must be used for the public interest, not for private gain; Parliament has not just the right, but the duty, to hold the powerful to account and pursue all means of transparency; and ultimately, all powerful people must face a reckoning if they were involved in this scandal.
Lisa Smart
I wholly agree with my hon. Friend, who has made a number of powerful interventions throughout this debate. This whole sorry saga repeatedly brings up arrogant, greedy men—mostly men—who have sought to enrich themselves further and increase their power.
Luke Taylor
I hope this intervention adds to my hon. Friend’s point. Does she find it ironic that the only person who has been imprisoned as part of the Epstein scandal is a woman?
Lisa Smart
My hon. Friend is not the only person to refer to structural sexism in this debate. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) made an extremely powerful speech about how, should we choose to do so as a Parliament, we could embed looking at sexism—at violence against women and girls—in our policymaking and our thinking in a way that would benefit the whole of society. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for raising the point that there remain many people who the hand of justice is yet to seek out with the full vigour it should.
We should be pulling back the curtain on Andrew’s use of the special envoy role and the whole system around him, on the power he had in an official, state-sanctioned position, and on the many missed opportunities for scrutiny and accountability, not least in this place. A number of Members from both sides of the House have talked about the importance of pace and speed; the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) made a very good point about making sure we get on with some of this work, which he also raised yesterday with the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister; and the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), reminded us that the wheels of justice often grind slowly. My deputy leader and hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) presented some practical solutions for how we can make sure progress continues at pace, so that one thing does not hold up another, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), reminded us that police involvement in this matter should not unduly delay the whole process. Of course, it is vital that the police should be free to do their job and do it well, but that should not unduly hold up the release of the information we are seeking.
We Liberal Democrats very much welcome support from across the Chamber for our motion, including from Members on the Treasury Bench. When the Minister winds up in a few moments, I would be grateful if he confirmed—like when the Government responded to the previous Humble Address that we discussed in this place—that any information will be released when it is available, only holding back that information that is directly relevant to a police investigation.
Daisy Cooper
A few moments ago, my hon. Friend referred to a comment that I made earlier in the debate. I am mindful that the Minister was not in his place at the time, so I wonder whether I could be indulged. [Interruption.] No, it was a separate point that I made later, when the Minister was out of the room for a second. Because there are so many things that could be examined during a public inquiry, I wondered whether Ministers would consider having an inquiry made up of two, three or more parts, given that there is precedent for such a thing. Might that be an answer, to ensure that some things that need to be examined earlier are not delayed too long? With the Minister now in his place, does my hon. Friend agree that we might hear from him on that point when he winds up?
Lisa Smart
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us all of that insightful comment. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches have been fizzing with ideas. We have a real opportunity to improve our processes and our systems, and if the bravery of the women who have come forward to talk about their horrific abuse and their experience can reach its full potential, it is by improving the system so that things like this do not just keep happening.
A number of colleagues on both sides of the House have talked about a conspiracy of silence and the role of deference—the leader of Plaid Cymru, the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), used the word “sycophancy”, and I think she was absolutely right to do so. This has come from the whole establishment over several decades. A number of colleagues have talked about the role of journalists, which was a really interesting point. Some have talked about those who can be rightly proud of the role they have played in increasing transparency, accountability and the public’s understanding, but the Minister was also absolutely right to talk about some of the people who minimised child abuse and statutory rape, whose comments have not aged well, and who should reflect on some of what was said at the time.
This afternoon, we have also spoken about our own procedures in this place. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam used the phrase “parliamentary gymnastics”—that is not a phrase I am going to spend too long thinking about. We have spoken about the role of some of our predecessors—Paul Flynn has been talked about a lot—and about negative privilege not really being fit for purpose in this day and age. We need processes and procedures that enable us to do our job. We should be holding the powerful to account, and there should be power within Parliament to allow us to do so and to scrutinise decisions before they are made, as well as afterwards.
Helen Morgan
The scandal surrounding Jeffrey Epstein is reminiscent of other, similar scandals—perhaps not on the same scale, but certainly of a similar magnitude in terms of their impact on the victims. The one that comes to mind is the Jimmy Savile scandal, where people who knew what was going on did not feel able to speak up and break that conspiracy of silence, so victims did not feel able to come forward either. Does my hon. Friend agree that by embracing this opportunity to change the way we do things in Parliament, we can create a culture where people do feel empowered to come forward and break that conspiracy of silence, and where people who have observed things that they knew they should have reported do not feel constrained in their ability to report them, to ensure these terrible scandals do not happen in the future?
Lisa Smart
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention; she made a number of very good points this afternoon reminding us of previous scandals and the importance of ensuring that we learn from them.
In the Peter Mandelson debate a few weeks ago, in which I sat in the same place, I think it was the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) who talked about shame needing to change sides. That alludes to some of the cultural changes that we need to bring about. We as parliamentarians have a leading role to play in bringing about the cultural changes that we need to see. Anybody who is a victim or survivor must know that the stigma is not with them but with the perpetrators, and anybody who turns a blind eye should know that the stigma is with them for doing so.
Nobody should be above the law, and nobody in public office or in receipt of public funds should be out of the reach of parliamentary scrutiny.
Layla Moran
I am reminded of the debate brought forward by the Conservatives on Lord Mandelson and the proverbial parliamentary knickers-twisting that had to happen to work out that the way to deal with the issue of the intelligence services was indeed to allow the Intelligence and Security Committee to look at the papers. Is it not the case that we have the mechanisms in this place to scrutinise most things, but when it comes to the royal family we do not? Even if a Select Committee wants to do something on these matters, we self-censor with our own conventions that we apply to ourselves. Only we can change that. I am curious to know what the Government are going to do and whether there is a mechanism by which we change those conventions, because they are clearly the nub of the issue when it comes to parliamentary scrutiny.
Lisa Smart
Nobody should be above the law, and nobody should be above scrutiny. When good people get together, there is a willingness to embrace creativity and the nerdery of parliamentary procedures so that we can find a way to get to the truth that we need to get to.
Trust in our politics is vital, and trust in our institutions is further eroded every time we have one of these debates. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) talked about the impact on the reputation of this House and the vital role of trust in politics. There are too many people involved in politics for whom a lack of trust in politics is really useful. The stoking of division and mistrust means that there is space for voices that, in my view, are not welcome and we should reject. It is in all our interests and the whole country’s interest for there to be trust in our institutions and our political set-up.
During the debate we have been reminded of the need for proper processes to be in place. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) reminded us, not everybody can be relied on to be a good bloke. Many of our systems are based on gentlemen’s agreements and just expecting people to be a good bloke—and as has been repeatedly proven, it is simply not the case that people will be.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
In serving for a number of years as a senior civil servant, I experienced in Whitehall the impression that the monarchy should be protected and that nothing should be done to embarrass the royal family. I hope the materials we are seeking the release of through today’s Humble Address will ensure that we can scrutinise whether civil servants’ ability to check whether Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was an appropriate person to be a trade envoy was impeded, and will shed light on the relationship that should exist between Whitehall and the monarchy in the future.
Lisa Smart
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. We have seen some press reports about civil servants who were doing their job and absolutely rightly questioning some of the expenses that were being put through, but they were overruled. That clearly is not good enough and not acceptable, and it is not what we should expect from our institutions and establishment. I completely agree about the importance of being clear about what we expect when somebody takes on a public role at cost to the taxpayer.
We should have very high standards. We should, as the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said, talk about how we can ensure that those with power are held to account. She was entirely right in the points she made about what we do with this information, where we go with it and how we build from here.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) made a really strong speech in which he gave very constructive suggestions to the Minister of measures that we Liberal Democrats would support in bringing about change to the system.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
My hon. Friend will be aware that we are in the week of St David’s day, which is a terribly important day for all of us in Wales. In terms of accountability, she will be very aware of the long-standing stance that the Liberal Democrats have taken on the Crown Estate, which in Wales regrettably still has not been devolved. Its powers and funding have been devolved to Scotland, but not—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Can I just check whether the Member has been here for a while or just arrived? Members should not be intervening after traipsing in during a speech. I will allow Ms Smart to continue.
Lisa Smart
I will stick more within the tramlines of the debate that we have all enjoyed today, though I think devolution is a very good thing of which there should be more.
Parliament is calling today for transparency. The public deserve answers, not further silence. Cleaning up public life means acting quickly, openly and honestly. This goes to heart of public trust. Sadly, what we are talking about today is ultimately not an isolated incident. There has been a drumbeat of scandals. We have had mention of partygate, and in other debates recently we have talked about Nathan Gill’s treachery. Peter Mandelson has also been mentioned. All those things further shatter trust in our politics. It is obvious that the current system is broken, so it is beholden on all of us to take action. We need to clear out the rot, and we will keep pushing until corrupt and criminal behaviour is stamped out and the muck is cleared out of our democracy.
We are campaigning for a public inquiry into Epstein and his relationship with the British establishment. A number of contributors this afternoon referenced the Polish Government’s investigation into Russian links with Epstein, and it will be very interesting to see what that investigation turns up. The Humble Address is very clear that we want the publishing of all the relevant documents relating to the appointment as a special representative for trade and industry. We should see an end to negative privilege. MPs should be able to speak freely in this place about concerns that they have and disclose information in this place, even if the individual in the public post is a member of the royal household.
We should go further: we should have criminal sanctions for public figures who fail to whistleblow. My hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) talked about the importance of having an office of the whistleblower. We should have new legal protections for whistleblowers and a dedicated office of the whistleblower.
Daisy Cooper
My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. It has been a Liberal Democrat policy for a very long time to have an office of the whistleblower, and we very much hope that the Government take up that proposal. We have tried a number of times to introduce it through pieces of legislation in the other House in this Session.
There will be people at home listening to this debate who themselves may have information and want to volunteer it but do not know how to—they do not know whether to write to their MPs or whether there is a formal way in which they can bring the information forward. We have heard examples this afternoon from some speakers about information that they have heard or about intelligence officials who knew something. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has any thoughts on that and whether we might hear from the Minister what the Government’s message is to those people about who they should contact.
Lisa Smart
My hon. Friend is entirely right that a public inquiry is the best way to bring to light a number of the issues that we are talking about today. It is increasingly clear that there are people who were silent when they should have been loud. There are people who knew things who did not share them, and there are people in our country today who will know information that could usefully contribute to getting to the bottom of what happened—who knew what and when and, importantly, how we can stop this from continuing to happen in our system.
My hon. Friend is right to encourage anybody out with information to come forward and contribute. Today we have heard from colleagues who have worked internationally in different roles, and that is just the sample of Members who have been in the Chamber today; there will be countless people across the country who may have information, and she is entirely right to encourage them to come forward.
The people who have led to us being here today are the victims and survivors of Epstein and his cronies. My hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset talked about structural sexism and how people were not listened to, and other colleagues have referred to how victims and survivors were often not believed or, importantly, thought that they would not be believed. That stops us getting to the bottom of things like this.
Anna Sabine
On the point about structural sexism, it is not so much about the fact that people should be listened to, although that is absolutely right; it is more about the fact that we have a problem at the moment, particularly where there is a small group of leading figures in Government, who tend to be men. If we do not have women in those places and spaces, a lot of these issues do not get picked up or treated in the way in which they might do if there were women in the room. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is good to see that the Prime Minister currently has some chiefs of staff who are women and that we would be pleased to see more women in key advisory roles, not simply as Ministers and Secretaries of State?
Lisa Smart
My hon. Friend is entirely right to make that point. The tone of some of the briefings about Ministers and Secretaries of State is notably different when it is a woman who holds office, and all the evidence shows that the best decisions are made by balanced teams that draw on a broad range of experiences. If everybody went to the same school or had the same experience, those teams will be missing an awful lot. My hon. Friend is entirely right to talk about elected Members and Ministers, but also about the officials who are working with them, advising them and supporting them. That is an extremely well-made point. Only when we have elected as many mediocre women to this place as we have mediocre men will we have achieved equality. [Laughter.]
But it should not have taken the bravery of victims in speaking up about their experience and seeking justice over years for Epstein’s cycle of cruelty and criminality to finally be interrupted. Where would we be if victims of Epstein, like Virginia Giuffre, had never come forward and if the right photograph had not been taken at the right time? We are left to wonder if Andrew might easily have remained a special representative today, operating without proper scrutiny and continually disgracing his office.
Once again, we urge the Government to commit to a statutory inquiry into Epstein’s links to our establishment, including Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, so that we can develop a full understanding of how it served him, what networks were formed that facilitated a prolific paedophile, and how widespread the complicity goes. Crucially, an inquiry can point us to what must change to protect people in the future. I also urge the Government and Members present to bring any further vital information to light right now, to ensure that there is no delay to essential scrutiny and transparency.
Andrew’s role as an envoy and the engagements he undertook were determined by those at the very highest levels of political power, including in the Downing Street of the time, and it is increasingly clear that he was protected, even while he betrayed public trust in his position as a special representative. He was protected by outdated rules that forbid Members of this place from raising concerns about any member of the royal household in most debates in Parliament. I fear that he was protected by powerful friends and allies repeatedly, and by a number of people failing to raise the alarm.
Today we can start to set that right. If we really believe that nobody is above the law, it must surely follow that no appointment is above scrutiny, that no one’s abuse of their public office should be hidden from the public gaze, and that no truth is too uncomfortable to come into the disinfectant of daylight.
Chris Bryant
I spoke earlier, so I need to be sure that the House is happy for me to speak again. I am not going to speak at great length. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I have united the House twice today. That is a great comfort to me.
First of all, may I commend the Liberal Democrats on the debate that they have held and on bringing this issue to us? Members on both sides of the House have made very powerful speeches, including my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and the hon. Members for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara), for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) and for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart). I appreciate that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), is not able to be here; he sent me a kind note to explain why.
As I said right at the beginning of my opening speech, it is the Government’s intention to comply with the motion as soon as is practicable and possible within the law. As I have said from the beginning, my only caveat is that my Department and the whole of Government will work towards maximum transparency and timeliness, but I have to say that where documents may speak materially to the offence of misconduct in public office or any other offence that may be considered by the police, we will have to follow the advice of the prosecuting authorities. I do not think anybody disagrees with that. It is a different point from some of the other points that have been raised in relation to other humble addresses, but I think it is an important one.
I hear the calls that have been made by several hon. Members for a public inquiry. One of the other things in which I was engaged in 2011 was a big row about phone hacking at the News of the World, and we demanded a public inquiry. We ended up with a two-part public inquiry, and the second part was not going to happen until the police had completed their investigations. Of course, it never happened, because so much time had elapsed, so I am somewhat cautious about seeking multi-part public inquiries in relation to this issue. I want the police to be able to do their work as effectively as possible.
I will issue another word of caution. I was in the House when Members, understandably, used their privilege to talk about Sir Leon Brittan. It turned out that many of the things that were said at the time were completely and utterly untrue, and people had been misled by somebody. We always have to be cautious about the way we use our privilege in this House, and I will come on to the bigger point about what others have referred to as “negative privilege” in a moment.
We are very keen to work with the prosecuting authorities as fast as possible, but the timetable for that is set by them, not us. We want them to do their job without fear or favour. The one message that we have sent today to the whole of society is that the prosecuting authorities must proceed without fear or favour. Nobody is above the law.
Rachael Maskell
I am really grateful to the Minister for what he has said. Although the prosecuting authorities will clear up the criminal matters, the implications go way beyond that. What thought has the Minister given to how they are dealt with—for instance, the closing of the loopholes around our airports, access into the country, visas, and obviously the privileges held within decision making at the heart of Government?
Chris Bryant
I hear the points that my hon. Friend makes, and of course I sympathise with them. However, it is remarkably difficult to disentangle some of those from possible offences on which prosecutions may be brought, so I am somewhat cautious in this area, as she will hear. She will know that I can sometimes be as vociferous as her on these issues, but at this particular moment I want to be cautious.
I want to talk about the issue of negative privilege, which several Members have mentioned. I fully understand the point, which I myself made back in 2011, when I had a bit of a row with Speaker Bercow about it. I fully understand the point that Members have made, and I do not think we should have excessive deference. Of course, it is a matter for the House, for Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers, and for the Procedure Committee and others, whether we want to change the accepted conventions of the House. It is a Back-Bench Committee, and if Members want to take such issues to the Procedure Committee, they should do so.
However, I do not think we should overstate the case, because if at any point any of the political parties had wanted to bring a substantive motion to the House, whether in opposition or in government, anybody would have been able to do so, but the truth of the matter is that all of us chose not to. Whether that is because of deference, I cannot judge, but it is certainly true that using a substantive motion is available to us to consider such matters.
Chris Bryant
I will continue for a moment, if the hon. Members do not mind.
We do enjoy freedom of speech in this House, and it is precious. As hon. Members will know, article 8 of the Bill of Rights says that no proceeding in Parliament shall be impeached in any court of law or any other place, which means we can say things here without the threat of being prosecuted anywhere else. It is a really important and precious privilege, and one that we must guard carefully, which is why we have a sub judice rule. Mr Speaker has decided that the rule does not apply to today’s debate, because no charges have yet been brought—when the sub judice rule applies is quite specific.
I do think that we need to guard that privilege quite carefully, because we have a separation of powers. We do not think that we should have Acts of attainder, with the House deciding by a Bill that somebody is guilty of some crime or other. That is a matter for the prosecuting authorities, and the person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
I think the hon. Gentleman with a bad back wanted to intervene.
Luke Taylor
I thank the Minister—I am not sure whether I do thank him—but I want to push back gently on that, and I would be interested in his response. Does not the fact that we have had 15 years since Andrew resigned in disgrace and it did not come before Parliament demonstrate that there is such a reluctance, or is it a true misunderstanding of process that that did not come before the House for us to discuss and really get into the weeds of the matter? Does he not see that as demonstrating the need for a change in the process, or at least an acknowledgment that we need to be digging deeper into these issues?
Chris Bryant
Well, yes, and I also think that the truth of the matter is that we probably need more Paul Flynns. I have always been a bit sceptical about independent MPs, but I have always been very much in favour of independently minded MPs, who are one of the backbones that really allow Parliament to function effectively. I love the Whips—of course I love the Whips—but there is a but.
I will give way to the hon. Lady, and then I really do want to finish my remarks.
Layla Moran
I hear the Minister’s scepticism about a public inquiry, but the more this debate has gone on, the more I have felt that this is an issue of culture. There are things material to how we have ended up where we are that will not meet an evidentiary threshold and have not contravened any laws, but that clearly do need changing, and what needs changing is the overall culture in our establishment itself. If we do not need a public inquiry to examine this in the round on the basis of everything we know—and I understand his arguments for why it should not be—then how do we do this?
Chris Bryant
Yes, I myself made all those arguments about phone hacking in 2011. A chunk of us had to persuade our own political party to be brave on the matter at a time when that was not easy, because the whole media were not in favour of us moving on that. The point I would make is that I think the single most important thing for a Member of Parliament is that they should feel able to speak without fear or favour.
Chris Bryant
All the Lib Dems are now trying to intervene on me, and I am trying to make a very short speech. It was meant to be five minutes, and it is now already nine minutes, so I am failing miserably. All right, I give way.
Daisy Cooper
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I want to press him on that point again. There are some specific allegations that an inquiry might want to look at, but there is the broader point about culture, which my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) mentioned. He will know very well—in the context of phone hacking, but also in looking at the culture of the Metropolitan police—that there are many examples in the not-too-distant history, or in our recent history, when an inquiry has looked separately at the culture of an institution as opposed to specific allegations and what specifically went wrong. If he is concerned about a two or three-part inquiry, with a second or third part being cancelled in the future, that simply requires a small amendment to the Inquiries Act 2005. I do think it is important to press him on the point that there is a cultural issue here, and we do want the cultural issue to be looked at.
Chris Bryant
I completely agree that there is a cultural issue that needs to be looked at. I am certainly not able to commit the Government today to a public inquiry—I think all Members accept that I am not going to do that—but I am also not entirely convinced that public inquiries actually often end up changing culture. Culture changes because we choose to. [Interruption.] I note that the Whips have a terrible case of coughing, but I want to end with a few more short points.
The first point relates to trade envoys. I want to praise the work of our present trade envoys—not just from the Labour party and not just from this House—who are helping us to win contracts around the world. They are all accountable through the Minister for Trade and the Department. I would quite like there to be more questions about trade envoys at Business and Trade questions, which are coming up in the near future.
On the Act of succession, which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam asked me about, we are working at pace on this, and we intend to bring forward legislation when we can. I cannot commit to a particular date on that, but I note that Julie Andrews, in “The Sound of Music”, sang,
“I have confidence that spring will come again”,
so I have confidence that the Act of succession will come around at pace.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam also said:
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
The cultural point I will make is that, actually, this was not about power; this was about influence. Influence can be just as pernicious in the body politic as anything else, and that is one of the things we need to address, because it can lead to corruption.
I will end with this point. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said, “Let’s make sure this never happens again.” Of course, every single Member of this House would hope that we never again see the horrific abuse that happened under Jeffrey Epstein and the concatenation of different forms of abuse that were created by the complicity of people from so many different sectors—people turning a blind eye and people participating, whether because they loved wealthy people, they loved the wealthy lifestyle or whatever it may be. Of course, I would dearly love to be able to stand at this Dispatch Box and say that it will never happen again, but I would bet my bottom dollar that there will be young people today who are being abused by rich, wealthy, arrogant, entitled people, and it will continue. Yes, we must do everything in our power to make sure that deference, influence and complicity do not allow that to happen, but in the end the only recourse we have is to the court of law, to ensure that those who abuse their position of trust face the full rigour of the law.
Question put and agreed to,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to require the Government to lay before this House all papers relating to the creation of the role of Special Representative for Trade and Investment and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s appointment to that role, including but not confined to any documents held by UK Trade and Investment, British Trade International (BTI) and its successors, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister’s Office containing or relating to advice from, or provided to, the Group Chief Executive of BTI, Peter Mandelson, the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister regarding the suitability of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor for the appointment, due diligence and vetting conducted in relation to the appointment, and minutes of meetings and electronic communications regarding the due diligence and vetting.
Online Harm: Child Protection
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 69 / Noes: 279 - Question accordingly negatived.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House makes provision as set out in this Order:
(1) On Monday 9 March 2026:
(a) Standing Order No. 14(1) (which provides that government business shall have precedence at every sitting save as provided in that Order) shall not apply;
(b) any proceedings governed by this Order may be proceeded with until any hour, though opposed, and shall not be interrupted;
(c) the Speaker may not propose the Question on the previous question, and may not put any question under Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate) or Standing Order No. 163 (Motion to sit in private);
(d) at 6.00pm, the Speaker shall interrupt any business prior to the business governed by this Order and call the leader of the second largest opposition party or another Member on their behalf to move the order of the day that the Online Services (Age Restrictions) Bill be now read a second time;
(e) in respect of that Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time;
(f) any proceedings interrupted or superseded by this Order may be resumed or (as the case may be) entered upon and proceeded with after the moment of interruption.
(2) The provisions of paragraphs (3) to (19) of this Order shall apply to and in connection with the proceedings on the Online Services (Age Restrictions) Bill in the present Session of Parliament.
Timetable for the Bill on Monday 9 March 2026
(3) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be taken at the sitting on Monday 9 March 2026 in accordance with this Order.
(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at 8.00pm.
(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at 10.00pm.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put on Monday 9 March 2026
(4) When the Bill has been read a second time:
(a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme Order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(5) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(6) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (3), the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply—
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by The Chairman or Speaker for separate decision;
(d) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a designated Member;
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other Questions, other than the Question on any motion described in paragraph (15) of this Order.
(7) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
Consideration of Lords Amendments and Messages on a subsequent day
(8) If on any future sitting day any Message on the Bill (other than a Message that the House of Lords agrees with the Bill without amendment or agrees with any Message from this House) is expected from the House of Lords, this House shall not adjourn until that Message has been received and any proceedings under paragraph (9) have been concluded.
(9) On any day on which such a Message is received, if a designated Member indicates to the Speaker an intention to proceed to consider that Message—
(a) notwithstanding Standing Order No. 14(1) any Lords Amendments to the Bill or any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly;
(b) proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under subparagraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed;
(c) the Speaker may not propose the Question on the previous question, and may not put any question under Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate) or Standing Order No. 163 (Motion to sit in private) in the course of those proceedings.
(10) Paragraphs (2) to (7) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme Orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to a conclusion as if:
(a) any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member;
(b) after paragraph (4)(a) there is inserted—
“(aa) the question on any amendment or motion selected by the Speaker for separate decision;”.
(11) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme Orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings on consideration of a Lords Message to a conclusion as if any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member.
Reasons Committee
(12) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme Orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order as if any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member.
Miscellaneous
(13) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies.
(14) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a designated Member, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.
(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.
(c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.
(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.
(15) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies except by a designated Member.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(16) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(17) No private business may be considered at any sitting to which the provisions of this Order apply.
(18) (a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which proceedings to which this Order applies are to take place shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(b) Standing Order 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply in respect of any such debate.
(19) In this Order, “a designated Member” means—
(a) the leader of the second largest opposition party; and
(b) any other Member acting on behalf of the leader of the second largest opposition party.
This afternoon is an opportunity for the House to come together to take urgent and meaningful action and to legislate within weeks—not months or years, but weeks—to keep our children and young people safe online, whether that is protection from harmful social media, artificial intelligence chatbots or addictive gaming. It is clear that we are at a tipping point, with widespread public and cross-party support for decisive action.
Every parent across this country knows the threat that social media poses to our children—to their mental health, to their physical health, to their sleep and to their concentration. They have written in their thousands to every single MP in this House—I want to take this opportunity to thank the 1,500 or so parents and carers in my Twickenham constituency who have written to me—and they are begging for a change in the law, so that they can better protect their children. They are not abdicating parental responsibility, as some people would like to suggest; they are pleading with the Government for help in providing the tools and safeguards that they need when faced with the might and the business models of enormous tech companies profiteering from our children’s attention.
For me, this is personal. My husband and I fight a daily battle at home with our children, aged 11 and seven, on screen time and what platforms and games they can access. Peer pressure is overwhelming for children—especially those just starting out on their secondary school journey, as my daughter recently has—who are desperate for belonging and connection. Parents are torn between wanting to ensure that our children are not left out of online spaces, which all too often we ourselves struggle to understand, and wanting to protect our children.
I believe that it is time we sent this message, loud and clear, to Musk, Zuckerberg and the other tech giants: “If your platform spreads harmful content or relies on addictive and harmful algorithms, you should not be allowed anywhere near our children.” That is why the Liberal Democrats have today introduced a Bill that would provide a range of protections for children from online harms, including the restriction of access to harmful social media.
Before I describe what we would ideally want to include in the Bill, let me emphasise that if the House were to support the motion, we would seek to work on a cross-party basis to introduce workable and effective legislation quickly, given that there is support for action across the House. This is not about one party winning or owning the issue; it is about us—as politicians, policymakers and parents—coming together to protect our children, their safety and their wellbeing.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank and commend the hon. Lady for initiating the debate, and for her devotion to this subject. Does she agree that we should consider education and the role of school principals? In Northern Ireland the Education Minister, Paul Givan, has introduced a pilot scheme on phone-free schools, and I have held an event in my constituency to discuss that very issue. The aim is to prevent children from being harassed while at school, and from understanding things that they should not be understanding or doing. Does the hon. Lady agree that phone-free schools to help our children should be part of the policy and part of what the Liberal Democrats are trying to do?
Munira Wilson
It is always a pleasure to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is the first to intervene in the debate, and I entirely agree with him. I will touch on the point about phones in schools later, and I believe that we will have a chance to vote on that specific measure shortly, when the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill returns to this House.
As I have said, we want to approach this legislation in a cross-party way, but let me now turn to what the Liberal Democrats would ideally like to see in it.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making her case very personally and passionately, describing the harms to young people’s mental health that result from the predatory algorithms that the tech giants have devised to create addictive content for children. I, too, think that there is cross-party agreement on the need to look very carefully at how we protect children. Today I was on a call with members of the campaign group “36 Months”, discussing how they are approaching the issue in Australia. Does she agree, however, that the right approach is to have a full public consultation—as has been proposed—so that parents, schools and the rest of us can get this right, learning from evidence and learning from places such as Australia in order to protect our kids?
Munira Wilson
I hope the hon. Lady will not mind if I call her my hon. Friend, although we are on opposite sides of the House. I thank her for her intervention, and I take her point, which I have also heard the Government express. I agree that we need to consult, but I think we should be consulting on how we implement some of these proposals, not on whether we do or what we do, because there is clearly a general consensus. When we look at the findings of every opinion poll—certainly when it comes to such measures as banning social media for under-16s—we see overwhelming public support. There is also cross-party support in this House and, as we have seen recently, in the other place. For me, if there is a consultation, it should be about how those things are implemented and not whether we do that or which ones we implement. However, I will touch on the Government’s approach towards the end of my speech.
We Liberal Democrats would introduce a film-style classification system, with social media rated at 16 as a default, and give Ofcom the powers to back up such a framework. That echoes the film and video classification system established in the 1980s, adapting a trusted framework for the digital age. Companies would be required to age-gate their platforms based on the harmfulness of their content, the addictiveness of their design and the impact that that can have on a child’s mental health. The onus would be on social media companies to stop children getting on to their platforms and to take steps to make their apps safer in the meantime.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sympathetic to all the hon. Lady’s arguments. However, it appears that we are about to have a Second Reading debate on an as yet unpublished Bill, when the motion on the Order Paper is about whether we have a day for that Second Reading debate. I am conscious, because I have been to the Vote Office, that the Bill is not available yet. What are we debating this afternoon? If we were to vote with the hon. Lady this evening, what Bill would we be asked to look at on that future day?
Munira Wilson
It is simple. As I have said, I want us to come together in a cross-party consensus on what should be in that Bill. I have heard what the Conservatives have had to say, I am about to set out what the Liberal Democrats have to say and I am keen to hear what Ministers have to say on what should be in the Bill. We do not have a Bill yet because we think there is an opportunity to work together on this issue.
There have been suggestions that there is party politicking on this issue. I do not think it is a party political issue; I think we all agree that children’s safety and wellbeing is a cross-party priority. The idea is that we agree to move forward, come together and work cross-party on a Bill which, hopefully, we can get through Parliament very quickly and on to the statute book to start protecting our children as soon as possible.
Gareth Snell
I do not wish to make this a procedural debate, but the hon. Lady presented a Bill earlier for First Reading. We have been asked to consider that Bill for Second Reading on a future date. That Bill is not available. Although I absolutely respect her approach for a cross-party consensus to design the Bill, as I understand it the Bill is already written and we are being asked to give over Government time for that to be debated on Second Reading. Again, what are we debating today if the Bill is not available but has been written and we will not have a Second Reading debate until sometime in March?
Munira Wilson
We are debating today the principle of bringing forward legislation quickly. I know that the Government are saying that they want to bring forward legislation sometime in the future. We do not know when that is. I am trying to put a timeframe on it, because we know that what will come back shortly from the other place in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will not be accepted by this House. That is why I am trying to find an opportunity for us all to come together and get to a point that we all agree on. This is about agreeing the principle that we should have primary legislation sooner rather than later. I am happy to make time in my diary tomorrow to start those discussions.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
The hon. Lady makes a passionate case and spoke movingly about the debate in her own family and how to protect her children. I recognise that. I have two young children and I think carefully about what they look at online. I worry about when they get older and how we will deal with that.
The hon. Lady talks about age-gating as the principle on which she wants to work, but I am concerned. We know that the algorithms are addictive and that they reinforce people’s worst prejudices. What evidence is there that that stops at 16? Is she not concerned that simply focusing on age-gating will diminish the pressure on social media companies to open up the algorithms so that we can have a look at how they affect society more generally?
Munira Wilson
I have not said that we should focus only on age-gating; as I continue through my speech, the hon. Gentleman will hear about the range of other things that I think should be in any legislation that is brought forward—quickly—to protect our children. The age-gating of certain platforms based on their harmfulness, which would be a key principle and part of the legislation, is part of our proposals, but so are various other things that I will talk about in terms of tackling the addictiveness of algorithms that is so damaging to our children.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
I wanted to ask the hon. Lady about the register and the ranking of age-appropriateness for content. We have sat opposite each other on many occasions discussing this matter. I have grave concerns about who will register those individual self-published bits of content and who will manage it and pay for it, and how it would actually work in practice.
Munira Wilson
I was about to expand further on that before I took the two preceding interventions. Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to continue and, if I have not addressed her concerns, she can intervene on me again.
Ofcom would be given the powers to force platforms that do not want to play ball to do so or to face serious consequences. We believe that that would mean a ban on harmful social media for under-16s. Family friendly services such as Wikipedia or Tripadvisor would be available at a lower age, as those sites fall under the current user-to-user definition in the Online Safety Act. We know, however, that even 16 could be too young to access the most harmful of sites—those that host violence and pornography—which is why our proposals would allow what we think are really harmful platforms, such as X, to be age-gated up to 18.
A harms-based approach, like the one we are proposing today, is supported by 42 charities including the likes of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Molly Rose Foundation and others, and would protect children from the worst of the web without breaking the parts of the internet that families actually rely on. Crucially, it is future-proofed and could be applied to chatbots, games and other emerging technologies.
I welcome the fact that the Conservatives’ Opposition day motion a few weeks ago, which we were unable to debate, moved towards the Liberal Democrats’ nuanced approach to keeping under-16s aways from “harmful” social media. I hope that the Conservatives will be able to support our motion today and this approach going forward, despite the fact that they were unfortunately unable to do so in the other place just a month ago.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
The hon. Lady is right that we did table an Opposition day motion in Conservative time on this subject, but the difference between our motion and the Liberal Democrat motion is that ours contained proposals. This afternoon, she is asking us not to debate a motion on the topic in the title of the Bill, but merely to give the Liberal Democrats control of the Order Paper on 9 March. Why did she not choose to bring forward a Bill, allow the House to look at her proposals and have a solid, principled debate on it before she asked us to give her control of the Order Paper on 9 March?
Munira Wilson
While the House would be giving me, or the Liberal Democrats, control of the Order Paper, I have made it abundantly clear that we would work together to bring forward legislation—[Interruption.] The Conservatives have proposals; the Government are consulting on something, although I am not quite sure what, because they have not published the consultation yet. We put forward proposals in the other place that the hon. Gentleman’s party unfortunately chose not to support. However, I do not think we are that far apart.
We have published proposals in the other place and would use those as a basis for discussion. The Technology Secretary has already told me and my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) that she would happily work with us on our proposals. There are proposals out there in the public domain. This is about the principle of legislating soon and quickly to bring forward legislation that we can all agree on to protect our children.
Paul Holmes
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way again, because I have to push this point. She has outlined that her party has published proposals in the other place, but her party is called the Liberal Democrats—this is the democratically elected Chamber, and we should be debating a proposed Bill from the Liberal Democrats on their Opposition day. I agree with her that we need urgent legislation. Why is she depriving Members across the House of detailed proposals that we could vote on and instead asking the House through a procedural motion to give her party control of the Order Paper on 9 March?
Munira Wilson
All I can do is repeat myself: I know that if I had published all these things that I am laying out as a piece of legislation, Members on both sides of the House would probably have voted it down. I have told the House that I am happy to come forward in the spirit of co-operation to draft something together—
Several hon. Members rose—
Munira Wilson
I am going to try to move on now—[Interruption.] I am going to make some progress, because I think we have now tested the procedural approach to death.
It is important that we reach consensus on our approach and reject the unworkable blanket bans that have been proposed elsewhere that put enormous powers in the hands of an individual politician. I do not think any Reform Members are here in the Chamber, but given that Reform wants to scrap the Online Safety Act altogether, I shudder to think what future Ministers might deem acceptable if they were allowed to choose what our children and young people could access, which the amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill coming from the other place would allow the Secretary of State to do.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
In among the discussions around procedure, which are important in this place, I fear that we are missing the nub of what my hon. Friend is trying to get to, which is that this is a nuanced space. This is not a blanket “we say no to everything”. Some people are arguing that we should do nothing, and that it should just be down to parents to deal with it. Does she agree that the thoughtful way that she is putting this across, trying to get us all to come together around this issue with the public, is how we will create something that is future-proof? So much of legislation in this area involves chasing our tails, but this is an opportunity for us to get ahead of it, for once.
Munira Wilson
That is indeed what we are trying to do. Putting forward a blanket ban on a particular list of social media sites determined by any Secretary of State at any given point in time is necessarily acting after the fact. That is not future-proof or particularly effective, and it is subject to politicisation. That is why our harms-based approach, which I want to negotiate to get into legislation soon, would be future-proof and work to act on things such as chatbots and games. I know from the discussions we have at home how addictive games such as Roblox can be, for instance.
We Liberal Democrats have long been pressing for a suite of measures that would make the online world safer and healthier for all. One measure that could be implemented overnight would be to ban tech companies from profiting from our children’s attention by raising the age of digital data consent from 13 to 16. This would end the hold that addictive algorithms have on children.
Gareth Snell
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady is making excellent points on the substance, but they bear no resemblance to the motion on the Order Paper. Are you able to give me guidance on what is up for debate this afternoon? Can the hon. Lady point me to where what she is debating sits in the motion?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
What is clear is that there is a motion on the Order Paper on which Members will presumably be asked to divide in due course. That does not give any detail of the proposed Bill, but the motion on the Order Paper is orderly and it will be up to Members to decide how they wish to vote on that.
Paul Holmes
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your indulgence, and I suspect that I will get the same answer as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), but I have never, in my seven years in this House, been in a situation where a motion outlines the timetable for Monday 9 March—including the timings of proceedings and questions to be put on Monday 9 March and of consideration of Lords amendments and messages on a subsequent day—for a Bill that this House has not seen. How can Members vote for a motion that allocates separate procedures for a Bill that has not been published? I want my constituents to know what the Liberal Democrats are proposing in this space. The hon. Lady is now elaborating on the Floor of the House on what she wants her policies to be, but she is asking us to vote for a Bill that has not been put before this House. Can I therefore have your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether this debate should be going ahead if the House does not have a substantive Bill relating to this procedural motion?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. The motion on the Order Paper is perfectly orderly, so Members will be invited to vote on that, not on the substance of any Bill that might come on 9 March. I think it is important that the House is clear on that.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. How can I assess what is orderly for my contribution to the debate given that the substance of the motion is about process? To be frank, I do not want to speak about process; I want to speak about protections for children.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The motion is to give consideration to a Bill on the specific matter which has been outlined clearly on the Order Paper: “Protections for children from online harms”. I reassure the hon. Lady that any contribution she chooses to make on that matter would be in order.
Munira Wilson
What I am setting out is what I would want to put forward as suggestions for the Bill. As you have helpfully pointed out, Madam Deputy Speaker, we will be dividing on whether there should be a Bill very soon on the broad subject of protecting children from online harms.
The other measure I would want to bring forward in any legislation is a doomscrolling cap, which would end the infinite scroll feature on short-form online platforms for young people, limiting the amount of time for which children are pushed to TikTok-style video content to two hours. I would also want to see health alerts on social media platforms for under-18s. Just like cigarettes and alcohol, these addictive products carry well-documented risks, especially for young people. The evidence is clear that excessive use of these apps exposes children to mental health issues, anxiety and sleep disruption, and causes real harm to attention spans. Do they not deserve to know that? When we pick up a packet of cigarettes, we expect to be told about the harm that product will pose to our health, so why is social media—a key driver of the crisis in our young people’s mental health—any different?
Given that young people themselves say they want a break from the stress of social media at school, and given the impact of phones on children’s concentration and focus, will the Education Secretary finally listen to her own Children’s Minister and put the Government’s guidance on mobile phones in schools into law to give teachers and headteachers the back-up and, crucially, the resources they need to restrict their use? That is also something that could be part of this Bill if the Government refuse to accept the amendment that will be coming from the other place to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.
I recognise that the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has announced a consultation on children’s online safety and that she will be tabling an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to enable further legislation to come forward on something at some point in the future—all as yet to be determined. Frankly, the Government are kicking the can down the road.
Baroness Kidron in the other place, who is an expert and campaigner on children’s safety online, said the Government’s consultation
“does not concern itself with the gaps in provision or enforcement of the Online Safety Act, nor the emerging or future threats that we repeatedly raise. It does not seek to speed up enforcement or establish why non-compliant companies are not named in Ofcom research or while they are being investigated. The consultation is entirely focused on two amendments that this House might send to the other House, which its Back-Benchers might agree to. The consultation’s purpose is to stave off a Back-Bench rebellion. It is not about child safety or governance; it is about party management. The UK’s children deserve better than that.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 January 2026; Vol. 852, c. 318.]
Those are not my words; they are the words of the esteemed Cross-Bench peer Baroness Kidron in the other place.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I had understood that the hon. Member’s party was keen on public consultation, and there is clearly a lot of public concern about the very real problem of online harms and the need to protect children. I am therefore puzzled by the fact that she is seeking to control the parliamentary agenda in just a couple of weeks’ time with rushed-through legislation and without any substantive proposals or consultation. If she is concerned about the scope of the consultation the Government have announced, why not try to amend that scope? Why not emphasise the importance of parents in particular having their voices heard rather than rushing through legislation that will probably be quite flawed if there is not sufficient time to ensure that everybody’s voices are heard in this conversation? It feels like politicking, to be honest, rather than a substantive engagement with the details of the issue.
Munira Wilson
I am sorry the hon. Member feels that way. We have brought forward a lot of these proposals previously. It is not politicking; we have long been committed to this issue. A number of these things could be done tomorrow. They do not need to be consulted on. The age of digital data consent could be raised tomorrow without any further consultation. There was flexibility in European law on the age it was set at and the UK chose to set it at 13. A number of other countries have recently raised the age. Unfortunately, an amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill to do just that was rejected. The bit that probably needs consultation is how any ban or restriction on harmful social media would work, but we could legislate for the principle and consult on the operational detail. I do not think that is a problem.
On the hon. Member’s point about making sure that the voices of parents and young people are heard, I think they have been heard loud and clear up and down the country. They have been pushing and pushing for this. They are concerned that the consultation will just delay action further. Parents, teachers and young people are crying out for urgent action now. We need a smart approach that allows young people to benefit from the best of the internet—whether that is learning or staying connected to their friends and family online—while properly tackling the harms it can cause.
Munira Wilson
I have given way to the hon. Member a couple of times. I am just about to finish.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I am confused about what the Liberal Democrats’ proposals are. The proposals laid out by the hon. Lady are not those introduced in the House of Lords. In the House of Lords, only user-to-user services were talked about, not addictive online gaming, for example. Are we discussing a Bill containing the proposals laid out in the House of Lords, or is the hon. Member putting forward new, ethereal proposals? I do not understand what this Bill is going to be. I was expecting to actually see it so that we could discuss it today.
Munira Wilson
The harms-based framework that we proposed in the other place would apply to chatbots and gaming as well. The point is that, as I have already laid out, we would come together and come forward with proposals that we can all agree on.
Munira Wilson
I am very grateful that the hon. Member wishes to help me out, but I suspect that he does not have my best interests at heart. [Hon. Members: “Aw!”] Oh, go on; I am happy to take his intervention.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady is being characteristically courteous in giving way, and I always have her best interests at heart. She is right to say that people are keen to be heard loud and clear, and she is rightly setting out her position about legislation she wants to see before the House. However, if she thinks that people have been heard loud and clear, can she tell the House whether the things she has outlined today are in a drafted Bill, sitting in a safe somewhere within Liberal Democrat HQ, and why she chose not to publish that this afternoon so that we could have a principled debate on her policy proposals?
Munira Wilson
No, I will not give way; I would not expect the hon. Member to help me out.
At various points, we have tabled all the things I have mentioned as amendments in both Houses, so they have been drafted—although I am happy to admit that they have not been put together in one Bill for me to present today. I apologise on that procedural point, Madam Deputy Speaker, which I can see has upset many Members, but all the proposals that I have outlined have been tabled in both Houses as amendments to various Bills, including the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and the Data (Use and Access) Bill.
To reiterate, the only consultation that we should focus on now ought to relate to how the restrictions might work in practice, not whether they are needed at all—the public and campaign groups have made their views on that pretty clear already, whether they support or oppose a blanket ban. Although I have been criticised for coming forward without a Bill, the whole point was to say, “Let’s work together,” because I think there is cross-party consensus on this matter.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
There seems to be great confusion in the Chamber, even though the Liberal Democrats have time and again set out our proposals quite clearly in different places. I find it fascinating that the official Opposition accuse us of politicking when they probably agree with the substance of our proposals. They are contorting themselves to find a way not to support the motion, which is about urgency and acting more swiftly than the Government propose to do—I, for one, think that is a good thing.
Munira Wilson
Discussing the substance of the issue is exactly what we are seeking to do. It has been a long time since this Chamber has had a proper debate on these issues. In a few weeks’ time, we will discuss amendments that suggest individual parties’ views on the way forward. We are proposing a discussion on what the proposals should be so that we can return with a piece of legislation that meets the needs and requirements of the public—our children and young people, and their parents and carers.
We Liberal Democrats say to Ministers and the official Opposition that we have a set of solutions, and we will work with them in the best interests of children. We need to act now, so they should vote with us today and make time for this Bill on the legislative agenda. If the Government do not want to make time for our Bill, perhaps they will make time for one of their own, but we need one quickly. We stand ready to work across parties to create the safer future that our children deserve—
Anna Dixon
I thank the hon. Member—I will call her my friend, as she gave way to me on the last sentence of her speech. She has made a powerful case for cross-party working, hearing different perspectives and bringing forward change quickly, but that is the point of consultation: to find out how we should do something, get the views of parents, schools and everyone else, and come out with something that will be effective in the long term. The Online Safety Act 2023 took far too many years, while this proposal bounces us into something when we are not even sure of what we are voting for. I say with huge respect for her that we should use the consultation process.
Munira Wilson
I say gently that although the Prime Minister has promised us legislation at some point following consultation, it would be secondary legislation, which gets far less scrutiny than primary legislation, and I am afraid that his track record for U-turning on commitments is not great—let’s face it. I have tried to be as consensual as possible and not make political jibes, but we have had 14 U-turns. He said just a few months ago that he did not want to bring in any sort of ban on harmful social media for under-16s because of the experience of his teenagers, but he made a speech last week in which he said that, because of his teenagers, he did want to do so. I am not sure which version of his comments to believe. I would like to press this issue so that the Government introduce legislation sooner rather than later. I think it needs to be primary legislation so that we can discuss it, debate it, amend it and look at it thoughtfully, and we need a clear and strong timetable for it.
Joy Morrissey
We all want to find a solution to online harms—we would not be in this debate if we did not care about protecting children—but the way to do that is through a long consultation period outside the Chamber before we come forward with a Bill. Procedurally, this is not the way that we debate Bills, assess their merit or take them through the stages of becoming law. If the Liberal Democrats want to take this seriously, they should use the correct procedure for taking forward a Bill. We should all be able to debate it. There should be a long consultation process, and then we can take it forward together.
Munira Wilson
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention about procedure. I say to her gently that her party and others have in the past used this mechanism to try to force Governments to introduce legislation on various issues.
Munira Wilson
I will not give way again, because I think we have tested this argument to death. I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns about procedure, but this mechanism is not unheard of. The Labour party did something similar on fracking a few years ago when Liz Truss was Prime Minister. I remember it well—I was in this place, as was the hon. Lady—and we voted on that. There was no substance, but Labour wanted to bring forward legislation.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a procedural question. Given that the long title of the Bill is not in the motion, does that mean that the Bill can effectively cover any subject or theme if the Order Paper is seized on that day?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order, which I anticipated might come at some point. If he checks the Order Paper, he will see that paragraph (1)(d) says very specifically that it has to be a Bill on online services age restrictions that is brought forward on 9 March.
Dr Spencer
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for that clarification, but my understanding is that that is the short title, not the long title. Is it the case that the long title can be used to tag in any related subjects to expand the scope from the narrow one here?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his further point of order. Clarification on that point had best be sought from the Public Bill Office. It is my understanding that any Bill brought forward will have to cover online services age restriction, but I appreciate the distinction that he makes between the long and the short titles.
Munira Wilson
I am perplexed, because I think there is support on both sides of the House for restricting online harms and protecting our children, and for the principle of bringing forward legislation, although I understand that people are vexed about the procedural point. I fear that there has been some contorting to find a way to justify voting against this motion. I am sorry that that is the case, because we Liberal Democrats are ready to work in a cross-party manner to create the safer future that our children deserve so that they can flourish and thrive in the online and offline worlds. I hope colleagues across the Chamber will support us.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Members might be jaded by my making this point of order, but I am grateful to you for allowing me to do so; as a democrat, I like this Chamber to work properly. Will you clarify the procedural basis of the request by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for the Government to make time for the Bill? I ask this because if the motion is accepted, the Government will not be able to pick a time for the legislation; instead the Liberal Democrats would take over the Order Paper and force the Government to accept their legislation on 9 March, with the procedures that are outlined.
May I also ask your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the motion? It would make a number of amendments to the Order Paper on that day, including that
“No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies...
The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.”,
and that only a “designated Member” would be able to make any decision about the order in which a Bill was to be taken. In subsection 19 that designated Member is
“(a) the leader of the second largest opposition party; and
(b) any other Member acting on behalf of the leader of the second largest opposition party.”
Despite the protestations of the Liberal Democrats that they want this to be a cross-party approach, this is them taking over the Order Paper and giving their leader carte blanche to table what they like on 9 March. It does not give the Government the opportunity to table legislation on a cross-party basis at a timing of their choosing—it has to happen under the jurisdiction of the Liberal Democrat motion, does it not?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for his very long point of order—[Interruption.] Yes, he has made the point that he is trying to be helpful. To clarify, first, it is the House’s time not Government time, but the powers given as set out in the motion are as he has outlined them. May I further highlight that it is not without precedent to hold a debate on a motion taking over the Order Paper on a Bill, without the Bill having been published? It last occurred on 6 February 2024 when an Opposition motion was tabled to take over the Order Paper to discuss ministerial severance reform, and that Bill had not yet been published. So it is not without precedent, but the hon. Member is correct in his understanding of what the motion would do were it to be passed by the House.
I call the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
It is a pleasure to respond to this debate, not least to further my education in my personal passion area of parliamentary procedure.
Let me begin by responding to the motion, and then I will turn to the substance of the debate. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) will accept that no Government could accept a motion such as that proposed by the Liberal Democrats. The motion goes against the Standing Orders of the House, which state that the Government as elected by the people control the Order Paper, apart from specific exemptions such as Opposition days. The motion would give the Liberal Democrats free rein to schedule the business on 9 March. Today they introduced a Bill. It is still not available to Members across the House, yet they are asking the House to hand them control of business to complete all stages of the Bill within a day. That is no way to make complex changes to the law in this area.
This is not just a procedural outrage; more than that I am sorry to see the Liberal Democrats join the Conservative party yet again in their usual coalition of putting political desperation on this question ahead of the interests of British children and families. I urge the Liberal Democrats to forget this approach, and to take part in the Government’s consultation, which is a true attempt at engaging across parties and across the country, so that we find the right solution for children and parents. This Government have already set out a way forward that considers those vital issues in a responsible way, and allows for swift action in response. That is how we will give children the childhood that they deserve and prepare them for the future.
Wera Hobhouse
I do not know where the Minister has been, but my inbox has been inundated by families and parents who are calling for action. We are responding to the request of our constituents to take action. Do the Government not see the urgency with which we need to take action?
Kanishka Narayan
The Government are seeing both urgency and responsibility in the correspondence that we are receiving and the consultation we are engaging with, not the desperate lurch to a specific answer that the Liberal Democrats are exemplifying in this instance. I want to take this opportunity to set out our approach.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I say gently to the Minister that if he were to look at the Liberal Democrat’s track record over the past few years, he will see that we have worked really hard to put forward concrete proposals about putting online safety first.
Victoria Collins
No, but we have tried to push that agenda. It is not as if social media came into existence yesterday—Facebook was launched 22 years ago—and the Government brought forward the consultation after pressure from across the House. So I say gently to the Minister that we are trying to work together and that we want to continue to work together in that vein.
Kanishka Narayan
I take the hon. Member’s point about wanting to work together. The Government are committed to doing exactly that. It is not a question of whether we act, but how we implement specific changes to secure our children’s future. I encourage her and the entire Liberal Democrat party to engage with the consultation.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
On that point, will the Minister give way?
Kanishka Narayan
I will make a little progress having already given way twice to Liberal Democrat Members in short succession.
To be clear, it is crucial that we allow for a short, sharp consultation to allow the different parts of the debate to be heard, including crucially the voices of children themselves, who are too often under-represented in the debate. This is a complex area and it is vital that we get it right.
We have already announced that we will act both with speed and appropriate scrutiny to legislate based on the outcome of the consultation. Last month, the Secretary of State set out to the House that technology has huge potential for good: to create goods, to drive growth, to transform our public services and so much more. However, we have also been clear that in order to harness the potential benefits, parents need to have confidence that their children can benefit from the opportunities that the online world offers, ensuring that technology enriches, not harms, children’s lives.
Most children report benefits from being online, such as interacting with their peers, finding useful information or learning a new skill. But we also know that there are concerns about children’s online experience. This Government have always been clear that the protection of children online is our top priority. The Online Safety Act 2023 introduced one of the most robust systems globally for protecting children from harm online.
Anna Dixon
I thank the Minister for his remarks, and I hope that part of the consultation will involve looking at research. The Born in Bradford study is a huge cohort study that has recently looked at social media use by 12 to 15-year-olds in the Bradford district. It found that they are using social media for 3.36 hours per day and that there are associated increases in anxiety and depression. Will the Minister ensure that the harms from social media that we already know about, including that research, will be factored in as he makes decisions, following the consultation, to act swiftly to protect our children from harm?
Kanishka Narayan
I commend my hon. Friend on her consistent commitment to evidence-based policy making in this place, and beyond it too. I commit to her that both the Born in Bradford study, which she mentioned, and wider research will be in the front of the Government’s mind.
Caroline Voaden
Will the Minister tell the House when the consultation will be launched?
Kanishka Narayan
We will be very glad to come to the House as soon as the consultation is launched. It will be very soon indeed. As we have said, Members will expect not just a consultation—[Interruption.] I have not committed to debate the consultation today, prior to having published it. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats will take a lesson from that and follow appropriate procedure in this place.
The illegal content and child safety duties came into effect last year. Those duties represent a major milestone in protecting children from illegal and harmful content online, as well as helping them to have age-appropriate online experiences.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Consultation and timeframe is key, because while we procrastinate, online harm is continuing and our children are being put at risk. The statistics around online pornography show that up to 50% of boys aged 11 to 13 have already viewed pornography, and it is influencing their minds on a daily basis with regard to relationships and how they conduct their business. Will the Minister give the House an assurance that the consultation will come to this place very soon? Can he give timeframes thereafter, following the consultation, as to when we will see legislation brought before this House?
Kanishka Narayan
I can confirm to the hon. Member that the Government have committed to act robustly by the summer, which is about as short and sharp as a consultation can get. Instead of procrastinating on this question, I encourage her to engage intensively with the process of consultation and the national conversation.
I mentioned illegal content duties, as well as child safety duties. Under those duties, services must now conduct highly effective age assurance, precisely addressing the point raised by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), to prevent children in the UK from encountering pornography, as well as content that encourages, promotes or provides instructions for self-harm, suicide or eating disorders. Platforms are also now legally required to put in place measures to protect children from other types of harmful content. That includes abusive or hateful content, bullying content and violent content.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the decisive action that he took over the recent Grok incident. Given the scope of the consultation and the fact that we are talking about online harms, I want to flag the issue we have around content on YouTube, which is a video-sharing platform, not necessarily a social media platform. The type of content that our children are consuming on there is a quick succession of images, which is not very good for a child’s development, rather than the slow-paced stuff we get when we watch a broadcaster. Will the consultation look at the quality of content on these platforms? Not all screentime is equal; some screentime can be quite dangerous for a child’s development in general.
Kanishka Narayan
Both of my hon. Friend’s points—on the scope of how we look at particular platforms and at their functionalities—are not just considered by the consultation, but deeply important. I engaged with the Australian Minister on this issue just last week, trying to understand their experiences of this and the uncertainty of getting those two things right. That is exactly why the consultation has been an appropriate approach in this context.
Where services fail to comply with their duties in the Act, Ofcom’s enforcement powers include fines of up to £18 million or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue. Ofcom has indicated that it has issued financial penalties to six companies under the Online Safety Act amounting to more than £3 million. I can confirm to the House that just yesterday, Ofcom announced that it has fined a porn company £1.35 million for failing to introduce proper age verification on its websites—the largest fine levied so far under the Act. I welcome this strong action to protect children online.
We have always been clear that while the Online Safety Act provides the foundations, there is more to do to ensure that children live enriching online lives. Like all regulatory regimes, it must remain agile. That is all the more critical given that we are dealing with fast-moving technology. That is why this Government have already taken a number of decisive steps to build on these protections.
The first act of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was to make online content that promotes self-harm and suicide a priority offence under the Online Safety Act. That means that platforms must take proactive steps to stop users seeing this content in the first place. If it does appear, platforms must minimise the time that it is online. As well as that, both intimate image abuse and cyber-flashing are now priority offences under the Online Safety Act.
Last month, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State stood in this Chamber and made it clear that the creation of non-consensual deepfakes on X is shocking, despicable and abhorrent. She confirmed that we would expedite legislation to criminalise the creation of non-consensual intimate images, and I am pleased to confirm to the House that that came into effect earlier this month. That will also be designated as a priority offence under the Online Safety Act, and it complements the existing criminal offence of sharing or threatening to share a deepfake intimate image without consent.
Alongside that, it was announced that we will legislate to criminalise nudification tools to make it illegal for companies to supply tools to be used as generators of non-consensual intimate images. Last week, we went further still and announced that we will introduce a legal duty requiring tech companies to remove non-consensual intimate images within 48 hours of them being reported. These measures will provide real protection for women and girls online.
However, we recognise the strength of feeling up and down the country and right across this House—not least in this debate. We share the concern of many parents about the wider impact of social media and technology on children’s wellbeing. The rapid growth of grassroots campaigns such as Smartphone Free Childhood highlights how concerned parents are about the pull of these technologies and what it means for their children. That includes the potential impacts on mental health, sleep and self-esteem.
We have set out our commitment to supporting parents and children with these issues. We want to find solutions that genuinely support the wellbeing of our children and to give parents the help that they need as they guide children through online spaces safely.
Dr Chowns
I have received contact from hundreds of parents in my constituency and from some young people sharing their huge concern about online harm caused by engagement with social media, so I fully understand the sense of urgency in the Chamber and the desire for quick action. The Government said in January that they would consult. They reiterated that they would consult, and they reiterated that commitment 10 days ago. I understand that the consultation is due to start in March, and the Minister has talked about bringing measures through before the summer. Can he commit to acting with real urgency and bring that consultation forward? What is the delay? Will he commit to bringing legislation—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Lady has repeatedly made very long interventions. It was always open to her to attend the opening of the debate and to speak in it.
Kanishka Narayan
I totally agree with the hon. Member’s call for urgency. I assure her that first, the Government will act by the summer in robustly responding to the consultation. Secondly, we have been focused on getting the consultation right, and not just for the wider public; we are ensuring that it is designed for young people’s engagement, which requires particular design features. Thirdly, we are not waiting for the launch of the consultation to have the national conversation. I have been in schools and met parents, as have the Secretary of State and Ministers from across Government, so the conversation has very much started, and I am sure that the consultation is also imminent.
While there is consensus that problems remain, there is not yet consensus on the best way to address them. That is why the Government announced last month that we will be launching our short, sharp consultation and national conversation on further measures. We recognise that while some people support age restrictions on social media for children, there are diverse views on both the “what” and the “how”. Prominent voices in this debate, including the Molly Rose Foundation and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, are concerned that blunt age limits might not be the right approach and risk doing more harm than good. Even among those who support age limits, there are differing views on how to apply them, including which services restrictions should apply to. Those views are worthy of consideration, but we need to consider them properly and responsibly—we owe that to our children.
That is why the consultation approach is the responsible path forward for looking at these issues, considering in a swift and evidence-based way the full range of implications and the most effective way of protecting children and enhancing their lives online. We will consult with parents, the organisations representing children and bereaved families, tech companies and—crucially—children and young people themselves. None of that would be allowed under the motion we are considering today. This consultation, backed by the national conversation, will identify the next steps in our plan to boost and protect children’s wellbeing online. The consultation will include exploring the option of banning social media for children below a certain age, as well as a range of other measures. This will include gathering views and evidence on options such as restricting access to addictive functionalities and understanding what we can do better to support parents in navigating their children’s digital lives. We will also explore whether we should raise the digital age of consent, to give parents more control over how their children’s data is used, and how existing laws on age verification could be better enforced.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
The Minister is making lots of observations about the consultation that is going to go ahead—what is going to be in it, and how long it is going to take. What we do not know is when he will commit to bringing legislation before this House to act against social media.
Kanishka Narayan
I am happy to repeat to the hon. Member this Government’s commitment, which is that we will act by the summer. That is about as short and sharp as a consultation period gets. The Online Safety Act took seven years; we are simply asking for one quarter to make sure that young people, parents and families across the country are properly heard from.
John Milne
I understand the consultation, but what about actual legislation?
Kanishka Narayan
I will simply repeat the point I have made, which is that we are going to act by the summer. We have already sought permissive powers to ensure that the Government are able to act on the outcome of the consultation through rapid legislation. I hope the combination of those two commitments gives the hon. Member some assurance.
The engagement and consultation will take place alongside work with counterparts. We will be monitoring developments in Australia on its social media ban for under-16s to share learnings and best practice. We are steadfast in our belief that the right way to deliver the next steps to protect our children online is to be led by the evidence through our short, sharp three-month consultation.
Kirsty Blackman
The Minister has just said that the Government have already sought permissive powers. I understand that they are going to move an amendment in lieu to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, but I am not aware that that amendment has been published yet, much less agreement sought from the House. When will that be published, so that we can see what those permissive powers are supposed to be?
Kanishka Narayan
I thank the hon. Member for that point, and commit to her that we are going to try to do that as soon as possible. She will be aware that the legislative process is already very tight, so I will come back to her and the House with the wording of the motion as soon as possible.
Last week, as I have mentioned, the Secretary of State confirmed that we will take new legal powers to allow us to act quickly on the outcomes of the consultation, delivering on our promises to parents. We will make sure that the wording is presented to the House at the earliest opportunity. We also recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and the expertise that parliamentarians in both Houses provide, and have already committed that when regulations are brought forward, they will be debated on the Floor of the House and there will be a vote in both Houses, ensuring proper scrutiny. We are clear that the question is not whether we will act, but what type of action we will take. We will ensure that we do so effectively, in lockstep with our children and in the interests of British families.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Today we are debating something that is very important: the protection of children from online harms is vital.
I commend the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on what I thought was a very heartfelt speech, but I fear that her good intent has been rather thrown under the bus by her party leadership. Setting aside the importance of this subject, let us look at their method of bringing it forward—a point which has been raised rather expertly by Members from across the House. Today the Liberal Democrats are doing what they do best: slightly nutty stunts. With all the menace of Captain Mainwaring they are attempting to seize control of the Order Paper and effectively declare themselves not only Government for the day but, with their loosely defined online services Bill, rulers of the internet. It is a gimmick. It is the parliamentary equivalent of boinging into the Chamber on a giant bungee.
Though the hon. Member for Twickenham put a little bit of flesh on the bones in her speech, the motion itself simply requests the power to barge through this House with a blank-cheque Bill for which we have no details and in so doing let the Government Benches clean off the hook. It has all gone a bit Benny Hill. It is a great shame because it is a distraction when the moment of truth on social media for children is coming to us imminently. They know that from the panicked recess briefings that the Prime Minister has been caught on the hop on an issue that is of deep concern to families, children, teachers and communities across the country.
Before too long the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will return to this House and Members will have the chance to vote on a credible proposition: an amendment tabled by the noble Lord Nash that no child under the age of 16 should have access to harmful social media.
Kirsty Blackman
If this is the Conservative’s stance, why when consideration of the Online Safety Bill lasted for so long—it was even referred back into Committee, which no Bill had been in 20 years—did the Conservatives not ban social media for under-16s through that Bill when they were in government?
Julia Lopez
This is a Conservative amendment in the Lords that has gained cross-party support, so it will be coming back to us. The hon. Member raises an important point about why this policy was not brought in under the Online Safety Act. That Act tried to do many, many things. In many ways, it took so long because it risked becoming a Christmas tree Bill, and many good causes were hung off it. That did cause challenges.
I think that as the debate has moved on we have realised that it is not just about illegal content that children are being exposed to and some of the things that the Online Safety Act was trying to change. There is an issue in general about children being in this space: there are addictive algorithms, and it is not just about illegal material but the fact that it is changing how children are thinking about interacting. Maybe we have to stand back as a society and say, “This is simply not the right place for children to be. We can create adult online spaces, but for children we think that there are other ways in which they should be interacting with the world.”
Victoria Collins
You are talking about the Online Safety Act. Do you think the fact that—
Victoria Collins
Apologies. The hon. Member talks about the Online Safety Act and what happened under the Conservatives. Do you think—
Victoria Collins
Apologies. Does she think that the fact that the Leader of the Opposition tried to water down that Bill and said that we do not legislate for feelings has anything to do with the can being kicked down the road and us not having made the necessary progress?
Julia Lopez
There were very real and important debates during the passage of that Bill about legal but harmful material and whether people should be able to speak freely online. Our approach was to seek to create a space where adults can speak freely while accepting that children should not be in some of these spaces. That was the point that the Leader of the Opposition was trying to make.
We were moving very dangerously into the realms of free speech, and it is not for an online regulator to start telling people what they can and cannot say online when it is not something that is illegal to speak of in the real world. That was the challenge that we got ourselves into as a Government, and that is why we changed parts of the approach that we were taking to the Online Safety Bill. I appreciate the concerns that are being raised, and I am trying to answer them as honestly and straightforwardly as I can.
When we consider the amendment from Lord Nash, this House will have its opportunity to make an unequivocal statement of principle: that when we believe that something is harming children at scale, we accept that it is insufficient to leave the status quo unchallenged or simply to commission a consultation. That applies especially when it is a consultation to which this Government have provided absolutely no political direction or view and that has been much trailed but still not actually launched. In truth, this consultation was not ready. It was a mechanism to get the Prime Minister out of another of his tight fixes.
The Tech Secretary might be very good at emoting and telling us all how impatient she is for change, how she cares, and indeed for how many years she has cared, but when she made her statement on social media for children in this Chamber a few weeks ago, she said nothing about what the Government would actually do, beyond seeking more time to take a position. I commend the hon. Member for Twickenham for pointing that out, and I have sympathy with why she is trying to use this mechanism today, because we are all trying to tease out what the Government are seeking to do.
It was extraordinary to listen to the Government Minister, who said with great sincerity, “We will act robustly in responding to a consultation.” What does he actually believe? What do the Government think we should do on this issue? Nobody has a clue. They are talking about a huge range of things that could be done, but it is for a Government to provide political direction; it is not for a Government to seek consensus. [Interruption.] It is for a Government to take a position and to take a view. It is for a Government to have opinions. It is for a Government to have policy positions. It is not for a Government to try to make sure that everybody in this House agrees. [Interruption.] It is pathetic to see those on the Labour Benches getting out of their tree about this.
Natasha Irons
I sincerely thank the hon. Lady for giving way. When we talk about the consultation, it is not necessarily about seeking consensus in this place; it is about seeking consensus with parents and children, and with people outside this place. Banning social media for children is a good approach, but this is not just about that, is it? It is also about the time that our kids are spending on screens. That is what this is about: it is about having a digital childhood that we can all get behind and support.
Julia Lopez
I can agree with that. My point is that this Government are trying to suggest that a consensus can be found in the absence of their having a policy position. They are talking about a consultation, but what on earth are they consulting on? Nobody has a clue. They have not been able to say anything about what they actually want to do, because the Prime Minister has no opinions, which is why he is in such deep trouble. Those on the Labour Benches can get out of their tree and get all uppity about it, but this—[Interruption.] No, the Prime Minister is being blown around like a paper bag on this issue, and everybody knows it. First of all, he said that his children did not want to ban social media; now he says that his children are the reason why he wishes to ban social media. He said there is going to be a consultation, but it has not materialised. What does this man actually think?
Kirsty Blackman
I am glad that the hon. Member has been very clear that her position is that she supports the Lords amendment that seeks to ban social media for children. Is she aware that it would not apply in Scotland? The Lords amendment would not apply in Scotland, because the territorial extent of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, apart from one clause, does not include Scotland. I take it that her position is that she only wants a social media ban for children who do not live in Scotland.
Julia Lopez
I am sure the applicability of the legislation in Scotland is something that can be debated when the Bill comes before the House.
To give them credit, many Labour MPs understand the fact that there is an absence of any Government position, and they will not be taking their foot off the pedal. I suspect that many may have the guts to speak out today—although perhaps not. Those MPs recognised immediately that a consultation is a mechanism for a delay that goes beyond the summer and into another parliamentary year before the sniff of legislation. That holding position is now falling apart, as we have seen from the Minister here today. It is the threat of a very large group of Labour MPs backing the Conservatives’ Lords amendment that is pushing this Government into action—it is government by rebellion. We ask the Liberal Democrats not to let us be distracted from the moment of truth that is coming up, when we hope there will be cross-party support for the noble Lord Nash’s amendment.
For too long, the internet has been treated as a space that cannot be governed. It has functioned like a pioneer society, with extraordinary opportunity but minimal rules. However, pioneer societies improvise customs and eventually retrofit themselves with rules to sustain societies, often after hard-won experience and dispute. That is the process through which we are now going, and we are realising that, as the online society was built, we were not vigilant enough when it came to protecting childhood. We did not recognise that this new territory would bleed into the old world. [Interruption.] The Minister is shouting from the Front Bench that I am embarrassing myself. We as a Government brought forward the Online Safety Act, but there are gaps in it, and we have taken a clear position as the Opposition that we think children should not be on social media. He is looking very angry, but what is his view? Can he stand up and tell us what his personal view is? As the Minister with this responsibility, what does he think should be done, having launched his consultation with such earnestness? Come on, tell us! Would he like to tell us?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Could I just be helpful? A lot of help has been needed this afternoon. The Minister has not asked to intervene, and the hon. Lady cannot force him to intervene on her.
Julia Lopez
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was pointing out that the Minister has no manners, but wishes to shout from a sedentary position. I sat listening to him and waiting to see if I could decipher, in his very long and self-regarding diatribe, whether he actually has any opinions, but it turns out that he does not. He is very comfortable to sit on the Front Bench and chunter away at me. [Interruption.] You see, he again says that I am such an embarrassment.
Gareth Snell
I have listened to what the hon. Lady has said, but last week I talked to a 15-year-old, who said to me, “We have no youth clubs. We go on the street, and I don’t feel safe and I get told I’m a nuisance. So I come home, and I interact with my friends online. Now I’m told I can’t do that.” I am not sure what the right answer is, and I sometimes think that not knowing the answer is as good as having absolute certainty all the time about everything. What would she say to that 15-year-old about the outcome for her? She is asking what she can do and how can she stay in touch with her friends. We do not have an answer to that yet, so what are the Conservatives offering?
Julia Lopez
I respect the hon. Member’s intervention for its politeness, but I do not think the answer is suddenly to encourage all children who are finding it hard to find purposeful and meaningful activities in the real world to retreat to their bedrooms. One of the challenges we have seen is that children have felt that the online space is the most stimulating for them. Unfortunately, that has led to an even greater retreat from the real world, and I think we can all recognise that that has been a negative for society.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
The hon. Lady has been very clear that she wished the Government had just charged forward in some direction or other. I have had hundreds of constituents email me about this, from various perspectives and various concerns about the workability of certain solutions. I would like to listen to them, and I think it would be really helpful if the opposition parties tried to do likewise and to engage with this process, rather than just criticising whatever approach we take.
Julia Lopez
I appreciate where the hon. Member is coming from. I do not think it is wrong to seek evidence and ask for people’s views, but the Prime Minister should be honest about what he wants to do. The problem is that he has been floating various opinions, and he is being buffeted by Labour MPs and by the Opposition and others. If he does not think this is the right approach, he should feel confident in saying so. He has said a whole range of different things about this, and the Government are seeking to launch a consultation, but nobody actually knows what precisely is being consulted on.
If Labour MPs were honest with themselves, I think they would recognise that. I suspect they are having very serious conversations with the party’s Whips, saying, “Well, actually, we would like to know what the Prime Minister does think about this issue, because we’re not convinced by this consultation—we think it’s kicking the issue into the long grass, and we’re worried about the length of time that will mean before we get legislation to protect children from various challenges online.” That is the very reason why the Minister has stood up before them today to say, “We are probably going to do something—very definitely, maybe—in the summer.” He is saying that because the pressure is growing from Labour MPs. It is being briefed out that the Government are going to bring forward amendments to the Bill because they are being buffeted into doing so.
The problem is that nobody knows what this Prime Minister believes. On every single issue for the Government at the moment, and despite the very large Labour majority, this Prime Minister is being buffeted around, and that is the problem.
Wera Hobhouse
I am very much enjoying the hon. Member’s speech, and I am wondering why she therefore cannot support our motion this evening.
Julia Lopez
I set out clearly at the beginning of my speech why we cannot support the motion, which is effectively a blank cheque. Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. Member for Twickenham tried to set it out in her speech, nobody actually knows what the Lib Dems are trying to do here. The proposal before us is that the Liberal Democrats take control of the Order Paper and then can say whatever they like on internet governance. I am sorry, but I do not think that is the way to conduct ourselves in Parliament. There have to be clearer proposals.
Gareth Snell
I agree with the hon. Lady on this point. The other problem is that the motion caps the amount of debate at four hours—two hours for Second Reading, and then two hours for Committee and Third Reading. This will presumably have to be a meaty, multi-clause Bill to deal with an issue as complex as internet governance regulation, and it will be unamendable by this place because of the timescales available. It will not have the line-by-line scrutiny that would normally happen in Committee, and most of the amendments that get tabled will fall because there will not be time for Members to propose them. This is not a solution that brings consensus; this is the Lib Dems railroading through policies on a really complex issue that they cannot get through in conventional manners.
Julia Lopez
I agree with the hon. Member wholeheartedly.
Until now, we have implicitly decided that childhood must simply adapt to an environment that we as adults find totally overwhelming, undermining of our own sense of self and completely irresistible. We have been exposing our children to this place of no settled social rules where that exposure is constant, the boundaries are porous and responsibility is diffuse. Behaviour that would never be tolerated offline is normalised, monetised and then algorithmically amplified. The Online Safety Act, which we have discussed already, has been a step forward in trying to wrest back control, but it is, of course, an imperfect one. It focuses primarily on illegal content, seeks to keep the most extreme material offline and introduces age-gating for pornography and other over-18 content. That work does matter, but the problem before us today goes well beyond illegality and explicit material. There are also many concerns about the complexity of policing content, in terms of both the implementation and intent.
The central question is not just what children see but how social media works. Social media platforms are addictive by design. Their algorithms are engineered to maximise engagement and stickiness. They reward outrage, comparison, emotional intensity, competition and repetition. They draw children away from purposeful activity and into feedback loops that erode attention and resilience. Not all platforms operate like this globally, funnily enough. The Chinese version of TikTok is time-limited and feeds children content of scientific or patriotic value. In the west, it is emotional arousal that is fed to our kids.
Children are not simply consuming content; they are being shaped by the environment itself. It is happening when their brains are still developing. Their impulse control, emotional regulation and ability to assess risk are not the same as for adults. We recognise this everywhere else in law—in alcohol limits, in safeguarding rules and in age of consent protections—yet online we have decided to suspend that logic, and the consequences are increasingly visible.
Natasha Irons
I am new to this place and clearly still learning, but I am wondering why, in that case, measures on designing out at source the harms that the hon. Member is talking about were watered down in the Online Safety Bill. She is absolutely right: we are creating online worlds, and they should be designed to be safe. Just as we design clothes for children that do not have toxic materials in them, we would hope that the spaces they inhabit online also do not have toxic material in them, so why were those protections not strengthened in the Bill that the Conservative party passed when it was in power?
Julia Lopez
I have set out before what we were trying to achieve with the Online Safety Act and why certain things were in it and others were not. I do not want to go over that again.
The consequences of these design features are increasingly visible, including rising anxiety and low mood, poor sleep, shredded attention spans and cyber-bullying that follows children home.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
When I was growing up, social media was genuinely social—we would spend our time on it speaking to our peers and classmates. I remember MSN Messenger and Facebook when it first arrived. Social media has evolved to become this addictive, content-driven place where we are fed information. Does the hon. Member think we should perhaps differentiate between social media platforms that are genuinely for peer-to-peer interaction and help young people, and those that just feed content to them?
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention—I went off on a nostalgia trip in my brain, thinking about MSN chatrooms and all the rest of it. That was a time when people were not really aware of the power of the internet, and the predatory behaviours subsequently started to become normalised and industrialised. Although it might be tempting to want to try to go back to that place, I do not know whether we can actually get there, but it is certainly something we can aim towards and aspire to. The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. The essence of social media does not involve bad intent; the problem that we are seeking to solve is the way in which it has been manipulated and changed over the years to amplify negative behaviour.
Freddie van Mierlo
What the hon. Member has just said suggests that she might actually support the Liberal Democrat policy of age-rating social media platforms. That might lead to a new ecosystem of genuinely peer-to-peer, lower-harm products, which would be a good thing for young people.
Julia Lopez
We think that the current priority is ensuring that under-16s are taken off harmful social media platforms, but I am sure that there is room for a market to develop, over time, that will not feature negative algorithms and activity, and that there is a world in which new products could retain the essence of positive social interaction.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Is the hon. Lady not concerned about the possibility that if we simply ban a list of social media platforms, we will provide an opportunity for new ones to develop and cause a problem while not allowing existing ones to develop in ways that will be less harmful?
Julia Lopez
I am sure that the issue of the functionality list can be explored as time goes by.
It is important to point out that this is not a moral panic but a structural problem. Today the Leader of the Opposition gathered a panel of grieving parents who had lost their children, and in that context negative online activity was recognised to have real-world and utterly tragic consequences. The children had been drawn into dangerous challenges, coercive relationships, bullying and bribery, all of which created despair in those young minds.
That showed us plainly why the pioneer phase must now come to an end, at least where children are concerned. Pioneer societies do not remain lawless forever; eventually they are retrofitted with rules and boundaries, and protections for the vulnerable. It is striking that, after years of the problem building up, countries around the world are reaching the same conclusion with remarkable synchronicity—not because it is fashionable, because Governments are copying one another or because anyone thinks that this will be particularly easy to impose and enforce, but because the evidence has accumulated to a point at which denial is no longer credible. If social media were broadly harmless for children, this would not be happening, but Governments with very different. political traditions are acknowledging the same reality: that when it comes to children, some control must be wrested back. I suspect that this trend will be reflected vividly in the Chamber today, with examples from across the nation of what is happening in the real world because of the laxity in the online world.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I asked the hon. Lady’s Government to ban suicide forums that encourage young people to harm themselves. I asked her Government to ban eating disorder forums that encourage eating disorders. Her Government refused to do that in the Online Safety Act 2023, despite our asking for it to happen. How can she stand there now and take the moral high ground when her Government refused to ban the worst, most egregious, most harmful platforms? The Conservatives do not have a moral high ground on this issue.
Julia Lopez
I am not seeking to occupy a moral high ground. I am seeking to set out a way towards keeping children under 16 off social media platforms, because trying to legislate for specific different activities is very challenging, as I think we saw with the Online Safety Act. There are very good causes and there are very important activities that we sought to stop online, but turning that into a workable law is a huge challenge. That is one of the reasons why we think it important to take a “whole of society” approach that tries to shift the debate and say that certain types of online space for people under 16 are simply not appropriate—a principles-based approach to governing the online world that tries to steer away from some of the difficult debates about how to write implementable law to stop nasty and negative behaviour.
Gareth Snell
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way again; she is being very generous. I confess that I have not made my mind up on this. Let us suppose that there was a blanket ban preventing anyone under 16 from accessing material of this kind. How does the Minister envisage that being enforced? Will enforcement sit with the parents ultimately, and if they are not able to carry out that enforcement, what will be their criminal liability? There are genuine challenges when it comes to what children can access, and who is made ultimately responsible for enforcing a simple approach that could be quite complex to implement.
Julia Lopez
I would not envisage that parents would be responsible for that. There are mechanisms to make sure that platforms would not be permitted to provide accounts to under 16-year-olds and they would have to have highly effective age-assurance techniques. In fact, I have spoken recently to representatives of a major platform who said that they had very effective techniques for testing whether somebody trying to open an account is the age that they say they are. I will not take further interventions for a little while so that I can make progress, as I know other people want to speak.
There are serious arguments against implementing a ban, some of which have been heard, and they deserve to be addressed and not dismissed. We are likely to hear more about those doubts today and they must be listened to respectfully. Indeed, I hold some of those anxieties and reservations myself. The first argument is that a ban would be unworkable and that teenagers would find workarounds through virtual private networks, foreign platforms or fake credentials. They will, of course, because teenagers have always tested boundaries. Fake IDs, sneaky booze and under-age rule-breaking are traditional parenting challenges, but we do not abandon age limits simply because they are imperfect. Instead, we impose them because they change norms, shift behaviours and offer parents reinforcement rather than resistance. Of course, the mandatory age limit will not remove every child overnight, but it will remove a critical mass and that matters.
Some fear that such a ban would require de facto compulsory digital ID, undermining anonymity and civil liberties, and again, that concern must be taken extremely seriously. However, as I have just suggested to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), age verification does not require a single state-mandated digital identification system. Other jurisdictions have explicitly prevented platforms from requiring accredited digital ID and instead mandated multiple verification techniques, with responsibility placed on platforms and not citizens. As I said, I was speaking to a major tech platform recently that set out some of those techniques, which can now be used very accurately to assess a user’s age. However, we must be clear that we do not have a surveillance state simply because 13-year-olds are kept off Facebook.
A third argument, and a point that has been made, is that social media provides vital support and connection for many children, particularly those who feel isolated offline. That can be true, but it is not an argument for leaving the entire system untouched. This is not about banning the internet, messaging, educational platforms, health support or professional development services; those places can and should remain accessible, and that is happening in other jurisdictions. This is about a specific category of platforms whose business models depend on maximising attention and emotional arousal and which are demonstrably harmful at scale. Another concern is the unintended consequence that children may be pushed into darker corners of the internet. That needs to be included in the Government’s consultation when it eventually sees the light of day, particularly whether there needs to be parental consent required for downloading certain apps.
Doing nothing already leaves children exposed, in plain sight, on platforms that we know are optimised against their wellbeing. Protection will never be perfect, but neither is inaction benign. Doing nothing is not neutral. It leaves parents despairing, schools firefighting and children navigating a digital frontier with no one by their side. There is also a broader freedom argument, which is that by keeping children off adult social media platforms we can restore freedom to adults online and will no longer need to contort those digital spaces to be universally child-friendly, which is where some of the challenges have come in.
Finally, this is about leadership. As I said earlier, a consultation without direction is not leadership, and a consultation that pushes real change 18 months down the line is, in truth, a decision to do nothing now. Labour MPs know that, which is why the coming moment will not rest on this rather nutty Lib Dem takeover attempt. Instead, it will rest on the Nash amendment, when this House will have a clear choice: to accept that the pioneer phase is over; to recognise the sanctity of childhood, which deserves clearer rules; and to acknowledge that giving parents support is not the same as the state stripping them of their ultimate responsibilities. Parents will and must always be the first line of defence. When harm is real and growing, leadership requires a decision, even when the answers are not perfect.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
As Members will know, the debate has to conclude by 7 o’clock. There are slightly more than 10 people bobbing. I plan to move to the wind-ups at 6.40 pm, which should leave everyone plenty of time.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for bringing forward this debate on protecting children from online harms, although I remain uncertain as to the measures they are proposing. This debate is happening up and down the country, in homes and at school gates—indeed, wherever people gather—so it is right that we debate it here. If the Conservatives had done something during their critical 14 years of power, our children would be better protected now, but they did not, so it falls to us to take action.
I am going to speak about three things: online platforms, their history and approach; the work of my Select Committee, the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, on algorithms; and the work of the Committee on digital childhood, all within the context of protecting children from online harms.
The key online players range in age from pre-teen—TikTok was founded in 2016—to their late 20s, as Google was founded in 1998. In human terms, these platforms are just entering or leaving adolescence, and it shows.
As hon. Members across the House may have heard me mention, I am an engineer—chartered, as it happens; thanks for asking—and my last job before entering this place was head of telecoms technology for Ofcom. I remember meeting people from a US platform, which shall remain nameless, around 2005. The company executive commented that they had come to the UK from silicon valley on a six-month contract to sort out Government affairs, and they could not understand why, two years later, discussions were still ongoing. Did we not realise that Government had no role in what they did?
I say that to illustrate that tech platforms have their origins in a libertarian, small/no-government tech bro bubble that has spread globally. TikTok, as a Chinese company, has a different background, but public accountability is not necessarily part of it. Unfortunately for all of us, the Conservative-Lib Dem Government of 2010 and their successors shared the view that Government should not be a part of it, which is how we arrived in 2024—20 years later—without online harms regulation, while at the same time the use of social media and life online has exploded. That is why I consider the Tory position in this debate to be a superb example of hypocrisy.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech about the evolution of social media platforms. I have four children; the first was born in 2004 and the last was born in 2011, so their births have spanned that evolution. Facebook began in 2004; TikTok began in 2016. If that evolution was the industrial revolution, we would be around the spinning jenny stage, with AI chatbots the next destination. Those chatbots are terribly dangerous for our children, and we need to regulate them now. That should be within the Online Safety Act.
Dame Chi Onwurah
I agree that AI chatbots are a further evolution, and I think we should learn from the lack of effective regulation under the Conservatives during that critical period in the evolution of the internet in how we approach AI. I agree with the hon. Lady that AI chatbots should be brought into the regulatory environment of the Online Safety Act.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee is making an excellent speech. Her background in this area is really showing in the detail with which she is exploring these issues. Part of the challenge here is that we as parents are struggling to catch up with this revolution, which is gaining speed all the time. Perhaps my hon. Friend would highlight some of the challenges that parents face. For me, part of the importance of the consultation is to allow parents to think more deeply about this difficult issue; there are often different opinions from campaigners who have had the most painful experiences.
Dame Chi Onwurah
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is for that exact reason that I support a consultation: this is part of a debate, and we all need to improve our understanding of the impacts of this technology. Parents are in a difficult position. I do not believe parents should have to be technology experts in order to give their children the best start in life, but unfortunately there is so much pressure in the online world that that seems to be the case right now, and that is why it is right that Government take action and consult on the action they take.
Let us think about the evolution of these technologies. I remember that when I joined Facebook in 2005 I had to use my university email address to join—that meant I had to be over 18. Some 20 years later, 13-year-olds and younger are having their lives and brains formed by almost uninhibited access to social media. In the UK, the number of social media users has gone from practically zero to four fifths of the population. I have worked with the Molly Rose Foundation, a charity established by the Russell family after their daughter Molly took her own life at the age of 14 following exposure to self-harm content online; I have spoken to the bereaved parents of children bullied to death online; and I have spoken to the Internet Watch Foundation about the horrendous images its staff see of child exploitation. The fact that the Conservatives did nothing in all those years in government is, in my view, a form of political negligence of the highest order.
As part of my Committee’s inquiry into social media and algorithms, Google, Meta, TikTok and X told us that they accepted their responsibility to be accountable to the British people through Parliament, which I thought was quite a step forward from previous utterances, and ongoing utterances, by some tech billionaires who shall remain nameless. Our inquiry found that our online safety regime should be based on principles that remain sound in the face of technological development. Social media has many important and positive contributions, including helping to democratise access to a public voice and to connect people far and wide, but it also has significant risks—and those risks can evolve with the technology. We spoke about AI as an evolution, and one of the main failings of the Online Safety Act is that it regulates particular services rather than establishing principles that remain true and can be part of a social consensus as technology evolves.
Bobby Dean
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Should one of those principles be related not only to content but to the addictive nature of these platforms? One of the changes I have witnessed on social media over time is algorithmic addiction. The greatest minds in the world are now working out the circuitry of our brains and driving content towards us so that we look at our screens for longer so that they can sell more ads. Does she agree with that point?
Dame Chi Onwurah
I really thank the hon. Member for that intervention, because that is exactly one of the recommendations of the Committee’s inquiry. As he says, the advertisement-based business models of most social media companies mean that they promote addictive content regardless of authenticity. This spills out across the entire internet via the unclear, under-regulated digital advertising market, incentivising the creation of content that will perform well on social media, as we saw during the 2024 unrest following the horrendous Southport attacks.
This is not just a social media problem, though. It is a systemic issue that promotes harmful content and undermines public trust. The Committee identified five key principles that we believe are crucial for building public trust. The first is public safety. Public safety matters; I hope it is not necessary to debate that. The second is free and safe expression, which is also very important. The third is responsibility on the part of the platforms. Right now, they have no legal responsibility for the content they amplify; they just have to follow their own processes in certain specific cases. Our fourth principle involves control, and the fifth and final principle is transparency. We made detailed recommendations on regulating the advertising-based business model so that amplification would not be incentivised in the way that was outlined by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean). We also recommended a right to reset—the right of a person to remove their data from any algorithm.
Our report came out not long before the Minister took up his position. The Government accepted all our conclusions but none of our recommendations. I urge them to look again at our recommendations and to consider implementing them, or at least to respond and tell me why they are still not to be implemented. I welcome the Government’s recent actions and interventions and their readiness to intervene. As I said, the consultation is critical. I welcome the desire to promote a consensus and to take measures to ensure swift delivery of the consultation conclusions through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The consideration of the inclusion of AI chatbots is important, as is addressing the risky features in certain models, as well as providing support for bereaved parents. The Committee looks forward to working with the Government to try to achieve their aims. We need evidence to drive policy and regulation based on principles that the public can have confidence in.
Natasha Irons
I wanted to intervene on the point about principles, content and responsibility. I worked for Channel 4 before I came to this place, and we were regulated by Ofcom. Channel 4 did not create its own content, but was responsible for the editorialisation of that content. It was beholden to certain standards. Does she agree that we should be holding these media companies—they are not now “new media” companies, but legacy media companies—just as responsible for the content they put out on their platforms as any broadcaster?
Dame Chi Onwurah
My hon. Friend makes an important point; the insight she brings from her career in the media is critical. For many years, while the platforms were just that—platforms on which other people placed content—there was an argument that they should not be regulated and that they did not have a responsibility for the content on them, but they are at the very least active curators of that content now. Algorithms effectively form digital twins of individuals and then drive individualised content at them. That requires a responsibility. The time is right, as our Committee recommended, to ensure that platforms have responsibility for their content.
The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee will be holding a one-off session on social media age restrictions on 11 March to feed into the Government’s consultation on measures to keep children safe online and to hear from social media companies on their progress in the last year. We will also gauge the strength of the evidence for and against an age-based ban on social media, as well as any evidence relating to proposed alternatives to a ban. In doing so, we will hear from experts and representatives of those with direct experience of harms. We want to hear from both sides of the debate in the UK and will be seeking evidence from Australia on the first few months of the ban that is already in force there. We will be hearing from major social media and technology companies in a follow-up to our algorithms and misinformation inquiry, and we will ask for their views on the proposed age limits.
Finally, the work on social media age restrictions will feed into a larger inquiry on the neuroscience of digital childhood, which we will launch in the coming weeks. We want to find out how young people spending their formative years online affects their brains and what the Government should do to protect them from any negative impact. That could cover the impact of social media and other screentime on brain development, behaviour, and physical and mental health, whether positive or negative. It could also cover the physiological impact on eye development, the impact on socialisation and what actions Governments should take. There is a consensus on the need to do something, but not on what needs to be done. That is why we are seeking to provide evidence.
I always say to the platform companies that the opposite of regulation is not no regulation, but bad regulation. More regulation is coming. Several US states, such as California, have brought in new regulation on big tech. The Spanish Prime Minister has called social media a
“failed state where laws are ignored and crimes are tolerated”.
There is also the increasingly significant issue of technology sovereignty and whether we are too dependent on foreign companies for our online environment. I call myself a tech evangelist, and I am, but I also know how much an engineer costs. The starting salary of an AI engineer—if companies can find one—is well over £100,000 a year. Tech companies are not going to put them to work on protecting and keeping our children safe unless the House puts the right incentives in place. With all due respect to the Minister and the Online Safety Act, which he inherited, they are not in place now.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
This week is Eating Disorder Awareness Week, so I would like to pay tribute to the amazing staff at Leigh House in Winchester, an in-patient unit that cares for people with eating disorders in Winchester and the surrounding area. Eating disorders are possibly some of the most serious mental health conditions people can suffer from, and the most frustrating to treat and care for. They existed before social media, but social media is certainly making things more difficult. The body images that young people—teenagers and younger—are exposed to and the normalisation of AI-altered images that are impossible to attain, but which are presented as normal and aspirational, is hugely unhealthy.
We know that AI chatbots, which are often integrated into social media, are giving people mental health support and advice. I am really concerned about reports that patients with eating disorders are managing to get advice on how better to lose weight or even gain access to weight-loss drugs, which would make their condition much worse. I bring that up because there is a specific problem with AI chatbots. Some research shows that children do not recognise that a chatbot, which is often presented within social media as a companion, friend or cartoon character, does not have feelings, is not a person and does not care for their health and wellbeing.
It is very possible that, with the right regulation, AI and AI chatbots could be part of extending mental healthcare to people in the community at some point in the future. At the moment, it is dangerous and unregulated, and people accessing it are not even aware that it is giving them information that is potentially harmful to their health. I do not want this to fall through the cracks of regulation. Whatever we come forward with, whether it is about social media specifically or broadcasting licences, we should bring forward principles. Banning or regulating specific social media platforms or chatbots will be very unhelpful because of the speed at which these things are developing. It is a bit like whack-a-mole: once we regulate one, another pops up.
I draw everyone’s attention to the GUARD Act—guidelines for user age-verification and responsible dialogue—which was passed in the US last year. Very unusually, it had cross-party support despite the very fractious politics in the US at the moment. It regulates AI chatbots by requiring them to remind users regularly that they are not human or qualified to give medical advice, and it ensures that chatbots are not allowed to provide sexual content or have sexual or grooming-type discussions, and that users do not believe that they are speaking with therapists. I hope that we can focus our minds—especially during Eating Disorders Awareness Week—on the potential danger of young people being given what they believe to be medical advice by chatbots, which may be presented to them as friends or cartoon characters. That advice could be hugely harmful to their health.
I urge the House and the Government to move with extreme speed to address the problem. About two or three years ago, most of the general public had not really heard of ChatGPT. Now, we hear that around 50% of professionals use it regularly, over one in five people use it daily, and one in three adults have already turned to chatbots for mental health advice or emotional support. That is a huge and sudden change. It is penetrating our culture and daily use. We must ensure that we do not look back on this as we did with smoking. We knew for years the damage that smoking was doing to people, but action was not taken, evidence was obfuscated and lawmakers were lobbied. They delayed, and people died needlessly. We must get ahead of this and take action as quickly as possible.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
This week is Eating Disorders Awareness Week, and we must remember the acceleration of online harms. We have heard horrific accounts of ChatGPT giving young people diets of 600 calories per day, which is just appalling. We know the suffering and pain caused by seeing images tagged with the terms “ana”, “thinspiration” and other terms that should go. The promotion of such content is now a category 1 offence, and Ofcom should be weeding it out. The hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) is absolutely right to say that that measure should be extended to bots.
I thank the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), for her fantastic speech. We have taken this matter seriously since the very beginning of the parliamentary Session, and we have done a lot of work on it. I echo her call for Ministers to look again at the recommendations in our Committee’s “Social media, misinformation and harmful algorithms” report, which goes well beyond misinformation and into how the damage is done.
Protecting our children and young people online is extremely important. The Online Safety Act was an important step forward, but it has not been fully implemented by Ofcom, it is not proactive enough, and it is too dependent on what social media companies themselves tell Ofcom. In the spirit of consultation—I know that we will get to that—I have done my own consultation with 500-plus 14 to 16-year-olds across my Milton Keynes Central constituency. Some 91% of them have a phone, and 80% have social media profiles. However, what will surprise the House is what young people consider social media profiles to be. We consider them to be Facebook or Instagram, while they consider them to be YouTube and Roblox—two organisations not covered by the Australian model. Additionally, 74% of those 14 to 16-year-olds spend two to seven hours online a day. Let me remind the House that, at that age, the brain development of young women is close to finished, while for young men, whose brain development does not finish until they are about 25, it is nowhere near complete. We know that from the science—just to be clear, that is not an opinion. Brain development in young women and girls happens differently, so should we therefore have different rules for young women and men?
Fifty-nine per cent of the 14 to 16-year-olds have been contacted by strangers, and more than a third of that was through Roblox, which is not covered by the Australian social media ban. Thirty-three per cent have been bullied, and a third of those was on Roblox. The Australian social media ban—which I assume is what the Liberal Democrats are talking about when they say they are in favour of a ban—does not cover YouTube or Roblox, and we have not even looked at whether it is effective. A ban is a blunt tool that essentially raises the flag of surrender to social media platforms and declares that there is no way of making social media safe. That is essentially what the Conservatives did when the Online Safety Act 2023 was passed: they said, “We cannot go far enough, so we are going to roll back. It is about free speech.” No, it is not about free speech. Freedom of speech was written into law in this country and spread around the world, so we understand how to protect it and limit its harm. The Online Safety Act was a missed opportunity. It also took seven years to get through this House, but we do not have seven years to wait.
There would also be unintended consequences to a ban. I had the pleasure of meeting Ian Russell the other night, and we had a really powerful discussion. My heart goes out to him, as one parent to another, given what his family have been through. He does not jump to the easy solution of a social media ban. The Molly Rose Foundation has done a brilliant briefing paper, which every MP should read, about why it does not support a ban: it wants the online world to be safe for children, but a ban does not make it so.
Matt Rodda
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I commend her work in reaching out to young people; it sounds superb. The lesson may be that we should all do exactly that. I am running a survey myself. She mentioned the Molly Rose Foundation, and I have met some of its staff to discuss its work. A family in my constituency of Reading suffered a terrible incident—their son was murdered in an incident of online bullying—and they have a different view. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we properly listen to the families and consider the different views in the consultation?
Emily Darlington
I absolutely do. My full sympathy goes to that family in my hon. Friend’s constituency—it is the worst thing in the world for a parent to lose a child. But we have to get this right, which is why it is right that we have a consultation. It does no child any good if we jump to a conclusion that does not actually protect children.
Although I maintain an open mind, I worry about a full ban. Some children rely on social media for connection, often including those who are exploring their sexuality—LGBTQ+ people—and those who are neurodivergent. The consequences for them could be devastating, so we need to consider their views. If young people get around the ban, as they do in Australia, they are less likely to report when they see harmful content or are being targeted on social media, because they worry that they will get in trouble for breaking the law.
A ban would create a cliff edge at 16. No matter the person’s maturity—I have already talked about the different brain development in young women and men—their skills or what they have been taught, there is a cut-off at 16. All of a sudden it does not matter, and they go into a world that is not safe. Younger children do not have their own social media profiles; they use their parents’ devices. Often, they start with a video of Peppa Pig, and all of a sudden—who knows where it ends up? A ban would not address that. So, what is the solution? Doing nothing is not an option—I think the whole House can agree on that.
Monica Harding
I was interested in the hon. Member’s survey. I have done my own very unscientific survey of young people, and all of them seem to want some form of regulation. With that in mind, we must hurry up—does the hon. Member agree?
Emily Darlington
I absolutely agree. Young people, particularly those in the mid-teenage years, understand this issue in a way that sometimes we do not because, quite frankly, our online experience is completely different from theirs. If Members want to test that, they should open an app such as Pinterest and compare what is fed into their Pinterest boards with their child’s Pinterest boards. It is a completely different experience. If Members do not have children, they should ask younger member of staff to open the same app on the different phones, and they will see a completely different world.
Kirsty Blackman
A local organisation in my constituency, CyberSafe Scotland, surveyed children about what they were being fed on TikTok. There is a road in my constituency called North Anderson Drive, and children on one side of North Anderson Drive were being fed different content to the children on the other side of it. It is not just an age thing; it is really specific, and we cannot understand what each individual person is seeing because it is different for everybody.
Emily Darlington
That is a very important point about how sophisticated the technology has become. When we ask companies to take action to stop outcomes, the technology exists to do that. We are not asking them to reinvent the wheel or come up with new technology. It already exists because they are even microtargeting two different sides of the road.
Having discussed this with experts, parents and—most importantly—young people, what do I think we need to consider? First, we need to fully and properly implement the Online Safety Act 2023. That must be done at speed, and it requires nothing from the House. It has been a request of the Secretary of State and the Minister, and I recommend that Ofcom gets on and does that as quickly as possible. We must make safe spaces for children online. How do we do that? Part of the answer is ensuring that content is related to ratings that we already understand as parents, such as those from the British Board of Film Classifications. I have been asking YouTube what rating YouTube Kids has for about a year now. Is it rated U? Is it 12A? Is it 15? It cannot tell me because it does not do things on that basis.
As a parent I want to know the rating before allowing my children on an app, because parents have a role in this as well. All apps should be rated like videogames. Roblox has a 5+ rating, which does not exist in videogame ratings. We see ratings such as 4+ or 9+, but those are made up. At the parents forum that I did after the survey, one parent said that she walked in on her nine-year-old playing “guns versus knives”—on an app that is rated 5+. The ratings on apps mean nothing, yet we have video game ratings that we as parents understand, so why are they not used? Should in-app purchases ever be allowed for young children? What is the age at which in-app purchases should be allowed in a game?
We must consider the time limits for the different stages of brain development. We have guides on fruit and vegetables that recommend five a day to parents. We all know that. Schools use the same language, we use the same language, yet we have nothing to support parents in deciding how long a child should be online at different stages of brain development. I hope that the evidence that the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee collects will help inform that.
We need to change addictive and radicalising platform algorithms. To protect children from child sexual abuse images, we need to talk to those behind iOS and Android to stop the creation of self-generated child sexual abuse images—some 70% to 80% of child sexual abuse images are self-generated—and we need to stop end-to-end encryption sites from sharing them. We have technology that can do that. We should always keep the ability to ban in our pockets, but any ban should be for particular apps. We should not ban our children and young people from having an online experience that is good.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Across the country, the dangerous synthetic drug Spice is being brazenly marketed to children over social media. Many vulnerable young people believe that they are buying the less harmful, though still illegal, drug THC only to discover, too late, that what they have been sold is a far more potent and unpredictable substance. In schools, the consequences are already visible. One in six vapes confiscated from pupils now contains Spice—one in six! If we walk through parts of our towns and cities, we see the human cost: Spice users slumped in doorways, trapped in a semi-conscious state, stripped of dignity and control. How terrifying it is that this drug is no longer confined to our streets and prisons, and has entered our classrooms.
Children are collapsing in school corridors. Some are rushed to intensive care and others begin a battle with addiction that may follow them for life. Spice is not simply another illegal drug. Its extreme potency and addictive grip is a fast track to exploitation and criminality. It is always a tragedy when someone falls victim to substance abuse, but when it is an uninformed child who has been misled and targeted over social media, it is not just tragic; it is a profound failure to protect.
I have raised the issue in the House and with this Government repeatedly over the past year and a half, but in that time the situation facing vulnerable children has not improved, but deteriorated. Gone are the days when a young person had to meet a dealer in a dark alley to buy drugs. Today, a child can purchase them from their bedroom, with a few taps on a phone. The marketplace has moved online and our children are paying the price. But do not just take my word for it. The Metropolitan police have warned about children accessing illicit vapes through social media platforms, such as Snapchat and Telegram. A recent BBC investigation revealed how effortlessly an illegal vape laced with Spice can be purchased over Snapchat.
This is not a few small-scale individuals. We are dealing with a global, industrial supply chain, with major chemical suppliers in China providing materials to markets in the UK, the European Union, the United States and Gulf states. Researchers at the University of Bath have identified nearly 10,000 accounts involved in the supply and distribution of Spice, many using TikTok to advertise and communicate. I have met a number of Ministers about this issue, most recently the Minister for Online Safety, who is in his place. I know he understands the scale of the problem and is sympathetic to our concerns, but words are not enough: we need action.
Selling drugs is already a priority offence under the Online Safety Act, and Ofcom has a statutory duty to enforce that. Yet despite clear, sustained evidence that these substances are being openly advertised and sold online, we have not seen the decisive enforcement that the law requires. Instead, the burden is falling on members of the public to report these accounts, effectively asking individual citizens to do the regulator’s job for them.
What happens when an account is removed? Within hours, a near identical profile reappears. An account named “Spice Sales 1” is reported and taken down, only to resurface as “Spice Sales 2”, then “Spice Sales 3” and so on. The name changes slightly, the branding shifts marginally, but the criminality remains the same. This revolving door of reactive takedowns is not a strategy—it is an admission that the current system is not working. If a shop in Bath were openly selling drugs through its front window, the police would intervene immediately. There would be no hesitation and no suggestion that the public should simply keep reporting it. So why, when the shopfront is digital and when the customers are children, are we not treating this with the same seriousness? It is time that we confronted this reality. Social media companies have developed incredibly sophisticated algorithms, as we have already heard this afternoon, that are capable of targeting advertisements to individuals with remarkable precision. They know what we watch, what we like and what we linger on, so it cannot be beyond their capability to deploy artificial intelligence to detect and prevent the sale of illegal drugs on their platforms.
Active detection must replace endless reactive reporting. The technology and resources exist, and the evidence is overwhelming; what is missing is political will and enforcement. It is time to hold social media companies to account, because the safety of our children demands nothing less.
Chris Vince
This is a genuinely friendly intervention. I am raising this point because I know that the hon. Member does a lot to champion and support people with eating disorders. I am completely changing the subject, but does she think that the rise of social media and online platforms has had an increased impact on people with eating disorders?
Wera Hobhouse
I could go on forever about online harm, particularly with regard to eating disorders. It is Eating Disorders Awareness Week, and we will be having a debate on that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will attend that debate, as he can then raise that point again.
Today I am talking about spice and the responsibility of social media platforms and how we protect children. I therefore support the provision to bring in a Bill on protecting children from online harms, as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). As I have said before, it is time for action; we can no longer dither and delay. I do not accept all the debates saying, “Oh! Process this, that and the other.” If we really mean it and are really serious about this issue, we need to act now. I am pleased that my party is prepared to act and show the public that we want change.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
I commend the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on bringing forward this debate, which is a really valuable opportunity to talk about this issue. I also thank the many hundreds of my own constituents who have written to me about this from a variety of perspectives—if I have not got back to them yet, I will do so shortly.
Social media has rightly been described as a wild west. I come to this debate as someone who grew up with it—it has been there all my life—but who thoroughly dislikes traditional social media. Were it not for the importance of it in my job, I would spend very little time looking at it.
We must start by clarifying what problem we are trying to solve when we talk about online harms. The way I see it, there are three main categories. First, there is harmful online content itself. Algorithms are feeding people things that they never asked for, and the evidence that misogynistic and other extreme and deeply wrong content is being pushed on to people is overwhelming.
Secondly, there is the online grooming of children. Everyone knows how serious an issue that is, particularly on some online gaming platforms aimed at younger children, such as Roblox, which has been mentioned previously. It is so bad, and the reaction of the relevant company is so poor, that vigilantes are now active on some of these platforms, conducting sting operations to catch paedophiles. Appallingly, Roblox responded to one such user, who has a YouTube channel under the name Schlep and got six child predators arrested, by banning him from the platform and threatening legal action. Clearly we cannot encourage vigilantism, but if that is the platform’s response when someone is trying to deal with their own failures, something is deeply wrong.
There is also the problem of addictive content. That has gotten far worse in recent years, with the rise of short-form content and the algorithms that fuel it. Apps such as YouTube can in some circumstances automatically default to their “shorts” function when opened to be maximally addictive. Other addictive features are rampant, such as Snapchat streaks, which encourage children to open the app first thing in the morning and last thing at night to keep them going.
As the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) just mentioned, there are rampant drug-dealing problems on Snapchat. Some of that is due to the way that it recommends friends to people. There are accounts with the most obvious pseudonyms that we imagine, such as “snowforsale”, which clearly mean, “Add this account if you want to buy drugs from someone.” So little action is being taken on that issue.
Snapchat is not the only platform with this problem; it is rampant on Instagram as well. I remember quite recently that I came across an account that was so clearly selling marijuana-infused food, so I reported it, and Instagram did absolutely nothing. There is a real complacency and a lack of willingness to act in these companies that we have to deal with.
I should mention the rise of AI-generated fake content, designed either to mislead people or keep them hooked by showing fantastical things that do not work in reality. There is also the related issue of faked content more generally. There are horrendous examples of viral fake cooking recipes that do not work and could cause serious harm to people, such as by encouraging them to use a microwave in a way that could create something explosive. Online content creators such as Ann Reardon, who is an Australian YouTube creator, are doing amazing work to call that out and try to educate people, but the platforms do not have their backs; in many cases, they are actively undermining those creators’ work because the content they are trying to deal with is what is generating the most money for those platforms, due to its addictive nature.
I was very impressed by a video that my hon. Friend the Member for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes) put out the other day, exposing—if memory serves—a situation in which people working for an estate agent were recording videos in the homes of people who are from ethnic minorities, then packaging them to look like they are asylum seekers and saying, “Look at the great lives that asylum seekers have.” I encourage everyone to have a look at that video. The way that that content has been able to propagate online is atrocious, and I am so glad that my hon. Friend has been able to call it out.
All of these issues point to a situation that cannot go on. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), I am concerned that trying to solve them in one fell swoop with a ban for young people will not work, and could make some of the issues worse. Young people are incredibly digitally literate and digitally agile, and I am afraid to say that when a platform becomes unavailable to them, they can rapidly switch to another. A recent letter—I was glad to hear the Minister mention it in his speech—signed by the NSPCC, the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, the Molly Rose Foundation and a long list of other child safety experts raised exactly that concern, and referred to blanket bans as
“a blunt response that fails to address the successive shortcomings of tech companies and governments to act decisively and sooner.”
In my view, taking a named-platform approach to a ban is unworkable. I fear that young people and Ofcom will end up in a perpetual game of whack-a-mole, with children moving to other apps as Ofcom tries to follow and shut them down. I know which side I would have my money on in that game; our regulator is nowhere near quick enough. In March last year, I spoke in this Chamber about an app I was aware of others using from when I was a teenager, which essentially functions as a dating app for children but masquerades as social media. The app I refer to has now finally had its age limit increased to 18, but it took 10 years.
This is not just about Ofcom, either—I do not wish to criticise just Ofcom. Regardless of how quickly a regulator moves, I guarantee that our country’s children will move more quickly. Their digital literacy is far higher than they are often given credit for, which will make it much harder to regulate platforms and deal with harms. It will likely become easier for groomers to hide and to find victims, while it will become harder to regulate addictive features and to take action on harmful content. Even if that turns out to be less of an issue than I fear, arbitrarily setting the age at 16 just shifts the cliff edge that we already have to deal with—it does not teach people to deal with and recognise the problems. Frankly, the problems that social media creates are by no means limited to young people. I talked previously about AI-generated and faked content; it is primarily older people who are struggling to identify that content and are not equipped with some of the necessary skills.
In my view, blanket bans also risk serious damage to children aged between 13 and 16 for whom the ability to connect with others online is particularly important. Let me give a very personal example. Around the age of 13, I started to realise that my sexuality was not like those around me—I was not straight—but I was living in a rural community where there was not really anyone else to talk to about that who would understand. It was made worse by some of my early childhood being immersed in a deeply homophobic religious community. As such, finding people with similar experiences online to talk to and be able to provide mutual support was incredibly valuable for me, as it is for other LGBT people, as well as for neurodiverse children and others.
So what do I believe is the solution? We need a functionality-based approach. Through limiting certain functions and features, I am of the view that we can deal with harms without creating a situation where children—they are going to seek out ways to connect online regardless of the law—move on to less regulated platforms. In my view, we should look to restrict addictive functionality on those platforms; that might be linked to age, or it might be something we want to consider for people of all ages, because as I said, it is affecting people of all ages. The explosion of addictive, algorithmically driven short-form content over the past few years, as well as features such as Snapchat streaks that are actively designed to keep people hooked, provide no discernible benefit to society. Social media companies have proven unwilling to act on that front, so we must.
We also need to enforce existing age restrictions much better. We all know that plenty of people under 13—which is usually accepted as the current limit—are already using social media platforms that they should not be using. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central mentioned the example of children on their parents’ accounts, which is so widespread.
There is a definitional problem about what actually is social media. Are we counting online gaming platforms such as Roblox? That can be joined from age five. There are ways to prevent children from accessing chat functions—parents can prevent younger children from doing so—but with the continuing prevalence of child abusers on the platform, those measures are clearly not working. We need to be very clear on what we mean by social media because of how much the definitions differ.
To conclude, I really agree with the Government’s approach in opening a meaningful consultation—a national conversation—on how we tackle online harms and on where the pitfalls in workability are, so that we can identify and deal with them. I look forward to engaging further with it alongside my constituents.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Members will realise that time is knocking on. If they could keep their contributions to between five and six minutes, we should be able to get everyone in.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
As a society, we are raising the first generation of children who spend less time outdoors than prisoners do. Ministry of Justice guidelines state that all prisoners in the United Kingdom should have a minimum of one hour in the fresh air each day, yet research tells us that a worrying number of our children do not meet even that threshold—because they are confined not by bars and locks, but by screens.
Astonishingly, the Centre for Social Justice found that up to 800,000 children under the age of five are already using social media. The Association of Play Industries has released a report that highlights just how little our children are moving. The research places adolescent social media use at three to five hours every single day—a figure that has grown by 50% in under a decade. They socialise through social media, form their identities through social media and build their understanding of the world through social media, but what they find there is not a safe or nurturing space.
Children on TikTok encounter harmful content every 39 seconds. By the age of nine, one in 10 children has already been exposed to pornography. By age 11 that figure rises to more than one in four. This is not accidental exposure; it is a predictable consequence of placing children in unregulated digital environments and hoping for the best. Beyond the content itself, the very act of compulsive scrolling is taking a toll. Children are exhibiting the hallmarks of addiction anxiety when separated from their devices. They are experiencing declining attention spans, disrupted sleep and a growing inability to engage with the world in front of them.
Every hour spent staring at a screen is an hour not spent outside—not spent running, exploring, falling over and getting back up. It is an hour not spent in the kind of unstructured, unscripted play that builds resilience, creativity and social intelligence in ways that no algorithm can replicate. This was beginning to happen when my own children were young. At that time, a significant push factor was the fear that children were not safe roaming freely in the physical world. It is a sad irony that the very social media platforms that are providing an ever-increasing pull factor have created an online environment that puts children at risk of harm. Stranger danger is now online.
A 2025 University of Exeter study of 2,500 children aged seven to 12 found that 34% did not play outdoors at all after school on school days, and 20%—one in five—did not play outside on weekends either. Many children do not even get the hour promised to prisoners. The years that children spend outside are crucial. To replace that with an unregulated and harmful social media environment is to actively harm our children. That is why I support stopping under-16s from accessing harmful social media and why it is crucial that we get this right.
Getting it right means focusing on reducing harm. A blanket approach risks removing children’s access to helpful user-to-user platforms such as Childline. We must also ensure that we do not let young people loose at age 16 into a wild west of social media without any training in the safer foothills. These are concerns that charities such as the NSPCC have raised and which a film-style age rating would address.
It also means ensuring that there is flexibility to deal with future developments, such as AI chatbots, which have already been mentioned by a number of Members. We got into this situation because change in the tech world has far outpaced both our ability to adjust as a society and our legislative process. That is why I welcome the careful, collaborative approach being put forward. The 643 constituents who have written to me on this issue would expect nothing less.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
This is an issue in which I have taken a close personal interest, because I have spent 22 years working in mental health services in the NHS. During that time, I have seen a gradual increase in mental health conditions, especially among young people. I do not want to say that this is all because of social media—there could be various reasons, such as 14 years of austerity, the cutting of NHS services or the closure of youth hubs—but I believe, and many studies show, that social media has played a role in the recent increase in mental health conditions and mental illness among young people.
This is not just because of online content; as many Members have said, it is also because screentime takes away young people’s social interactions with the rest of society. I am particularly concerned about the high rates of depression and anxiety caused by cyber-bullying and exposure to the dark side of the internet, to which our children have almost totally unfiltered access through the devices in their pockets.
I pay tribute to the work that has been done in schools across my Ashford constituency. In my visits to local schools, I have seen how effective measures, such as students locking their phones away in sealed pouches at the start of the school day, can ensure that mobile phones do not disrupt learning. Some of the studies done in those schools show that children’s academic work and behaviour have improved, especially their attitude towards teachers and fellow students.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes a really important point about the restriction of phone use in schools, and he mentions pouches. I met Naomi from Smartphone Free Childhood Dorset last week, and she is concerned that the use of pouches reinforces the idea that children can have smartphones at school. Although access is mediated, this approach still accepts that smartphones can be present. She would prefer children to have brick phones at school. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?
Sojan Joseph
Local studies show that locking away smartphones leads to students feeling that they have not been taken away. They are still able to hold on to their phones in their pockets, but they are not able to use them. I agree with my hon. Friend’s suggestion that another option is for children to have brick phones, so that they can still make contact or send text messages but are not able to access online content. These sorts of things need to come out in the consultation, so that we know what works and what does not work. That is why it is important to have the consultation. Local studies have shown that locking away smartphones helps to improve students’ ability to concentrate, learn and socialise during the school day, and it has been welcomed by teachers and the overwhelming majority of students.
Last year, I went to see a performance of a play by young people in Kent. The play, “Generation FOMO”, explores the impact of smartphones and social media on young people, with a script drawn from interviews with people aged between 10 and 17. It is a powerful and moving piece of work that highlights some of the harms associated with smartphones and social media, as told by young people themselves. “Generation FOMO” has been performed in schools across Kent, and I know that it has been incredibly well received by teachers, young people and parents. After seeing the impact that the play has had locally, I was delighted to bring the cast to Parliament at the start of January, so that they could perform it to parliamentarians and other policymakers in Westminster.
Following that performance, I joined many of my colleagues in writing a letter to the Prime Minister to ask the Government to take steps to look into this area. The letter set out why technology firms, not parents or teachers, should take responsibility for preventing under-age access to their platforms. I therefore welcome the Government’s announcement of a swift consultation on what further measures are needed to keep children safe online. Ministers have been clear that the consultation is not about whether the Government will take further action, but about what the next steps should be. So I am particularly pleased that, alongside the formal consultation, the Government will run a national conversation to ensure that the views of parents, teachers and young people themselves are placed at the centre of future action.
Although I want to see further measures introduced, I believe that, in order to be truly effective, they must be evidence-based. As the consultation takes place, it is right that Ministers look at what other countries—particularly Australia—are doing to protect their children. Some Members have mentioned the loopholes and how the children work around the restrictions, and this will be an opportunity to look at what is and is not working there, so we can get it right from the beginning.
In the meantime, last week the Government announced immediate action to make the online world safer for children, including a crackdown on illegal content created by AI. Some Members have talked about AI chatbots, with young people and other members of the public have been accessing for mental health help, which is dangerous.
We all want to see our children grow up healthy, confident and safe, which means ensuring that the digital world they now inhabit is built with their wellbeing in mind. The actions already announced by this Government are welcome, and I look forward to Ministers returning to the House soon with meaningful, evidence-based measures that will further strengthen the protections on the platforms that shape so much of young people’s lives.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I would like to start by thanking the hundreds of parents in my constituency who have written to me about this important issue.
For too long, tech companies have treated children as data to be mined, rather than young people to be protected. We cannot let social media bosses off the hook for the way they have normalised harm, prioritised profit and ignored warning signs. We cannot keep allowing them to act with impunity in putting our children at risk or continuing to escape scot-free while the consequences of their business models are borne by families, schools and already overstretched public services.
As we have heard, harmful content and addictive algorithms are taking a profound emotional and psychological toll, contributing to rising levels of anxiety, depression and self-harm. The dangers cannot and should not be underestimated. It beggars belief that the tech companies have been able to operate without proper regulation.
At the heart of this debate must be the children and young people who have been subjected to appalling online harms. ChatGPT has reportedly given extremely harmful answers to young people experiencing a mental health crisis, while other AI chatbots possess capabilities to foster intense and unhealthy relationships with vulnerable users and to validate dangerous impulses. As we have heard, it has also been reported that ChatGPT and Grok chatbots are advising children with potential eating disorders on dangerous meal plans of just 600 calories a day. This is terrifying.
Although I recognise the difficulties in policing everything online, will the Minister consider establishing a cross-Government approach to ensure that mental health support is expanded and to equip public services to respond effectively to social media-related harms? Can he also clarify whether Ofcom is being given the resources to meet the scale of the challenge and oversee the rapid evolution of online technologies?
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Liz Jarvis
I am going to carry on.
My constituent Anne, who is a teacher, told me that she sees the mental health ramifications and the impact on education of mobile phone usage in schools, and believes the only way to protect the future of children is to ban their exposure to harmful apps. After meeting a local headteacher a few weeks ago, I asked the Secretary of State what interim measures the Government are considering to help schools manage pupils’ access to social media on mobile phones. She stated in her response that phones should not be used in schools, but schools do need support to enforce this. Without stronger enforcement tools, clear national standards and practical support, it will be very difficult for schools to get a grip on social media use during the school day without spending money they simply do not have.
We must also be clear-eyed about the potential shortcomings of age verification schemes. Early reports from the Australian scheme have highlighted issues with security and privacy. Teenagers can still migrate to smaller apps, borrow credentials or find ways around age verification technology, all of which pose risks to their online safety. Can the Minister confirm that the Government’s consultation will rigorously examine how systems can be designed to minimise data collection and safeguard the privacy of young people?
Social media and online content have changed what it means to be a young person today. One constituent told me that her 11-year-old daughter travels to school every day with fellow pupils, but because those girls have smartphones and like to scroll on the journey, she feels they are not interested in becoming friends with her, resulting in low self-esteem, isolation and not having local friends. My constituent dreads the emotional impact that smartphones will have on her other child when he starts secondary school.
The onus should not be on children and young people to protect themselves from online harms—it should be on platforms to prevent it in the first place. As long as the owners of tech companies allow harmful material to flourish, children are essentially being asked to build resilience in environments engineered to expose them to harm. We can teach children about online safety, respect, decency, courtesy and healthy relationships at home and in the classroom, but that work is actively undermined online by algorithms that reward extreme content and by platforms that are too slow to remove illegal and abusive material. Ofcom should be strong in enforcing clear regulations that protect users.
Liberal Democrats were the first to call for a ban on harmful social media, alongside a future-proof film-style age rating system that focuses on the harms platforms pose. The widespread consensus in this House and across the country that something urgently needs to be done to stop children accessing harmful online content reflects the pressing desire for the Government to get a grip of this crisis. We must act now to protect children, hold tech giants to account and ensure that all children are safe online.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I will constrain my comments to three themes, and I want to start with policy. This has been a very interesting and wide-ranging debate. We have heard from many speakers across the House who have articulated the heartfelt and thoughtful concerns that all of us have about the pervasive way in which social media can influence our children, our friends, our families and young people in our society. I am the parent of a 15-year-old. I know what that battle is like—hearing the chirp of Snapchat going off every few seconds, it sounds like, some weekends, as my daughter and her friends communicate in the modern way, and trying to understand what she is doing on Roblox, the games she is playing, who she might be interacting with and the other platforms that, frankly, are alien to me, as someone who is past the age when that stuff makes much sense or is of interest.
The simple answer is to say, “We should ban it all—just lock them all away until they’re 16, and it will all be fine.” I worry about my daughter walking down the street—I worry about who she is going to meet when she is walking to school and her interactions in the physical world—but simply saying, “Right, you’re staying in your bedroom until you’re 35”, which we discuss on occasion, is not a solution to those real-world problems. Part of it is about how we help young people to understand the misinformation and disinformation that they are coming across, and it is also about the way in which we regulate the content that platforms share.
The part that has been missed today, in the many wonderful contributions from Members across the House, is that this is about not just the platforms that share the content but the creators who make that content in the first place—the people who go online to sow the seeds of hate and division: the homophobic content, the Islamophobic content, the antisemitic content that all too often is passed off as criticism of the Israeli Government, and the many far-right commentators in this country who put out toxic masculine culture commentary as though it is a reasoned point of debate. I understand what Conservative Members say about free speech, but we have always been a country and a society where it is not consequence-free speech—there are consequences to the things we say and the actions we take, and that is how we come to understand what the social norms are. We seem to have abdicated our responsibility for that in the online world.
I turn to my second point. The 15-year-old I mentioned in an intervention earlier was, in fact, my daughter, who has now given me permission to out her in that sense. The facilities that I enjoyed when I was in my teens simply do not exist any more. My daughter’s world is as much her online friends and sphere of activity as it is the physical world in which we live. Disconnecting people from that because we think it is unsafe does a disservice to them. I am also slightly worried about the impact of the fact that we are soon to legislate, I understand and hope, on giving 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote—a policy that I think will mainly get cross-party support.
I like to think that the political literature that I push through letterboxes in my constituency is of such compelling interest that every young person will snatch it from the letterbox, read it and think, “That is why I am going to vote for Gareth at the next election.” I am sure that the Liberal Democrats’ Focus leaflets have the same impact on young people in their constituencies. The reality is, however, that young people do not read the direct mail that we send out. They do not read our leaflets, or at least not as much as they should. Many young people derive their information, news and views from social media. If we say, “You know what? We are going to cut it off”, where will we force those young people to go?
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I have not mentioned Harlow yet today, so I feel that I should. When I spoke to some young people at Mark Hall Academy in my constituency of Harlow—there we are, I have done it—about the potential social media ban, I was interested to hear what they had to say. They said, “We don’t care about Facebook”—because only old people like us use Facebook—but they did not want us to ban platforms like WhatsApp, which I had not thought of as being social media, although I suppose it is. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important for young people’s voices to be heard during the Government’s consultation, so that we can understand their views on this issue?
Gareth Snell
Absolutely. I understand that my hon. Friend was a teacher in a previous career.
When I think of social media, I think of my Twitter account, which has been dormant for years; my Facebook account, which I use for the clips that all of us in this place are obliged to put out and then deal with the comments beneath them; and my WhatsApp, which it seems that every political party has to run with, because without it we would all stop talking to each other. My daughter would think of her Snapchat account. I too now have a Snapchat account with just one friend—her—and we use that to communicate when I am here and she is at home. It means that I get voice notes and little videos from her, and it is how we keep our weekend conversations going during the week.
We must ask ourselves where we draw the line. Members have mentioned access to YouTube. My daughter will freely use YouTube to help her with her homework. She goes to an all-iPad school, so much of the homework is set on iPads. Apparently the subject of screentime will form part of the consultation, and that should be genuinely considered. Will young people be told, “You cannot use your phone—it is the worst possible thing to have—but here is an iPad to look at for six hours a day, and if you get stuck on question 6, go to YouTube video 4 and follow the methodology”? On one hand we are sending one message, and on the other is something that is inconsistent with that approach. Let us be honest: the first job that all the children and young people we are talking about will have is going to be based on the use of some form of AI assistance, such as Copilot, and will depend almost entirely on the use of technology. We are going to have to think about how we integrate that sort of future-proofing into whatever regulation we produce.
My final point is about procedure. I am very sorry to return to that subject, because this has been an excellent debate. I went to the Public Bill Office—there is no Bill that is referenced in the motion. It is completely blank. I understand that the Liberal Democrats intend, if the motion is passed, to engage in a consensus-based process of writing a Bill in the next two weeks that we can debate and pass in one day. It is clear from what we have heard today—from the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), who spoke so eloquently about the perils of eating disorders, from the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who talked about the ability to sell drugs online, and from those on the Government Benches, including my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), who talked about the way in which young people interact—that, as I said earlier, this will be a complex piece of legislation.
The idea that we can complete a Second Reading debate in two hours and the full Committee and Third Reading stages in two hours, on a single day, which will include the discussion of amendments, is simply impractical. I genuinely hope that the content of today’s debate will lead to better legislation, as part of the national consultation that the Ministers are leading, but I think that doing this in such a truncated way, through a single motion and on a single day, will lead to bad legislation.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
It is not just impractical; it is also anti-democratic. As Bills proceed through this place, there is interaction with our constituents who want to influence how we are thinking and how we are voting, so it is important for us to have time to discuss these matters with them as well as in the Chamber.
Gareth Snell
I agree with my hon. Friend; however, I would not say that it is undemocratic. I will be clear: I do not like the principles of Opposition parties taking over the Order Paper. I did not like it or vote for it when my party tried to do it when we were in opposition during the Brexit years, so I will not support it now. I will say that the next time a Minister stands up and says that we are moving at pace, I might pull my hair out—or what is left of it. What we need are some actual timescales for when things will happen. Otherwise, we will find ourselves talking in circles.
Today, we have been able to establish the core principles, which we would agree on. That is a good thing. I hope that when the Minister winds up, he can give a little flavour as to when the consultation will start and how we can all get involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) and I will be doing events across our two constituencies with our colleges. That way, we can try and make sure that those views are harvested and fed in, and that a complex and nuanced issue gets the hearing it deserves so that we get the legislation right first time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. We have three more speeches left. I will start Front-Bench speeches at 6.40 pm, so let us start with a five-minute time limit.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
We have all learned that if an online service is free, we are the product. That is the business model used by the social media giants. They track what we watch, what we click, what we like and what we fear. They then build detailed profiles of our behaviour and they turn that behaviour into data and advertising revenue.
These platforms do not just host content; they actively shape what we see. They promote material, target adverts and keep users online for as long as possible because the longer we stay, the more money they make, and that is where the problem lies. The algorithms used by social media giants are designed for engagement, not wellbeing. They feed on outrage, division and shock to keep us scrolling. Users are pushed towards more extreme content, not because it is true and not because it is healthy, but because it is profitable. We can see the consequences in the real world.
Young people in particular are vulnerable to these pipelines of harmful content. Misogynistic and extremist figures, including Andrew Tate, rise to prominence through social media ecosystems that reward provocation and repetition. What starts as healthy curiosity or pushing the boundaries in young people can quickly lead to radicalisation. Given the serious harms caused by under-regulated social media, we have a responsibility to act quickly in a defined timeline to protect children and young people.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Last week, the chief executive officer of Meta took the stand in Los Angeles as part of a landmark trial examining Instagram’s impact on the mental health of young users. This highlights the confusion about who is responsible for what in the online space. We know that we need Government legislation, but we also need clarity on what social media companies are responsible for. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time that we establish a clear framework and proper accountability so responsibilities are understood and the right people are held to account for any failings?
Susan Murray
I absolutely agree; it is important that it is clear who is accountable for the harms that occur. That is why I urge the Government to work with the Liberal Democrats to introduce age ratings for social media. As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) so clearly laid out, ratings help parents and carers to keep children safe. We already accept them in other areas of life—not every film is suitable for every age group, so we rate them; not every game is suitable for every child, so we rate them. Social media should be no different.
If a platform, unasked, can expose a child to violent content, misogyny, self-harm content or extremist propaganda, it must not be treated as if it were harmless by default. This is not about banning social media or saying it has no value. It can be a brilliant tool for learning, as we have heard. It can help people stay in touch with friends and family, as we have heard. It can open up access to information, support and communities that people might not otherwise find. Yet those benefits do not cancel out the harms. We are not trying to get rid of social media, but we must take a sensible approach to ensure that multibillion-pound companies do not push products that maximise profits while our children pay the price. We regulate risk in other areas. We cannot be beholden to tech giants; we have a responsibility to regulate here.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
This makes me more frustrated than just about anything else in this place: the levels of ignorance, stupidity and hypocrisy from so many people in here, specifically about children’s access to social media. I fully intended to support the Lib Dems’ position, but the longer their spokesperson, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), spoke, the less I wanted to do so.
I do not believe that the Government’s position on this is 100% right. I am glad that they are having a consultation, but I do not like the way that they are amending the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which is a devolved Bill, to change the territorial extent to bring that into scope. A Bill that we have not scrutinised, because it is a devolved Bill, will now have a reserved section in it. At the moment, the Bill does not apply to Scotland, apart from one clause; now, it will apply to Scotland, because it will include this. As we have not had the opportunity to scrutinise it, we have not been involved in that process. I do not think it is right that the proposed amendment should come forward in this way, although I appreciate why the Government are doing it. That is why I am asking for the amendment to be shared with us as soon as possible so that we can see it, because we have not had a chance to look at the Bill as it has gone along.
The Lib Dems have said that they have made their position clear. I have so far been able to find three amendments and new clauses to the Online Safety Act put forward by Lib Dems during its passage through the House. One of them was put forward by the Lib Dem spokesperson, who asked for an independent evaluation within 12 months of whether more platforms should be subject to child safety duties—this is the same party that is currently accusing the Government of kicking the can down the road, despite asking for a 12-month independent evaluation. There is hardly anything in the Lib Dems’ previous positions that helps me to understand their current position.
The Tory party’s position is totally incoherent, too. The Tories refused my amendment on reducing habit-forming and algorithmic features. They also refused my amendments on livestreaming.
By the way, before the Minister’s “Dear colleague” letter, livestreaming had been mentioned 53 times across the two Houses. A third of those mentions were me talking about how livestreaming for children should be banned. Before today, Roblox had been mentioned 32 times across both Houses—15 of those mentions were me saying that Roblox is not a safe platform for children.
I am massively in favour of improving the online world for children. I think social media should be about looking at videos of cats. I love videos of cats—they are absolutely brilliant. That is what it should be for. I also think it is a great place for children to interact with one another.
Like some others in the Chamber, I have been making the case that there are dangers on social media that can be easily tackled by changing the Online Safety Act. We could have got rid of those algorithmic features for children, for example. We could have got rid of livestreaming for children through the amendment I tabled. We could have got rid of children’s access to private messaging features with people they do not know, through another amendment that I tabled to the Online Safety Act.
I do not like the way the Government are doing this, though. They are proposing an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, and then we will have secondary legislation that will, possibly, amend the Online Safety Act—I am not 100% clear on how it is going to go. I appreciate that there needs to be a consultation.
Before the 2024 Parliament, there were about three people in this entire place who had any grip of what the online world might have been like for children. One of them was the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), who talked about some of these things. I asked the Minister at the time whether Fortnite would be included in the scope of the Online Safety Act, and they said, “If there’s text chat.” Text chat in Fortnite—it is an online game! There is not enough expertise in this place. Much as I hugely appreciate the people who work on writing Bills and the work of some of the experts at Ofcom, they are not experiencing the online world that children are experiencing. That is why we need to listen to ensure that any changes that are made tackle the most harmful behaviours, places and functionalities on the internet.
I appreciate that the Government are trying to take action on this now. However, one of the few things that has made me cry in frustration in this place was one of the first things this Government did when they came in, when they brought in secondary legislation to categorise platforms and refused to include the small, high-risk platforms that had been added in the House of Lords. They said they were categorising as category 1 only platforms like Facebook, which meet a certain threshold. I was so frustrated by that choice by the Government.
There needs to be more listening and learning about where the actual dangers are, and taking action on them. Please, do that in consultation with those of us who do understand this. Please, listen to experts on this.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
It is clear that all of us here today want to see legislative change to protect our children online. There is no doubt about that. The only debate left is how we do it. We Liberal Democrats want to see some urgency, yet more than a month on from when the Secretary of State announced the consultation, we have seen absolutely nothing from the Government. The Minister today failed to answer my question about when we could expect to see that consultation. Given how the Government put pressure on the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) to water down his safer phones Bill back in 2024, they will forgive me for having little confidence that they are serious about legislating for this anytime soon.
There is a disconnect in our society where we assume that as soon as our children come home through the front door, they are safe from whatever harms exist in the outside world. We assume that they can happily hop on to the computer, boot up the PlayStation or relax and scroll on their phone, but in reality, the harms that children face online are far more significant, constant and pervasive than any that they face outside in the real world. Children, particularly vulnerable children, are at greater risk of grooming, seeing something violent or harmful, forming an addiction or damaging their mental or physical health from being online than they are from playing outside.
A 2025 survey by Internet Matters found that two thirds of children said they experienced harm online, that one in five had encountered violent content and that over a quarter of children had been contacted by strangers online. These days there are probably far more paedophiles sitting in a dark room in their underpants in front of a screen than there are waiting in the local park for a child to walk by. When Charlie Kirk was shot in the US, children as young as eight were watching that video within hours here in the UK. The bottom line is that parents are simply not aware of the dangers that their children are being exposed to online.
We have heard some brilliant contributions about the lack of socialising and playing outside, the damage to physical and mental health, the impact on eating disorders, the ability to buy drugs online and far more. I have talked a lot in this House about my belief that we should have a ban on phones in schools. One reason for that is that the evidence shows that when a secondary school has a total ban on having or bringing a phone into school, parents of children at the feeder primary schools are not under pressure to buy their children phones at the age of 10 or 11. By delaying giving children a device till 12, 13 or even 14, we give them some precious extra years when they can grow up a bit in the real world. Every single year counts at that age.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
That is exactly what is happening in Tunbridge Wells. The secondary schools there have moved together to be smartphone-free, and now the primary schools are having that conversation with the parents.
Caroline Voaden
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to ban harmful social media for under-16-year-olds by introducing age ratings similar to film classifications, so that we can rate the platforms according to the harm they present. We have talked a lot about this, and the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) and others raised the issue of Roblox. The harms of Roblox are clearly something that we need to be aware of. Our approach would include all user-to-user platforms such as forums and online gaming, including Roblox, to ensure that children were properly protected from harm wherever they were engaging with others online.
I want to say one thing about the importance of the online world to children. Back in 2003, my husband died and I was a very young widow. I did not know any other young widows, and I joined an organisation that had a chatroom. This was back in the dark old days when we had very static chatrooms; some Members are too young to even know what that is. Late at night, when I was on my own, that place was a real lifeline for me and a real connection to other people who had been through the same tragedy. My children got to know other bereaved children who had lost a parent. The charity that I later became chair of now has online forums where those bereaved children can speak to each other. They are probably the only kids aged five or six in their school whose dad has died, so it is really important for them to be able to have those conversations with other children. Although we talk a lot about the LGBT community, I know from my personal experience that my kids would have benefited from being able to stay in touch with the other kids that they met occasionally on weekends away if they had been able to chat to them online. So I absolutely know the value of these online spaces for children, but I am also aware of the danger.
Our approach is supported by 42 charities and experts, which work with children, on violence against women and children and online safety. We believe that it is a valid proposal. We want everybody to come together in this House. We want to work cross-party. We know that we need to legislate, and we want to do so together because we owe it to our children—we are the adults in the room. We have to protect them, and we have to do it now.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I have been quite shocked at some of the procedural discussion for several reasons. First, we are acting like this has just come up, but even in the House of Commons under this mandate, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) mentioned, the safer phones Bill was put forward in 2024. As Liberal Democrats, we put forward amendments to change the age of data consent to ban addictive algorithms. There have also been calls to act on doomscroll caps, and we have highlighted the harms of AI chatbots. Yet we are at a point—I absolutely respect what the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) was saying on this—where a consultation was proposed by the Government over a month ago, but we still do not know the details. There are things going through the House of Lords that, again, we do not know the details of. At the very least, Liberal Democrats are trying to give the space for that and say, “Yes, we need to start putting forward that legislation.” If there is another chance to debate that, what is the harm in this motion because this is such a crucial issue?
Secondly, it is not as if this is an issue that turned up yesterday. As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) talked about, these harms have been happening for years—over 22 years for Facebook. I will go on to say more about that in a moment. Other countries around the world are showing leadership on this and saying that we have to act now. My point is that at the very least, a consultation could have been launched earlier. This is not something new in this Parliament. We are saying that action needs to be taken.
Most importantly, the parents, children and experts watching this debate want to see us taking this issue seriously. Children and young people are at the heart of this. I think back to the first time I met some of the sixth-form students at Ashlyns school in Berkhamsted. I will never forget sitting around that table with one sixth-former—let’s call him James. He told me about his fears for the mental health of his friends. He warned about the self-harm that he was seeing among his peers, which his teachers were not even aware of, and he talked about the role of social media. A few weeks later, I was pulled to one side at St George’s school in Harpenden, where some young women shared with me their concerns about the growing misogyny lived out by young men, which started on social media.
Since then, I have carried out a “Safer Screens” tour meeting young people. Students have talked about brain rot and seeing the extreme content that the algorithm continues to push on them, even when they try to block it—the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) talked about that. One student said, “It is as addictive as a drug”, and they see the harms of it every day.
This is the tipping point, and I am surprised that many Members think that it is not. This is that moment. Parents, teachers, experts and even young people are crying out for action, and have been for a long time, to tackle the social media giants that have no care for their mental health. As I said, this tipping point has been years in the making. Facebook was launched 22 years ago. Indeed, a Netflix documentary from six years ago started to highlight the warnings from people who worked in tech about social media. One expert said that it is
“using your own psychology against you.”
Having worked in tech myself, I have read the books and received the training on how these social media giants get us hooked—it is built in.
Awareness is growing. I thank Smartphone Free Childhood, Health Professionals for Safer Screens, the Molly Rose Foundation, the Internet Watch Foundation and the Online Safety Act Network, along with projects such as Digital Nutrition—the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) and others have made the analogy of an online diet—that have worked to ask what the guidance should be. Those are just a few of the organisations I could name that have worked tirelessly to ensure these voices are heard.
I also thank pupils in my constituency from Roundwood Park, St George’s, Sir John Lawes, Berkhamsted and Ashlyns schools, and students who have openly shared their experiences, hopes and concerns about the online world. Their concerns are not just about content; they are also about addiction. Let me be clear: as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) mentioned, the core of this issue is that this is the attention economy, so our children are the product. Their attention, focus and time are being sold to line the pockets of tech billionaires. Governments around the world are taking finally action. This is a seatbelt moment where we need to say, “Enough is enough.”
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) talked about trying to get this right. I respect that, but I often think that if we were able to walk down the street and see a 3D version of what young people are seeing in their online world, action would have been taken much sooner. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) talked about holding tech companies to account. We need to start unpacking what children are seeing and finally take action.
The Online Safety Act has done great work, but it does not go far enough. It sets out illegal harms and a code for inappropriate content for children and over-18s, but not a framework of legal harms or age-appropriate content. The social media age of 13 is based on data processing that is managed by the Information Commissioner’s Office and has nothing to do with what is age-appropriate in that context. Dr Kaitlyn Regehr, the author of “Smartphone Nation”, talks about how the Act is reactive, not proactive, and leaves it up to the user to report problems rather than putting the burden of safety on tech giants.
We must ensure that we build on the OSA and learn the lessons from Australia. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central talked about this. In Australia, a wide definition of social media has left it to a small group to decide what is appropriate. That has meant that YouTube has been banned for under-16s, but YouTube Kids has not, with no real framework for why apart from the fact that they deem YouTube Kids safer. WhatsApp has not been banned, which is possibly the right thing, but legislators are left to play whack-a-mole as new social media apps pop up. There is no framework for harm from AI.
Kirsty Blackman
Australia just bans children from holding accounts; it does not ban them from using any of the platforms. They can still use YouTube; they just cannot have an account.
Victoria Collins
Absolutely. YouTube is everywhere. It is embedded in almost every website that has videos.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) asked about AI chatbots. In the proposals we put forward in the Lords, the user-to-user services are the AI chatbots. We have highlighted for a long time that potential harms from AI chatbots are not covered. That is absolutely the case, but Ofcom has clarified that AI chatbots are the user-to-user service. The harms, such as AI psychosis, which my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) alluded to, are not covered. That is why the harms-based approach we are putting forward is so important.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) said when she opened the debate, the Liberal Democrats have been leading the work on online safety in this Parliament. We were the first party to push a vote on banning addictive algorithms. We have called for health warnings and a doomscroll cap. Today, we are calling for a vote on the age for social media and online harms. We are calling for a ban on harmful social media based on a film-style age rating. That harms-based approach holds tech companies to account, sets a pioneering approach to online standards and prepares for the future of AI chatbots and games like Roblox, which has already arrived.
In the offline world, anyone buying a toy for young children at this point would expect age ratings so that they know it is appropriate and safe, and films have had age ratings for over 100 years, yet we have not had that in the online world. The harms-based approach is backed by 42 charities and experts who work to protect children, stop violence against women and girls and make the internet a safer place.
We are also calling for a reset, because enough is enough. That includes a minimum age of 16 for social media and real accountability for tech companies with film-style age ratings. We need to make sure that we get the best out of the internet for young people and protect them from harms.
For me, it comes back to James, his friends and the young women and children I have spoken to around my constituency. We do not have time to waste—that is why we are pushing for these Bills. We are calling for action, and I call on MPs across the House to put children before politics, exactly as we did in the Lords. The amendment in the Lords could mean a blanket ban. We were uncomfortable with that approach—we much prefer ours—but we knew that the future of children came first. We must help the next generation to get the best of the online world—including those young people who have spoken out and shared their concerns and horror stories—and protect them from the worst of it.
The Minister for Digital Government and Data (Ian Murray)
I thank the Liberal Democrats for securing this debate, although I am slightly disappointed by the way in which that was done. I will not concentrate on procedural issues, but it seems to me that the argument is to give the Liberal Democrats the freedom of the House to introduce a piece of legislation that they want to work on while already having all the answers.
The use of a procedural motion for this serious debate is rather unfortunate. I think that has been demonstrated in the strength of feeling in the debate. I am completely and utterly split. The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), asked us to give an opinion, but I do not really know what the best thing to do is. I have a five-year-old girl and a one-year-old girl. The jobs that they will do when they are any of our ages have probably not even been invented yet. I want them to be able to live their lives, and to exploit, experience and enjoy social media and what new tech has to offer, but I want them to do so safely. Denying them that opportunity might not be the answer, but that is why consultation is put in place.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who opened the debate, mentioned her own children and the daily fight between screentime, online and doing other things. I am sure that I had the same fight with my own parents when they tried to turn the television off at night, so this is not a new battle, but it is a battle that parents will win—whether we negotiate or treat them with sweets or something else. This highlights the importance of the approach that we are taking, which allows proper consideration of a range of views—that is urgent.
I have a whole stack of incredibly sobering but also very contradictory statistics here, which is why consultation and national conversation are important. Some 99% of 12 to 17-year-olds reported that they benefit from being online. One statistic suggests that half of parents think that the benefits of children being on social media outweigh the risks, while another says that just three in 10 parents think that.
Looking at that data—there is a whole host of it in that context—we might think that this is a difficult issue to resolve, but then we come to the child sexual exploitation and abuse issues. There were 41,000 obscene publication offences in December 2024—an 860% increase in a decade. In September 2025, there were 42,000 obscene publication offences—a near 1,000% increase since 2013. Some 91% of child sexual abuse material found online is self-generated, often under pressure from manipulation. Let us be quite clear, because some Members do not get this: it is illegal to create, possess or distribute child sexual abuse images, including those generated by AI, regardless of whether they depict a real child. That is already against the criminal law. The Online Safety Act requires in-scope services to assess the risks to their users of child sexual abuse material. That cannot be clearer.
Sir John Hayes
Of course, the Minister is right that there is all kinds of data about online activity, but what is plain and truthful is that academic evidence suggests not only that there are risks of the kind that he has just described—of abuse, exploitation and so on—but that children’s very consciousness is being altered, including their ability to socialise, to learn and to comprehend. That of itself requires the Government to act, for a generation of children are being exploited by heartless tech companies that are careless about the damage they do.
Ian Murray
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. [Interruption.] I am sorry to upset my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). The Government are acting at pace, but we want to act in the right way. We must act in the right way because this is such a complex and serious issue. It is important for children to be able to seize the opportunities that being online can offer. We have heard about iPad-only schools. Parents must be confident that their children are safe—that is key. If we do not want to exclude children from age-appropriate services that benefit their wellbeing, we must act on the evidence and ensure that we strike the right balance between protecting children’s safety and wellbeing, and enabling them to use technology in positive and empowering ways.
Dame Chi Onwurah
Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that, in this debate on protecting children from some of the most obscene abuse, not one Reform Member is present?
Ian Murray
And the Reform party wants to dismantle the Online Safety Act. We are trying to resolve its potential imperfections, get it implemented and take it forward through the consultation, but Reform wants to scrap it. I have already said that anybody who thinks that the illegal possession and creation of child sexual images is acceptable under the banner of free speech does not deserve to be sitting in this House.
I have only a few minutes, and many Members made superb contributions; let me run through some of them. I have no idea whether the shadow Secretary of State supports the Online Safety Act or taking this proposal forward to a consultation, but we have to be evidence led. We share a desire to keep children safe online, but she has politicised the whole issue. It is not contradictory to want our children to have access to social media and benefit from it, and want to protect them; in fact, most Members said that they want to do that.
Lots of Liberal Democrat Members asked about timelines. Let me just say to them that there are not too many sleeps to go before they will see the consultation. Crucially, the Government will table amendments to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that will allow us to implement the outcomes of the consultation through secondary legislation within months—before the summer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan) said. There is a primary legislative vehicle there already, and we can introduce the secondary legislation later.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) talked about the legislation not having been scrutinised. That is the position of the SNP—it does not scrutinise legislation on matters that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament—but that is their decision. It is not the decision of this House; its procedures do not require that.
I pay tribute to the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), and the Committee members for all their work on this issue. They are experts, and I have enjoyed listening to their speeches.
The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) mentioned advertising and drugs policy. As a joint Minister for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, I chair the online advertising taskforce, which is trying to deal with issues relating to online advertising. We are working with the Home Office on a fraud strategy and are trying to ensure that online advertising spaces are well regulated and looked after.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North was absolutely right to talk about eating disorders and suicide. I have heard some absolutely horrific stories—unimaginable stories that nobody could write in their wildest dreams—about online grooming, mainly of young girls, and mainly on platforms on which they are already vulnerable due to eating disorders. We have to deal with that. The live streaming of suicides is creeping up, and we have to do something about that. That is what this consultation is about.
The hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) raised huge issues including eating disorders and AI chat. That is why chatbots will be included in the consultation. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) does a lot of work in this area—she is one of the pioneers in bringing these issues to the House. Algorithms will also be part of the consultation.
However, young people do need to see what social media is. To me as a 50-year-old, it is Facebook and WhatsApp, but it is not that to younger people. In fact, they frown when I talk about Facebook because they think it is old technology like slates and chalk.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) said that the platforms must do better to police themselves—they do have to do more—and, like many other Members, talked about their addictive features. Addictive features will be part of the consultation as well, so please do get involved in that consultation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph), along with many hon. Members, spoke about the correlations with mental health. The Department of Health and Social Care has a key role to play in that, as was mentioned by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Ninety-eight per cent of primary schools and 90% of secondary schools already have “no phones in school” policies. We are clear that the guidance was not strong enough, which is why the Department for Education has published updated guidance on the use of mobile phones in schools. Because we want to be as clear as possible to schools, parents and young people that phones should not be used in schools, we reserve the right to put that on a statutory footing, should we be required to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) said that he uses Snapchat to communicate with his one and only friend on Snapchat: his daughter. I hope that she will not unfriend him after his contribution or he will have no one. He was right to talk about the procedural motion. This is such a serious issue, so we must ensure that we get that right.
Let me finish by talking about international social media bans and incidents from previous countries, as many hon. Members mentioned.
In closing, protecting children online and ensuring that online life is as fulfilling as that offline is a responsibility that this Government take incredibly seriously. No child should have to navigate unsafe digital spaces or experience negative impacts on their health and wellbeing, and no parent should feel alone in making decisions to protect and support their children. Members should please get involved in the consultation, which is there to give proper consideration to the most effective ways forward to deal with these problems. It will be short and sharp. It will last for three months, and we have a legislative vehicle to take forward the proposals from that.
Question put.
Point of Order
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Next week we mark St David’s day, and the relevant flag will fly on the parliamentary estate. Similarly, the relevant symbols fly on St George’s day and St Andrew’s day. However, this does not happen on St Patrick’s day, which occurs in three weeks’ time. I have raised this matter on numerous occasions inside and outside the Chamber. Mr Speaker kindly responded to my latest letter to him and said that responsibility with regard to this issue rests with both the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I have written to both Departments and am awaiting a response. Has Mr Speaker received any indication from either Department of their intention to come to the House in advance of 17 March to indicate that this issue will be remedied as soon as possible? What might I do if they do not do that?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. I have received no notice from Ministers that they intend to make a statement on this matter. However, Ministers on the Front Bench will have heard his point of order. He is of course free to pursue the matter by other means, including parliamentary questions, on which he may wish to consult the Table Office.
Charter for Budget Responsibility
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
I beg to move,
That the Charter for Budget Responsibility: Autumn 2025, which was laid before this House on 23 February, be approved.
The motion relates to the UK’s fiscal framework. It is a framework that matters: it guides fiscal policy and provides both transparency and accountability. Since coming into office, this Government have reformed the fiscal framework and, more broadly, set the public finances on a sustainable footing. At the autumn Budget, that included doubling the buffer against our fiscal rules, providing more certainty and stability for taxpayers and businesses. This is a core part of a wider economic strategy that includes Budget measures to reduce inflation, pushing down on the cost of living. All this helps to push down on interest rates and give businesses the confidence to invest. This is the right plan, and things are moving in the right direction. Just last week, we learned that January saw a £30.4 billion public finance surplus, the highest monthly surplus on record.
This is all supported by our reforms to the fiscal framework. We have reset the fiscal rules to reprioritise public investment and introduced a fiscal lock to ensure that Governments cannot sideline the Office for Budget Responsibility, as we sadly saw in the last Parliament. We are also committed to delivering one fiscal event a year, delivering on our manifesto and bringing the UK in line with the vast majority of advanced economies. At the Budget, the Chancellor announced plans to strengthen that commitment. We are doing so by drawing on recommendations from the International Monetary Fund’s article IV report last summer. The IMF made the case that fiscal policy stability would be aided by ensuring that the fiscal rules would only be assessed once a year. We agree, so this Government are legislating to ensure that this is the case.
To deliver this change, we are updating the two core parts of the fiscal framework. First, we are updating the primary legislation, the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, via the Finance (No. 2) Bill. Clause 251 of that Bill provides for one fiscal rules assessment per financial year. We are also updating the secondary legislation, the charter for Budget responsibility, which is the subject of today’s debate. The updated charter reinforces the change in the Finance (No. 2) Bill. It makes no changes to the fiscal rules, but ensures that those rules should only be assessed once per financial year. Specifically, it removes the requirement in chapter 4 of the charter for the OBR to conduct a fiscal rules assessment alongside any forecast. This will ensure that we can reduce the number of fiscal rules assessments per year without any reduction in fiscal transparency.
This Government are absolutely committed to the OBR’s independence, and to its vital role in providing regular assessments of the economy and the public finances. The OBR will continue to publish a second five-year forecast in the spring, which will aid transparency and inform the Debt Management Office’s financing remit, but the Government will not normally respond with fiscal policy. I look forward to seeing a few more Members of this House at the next of these forecasts, the spring forecast, a week today. I recommend that this House approves the updated charter, and I commend the motion to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for a succinct opening speech.
The charter for Budget responsibility seeks to confer the important attributes of stability and credibility on a Government’s management of the public finances and the wider economy. “Stability” and “credibility” are not exactly the first two words that spring to mind to describe the current Government’s management of the economy. Through their own incompetence, they have presided over a chaotic year that has shredded any remaining confidence in the Chancellor and her team and—more important—has done lasting damage to the life chances of so many young people who now cannot find work.
As the Chancellor prepares her spring statement, we have a Prime Minister living on borrowed time. This Government are painfully lacking in real-world economic experience, and they desperately need help. We will not be opposing the measure this evening.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the shadow Minister share the concerns that many, probably all, MPs from Northern Ireland have—although I welcome the good news in relation to the tax surplus; who would be churlish and not welcome something that is to the benefit of us all—about the Northern Ireland Executive finding it incredibly difficult to make ends meet and make the books balance? One thing we look back on is the Barnett consequentials. We have heard promises many times over a number of years that the Barnett consequentials would be addressed, but that has not happened. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has raised it, and individual MPs have raised it too. The Conservative Government and this Government said that they would look at it, but nothing has happened. Does the shadow Minister believe that it is now time to get things right for Northern Ireland, with a budget to help us to govern and deliver the goods, as the Government are doing here?
Richard Fuller
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think his issue with the Barnett consequentials is one for the Minister to reply to, but the Conservative and Unionist party, as he knows, has very strong support for and kinship with our citizens in Northern Ireland. On his comment about the revenues that the Government received in January, I would just point out that that in large part was due to self-assessment returns and capital gains returns filed in that year. When we tease through the data, we will see that a lot of that came from people making economic decisions that, in the long run, were not in their interest, because of the uncertainty brought into the economy by the Chancellor, who has confused people for an entire year.
To illustrate the chaos of the last year, let me remind the House what the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), said in the equivalent debate on the charter last year:
“Growth is the primary mission of this Government.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2025; Vol. 761, c. 344.]
But since then, comparing the OBR forecast from 2024 and 2025, growth is down in each year of the forecast period. In 2026, it is down to 1.3% from 1.8%. It is down in 2027, 2028 and 2029.
The then Chief Secretary also said that the autumn 2024 Budget
“put the public finances back on track, and we will keep them there.” —[Official Report, 29 January 2025; Vol. 761, c. 345.]
But since that statement the Chancellor has brought forward proposals to cut £5 billion from welfare. Then she reversed them. She said that she would stick to the two-child benefit cap, but then she caved in to Labour Back Benchers. The Chancellor has been forced to U-turn on her removal of winter fuel payments to pensioners. She has U-turned on her plans to tax our pubs out of existence, and she has U-turned on her damaging plans on the family farm tax and family business tax. After having said that she would not be coming back for more taxes, she did indeed come back to whack the British people again with tax increases amounting to over £26 billion.
When this Government came into office, the forecast was that they would need to borrow £77 billion this fiscal year. But under this Chancellor, that level of borrowing has ballooned to £112 billion so far and is forecast to reach £138 billion by the end of the year. According to the OBR in November 2025, public sector net debt will continue to rise over the forecast period, despite Labour raising taxes to record levels, and debt will rise from 93.6% of GDP to 97% by the time of the next general election in 2028-29—if the Government last that long.
Given the wreckage that they have caused in the general economy, Labour’s spin doctors have started to claim that the Government have the fastest deficit reduction plan in the G7. But that is only because this Government have spent so recklessly in their first years. Achieving this remarkable reduction rests on the credibility of the Government’s plans to raise taxes ahead of a general election and on their ability to rein in public spending in the out years—plans which, surely, their skittish Back Benchers will stymie, if the Government last that long.
There are two changes in this revised charter that I would like to note. The first is the decision to change the definition of the current Budget being “in balance”. Paragraph 3.6 of the previous charter said that
“balance is defined as a range: in surplus, or in deficit of no more than 0.5% GDP.”
The current charter does not include that condition. Can the Minister tell us why the decision has been made to remove that flexibility? I would also be interested in what he thinks of the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ recent report, which stated:
“The UK’s fiscal framework is based around a set of pass-fail, numerical fiscal rules. The fiscal debate is overly fixated on the amount of ‘headroom’ the government has against the most binding of those rules. The system incentivises the government to operate with the smallest amount of ‘headroom’ possible, with policy often fine-tuned according to the central point estimate of a highly uncertain forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility.”
The IFS report recommended that
“the UK would be better served by a new framework based around a set of ‘fiscal traffic lights’”.
The Government appear to have gone in the opposite direction to the recommendations by stressing the importance of pinpoint accuracy, and I would be interested in the Minister’s views on that.
I turn to the most significant change: the removal of what was paragraph 4.27 in the previous charter, which said:
“At the same time as the forecasts, the OBR will produce its assessment of the extent to which fiscal policy has delivered, or is likely to deliver, the fiscal mandate.”
The Government have, at a stroke, removed the opportunity for an independent assessment by the OBR ahead of the Government’s spring statement, yet last year the OBR significantly revised many of its previous assessments ahead of the spring statement. The OBR wrote that it was expecting GDP growth of 1%—half the rate of the October forecast—and that
“CPI inflation is forecast to rise from 2.5 per cent in 2024 to 3.2 per cent in 2025, 0.6 percentage points higher than forecast in October.”
[Interruption.] I have not been called “kiddo” for a while. I hope the Whip on duty, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), understands that this is an important point to make. It may have taken me some time to get there, but this is an important point.
The issue here is: why make this change now? The Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011 is clear that the OBR must prepare fiscal and economic forecasts and assessments at least twice a year. Clause 251 of the Finance (No. 2) Bill retains the requirement for the OBR to prepare forecasts twice a year, but it seeks to remove the requirement in the 2011 Act for the OBR to provide its assessment twice a year. Perhaps the Minister—the wannabe Chancellor—can confirm that the reason we are today debating a revised charter, which now excludes an OBR forecast just ahead of the spring statement, is specifically to preclude the OBR from doing its own assessment on the imminent spring statement.
We support tonight’s measure, but not with any confidence in this Government’s handling of the economy. In lacking that confidence, we are not alone. According to the latest Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales survey, business confidence fell again in the last quarter of 2025, with record concerns about the tax burden on business. In its December 2025 survey, YouGov found that 80% of the British people thought the Government were handling the economy badly. It is a sorry, sorry state for our great country.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrats spokesperson.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will not burden the House with too long a speech.
There are a lot of issues with the Government’s and the country’s economic policymaking process, but there are good arguments for reducing the number of fiscal events, which create artificial cliff edges. However, I note the concerns, including from the IFS, that this looks like a way to reduce scrutiny of the Government’s economic record.
Fundamentally, if we are serious about the responsible management of the public finances, tackling our high levels of debt and getting our economy growing again, I am most interested in how we scrutinise our Government’s tax and spending plans. The current situation, in which we have months and months of speculation and then approve hundreds of billions of pounds of Government tax and spending with just a few hours of debate, with no one permitted to see what the Chancellor is proposing in the Budget until it is announced as a fait accompli in Parliament, is exceptional by international standards and a key source of uncertainty and instability.
If the Government truly want to improve market confidence, this is where they should be looking to make reforms. For example, we could look at Sweden, which, following a budget crisis in the early 1990s and soaring debt, introduced proper parliamentary debate of the Government’s budget, with alternatives offered and amendments made before it is finalised, before getting a subsequent period of scrutiny and accountability. The fact that Sweden has seen years of strong growth and high living standards, and that its debt has now dropped from 80% to 30% of GDP, is a positive endorsement of this approach.
The reality is that incredibly important choices are made as part of the Budget process. These choices impact the day-to-day life of each of our constituents, whether in Witney or any of the constituencies that the Members here all represent. The people have a right to have the fullest possible picture of how the Government are going about setting their taxes, spending their money and managing the economic picture, and this step will not achieve that alone.
The Government need to foster stability and manage the public finances responsibly. That hinges on getting growth back into our economy, not pencilling in unfair tax rises in a last-minute fashion at the end of the forecast period just to stick to the letter of the fiscal rules. However, until the Government grasp the nettle on much more fundamental reform of our Budget process, I do not think that will be achieved, and more critically, I do not think the dial will move on economic growth or market confidence.
Torsten Bell
I thank the two Front-Bench spokespeople, one of whom spoke admirably briefly. I will not repeat the case for these changes, given that we have heard that both opposition parties are happy to support the Government’s changes to the charter, so I will just respond directly to the questions.
I say to the Lib Dems spokesperson that it is always good to hear anybody praising Sweden in any debate. On the questions about scrutiny, I do not think he gives enough credit to his hon. Friends on the Finance Bill, who have spent many hours scrutinising the policies, and I am sure they would be upset to hear his lack of faith in them today. Directly on his question about transparency, I think that is important, and that is why we are maintaining the two forecasts a year, despite there being only one fiscal event.
The Opposition spokesperson asked why we are making these changes now, and the answer is that in our manifesto we committed to one fiscal event a year. The IMF has come forward with sensible recommendations to reinforce that, and we are just responding to the IMF’s recommendations. He asked a question about the range contained in the previous charter, and that has been removed because it applied only at the spring forecast, and we are no longer carrying out a fiscal assessment at the spring forecasts. He asked about the IFS report suggesting a dashboard rather than fiscal rules. I can tell him that there will be no change to the fiscal rules, although I obviously always enjoy reading any think-tank’s reports, and I would point out that we have already doubled the headroom against the fiscal rules.
More importantly, I was sad to hear the Opposition spokesperson’s remarks more generally, because I always enjoy his normal perkiness, at least outside this Chamber, but he has turned into a gloomster.
Torsten Bell
He is a total gloomster. He has totally ignored the record monthly surplus for the public finances. He has ignored the fact that wages are up, business investment is up and GDP has grown the fastest of any European G7 economy. He has ignored the fact that GDP per capita grew in 2025, after flatlining in the last year of the Tory Government and falling during the previous Parliament. He has ignored inflation falling and interest rates falling. I think it is right for the gloomster to be gloomy about his party’s prospects, but not to be gloomy about the UK economy. On that basis, I commend this motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The petition states:
“The petition of residents of the constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme,
Declares that there is growing concern in Madeley about proposals that would limit public access to College Fields, a green space that has been used by the community for many years; further declares that the prospect of fencing and restricted access has caused significant local opposition and raised questions about how decisions affecting the site are being made; further declares that College Fields is an important part of community life in Madeley, providing space for informal recreation, wellbeing and outdoor activity and therefore losing or limiting access to this field would have a real impact on local residents; further declares that local people have been clear that they want College Fields to remain open and accessible, and that any decisions about its future must be taken transparently and with meaningful community engagement; and further declares that imposing changes without proper consultation risks undermining trust and damaging a valued local asset.”
It also notes that an online petition on the same issue has reached over 1,000 signatures from people who live, learn and work in Newcastle-under-Lyme. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Staffordshire county council in the strongest terms to commit to protecting College Fields, to rule out the erection of permanent fencing or other measures that would restrict public access, and to work constructively with Madeley parish council, the people of Madeley and other local stakeholders to agree a future for the site that reflects the needs and priorities of our community.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme,
Declares that there is growing concern in Madeley about proposals that would limit public access to College Fields, a green space that has been used by the community for many years; further declares that the prospect of fencing and restricted access has caused significant local opposition and raised questions about how decisions affecting the site are being made; further declares that College Fields is an important part of community life in Madeley, providing space for informal recreation, wellbeing and outdoor activity and therefore losing or limiting access to this field would have a real impact on local residents; further declares that local people have been clear that they want College Fields to remain open and accessible, and that any decisions about its future must be taken transparently and with meaningful community engagement; and further declares that imposing changes without proper consultation risks undermining trust and damaging a valued local asset.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Staffordshire County Council to commit to protecting College Fields, to rule out the erection of fencing or other measures that would restrict public access, and to work constructively with Madeley residents and local stakeholders to agree a future for the site that reflects the needs and priorities of the community.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003164]
Army Reservists: Employment Rights
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
Madam Deputy Speaker, through you, may I thank Mr Speaker for selecting this topic for our Adjournment debate? I am very grateful to the Minister for Veterans and People, who is in her place. It is the first time that we have been able to engage in this way since she has been in her role, so I look forward to that exchange. I truly hope that we will not get a 15-minute elongation of the answer I got to my parliamentary question, which is that the Government do not wish to engage in this discussion at this time, but we shall see—there is plenty of time for it to develop.
I know that some will look at the title of the debate on the Order Paper, “Potential implications of the judgment in the case of Advocate General for Scotland v. Mr Charles Milroy”, and ask, “What has this got to do with a Northern Ireland MP?” or with the colleagues of mine who have kindly stayed in the Chamber this evening. I do not know Charles Milroy, though I know of his service. This afternoon I had the opportunity to speak with him for the first time, and I can recognise him as somebody who has served our country well over more than three decades.
Charles Milroy joined the Territorial Army in 1982, was commissioned in 1983 and retired in 2015, having served his time as a reservist, as a commissioned officer and major. When he retired, he sought to attain what his co-workers successfully already had: a pension. This House will remember that the former Minister for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), introduced a pension for reservists in 2015. But Mr Milroy was not entitled, he was told, to a pension. For almost six years now, he has been highlighting the legal entitlement that he has and pursuing that legal entitlement through the courts.
As the Minister and colleagues will know, the law that lies behind that is the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, introduced into our domestic law by the previous Labour Government —an entitlement that assesses whether a part-time worker is being treated less favourably than their full-time counterparts. On two occasions, the employment tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal, through the judgment of Lord Fairley on 29 January this year, have ruled that yes, Mr Milroy was being treated less favourably than his full-time counterparts.
Let me explain why I am raising this matter, and why I think it important for it to be raised. I served on the Defence Committee for eight years over the course of a number of Parliaments, and have taken an interest in defence issues and raised and championed cases not just for an individual, but for the collective endeavour placed in service in this country. I raise this matter because of the fundamental, important principles that lie behind this singular case.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend my right hon. Friend for initiating the debate. I met the Forces Pension Society guys on Monday. I did not know that he had actually secured an Adjournment debate on this matter, but when I showed them what he wanted to say, they were incredibly interested, and wanted to put on record their thanks to him.
My right hon. Friend understands, much better than I do, that Northern Ireland has identical legislation that provides the same protections for part-time workers, and that consequently this will have a huge impact on Northern Ireland’s reserves. I should declare an interest, as one who served as a part-time soldier for some 14 and a half years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this process must be handled quickly, and that urgency is of the utmost importance to ensure that we right this wrong and stand with our ex-service personnel who should never have had to fight their Government—their Minister—for what should rightfully have been theirs?
Gavin Robinson
I want to come on to the scope of this in a moment, but I do not disagree with the points that my hon. Friend has made.
As I mentioned earlier, I had a brief conversation with Mr Milroy this afternoon. From the way in which he engaged with me and the way in which he outlined his experience in this regard, I recognised him to be a true gentleman. I recognised him as someone who, for the last six years, has fought to assert what is now a legal entitlement accepted by two courts in this land. I also recognised him to be a gentleman who, having served as a senior military leader, was more interested in those who lay beneath him, those whom he led, those for whom he still holds a pastoral and benevolent support. He told me that over the last six years of his quest—he won two years ago and won again in January—three of his colleagues, comrades, individuals whom he had led, had died.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
There were more than 40,000 members of the Ulster Defence Regiment, half of whom—about 20,000—were part-time members. In the light of this ruling, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that they should be entitled to a pension as well?
Gavin Robinson
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I will return to the issue of scope, but I appreciate the hon. Member’s point.
I lament the fact that someone who has been campaigning on this issue for six years, personally and with colleagues, has lost three comrades in the process who were never to attain their legal entitlement.
I imagine that the legal decision set by Lord Fairley, president of the Employment Appeal Tribunal across England, Scotland and Wales and someone of legal standing, is engaging not only individuals in the Ministry of Defence but those who are engaged in finance. There is a scope issue here. I understand entirely, and I will always champion those who served in Northern Ireland, whether in the Royal Irish Regiment most recently, in the Home Service Battalions until their disbandment in 2007, or indeed in the Ulster Defence Regiment. However, we cannot assert legal positions that did not exist at the time. The Ulster Defence Regiment was disbanded in 1992, some eight years before this legislation was introduced in the United Kingdom.
We can look, in particular, at those who served as reservists from 2000 or 1997 until 2015. We can look at the scale of that. We know that in 1997 there were 130,000 reserve personnel in the United Kingdom, that in 2000 there were 110,000, and that in 2015 there were 85,000. We know that in 1997, for example, when this legislation was introduced on a European basis, there were 1,870 reserve or part-time members of the Ulster Defence Regiment. But we also know this: that is not the case before the MOD today.
The case before the MOD today is one of principle, in Major Milroy and those of his co-claimants who are already in the system. The Minister should also know well that there will be impediments through a statute of limitations to further and future claims. There is an opportunity for the Minister to consider this case and that of those who have travelled alongside Major Milroy, rather than worry about a scope that could be exponential but, sadly, for which time has already passed.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing this debate. Whenever I wrote to the relevant Minister a year ago, the MOD confirmed that there were at least 310 people in Northern Ireland who fell within scope, but I agree entirely that there is absolutely no point in the Government deciding to fight this or seek in any way to curtail it. They should now accept that they have lost on this point of law and therefore allow anyone eligible to benefit.
Gavin Robinson
I think the time is coming, though we might not hear it this evening, for the Ministry of Defence to engage in the reality of what has been asserted in the courts. The Ministry of Defence is going to have to accept that, at a time when I, my colleagues and others throughout this Chamber are raising issues around support for veterans, particularly in the light of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and the challenges that the Minister knows well and on which she has engaged in debate with me in the past.
The Minister will know that when I challenged this Labour Government and said they were not bringing forward safeguards for veterans, I was told that they were. I was then told that I was right and that the Prime Minister would bring forward amendments to the Government’s Bill, which they had already said included protections. We have not seen those amendments or the nature of them.
We stand here tonight with yet another opportunity for the Government to demonstrate recognition for the service of reservists and veterans, and to demonstrate that, though they recognise that there will be a financial implication, there is a moral imperative to honour a legal commitment that a previous Labour Government brought through and applied in this country. We hear from the Labour Government all the time about the need to adhere to international laws. What about adhering to the ones that they brought in themselves in our own country, and honouring and recognising the sacrifice and service of so many—I know that includes the Minister—who have served our nation? That is one of the challenges.
The second challenge is clearer: the Minister will need to provide an outcome for this process. If that is not today, then she needs to indicate that the Ministry of Defence is interested in a particular analysis and the implications of this case, and that Ministers have a fair understanding of how they are going to deal with it and that they will work towards a resolution. The last thing this Labour Government want to do is appeal to the Court of Appeal and then to the Supreme Court, not only giving the impression but establishing the actual fact that they will exhaust every opportunity to deny a legal right that is there and that has been asserted on behalf of our veteran reservist community.
It would be an indictment of this Labour Government if they were to exhaust ad nauseam every appeal mechanism and opportunity to frustrate the legal entitlements of our service veterans. I do not think that they can stand here today and honourably say that that is the position they wish to adopt, or stand here in three weeks’ time and talk about the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and how much protection they afford to veterans, when they cannot get the basics right.
I know the Minister is not responsible for what has gone before, but she has the opportunity to address not only the perception but the reality that has been faced by Major Milroy, his co-claimants and those who have a legal entitlement, which they are asserting. It is an opportunity to redress the harm that has been caused over the last six years, and an opportunity to ensure that this Labour Government do not endlessly pursue appeals to thwart entitlement. It is similarly true of the McCloud judgment, which applies to the Ministry of Defence. That judgment is still being worked through unsatisfactorily and unsuccessfully.
I raise this matter this evening in the earnest hope but limited expectation that the Ministry of Defence will, through the Minister, give at least some certainty that this process will not be dragged out endlessly through each and every subsequent court possible—the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. I understand that it is under consideration and that there will have to be an assessment of what to do, but that should not happen until there is a full understanding and analysis of the implications of the judgments thus far and the real prospect of any successful appeal. There will not be one. The entitlement is there; it has been asserted in so many other spheres and sectors and asserted here in these cases.
I can say clearly, as I heard earlier from colleagues across this House, that these guys did not serve for a pension. No—they served under the leadership and guidance of the Ministry of Defence and their senior command. This is an example of where they are saying, “Well, hang on a second. Maybe in service I took the orders I was given, but in retirement I am at least going to ask, ‘Were they lawful? Do the laws apply to us, too? Do we have legal entitlement and protections that we can avail ourselves of?’”
I think this is the opportunity for Government to say, “We recognise your service and all you did for us. We will not, by hook or by crook, deny you the legal entitlements and the recognition of your service that you so richly deserve.”
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
I thank the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for securing this debate. I am grateful for his contributions and those made by other Members. I know, and can see and hear, that the right hon. Gentleman is a passionate champion of veterans and reservists’ rights. As a veteran myself, I thank him for his commitment and hard work on behalf of those who have served and contributed so much to our armed forces.
As the right hon. Gentleman notes, the case of Advocate General for Scotland v. Mr Charles Milroy raises important questions not only in law, but in how we recognise and support those who serve and have served our country, including through reservist service.
Let me set out the Government’s position: on 29 January 2026, the employment appeal tribunal in Scotland handed down its judgment in Advocate General for Scotland v. Mr Charles Milroy, in which it upheld the earlier tribunal’s findings in relation to Major Milroy’s service and the application of employment protections to reservists. That judgment is being carefully considered by this Government. This evening I will explain the principles guiding the Government’s approach, the work already under way and the position we are taking to support reservists and employers.
First, I will speak on our commitment to reservists. Reservists are, of course, integral to the effectiveness of our armed forces. They bring vital expertise into Defence, strengthen operational resilience and provide specialist skills that cannot be generated or sustained in the regular forces alone. As the Secretary of State said on Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill last month, our reserve forces are crucial to Britain’s security and, if necessary,
“to achieving a sustainable, efficient and rapid…transition to war.”—[Official Report, 26 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 644.]
Their contribution directly enhances Defence’s capability. The Government’s position is clear: reservists must be treated fairly, lawfully and with proper regard to both their military service and their civilian employment. That principle underpins our policies and will continue to do so.
Secondly, it is important to place the pension issues raised by this case into the correct historical context. The questions before the tribunal relate to an earlier policy framework and, since 2015, reservists have had access to the same pension scheme as their regular counterparts. Moreover, reservists have long been entitled to pension provision during periods of mobilisation, recognising the fact that they may be placed directly into harm’s way while serving on operations. That protection remains firmly in place today and should not be lost in the wider public discussion of this case.
Thirdly, on the judgment and the Government’s considerations of next steps, we must be clear about the particular facts of this case before the tribunal. It was found that aspects of Major Milroy’s reservist service engaged employment protections in a way that had not previously been recognised. Both the employment tribunal and the employment appeal tribunal expressly acknowledged that the level of service days in question was atypical. That finding raises legitimate and complex questions about how certain forms of reservist service are characterised in law, and how they interact with employment-related rights, including questions of pay and pensions in this individual case. As such, the Government are carefully considering its implications for the judgment. That work is ongoing and it is being carried out while the case remains within the statutory period during which an appeal may be brought. It would therefore not be appropriate for me to prejudge the Government’s final position at this stage.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I know that the hon. Lady has served and that she comes at this very much from a service background. Time is of the essence, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) made a powerful point about three reservists who served with Major Milroy having passed away. I am not hearing today a clear timetable for implementation, I am not hearing that sufficient funding has been allocated, and I am not hearing that the Government are in the process of bringing forward an impact assessment detailing the number of affected reservists, the estimated financial liability and the Department’s plan for redress. Can the Minister go further and give hope to those reservists that the Government are actually going to do something?
Louise Sandher-Jones
It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the details, but I can assure the hon. Lady that we are considering the implications of the judgment very closely, and I am mindful of the point that she and others have made about the need for speed in coming to this judgment.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Of course, the Government are considering whether to appeal. I trust that they will not, but if they do not and this is the end of the legal road on this, they will be faced with the next stage, which is to determine what remedy model they are going to develop for this case. Could I appeal to the Minister that, in arriving at that model, the Government do not make it tight and narrow specifically to this case but base it on the emerging strong principle of this case that there has to be an acceptance that part-timers should have pension rights? That is the fundamental principle. If the Government seek to avoid that by focusing only on this case and on the reservists, while ignoring the wider cadre of individuals who are equally part-timers and denying them what they will have to give to this applicant, would that not be a very wrong-headed approach?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the hon. and learned Member for his point, and his comments have been noted. As soon as I have further details, I will provide an update.
Jim Shannon
I commend the hon. and gallant Lady. We understand that she has a personal intention to try to make things better. Whenever I met the pension people on Monday, they said that many part-time soldiers are not aware of their rights and the fact that they might be able to claim. Are the Government, and the Minister in particular, making any efforts to try to contact all those soldiers to ensure that they will be aware of their rights and can claim? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said, the longer this goes on, some people will pass away. The opportunity for money should also go to their relatives; it should be retrospective.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am not in a position to give details at this point, but I will absolutely take into account the hon. Member’s comments and ensure they are considered. I note his concerns.
Several Members have spoken about the importance of confidence—confidence among reservists that their service will be supported, and confidence among employers that the framework within which they operate is clear and predictable. The Government’s objective is a framework that supports reservist service, provides clarity for employers and is fully consistent with the law. Where the Milroy judgment indicates that greater clarity is needed, we will address that. Where it confirms existing arrangements, we will state that plainly.
Finally, on the wider message to those who serve, reservists across the United Kingdom make a substantial and valued contribution to our national defence. This judgment and the debate it has prompted reinforce the importance of ensuring that our systems reflect the realities of modern service and continue to command confidence.
The Government will give full and proper effect to the judgment in Advocate General for Scotland v. Mr Charles Milroy. We are considering its implications carefully and engaging with stakeholders, and we will act where action is required. We will do so in a way that is lawful, proportionate and firmly grounded in fairness. I again thank the right hon. Member for Belfast East for bringing this matter before the House, and everyone who has contributed to this important debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Merchant Shipping (General Lighthouse Authorities) (Increase of Borrowing Limit) Order 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Merchant Shipping (General Lighthouse Authorities) (Increase of Borrowing Limit) Order 2026.
The draft order will assist in the replacement of the ageing and increasingly obsolete vessels belonging to the general lighthouse authorities by increasing the amount of borrowing they can access under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. It is the second of an anticipated series of 10 similar orders.
As arm’s-length bodies of the Department for Transport, the GLAs perform a vital role in meeting the UK’s obligations under the international convention for the safety of life at sea. The UK has some of the busiest and most dangerous waters in the world, and the potential for calamity is clear. With over 85% by volume of UK imports and exports transported by sea, the importance of the work of the GLAs cannot be overestimated. They have been doing this work for hundreds of years and are world-class experts, but expertise is not enough. It is equally vital that they have modern, efficient equipment to support them.
The GLAs work their vessels extremely hard. Their average economic service life is 25 years. Replacement on these timescales is therefore business as usual. I am delighted to note that the first of a new generation of GLA vessels, the Northern Lighthouse Board’s Pole Star, was delivered on Christmas Day 2025. This represents a sea change from her predecessor, as she is a significantly more capable, greener and more comfortable ship. That is a tangible demonstration of the Government’s continuing investment in the GLAs to ensure they continue to have the right tools to deliver their vital statutory duties.
The cost of new vessels is what brings the draft order to this Committee today. The GLAs are funded by light dues, which are an hypothecated tax paid by commercial and other shipping interests. The GLAs are not paid for by general taxation and make no call on the UK Exchequer to meet their day-to-day operational costs. The Merchant Shipping Act 1995 recognised that GLAs would occasionally need additional borrowing to afford large capital purchases, but it also set a cumulative limit of £100 million on the amount that all three GLAs could borrow. That figure was first included in legislation in 1988. It was not changed until the first of these orders, approved by Parliament in 2024, increased the limit to £133 million. However, it did not recognise inflationary or other pressures, or changes in international financial reporting which resulted in other costs, such as fixed-price elements of contracts, being treated as “borrowing” in accounting terms. That figure also included all borrowing, regardless of source—commercial or Government.
In real terms, £100 million in 1988 is equivalent to £197 million today. The GLAs were able to keep comfortably within the original £100 million limit until the need to purchase new vessels meant that it is now insufficient to meet forecast borrowing requirements. However, the 1995 Act places restrictions on how and when the power to increase the limit can be used. First, increasing the limit requires advance approval from His Majesty’s Treasury. My colleagues accepted our case and have provided that approval. Secondly, the limit can be increased only by order, hence the statutory instrument before us today. Thirdly, the limit can only be increased by a maximum of £33 million at a time—that is, in a single order—as the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments advised.
Given those legal constraints, we need to increase the limit by the maximum £33 million once again. Additional orders will be required for future increases to ensure that the limit aligns with forecast GLA borrowing. We will submit these orders for parliamentary approval in due course.
I must stress that increasing the borrowing limit does not represent a commitment to new funding. Every vessel replacement project will remain subject to the highest levels of scrutiny under Department for Transport, Cabinet Office and HM Treasury spend controls and approvals. However, these orders are essential to enable the GLAs to fund new vessels through borrowing when they need them. I therefore commend the draft order to the Committee.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.
I am generally cautious about borrowing beyond our means, but on every organisation significant costs are sometimes imposed that require capital spending. The general lighthouse authorities have been looking after our seafarers for hundreds of years and do critical work to maintain their safety and welfare. Even though they may no longer have the same number of almshouses to maintain, or responsibilities for mariners’ widows and children to fulfil, they still play an enormous role in maintaining the operational network of aids to navigation around the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. It is a tremendous legacy of British maritime history, and given the importance of the maritime sector, it is right that the GLAs have the resources they need to ensure safe passage for vessels.
In this case, I am aware that the draft order relates to a programme of vessel replacement needed due to many of them reaching the end of their service life. Having working vessels is of course an expense it is necessary to meet if the GLAs are to operate effectively, but can the Minister assure us that the types of vessel procured will be cost effective and that there will be no onerous procurement criteria that could increase costs?
I understand that there is no direct provision for UK Government funding, but that the Department for Transport covers the financial risk of the GLAs defaulting on their repayments. As the former maritime Minister said in the debate on the 2024 Order,
“This…does not expose the Treasury or the Department, because these are effectively loans to be paid back.”—[Official Report, Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee, 30 October 2024; c. 6.]
Although I am sure that the Minister is confident in the GLAs’ ability to manage their finances, in increasing the borrowing limits through 10 statutory instruments, has any assessment been made of the financial security of the organisations? For example, I understand that the minimum general lighthouse fund cash reserves are set at £20 million to cover costs. While the current level is greater than that sum, will the Treasury need to make any changes? Has the Department for Transport engaged with the lighthouse authorities to ascertain their confidence in paying back the borrowing? Has the potential long-term impact on light dues been assessed? Avoiding increases business costs is critical, and I am sure we want to avoid imposing a greater financial burden on shipping businesses.
The general lighthouse authorities have centuries of history, illustrating—some might say illuminating—their effectiveness in upholding the safety of mariners. It is essential that the Government act as the steward of this history and ensure that they remain operationally and financial viable.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I shall speak briefly, first, to signify that the Liberal Democrats support the instrument. Secondly, I note that the increase widens the availability of funding options for Cromer lighthouse in my constituency, which has been keeping seafarers off the North Norfolk coast safe for nearly 200 years. Although it is no longer staffed and is instead operated remotely from a control centre in Essex, it still plays its part in the network of dozens of lighthouses and lightships that keep the seas safe and that we are supporting today. Many of those working dangerous maritime jobs live in the coastal communities they launch from, so the safety these lighthouses provide also reassures loved ones back on land in North Norfolk and in coastal communities across the country.
I also have in my constituency the only lighthouse in Great Britain that will not benefit from the draft order: Happisburgh lighthouse, which is Britain’s only independent lighthouse. After Trinity House sought to close it in the 1980s, the local community banded together and saved Happisburgh as a working light. Parliament passed the Happisburgh Lighthouse Act 1990 to allow that, and it continues to guide ships off our coast, funded by voluntary contributions. Painted in striking red and white stripes, the lighthouse welcomes locals and tourists travelling toward our beautiful coast. Perhaps the Minister will join me in congratulating the excellent team who keep Happisburgh lighthouse running, and share my hope that the light, which has shone since 1791, will shine for many decades to come.
Keir Mather
I will start where the Liberal Democrat spokesman left off and send everyone involved in the maintenance and continued use of Happisburgh lighthouse my sincere congratulations on keeping it going strong. I hope it continues to do so long into the future.
Responding to the points the shadow Minister made, I have met all the GLAs and remain confident in their capacity to manage this financial programme. I believe that they will make sure that when borrowing is undertaken, it is in a financially responsible way, and that they have the capacity to pay back borrowing in good time, owing to the close and thorough work Department for Transport officials have done with them on this programme. One vessel has already been brought to fruition in a cost-effective way, through a procurement process that I believe the authorities think worked well and served their interests, providing the vessel in a good timeframe. I have no concerns about the financial security of the GLAs, but if any arise, I will be sure to inform the shadow Minister, whom I thank for his general support.
We are an island nation, but I think we do not appreciate shipping’s importance to our economy and thus the importance of keeping seafarers safe. I hope you will indulge me, Sir Desmond, and allow me, on behalf of the Committee, to thank all seafarers and the staff of the GLAs, who go above and beyond to ensure that our vital marine aids to navigation remain operational. With the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the marine accident investigation branch, our GLAs are recognised around the world for their world-class standards and expertise. The draft order and the others to come will support the purchase of vital new, modern vessels and other equipment they need to perform their statutory duties, and enable them to continue the work they have successfully done for hundreds of years of ensuring the safety of all mariners in UK waters.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. The draft order sets out the immigration and nationality functions for which a fee is to be charged, and the maximum amount—or maxima—that can be charged in relation to each of those functions. Within the order, we are proposing a number of changes that will facilitate Government policy. Fees charged by the Home Office for immigration and nationality applications are an essential part of the Department’s funding settlement. This order will increase fee maxima across a number of chargeable functions, including those for electronic travel authorisation, known as ETA; entry clearance as a visitor for visas valid for a period of more than 12 months; a visa on a route to settlement; settlement; naturalisation and registration as a British citizen or as one of the specified other categories of citizenship; and certain nationality-related services.
The actual fee levels that are charged to those seeking to enter or remain in the UK are not changing in this order; any changes to the fee levels will be made through separate legislation. We will increase the fee maximum that applies to an application for an ETA from £16 to £20 in order to facilitate a subsequent increase in the chargeable fee to £20. The fee maximum for entry clearance as a visitor for a period of more than 12 months will increase from £250 per annum to £253 per annum. It will facilitate a subsequent increase to the two-year visit visa fee from £475 to £506. We are increasing the fee maximum for visas on a route to settlement from £3,600 to £3,635. That will facilitate a subsequent increase to the fee for applications by other adult dependent relatives of a British citizen or a person with settled status who wishes to join their family member in the UK from £3,413 to £3,635.
We are also amending the fee maximum for settlement applications from £3,600 to £3,635 in order to align with the changes to the fee maximum for visas on a route to settlement, reflecting the connection between those two chargeable functions. The fee maxima for naturalisation as a British citizen or as a British overseas territories citizen and registration as a British citizen or for other nationality statuses will increase from £1,605 to £1,709, and from £1,500 to £1,540, respectively. Subject to parliamentary approval, that will allow us to increase the fees for naturalisation and registration as a British citizen by adult applicants to the new maxima levels.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The explanatory notes suggest that the increases are linked in part to the consumer prices index rate of 3.5%, plus a 6.5% tariff to compensate for other areas. But according to the figures in the statutory instrument, the range for some increases is as low as 1%; for others, it is 25%. Can the Minister set out why there is such variation in the percentage increase, and why there is a deviation from the explanatory notes, and the CPI 3.5% plus 6.5%, in the order?
Mike Tapp
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I cannot set out the exact details right now, but I can say that this is to ensure that we are recouping the costs of individual routes and that each individual route will have different costs to it. I can come back to him with further detail and break that down after the debate.
We are increasing the fee maxima for nationality-related services by 6.5% to support a subsequent increase in relevant fees to the new maxima level. The changes will facilitate the generation of additional income for the migration and borders system, which will in turn support the broader funding of the system, reducing reliance on the general taxpayer while supporting delivery of the Government’s priorities. I therefore commend the order to the Committee.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks. Fees for migration and border products and services play a vital role in our country’s ability to run a sustainable immigration system. Just like any other public service, it is right that those who use and benefit from the UK’s immigration system should contribute to it. The proposed changes set out in the draft order will not only reduce the financial burden on the taxpayer but generate a significant amount of much needed income for the Home Office. However, we must be mindful of how any increase to the electronic travel authorisation fee could impact the number of visitors to the UK, so I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what assessments have been made of the impact of increasing the ETA, and explain why £20 is considered the appropriate level of increase.
The real focus needs to be on how the funding will be used, because it will generate significant fees. The Government have repeatedly stated that immigration must be significantly reduced, yet in 2025 more than 41,000 people crossed the English channel in small boats and entered the country illegally. As of June 2025, we have 32,000 illegal immigrants residing in hotels. How will the funding be used? Will it primarily fund the cost of dealing with illegal migration, or is some other enhancement planned in the immigration system?
I acknowledge that responsibility for this matter lies with a number of members of the Home Office team, but given these concerning figures, it is important to know where the funding will go. Does the Minister anticipate that the cost to the Home Office will remain as high? Does he anticipate that the maxima fee will have to be increased again in the near future? For how long can he commit to that increase? Does he guarantee that the additional income will deliver a more efficient border system, or will the increased income simply subsidise a system that is still not working?
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mrs Hobhouse. The Liberal Democrats and I are broadly supportive of this statutory instrument. The plans to put the fees up are broadly in line with inflation and the cost of providing the service, so we have no major concerns about the principal part of the order. However, I am concerned about the entry requirements and fees charged to dual British nationals. Will the Minister look into this matter urgently, and agree to consider a grace or transition period for British nationals stuck abroad, and to hold a meeting with MPs to listen to our concerns and take things forward?
Mike Tapp
I will first answer hon. Members’ questions. On how the funding is used, I am sure the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford would not expect me to lay out today how the Home Office will spend its budgets beyond what has already been announced. On whether there will be any future fee increases, of course that will be kept under review, but I have set out the extent of the increases in today’s order.
The hon. Member for Woking talked about dual nationals—he framed them as Brits stuck abroad. We are bringing in new measures around ETA enforcement, which begins tomorrow. We have been communicating that since 2024 on the Government website. In 2025, a significant sum of money was spent on such communications. For clarity, if someone is a dual national, they will need their British passport to travel on. That is the same as Australia, the United States and many other countries around the world. It modernises and makes our border more secure. On meeting to discuss this, absolutely—he will see an email in his inbox. I believe it is on Monday next week that any Member of Parliament can come and talk to me about this matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Seventh sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind Members to send their speaking notes by email to Hansard and to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. I remind all Members, particularly the Minister and the shadow Minister, to speak loudly, slowly and clearly in support of others in the room.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
On a point of order, Ms McVey. I seek your advice with reference to the debate on clause 43, on 10 February. I draw Members’ attention to my question to the Minister in Hansard about parliamentary scrutiny of directions:
“Even where they are redacted because of national security concerns, somebody, or some mechanism of Parliament, will be able to scrutinise them. Can the Minister confirm that?”––[Official Report, Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Public Bill Committee, 10 February 2026; c. 212.]
The Minister responded: “Yes.”
We received a letter over the recess dated 19 February—we are very grateful to the Minister for writing to us—which states something slightly different:
“The Government’s default position is that copies of directions will be laid in Parliament, to enable all parliamentarians to scrutinise the Government’s use of…powers. Where this is not possible for national security reasons, alternative options for scrutiny could be used, such as allowing for directions to be read in private reading rooms or briefing individual shadow ministers. As such, we are confident that alternative options are available for scrutiny when directions cannot be laid in Parliament for national security reasons.”
“Will” is different from “could” and “are available”. Given that we have moved beyond the debate on clause 43, what options are there for the Minister to either clarify those remarks or correct the record?
The Chair
I thank the shadow Minister for getting those comments on the record. Would the Minister like to address those points?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
I am happy to write to the hon. Member.
The Chair
The shadow Minister can keep us updated on whether that has happened.
New Clause 2
Register of foreign powers for the purposes of Part 4
“(1) For the purposes of informing action taken under Part 4 of this Act, the Secretary of State must, by regulations, establish and maintain a register of foreign powers that the Secretary of State believes present a risk to the United Kingdom’s critical network and information systems within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) Foreign powers designated by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) must include states –
(a) which have been confirmed by GCHQ as having—
(i) perpetrated, or attempted to perpetrate, a cyber-attack in the UK in the preceding seven years,
(ii) targeted, or intended to target, that attack at the network or information systems of one or more operators of an essential service or critical suppliers, or
(iii) carried out, or intended to carry out, that attack through a state department, agency or affiliate group,
(b) which GCHQ has warned pose a risk to the security or resilience of the network or information systems of one or more operators of an essential service or critical suppliers.
(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
(4) In this section, ‘foreign power’ means–
(a) the sovereign or other head of a foreign state in their public capacity;
(b) a foreign government, or part of a foreign government;
(c) an agency or authority of a foreign government, or of part of a foreign government;
(d) an authority responsible for administering the affairs of an area within a foreign country or territory, or persons exercising the functions of such an authority; or
(e) a political party which is a governing political party of a foreign government. A political party is a governing political party of a foreign government if persons holding political or official posts in the foreign government or part of the foreign government—
(i) hold those posts as a result of, or in the course of, their membership of the party, or
(ii) in exercising the functions of those posts, are subject to the direction or control of, or significantly influenced by, the party.”—(Dr Ben Spencer.)
This new clause would require the Government to maintain a register of state actors posing a threat to UK cyber security for the purposes of exercising the Secretary of State’s powers under Part 4 of the Act, which enable the giving of directions in the interests of national security.
Brought up, read the First time, and Question proposed (10 February), That the clause be read a Second time.
Question again proposed.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are considering the following:
New clause 3—Register of foreign powers for the purposes of Part 4: review of nature of risk—
“(1) For each foreign power added to the register established under section [Register of foreign powers for the purposes of Part 4], the Secretary of State must review the extent and nature of the risk posed to the network and information systems of operators of essential services and critical suppliers, including whether the risk arises –
(a) from activities undertaken outside of the UK, or
(b) from foreign owned or controlled infrastructure or locations within the UK.
(2) Within six months of the establishment of the register under section [Register of foreign powers for the purposes of Part 4(1)], the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report containing –
(a) the findings and conclusions of the review conducted under subsection (1), and
(b) the Government’s plan for addressing the risks identified.
(3) If the Secretary of State considers that laying a report, or any portion of a report, under subsection (2) would be contrary to the interests of national security, the Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament confirming that –
(a) a review has been conducted under subsection (1), and
(b) that the report, or a portion of the report, cannot be laid before Parliament for reasons of national security.”
This new clause would require the Government to report on the risk to relevant network and information systems posed by foreign powers appearing on the register established by NC2 considering whether such risks arise from extra-territorial activities and infrastructure or premises owned or controlled by foreign powers.
New clause 13—Statement on risks posed to systems by foreign interference—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish a statement of the Government’s plans in relation to risks to the security and resilience of network and information systems arising from foreign interference.
(2) Any statement under this section must—
(a) set out the Government’s intentions to assess, manage and mitigate the risks posed, or which could potentially be posed, to the security and resilience of network and information systems by foreign interference in such systems;
(b) include risks associated with—
(i) hardware,
(ii) software,
(iii) supply chains,
(iv) procurement processes, and
(v) the use of, or reliance on, foreign technologies or systems;
(c) include a specific focus on government digital procurement processes.
(d) where risks are identified under (2)(b)(v), state whether the Government intends to address these risks by encouraging or supporting the use of domestic technologies or systems.”
This new clause would require the Government to publish a statement of how it intends to address and mitigate any risks to network and information systems posed by foreign interference.
New clause 15—Review of high-risk bodies—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before Parliament a review of the national security risks posed to relevant network and information systems by foreign state ownership or control of relevant bodies.
(2) A review under this section must assess—
(a) the number of relevant bodies which are owned, in whole or in part, by a foreign state or a foreign state-owned enterprise;
(b) the risk of such bodies being compelled to facilitate unauthorised access to, or surveillance of, network and information systems in the United Kingdom; and
(c) the adequacy of current powers under Part 4 (Directions for national security purposes) to mitigate such risks posed to the security and resilience of essential activities.
(3) In this section—
‘relevant body’ means—
(a) an operator of an essential service,
(b) a relevant digital service provider,
(c) a relevant managed service provider, or
(d) a critical supplier
within the meaning of the NIS Regulations.
‘foreign state-owned enterprise’ means a body corporate in which a foreign state has a controlling interest;
‘network and information systems’ has the meaning given by section 24(1).”
This new clause would require the Government to review the security risks posed by critical suppliers and essential service providers linked to foreign states and evaluate whether current powers are sufficient to address these threats.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
I rise to speak to new clauses 13 and 15, standing in my name.
New clause 13 would require the Secretary of State to publish, within 12 months, a comprehensive statement on how the Government intend to manage the risks of foreign interference in our critical systems. It calls for steps to be taken to assess the need for a digital sovereignty strategy. We need to know not just how we will fight cyber-threats but whose technology we will rely on to do it. The new clause would force the Government to set out a plan to explicitly assess risks in hardware, software and supply chains.
We should ask what is being done to support UK tech and home-grown cyber-security. We cannot claim to be serious about national resilience if the very infrastructure protecting our critical systems is outsourced abroad to vendors we cannot fully trust. New clause 13 would require the Government to explain how they intend to mitigate the risks associated with reliance on foreign technologies. It would also require the Government to assess the need to encourage and support the use of domestic technologies. That would turn cyber-security into an engine for growth. By identifying high-risk foreign vendors, and pivoting to trusted, home-grown alternatives, we could improve our security and create high-skilled jobs here in the UK. For those reasons, I will press new clause 13 to a vote.
I now turn to new clause 15. How can we be serious about national resilience when the very infrastructure protecting our critical systems could be entirely outsourced abroad? New clause 15 would ensure transparency and force the Government to look at the threat of foreign ownership. The threat to British democracy from foreign interference is clear and present. From Russian money flooding into politics, and Chinese surveillance and intimidation, to foreign oligarchs buying influence, our democratic institutions are under sustained attack. The previous Conservative Government failed the UK. They failed to take the threat posed by Russia seriously, they weakened the Electoral Commission and they allowed foreign money to distort our politics. They withdrew from international commitments at precisely the wrong moment.
This Government have made some welcome moves, but they do not go far enough. Over the last few years, we have seen a rise in cyber-attacks on critical infrastructure. Across the country, schools have closed, airports have been shut, local councils have been hacked and retail stores have been crippled. New clause 15 would require the Government to review the security risks posed by critical suppliers and essential service providers, and to flag which of those are linked to foreign states. It would also push the Government to evaluate whether current powers are sufficient to address these threats. I intend to push new clause 15 to a vote.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
In our previous sitting, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge set out clearly the cyber-threat posed by China, and argued that, through new clause 2, China should be explicitly recognised as a foreign power presenting a significant risk to the United Kingdom. He rightly highlighted the precedent in UK legislation for maintaining registers of hostile or high-risk state actors to protect national security. I agree that Parliament should be unequivocal in recognising the Chinese Communist party as a strategic cyber-threat, particularly given evidence of state-linked cyber-espionage, infrastructure compromise and the targeting of critical national infrastructure.
We have seen data from the Cabinet Office last week indicating that the Government plan to drastically reduce the integrated security fund spending on domestic cyber and tech to counter cyber-attacks. It will be cut from £113.3 million to £95 million by 2028-29, which is a reduction of 16%. Domestic spending to counter Russian threats in the same period will incur a drop of more than 20%. Those reductions leave us dangerously exposed and are in direct opposition to the Government’s promises to support the UK’s national security priorities. New clause 2 offers the chance to identify and monitor state actors that pose a threat to UK cyber-security.
The register must also reflect the evolving nature of cyber-risk. Threats do not arise solely from formally hostile states, but also from jurisdictions where hostile cyber-actors operate at scale, using digital infrastructure to target UK systems and citizens. We have seen that in countries such as India and Nigeria, where organised cyber-criminal networks have run sophisticated international operations against the UK, exploiting cloud services and telecommunications infrastructure. In India, law enforcement has dismantled major cyber-crime hubs linked to international targeting, including operations specifically affecting large numbers of British victims.
In 2025, the National Crime Agency worked in partnership with India’s Central Bureau of Investigation to raid an organised crime group in Uttar Pradesh, which had targeted more than 100 UK citizens with pop-ups stating that their devices had been compromised, losing them more than £390,000. That is not only an unacceptable financial loss for our citizens, but a significant waste of resources. In Nigeria, long-established cyber-criminal networks continue to conduct large-scale digital fraud campaigns aimed at overseas targets including the United Kingdom. Interpol’s Operation Serengeti in 2025 tackled high-impact cyber-crimes in Nigeria and 17 other nations, arresting 1,209 suspects and recovering nearly $100 million that had been stolen through cyber-fraud.
Although these states might not be hostile in a geopolitical sense, hostile cyber-actors operating within their borders are none the less inflicting sustained harm and placing heavy burdens on our cyber-defence and law enforcement resources. I support the aims of new clause 2, but urge Ministers to ensure that the framework is flexible enough to capture not only hostile states but jurisdictions that consistently serve as bases for large-scale hostile cyber-activity. Data from the Cabinet Office shows that integrated security fund spending on Russia is set to fall over 20% between 2026 and 2029, which shows that the Government are not taking threats from Russia, or other hostile nations, seriously enough.
Kanishka Narayan
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey.
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, for the new clauses in his name, which would require the Secretary of State to create a register of foreign powers that pose a threat to UK cyber-security, to review that register, and to lay a report before Parliament. This is intended to inform the use of powers granted under part 4 of the Bill. I empathise with the shadow Minister’s concerns that hostile foreign actors could target the network and information systems of operators of essential services or critical supplies. That is a clear risk, and one that we are addressing through the Bill.
As drafted, the Bill grants the Secretary of State new powers to issue national security directions to regulated entities or regulators where their compromise poses a national security risk. So long as those tests are met, the powers may be used by the Secretary of State irrespective of the actor that is causing the national security incident or threat.
New clause 2 would require the creation of a register of foreign states that pose a risk to the UK based on GCHQ advice. I reassure the shadow Minister that regardless of the proposed new clause, any decision to use the powers in this part of the Bill will be informed by expert national security advice from GCHQ. As a result, it is unclear what additional support the proposed register would provide to the Secretary of State when, for example, deciding whether to issue a direction to a regulated entity.
Additionally, the report required by new clause 3 would effectively be a list of the vulnerabilities of the network and information systems of our essential services, and would therefore be an asset to malicious actors. That would be counterproductive to national security. The new clause would allow the Secretary of State not to publish part or all of the report, if publishing would be contrary to the interests of national security. However, it is unclear how even part of the report could be published without harming national security, given its intended content.
Drafting a report of vulnerabilities that cannot be disclosed to Parliament without harming national security would simply duplicate existing assessments, and run the risk of distracting Government from more effective measures to protect from hostile foreign actors. That is not to say that we shirk transparency about these kinds of risk. The Government are already able to communicate with Parliament and the public about such cyber-security risks where it is appropriate to do so, through things such as the National Cyber Security Centre’s annual report and advisories. I therefore kindly ask that the shadow Minister withdraw the new clause.
I thank the hon. Member for Henley and Thame for the Liberal Democrat new clauses in his name, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement of how the Government intend to address risks posed by foreign actors to UK network and information systems, and to assess how many entities regulated by the NIS regime are owned in part or in full by foreign states.
Let me reassure the hon. Member that the Government take the risks posed by foreign interference seriously. The NCSC’s annual reviews continue to highlight cyber-risks to the UK from foreign actors, as well as measures to mitigate those risks. We have robust processes for assessing such threats, drawing on the expertise of the intelligence community, including the National Cyber Security Centre and the National Protective Security Authority.
The measures introduced by the Bill will boost the security and resilience of network and information systems across essential services, managed services and relevant digital services, protecting them from the risks of foreign interference. Where that is not enough, the Bill provides a backstop: the new direction powers in the Bill will enable the Government to protect our critical services from exactly those kinds of national security risks. We will be able to require a regulated entity to undertake any action that is necessary and proportionate for national security in response to the threat of a compromise. Conducting assessments of the ownership structures of the many thousands of in-scope entities within six months would be disproportionately resource intensive, distracting Government from more effective measures to protect our services.
Publishing a review identifying national security risks caused by foreign state ownership, or assessing whether our powers are adequate, as the Opposition’s new clause 3 would require, would provide valuable insight to our adversaries. As I have previously set out, there is a clear pathway for Government to communicate with Parliament and the public about such cyber-risks where it is appropriate to do so, but where we identify specific concerns, it is right that we retain the ability to assess and respond without disclosing our conclusions to those who might exploit them.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that, as drafted, new clause 13 is not aligned with the intended scope of the Bill. The Bill is solely concerned with entities that are currently, or could one day be, regulated under the NIS regulations. This new clause would require a statement on the risks posed to all UK network and information systems, which is a significant broadening of the scope of NIS-regulated entities and sectors. Similarly, the focus on Government procurement seems outside that scope, given that Government network and information systems are not wholly regulated by the Bill. For those reasons, I ask that the hon. Member for Henley and Thame kindly consider not pressing his amendment.
Dr Spencer
I am grateful to the Minister for his response, but we have seen over the past six months, especially with the alleged spying incidents in Parliament, the Government’s resistance to recognising the Chinese Communist party as a threat. When it comes to our new clause 3 and concerns over transparency, we have also seen, in the last few weeks, that there are mechanisms—for example, the Intelligence and Security Committee—to ensure the disclosure of documents, while preserving national security. I would therefore like to press new clauses 2 and 3 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Spencer
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the effect of existing information sharing and analysis centres, with a view to determining whether further such centres should be established. The financial services industry has successful voluntary schemes—the Cyber Defence Alliance, and the Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Centre—which act as hubs for collaboration on all matters relating to the prevention, detection, mitigation and investigation of cyber-threats and criminality impacting members. These organisations provide an essential alerting and co-ordinating role for their members, including providing intelligence and technical support during ongoing incidents. They can assist in building partnerships contextualised to particular sector risks.
According to Richard Starnes of the Worshipful Company of Information Technologists, companies
“may be competing with one another in their chosen businesses, but they are all in the same boat with regard to being attacked by whatever entities are attacking them.”
And he said that if the FS-ISAC were replicated
“on an industry-by-industry basis, particularly ones in CNI, that would be helpful. It would also help with information sharing with entities like NCSC and GCHQ.”––[Official Report, Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Public Bill Committee, 3 February 2026; c. 64, Q75-76.]
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
On the point about information sharing with a view to bolstering resilience, Marks and Spencer reported to me that it was surprised to have received more information from the FBI on the origin and impact of the cyber-attack that it suffered than it received from UK authorities. That should adequately demonstrate why sufficient data sharing is required to underpin our resilience and bolster our strength.
Dr Spencer
That information is concerning. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that information sharing is important when dealing with evolving threats.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way, if only to repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove has just said. The Minister and the Government Whip were both on their phones, and I do not think they were fully concentrating on the fact that M&S has reported that it got more information about its information loss from the FBI than from our own agencies. I repeat that for the record so that the Minister has a chance to concentrate on that very important information.
Dr Spencer
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which is more for the Minister and the Government Whip’s benefit than mine.
Properly established ISACs will not only increase real-time awareness of cyber-risks and mitigations, but could also alleviate some of the burden on regulators in terms of sector-specific intelligence analysis. Industry feedback and experience from the adoption of the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018 indicate that sectoral regulators are unlikely to have the capacity to assist with intelligence sharing in relation to real-time cyber-risks.
We know from the sectoral regulators’ oral evidence that building sufficient capacity for effective regulatory oversight is a challenge. Where we have models for sector-led and market-led good practice in hardening cyber-resilience, we should look at how it can be rolled out further. Seeing more of these organisations emerge could even lead to broader adoption beyond NIS-regulated areas to other industries. ISACs have the potential to become integral nodes in improving whole-of-society cyber-resilience, and it is an approach called for by many cyber industry stakeholders. I therefore commend new clause 4.
Kanishka Narayan
I thank the shadow Minister for this amendment, which would require the Secretary of State to review how information sharing and analysis centres support the functioning of the NIS regime and what steps the Government can take to improve them.
I recognise the intent of this new clause. These centres play a key role in promoting collaboration and co-ordination in the cyber-security space, allowing organisations to share information, intelligence and best practice. In fact, the UK already benefits from a range of such initiatives, many of which are facilitated by the National Cyber Security Centre. In its latest annual report, the NCSC noted that more than 200 companies now meet regularly in trust groups to exchange intelligence and best practice, and to support each other in incident response. NIS regulators also support organisations to share information with each other in sector-specific groups.
However, while I fully endorse the value of those initiatives, I do not believe it is the Government’s role to review how they operate or to mandate how or where they are established. Such centres are meant to be a forum in which organisations can voluntarily engage in the exchange of information. As such, they operate most effectively where the initiative for participation comes from the organisations themselves or from technical authorities such as the NCSC.
The Government are, of course, committed to ensuring that the information-sharing provisions within the Bill are effective, and that will be assessed through the formal review of the legislation already required under clause 40. I kindly ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the new clause.
Dr Spencer
In response to the Minister’s comments, clause 40 is about a review; it does not provide any direction, other than for the Secretary of State to do their job in reviewing this area. I will press new clause 4 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Spencer
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The National Audit Office’s 2025 report on cyber-resilience highlighted that Government Departments and agencies are among the weakest links in the UK’s cyber-security ecosystem and lack a credible plan to become cyber-resilient in the short to medium term. The Government play a key role in the management of certain critical national industries, but the continuing cyber-security vulnerabilities in the IT systems used to operate CNI expose the UK to the threat of serious attacks that could undermine national security and the economy.
That is not to mention the risk to enormous amounts of highly sensitive data held on Government systems. Dr Sanjana Mehta of ISC2 said in her oral evidence that the Department for Work and Pensions administered £288 billion of benefits over the past year, with more than 23 million people claiming benefits of some kind. That activity involves processing vast amounts of personal, medical and financial data, which presents rich pickings for malicious actors.
The feedback from industry stakeholders, many of whom are being asked by the Government to take on onerous security and reporting obligations under this Bill, echoes those concerns regarding Government cyber-immaturity. There is a strong sentiment that the Government should be leading by example, as Chris Anley of the NCC Group commented in the Committee’s oral evidence sessions.
In view of the growing risk posed to UK cyber-security by hostile state actors, by their affiliates and by criminal gangs, improving Government cyber-security is urgent. It is clear from the NAO’s findings and other recent reports that Government Departments have lacked the clear goals and necessary accountability to incentivise tackling this significant challenge.
In his letter of 19 February to members of the Committee, the Minister said:
“Government will be held to equivalent cyber security requirements that we expect of the essential and digital services in scope of the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill.”
But as matters stand, there are no effective legal mechanisms for accountability to Parliament on increasing Government cyber-resilience to the standards necessary to meet the intensifying threats facing our Government Departments and agencies.
New clause 5 would compel the Secretary of State to make yearly reports to Parliament setting out the Government’s progress towards meeting the recommendations of the National Audit Office’s 2025 report on Government cyber-resilience and towards meeting the standards they set themselves in their recent cyber action plan. Where necessary, the Secretary of State would have to account for failures to meet deadlines for implementation and issue a new plan to achieve compliance.
In moving this new clause, I am aware of the challenges that successive Governments have faced in driving up cyber-resilience standards. There are serious practical and budgetary obstacles that can impede progress, such as the vast amount of legacy IT equipment that remains in use, which is inherently more vulnerable to attack. Moreover, there is the ongoing problem of recruiting highly skilled cyber-security professionals to work in these roles, given the competition in the recruitment market and constraints on public sector salaries. Illustrative of that challenge is the worrying statistic, cited by Chris Anley of the NCC Group, that
“almost a third of cyber-security posts in Government are presently unfilled”.––[Official Report, Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Public Bill Committee, 3 February 2026; c. 24, Q29.]
None the less, the Government have now put in place a plan that they consider achievable, and they should be held to account for it. The new clause creates a mechanism for that much-needed accountability.
Lincoln Jopp
Does the shadow Minister agree that if Labour Members vote against new clause 5, it would be a classic case of “Do as I say, not as I do”? If they are happy to go on the record as voting it down on that basis, does the shadow Minister agree there would be an element of what is politely termed “variable geometry”? The more direct word is “hypocrisy”.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
It is interesting to hear the hon. Member for Spelthorne say that this is apparently hypocrisy and the shadow Minister agree with him. The National Audit Office report was published on 29 January 2025, barely six months after the general election, so it was really commenting on 14 years of Conservative-led Governments. I think it is pertinent to put it on record there has been a lack of focus in this area for far too long, and I am glad that the Government are introducing legislation. If we are to have comments such as that made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, I feel it is appropriate to have something on the record to counter it.
Dr Spencer
I agree about the importance of putting things on the record. Since the hon. Member obviously has not been listening to my speech, he can check it out on the record. I acknowledged the challenges in this area—[Interruption.] Does the Government Whip want to intervene, or was she just chuntering? I will continue.
Given that the Bill puts quite a burden on the private sector, as we discussed over several sittings before the parliamentary recess, I think it is important that the Government recognise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne said, it would be pretty shameless not to vote for accountability for themselves while putting it on other people. Let us see how the vote goes. I commend new clause 5 to the Committee.
Kanishka Narayan
I thank the shadow Minister for moving new clause 5, which seeks to require annual reporting on progress towards meeting the recommendations of the National Audit Office’s report on Government cyber-resilience and meeting the implementation milestones of the Government’s cyber action plan.
We recognise the value of accessing the expertise of Parliament to hold the Government accountable for the changes required for our cyber-resilience. That is why, notwithstanding the hon. Member for Spelthorne acknowledging the embarrassment of the Conservative party owning its hypocrisy, this Government have already strongly welcomed the recent reports from the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office on Government cyber-resilience.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I declare an interest as a member of the Public Accounts Commission, which regularly scrutinises the National Audit Office. Can the Minister give some reassurance to Labour Members, who are being accused of hypocrisy, that we do make sure that the highest levels of cyber-security are met?
Kanishka Narayan
My hon. Friend is right. Where the Conservative party did absolutely nothing and continues with its hypocrisy, I am glad to inform hon. Members that this Government have already adopted a duty to provide biannual reporting on progress against the recommendations of these two reports.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
New clause 5 simply asks the Government to commit to reporting back on meeting the milestones they have set themselves for increasing cyber-security standards. Is the Minister confident in the Government’s ability to deliver on their cyber strategy, or is the document not worth the paper it is written on?
Kanishka Narayan
I simply repeat my prior sentence: this Government have already adopted a duty to provide biannual reporting on progress against the recommendations of these two reports.
In addition, the Government’s cyber action plan was published in January this year. It sets out how the Government will rapidly improve the cyber-security and resilience of public services to deliver a step change in cyber and digital resilience across the public sector. The plan sets out clear accountability structures to ensure that cyber-risks at all levels of Government are actively owned and effectively managed, with those responsible held to account.
Alison Griffiths
The continued use of legacy IT equipment is a particular vulnerability across the Government estate. That will take some time to address entirely, but is there a strategy in place to prioritise the upgrading of this legacy equipment, given that it is one of the greatest areas of exposure?
Kanishka Narayan
The hon. Member makes a very important point. We have heard of two major sources of risk from a cyber point of view: legacy technology and technology debt, and frontier AI attacks. The Government’s cyber action plan is not technology-specific, but both those sources of risk are very much on my mind, and I will make sure they are also on the mind of those implementing the Government’s cyber action plan.
I assure Members that we will continue to work with Parliament to support oversight of the plan’s implementation and to explore additional avenues for scrutiny of the Government’s cyber-resilience to guarantee the right level of accountability. I therefore kindly ask the shadow Minister to withdraw his new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
David Chadwick
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of new clause 10 is to ensure that regulatory authorities and regulated persons have adequate resources and capabilities to carry out their responsibilities. Fundamentally, this is a question of state capacity. Surely it is hard to disagree with that statement. We can pass legislation in this House, but if the regulators tasked with enforcing that legislation lack the resources and capabilities to fulfil their duties, and if the businesses subject to the new requirements lack clarity about what is required of them, the Bill will remain little more than words on a page.
Cyber-resilience cannot be achieved through legislation alone, poor and weak though this piece of legislation is; it must be delivered by regulators with properly trained staff, clear guidance and sustained investment in enforcement and oversight. Without that foundation, even the strongest legal framework risks becoming ineffective. The new clause would create a vital statutory reality check. It would require the Secretary of State within one year of the Act coming into force to consult with regulators and regulated organisations, and report to Parliament on whether the regulatory system is equipped to function under the new rules. The new clause asks a simple but essential question: do the bodies responsible for protecting our critical digital infrastructure have the people, funding, tools and skills that they need to succeed?
Laws work only if the people enforcing them have the time, money, expertise and systems to do so properly. The scale of the challenge is already clear. Research from ISC2 shows that 88% of organisations that have suffered cyber-incidents link those breaches directly to skills shortages. If regulators themselves face similar skills or operational shortages, enforcement will be slow, inconsistent and ultimately ineffective, and may leave businesses facing uncertainty about what is required of them.
The new clause would help to ensure that issues are identified early and addressed proactively, rather than after a major cyber-security incident exposes weaknesses in our regulatory system. For this legislation to work, it requires fully funded and effective regulators. That is why I will press the new clause to a vote.
Dr Spencer
This new clause, tabled by the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe, would require the Secretary of State to consult and report within one year on whether regulatory authorities and regulated persons have sufficient resources and capabilities to meet their statutory obligations. Historical levels of regulatory oversight and enforcement in relation to the NIS regulations 2018 have fallen short of what is necessary to achieve meaningful cyber-resilience across regulated sectors. The second post-implementation review of the NIS regs 2018, conducted in 2022, found that incident reporting on the part of regulated entities was very low, with only 13, 12 and 22 NIS incidents reported in 2019, 2020 and 2021 respectively.
A review conducted by the Worshipful Company of Information Technologists identified a near total absence of formal financial sanctions under the NIS regulations, with zero confirmed major penalties from 2021 to 2024. The model has not been conducive to effective discharge of regulatory responsibilities, with knock-on effects for cyber-resilience and regulated industries, yet regulators will be expected to oversee a far larger pool of regulated bodies and process a far larger number of incident reports under the Bill’s provisions. It is therefore right for us to scrutinise carefully whether regulators are in a position to meet these obligations.
In the evidence sessions, many of my questions to witnesses, including those from Ofgem, Ofcom and the Information Commissioner’s Office, focused on their preparations to meet the demands of their expanded roles. It was clear from feedback that although regulators understand what they need to do to prepare, the practical challenges associated with securing sufficient resource are far from resolved. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could clarify his plans to review regulators’ progress and what the key milestones will be to ensure that regulators can discharge their new duties alongside their existing ones when these provisions come into effect.
Kanishka Narayan
I thank the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe for his new clause, which seeks to require a consultation on the resourcing and capabilities of regulators and regulated entities, assessment on whether additional Government support is needed, and a report on the findings. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Bill was developed in close collaboration with regulators and industry to ensure that regulators have the right information and tools to implement it.
The Bill already requires the Government to produce two regular reports to monitor the effectiveness of the legislation, and those would naturally include reviews of whether resourcing and capability were impacting on the effectiveness of the regime. The first of those is the annual report on regulator activities in relation to the statement of strategic priorities. The second is the report on the operation of the legislation, which must take place at least every five years.
Lincoln Jopp
While we are talking about resources and the application of the Bill, I raise with the Minister that, on page 102 of the impact assessment, it states that the going rate for a contract lawyer is £34 an hour. To my mind, that is out by a factor of probably 10. In the 10 days since our last sitting, has the Minister had a chance to re-examine the impact assessment and discover whether that was a genuine error? That number gets multiplied many times in the impact assessment. Has he had a chance to look into that?
Kanishka Narayan
The hon. Member has made that point a couple of times before. I am happy to write to him about the calculations, so that he is able to understand the survey and the significant uplift on which the figures are based.
In response to the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe, given that the two reports can already include the topics addressed by his new clause, adding another report would risk confusing their purposes and increasing administrative burdens on those involved unnecessarily. The Government will not hesitate to adapt our support offering based on the findings of those reports. That will include using our flexible mechanisms—for example, updating our guidance to regulators, the statement of strategic priorities and the code of practice. Beyond that, we will continue to engage with regulators as the Bill is implemented, and consider whether any other means of improving regulators’ and regulated entities’ resourcing and capabilities are necessary and proportionate. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Freddie van Mierlo
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to establish a support service dedicated to improving the resilience of small and medium-sized enterprises and, crucially, to provide them with assistance when the worst happens. SMEs are the backbone of our economy. Their growth and continue operation are essential to a strong economy. We heard evidence that even large corporations find it hard to justify the investment in cyber-security and resilience when faced with competing priorities and investment needs. It forms the rationale of the Bill putting this need on a statutory footing, but small and medium-sized businesses undoubtedly find it even harder to make the investments required in cyber-security.
I know from having worked in SMEs at the start of my career that companies experience growing pains and need support in navigating complex statutory requirements. It is not just support for SMEs before an attack takes place that the clause would provide for, but also after. For SMEs, a cyber-attack is not just a disruption; it can be an existential threat to their existence. The clause would ensure that when an SME is hit, they have access to the support they need.
Bradley Thomas
Given that the threshold for a significant impact event will likely be much lower for an SME than for a larger corporation, and while acknowledging and agreeing that SMEs are the backbone of the economy and make up the vast majority of companies that employ people in this country, how does the hon. Gentleman propose to strike the relevant balance between ensuring that SMEs are supported, and at the same time that they are not inundated and overwhelmed as a result of that significant impact threshold likely being much lower for SMEs?
Freddie van Mierlo
The thresholds have been set out in the new clause. Australia already provides support for small businesses during and after attacks. The clause would simply bring the UK up to speed with international partners, ensuring our businesses are not at a competitive disadvantage on cyber-security support. If Australia can support its SMEs, why can we not? It is only fair that if we are increasing the regulatory burden, the Government provide the support required to navigate it. I will press the new clause to a vote.
Dr Spencer
New clause 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Henley and Thame, addresses concerns regarding the capacity of SMEs to comply with their regulatory obligations, should they be brought within the scope of the Bill. That matter has been discussed on several occasions by the Committee. That is only right given that, according to figures provided by NCC Group, SMEs make up over 99% of businesses in the UK but too often lack the skills and budgets to implement proportionate cyber-protections, leaving them particularly exposed.
SME cyber assistance schemes akin to the one proposed by the new clause have been rolled out in Scotland on a limited basis and in Australia, where the Government are investing 8 million Australian dollars over three years to provide free person-to-person support for small businesses during and after a cyber-attack. Those schemes have enjoyed some success in hardening cyber-resilience among SMEs that have been able to access them. That can only be welcomed.
There is a case for looking more closely at whether regulation is the appropriate first step to address the cyber-resilience of the smallest organisations that might be brought within the scope of regulation, as legal compliance efforts could detract from already pressured operational defence budgets. In giving evidence to the Committee, Jill Broom of techUK called for strategies
“such as financial incentives, or…tax credits”––[Official Report, Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Public Bill Committee, 3 February 2026; c. 18, Q20.]
to help SMEs improve their cyber-resilience, and techUK has suggested that funding or relief could be applied on a priority basis, with those working within the critical national infrastructure supply chain looked at first. In the light of those considerations, what analysis has the Minister’s Department conducted of the likely return on investment, in terms of sustainability and growth among smaller companies, of a cyber support service for UK SMEs?
Kanishka Narayan
New clause 14 would require the Government to establish a dedicated support service for small and medium-sized enterprises that are operators of essential services, relevant digital service providers, relevant managed service providers or critical suppliers. That would include provision of advice, technical assistance and recovery guidance following a cyber-incident. It is worth noting that the Bill exempts small and micro enterprises from the regulations as relevant digital service providers or relevant managed service providers. Although regulators can designate a small or micro entity as a critical supplier, very few are expected to meet the threshold for criticality in practice. Similarly, there are limited examples of small or micro operators of essential services.
Improving the cyber-security of our nation’s small and medium-sized businesses is important for the resilience of our wider economy. That is why the Government have developed a wide range of free tools, guidance and training to help those businesses implement cyber-security measures. Such tools include the recently launched cyber action toolkit, which provides small and medium-sized businesses with tailored advice and the offer of free 30-minute consultations with NCSC-certified cyber advisers. Report Fraud, a reporting service for cyber-crime and fraud, runs a 24/7 cyber business incident reporting line, with regional cyber-resilience centres across England and Wales also providing support for small and medium-sized businesses, including incident response and business continuity advice in line with NCSC standards.
I hope that reassures the hon. Member for Henley and Thame that there is already considerable support available for small and medium-sized entities. Considering that, a new dedicated service is unnecessary, and it could divert resources from existing Government and NCSC schemes and impact our efficacy. For those reasons, I hope he will withdraw the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 17—Requirement for regular testing of network and information systems—
“(1) A relevant body must undertake regular testing of the security and resilience of the network and information systems on which it relies in the provision of its services.
(2) Testing undertaken in accordance with this section must –
(a) be proportionate, having regard to the size, nature and risk profile of the business; and
(b) be conducted periodically, at intervals that are appropriate to the risks identified by the body.
(3) A relevant body must document –
(a) the outcomes of testing undertaken in accordance with this section; and
(b) any remedial actions required or taken in response to the testing.
(4) Information documented under subsection (3) must be provided to the relevant regulatory authority upon request.
(5) For the purposes of this section, a relevant body is one which is –
(a) an operator of an essential service,
(b) a relevant digital service provider,
(c) a relevant managed service provider, or
(d) a critical supplier
within the meaning of the NIS Regulations.”
This new clause would require bodies to carry out proportionate, periodic testing of the security and resilience of their network and information systems and provide the results to regulatory bodies upon request.
David Chadwick
New clauses 16 and 17 work in tandem to align the Bill with best practice among our European neighbours, introducing measures that would strengthen ongoing oversight and enhance preparation, therefore improving the UK’s cyber-resilience before incidents occur.
New clause 16 would make cyber-resilience a core responsibility of organisational leadership. It would require boards to oversee security arrangements, approve risk management approaches, satisfy themselves that protections are working on an ongoing basis and, importantly, be accountable. Numerous witnesses that we have spoken to over the past month told us that cyber-security deserves the most senior level of oversight. In fact, those professionals from within the industry told us that they desperately need this to happen to make sure that they can do the job that the Government are asking of them. ISACA, an organisation that I remember looking up to when I was working in cyber-security, has said that it supports both our new clauses.
Bradley Thomas
While I agree with the hon. Member, and acknowledge witnesses’ evidence suggesting that cyber-security should be a board-level responsibility, does he share my concern that, given the complexity and technical nature of cyber-security, there is perhaps a risk of, for want of a better phrase, window dressing? It may be that non-competent people without the relevant technical expertise could be reliant on reports issued by other technical staff who do not sit at board level. We have to strike the right balance. Does the hon. Member share that concern, and how does he propose we address that?
David Chadwick
One of the measures that the new clause would introduce is a requirement for board members to receive education. Clearly, it is necessary for boards to understand cyber-security risk, and the new clause is about putting that into legislation. Board accountability is the cornerstone of corporate governance. Corporate governance is one of the reasons for the Bill. We have seen drastic failures in corporate governance across the UK in numerous sectors. Financial services, historically, is one sector that corporate governance has completely failed in, yet the Conservatives continued to support it with tax cuts.
All we are saying with our new clause is that boards need to be held accountable for the cyber-risk that they pose, and that making boards responsible for that obligation helps the cyber-security professionals responsible for securing those organisations to do their jobs properly. ISACA has 8,000 members. They are the people who will be carrying out this work. Surely, we should listen to them when they tell us that this is what they need. It was not just one organisation that told us that either.
Boards have an obligation to oversee financial risk, for which they need financial literacy. Cyber-risk deserves the same treatment. Importantly, this would bring the UK into line with international best practice. The European Union’s NIS2 framework explicitly places cyber accountability at senior management level, and makes the same demands of board oversight in these areas. That is why it is confusing again to see the Government diverging from that framework without a clear explanation of why. It is not clear why the UK should be settling for less. Why have the Government taken that out?
Lincoln Jopp
I am a little confused—which is easily done, I hasten to add. The new clause says:
“The management body may be held accountable for failures by the body to comply with duties relating to the security and resilience of its network and information systems.”
Does the hon. Member not think that the directors of companies are already responsible and accountable for their companies? Why does the state need to tell them more about those responsibilities?
David Chadwick
I think this once more comes down to state capacity and how we see the state’s role. Clearly there needs to be an expansion of the state’s powers—that is why the Bill was introduced—to mandate in writing various requirements of the companies that provide the critical infrastructure upon which our country relies. The hon. Member will remember the numerous witnesses who told us that board accountability was crucial. Some told us that in public and some in private. They are the people who are doing this job, and whom the Government are asking to do this job. That is why we should listen to them and why we will press the new clauses to a vote.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
The new clauses raise a really important point about security by design implemented within companies, and within the companies that provide cyber-security technology to them. An hon. Friend of mine tabled an amendment, which we are not speaking about today, on a similar subject.
Security and safety by design is something that we talk about quite often in this area. It may not be appropriate for this Bill, but I am keen to hear how we will progress those discussions, because ultimately we do want to prevent cyber-attacks. We need to make sure that companies, small and medium-sized enterprises, major infrastructure and local government all have access to technology and infrastructure that looks at security by design in its own design right from the outset, because that is what makes us most secure.
How will we take forward those discussions, and extend the idea that already exists in legislation, through the Online Safety Act 2023, about safety by design, in order to ensure that products around cyber-security have this at their heart, and deliver the prevention mechanism that I think we all want to see—especially the small businesses and organisations that are victims of such attacks?
Dr Spencer
New clause 16 would require active board oversight of security and resilience measures and accountability for board members where they fail in those oversight duties, whereas new clause 17 would require regulated entities to carry out proportionate, periodic testing of the security and resilience of their network and information systems, and provide the results to regulatory bodies upon request.
On board accountability, as we have already discussed in this Committee, the existing regulatory model under NIS regulations has not been sufficiently effective in driving up cyber-resilience standards to meet emerging threats. Board engagement is a key part of that, but the stat I quoted previously in this Committee indicates that engagement is going in the wrong direction. What assessment has the Minister made of the potential advantages and disadvantages of direct accountability in the adoption of effective cyber-resilience measures, based on a roll-out of the NIS2 regulations?
Proportionate testing of systems may be a useful tool in detecting and managing cyber-security risk. What consideration has the Minister’s Department given to how that topic should be approached in the Secretary of State’s code of practice?
Kanishka Narayan
I thank the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe for his new clauses. I will speak first to new clause 16, which seeks to require boards or equivalent management bodies of operators of essential services, relevant digital service providers, relevant managed service providers and critical suppliers to take specific measures to oversee the security and resilience of their network and information systems.
Board-level engagement is a necessary part of proactively and effectively managing cyber-risks. That is why we published the cyber governance code of practice last spring, as part of a wider package of action to support boards in more effectively governing digital risks to enhance their organisation’s cyber-resilience. More recently, the Secretary of State, together with the Chancellor, the Business Secretary, the Security Minister, and leaders of the NCSC and NSA, wrote to the CEOs and chairs of the UK’s leading organisations, asking them to make cyber-risk a board level priority.
I agree with the hon. Member that going further on board-level responsibility is necessary. That is why we will introduce security and resilience requirements in secondary legislation, following consultation. We will consult on proposals that are consistent with the NCSC’s cyber assessment framework, as we confirmed in our policy statement last year. The cyber assessment framework includes comprehensive measures on good cyber governance, including clear board level responsibility. It is important that industry is consulted on those measures, that they form part of a holistic package on security and resilience, and that they can be updated flexibly over time. We intend to consult on proposals for security and resilience requirements and wider implementation plans later this year.
New clause 17 seeks to require all organisations in scope of the Bill to test the security and resilience of their network and information systems. We agree that proportionate cyber-security testing is critical to identifying and mitigating vulnerabilities in systems and networks. Organisations in scope need to take appropriate and proportionate measures to manage risks to network and information systems on which they rely, and that can include testing of network and information systems. In particular, relevant digital service providers are already required to account for testing as part of their overarching security duty. Additionally, all regulators can use their powers to mandate testing by an inspector, or by the regulated entity, to verify compliance or investigate potential failures.
I reassure the hon. Member that we are going further. We will be updating and providing more detail on the measures that regulated entities need to take, as well as setting strategic objectives for regulators. As I have said before, our proposals for the security and resilience requirements in secondary legislation will be consistent with the NCSC’s cyber assessment framework, which includes measures on appropriate testing.
David Chadwick
Is the Minister aware that the financial services industry is required to conduct regular testing of its systems, and that sectors like aviation and nuclear have designated individuals in their security organisations who are responsible for overseeing those sorts of practices?
Kanishka Narayan
I thank the hon. Member for his point. I am also aware that the National Cyber Security Centre’s cyber assessment framework has very specific measures on appropriate testing as well. It already exists, and we want to make sure that it is an important part of specific security and resilience requirements in secondary legislation.
It is crucial that industry is consulted on the nature of any requirements related to testing. As mentioned, we intend to consult on the proposals later in the year. We will also issue a statement of strategic priorities for regulators, and will explore whether that is an appropriate vehicle for driving consistency in the behaviours of regulators in respect of their approach to testing for their sector.
Overall, any approach to going further on proportionate and regular testing must be developed alongside the full set of security and resilience requirements, and co-ordinated and communicated with a wider package of implementing measures. That will allow the impact of options to be assessed, and provide the industry with clarity on the overall approach, including how the components fit together.
The shadow Minister asked about the consideration of NIS2 requirements. We have looked at NIS2 provisions, and variability in member states’ implementation of it, as part of a wider set of considerations on which we will be consulting regarding secondary legislation on governance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central made an incredibly important point about security by design, which I very much take into account. The Government Digital Service is already working on a secure by design standard. We want to make sure that it is as robust as possible, and extend it across not just the public sector but parts of the private sector. I will make sure that security by design remains at the heart of the Government’s cyber action plan, as well as that of the private sector.
Emily Darlington
I thank the Minister for that commitment. Would he consider setting up a meeting between GDS and those MPs who have expertise in this area, so that we can share our expertise and reassure ourselves that this is going in the right direction and at the speed that is necessary?
Kanishka Narayan
My hon. Friend has extensive expertise, from which I benefit extensively. I will be keen to make sure that the Government Digital Service does so too.
In the light of those commitments, I kindly ask the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe not to press the new clauses.
David Chadwick
During the evidence sessions, numerous very knowledgeable witnesses called for these new clauses, so I will push them both to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 19—Vulnerability research: review of the merits of a statutory defence—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of the passing of this Act, review the extent to which an amendment to section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act, with the effect of introducing a statutory defence available to individuals undertaking ethical vulnerability research, would improve the security of the network and information systems of relevant bodies.
(2) A review under this section must consider whether a statutory defence would enable relevant bodies to improve the resilience of their network and information systems via enhanced vulnerability testing and research.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
(a) ‘ethical vulnerability research’ means access, whether authorised or otherwise, to computer material with the intention of identifying vulnerabilities to cyber attacks, where—
(i) the research is aimed at enhancing the resilience of the network and information system of a relevant body or relevant bodies, and
(ii) the findings of the research are kept securely, shared only with those responsible for the security or resilience of the network and information system concerned, and shared solely for the purpose of enhancing the security or resilience of the network and information system concerned;
(b) ‘relevant bodies’ means operators of essential services, critical suppliers, digital service providers or managed service providers, as defined by the NIS Regulations.”
This new clause would require the Government to review whether the resilience of relevant organisations could be enhanced by introducing a statutory defence to s1 of the Computer Misuse Act, so that a person could be deemed not guilty if they engage in vulnerability research in the public interest.
Freddie van Mierlo
New clause 18 would place a duty on the Government to review within 12 months whether our over-30-year-old Computer Misuse Act is holding back the very cyber-resilience that the Bill seeks to build. The Government’s own impact assessment for the Bill identifies a key market failure: imperfect information. It states that businesses lack awareness of their own cyber-risks, leading to under-investment in security. We must ask why that information is imperfect. We believe that it is partly because the Computer Misuse Act 1990 prevents cyber-security professionals from undertaking legitimate public interest activity to identify those risks, so ethical hackers cannot provide the necessary information.
New clause 18 ties the review specifically to the security and resilience of network and information systems regulated by the Bill. It asks a simple question: does the Computer Misuse Act 1990 help or hinder the resilience of our critical infrastructure? For that reason, I wish to seek a vote on new clause 18.
Dr Spencer
I will speak to new clause 19, tabled in my name on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. The new clause would compel the Secretary of State, within 12 months of Royal Assent, to review the need for a statutory defence, encompassing legitimate cyber-research activities, to criminal offences under clause 1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990, which is about unauthorised access to computer programs.
The campaign for reform in this area, CyberUp, has argued that, in its current form, the CMA inadvertently criminalises critical activity such as vulnerability research and threat intelligence, both of which are essential for defending the nation’s digital systems. The new clause would also require the Secretary of State’s review to evaluate whether the creation of such a defence would enable regulated bodies to improve the resilience of their network and information systems via enhanced vulnerability testing and research.
New clause 18, tabled by the hon. Member for Henley and Thame, relates to the same important topic and would require the Secretary of State to review, and report to Parliament within 12 months of the Bill’s entering into law, whether amending the Computer Misuse Act could improve the resilience of network and information systems.
Hon. Members will recall the insightful oral evidence of Professor John Child of the University of Birmingham. Professor Child made a clear and compelling case for the need to amend the Computer Misuse Act to provide statutory defences for legitimate cyber-research—sometimes called ethical hacking activities. Likewise, campaign groups, industry specialists and parliamentarians have all argued that the Computer Misuse Act, which was written before the modern internet, is no longer fit for purpose.
At present, the Act fails to distinguish between malicious attackers and cyber professionals acting in the public interest, inadvertently criminalising a large proportion of research that UK cyber-security professionals can carry out to protect UK critical infrastructure and the UK’s technological ecosystem. This means that cyber-security professionals working to defend UK organisations from real-world threats risk prosecution. That has created a chilling effect—talent is being lost, investment is stifled and security gaps are going unidentified.
If we are to have true UK cyber-resilience—not just among regulated sectors, but across businesses of all types and throughout society—we need a multifaceted approach. Industry and private sector-led initiatives will play a strong role in that. Professor Child made clear that countries that have implemented more favourable regimes, such as the US and Israel, are benefiting from increased cyber-resilience as a result of cyber-research activity.
The Government have acknowledged that reform of the CMA is a pressing issue. Indeed, the Home Office has been reviewing that question for some time. Further, the Minister for Security, the hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), highlighted the urgent need for changes to the law in this area in a recent speech, stating that Government have
“heard the criticisms about the Computer Misuse Act, and how it can leave many cyber security experts feeling constrained in the activity that they can undertake.”
He went on to say:
“These researchers play an important role in increasing the resilience of UK systems, and securing them from…vulnerabilities.
We shouldn’t be shutting these people out, we should be welcoming them and their work.”
Yet the Home Office has brought forward no specific proposals for reform. Parliament is unlikely to legislate again in the cyber-security domain for some considerable time; we cannot afford to kick the can down the road on this vital issue any longer if we are to have a credible plan for whole-of-society cyber-resilience.
David Chadwick
Can the hon. Gentleman address the point of who he thinks would benefit if that Act was repealed?
Dr Spencer
I am a bit unclear about the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. The point I was making was that there is legitimate concern that people doing research into this area and doing threat assessments risk prosecution, so, across the whole of our society, that work is not being done. We have heard quite a lot of evidence from cyber campaigns about the benefits that changes to this law would make to the system, which is why we tabled the new clause. I commend new clause 19 to the Committee. I hope the Minister agrees that now is the time to address the issue.
I suspect that this will be my last, or penultimate, time speaking to the Committee, so I would like to finish by thanking Members on both sides of the Committee for a fun and, at times, robust debate over the past month. I thank the Chairs, the Clerks and all the teams working on the Bill—and Sophie Thorley from my office, who has done incredible research on the Bill.
Kanishka Narayan
I thank hon. Members for their new clauses; I recognise the strong feeling and thoughtful contributions about reforming the Computer Misuse Act.
I speak first to new clause 18, which seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to review whether amendments to the Computer Misuse Act could support the security and resilience of network and information systems used for carrying out essential activities. I assure the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that the Government remain committed to ensuring that the Act remains up to date and effective.
The Home Office is already conducting a review of the Computer Misuse Act, and is developing proposals that arise from its findings. That includes careful consideration of proposals to introduce a statutory defence that would allow researchers to spot and share vulnerabilities. It will provide an update as soon as the proposals are finalised. However, limiting a defence to only the sectors covered by the NIS regime would be impractical. Any package of workable defence would need to be broad enough to apply economy-wide.
New clause 19 raises the introduction of a statutory defence to the Computer Misuse Act. I acknowledge the strong sentiment regarding reform of the CMA. There is no doubt that UK cyber-security professionals play a significant role in maintaining the country’s overall security and resilience. Supporting them is vital.
I agree with the principle behind the new clause: that a defence to section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act could strengthen the resilience of network and information systems by allowing researchers to spot and share vulnerabilities. The Government are already conducting a review of the Computer Misuse Act, and we have made significant progress in developing a proposal for a limited defence to the offence provided for in section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Many of us, on both sides of the House, are sympathetic to both new clauses. We heard very clearly in evidence sessions that the Computer Misuse Act, as it is today, has a chilling effect on the operation of the cyber-security industry in this country and on whether such companies want to locate here as opposed to other countries.
I absolutely hear what the Minister says about the Home Office developing proposals. I wonder whether he can set out a timescale for when those proposals are likely to be brought forward—whether he expects that to be in this parliamentary Session or the next one. The issue is clearly holding back the cyber-security industry in this country, and we would all like to see it resolved.
Kanishka Narayan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to recognise the shared sense on the principle of reforming the Computer Misuse Act. Although I am not in a position to give him a specific timeline, I absolutely take into account his recognition that the work needs to proceed at pace. Having held an industry engagement recently on specific proposals, with more than 75 attendees from a range of cyber-security organisations, the Home Office is now reviewing specific feedback as a particular proposal. The question is not whether we will reform the Computer Misuse Act, but simply how.
Freddie van Mierlo
I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurances on the ongoing review of the Computer Misuse Act. On that basis, I would like to say that I will withdraw the new clause.
David Chadwick
Will the Minister clarify what he thinks ethical vulnerability research actually constitutes?
Kanishka Narayan
Sure. I would not wish to define it technically, but my understanding is that it is research aimed at ethical hacking. It is effectively trying to find vulnerabilities through simulated attack systems, which can broaden our understanding of risks and vulnerabilities and allow us to mitigate them accordingly.
I return to new clause 19. Limiting a defence to just the sectors covered by the NIS regime would be impractical; any proposal for a workable defence needs to be broad enough to apply across the economy. That is why we are making sure that, through the Home Office, we are working as promptly as possible to ensure a proposal that is strong in its safeguards to prevent misuse. Engagement, including with the cyber-security industry, is already under way to refine our approach.
Dr Spencer
We are a responsible Opposition and we are pleased to hear about the work that the Minister and his Department have been doing and about the shared purpose in getting this done and getting it right. Would he give us a bit more detail of the timescales and plans for public consultation? I understand that he has been doing some personal consultation in private, but will there be a public consultation? Given that the reform crosses two Departments, which Department will be taking it forward? What I am really looking for from him is a confirmation at the Dispatch Box that he is personally committed to getting this piece of work over the line during this parliamentary term.
Kanishka Narayan
I thank the shadow Minister for his recognition of our shared approach on this question. Reform of the Computer Misuse Act is led by the Home Office. I have given my personal commitment to ensuring that reform, but I will also write to him and members of the Committee with as much detail as possible on the timeline to ensure that we are moving fast on it.
In that spirit, I thank hon. Members for their work on this question of the amendment to the Computer Misuse Act and use this opportunity to thank you, Ms McVey, the entire Committee staff and hon. Members for their expertise and perhaps for their sense of fun as well. I thank all staff members, in particular the Bill team in the Department, which has been fabulous throughout the entire process.
Freddie van Mierlo
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
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
Gaza Healthcare System
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for the healthcare system in Gaza.
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, and I thank the Minister for attending. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee and the co-signatories of my application for the debate. I place on the record my thanks to Médecins Sans Frontières UK and Professor Ramzi Khamis for their assistance in my preparations.
This debate could not have come at a more crucial time for healthcare in Gaza: in about a week’s time, many aid agencies that provide medical care will be barred from operating there. I believe there might be an urgent question to the Foreign Secretary about this very situation today, so it is a live debate. I thank all those who have asked to speak about this crucial issue.
In June last year, when preparing to go to the main Chamber for Foreign Office oral questions, I received a phone call from my colleague, Dr Rebecca Inglis, who works for Healthcare Workers Watch. She told me that, just hours before, a GP in Gaza was killed by an Israeli soldier, shot in the head. I do not know why—perhaps because I am also a GP—but that really hit home about the situation in Gaza. More than 1,000 healthcare workers have now been murdered in Gaza, while countless others remain detained.
As well as the healthcare system in Gaza, I would like to talk about healthocide as a concept. The deliberate targeting of healthcare workers is becoming an instrument of war, not just in Gaza but in other places in the world. Healthcare workers do not have sides and are not partisan; the only side they are on is the side of humanity. We must stop this developing situation in the world. In addition, the healthcare system in Gaza is near to total collapse after such targeting. As I said, in a week’s time many aid agencies—over 30 of them—will be barred from working in Gaza. I will, then, discuss both those issues.
The targeting of healthcare workers in Gaza has been widespread and well documented. Since October 2023, 1,700 healthcare workers have been killed, hospitals have been bombed and raided, and senior doctors have been detained. I talked to one healthcare worker in Gaza who said that they could not leave the hospital in scrubs because they would be identified as a healthcare worker and arrested. Later this evening, I will host a launch event for the investigation of the Gaza aid-worker massacre on 23 March last year, when 15 emergency workers were massacred by Israeli forces.
I could not come to this debate without mentioning the tragic case of Hind Rajab, a five-year-old Palestinian girl who was murdered by Israeli forces alongside six of her family members. Crucially, two paramedics who were coming to save her life were also killed. Her voice will continue to haunt the world. I hope to meet her mother later today, and I want to be able to look her in the eye and say that this Government are doing all they can to prevent another such situation as happened to her daughter.
Healthocide is becoming a new phenomenon in war. More than 13 years ago in Syria, for example, healthcare workers were systematically targeted by the then Syrian Government and Russian forces. The same is happening in Sudan now. There is, then, a bigger point, and we must stop this happening. This country should campaign on healthocide in the world.
The situation in Gaza is grim for healthcare: not a single hospital is fully functional in the Gaza strip, while 50% of them are partially functional; only 1.5% of primary healthcare centres, or three out of 200, are fully functional; and not a single hospital is operating in northern Gaza or Rafah. Healthcare workers conduct more than 100 consultations a day; in British general practice, I am not allowed to do more than 25, so that gives a feeling of how much work these people are doing. That is putting an enormous strain on the healthcare system.
An interim rapid damage and needs assessment conducted jointly by the United Nations, the EU and the World Bank found that more than $1.47 billion-worth of damages had been inflicted on the health sector, and that reconstruction will cost about $8 billion. There is a massive need to rebuild the healthcare facilities in Gaza.
Two weeks ago, I heard direct testimony from a British doctor who had just returned from Gaza. She witnessed the wilful destruction of medical equipment—for example, cutting off the ends of all the ultrasound machines—and the systematic destruction of medical data. She described seeing patients arriving with sniper wounds that were so precise they were clearly made to cause lifelong disabilities and therefore harm young people in Gaza.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
Like me, many residents across the Filton and Bradley Stoke constituency have been horrified to see the scale of human suffering on the ground in Gaza. It is right that our Government have been doing what they can to bring children who are in urgent medical need to the UK for treatment. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that our Government continue to do all they can to help vulnerable children in Gaza?
Dr Opher
Indeed, and many of us have campaigned on the medical evacuation of young people. The Minister has delivered on that, although there have been some problems recently, which he may address. A key issue in Gaza to which I will return is that currently the medical evacuation of anyone to East Jerusalem, which is still in the occupied territories, is not allowed. East Jerusalem has some well-functioning hospitals with capacity, and that is one of the issues we need to address.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The hon. Member is talking passionately about the impact of physical injuries on young people, but we also know that trauma recovery for children and young people will have to be a vital part of the long-term solution for Gaza. The International Centre for Child Trauma Prevention and Recovery has pioneered a capacity-building model of training to put as many counsellors on the ground as possible. I engaged with the ICCTPR’s co-director at a fundraising event in Ceres in my constituency. Does the hon. Member agree that when the UK Government are looking at providing funding and support, they also need to look at trauma recovery?
Dr Opher
I absolutely agree. War is traumatic on so many different levels, and mental health is a key part of holistic care and must be covered in any rebuilding of the healthcare system. We also need to start to look at training people in the Gaza strip and the occupied territories, because it is better to train them than to import them.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend rightly makes a passionate case for why we should be doing more to help the healthcare system in Gaza. It is quite clear that the 50 severely ill children from Gaza who were evacuated by the Government and treated in NHS hospitals were well cared for. Indeed, the Prince of Wales visited some of them in hospital and afterwards said explicitly that they had faced
“experiences no child should ever face.”
Does my hon. Friend agree that the next step the Government should take is to treat children in the region? Plenty of British medics are willing to go out there and help; the Government should be encouraging them to use their NHS expertise to treat children in the region and to train medics in the specialisms that are desperately needed.
Dr Opher
My hon. Friend is spot on. Rather than evacuating children to the NHS, which was the right thing to do while war was raging, it is better to build up facilities in the area and start training doctors and other health professionals to look after people there. We are training some Gazan medical students—I have met some of them—but the future lies in building up medical training in the area.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing the debate and for the pertinent points he is making. Does he agree that the Minister should work with the Health Secretary to ensure that clinicians of all kinds can get the release they need to spend the appropriate amount of time in the region to provide training and clinical support?
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I strongly support the points the hon. Gentleman is making in advancing his case. I am slightly worried about the expression “in the region”. We need to get medical workers into Gaza to make sure they can safely deploy their skills in the area. We are long past the time when the Israeli regime could justify its actions in terms of self-defence. The best way to achieve safe passage for medical aid workers in the area is to get the IDF out and get international peacekeepers in.
Dr Opher
The hon. Gentleman is spot on. The most important thing is peace, so that we can build a healthcare system. Although there has been a ceasefire, a lot of Palestinians are still dying. We first need to make a stable environment, and we need to be pragmatic. While there are functioning hospitals in East Jerusalem, we should be able to take people out of Gaza and get them treated there. As I have outlined, the healthcare facilities in Gaza have been severely damaged. I will come later to the possibility of bringing in mobile units on a short-term basis, but in the long term we need to build up the hospital sector.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. I have read that Gaza is now home to the largest number of child amputees but, according to Save the Children, the prosthetic centres there are not functioning. Does my hon. Friend agree that Israel needs to lift all restrictions on aid getting into Gaza, so that young people can get the vital prosthetic limbs they need for day-to-day life?
Dr Opher
I thank my hon. Friend for a point well made. It is even more basic than that: we need to allow medicines into Gaza, which are not currently being transported. Other items such as prosthetic limbs are also very important, so the border needs to open up. Humanitarian aid, not just medical aid, is needed in Gaza. We need to open the borders and allow relief in.
In a sinister development, snipers seem to be targeting specific areas of the body, such as the brachial plexus, damage to which causes long-term disability, and the sciatic nerve in the leg, damage to which causes permanent paralysis. I know that war is evil in many aspects, but we should call out that cynical approach.
Public health is incredibly important for people in the Gaza strip: 89% of water, sanitation and hygiene infrastructure has been destroyed or damaged. One of the most important things is to get clean water to people. There are about 250,000 cases of acute malnutrition in children this year, as well as 37,000 cases in pregnant and breastfeeding women.
Violence against women and the effects on reproductive health have led to a 41% fall in births in Gaza, as well as a high number of maternal deaths, miscarriages and newborn mortality. We have seen strikes on maternity wards and the destruction of Gaza’s largest in vitro fertilisation clinic, wiping out 5,000 embryos. Premature births have also sharply increased, with one in five newborns requiring intensive neonatal care. Respiratory infections, acute watery diarrhoea and skin infections are widespread. This is a particularly horrifying statistic: 11 children have reportedly died from hypothermia this winter, including a two-month-old baby and one-year-old child.
There are many serious problems, among which I would like to pinpoint Guillain-Barré syndrome, which is very rare—as a doctor, I have seen it only once—and it leads to increasing paralysis and often requires ventilation. The causes are often difficult to identify, but there seems to be a Guillain-Barré syndrome epidemic in Gaza. It may be triggered by infections or other, possibly sinister, causes. Doctors in Gaza have tried to take away soil samples but have been restricted. I do not know what is causing it but Guillain-Barré is an acute problem with serious repercussions.
On top of all that, we now face an even more alarming development: 37 international non-governmental organisations, including Médecins Sans Frontières, face deregistration on 1 March—next week. If that proceeds, they will no longer be able legally to operate in Gaza, the west bank or East Jerusalem. MSF alone supports one in five hospital beds in Gaza and assists in one in three births. In 2025, it performed 22,000 surgical operations, handled more than 100,000 trauma cases and carried out more than 800,000 out-patient consultations. If these organisations are forced out, the consequences will be catastrophic.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister urge Israeli officials to reopen the humanitarian medical corridor, allowing critically ill patients to travel to East Jerusalem and the west bank for treatment? The World Health Organisation holds a list of approximately 18,000 urgent cases, yet permission to travel that short distance for care—including urgent cancer care—has been routinely denied. Will he use any possible leverage we have to ensure that the Israeli Government immediately pause the deregistration of international humanitarian aid organisations and negotiate their continued presence in Gaza?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) mentioned, we need to establish a medical supply chain that allows medicine and equipment into Gaza immediately, and we need to find rapid alternatives to destroyed facilities. For example, mobile operating theatres could be in Gaza within 48 hours. They are about the size of articulated lorries and could be driven in, and they are self-maintaining. We could be operating with them almost immediately. We must push to allow them into Gaza. Also, we need to start rebuilding hospitals and build up field hospitals as well. There is a lot to do, but we must start on this process.
Will the Minister work with our allies to ensure that attacks on healthcare are investigated and documented wherever they occur, and that perpetrators are prosecuted? Healthocide must become recognised and exposed and we must deter it in the world. I was refused entry into the west bank last year. I realise that it is very difficult to get any leverage over the Israeli Government to influence their decisions—I respect that—and I understand that the Foreign Office tries to do what it can, but is it time to impose proper, full sanctions on Israel if it does not resolve this itself? I would like to hear the Minister’s opinion on that.
Healthcare workers in Gaza are performing the most difficult and courageous work imaginable, often literally under fire. They deserve protection and their patients deserve care. We cannot simply look away. We need action now.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for opening the debate. I remind all Back-Bench Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. Members can see the level of interest in the debate; if everyone can keep themselves to five minutes or less, we will get all Back Benchers in to speak.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for setting the scene incredibly well, as he always does. He is making a reputation for himself in the House as someone who speaks up on important issues, and today he has done so again. I thank him for that, and for giving us an opportunity to participate in the debate.
It is, of course, a goal for all that all countries around the globe have access to healthcare. I am my party’s health spokesperson, so health is a big issue for me, whether it be here in the United Kingdom or elsewhere in the world. Also, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I think it is very important to speak up for those in areas where persecution takes place and for those who have experienced human rights abuses. These issues are so important, and I want to represent that.
Delivery of healthcare in Gaza is so important—it is vital, as the hon. Gentleman outlined. Despite the acts of terror inflicted by Hamas, the children and the innocent people deserve better, and it is crucial that we recognise that. Today we can act collectively, and as individuals, throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) and I often talk about these things. It grieves me greatly to see wee children suffering with the atrocities and things that happen to them. Pregnant women are deprived of basic medical supplies. Questions have to be asked. There is an urgent medical need. I know that the Minister and the Government will not be found wanting when it comes to doing their bit—I am convinced of that—but sometimes, collectively, we need to do things in conjunction with other countries worldwide.
To start with, there is a severe strain on Gaza’s healthcare system, especially for children, pregnant women and those with chronic illnesses. That is sometimes forgotten. Mental health, which was mentioned in an intervention, is another massive issue. In my constituency of Strangford we have two charities that help. One is Samaritan’s Purse, which is run by Gillian Gilliland, our local rep. It helps in Gaza and elsewhere around the world. Christian Aid is another organisation that is very much to the fore and active in getting money in Ards and Strangford, and also provides practical and physical help. Those organisations do their bit across Northern Ireland and respond in areas in need of humanitarian aid. When victims of war, poverty, disaster, disease and famine cry out, such organisations are often the first to answer.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point in this important debate. Does he agree that there is an overwhelming level of concern among constituents across the country about the restrictions on international aid organisations such as Christian Aid? There is a genuine concern that after the war, people will still suffer because of restricted access.
Jim Shannon
I am no different from anybody else; I hear the same points that the hon. Lady refers to. Everyone else in this room—and those who are not in this room—will have the same issues. I mentioned those two organisations because they are physically and practically active in the middle east and elsewhere. Repeated conflict will lead to limited access to medical supplies alongside the pressure on the hospital infrastructure. In addition, Hamas’s administration policies and ongoing issues complicate healthcare delivery and lead to a significant impact on its own people—residents on both sides of the Gaza strip, who are devastated and losing livelihoods because of the lack of available healthcare delivery.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way under time pressure. He has mentioned Hamas twice. It is an absolutely awful organisation and I want to see the end of it, but he must accept that Netanyahu has some role to play in the crisis and has to take ownership of the problem as well.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is right: everybody has a role to play in the problem. For the record, Israel is not perfect. I am not perfect and the hon. Gentleman is not perfect. We do things we should not do, and there is accountability and a process. I make that point, but I look back to where it started: Hamas started the thing. I have mentioned it specifically, but this is about the people who need help. That is why we are here. Let us focus on that.
Jim Shannon
I do not think I can; it would not be fair on Members who have not yet spoken.
Hamas’s control plays a huge part in the lack of healthcare provision, including the use of civilian areas for military purposes. That complicates the delivery of aid and protection of residential areas. To say that there are chronic systematic weaknesses is an understatement.
It is important to understand the context in which the challenges exist. Hamas’s control over Gaza, its embedding of military infrastructure within civilian areas, and its prioritisation of terror over public services have directly contributed to the chronic weaknesses in the healthcare system. Israel, meanwhile, continues to facilitate humanitarian aid and medical access where possible, working with international organisations to ensure that urgent care reaches those in need. That must be enhanced and further encouraged.
We must support the invaluable work of global and UK Northern Ireland charities providing medical supplies, clean water, and essential care to children and families, while also holding Hamas accountable for the governance failures that put healthcare workers and patients at risk. Compassion for civilians—I am a compassionate person when it comes to these issues; others are the same—and a commitment to security are not mutually exclusive. Both must guide our response to the crisis in Gaza.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this much-needed debate.
I will focus on one specific aspect of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza where the UK can really make a difference: medical transfers to the west bank. Israel’s continued ban on medical transfers from Gaza to hospitals in the west bank, including East Jerusalem, costs lives every day. It is not an unintended consequence of conflict, but a deliberate decision. Before October 2023, Gaza’s health system functioned as part of a wider Palestinian medical network, with around 2,000 patients travelling each month from Gaza to hospitals in East Jerusalem and the west bank for specialised treatment. The Augusta Victoria and Makassed hospitals alone handled more than 40% of Gaza’s referrals. At times, nearly one third of their beds were filled with Gazan patients.
However, that system collapsed overnight. Since October ’23, Israel has banned all internal medical transfers from Gaza. In January 2026, the Israeli Government confirmed to its own High Court that it is standing by its refusal to allow seriously ill patients to travel to the west bank, including East Jerusalem, citing vague security concerns but offering no evidence of the threat supposedly posed by innocent Palestinian civilians. As of early 2026, more than 18,500 patients approved by the World Health Organisation are waiting for evacuation because their treatment is unavailable in Gaza. More than 4,000 of those patients are children, and more than 1,000 people have already died while waiting for care. For every week that the ban remains in place, more preventable deaths will become inevitable.
Israel permits some patients to travel abroad for treatment, with more than 4,000 patients evacuated to third countries. But that only makes its continued refusal to allow access to nearby Palestinian hospitals even harder to defend. Hospitals in East Jerusalem are within a couple hours’ drive of Gaza. The WHO has been clear: reopening that route is the fastest, safest and most cost-effective way to save lives. Instead, patients are forced through the Rafah crossing, which operates under extremely severe restrictions. Exits through the crossing are capped at around 50 patients per day, with each allowed only two accompanying family members. At that pace, they will not survive long enough to be treated. At the current rate, Save the Children estimates that evacuating those in need could take more than a year.
Furthermore, while departures through Rafah are possible, re-entry is heavily restricted, with more than 20,000 Palestinians who left Gaza earlier in the war still waiting to return. That puts medical evacuees in an impossible position: if they leave for essential treatment, they risk permanent displacement. Medical evacuations must not become de facto forcible transfer. Under the fourth Geneva convention, Israel, as the occupying power, has a duty to ensure access to medical care and supplies, and to maintain medical services. Article 33 explicitly prohibits “collective punishment”. A blanket ban on all medical transfers imposed regardless of individual circumstances risks breaching all of those obligations.
The Government rightly emphasise the importance of international humanitarian law, and now is the time to put that into practice. The Government should publicly urge Israel to lift the ban on internal medical transfers and continue emergency overseas evacuations only as a stopgap, not as a substitute for lawful access to nearby care. Restoring access to hospitals in the west bank and East Jerusalem would save lives, relieve pressure on Gaza’s collapsing health system and reaffirm the basic principle that the sick must never be treated as a security risk by default.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) not only for securing this debate but for his impassioned speech introducing the topic, which was really appreciated.
Last week, I and over 2 billion other people welcomed Ramadan, a month of fasting, reflection and prayer. In the Muslim community across the globe, Ramadan is generally treated as a guest: it comes, we appreciate and enjoy it, it gives us a lot of blessings, and then it leaves us. That is no different for the people of Gaza. Speaking to the Independent, a young man by the name of Ibrahim described Ramadan in Gaza before the war as having “a softness to it”. He explained how he remembered the “warm glow of lanterns”—my house is in fact lit up as well—hanging in the narrow streets of Gaza, the
“smell of freshly baked bread before maghrib”,
which is the prayer just before we break our fast, and the “sound of children laughing” during tarawih, the evening prayer. In Ramadan, Muslim families come alive in the evening: they gather in large numbers, doors are open and visits are constant. Ibrahim explained how, this year, the “tables are modest”, but his prayers are still heavy. People break their fast with what is available, but they
“still welcome it, not because life is easy, but because it remains.”
Let us have a look at what remains. If anybody has seen the scenes, it is like a dystopian disaster movie, with people breaking their fast against a backdrop of utter, apocalyptic devastation. They are breaking bread among 60 million tonnes of rubble because of the destruction of more than 90% of their homes. They are eating their dates, which is what we traditionally break our fast with, but I can assure hon. Members that the sweetness of those dates cannot mask the bitterness of the death, destruction and decay that surrounds each and every one of those people. Minister, imagine breaking your fast while sitting just metres from collapsed buildings where your friends and family lived. Imagine knowing that beneath the debris, according to reports, there are more than 10,000 unidentified people—loved ones, friends, family and teachers. People pray beside them and they eat beside them.
Although the official death toll in Gaza has reached 72,000—equivalent to one out of every 33 people—a further 171,000, or roughly one in four, have been injured, and we expect the true number to be much higher. I can truly say that the joy of Ramadan has disappeared for most of the Muslim world. Even after the so-called ceasefire that came into effect on 10 October 2025, at least 603 Palestinians have been killed and 1,600 have been wounded, rendering it a ceasefire in name only. If 603 Israelis had been killed in the past four months, would we all be grateful and welcoming a ceasefire?
In the short time I have, I will briefly focus on the children—who have already been mentioned—and on the sanctity of their healthcare and the right of every child to be treated when they are sick. Children are innocent bystanders who have faced the brunt of the IDF carnage. As reported by Save the Children, they are telling aid workers that
“they want to die because there is food and water in heaven and because their parents are there.”
Death has visited many of the children of Gaza: 20,000 Palestinian children have been killed—more than 100 of them since the so-called ceasefire. That is a child every single day. Those that death has spared have been plagued with more than 40,500 injuries. As has been mentioned, children account for a quarter of all the amputations in Gaza over the past two years, making it the place with the highest number of child amputees per capita, according to the International Rescue Committee.
Let us consider this: children have seen their neighbourhoods, schools, colleges, universities and homes destroyed. They have seen their parents pulverised in front of their eyes and their siblings shredded into a million pieces, and now their own bodies are being destroyed. In whose arms are those children going to find solace? How do we envision a peaceful co-existence when these young souls have witnessed such barbaric, brutal horrors?
We must act now, because more than 18,500 people require urgent medical care, while only 2,700 have been evacuated, according to Physicians for Human Rights. Since October 2025, only 235 patients have been evacuated and many have died just waiting. For the first time since May 2024, the Rafah crossing finally opened on 2 February this year, but on average only 12 patients a day have been allowed to leave, despite Israel’s commitment to allowing 50 people needing medical care to leave each day. The current rate of evacuation means it will take four and half years for people needing medical care to leave Gaza. Children are dying waiting for basic medical care.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) mentioned that hospitals in Jerusalem—a mere 70 km away—have the facilities to treat those patients with trauma. We must facilitate the opening of the humanitarian corridor to East Jerusalem for urgent medical evacuation. We must ensure that international medical NGOs can operate freely and bring equipment, medication and personnel without obstruction. The weaponisation of bureaucracy by insisting on the registration of aid workers by the IDF is costing lives. As has been mentioned, we must ensure that children are prioritised. In addition to tackling their health needs, we must ensure that they get access to rehab hospitals and clinicians who can provide comprehensive mental health and psychosocial support—particularly the most vulnerable children, such as those who have been orphaned, separated or disabled.
We must advocate for an independent, rather than Israeli-controlled, aid access mechanism for Gaza moving forward. We owe it to the children, we owe it to all the healthcare workers who did not abandon their duty and we owe it to ourselves if we claim to uphold international law. Without health, there is no recovery. Without recovery, there is no peace. And without peace, this cycle will simply begin again. Minister, the time to act is now.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for bringing forward this important debate.
It has been 137 days since the ceasefire started in Gaza, and although attention has drifted in the media, the humanitarian crisis rages on. The health sector is at absolute breaking point. Medicines are scarce. Hospitals lie in ruins, and wards have been reduced to rubble.
Temporary relief will not be enough. What is required is a sustained and effective humanitarian response and the rebuilding of Gazan healthcare. Not only must we put pressure on the Israeli Government to fully open the border, allow the aid in and allow transfers of care, but the international community has to go further. We have to ensure that Gaza has the infrastructure and sustainability long term to cope with future crises.
Years of blockade have left Gaza with a staggering list of challenges: shortages of medical equipment and medication, the destruction of hospitals, the killing of staff and an absence of patient evacuations. Bombs and bullets are not the only things that have been killing Gazans: lack of access to medical care has already killed thousands. At the start of the war in 2023, there were 1,244 kidney patients in Gaza. Now, that number is just 622. Thirty of those patients are documented to have died in Israeli military attacks, but hundreds have died simply for the lack of dialysis.
The shortages of medicines are still acute. Basic painkillers have become a luxury, and more than half the people in Gaza do not have access to their regular medication. Lab tests are at risk of complete standstill. Oncology surgery, operating rooms, intensive care—all have been hit very badly. Ongoing restrictions on the free passage of medical equipment by the Israeli Government have meant that the quantity of medicine reaching Gaza’s hospitals is simply not enough.
It is not only about the supply. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud laid out, Gaza’s medical workforce has been devastated. More than 1,700 medical workers have been killed, 3,000 have been wounded and more than 500 have been abducted or detained. Twenty-two hospitals have been put out of service, and 211 ambulances have been damaged. Of Gaza’s 176 primary healthcare centres, only a third remain even partially functional.
Health services are overwhelmed. Thousands of critically ill patients cannot be evacuated, and 20,000 patients are waiting for treatment abroad, but Rafah is still not fully open. Options are severely constrained. These evacuations are not just a matter of immediate care; they of course relieve the crushing ongoing pressure on the healthcare system. As my hon. Friends have laid out, there are functioning hospitals in the west bank and East Jerusalem, but access to them has been barred, which seems cruel.
Andrew George
The hon. Lady is making a magnificent contribution to the debate. The hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) talked about the imminent departure of aid agencies from Gaza, which has been forced by the Israeli regime. A lot of international aid workers have been into Gaza—one from Cornwall, Jim Henderson, was killed by the IDF in 2024. Does the hon. Lady accept that we need to open up Gaza to those aid workers and to get the IDF out?
Lizzi Collinge
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The deregistering of international organisations is abhorrent. They are absolutely vital to this response, and I will touch on that point later.
Despite these unsurmountable barriers, healthcare workers have absolutely persevered. They have rebuilt health centres. Open-heart surgery has resumed at Al-Quds hospital. Childbirth services have restarted. I cannot be the only woman in the room who would have died in childbirth without medical intervention. It is horrendous to think of all those Palestinian women giving birth without medical support and of the impact on child and maternal mortality. International humanitarian organisations have been absolutely indispensable. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency carried out a 10-day vaccination campaign, which reached a third of Gazan children. That is absolutely fantastic.
We and the rest of the international community must put pressure on Israel. We must demand the immediate release of detained medical personnel, along with a guarantee that they will be protected to do their work. We must insist that the Rafah crossing is opened to allow in essential lifesaving equipment, and we must insist on lifting the forthcoming ban on organisations such as Médecins Sans Frontières.
Restoring and rebuilding healthcare systems will be a core part of overall reconstruction efforts, but we must look further into the future. The blockade and systematic underfunding have meant that even in times of relative peace, Gazan healthcare was very fragile. Reconstruction cannot mean rebuilding the fragility that existed before. We need to strengthen local medical education, infrastructure and training. That can only come with a free and democratic Palestinian state. Palestinians deserve to live in peace and health—as do all their neighbours. The situation in Gaza shows that health is more than a technical issue and about more than getting medicines: it is political, structural and absolutely central to any hope of lasting peace.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The situation in Gaza is beyond appalling in every way we can think of. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) on securing the debate, and also the wonderful Palestinian activists in his constituency, who do a fantastic job in drawing attention to all this.
We must have some sense of urgency. We have a continuation of the occupation. Israel is now using thermal weapons, which have killed over 2,000 people since last year. Those weapons basically vaporise the body, which is barbaric by any stretch of the imagination. Temperatures can reach as high as 3,500°C, which is the temperature achieved when a nuclear explosion takes place. If we look at the silhouettes of the bodies vaporised on the streets of Hiroshima, that is what the people of Gaza are now having to tolerate. That is disgusting at any level.
We have the continued occupation of Gaza by Israel. Then we have the so-called Trump peace plan—that is such a disgusting misuse of language it is unbelievable—which is actually a military reoccupation of Gaza. A very large military base is now being built in the north of the Gaza strip, presumably to assist the expulsion of many Palestinian people from Gaza and the construction of hotels, casinos and all the rest of it, which is what the dream of that wretched peace plan is. Can we not ask our British Government to do something serious and say that we totally condemn the Trump plan and the reoccupation of Gaza?
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but he knows that the terms of this debate are fairly confined to healthcare. He is perfectly entitled to set out the context, but I know that he will want to shortly come on to discuss healthcare specifically.
Jeremy Corbyn
Thank you, Sir Jeremy.
I ask the British Government whether they will kindly do everything they can to allow MSF and all the others to continue working in Gaza, to respect the work of health workers and those assassinated by the Israeli occupation? Unless we look at the wider context, it is impossible to get a solution. That requires political action by the British Government to enable health workers to carry out their work.
As colleagues have pointed out, the consequences of the health disaster that is Gaza at the moment are large numbers of deaths, orphaned children and mothers dying in childbirth because of the lack of equipment. As the hon. Member for Stroud pointed out, it would be perfectly possible to get emergency medical equipment—operating theatres and so on—in very quickly. The world has beyond the capacity to deal with every health problem in Gaza. Why is it not being done? Because Israel will not allow it to happen and will not allow equipment to go in. Unless we are utterly determined as a country and a Government to get that medical equipment into Gaza, the situation will simply continue to get worse. We will be wringing our hands here in six months’ time, in a year’s time and so on—as many of us have been for many years—about the treatment of the Palestinian people.
The long-term consequences will not disappear. Communicable diseases will get worse, the sewerage system will get worse and the mental health trauma for future generations will not go away. I remember talking to Dr Mona El-Farra on the day after the 2006 election in Gaza, at which I was an observer. I went to her apartment in Gaza City and I said, “Mona, what’s the mental health situation for people in Gaza?” She said, “Jeremy, by my estimate 70% of the population are now suffering severe and profound mental health trauma.” That was 20 years ago, at a point at which there was some degree of hope for the future. There was some degree of optimism at that time. Now, there is no hope. There is no optimism. We are talking about the entirety of the population suffering from mental health trauma. That will carry on intergenerationally—and we are supplying weapons, which has allowed some of that to happen.
I simply say to the Government, “Do everything you can to demand access for healthcare workers, everything you can to get the equipment in there, and everything you can to end the occupation of Gaza and allow the people of Palestine to decide their own future in their own land, and decide what society they want to create there. It is not up to us to recolonise it; it is up to us to help them to liberate their own lives.”
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. Clinicians have been targeted by arrests, torture and bullets, and 1,700 have been killed. Hospitals, clinics and ambulances have been destroyed by bombs and drones. Medical aid, equipment and pharmaceuticals have been blocked at the border. Patients have been denied healthcare for blasts and bullets, disease, infection, poor sanitation and malnutrition at unimaginable scales. Mental trauma has engulfed every mind. Sexual violence has violated innocent women and girls.
The crisis continues, yet where are we today? The right to healthcare—to life itself—has been destroyed. International humanitarian law has been breached and the International Court of Justice’s ruling has been undermined as daily violations occur, all while the IDF has destroyed every place where someone can heal. Apart from three field hospitals, three primary health centres and six medical points, all functioning health facilities are only partially functioning. As of 30 January, 18 hospitals, 105 primary healthcare centres and 233 medical points remain non-functional in Gaza.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
My hon. Friend and I were at a meeting at which we heard from human rights and medical aid experts. I was struck by the figure that on the World Health Organisation wait list 18,500 people from Gaza are awaiting medical treatment. East Jerusalem hospitals have stated that they are able to care for 50 a day, so there is local provision available. Is my hon. Friend as distressed as I am that that is being refused? Perhaps she can elicit some response from the Minister.
Rachael Maskell
I absolutely am. I heard that evidence too. That passage for the whole of the Palestinian healthcare system must be opened. Even now, aid cannot enter Gaza. In four days’ time, 37 organisations will lose their registration to operate. The provision of healthcare, but also the whole humanitarian support network, will collapse. Although every step that the Government take is welcome, the response has been woefully inadequate, leaving people in an indescribable health crisis.
I will never forget the clinicians who have taken the time to inform us of the conditions that they work in, the scale of the challenges they face and the clinical choices they make. One clinician described having to make the choice of which child to save as they looked on at the little bodies writhing in pain and distorted by brutality. Yet the provision of healthcare, water, nutrition and sanitation will evaporate this week. If countries do not step up their efforts in the next few hours, disease will be enabled to spread further and faster.
I ask the Minister some questions. What specific demands has he made of the Israeli Government to release all 309 health workers who are being held as hostages and prisoners? Their skills are urgently needed. What specific demands has he made of the Israeli Government to extend the right of all NGOs providing healthcare or preventing ill health through food and sanitation projects to be allowed to continue their work in Gaza despite the registration scheme? When did he last call in the ambassador for Israel in the light of the immediate removal of the NGOs that deliver healthcare and vital humanitarian aid? If she does not extend those licences, why extend her stay in the UK? What has been her response? What sanctions will the UK Government apply to the Israeli Government for ending access to NGO support for humanitarian work in Gaza?
Finally, how has the Minister sought for people suffering in Gaza to move to East Jerusalem and the west bank where clinicians are ready to receive them? Given that it is our manufactured F-35 parts that have inflicted so many of these wounds, what more can the UK Government do to ensure that we provide the healthcare facilities, here and wherever we can, to save these precious lives?
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. We will need to move on to Front-Bench contributions at about 10.28 am. We have two speakers left, so if they keep to under four minutes, we can get them both in.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) on securing this debate and on his expertise in the area.
The Israeli Government carry out these crimes against humanity because they can, and no one stops them. For nearly two years, Gaza’s healthcare system has been systematically dismantled during Israel’s military campaign. The World Health Organisation reports that there were 735 attacks on healthcare in Gaza from 7 October 2023 to 11 June last year. In 2024, the UN commission of inquiry concluded:
“Israel has implemented a concerted policy to destroy the health-care system of Gaza.”
The special rapporteur Francesca Albanese has stated that the targeted destruction of Gaza’s healthcare system by the IDF amounts to “medicide”, part of
“the intentional creation of conditions calculated to destroy Palestinians in Gaza which constitutes an act of genocide.”
One image stays with me: a hospital tent, a patient on a drip, flames climbing the IV line, a man too sick to run. That is what the destruction of a health system looks like. Amid this horror, there have been many extraordinary acts of courage from very many British medics, including Middlesbrough doctor Mohammed Mustafa and Professor Ghassan Abu-Sittah. They have stitched, they have amputated, they have delivered babies and they have kept children alive in wards without power and under bombardment.
Even under the so-called ceasefire, Israel restricts healthcare. Dual-use restrictions block medical equipment, including imaging machines, prosthetic materials and surveillance tablets. More than 6,000 amputees await limbs. Only a few hundred prostheses have been allowed in. Stocks will run out. Israel has moved to deregister more than 35 international NGOs, including those funded by the British public. Those organisations deliver one in three births in Gaza and hundreds of thousands of consultations. They are being forced to hand over staff data or be shut down. Medical evacuations remain desperately limited. The WHO lists 18,000 people as in urgent need of care outside Gaza.
The deliberate targeting of healthcare, the obstruction of aid and the killing and detention of medical personnel raise serious questions under international humanitarian law and the Geneva convention. A ceasefire must mean a ceasefire. Israel must uphold the ceasefire, lift its blockade on medical aid, end registration rules, allow safe passage for patients, permit the reconstruction of hospitals and release detained healthcare workers. The UK Government must do more than issue statements. They must interrogate Israel’s actions and intent, and enforce consequences. We are seeing scenes where the dogs are healthy in Gaza and the people are starving. We must ask ourselves how it is that the dogs are so healthy. Where are they getting their nutrition? I will leave people to make up their own mind.
I ask the Minister these questions. Have the Government assessed whether UK-supplied arms, including F-35s, were used in strikes on healthcare facilities? Will they publish their assessment? Will he state without equivocation that the destruction of hospitals in Gaza is a breach of international humanitarian law and is in direct contravention of the genocide convention? What diplomatic or economic sanctions has the UK imposed in response to Israel blocking 18,000 patients? What consequences will Israel face for deregistering aid agencies? How is the UK implicated through the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre?
Given that the UK sanctioned over 1,500 individuals after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the glaring double standards are beyond reprehensible. The UK’s diplomatic statements have not shifted the Israeli Government’s policy one iota. We must use leverage, trade measures, arms controls and sanctions—concrete consequences for grave breaches of international law. Healthcare is protected in war. That is not optional; it is the law.
The UK has not done anywhere near enough to exert pressure on Israel. If the same ineffective stance is maintained, the UK risks facing charges of complicity. We have more than diplomacy in our locker. It is absolutely criminal that the UK is not using the levers available. We have legal, moral and historical obligations and responsibilities to the Palestinians, who this country has betrayed for over 100 years, from the Balfour declaration to the present day, and the genocide continues. In the name of God, I ask the Minister—I urge him and this Government—to do the right thing and act, before the Palestinian people are completely wiped from the map.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I can give the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) three minutes to speak.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir Jeremy. It is an honour to serve under your chairship.
Today’s debate concerns healthcare in Gaza, but the truth is this: there is almost no healthcare left. Hospitals have been bombed. Doctors and nurses have been killed. Children are having limbs amputated without proper pain relief. Babies are being born in tents, into hunger and into fear. There is not a functioning healthcare system; it has collapsed, and it is children who are paying the highest price. Thousands of children have been killed. Many more have been injured. Gaza now has an entire generation of children living with life-changing disabilities. Imagine being a child who survives a bomb, loses a leg and then cannot get a wheelchair or even basic medicine. Imagine being a parent who knows that their child needs treatment, but cannot get them out.
A Palestinian child died on Sunday. Nidal had been granted medical referral documents 14 months ago, but he died waiting for Israel to grant him permission to leave Gaza. More children will die waiting if we do not fight. Children are sleeping on the bare ground in the cold. They are drinking dirty water. They are dying from illnesses that we know how to treat. Almost every child is now carrying deep psychological trauma from what they have seen and lost.
The view of many experts is that we are witnessing a genocide. We have a moral duty to do everything in our power to put an end to this horror, because it is not inevitable, but aid is being blocked. Israel has revoked the licences of 37 international NGOs. That is outrageous. Without doubt, it will add to the suffering, the trauma and the deaths of more Palestinian children. Medical supplies are still not getting in at the scale needed. Humanitarian organisations are still being prevented from doing their work.
This country cannot fix everything, but we are not powerless. We are not doing enough. We must push for crossings to be fully opened, so that medicine, fuel and food can get in. We must fund medical equipment, rehabilitation and mental healthcare for children whose lives have been shattered. We must stand up for humanitarian agencies so that they can operate freely and safely. We must make it clear that hospitals and healthcare workers must never be the targets.
This debate is not about politics. It is about whether a child who survives a bomb is then allowed to live. Right now, too many children are not. We owe them more than our sympathy. We owe them action.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I thank the hon. Lady very much for her co-operation and self-restraint; I extend the same thanks to all colleagues who have spoken. We will now move on to the Front-Bench speeches, beginning with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing the debate and for bringing his expertise to this issue.
More than two years of devastating conflict has left Gaza in ruins. Over 70,000 Palestinians have lost their lives. More than 1 million people remain unable to return to their homes, while the vast majority of the population relies on humanitarian aid to survive. The attacks carried out by Hamas on 7 October were appalling, and their continued violations since the ceasefire remain indefensible. They must play no future role in the governance of Gaza.
Israel’s war on Gaza over the past two years has been conducted without due regard for international humanitarian law, with devastating consequences for the Gazan healthcare system. Gaza’s healthcare system is no longer functioning in any meaningful sense. Doctors on the ground describe surgeons being forced to amputate limbs and stitch wounds without anaesthesia. Patients remain fully conscious because there is no fuel, pain relief or functioning supply chains. That has been the daily reality inside Gaza’s hospitals as they buckle under continued bombardment, medicine shortages and staff losses. There is not a single fully functioning hospital left. Even since the ceasefire, more than 500 Palestinians have been killed and over 1,500 injured. There is urgency to protect civilians and rebuild a shattered healthcare system.
Aid access is in a state of crisis. Medical staff are exhausted, many nurses have fled, doctors have been killed, equipment has been destroyed and antibiotics are scarce. Amputations are common because injuries go untreated, cancer care is barely available and dialysis is severely limited. Intensive care is stretched beyond breaking point and routine vaccinations have been disrupted. Thousands of patients are effectively queued with no realistic access to care, and some remaining hospitals have been described by doctors on the ground as “waiting stations for death”.
At the same time, as we have heard, medical evacuation is limited, and beyond hospitals, public health conditions are in a dire state. Unsafe water, poor sanitation, overcrowding and winter conditions have driven notable increases in respiratory infections and diarrhoeal disease. Vaccination coverage was already fragile before the war and it is now years behind.
The UN has warned that tens of thousands of pregnant women, newborns and children now face compounded risks of malnutrition, disease and preventable death—not from bombs, but from a shattered health system unable to provide prenatal care, vaccinations or even basic hygiene. On top of that, the introduction of additional Israeli administrative restrictions has placed dozens of international humanitarian organisations under new registration requirements with limited timeframes to comply. The deadline of 1 March—next week—is approaching fast.
The uncertainty over legal status and operational permissions continues to disrupt medical deployments, supply procurement and programme continuity at a moment when trauma care, dialysis, maternal health services and infectious disease control depend heavily on international partnerships. At the same time, tighter Israeli constraints on major humanitarian service providers, particularly the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, have had direct knock-on effects on health delivery. When indispensable agencies such as UNRWA, which runs primary care clinics, vaccination programmes and community health outreach, face limits on staff entry and access to premises, utilities, banking or logistics, the impact is immediate and severe. That is because healthcare does not function in isolation. It relies on fuel for generators, secure facilities, functioning cold chains for vaccines and the ability to move personnel and supplies without obstruction.
If the operating space for humanitarian organisations is narrowed, the remaining fragments of Gaza’s healthcare system weaken further. So it is fair to ask: what are the UK Government doing about all of that? There have been some positive steps. The additional aid packages, including the £20 million humanitarian post-ceasefire package, is to be welcomed. The Government have supported about 50 sick and injured children to come to the UK for NHS treatment under a Gaza medical evacuation scheme. There have been diplomatic efforts at the UN Security Council, but the UK has much more work to do.
First, the UK Government must make reliable humanitarian access a top-tier diplomatic objective. The Israeli Government must immediately allow international humanitarian NGOs full access to Gaza and the west bank. The UK Government must co-ordinate with European partners to apply sustained diplomatic pressure on Israel to reverse the ban on aid organisations, and engage with Washington directly, consistently and regularly on the issue. There must be consequences if access continues to be denied, and the UK must act with like-minded partners to establish alternative delivery channels. We should apply co-ordinated pressure for full access across all crossings while scaling up parallel routes to ensure that aid reaches those who need it.
Secondly, the UK must treat the protection of healthcare workers and medical NGOs as a red line. Medical neutrality has to be defended in practice, not merely asserted in principle.
Thirdly, it is vital that international journalists are granted full access to the Gaza strip so that the world can see events on the ground clearly and independently. The UK must continue to press for that.
Fourthly, we must expand sanctions. It is right that we have sanctioned some Ministers, but that cannot be where it stops. We should also sanction other Ministers in the Israeli Government who oppose the lifting of the aid blockade or who promote the erosion of humanitarian protections. Accountability must be consistent or it means nothing.
Let me close on the west bank, because what is unfolding there is not peripheral to the crisis, but central to it. Across the west bank, settlement expansion, demolitions and tightening movement restrictions are accelerating displacement and entrenching instability. I support the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) in her call for medical transfers to the west bank, but there too, while most hospitals remain technically operational, medicine shortages are deepening and referral approvals are increasingly delayed. This winter alone, hundreds of attacks on healthcare facilities were recorded, alongside the closure of key UNRWA services.
Severe funding shortfalls now compound access barriers, forcing critical service reductions at precisely the moment when needs are surging. To compensate, clinics and mental health teams are scaling up where they can, but for many vulnerable communities, care is becoming slower, more fragmented and increasingly out of reach. The result is an inevitable erosion of basic medical access, with growing delays, disruption and unmet needs that are quietly pushing the west bank deeper into humanitarian crisis.
I hope that the Government will now move beyond statements and take concrete action to expand accountability through sanctions to protect and open humanitarian access, and to press relentlessly for an equitable political pathway out of the crisis. Lives are being lost while we deliberate. The UK still carries diplomatic weight, and with that comes moral obligation. I urge the Minister to use it.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing the debate to allow us to consider this important matter, and Members who have contributed to it.
To pick up on some of the things that have been said so far, it is pretty obvious that everybody in this Chamber who has taken part in the debate and in other debates, whether here or in the main Chamber, wants peace for Gaza and for Israel. As always, there will be differences about the route to that peace, what people feel is getting in the way, and what more needs to be done. On some of the things that were said about the volume of aid, I note that since the conflict began, about 2 million tonnes of aid have entered Gaza. As for the management of that aid, given the industrial scale of the misappropriation of aid and the dual-use items that have enabled Hamas, over two decades, to build their terror network and to sustain their war effort, something is required to ensure that security concerns are addressed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Snowden
I will make a little progress first, given the time, but I will take interventions. The new NGO restrictions that are about to come into place affect some 15% of the aid agencies operating within Gaza, and those agencies have contributed about 1% of the aid delivery throughout the conflict. Some of those that have been notified of the new restrictions have applied and been approved to operate again in the area.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
He is the shadow Minister.
Sarah Champion
The shadow Minister—thanks. Is the shadow Minister aware that the aid that is getting in includes things such as chocolate bars, and not items that are so desperately required to address the medical needs? He speaks about volume, but we are talking about the substance of what is getting in—the lifesaving aid, not the peripheries that people are making money from.
Mr Snowden
I thank the hon. Lady for my temporary elevation; I enjoyed my 30 seconds as a Minister, but that is all I will get for now. I will come on to future aid, the volume of aid that needs to get in, dual-use items, to which I have referred, and other issues. I just wanted to pick up on and address some of the alternative facts.
The situation in Gaza is serious and severe. Hamas and their Iranian sponsors bear responsibility for the continued suffering. Hamas launched their attack on Israel on 7 October 2023. They have refused to disarm and have infiltrated and used civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, as shields and military defensive positions. The whole House should be united in calling Hamas out, and it is important that the Minister gives us an update on the steps that the Government are taking to support the implementation of the 20-point peace plan for Gaza, including the removal of Hamas.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I am sure that everybody in this Chamber is absolutely opposed to the horrific Hamas attacks that took place on 7 October 2023. What confuses me is why the shadow Minister and his party continue to repeat Israeli propaganda points. I was an aid worker before I was elected to this place. I was in Gaza during the war. Can he give us some examples of all the things that he is repeating about the misappropriation and the stealing of aid? Can he give us one concrete example?
Mr Snowden
I will come on to the UN’s stats on the amount of aid that has been misappropriated shortly. I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, but I think it is a tad rich to talk about one-sidedness when the word “Hamas” was hardly mentioned in many of the contributions that we heard earlier.
The Government say that they have been calling for broader aid access, but calling for something is not the same as achieving it. We need to know whether Ministers have put forward specific, concrete proposals for the opening of individual crossings and entry points into Gaza, whether those proposals have been presented directly to the Government of Israel, and their response.
Will the Minister tell us what quantity and type of medical aid has been funded and prepared for this moment? Where is it currently stationed? How much of it has entered Gaza? Which organisations are distributing it? Critically, what new safeguards are in place to ensure that UK aid reaches innocent civilians, not terrorist groups? Aid diversion is not a peripheral concern; it is central.
Since the ceasefire announcement on 10 October 2025 and 11 February 2026, the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs notes that 1,532 aid pallets have been verified as being intercepted during transit within Gaza. Although the destination of the pallets cannot be confirmed, it does not require too much imagination to work out where they have ended up. That is why we cannot discuss Gaza’s healthcare collapse in isolation from the wider political and security situation—the two are inseparable. The ceasefire provides an opening, but a ceasefire is not peace, and the Government seem curiously reluctant to acknowledge what is needed to convert one into the other.
If the ceasefire is to translate into something sustainable, Hamas must be removed from power once and for all, and their terrorist infrastructure must be dismantled. Events of recent days—the violence between Hamas and armed groups and clans within Gaza—underline precisely why Hamas cannot be permitted any future role in the governance of the territory. Hamas have no regard for human life or human dignity; they never have.
That brings me to governance. Rebuilding Gaza’s health system without addressing who actually governs Gaza is an exercise in futility. Have the Government had any meaningful say in the composition of the transitional Administration? Has anything of substance on governance reform emerged from the so-called memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Authority—a document that did not even address corruption or antisemitism in school curricula? If the Palestinian Authority is to play an extended role, it must implement the most significant reforms in its history. That includes on healthcare, welfare, education, and frankly, basic democratic accountability.
Mr Snowden
I am running out of time, and I have taken several interventions. Our support should be conditional on those reforms being delivered. Have the Government made that case clearly to the Palestinian Authority?
I also ask the Minister whether the UK will be scaling up its involvement in the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre. Is Britain contributing to the demilitarisation of Gaza and the disarming of Hamas? Have the Government had any discussions with the United States about the consequences for Hamas if they do not engage constructively with phase 2—
Sarah Champion
On a point of order, Sir Jeremy. The subject of the debate is medical healthcare in Gaza, but the shadow Minister is not referring to that at all, apart from a tenuous “relating to healthcare” statement. Can you give some clarity, Sir Jeremy, on whether his speech is on point?
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. As she knows, because she heard me intervene in the debate earlier, I have been listening carefully to ensure that speakers keep to the subject of healthcare. As she also heard me say to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), it is perfectly in order for speakers to talk about the context to a degree. I have been listening carefully to the shadow Minister; if what he had said had been out of order, I would have told him so.
I will take the opportunity while I am on my feet to say that the hon. Lady and all Members know that this has been a serious and passionate debate throughout. I hope that Members will respect the fact that passionate contributions from both sides of the argument are perfectly rational and in order, and should be heard with the same respect that all other contributions have been heard with.
Mr Snowden
I thank you, Sir Jeremy, and I thank the hon. Lady for the point of order and continued interventions.
Have the Government had any discussions with the United States about the consequences for Hamas if they do not engage constructively with phase 2 of the ceasefire process?
We also want the UK to be engaged in expanding the Abraham accords. Saudi normalisation with Israel remains, in our view, the single most consequential diplomatic prize in the region, and potentially the most realistic path to a durable peace. We are enthusiastic supporters of that route, but we are considerably less convinced that the Labour Government share that enthusiasm or are working with the urgency the moment demands.
The people of Gaza are suffering. That suffering is real and severe, and demands a response commensurate with its scale. The fighting war may have ceased temporarily, but the people of Gaza are still living with the jackboot of Hamas holding back any hope of prosperity or rebuilding the healthcare system. The Opposition have consistently called for more aid, including healthcare aid, to flow into Gaza, for it to be delivered safely and exclusively to innocent civilians, and for a sustainable end to the terrible conflict that guarantees security for both Israel and the Palestinian people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing the debate. I will not initially take interventions, as there have been many questions asked of me. I will endeavour to make some progress through them before I do.
Before I start my speech, I would like to say that, given the prominent reference that has been made throughout the debate to the work of British doctors and MSF overseas, I should declare that a close family member is one of those doctors working with MSF overseas. For transparency, I want to make that clear.
I would also like to take the opportunity in setting the context—as this is the first opportunity I have had since recess—to make a brief comment about events in the west bank. I want to condemn in the strongest terms the recent Israeli Security Cabinet decisions that have introduced sweeping extensions to Israel’s control over the west bank and accelerated illegal settlement activity. The UK is clear that Israel’s illegal settlements and decisions designed to further them are a flagrant violation of international law. We will take concrete steps in accordance with international law to counter settlement expansion and to challenge policies and threats of forcible displacements and annexation. That is important context for today’s discussion.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) about the importance of the inextricable link between Gaza, the west bank and East Jerusalem. The UK has recognised a Palestinian state; all three of those territories are part of that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) said, it is right to treat the children of Gaza in Palestine when they can be, but there are three major restrictions on their ability to be treated where they live: equipment, supplies and personnel.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), who referred to her time as an aid worker in Gaza, knows well, there are many talented Palestinian doctors. I was asked about our advocacy on behalf of those doctors. I will not reiterate, having provided an account to the Chamber of our work in that regard. Palestinian doctors alone are not sufficient, given the healthcare demands on Gaza. It is vital that doctors from outside Palestine are able to access Gaza to provide support. They can do so effectively only, first, if the Israelis allow them and, secondly, if they have the hospitals and equipment to provide healthcare. There has been insufficient progress in that regard and we continue to make those points clearly.
Mr Falconer
I will not.
In response to the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) about our advocacy on these questions with the Israeli ambassador, I am keen to be grounded in up-to-date facts. Although the Israeli ambassador is no longer in place, having left her post last year, I did, of course, summon her in relation to the Israeli Government’s actions in Gaza. The Israeli Government are currently represented by a chargé to be followed by the appointment of a future ambassador.
I will return to the tangible questions. I am grateful for the recognition from many contributors of the work the Government have done, including the medical evacuation of Gazan children to the UK. I have met some of those children, as I know many others have. It is so moving to see the change to their lives as a result of them and their families being here. They are, of course, a tiny subsection of the children in Gaza who need care and I have already discussed the restrictions on providing that care in Gaza.
It is obviously right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale said, that, where we cannot provide care in Palestine, care is provided in the region. We have provided that care and I have seen it with my own eyes in Egypt, particularly in the Sinai in al-Arish. There are welcome improvements for Gazans requiring medical assistance to cross into Egypt via the Rafah crossing and be provided with aid, but restrictions remain. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the significant risks for those leaving to seek medical aid elsewhere, fearing that they will not be able to return home. We continue to advocate on those questions.
To respond to the shadow Minister’s questions about the numbers, we have provided £40 million of aid for health. That most recently included a £4 million Disasters Emergency Committee appeal over Christmas. I was very moved by the generosity of the British people to match the Government’s contribution. I am grateful for the continued efforts of many of our constituents across the country and Members here today to raise these issues. We provided £3 million to the WHO to support the Egyptian healthcare system to provide the assistance I just described.
Let me turn to the questions about deregistration. As many Members noted, there is a deadline of 1 March. The shadow Minister sought to provide some clarity about the limited number of NGOs affected, but I would point out that many of them are reputable British organisations. We opposed that legislation when it was first proposed and oppose it now. We need to see a solution to the issue. Many NGOs, including MSF, which has been the subject of a lot of commentary to this morning, have sought to engage with the requests of the Israeli Government. There have been many genuine efforts to engage with the Israeli Government on that question, including by the British Government. It is vital, for all of the reasons that others have put so articulately, that those aid agencies can operate and continue their vital work.
I was asked a range of other questions that went slightly beyond healthcare. When colleagues ask me to make more than statements, I remind them that we have made more than statements: I am the first middle east Minister since the Balfour declaration who can say in this place that we recognise a Palestinian state. I have already described some of the concrete actions taken to truly transform the lives of Gazan children.
Apsana Begum
The Minister mentioned the deadline for the deregistration of NGOs. If that deadline passes and there has not been a change of direction from the Israeli authorities and Government, what concrete steps will the UK Government take?
Mr Falconer
I am sure my colleagues are tired of me refusing to be drawn on concrete steps in advance of taking them, but we treat this question with the utmost seriousness, as we have done all through these discussions. We will of course respond should the already significant restrictions on NGOs, including well-respected British NGOs, further tighten in the days ahead.
I will return to some of the other questions put to me. There is a UK contribution to the CMCC, and we are seeking through that work to ensure that the aid access increases into Gaza, and that some of the vital governance questions for the future are addressed. I am pleased to reassure the shadow Minister that we raise those points on a regular basis; I raised them with Palestinian counter- parts just last week.
There has been some important progress on a whole range of Palestinian governance questions. I think the shadow Minister referred to some of the so-called “pay for slay” arrangements; there has been an important announcement from the Palestinian Authority ending that practice. There were important announcements, including on a commitment to a demilitarised Palestinian state, in July during the two-state solution conference, which I was proud to be a part of. We will continue to raise those questions.
Nobody is under any illusions about the scale of the threat that Hamas poses. We continue to be committed to, and to discuss with our counterparts, fully decommissioning Hamas’s weapons and ensuring that there is Palestinian leadership, including through the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, which has been implemented in recent weeks. We will continue our efforts in those areas.
Mr Falconer
I cannot, because I wish to give my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud two minutes to wind up at the end.
I am sure that we will return to these questions over the coming weeks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) pointed out, there are pressing deadlines ahead. Given the importance of the issues we are discussing, in recent days the Foreign Secretary travelled to chair the most recent session of the UN Security Council on the middle east as its president. We will continue to give these questions our full attention, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud for the opportunity to speak to them.
Dr Opher
I thank all the speakers who have contributed to what has been a very passionate debate. I have spoken to many British doctors who have worked in Gaza, and what we are presenting here—the sabotage of the healthcare system—is real. It is going on now, and we must deal with it rather than brushing it under the carpet and blaming Hamas.
Melanie Ward
Does my hon. Friend agree with me on the need for justice and accountability for horrific acts that have taken place in hospitals, including a massacre in the grounds of al-Shifa hospital, and a situation in Nasser hospital where many babies were left to die following Israeli military action?
Dr Opher
I absolutely agree. We must get to the bottom of those things because they must not be allowed to happen again. I propose that the Minister talks to Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care about us, as a nation, providing healthcare to people in Gaza as much as we can. That is something that I have discussed with that Minister. We must be positive here and try to relieve the suffering of Gazans, because everything I have heard has been appalling.
I thank all Members and the Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for the healthcare system in Gaza.
Foster Care: Recruitment and Retention
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I will call Rebecca Smith to move the motion and then I will call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. I am afraid that there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as she knows is the convention for these shorter debates.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered foster care recruitment and retention.
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I want to start by talking briefly about why this subject matters to me personally. By the time I was 18—I had left home—my parents had started fostering, and it has been in my mind since I first became interested in politics that, if I ever got to this place, I wanted to speak up about adoption and fostering. That is why the Minister often sees me opposite him in debates; it comes from my own personal experience.
I should declare an interest: until the local elections, I will be a member of Plymouth city council, which I will mention a little later. I have also been a very active corporate parent. When I became a councillor, I knew that there was a corporate parent panel, and I was particularly keen to be on it. I believe that, for elected representatives, the opportunity to be a corporate parent, whether at council or national level, is incredibly important, and I was able to act in that capacity as a councillor and I am here doing so as a Member of Parliament.
We desperately need to rebuild the foster care pipeline. Every year England loses more foster carers than it gains. We are facing a perfect storm, with more children in care, fewer foster carers and fewer people applying to become the next generation of foster carers. As of March 2025, there were 81,770 looked-after children in England, but the number of foster carers fell by 12% from 2021 to March 2025. In the last year alone, there were 1,140 fewer foster placements available for children in England than the year before. Spending on children’s social care continues to increase, yet councils are consistently exceeding their budgets. We need to do more to ensure that vulnerable children in care can access the stability that comes from being placed with loving foster parents. That involves two things: doing more to encourage people to become foster carers, and doing more to retain the brilliant carers we already have.
Carer shortages are a national issue, not a provider-specific one. Fragmented recruitment efforts are leading to inefficiencies and missed opportunities. That is why I broadly welcome the Government’s foster care reforms. I am encouraged by the commitment to simplify approval processes, strengthen regional collaboration and support innovation. However, it seems to me that there is a glaringly obvious omission: the need for better partnerships between local authorities and independent foster agencies.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. Does she agree that there should be greater recognition of foster carers as part of the professional team around the child, and that fully promoting a team-around-the-child model in which social workers, foster carers and therapists are regarded and treated as equal partners would enhance the experience and outcomes for children in care and, importantly, support the recruitment and retention of foster carers?
Rebecca Smith
It makes a huge amount of sense that foster carers are considered a key part of that process. I am sure that in certain parts of the country they are, but it sounds from the hon. Member’s question like there are other parts where some work is needed.
Independent fostering agencies are responsible for 44% of mainstream fostering households. They account for nearly 38,000 children in foster care in England. If their current growth continues, they have the potential to become the largest provider of fostering services.
When children enter the care system, they are first triaged by the local authority. If the local authority is not able to place a child in its own fostering service, it will ask an IFA to step in instead. That explains in part why IFAs overwhelmingly care for children with complex needs, including children with challenging behaviours, medical needs and those who have experienced numerous placement breakdowns. They also tend to be more successful at placing older children.
IFAs are more effective than local authorities at recruitment and retention, and less expensive, but they have been consistently overlooked by the Government. Ofsted reports consistently demonstrate that IFAs offer high-quality care to children, excellent support for foster carers and value for money for local authorities. Some 96% of IFAs are rated good or outstanding by Ofsted; by contrast, only 60% of local authorities were judged to be good or outstanding. Sixty-one per cent of IFA approvals are completed within six months, compared with only 41% of local authority approvals. However, until now, the Government have not properly acknowledged the growing contribution of IFAs and the vulnerable children who are impacted as a result.
The Government’s fostering policy paper launches regional care co-operatives, which will plan, deliver and commission homes for children at scale. However, the Government have failed to recognise the crucial role that IFAs play; instead, they seem to place them in direct competition with the new RCCs. IFAs already have experience in regionalisation, yet they are left out of all conversations. They are not sitting around the table with local authorities. I believe that is short-sighted and counterproductive. It is crucial that the Government engage with IFAs, along with local authorities, to better learn from their experience.
RCC decisions must be based on the best interests of the child and not simply the provider type. We need transparent placement protocols that include IFAs at every stage of consideration. RCCs should avoid blanket exclusions or prioritisation of local authority foster carers without due regard to individual need. It is about what is best for the child.
In my view, a mixed economy approach to foster care is the most efficient model and improves outcomes for vulnerable children. Compared with local authorities, IFAs are agile because they can respond more quickly, especially since they face less financial pressure. IFAs are also better at long-term planning. From my own experience in local government, I know that the relentless four-year election cycle—indeed, in Plymouth, we have elections every year for three years—hampers long-term strategic oversight for foster carers, whereas IFAs can consistently provide the care unhindered. Local authorities have so many other pressures on their time and resources, whereas IFAs can focus on doing one thing really well: providing consistent support tailored to a foster family’s needs.
Parents who use IFAs testify to the bespoke support that they provide. Janet has been a foster parent for 23 years and has cared for 11 children. Having previously adopted two boys, she saw the life-changing impact a stable home can offer. After experiencing a lack of support from a local authority, Janet transferred to the IFA that has supported them for the past 12 years. She says:
“I have 24/7 access to support from people who know me and my family. The conversations are open, honest and non-judgemental, and always centred on the children.”
Their IFA assures careful placement matching and treats carers as valued partners in the child’s care.
Ruth and Chris have a background in mental health services, so they are attuned to the way that trauma can shape a child’s life. They say:
“Foster children have often endured things they never should. Our motto is to drown them in love—it’s not just a job, it’s a way of life.”
Through their local IFA, they receive a vital support package, easy access to social workers, tailored training, and funding support for their children to do the activities they love. They say:
“If you call, you get help the same day. It’s personal, nurturing, and non-judgmental.”
Ruth and Chris’s local service has enabled them to work with the same psychologist for six years, which provides crucial continuity for their foster children. They contrast that with the poor communication they experienced when fostering via their local authority. One time they received files with such poor notes that they could not even tell which gender the children were.
All that being said, Plymouth city council is a success story of a local authority that is working really well. The council runs its own in-house fostering agency, Foster for Plymouth—in fact, it even gives out trolley tokens for people to carry around with them. It currently has 111 approved fostering households, which offer 234 placements for children. For context, Plymouth currently has a total of 525 children in its care, so that proportion is encouraging, and it is growing. The in-house agency provides significant value for money: it costs £571 per child per week, which is lower than the cost of IFAs, at more than £1,200 per week. However, this is an unusual situation; it is not replicated in many local authorities across the country. It is also, of course, far less expensive than the cost of residential care, at more than £9,400 a week.
Foster for Plymouth has built great relationships with local organisations, including Dartmoor zoo, in my constituency, and it regularly encourages businesses to offer discounts to foster carers. By offering a council tax exemption for foster carers, the council has seen 17 households sign up in the past year. It is also worth saying that we established a looked-after children covenant, because we recognised that if we wanted to ensure that the whole city was prioritising looked-after children and previously looked-after children, that was one way of doing it. I really believe Plymouth has some good practice here.
The council has also allocated a dedicated budget for carers who may need to do loft conversions and other home alterations to care for more children. I am sure the Minister has heard people mention that as a hindrance in the past. I think it is a really practical way of encouraging people to continue fostering. The council has developed a marketing campaign aimed specifically at people who have never considered fostering. In terms of wider collaboration, the council hosts an annual fostering summit and works closely with the Fostering South West hub.
A linked issue that I want to highlight is the postcode lottery when it comes to fostering fees, which are paid to foster carers in recognition of the skills and time involved in fostering. Although allowances for foster carers are set nationally, there is no legislation or guidance about fees, and that leads to wildly differing fee payments across the country. Shockingly, some foster carers receive £38,000 a year more than others, according to the Fostering Network, a national charity. In fact, some carers receive no fee, and many receive as little as £18 a week. Better remuneration for foster carers would help with both recruitment and retention and reflect their valuable contribution to society.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Feedback from foster carers in York has highlighted the differential in the sums of money they receive for Staying Put and for foster caring, which makes it really difficult for them to decide whether to maintain that home—that safe place—for a child or to push the child out of the home. Does the hon. Member agree that those resources should be equalised, to ensure a smooth pathway for these very vulnerable children?
Rebecca Smith
Anything that encourages a consistent home for young people is vital. One thing I have not had time to mention yet is the use of supported lodgings, which we have talked about before. Ultimately, I have seen the success of enabling young people to stay within a home, so anything that encourages that is definitely worth pursuing.
Many parents give up work to foster; in fact, about 60% of foster carers do not work. Foster carers provide a professional service, and they should not be expected to do so on a shoestring. Only a quarter of foster carers say they feel their fee is sufficient to cover essential living costs. Better financial support would increase their autonomy to make decisions that are in the best interests of their children. The Fostering Network is calling on the Government to introduce a national recommended fee framework for foster carers, which would reduce the unfair variation across the country. It would be interesting to hear the Minister’s response to that call.
To fix the chronic problems facing children’s services, the Government must focus on encouraging more people to become and remain foster carers, which I know they are seeking to do. Many people already have the skills and the compassion to open up their home to a child in need. Often, all they lack is the right incentives and support, so I am encouraged by the Government’s national action plan, which acknowledges the urgent need for systemic reform. However, the plan will succeed only if carers feel properly recognised and sustained over the long term.
The measures that I have outlined would go some way towards improving foster carer recruitment and retention. First, given that IFAs are more effective and less expensive than local authority provision, I urge the Government to give them a seat around the table during the regionalisation process. Secondly, the Government should fix the postcode lottery for foster care fees. Thirdly, they should learn from Plymouth as an example of outstanding local authority provision. I am sure that it would welcome a visit from the Minister, if he has never been down there, to see what it is doing and meet some of the young people who have been so affected by this policy. Ultimately, every delay in fixing the system means another child waiting for the loving, stable foster family they deserve, and we cannot allow structural barriers to stand in their way.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank both the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for securing the debate and other Members for their interventions. This is my first opportunity to talk about the fostering action plan in Parliament, so I thank the hon. Lady for allowing me to set out some of the details and to respond to the points she rightly raised.
Since my appointment last September, I have made renewing our fostering system my No. 1 priority as the Minister for Children and Families. Through extensive engagement and discussion, we have pulled together a bold plan, recognising the urgency of the problem that faces us. Earlier this month, we published our action plan, six-week consultation and call for evidence to renew fostering and create 10,000 additional foster care places by the end of this Parliament. We have done this 100 years on from the Adoption of Children Act 1926—the centenary of adoption and fostering as we know it—which created much of the framework that we now work within.
Now is the time to renew our fostering system. Foster care numbers are in decline: the total number has dropped by 12% since 2019, and we face a major demographic challenge because around one third of current carers are over 60, which will compound the problem in the years ahead. There are currently appalling conversion rates and unacceptable delays in approving carers. The 150,000 inquiries made last year only saw 7,300 newly approved foster carers, and 59% of fostering assessments in local authorities take more than six months.
All that is driving pressure on residential care, resulting in children living in residential care settings when they could—and should—be living in family-based homes. There was a 24% increase in children living in residential care between 2020 and 2025, with the number now at over 18,000 children. Yet research looking at children’s needs shows that 45% of children in residential care have the same level of need as those in foster care. The result of that pressure on many foster carers is poor matches, a lack of support and an outdated rulebook that signals a lack of trust and respect. The total impact of all that on our children is that too many are forced to live away from their school, friends and family. There are too many matches that mean they do not get the connections they need, and too many are in residential care when it is not the right fit for them.
The status quo and fostering decline run at complete odds with our wider reforms to children’s social care. It means that we are breaking rather than making lifelong, loving relationships and driving the cost escalator towards ever-expanding residential care, and there is evidence of profiteering. Between 2020 and 2025, spending on residential care doubled to £3.7 billion. Our wider reforms will keep more families safely together and mean greater support for kinship options. They are backed by a major reform programme and £2.4 billion of additional spending. Even with all that, renewing our fostering system demands real focus, national leadership and ambition. I will set out the actions we are taking to give thousands more children in care the choices they need to have the enduring relationships that must become the obsession of the care system.
First, to make sure that the whole of the English system is galvanised by the target that we have set of 10,000 care places, we are renewing local authority fostering teams and expanding fostering hubs that have made meaningful progress to take on the full end-to-end process. We are pushing fostering hubs to take on the whole process rather than just the initial inquiry stage. According to our plans, the majority of local authorities in England this year will recruit and train foster carers in end-to-end hubs. Those hubs will be held to account for rolling out the most effective features of existing hubs, so that we can get the conversion rates up. We will also launch new hubs in the coming weeks.
Further to that, we will create the second wave of regional care co-operatives with greater clarity: they will not simply be commissioning bodies but directly create provision and be tied to fostering hubs. To respond to the points raised around IFAs by the hon. Member for South West Devon, the RCC’s role is in many respects to strike a better relationship with the not-for-profit and profit-making sectors in both fostering and residential care. Throughout the whole process of building the plans I have engaged with independent fostering organisations and will continue to do that. They have value to add into the process and can bring innovation into it. But I want to add a word of caution: there is evidence from Competition and Markets Authority studies that profit-making independent fostering bodies cost more on average than local authority fostering, and it is being done for profit.
With the direction of travel that we have seen the residential care system going in, we are now at a point where about 90% of all residential care is run on a for-profit basis and where the largest companies demonstrate behaviour that amounts to profiteering. I do not want to see that replicated in the fostering system, so we need to grip it before that happens. Market failure will be the result of inaction from the Government in this field, and I will not tolerate that.
All other local authorities that are not in an RCC or a fostering hub will be set stretching targets to approve, and we will set new standards on the process overall. Ofsted will update its inspection framework to hold those local authorities to account. We are also consulting on whether the role of fostering panels for approvals should be changed, and whether that adds value to the process commensurate with the time and cost involved in those fostering panels. We will launch a digital platform to speed up the process. All of that should speed up conversion rates and get more approved carers as soon as possible.
Rachael Maskell
Could the Minister say a little more about how foster carers from within families will be handled in this process? That is really important. Also, how will the reunification process work, so that we can reunite a child with their birth family?
Josh MacAlister
My hon. Friend is at risk of taking me off down two very important subjects that I would love to spend an entire Westminster Hall debate talking about. Briefly, I want to see the fostering approval system change so that it is sensitive to the differences between approving, for example, a known person to that child who will only ever foster that child, and approving foster carers who are doing it through the more conventional route. The problem at the moment, as I have heard from many kinship carers, is that they are held to standards that are just not appropriate. Grandparents are being given a hard time because they vape, or because they have only one spare room and they are wanting to look after two grandchildren. I want all that swept away so that we can have a common-sense system that gets behind the people who are already in that child’s life and love them, so that that becomes the central focus of how we structure the care system.
Similarly for reunification practice, it is important that people recognise more widely that the route from living with parents to living in care often involves going back and forth many times, and it should not. We need to build a care system that can wrap around families and parents who might be struggling. The option of part-time foster care or family fostering can offer real value. I did a radio call-in this morning on that very point and spoke to a young care-experienced person called Mary who had that experience of moving in and out of care. I think she said her mum was bipolar. Mary’s mum loves her and can offer some care and support to her, so it would be great if the care system could bolster Mary’s family rather than replace Mary’s family, if it is safe to do so. That is what we should try to do at every step with the care system.
Secondly, we will scale and support innovation to get new carers and look after the ones who are already caring, because retention is as important as recruitment. We will double down on Mockingbird, the programme of support for existing foster carers, funding another 100 constellations. We will also set new standards of support for all carers so that they can benefit from the features that make Mockingbird such a success. We will take Room Makers, first started in Greater Manchester—a programme that sounds very similar to the one mentioned by the hon. Member for South West Devon—to national roll-out. At least £25 million will fund extensions or renovations so that children can stay connected for longer, or grow up with their brothers and sisters in the same house. We will launch a fostering innovation programme to bring forward even more new thinking, with a focus on new and flexible models of care, like weekenders, step down, and specialist care and support for retention.
Specifically, I have been delighted to work with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to set up a new programme to scale up remand fostering so that children do not unnecessarily enter young offender institutions. Through all of that, we will encourage partnerships between fostering hubs and independent fostering associations, as the hon. Member for South West Devon has highlighted. Renewing fostering means opening up to new models of care and new families. The Government welcome that innovation.
Thirdly, we will rewrite the rulebook around fostering, prioritising making foster care feel human, loving and normal for children, and respected and supported for carers. We have launched a rapid consultation on changes to the allegations process, which has been a source of complaint for many years. We are doing that so that it is fairer for carers and does not unduly rock existing strong relationships.
We have launched a call for evidence on a range of issues, including a foster care national register and consistency of allowances. We will be setting out a process of analysing the variation of allowances across the country in order to highlight the point that hon. Members have raised. We will make some changes around the distinctive role of kinship and connected carers in fostering, and the training and support that they need. That will lead to a rewriting of national minimum standards and other statutory guidance for fostering at the earliest opportunity. We will take immediate steps to clarify that foster carers must be respected in conversations about their child among professionals. We are also immediately taking action to clarify that the day-to-day decisions about children, such as permissions to get haircuts and overnight stays, should be made by foster carers by default, not exception.
We are rewriting the rulebook to put long-lasting relationships first, and that will be part of wider action to take on myths about who can and cannot care. Our vision is a fostering system built on relationships that last. By recruiting and retaining more carers, acting regionally, innovating, supporting families and simplifying the rules, we will create thousands more foster families across England that are closer to children’s communities and schools. We know we can do that because the appetite is there in the country; we are just failing to convert it. We have done it in recent history: the Homes for Ukraine scheme showed what we can do when confronted with a problem. Civic society and Government can be mobilised in harmony towards a shared goal.
This is a decisive moment for fostering in England; together we will ensure that every child who could thrive in foster care has the option of a home to grow up in, with the love, stability and opportunity that they deserve.
Question put and agreed to.
Local Transport: Planning Developments
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of planning developments on local transport.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. Let me start by making something clear: the local people of Harpenden, Berkhamsted, Tring, Redbourn, Sandridge and the surrounding villages are no nimbys. They are not against housing. They are raising the alarm against top-down national planning that does not serve local housing needs; that leaves local services bursting at the seams without adequate investment, or with investment that is delivered far too late; that fails to deliver the transport infrastructure that communities actually need; and that is eroding precious landscapes, some of which are home to rare chalk streams found nowhere else in the world. Some of those people have joined us in the Public Gallery, and I thank them.
This debate is about the impact of planning on transport infrastructure, and to understand that, we need to see the big picture. The towns and villages in Harpenden and Berkhamsted, including Tring, Redbourn, Wheathampstead, Sandridge and Markyate, are steeped in history. The beautiful Chilterns national landscape can be found around Tring, Berkhamsted and Aldbury. Four rare chalk streams thread through the constituency, alongside the Grand Union canal. Settlements that appear in the Domesday Book can be found, and the old Watling Street runs through the centre of Redbourn. There is also Berkhamsted castle, where the English throne was surrendered to William the Conqueror.
But there are also towns in the constituency that were originally designed for horse-drawn traffic and are now gridlocked with commuter cars. The M1 cuts right through the middle of the constituency, and every time there is an accident, it causes further gridlock on country lanes. The capacity of Luton airport, which is just seven miles away, is nearly doubling, going from 19 million to 32 million passengers a year. That will add roughly a million passengers per month, many of whom will travel on the same routes as local people.
On Thameslink and London Northwestern services, rammed trains are cancelled almost daily—indeed, a group from the Probus club in Harpenden arrived after their train was cancelled today—and bus services have been decimated. That is before we even talk about the impossibility of finding an NHS dentist, the pressures on GPs and the desperate need for additional school places, particularly for children with special educational needs. These old towns and villages are not built for growth of such scale.
We must, then, look at the Government’s approach to planning. Labour has continued the top-down numbers legacy that the Conservatives left behind and, in some cases, made it significantly worse. From top-down targets to grey-belt land, developers are literally having a field day, using loopholes to get unplanned development through. This matters. Giving developers the green light leaves us with an unco-ordinated approach, and infrastructure and communities are coming last.
The new methodology for calculating housing supply has hit St Albans council particularly hard. Its targets have almost doubled, from 855 to 1,660 homes per year, and the numbers in Dacorum have gone from 1,016 to 1,380 homes per year. Both those increased figures will have to be dealt with in further local plans, because they do not even include the massive housing development that we are seeing now.
The changes have left us facing substantial housing sites, such as the 1,400 homes in the Marshcroft development east of Tring, the 850 homes at South Berkhamsted and the more than 700 proposed homes in north-east Harpenden. The Marshcroft development alone would increase the population of Tring by a potential 40%. As Lucy from Tring says:
“It makes no sense…our roads can’t handle it.”
The town got its market charter over 700 years ago, and it has the roads to match. It is also buttressed against the Chilterns national landscape.
I warned the Government from the outset that their plans for development on grey-belt land would hand the advantage to developers rather than communities, which is exactly what has happened. The unclear definition of the grey belt creates a wide-open door for developers, not for communities. Crucially, by focusing protections on towns, the guidance leaves villages, which often have fewer services and weaker infrastructure, far more vulnerable to unplanned development. In Berkhamsted, developers have used the grey-belt back door to push applications adjacent to allocated sites. For example, the grey-belt back door was used in the Haresfoot farm application to get permission to build on green-belt land.
The situation in Redbourn is even more alarming. The latest proposal is a 1,000-home development that is not in the local plan but claims grey-belt status. If that is combined with other sites, Redbourn faces a pipeline of development that could see its population grow by over 70%. As Jen from Redbourn says:
“I am hugely concerned that there is no local democracy that allows villages to stop disproportionate housing development.”
Catherine from Redbourn is equally clear:
“When it comes to measuring green belt, brown belt and grey belt land, villages should not be measured in the same way as a town. This is green-belt land with rare chalk streams, water vole and flora that you don’t find in Europe—it should be protected.”
Redbourn is precisely the kind of village with less infrastructure that has been left more exposed by grey-belt development. Will the Minister speak with colleagues from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to address the top-down practices that take powers and critical infrastructure away from communities?
Although the previous Conservative administrations left Dacorum and St Albans without adopted local plans, which left our area ripe for speculative development, Liberal Democrat councils in the area have worked hard to finally get local plans to the examination stage, but while the plans remain in inspectors’ hands, the Government give no protection from unplanned development. Despite continuous calls on the Government to help to protect us, we have been left exposed.
All that is before we even consider the wider pressures bearing down on local councils, which leave the looming threat of Government takeover when too many appeals are overturned. Nor have we covered the lack of teeth for neighbourhood plans, or the proposals in the planning legislation to make it easier to build near train stations. All these rules put the power in developers’ hands and take it away from communities—so no wonder developers are popping up across the constituency. Does the Minister agree that tackling unplanned development and giving communities more power is vital when preparing transport infrastructure?
Underlying all this is a structural failure in how infrastructure can be planned. The speculative and unplanned development I have outlined sits entirely outside of planned growth modelling. That means that unplanned sites are assessed site by site, in isolation, and with no cumulative way of seeing what they mean together for the roads, buses, rail, cycling, schools, GPs or dentists that communities need. It is wholly inadequate, fragmented and reactive.
Local plans cannot account for national infrastructure decisions, either. The Luton airport expansion, the Universal Studios theme park, and even a rail freight development, approved by the Government, have taken the place of thousands of potential homes elsewhere, and cannot be accounted for. When councils do secure investment for infrastructure with section 106 money or the community infrastructure levy, the current viability criteria mean they can often get out of building more affordable homes, or limit that investment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this topic to the House. We have similar problems back home in Northern Ireland. From listening to her, it seems that whenever a new development goes up, it relies on private cars, because there is no public transport out in the countryside, so the pressure is always on people to provide their own transport, which affects the local roads and infrastructure. It also seems like private developers are not following the rules that require a detailed traffic and transport impact assessment for all major developments. If that has not been done when the rules indicate it should have, should the councils, Government or local bodies not take enforcement action to ensure that what is required actually happens, rather than sitting back and doing nothing?
Victoria Collins
I agree with parts of the hon. Member’s intervention. The developers have armies of legal teams and, as I will come on to, the national legislation is open to interpretation when it comes to roads. Councils are essentially left powerless to enforce the legislation, because developers find the loopholes. They have the money and the power to push past.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
My hon. Friend is right to point out that developers have armies of lawyers, and one of the most frustrating things for local authorities is when they come back again and again. Even when planning authorities reject an application, developers will take it to appeal, and even if the appeal is rejected, they will wait a short period and then come back again. They only have to win once, which is incredibly frustrating for the communities that face the threat.
Victoria Collins
Absolutely. On top of that, councils also warn that when they get section 106 money or funding from the community infrastructure levy, the funding available is not enough for the new roads needed for development. They also warn that if we expect section 106 contributions to deliver all new infrastructure, the burden will often be pushed on to new homeowners, as prices can be pushed up.
What is more, there is no guarantee on the delivery or timing of infrastructure plans, often because major infrastructure depends on external bodies or funding cycles, such as for highways and regional transport, as well as on NHS capital planning cycles or educational funding cycles. The Government must adopt an infrastructure-first approach. How will they empower communities to take a cumulative view of the infrastructure impact of planning? What action are the Government taking to address the train capacity and service issues I have highlighted?
Let us turn to the reality on the ground for transport services, starting with roads. Local people put it best. Fiona from Berkhamsted says:
“The roads are completely overwhelmed by traffic through Berkhamsted.”
Anne captures the absurdity of national planning guidance:
“The biggest issue for Berkhamsted is a one-size-fits-all NPPF”—
national planning policy framework—
“for a valley town where the only place left to build is at the top of valley sides, and ancient narrow streets give little scope for cycle routes—certainly not a joined-up network.”
Having once been a keen cyclist in Berkhamsted, I can confirm that the difficulty of getting around means that my poor bike has been left locked up. Sarah from Berkhamsted asks:
“What’s the point of building new houses if there are no pavements for people to walk or safe roads for cars to use?”
Gill from Harpenden is direct, saying:
“The town has so many pinch points on already narrow roads that are already causing jams.”
As I said, the towns and villages in my constituency are old, and many of the roads were built for horse-drawn traffic. Berkhamsted is a hilly place, but there is not a single mention of topography in the national planning framework. Yet the loose definition of “severe”, in terms of cumulative impact tests for roads and traffic, leaves another door wide open for developers.
If someone cannot get around by car, perhaps they can use the bus. Well, that is a whole other story. Under the Conservatives in Hertfordshire, we saw a 56.5% reduction in bus mileage between 2017 and 2023—the biggest reduction in England. That has left us with inaccessible areas where people need a car to get around. The 307 bus in Redbourn runs to Harpenden station only from 9 am, with the last departure at 2 pm, and on Sundays there is no service at all. There is no direct bus connection to local secondary schools. Catherine from Redbourn says it plainly:
“While you might have had to wait ten minutes in London for a bus, here we have three buses a day to Harpenden—you cannot rely on the buses.”
In Berkhamsted, we worked with local campaigners to bring back the 500 bus every half hour, but the service stops at 7 pm. It is a similar story in Tring. I once tried to get a bus across my constituency, from Wheathampstead to Berkhamsted, but what should have been a 30-minute drive took four hours. The recommended route from Harpenden to Berkhamsted is actually via London and costs £35 one way.
Hannah, a sixth-form student from Harpenden, makes the point well:
“Public transport allows me as a young person to visit friends and do activities outside the House—it gives me independence.”
She adds:
“I have never considered living in Harpenden in the future, because it would be far too expensive to buy a place to live.”
That is a double failure by this Government that needs to be heard. Young people say they cannot afford to stay and cannot get around even if they could.
So what about the train? In the last four weeks, only seven out of 122 daily trains from Harpenden to London ran 100% on time. From Berkhamsted to London, only three out of 78 daily departures ran 100% on time, and from Tring there were also only three. From driver availability issues to Thameslink core infrastructure failures and a bottleneck around Croydon, it seems that things will only get worse as pressures grow around the Thameslink line from Bedford to Brighton. Beyond housing development, I have mentioned the other pressures from the expansion of Luton and Gatwick airports, and the Universal Studios development.
There is a two-track bottleneck through central London, and when it fails, the whole line fails. Govia Thameslink Railway has asked the Government for funding for a back-up system; has that been agreed? What are the Government doing to work with rail operators to prepare for the pressures that are building up on the Thameslink line from Bedford to Brighton?
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
Like in my hon. Friend’s constituency, there are all kinds of speculative developments in Surrey Heath, but one of the greatest challenges we face is the potential relocation of Frimley Park hospital. When I asked about the budget that had been set aside for the creation of new roads, railway stations, road improvements and road-widening schemes, I was told that no money had been set aside and that any costs might come, notionally, from a contingency fund. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is no way to use a contingency fund? If Government bodies cannot get it right, what hope should we have for private developers?
Victoria Collins
Quite frankly, I find it shameful. It is no wonder that communities are pushing back on development if they see that the infrastructure is not there, and if they cannot get around and cannot get a GP appointment, yet they see thousands of new homes being built. No wonder public trust has been lost.
I could not cover every application across Harpenden and Berkhamsted, but the story is repeated across our corner of Hertfordshire and, indeed, up and down the country. I thank the thousands of constituents who have contacted me. Thousands have written to me about their concerns—94 alone with comments for this debate—and, as I said, several have joined us in the Public Gallery.
Here is the nugget of the issue: if I could say, hand on heart, that top-down planning would, in 10 years’ time, truly deliver affordable, sustainable housing, and houses that local teenagers like Hannah could afford, if I could look her in the eyes and tell her she is wrong about not being able to afford a home, and if I could say that the infrastructure would be built, that developers would not squeeze out of their commitments and that trains and buses would catch up and be up to scratch, I would be making very different arguments. But I cannot.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
The latest NPPF makes it clear that transport planning and infrastructure should be designed in at the outset, but my rural constituency has seen continuous large-scale development outside towns, from which it takes 25 minutes to walk into a town centre. There are no buses. It is not like London where, after waiting five minutes, a bus turns up; a person can wait two hours and nothing turns up. Does my hon. Friend agree that the NPPF needs to allocate funding, on top of the commitment to make sure that transport is considered at the outset?
Victoria Collins
Absolutely; I agree completely.
I come back to the promise that I would like to make to Hannah but cannot. Given that the average house price in Berkhamsted is over £650,000, and in Harpenden is more than £900,000, and given that last year the median new build price across the constituency was £747,500, so-called affordable homes—an average house—in expensive postcodes like ours, priced at 80% of market value, still cost more than half a million pounds. How on earth can we say to local people that they are sacrificing green belt so that their children or grandchildren can afford to buy? Local people know that is not the truth, which is why they are pushing back.
Local people understand the need for housing, but they cannot understand why powers are being taken away from them, top-down targets are pushing expensive homes on to communities that need genuinely affordable housing, and precious landscapes are being sacrificed. They cannot understand why Labour have not learned the lessons from the last Government. Communities will again be left without the transport infrastructure they need, and local people will be forced to move away. I call on the Minister and the Government to hear our calls for infrastructure-first and community-led development. It is the least that our communities deserve.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
Order. I suggest a time limit of four minutes to start with.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for giving me the opportunity to talk about one of my favourite topics—public transport, or the lack thereof.
As other rural MPs in the room will know, improving local transport links is a never-ending discussion, particularly in a constituency such as North West Leicestershire that only has a bus service to rely on. We have no passenger rail at all, so everybody needs to travel by road.
Off the back off 14 years of austerity forced upon us by the coalition and then the previous Conservative Government, we need to consider the context that our community has been growing throughout that time. Alongside the destruction of our public services, libraries, Sure Starts and day services, our public transport was cut by 62%.
Planning developments and local transport are about understanding the population we have, as well as the future population. When talking about planning, we have to consider the impact, particularly in my constituency, of huge shed expansion in the industrial sector.
I speak to local residents in Heather regularly, a village in North West Leicestershire. They are just a stone’s throw away from Ibstock, a developing town. Many have told me that when they first moved to Heather, they did not need to use public transport regularly, but knowing they could get a bus meant they had a service they could rely on. Now, as they are getting older, their needs have changed, but the public transport in Heather is long gone. Demand fluctuates, but we are not evaluating that quickly enough or planning for the long term, so when the demography of a town or an estate changes, we are reliant on the community fighting for themselves to get services in place, rather than bus services reflecting the needs of that changing community.
When we talk about connecting new housing developments to leisure, jobs, education, medical and other services, the context is that we have so many fewer services than we had 15 years ago. Context is important in these transport conversations. Planning for change and growth is at the very core of what we are discussing. In fact, planning a new housing estate feels so much more straightforward when the numbers needed to create a new school or doctor’s surgery are taken into consideration. It might not be easy, but we understand the maths that sits behind it. However, when it comes to public transport, it is much less cohesive. It seems a complete waste that public transport is lagging behind in a much more piecemeal discussion. We are not planning for change; we are responding to it, and that is very frustrating for our local communities.
We had a newish development in my community that already involved the enhancement of a new school and the opportunity to extend the doctor’s surgery. As part of the planning conditions, residents were given a six-month bus pass, but it is of little use: there are no buses, so what is the point? We are not getting true, seamless connection between our new developments and our towns. Our towns need those new communities to survive and thrive. Any building in existing town centres does not create good connectivity and extra footfall. It actually means an impairment to growth. Quite often, the bus network does not serve newer estates that sit just outside our town centres, which means that residents are cut off from the town centre, and the town centre is cut off from them. They simply never visit. Therefore, the opportunity to help our town centres is lost. I was proud to sit on the Bus Services Bill Committee, and the Government’s commitment to get more money to local authorities for public transport is clear. However, the difficult part of that is trying to ensure that the money is actually being best utilised, as we are not planning for change; we are reacting to it.
There needs to be a better link between where people live and where services are required. We are never going to be able to plan for everything, but I would like to hear the Minister’s view on how bus services in the long term can be a vehicle for growth and create clearer community connections.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for securing this really important debate.
In my experience, nothing erodes public confidence in the planning system faster than development that is delivered with the promise of appropriate infrastructure that never materialises. People are often accepting and understanding of new homes being built if it is done in a thoughtful and considered way. What they are not willing to accept is development pushing local residents out of catchment areas for schools, it becoming impossible for them to see their GP, their homes starting to flood regularly, and no longer being able to get a seat on the train on the way to work. In my constituency, we face huge amounts of development with an absolutely ridiculous doubling of housing targets, all while London’s target comes down. Unfortunately, I see no signs of adequate investment in our local public transport to accompany this ludicrous target.
As Members will be aware, the Government’s draft revised national planning policy framework is heavily tilted towards encouraging development around stations. I understand the logic to that. If we want to reduce car dependency and create opportunity, we have to build near public transport. To maximise the use of existing infrastructure, we have to build in more urban areas that are already well connected. If we want to protect high-quality green belt, we have to densify close to existing settlements. Those are sensible propositions, but the NPPF is too broad brush and does not discern between those bits of land close to stations that fit with these objectives and those that do not.
Let us take Kingswood station in my constituency, for example. There is high-quality green-belt land nearby, yet the train service is far from ideal, there is no timetabled bus service and there are plentiful other brownfield sites and, indeed, greenfield sites that would be much better to build on first. I recognise the good intentions behind that change, and I support looking at land close to train stations first, but additional parameters are required to act as an appropriate filter to protect villages such as Kingswood. If the planning system is going to prioritise developments near stations above all other considerations, it must also be accompanied by extra investment and funding in transport capacity. If the infrastructure is not there or not credibly planned, the answer should be no. That approach would enable growth at genuinely suitable hubs while protecting small villages.
On Gatwick expansion, I am concerned that Gatwick airport has been given the green light to operate a second runway without sufficient thought being given to what that means for surrounding public transport. Reigate station sits on a busy community artery, yet the Department for Transport has said nothing about the impact that millions of extra passengers heading down to Gatwick will have on the line or the station.
The most transformational improvement for Reigate station would be achieved by extending its platform to allow additional and more efficient services. Back in 2020, a Network Rail scheme proposed the creation of a 12-car turnback platform to allow Thameslink trains to stop at the station and avoid the need for splitting and joining of trains at Redhill. I ask the Government to reconsider that project in the light of Gatwick expansion. Redhill is impacted, too, so I would be grateful if the Minister clarified what plans are in place for these stations and lines to meet the need for additional capacity and more frequent and reliable services. This is also a good opportunity to ensure that the facilities at those stations are fit for the 21st century and fully accessible, so that everyone can use them.
On the topic of accessibility, I would like to raise the plight of Earlswood station. It serves a growing area, and one that could come under even greater pressure if the planning system encourages heavier development around it, yet Earlswood’s infrastructure is already creaking. Things have got so bad that the underpass was recently badly flooded and had to be pumped out. People are literally taking their shoes and socks off to get the train, and those with buggies, older residents and disabled passengers are effectively blocked from travelling. I am pleased to see that Network Rail has now replaced the pumps to help to address the situation, but there is still more to do in the long run.
In closing, if the Government want public support for housing growth, they must improve support for public transport as well. Those two things must go hand in hand.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I, too, thank the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for securing today’s debate, which brings together so many of us who have a shared passion for aligning local transport with development.
I can understand why so many colleagues have come here today to raise concerns about future developments and how they see new properties as adding pressure to local transport, but I join my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) in pointing out that many rural communities are already missing vital transport links for our existing residents. In Shropshire, we lost over 65% of our local buses under the last Government. Two out of every three buses were deleted. Imagine what that did to the largest inland county in this country. We now have communities that are isolated, residents who are lonely, and vital services, such as health, shops and community, that are just out of reach for so many.
Like many others here, one of my biggest challenges since becoming an MP has been how to help local transport partners work together to build back our transport infrastructure. I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the opportunity that comes with new housing developments—not just the opportunity to secure funding and plans for more buses, trains, bus stops and networks, but opportunity that runs in the opposite direction. A couple of colleagues have mentioned the change to planning infrastructure, but when we consider strategic housing developments in our local plans, we need to reconsider the opportunities for maximising housing and development close to existing transport infrastructure.
The Rail Industry Association produced an influential report on this issue last October called “Station Investment Zones: A new model for investment in transport, housing and growth”. The argument from the industry is that well-connected stations already offer economic opportunity as engines of growth and that transport or local government landowners could unlock sites near stations, trams, buses or transport hubs to offer hyper-connected housing as infill.
There is another benefit from that approach—one that I have also heard Ministers mention. By investing in our station quarters, we can lift what can sometimes become forgotten corners of our towns and turn them into more brightly lit, well-used areas, with more footfall, amenities and bustle. Let us bring people back to the community hubs that these areas should always have been. That would also deliver more passengers for rail operators such as Great British Railways and reduce unnecessary car journeys, helping the modal shift that we are all trying to drive forward to reduce congestion and pollution in town centres such as Shrewsbury. I would love to see that type of development near my train station in Shrewsbury. Let us get more shops, cafés, streetlights, ATMs and footfall to complement the services that are already offered there.
I was therefore delighted that the Government amended planning policy in the NPPF to include a presumption in favour of suitable developments within 800 metres of a well-connected station. It is the ultimate example of joined-up Government: cross-departmental policy delivering much-needed housing where we already have transport infrastructure and in turn helping to fund more transport for the areas where housing will need to be increased, which Members have talked about today. On behalf of the people of Shrewsbury, I say to the Minister: thank you very much for bringing forward a sensible and impactful policy that will help all of us in the search for transport alongside housing.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) on securing this important debate and on her continued work in this policy area.
In West Dorset, the issue with planning development is not just about how many homes we build, but where we build them and whether they are built with the infrastructure that is needed to support them. As I have said repeatedly, we need the right houses in the right places and at the right price. That means genuinely affordable homes for local people. It means accessible homes, so that older residents can downsize and stay close to the family. It means not building on floodplains—something that recent storms in the area have shown to be serious and costly. It means protecting natural landscapes, such as the one that covers 70% of West Dorset; and it means that, when new homes are approved, the infrastructure that is needed, such as GPs, dentists, schools and, critically, transport, must be delivered.
Having spent many thrilling hours on the Railways Bill Committee, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), I will not revisit every rail argument, but I do want to be clear that housing growth and rail capacity must be planned together. Local transport must be properly joined up. Local communities must be given a voice; and buses need to connect reliably with train services, so that people in new developments can realistically commute without relying entirely on a car.
When demand increases, supply should increase with it. Ticket prices remain too high, and peak services are often overcrowded, with elderly and disabled passengers standing for long journeys. It is not acceptable, and it will only worsen if housing numbers rise without matched investment. West Dorset is rural and spread out. We have an ageing population. Many residents rely on buses to get to work, school, hospital appointments and shops, but bus services have been cut back dramatically.
From 2010, service frequency in West Dorset fell by 62%. Satisfaction with bus services across Dorset stands at just 48%, despite nearly half of residents living in areas ranked in the top 20% most deprived nationally for access to services. Dorset received £3.8 million through the bus services improvement plan, compared with £11.6 million for Devon. It was one of the lowest settlements in the south-west. It does not reflect our rural geography, the scale of the problem, our older population or our surge in visitor numbers during the summer months.
When new housing developments are approved, especially in rural areas, they should come with guaranteed improvements to local transport. If buses are unreliable or non-existent, people will have no choice but to drive. Properly supported community transport also has a role to play. In places where commercial routes are no longer viable, there should be secure grant funding for community-led services. A hub-and-spoke model linking villages to key towns can be more realistic than trying to restore full commercial routes.
The CB3 service in Beaminster shows what can be achieved when communities work together, but parish and local councils cannot be expected to carry the financial burden alone. We should look seriously at pilots for larger roll-outs of on-demand services. Flexible bus systems can use technology to plan the most efficient routes based on bookings. These services have already worked particularly well for younger people travelling between villages.
If that is to work, the council will need technical support and funding to deliver it properly. On-demand services should be supported where reinstating traditional bus services is not viable, and the Government services should provide new centralised pots for community transport funding that can be bid for to specifically counteract the years of underfunding. The extra money and multi-year funding from central Government is a welcome change, but it is not enough to turn the tide. We need measures targeted to those places that have lost the most before we can start building a more sustainable network; otherwise, we will just normalise failure.
There is also a sequencing problem in planning. I have seen developments where housing has gone ahead but infrastructure has stalled, sometimes because a contractor has gone bust after being awarded the contract, as happened recently in Bridport. That leaves new homes without the transport links, roads and roundabouts that they were promised. It undermines trust in the planning system and fuels opposition to future development.
Transport is central to whether a development works. If we build homes without properly improving buses, trains and roads, we increase congestion, make daily life harder and create understandable resentment. If we want communities to have and agree to new housing developments, we must show that infrastructure will come alongside it, not years later.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
Although it is a pleasure to be called, Sir Desmond, I did not intend to give a speech. But I was planning to intervene, so I will quickly say that I recognise the points made by the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins). I come from the generation that has really struggled to buy a home in the community that they are from. Many of my colleagues and friends who have done incredibly well in their lives—they have achieved—are still living with their mums and dads. That is something that cannot continue.
While I recognise the hon. Member’s concerns about development with transport not following, the situation that we have now is simply not sustainable. We have to be brave, both as politicians and local representatives, to ensure that we do not make the perfect the enemy of the good. We have to push things forward for our young people. They have had the same promises—that we will build those affordable houses; that we will make those developments connected to their communities—for 20 years.
I say this as someone who has opposed and supported developments in my constituency: I take the hon. Member’s point that we will never meet the needs on our waiting lists unless we build affordable homes, but we have to actually start putting spades in the ground at some stage. As representatives in this Parliament, we cannot continue seeing the low numbers of houses being built in communities like mine in Redditch for another decade. It puts the life chances of my residents at risk, and means that my friends have to move to nearby conurbations, instead of being able to raise families and live in the constituencies that they want to. I agree with many of the things that the hon. Member said, but I also think that we need to be brave as politicians moving forward.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for bringing forward this debate.
On paper, Mid Leicestershire is well connected between the M1 and the A46, but the reality for my constituents is a different story. I am not coming at this as a nimby; I am not opposed to development for the sake of it. I recognise the pressing need for housing, particularly for young people to get on the property ladder, and for growth. However, what I cannot accept is endless development without the infrastructure to sustain it. Homes without roads, rail links and other public transport make the lives of my constituents poorer. So while the map may suggest connectivity, the daily experience of my constituents tells a different story.
In Markfield, for example, residents regularly contact me about the Fieldhead roundabout. Many residents face delays of more than an hour when travelling just a few miles to get to work, to hospital appointments, or to simply take their children to school. All of that is happening while further development is being granted, and there appears to be next to no consideration of the long-term and cumulative impacts of developments on connectivity.
In Stanton-under-Barden, residents have effectively been cut off from Coalville and the surrounding villages since last September. Their sole bus service has been cancelled as the direct result of disruption caused by a large development at the entrance to the village. While Leicestershire county council claims that alternatives are available to residents, my casework suggests otherwise. In Ratby, there is a prolonged closure of roads—again, as a result of developments, which have even disrupted the regular delivery of people’s post.
The question is: what can we do to help residents with the ongoing challenges posed by continued development, while ensuring that we have places for the next generation to live? First, I believe that there must be a fundamental re-evaluation of whether section 106 money is being spent as originally intended. We are consistently told that those contributions from developers to local authorities exist to mitigate the impact of new developments on existing residents, to fund roads, schools, transport links and community infrastructure—but does that actually materialise?
In 2024, it was reported that councils are sitting on more than £6 billion of unspent section 106 money. That is £6 billion that was intended to ease the pressure on communities—to improve junctions, support bus services and enhance local amenities. Instead it lies dormant or, worse still, is returned to developers.
Amanda Hack
I am a neighbouring constituency MP, and one of the things that has always been a huge frustration is that Leicestershire is in the top ten of held-on-to 106 money. There definitely needs to be a conversation about how we get that 106 money spent—and spent quickly.
Mr Bedford
The hon. Lady and I both served on Leicestershire county council together, so we are both well aware of that issue. We have made the case before to ensure that the money is invested in local infrastructure, and will continue to do so.
Secondly, I have seen in Mid Leicestershire the consequences of being a constituency that straddles multiple local planning authorities. Decisions made on the edge of one authority impact the residents who lie on the other side, in the other authority. I tabled two amendments to the Bill that became the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 that were aimed at addressing that issue. Sadly, the Government chose not to adopt those amendments, so I ask the Minister to relook at the issue to ensure that where multiple planning authorities straddle different areas, that is taken into consideration when planning permission is granted.
Finally, we should not support the Whitehall assumption that all roads must lead to London. We need to link big cities in the north, in the midlands, east and west. That is how we will truly level up. Most of us in this House recognise that we do need development, homes and growth, but development without infrastructure is not progress; it is a burden. We need better connectivity in our local areas, the infrastructure for which goes hand in hand with planning reforms. I urge the Government to take on board the many constructive suggestions from today’s debate, so that we have a system that truly recognises the need for infrastructure before and alongside development.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I am afraid I have been lured into making some side comments before getting into the meat of my speech. This is in relation to the point about aggregate supply and meeting the housing needs of young people. It is really important that we bring some facts to that debate, and the reality is that from 2013 to 2023 the housing stock in this country expanded more rapidly than our population did. It is not an issue of aggregate supply, and focusing on that will never meet the needs of younger people in this country.
The relationship between new housing and local transport, cuts to the core of why we need to end the developer-led, profit-motivated approach to planning in this nation. Despite warm words in national guidelines, right across the country the relentless reality of most new estates is more traffic, more toxic air pollution and more space given to car parking than to children for play. The reality is inadequate public transport, distant services, non-existent local employment opportunities and more noise, congestion and pollution blighting our lives. Few things shape the basic, day-to-day experience of life in the UK in 2026 more than the disconnect between transport policy on paper and actual development around our towns and villages.
When we came to power, Labour promised change, but this experience will not begin to improve until we address one of the most harmful phrases in national planning policy: the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Few policies are more baleful or more egregiously misnamed. It may be called sustainable development, but in fact it does exactly the reverse of what it says on the tin.
This legacy policy puts power overwhelmingly in the hands of developers, overruling the aspirations of local councils and trampling on the concerns of communities. It is responsible for the proliferation of bolt-on estates on the edge of towns and villages, with no realistic prospect that most people living there will be able to access the services and facilities that we all need in our daily lives, other than by driving—locking in car dependency from the get-go.
The presumption in favour of sustainable development allows the construction of developments designed to exist as commuter dormitories, rather than creating real communities with work, leisure and culture all within walking distance. It is the precise opposite of the idealism of the garden city principles originally put into action in Letchworth. By clearing the way for speculative, unsustainable developments, the presumption currently ensures that much of what is built in this country is defined by what is easy and profitable for developers, rather than what is good for people and planet. Above all, car-dependent developments like these squeeze the space for genuine society. Community connections will always struggle to thrive if the public realm is dominated by parked cars and traffic.
We need to put local authorities back in the driving seat, with the powers to design and deliver developments that genuinely deliver affordable homes in well planned and cohesive communities, with all the opportunities necessary for happy and fulfilling lives. Above all, to ensure that development comes with healthy and positive local transport connections, we must—the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I serve, called for this—amend the definition of “presumption in favour of sustainable development” in the national planning policy framework in order to strengthen the safeguards against environmentally unsustainable, unplanned and speculative development.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for her very insightful opening speech.
If the number of homes in an area is doubled but the roads, buses, rail capacity, flood protection and sewerage are not doubled, something has to give. In Siddington, in my constituency, we are being asked to absorb up to 1,100 additional homes on top of the 2,500 already under way nearby, with no credible, guaranteed transport plan to support them. That is not infrastructure-led growth; it is infrastructure playing catch-up, and rural communities are the ones that will pay the price.
In a previous career as a management consultant, I learned through critical path planning that certain things must happen in a specific order to work smoothly; that just does not seem to be happening at the moment. In a perfect world—I know we do not live in one—the land use framework would have come out first so we could see how to allocate our land. I understand that if we add together all the land area commitments in this country, we will need a couple more Waleses to accommodate them all. Clearly, something has gone a little awry.
To pick up on a point already made by a couple of colleagues: will housing targets actually deliver the affordable houses we need, where we need them? I am not at all convinced. As an environmentalist, I am very concerned by measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Are we at risk of trashing our countryside and building houses that are not fit for their designated purpose? Of course, we do not yet have the sewerage infrastructure; as a constituency that lies largely in the Thames Water catchment, this is very much top of my mind.
Mr Bedford
Does the hon. Lady agree that the utility sector should be a statutory consultee? In a previous life, I worked for a utility company. One of the frustrations for that company was that it was often asked to provide infrastructure to support massive housing developments, yet there was no requirement for it to be consulted as part of the planning process. Does she agree that is wrong?
Dr Savage
I believe we need to challenge the automatic right for developers to connect to the sewerage network. In fact, they must be encouraged to work with public utilities to ensure that capacity is there before they put spades in the ground.
I realise I am slightly digressing from the key issue of transport, which I will come to now. Siddington’s road network consists of narrow rural lanes that were never designed for high traffic volumes. High congestion already exists at peak times, especially around Ashton Road and the routes feeding the A419 and A429 corridors. Some 1,000 homes could mean another 1,500 or even 2,000 vehicles, with a significant increase in daily car movements. If the potholes are bad now, they are only going to get worse—not to mention the impact on carbon emissions and air quality.
Instead, we should be encouraging public transport and active travel, and designing new developments accordingly. I have heard recently from town councils in Cricklade and Fairford of their concerns about these large, bolt-on estates that are a little too far from town centre facilities. People will have to drive, adding to existing congestion and pressure on parking spaces.
Rural bus services are already limited in frequency and coverage. On the 51 route, the loss of the 8 am service and the 4 pm return means that it is just not a viable way to get to work and back. The result is being locked into increased car use. A young constituent of mine, Heather Kent, attends Stagedoor Learning in Cheltenham, but she now faces an 11-hour day with long waits between services or is dependent on her parents to collect her. She first came to my attention as someone who regularly does litter picks in the area; she will now be spending more time trying to get to and from places and less time picking up litter.
Meanwhile, on the 77 bus route from Fairford to Cirencester, there have been service changes and serious reliability concerns. Once somebody gives up on reliable public transport and buys a car, we have lost them; they will then use their car to get everywhere, with all the consequences of that. What we need is not just a short-term promise of viable public transport; we need it to be locked in for the long term—not dependent on developer payments—so people can plan their lives accordingly.
Going forward, as has already been mentioned, the impacts will be not just linear but exponential. We need careful, sensible modelling of what the impact of these new developments will be, and the resulting total vehicle movement. I want to emphasise that I am not opposed to housing. Clearly, we need more affordable housing, but I echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), about having not only developer-led housing for profit but the right kinds of housing in the right places with an in-built sense of community.
Without careful planning, we will face permanent congestion, reduced safety, worsened flooding, a loss of village identity and potentially serious adverse impacts on nature and wellbeing. Planning should shape the future; it should not erode the present. If we allow large-scale developments to proceed without guaranteed transport infrastructure, we will be building not thriving communities but daily frustration, longer commutes, gridlocked lanes and an increased flood risk. Growth done well creates opportunity; growth done badly creates regret and resentment.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The West of England rail line runs from Exeter to London Waterloo via Feniton, Honiton and Axminster. Network Rail describes the line from Exeter to Basingstoke as
“one of the worst-performing single-track sections nationally”.
It is one of the most under-invested lines in England. In this place, it is a cliché to talk about a Cinderella service, but trains serving residents on the West of England line do provide a Cinderella service—in fact, people stood waiting for a South Western Railway carriage to travel from Feniton, Honiton or Axminster may wonder if they are waiting for a pumpkin. According to the Salisbury to Exeter rail user group, the line has examples of everything that the Secretary of State for Transport says is wrong with rail in this country. For example, the section between Salisbury and Yeovil Junction operates at an 88% capacity, well in excess of the 80% threshold needed for resilience.
In May last year, the Minister stated that there were no plans to enhance the West of England line. Yet it is apparent to anyone who travels on it that there is a dire need for improvement. Between August and November last year, the service ground to a painfully slow pace during dry weather because of a so-called soil moisture deficit. During that period, the entire line was served by just one train every two hours, and when journeys were cancelled, passengers were left waiting for upwards of four hours for trains.
The situation is particularly concerning in the light of proposed new housing developments in Devon. Exeter is the fastest-growing city in England by population. Over 1,100 houses are to be built across east Devon in each of the next five years, as demanded by the housing targets imposed on local authorities by the Government in Westminster. In the 2030s, a new town called Marlcombe is projected to be built; it would have 10,000 houses over the long term.
Last November, the Housing Secretary announced that proposed developments within 15 minutes of railway stations could be given a default yes in the interests of promoting house building in so-called travel to work areas. Changes to the national planning policy framework are currently subject to consultation, but they lack restrictive criteria for those railway stations that are not deemed to be well-connected and could open up development in any village or town that has a railway station, apparently without restriction. New housing developments surely cannot be justified in this way when the rail infrastructure is substandard. That is raising significant concerns for residents of communities I represent such as Feniton, Honiton, Axminster and Cullompton.
Thankfully, a vision for the line has been laid out by the Salisbury to Exeter rail user group, with six points agreed by key stakeholders including South Western Railway, Network Rail, Great Western Railway and Devon county council. The plan includes new rolling stock and power sources, signalling and the delivery of double track, and, at the very least, passing loops at Whimple and Tisbury. However, the funding is missing.
The Rail Minister stated on the “Green Signals” podcast that
“connectivity drives growth, jobs and homes”.
He is right, but without investment and improvement the West of England line will not have that connectivity. In the absence of that investment, the line cannot be the basis on which new housing is justified. The message from people I represent is plain: “Infrastructure first, please.”
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for securing the debate. I have listened with great interest to many of the speeches given today, including from my near neighbours. It has been interesting to hear a run through of their constituencies and I will give a bit of a run through of some of the issues in my constituency as well.
Many Members have spoken to the issues of bolt-on developments and so-called ribbon developments where we get additional speculative developments extending villages and towns beyond their infrastructure capacity. That is true for a village in my constituency called Chalgrove, which is at risk of becoming one of the longest villages in the country. If the developers get their way, it will eventually look a bit more like Chile when we look at it on the map. Developers are seeking to take advantage of the B480 without delivering any infrastructure alongside it. As a councillor, I have fought against developments that seek to do that.
I also want to speak to badly planned development in particular. That is nowhere more true than in Chalgrove, which has an airfield that was sold by the Ministry of Defence back in, I think, 2001 to Homes England. Chalgrove is in the middle of nowhere and I do it no disservice by saying so—it is a lovely village in a rural setting. It has no mass transit system; there is no railway and there is a very limited bus service. It is a car-dependent community and there is no getting away from that; it is purely the geography of where it is.
Yet Chalgrove has been assigned 3,500 new homes in the local plan that was forced through by the former Conservative Government and, indeed, by a Member who no longer sits on the Conservative Benches but sits with Reform UK. Residents are wholly opposed to that, as am I, because it requires massive road building to facilitate it. It requires bypasses at the villages of Chiselhampton, Stadhampton and Cuxham, even though Homes England is trying to row back from that. We will also get bottlenecks at Little Milton as residents try to move from that car-dependent, dormitory town to the M40 and onwards to London, Oxford or beyond for work. We need to move beyond car-dependent communities for the reasons that many, including my hon. Friends, have outlined.
Elsewhere in my constituency, bypasses—so-called edge roads—are still required to facilitate developments, and I have been supportive of the Watlington relief road. That is an example of a community that has embraced development. It actively sought the development of new homes that it did not have to take on in the local plan. It put them into its neighbourhood plan so that it could get a relief road, because the historical nature of the town means it has a choke point that was previously used only by horse and cart, but is now used as the main through route to the M40.
It has therefore been incredibly frustrating to see homes being built ahead of the relief road, to the point where we are now seeing intense difficulties navigating the town. Even where we have communities that embrace development, we are betraying them by not delivering the infrastructure alongside it. I want to see more investment in infrastructure for those communities that get new developments.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) on securing such an important debate; she has made a number of salient points that I wholeheartedly agree with, in particular about the impact of losing local voices in the planning process.
As Liberal Democrats, we believe the Government should be doing things with people, not to them. Their planning reforms are another example of where we could gain the confidence of far more people in planning decisions if they were properly involved and consulted. I was pleased to hear the excellent speeches of my hon. Friends: my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) talked about housing growth pressure; my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) reminded us of the importance of doing the right things in the right order; my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) spoke about the importance of money; and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) spoke about getting the balance right between different types of transport.
Most reasonable people would think that decisions about transport and planning should go hand in hand. Planning decisions lead to transport requirements and transport provision will inform planning decisions. However, like so much of the creaking and archaic machinery of the state, the predetermined silos for those two areas sit separately and often work in conflict rather than in harmony. What people want is for decisions to be made with a focus on them. How do we best plan infrastructure and transport to support people?
Even within transport, there are silos within silos. The different modes of transport and transport integration are not considered together, despite how interconnected they are. Those levels of bureaucracy and failure to deliver a working transport system are not what people want. They just want decisions to be made that help to get them where they want to go, when they want to go. If that is really beyond the ability of the state, we should all despair. Talking about alterations to the machinery of government might sound like wonkery, but in cases such as these it is clear to see where making the state work better would make our constituents’ lives better, too.
Rarely am I desperate to give credit to the planning system, but it does succeed in taking a more holistic view of transport into consideration when making decisions. It can assess the needs and uses of a wide range of transport modes. It understands the interplay between housing, employment and transport, and it thinks about where people are going and when, and what steps might need to be necessary to improve their experiences.
However, the planning system has little real power to actually make changes. The closest it can get is by creating a sizeable enough housing demand and hoping that the transport decision makers notice and deliver the necessary improvements. That means that many people end up in disconnected new estates or working in employment areas without any real accessibility other than by private car. There is a fundamental lack of an overarching strategy for too many of these decisions— and that could make the experience of people living in newly built areas and those seeing change in the ones they already live in immensely better.
For Norfolk, I believe a key way for us to secure that strategy was through devolution, which I have been trying to deliver since my first county council campaign kicked off nearly a decade ago. Devolving transport powers to local areas means that decisions on wide-ranging strategy and aims can be made closer to the people they impact, with real local buy-in. The promise of seeing those powers in Norfolk made me feel that we might finally crack the rural transport problems that have held our area back for too long. Instead, we have seen a double whammy of let-downs on that front in recent months.
First, the Labour Government pushed our mayoral election down the line to 2028, meaning more years without the power to deliver the change that my residents need now. Secondly, in the past week we have seen the Conservative leader of Norfolk county council launch a titanic tantrum over local elections and refuse to work with the Government on any further devolution discussions. Because she felt jilted by the Government, she has abandoned the opportunity for progress and money to pursue a personal vendetta against the Secretary of State, calling him things that I frankly cannot repeat in this Chamber. I have strong disagreements with the devolution process, but I want to put Norfolk first, not the ego of someone who is supposed to be a local leader. She tried to throw Norfolk under the bus—although, without any transport powers, it is unlikely that one would show up.
To go back to the matter in hand, there are improvements that we Liberal Democrats want to deliver and could deliver at local and national levels. We want to see more buses with more people on them, and these need to work out alongside the planning of new developments. For young students and workers, we have proposed a bus fare discount, enabling easier access to work and education or just getting to socialise with friends. We want to expand walking and cycling access with a boost to budgets and a drive to create more active travel routes that get people out of cars and on to paths where possible. On our railways, we want to make the commuter experience better, back passengers with a new passenger’s charter and give people the confidence to move their journeys on to public transport.
Now that the local elections are back on in Norfolk, I am sure many of my Liberal Democrat colleagues will find themselves at some point over the next few weeks lost inside a rabbit-warren estate with a dodgy phone signal and a bunch of undelivered leaflets, asking themselves the key question: was this place designed for people to live or for cars to drive? We have to make transport and planning work more cohesively, because they deliver tangible benefits to our constituents’ lives and could do so quickly. The Government can and must do more to restore faith in the planning and transport systems so that all our residents reap the benefits.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Thank you, Sir Desmond, for agreeing to chair this interesting debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for securing this debate today. Any Member of Parliament with a pulse who has served more than a day here will realise how interconnected is the relationship between planning decisions, housing developments in their constituencies and the provision of local infrastructure to support them. I bet the biggest complaint every single one of us will have received over our period in office is, “We are not against planning, but we need the infrastructure in first and the development later, because we need to look after not just the coming population, but the existing one.” Trying to balance the needs of future and existing populations is right at the heart of local democratic representation.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Epsom and Ewell has the highest accommodation costs in England. That pressure is being addressed by building new housing, but the challenge is that in one development in my constituency, residents had to wait nearly a decade after moving into their new homes to get a bus route and new school, with additional pressure on train services. Although housing and some development is essential, does the hon. Member agree it should reflect community needs and the capacity of local transport services?
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for that intervention.
In her speech, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted said that many of the services from Berkhamsted to London were not on time, so I took the opportunity to look up the frequency of those services. I gently point out that people in my constituency would give their eye teeth for a service every 10 minutes and that level of connectivity—they only have to wait a couple more minutes and there is another train, and another one after that. However, I do not diminish her fundamental argument about transport infrastructure, the subject of the debate—you have rightly been generous, Sir Desmond, in letting us stretch that to other local infrastructure—if new populations are to be accepted by existing populations, infrastructure needs to expand at the same pace, and ideally in advance of the growth in population.
We have heard a number of good speeches; I commend the hon. Lady’s speech, but I will also highlight the two Conservative contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) made the important point that where we have an increased population, it is not only the roads, but the railway infrastructure, that suffer and need to be expanded. In her case, that is an extended station at Reigate. Her constituency also suffers a double whammy, with travel growth due to the nearby expansion of Gatwick airport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) made a number of good points. With multiple developments on local transport infrastructure, each one is identified and dealt with in isolation, not considering the cumulative impacts. The argument goes that the road can stand another 500 or 1,200 units, and that might be the case but, when there are 20 cumulative applications, the infrastructure creaks. He made another good point, of which I have personal experience, about constituencies with multiple local authorities, where one local authority can make a planning decision that adversely affects residents in the authority next door.
In my case, the Liberal Democrat North Norfolk district council is planning a large increased settlement to North Walsham, totally ignoring the huge impact of traffic going through nearby Coltishall, where everyone is funnelled over a single bridge across the river. There is an ongoing fight, with one district council ignoring the needs of another. Surely we can do better than that.
The Government have also taken steps to alter housing targets, moving targets around the country. Those steps have not always been accompanied by consideration of the impact on local transport. A prominent example is the county of Dorset, where a significantly increased housing target is being imposed—top-down, as the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted said—yet one of the first acts of the Labour Government was to axe the improvements to the A303, the road that links Dorset to London and the south-east.
Currently, an eight-mile journey that should take only 10 minutes is regularly taking over an hour. The A303 is also the vital connection between the south-east and the south-west—areas where the Government’s targets will result in a significant increase in development, with more people, more cars and more congestion. That example demonstrates the disconnect between what local areas need when it comes to transport and what the Government are willing to deliver.
Even when plans have been developed and funding has been secured for key transport schemes, they are often hampered, and sometimes even cancelled due to—in my view—unreasonable and burdensome over-regulation. I need only look at my own constituency and the scheme for the Norwich western link road. The delivery of that scheme is vital to the residents of Norfolk and to the local economy. Traffic congestion, delays, and queues on small rural roads and through communities in my constituency have long been blighting the area to the west of Norwich. Detailed plans were drawn up for a new 3.9-mile dual carriageway, the last section needed to complete the orbital dual carriageway route around the city of Norwich.
Plans were developed over seven years with local consultation and £230 million in funding—achieved by me. It was classified as a high-value scheme by the Department for Transport’s criteria. Relying on that planned road, many thousands of new houses had been allocated to land north-east of Norwich. Natural England was consulted throughout that seven-year period; in fact, it was very much part of the team. Then, one week before the final planning application was made, and without any notice to the planning team, Natural England changed its approach to a nearby colony of bats and withdrew its support—not just for that scheme, but for any mitigation approach. That left £50 million of development costs, and local residents and businesses across Norfolk let down. They were not consulted and their views were not taken into consideration.
Despite the Prime Minister talking a good game when it came to organisations unreasonably blocking crucial infrastructure schemes for similar reasons—I pray in aid the bat tunnel—the Government did not step in to help. I am interested to hear from the Minister how the Government are planning to stop unelected quangos effectively vetoing democratic decisions.
That road may have hit the buffers, at least for the time being, but the associated housing allocations all remain and can be seen in Taverham—it is a very live issue in my constituency at the moment—and elsewhere. This is exactly what residents hate: the process taking over from the reality on the ground. The cart is put before the horse, and then it is going in one direction and cannot be stopped. There is no review. The anger that I suspect we all experience on the doorsteps when residents feel they are being ignored is very real.
In November last year, the Government published a rapid evidence report on the impacts of integrated land use and transport planning, which summarised evidence on how combining land use and transport planning affects travel. One of the first suggestions in the rapid evidence assessment for policy makers making land use and transport decisions was:
“Developing awareness of potential unintended consequences via short scoping studies ahead of major investments.”
It highlighted that that could
“enable mitigating action to be taken where appropriate.”
Anyone who examines the Government’s record over the past 18 months realises that they have an exceptional talent for not considering the consequences of their actions. Perhaps the Minister would like to feed that suggestion into the wider Government.
Let us also look at planning and development in areas with much better local transport provision than many of us currently enjoy. One might think that areas with more developed transport networks would be able to encourage significant planning and development without some of the issues that we have been debating. Utilising areas such as brownfield sites close to existing locations should be an important way to help with some of the planning challenges posed in rural areas including Norfolk.
In London, however, which has by far the best transport network in the country, and significantly subsidised transport services with buses, we have seen the London Mayor’s absolute failure to deliver housing. Just look at last year; what has happened is really shocking. In London last year there were just 5,891 housing starts. That is 94% below target and a 75% year-on-year decline—the steepest drop in the country, the lowest tally since records began almost 40 years ago, and the lowest figure for any major city in the developed world this century. What a record.
Rebecca Paul
It is important to flag that reducing the number of houses being built in London pushes people in London out into constituencies such as mine. The Government say, “We’re building more houses so that children and grandchildren can stay close to their families,” but what happens is that those in London move into other constituencies. Does my hon. Friend agree that that does not really achieve the aim?
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The failure of the London Mayor is putting pressure on her constituency and many other communities in the wider orbit of London.
The Government will say they are trying to take action to integrate these elements and to ensure that planning development does not negatively impact local transport, but in trying to deliver their targets on development, they should stop and consider the steps they can take to make it easier to build infrastructure and support planning that actually delivers local infrastructure improvements, before new populations arise.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, as always, Sir Desmond.
I thank the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for securing this debate and thank Members for all their comments and contributions. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss how planning developments impact on local transport, a subject of great importance and a priority in the context of our housing ambitions. An awful lot has been said today; Members will forgive my aversion to taking many interventions, as I think it is important that I respond to many of the comments made.
Aligning housing and transport is essential for delivering homes that are connected and sustainable and that provide genuine choices for people. To that end, we have prioritised making changes to the planning system in support of growth and place-making. That includes providing the tools that local planning authorities need to ensure that developments are supported by the right transport infrastructure for the local context.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is currently consulting on revisions to the national planning policy framework. If progressed, these revisions will deliver better located development with more sustainable travel choices, supported by robust guidance.
We have already made changes through the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 to streamline the planning process for nationally significant infrastructure projects, which will speed up the pace of decision making on critical projects. The Act also places a duty on combined authorities, combined county authorities, upper tier county councils and unitary authorities to prepare spatial development strategies, which is an important opportunity to set the context for local plans, which will have to be in general conformity with the strategy once it has been adopted. Taken together, these changes will make a real difference to the people we all serve, delivering more housing, greater transport choices and better designed, healthier places.
The Government believe that an integrated, affordable and sustainable transport network is vital to unlocking homes with good access to jobs, education and public services. That includes improving bus services, boosting passenger numbers and giving local leaders greater control.
To support that work, last year my Department launched the connectivity tool, which brings together transport and land use data to show how well locations are connected to jobs and key services, helping communities to identify infrastructure gaps and plan development sustainably. The tool is already being used across the country to ensure that new housing aligns with existing and planned infrastructure. I believe the tool will empower local government, developers and planners to make better decisions about where development should happen, and to plan for the infrastructure needed to support it.
In parallel, the Railways Bill will establish Great British Railways as a directing mind. One of its objectives is to facilitate homebuilding and place-making. Great British Railways will be outward-facing and will work in partnership with mayoral strategic authorities, enabling a greater focus on local priorities such as housing and regeneration.
We have already taken action. Platform4, a company launched in November 2025, is already working to develop disused brownfield land—real land—with an ambition to deliver 40,000 homes over the coming decade. That will support our housing, regeneration and growth ambitions by creating new places to live, work, learn and play, putting the railway at the heart of our neighbourhoods.
The hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted also mentioned green-belt policy and its implications for villages such as Redbourn. As I understand it, the proposed changes to the definition of grey belt seek to better enable the identification of grey-belt land when ensuring protection of the green belt. Alongside that, the introduction of the spatial development strategies will identify broad locations for housing growth across larger geographies than the district level, while at the same time co-ordinating the provision of strategic infrastructure and improving the environment and climate resilience. That will help to better distribute developments and identify their appropriate scale in places like Hertfordshire. In reference to major developments in the surrounding areas, all planning decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis, based on national and local planning policies and other material considerations.
The Government approved the special development order for the Universal Studios site in December 2025, noting the project’s national significance. Extensive transport works to support the surrounding network are to be delivered, including the expansion of Wixams railway station to enable public transport journeys to the site.
Given the ongoing legal proceedings, there is not much I can say about Luton airport. However, the Secretary of State for Transport’s decision letter on the case sets out her reasoning for that consent.
Regarding the cumulative impacts of developments, the Government are operationalising a new approach to transport planning through changes to the national planning policy framework. By taking a vision-led approach to transport planning that sets clear outcomes from the outset of the planning process, we can deliver well-connected communities that are served by sustainable transport and co-located with key services, breaking the cycle that has left people with a lack of transport choice and ever more congested road networks. I believe that will make it easier for new developments to deliver the transport options that people need and want and will help decision makers to better manage the cumulative impacts of significant developments affecting places such as Redbourn.
To respond to the specific concerns about congestion, National Highways is a statutory consultee on planning applications and will assess the impact of new developments on the strategic road network. National Highways expects developers to explore all options to reduce dependence on the strategic road network for local journeys. National Highways is empowered to recommend refusal of planning applications that would cause substantial impact on the road network, including issuing holding responses to enable more evidence to be provided, or to provide conditions for mitigating the impact of development.
To pick up on a few other points that Members raised, I understand that the local plan in St Albans is currently being replaced. It is one of the oldest and most out-of-date plans. I recognise that it has been inherited—it dates back to 1994. It is expected that a new plan will be adopted in March. The Government’s proposed national policy framework outlines that all development proposals should be capable of proceeding without having a severe adverse impact on transport networks in terms of capacity and congestion, including the cumulative impact. Local decision makers should consider the cumulative impact on transport when deciding their planning applications.
On rail or rail operators that are required to plan services based on demand and value for money, Great British Railways will have a significant impact, as I have mentioned. Govia Thameslink Railway has shared demand modelling with the Department, which does include projections for planned development along the Thameslink network. The Department requires all operators to plan future timetables that reflect expected demand and provide value for money for the taxpayer. We will continue to work with Govia Thameslink Railway as it develops its proposals for development along that route.
On bus funding, I am sure all Members will welcome the £3 billion of multi-year funding that is going to support bus services across the country. Hertfordshire county council will be allocated £34.1 million under the local authority bus grant from 2026-27 to 2028-29. That is in addition to the £12.2 million already allocated. For the first time, the formula includes a rurality aspect to make sure that rural areas receive their fair share.
Moving on to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), I find it hard to accept some of his comments. We inherited a housing crisis caused by the Conservatives that has seen house building plummet. The Government will not shy away from taking the decisive action needed to fix that for good. This Government are turning the tide on the Tories’ housing crisis, which has seen 1.3 million families stuck on housing waiting lists and over 165,000 children growing up in temporary accommodation. On affordable housing, our new £39 billion social and affordable housing programme will build around 300,000 new homes over 10 years, including at least 60% for social rent—around 180,000 homes. That is six times the number of social and affordable homes built in the last decade.
Today’s debate has demonstrated the importance of integrating transport and housing and seeing them not as separate systems, but as one. I trust that the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted can see how, taken together, those reforms represent the meaningful re-gearing of the transport and spatial planning systems to fix the housing crisis while delivering the transport that our communities need.
Steff Aquarone
On a point of order, Sir Desmond. I want to draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving county councillor.
Victoria Collins
I thank all hon. Members who have spoken. I reiterate that the people of Harpenden, Berkhamsted, Tring, Redbourn, Sandridge and all our local villages are not nimbys. They understand the need for housing—and genuinely affordable housing. However, it is clear that they cannot understand a planning system that hands power to developers and takes it away from communities. This debate has shown that many Members and their local populations have the same frustrations.
What the Minister talked about is a nice display of how, while local councils supposedly have these powers, in many ways the reality undermines their use of them, as I outlined, leaving communities still facing a developer-led system. That means doubling housing targets without doubling infrastructure. Nor can people understand a system that leaves villages such as Redbourn facing 70% growth through the grey belt. As the Minister mentioned the grey belt, I should clarify that it does not protect villages, it protects towns. That is a problem with the NPPF, and something that I will be putting forward in the consultation, and yet local people are also being expected to sacrifice precious landscapes for homes their own children still cannot afford.
Trains cancelled daily; buses that stop at 2 pm; roads built for horse-drawn carts that are now gridlocked—that is the reality of planning without infrastructure. I welcome the current reviews of the NPPF, but what will happen to villages such as Redbourn and others under the current planning system, still outlined by Labour, if they turn out to have been dealt a really bad card? Will they be able to retrofit some of that planning infrastructure? It really is an issue for our local communities.
I would also push gently on the Thameslink question. Some of the proposals are welcome, but it is going to be a massive issue for so many communities all along the Bedford-Brighton link. We really must look again at that infrastructure. There is a real issue at the core of Thameslink, whether around Croydon or elsewhere.
I ask the Minister to take back one message to his team: communities like mine do not want to choose between housing and infrastructure; they both need to be planned together from the start. That infrastructure and community-led development are the least that our communities deserve.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of planning developments on local transport.
Banking Hubs: Rural and Post-Industrial Communities
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
I will call Ann Davies to move the motion and I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the mover of the motion and the Minister. As no other Member has approached the Minister, nobody else will be speaking, unless it is through an intervention. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered banking hubs in rural and post-industrial communities.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. It is unfortunate really that this is a 30-minute debate. So many people have been in touch to make interventions or speeches, including the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), but as you mentioned, Sir Desmond, it is impossible to fit everybody in.
I am pleased to lead the debate on this important topic. Access to cash and banking services is a pressing issue in rural and post-industrial communities. I hope to outline why we desperately need to increase the availability of services through banking hubs in those areas.
Jim Shannon
I will just say that so many people are here because the hon. Lady has brought up a subject matter that is worth more than 30 minutes of debate. Does she agree that the only goals that banks seem to have are bigger dividends and more profit? When they close branches there is a dramatic effect on rural life in her constituency and in mine. Is it not time for banks to look not at profit, but at the people and customers that they should be supporting?
Ann Davies
I totally agree, and I will come on to that later. In 2006, cash accounted for 62% of all payments in the UK. It now accounts for around 14%, with some forecasts taking it down to 6% in 2031. However, if we look beyond those percentages, we can see that cash still plays a vital role in people’s lives. For many, cash is indeed king.
New figures from Link, which accounts for 77% of the UK’s entire ATM network transactions, show that cash continues to be central to how millions of people manage their money. In 2025, £76 billion was withdrawn from Link ATMs, in 1.27 billion transactions recorded across the year. Link notes:
“While ATM use naturally evolves as more people choose digital payments…cash remains a trusted and widely used option.”
Link data shows that the most popular places in which to use cash remain convenience stores, supermarkets and payments between friends and families.
Dr Savage
In my rural constituency, mobile banking hubs, including mobile vans and post offices, are absolutely vital, especially for older constituents who still prefer to use cash, and for rural businesses that need to pay in cash. Recently, services in Hullavington and Minety were suspended, which was a real problem. Does the hon. Lady agree that in rural communities, mobile banking vans are not a luxury, but an essential service, not just for the people using cash but for the businesses and pubs where cash payments are made?
Ann Davies
Absolutely. Unfortunately, as of December last year, those post office vans no longer accept cheques. Some people of a certain generation still use cheques, but those cannot now be paid in by using a post office van, as we have in our village. Someone must physically go to a bank to pay in a cheque, which makes it very difficult for the elderly, especially given that in my area we do not have public transport either.
Removing local banking services risks deepening financial exclusion and placing additional strain on already vulnerable adults. Despite cash and in-person banking still being integral to many communities across the UK, they are becoming harder and harder to access. That is demonstrated by the number of bank closures across Wales. As the Welsh Affairs Committee has noted, the number of bank and building society branches fell from 695 in 2012 to 435 in 2022.
Ann Davies
I promised the hon. Member for Waveney Valley that he could intervene on me, and that will be my final intervention. I am so sorry.
Adrian Ramsay
I was waiting for the appropriate point to pre-empt the fact that the hon. Lady is clearly talking about banking hubs in rural areas. In my constituency of Waveney Valley, the market town of Bungay has been told that it cannot have a banking hub because there is already one seven miles away in Harleston, but of course in rural areas, proximity does not necessarily mean accessibility when it comes to travel times or public transport access. Does the hon. Lady agree that, in determining the criteria for banking hubs, real accessibility in rural areas needs to be accounted for, and there needs to be flexibility in the system to achieve that?
Ann Davies
Absolutely. The data is there for all.
The closures disproportionately impact less populated areas, as the distance to travel to bank branches is greater. For instance, data from 2008 to 2018 show that the greatest increases in travel distance to the nearest bank branch were in Montgomeryshire, Clwyd South, Arfon, Dwyfor Meirionnydd, and Brecon and Radnorshire. Those rural and less populated areas also tend to have older populations and less reliable internet, and experience the unique nature of rural poverty.
Ann Davies
I am so sorry, but I am going to finish.
Restricting access to cash also affects many of those living in rural and post-industrial areas. As the Financial Conduct Authority has noted, digitally excluded older people, people in poor health, those with lower financial resilience and those with lower financial capability depend more on cash. We have seen that play out in my constituency, where we have recently experienced the closure of the last bank in the town of Ammanford—a Lloyds Bank on Quay Street. The closure will leave Ammanford—a town with an area population of 23,709—without a full-service bank branch. It will impact not only the town itself but the surrounding communities of Brynamman, Glanamman, Tycroes, Llandybie, Betws and the wider Amman valley.
The decision demonstrates a worrying lack of understanding of the needs of rural and post-industrial communities. For many, online banking is not an option. For example, broadband coverage in Carmarthen is significantly below national standards. Gigabit in Carmarthenshire is 41% compared with 78% in the UK. Superfast broadband is 85% compared with 96% in the UK. Those figures demonstrate that large parts of the county, including Ammanford and its surrounding villages, lack access to the high-speed internet that is required for secure and consistent digital banking. In practice, that means that online banking is unreliable or inaccessible for many households. Mobile banking apps do not function properly, especially in areas with poor signal and slow connections.
Digital alternatives cannot replace in-person services, especially for vulnerable groups such as older adults, those with disabilities and people managing complex financial needs. A significant proportion of residents are elderly, vulnerable or without access to transport, and the prospect of travelling long distances to the nearest branch is unrealistic and unjust.
I have had many constituents contact me to express their deep concern about the closure of the Lloyds branch. One constituent told me:
“We really desperately need this facility now. I don’t think any consideration has been given to the disabled, elderly, or even younger people who cannot travel to other towns. Although I understand the Post Office will absorb some customers, it does not provide all banking needs.”
He continued:
“I understand why the banks have to close some branches, but Lloyds’ support in the past has been invaluable to this area. With a brain-injured partner, it is nearly impossible to travel to Gorseinon. This would be a major trip causing unnecessary distress and anxiety for him; disabled parking in Gorseinon doesn’t meet his needs either.”
Cash has a social value, too. Another constituent said:
“I’m old school and still like to have cash—giving my grandchild pocket money, giving tips if I go out, taxis—the list could go on.”
It is clear that cash does not just facilitate economic exchange; it creates bonds and ties within communities, an aspect that is important to smaller and rural areas.
Where do we go from here? The Federation of Small Businesses Wales has said:
“While it is unrealistic to expect a return to high street banks on every street, it is important that new models are further developed—such as banking hubs—to ensure that these services are available locally.”
Banking hubs are a key alternative to communities that have lost access to bank and building society branches. They offer easy access to face-to-face cash and banking in the communities that have lost their bank branches.
I welcome that the Government have pledged to establish at least 350 banking hubs across the UK. In Wales, there are 12 shared banking hubs, with more in the process of being set up in Gorseinon and Caergybi—Holyhead. However, I note that none are in my constituency of Caerfyrddin—not one.
The Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 gave the Financial Conduct Authority responsibility for maintaining cash deposit and withdrawal access, although not wider banking services. The FCA’s rules came into force in September 2024. Those rules require banks not to close their services in communities until they have carried out an assessment showing that the closure would not impact withdrawal and deposit services in that area. Those assessments are conducted by Link.
While such a safeguard is welcome, the process itself seems to overlook rural and post-industrial areas. It does not allow for discretion to be applied to consider the needs of those communities. For instance, in the case of Ammanford, Link assessed that there was no need for additional services like a banking hub, given that Ammanford did not meet the population threshold of 10,000 people living near the high street. It said that Ammanford had 7,444 adults living nearby, which is still a significant number, but 23,709 people live in that surround. As we know, in post-industrial areas, the town merges into the villages—or the villages merge into the town.
Residents have made it clear that they are finding it incredibly challenging losing their only banking facility. A petition is being circulated in response to the decision, and it has already gathered hundreds of signatures—I urge all in the Chamber to share my online petition. I urge Link to engage with local stakeholders, including businesses, councillors and residents, to ensure that the assessment reflects actual community needs, including by establishing a banking hub in the town of Ammanford.
Can the Minister set out how the Government can accelerate the establishment of banking hubs in rural and post-industrial communities as part of their plans? What recent assessments have been made of the adequacy of the cash access review process to account for the unique needs of those communities? Banking hubs are a lifeline for communities that are already under strain. We need prudent policymaking in this area from the Government, so that constituents like mine are not overlooked for such important services. Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.
In my very best Welsh, I thank the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies)—she is smiling, which makes me think that I may have got that pronunciation ever so slightly wrong—for securing the debate. It is clearly an important topic to her, given the passionate way that she spoke, and to Members, given the number of interventions. I know from my experience, not least in Treasury orals, the correspondence that I get, and the banking hub surgeries that I run in Parliament, how important this issue is to Members right across the House, so I thank her again for securing this very important debate. I also thank those who have made interventions thus far, including the hon. Members for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Conservative Government passed the Financial Services and Markets Act in 2023, which gave the FCA powers to set up banking hubs and give access to cash. Does the Minister think that that was a missed opportunity at the time to prevent banks from closing high street branches in the thousands, as they have since continued to do?
Lucy Rigby
If the hon. Member would let me progress just a little further, I will cover the issues he refers to.
As I said, the strength of feeling expressed today, and more broadly in parliamentary interactions, shows just how important this issue is to Members, and to people right across the country, particularly in the types of communities that the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin represents. I recognise the particular concerns about rural and post-industrial areas, where longer travel distances, which were referred to, more limited transport and, in particular, uneven digital connectivity make the loss of a bank branch especially acute.
It is right to acknowledge that banking has changed very dramatically in recent years. Many customers have benefited from digital innovations that allow them to more easily manage their finances. For those who have benefited, those types of innovations have increased accessibility and convenience.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Minister mentions the need to recognise innovations. At the same time, we have to recognise that organisations such as banks, and also the Post Office, are very much inclined to be self-interested. In my own constituency a year ago, we lost 21 out of 25 locations for vans. The Government surely need to intervene to make sure that remote and left-behind communities are not left even further behind because these large financial organisations are looking after their own interests.
Lucy Rigby
I was going through some of the changes in the landscape of banking, and will come to a slightly more negative aspect of that, if the right hon. Member will allow me to do so. I hope that will cover the substance of her question.
The most recent data from the Financial Conduct Authority shows that over nine in 10 adults banked online or used a mobile app in 2024. We also know, alongside the statistics on digital innovations that I just referred to, that around a quarter of adults carried out banking face-to-face in a branch over the same period. I put that alongside the statistics that the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin referred to about cash usage, which I will not repeat. I make no judgment about why I am a little old school on occasion with my attachment to cash, as she put it, but we know that many of those who still rely on in-person services are older customers and more vulnerable individuals. We also know that many businesses right across this country continue to depend on cash.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
In my constituency, we have faced exactly the issues that the Minister highlights, and I am grateful for the work on this, in particular, on the needs of elderly people, which is being investigated by the Government, and those who are elderly and possibly frail, who find it difficult to travel on public transport. One of the issues we have faced is a lack of access to immediate parking and support for elderly people to get in and out of branches.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Will the Minister take another intervention on that point?
Douglas McAllister
Alexandria is one of many post-industrial communities within my constituency, and the Bank of Scotland recently announced the closure of the town’s last remaining bank, but as a result the new Alexandria banking hub opened in my constituency in November 2025, which is a very welcome addition to the high street. Does the Minister agree that that ensures crucial access to cash and face-to face-banking services for businesses and residents, especially the elderly and vulnerable, in Alexandria in West Dunbartonshire, and adds to our high street work with the Pride in Place scheme?
Lucy Rigby
My hon. Friend raises very important issues, including in relation to Pride in Place. What is so important about this debate and about banking hubs is that there is an interaction between access to cash, and the ability to speak to a bank or a community banker, and the health of our high streets and how people feel about their towns and communities.
Several hon. Members rose—
Lucy Rigby
I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack).
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
My constituency, including the main town of Coalville, has a strong industrial past. Coalville is not entirely rural, so it does not qualify for a banking hub. Lloyds is abandoning my community and will close a branch in Coalville in June, despite how busy and well used that branch, on a main high street, is. Does she agree that we need to ensure that gaps in bank provision are filled as soon as possible with banking hubs, and that banking hub assessment should include access to business banking, because that is what we really lose when a main high street bank goes off the high street?
Lucy Rigby
The House will forgive me for not commenting on individual cases, but it is safe to say that I am familiar with the circumstances that my hon. Friend refers to, and I know the urgent nature of some of the issues that she—
Lucy Rigby
I will give way first to the right hon. Gentleman, and then to my hon. Friend.
Sir John Hayes
The Library has made it clear that many groups beyond the elderly and the disadvantaged, including people with mental health difficulties, people with physical difficulties and people who rely on others to pay bills for them, struggle with these issues, and they struggle all the more in rural areas like Lincolnshire. That is why 98% of MPs surveyed have said that they think there should be a banking hub wherever the last branch has closed. When 98% of MPs think something, a wise Government listen carefully and act quickly.
Lucy Rigby
As ever, the right hon. Gentleman gives me good advice and, as ever, I shall pay close attention to what he says. He rightly refers to different aspects of vulnerability and I will come on to some of those slightly later in my remarks. What is clear from the interventions that we have just had is, again, how passionately Members from right across the House feel about these issues, which is why the Government have been clear that it is critical that people have access to the services they need.
Torcuil Crichton
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) for securing this important debate. To echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), I have come to Westminster Hall today following discussions with Lloyds Bank, which has decided to close the Benbecula branch of the Bank of Scotland in my constituency; there have now been two bank closures in my constituency in a few short years. That closure decision appears to be as irreversible as it is regrettable, but the danger now is that we will have no banking hub, because the banking population of Uist is too small to fit within the parameters of one. Will the Minister ensure that the banks, Link and associated authorities expand and adjust their parameters, so that sparsely populated areas and island populations continue to have access to banking services?
David Smith
The Minister has been very generous. On the specific point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), similarly in Alnwick and Berwick, in my constituency, there is an issue to do with the diminution of high street banking. Only three years ago, there were three banks in Alnwick and now there are none, and one bank is now closing in Berwick. Regarding the criteria for community banking, will the Government look at Link and other such services, and say that it is not just access to cash that should be a statutory right but access to banking?
Lucy Rigby
I can answer that very directly. We keep these issues under review, as my hon. Friend would expect. Prior to those interventions, I was talking about action that the Government have taken. Our recognition of the importance of banking services to local communities underpins what we put in our manifesto, which was a pledge to work with the industry, as the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin rightly said, to get to at least 350 banking hubs across the country.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for being exceptionally generous with her time. I want to emphasise the point on banking hubs. I have been particularly frustrated about the town of Haltwhistle in my constituency. It is a smaller town but has a huge area that looks to it, going from Slaggyford and Gilsland up to communities nearer the Scottish border. On the current criteria, it is too small to attract a banking hub by itself, but the businesses that look to it are now forced to look to Hexham or, further afield, to Newcastle, or indeed to the west of Carlisle. That risks strangling the growth of economic enterprise in the west of Northumberland, which is already, I must say, very poorly supported by Northumberland county council.
Lucy Rigby
My hon. Friend sums up very well the links between some of the issues that we are discussing today and wider economic growth, which, as Members will know, is the Government’s principal mission.
Any hope that I might have had of reciting the names of the constituencies of Members who have contributed to the debate is fast evaporating. What I will say, on our 350 banking hubs in the course of this Parliament, is that it is important to note that that is a floor rather than a ceiling, so it is entirely possible that the 350 target will be surpassed. More than 270 hubs have already been announced, and more than 210 are now open. In Wales specifically, 17 banking hubs have been announced and 12 of them are already open.
Banking hubs do not just provide assisted cash services through post office staff and allow customers to withdraw and deposit cash. They also of course, as Members will know, provide community bankers from customers’ banks, offering customers the opportunity to speak to someone face to face about their banking needs, as they would in a traditional bank branch. I was in the banking hub in Warwick just last week and was able to meet community bankers and customers who were coming in. I saw at first hand the important benefit that having someone there whom people were able to engage with brought to those who were coming in.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I am grateful to the Minister for her generosity. I agree wholeheartedly that it is important that these hubs offer that wider range of banking services, and I draw her attention to the plight of community bank account holders, who often need to have access to a service that currently is available only in a bank branch, but could be provided in a banking hub in the future.
Lucy Rigby
The hon. Member makes a strong point. I am rapidly cutting bits out of my speech, but I will cover as much as I can. Members will know that some hubs offer services that others do not. We have been exploring with the banks how services might be expanded and improved where there is a community need for that to happen. Just last month, I held a roundtable with a large number of banks, Cash Access UK and UK Finance to discuss the services currently provided in banking hubs, including access to printing facilities, which we know are really valued in some communities. Saturday opening hours are another example of the things that were discussed. Overall, that discussion with the banks was about how we improve the functionality of hubs. We also discussed what the industry might be able to do to raise awareness of the location of hubs—which we know in some areas is not as high as it might be—alongside awareness of the services that they offer their customers.
I want to spend a second addressing the important points raised about digital exclusion and particular vulnerabilities. Although many people benefit from digital services, the Government of course recognise—this is inherent in the financial inclusion strategy that we published at the end of last year—that many people face real barriers. That is exactly why digital inclusion sat alongside access to banking as a core pillar of the strategy.
The financial inclusion strategy includes an industry-led working group on inclusive design to improve accessibility right across financial products—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of the 2016 EU membership referendum on the UK.
It is a pleasure to be here with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I thank colleagues for turning out for today’s debate.
We are now on the 10th anniversary of the vote to leave the European Union: a lost decade for the economy, a lost decade for business, and a lost decade for future generations and in particular our young people, which has left us poorer, more isolated and less secure in a changing world. I note—again, I am grateful to colleagues for turning up today—that those of us who seek to discuss the issue are overwhelmingly those of us who want a closer relationship with the European Union, because, bluntly, we know it has been a disaster. Nobody is arguing that leaving the EU was a good idea, or that it has left us any wealthier or made us better off. In fact, no other state has sought to leave the European Union since the Brexit debacle unfolded. Such isolationism and exceptionalism is something we must reflect upon very seriously indeed. I know the Government are, but we have a number of specific questions for them.
Stephen Gethins
Not at the moment.
I want to reflect for a moment that, although the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I made him aware that I would be referencing him today, in this one instance—told us that the UK would not be the last member to leave, no one left and more members are seeking to join. That has been the legacy of this period. Are any colleagues from Reform here today? No. There are some from the Conservatives—I can never quite tell who is in and who is out and which way round they are—but there are no Reform Members in this debate on its showcase policy platform. This is an isolationist, nationalist project, and it has failed profoundly. On that point, I will give way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), because he is always very courteous in the Chamber.
Jim Shannon
That is very kind. The legacy for us in Northern Ireland is that we are half in and half out, and our businesses, our exports and imports, and our people suffer. I know that the hon. Gentleman and I have very different opinions on Brexit, but does he not agree that Northern Ireland did not get the Brexit that everybody else got, which we wanted?
Stephen Gethins
It certainly did not get the Brexit it voted for, because the people of Northern Ireland voted overwhelmingly to reject it—and no wonder; it was a Brexit that undermined the peace process. But do not worry. Mr Gove, who is not in this place so I do not need to notify him, told Northern Ireland that it was going to get the best of both worlds. Well, if only we had all had the best of both worlds.
Stephen Gethins
I am not going to take too many interventions, but as I took one from the hon. Member for Strangford, I think I should take a viewpoint from the majority point of view in Northern Ireland as well.
Sorcha Eastwood
Yes, indeed—I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I remind colleagues that Northern Ireland voted to remain. It is regrettable that Northern Ireland has borne the brunt in all of this. I do not spend my time relitigating Brexit, because it tore my country apart, but for our community and voluntary sector in Northern Ireland, the legacy is that we have never had the European social funds replaced like for like by any Government since we left the EU, and that is a disgraceful legacy.
Stephen Gethins
I thank the hon. Member for her powerful point, and the respectful way in which she makes her case regularly. I was in this place at the time; Northern Ireland was consecutively overlooked, and its views disregarded.
I hope Members will forgive me, because I am going to try to make some progress, but I think it is incredibly important that the first two interventions, although from different sides, were from Members from Northern Ireland, which is overlooked far too often in this place, because the peace process was a price that others thought was worth paying—to a far greater degree than it should have been.
Let me talk about the economy. The National Bureau of Economic Research states that £90 billion has been lost in tax revenues, or £250 million every day. That means that the amount wasted, and not taken in tax, every 48 hours is the entire annual budget of the council of the city of Dundee, part of which I represent. Investment is lower than it would have been, too. Despite that, the UK paid out billions for the privilege of putting itself in this ludicrous situation. More seriously, small and medium-sized enterprises, which grow our economy and employ so many people, have found it harder to grow; for households, the cost of living has increased at a time when they can ill afford it—the Government know this, and they know how serious it is for households—and trade deals that we knew would do nothing to compensate for the loss continue to do nothing.
There is a human element, too, in the form of opportunities for young people. As politicians, we should all leave more opportunities for the generations who come after us than we enjoyed ourselves, but this place leaves fewer opportunities. My life was transformed by doing Erasmus at the University of Dundee. I am glad that the Government have belatedly come round and reintroduced it, but there is a lost generation of those who never had it, and who no longer have freedom of movement, which allowed our young people to live and work in the EU. Why on earth do Members think—I wonder if the Minister can tell me—there was such an explosion in those with Polish, French or, in my case, Irish ancestry seeking second passports?
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
On that point, will the hon. Member give way?
Stephen Gethins
If the hon. Member can tell me that, then I welcome her intervention.
Alison Bennett
The hon. Gentleman is very generous. Does he agree that it is totally unfair that one person in my constituency missed out on their gap year and the opportunity to travel abroad because they have a British passport while their friend got to travel and have that experience because they could access an Irish passport?
Stephen Gethins
I absolutely agree. That is the benefit of Ireland being a member of the European Union and why I cannot fathom why Labour and, I am sorry to say, the Liberal Democrats—I can understand the Conservatives and Reform—do not endorse rejoining the European Union. It is staring them in the face.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I tire sometimes of the hon. Member’s party in Scotland making this fuss about us not wanting to rejoin. If he looks back, he will see that the Liberal Democrats were the ones who desperately wanted not to leave. We campaigned for a second referendum. We want to create a new customs union. We desperately want to be closer to Europe, so, please, will the hon. Member kindly give the correct picture of the Liberal Democrat position?
Stephen Gethins
The correct picture is this—let us talk about the present. Do the Liberal Democrats want to rejoin the EU right now? My party does; does the hon. Lady’s? I will give way again—yes or no?
Christine Jardine
If the hon. Member can explain the contradiction between wanting to join one union and give up sovereignty and wanting to leave another.
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Member has fallen into the nationalist exceptionalism trap that I would expect more from the Conservatives or Reform. Why is it that the 27 member states of the European Union consider themselves independent and sovereign? The European Union is a club for independent states; the UK is not. That is the fundamental difference.
I will talk briefly about migration, because it is important—and I want to make progress, as a lot of Members want to speak. The UK left the Dublin regulation, which led to an explosion in the number of small boats—the Brexit boats, the Reform boats, the Tory boats. In the EU, irregular border crossings have gone down, but in the UK they have gone up. I know that the Government are looking at returns, but that is a desperate situation.
On the impact on devolution, Scotland voted to leave, but even within the deal we have the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. I hope the Minister will revisit that Act—one that Labour cried out about previously, and the Scottish Parliament refused consent for. We have talked about Northern Ireland. Because we do not have the purest of pure Brexits, now the European convention on human rights is under threat. It is a bit like the purest of pure communism has apparently never been tried; the purest of pure Brexits, for the ultimate Brexiteers, has never been tried either. The threat to devolution continues under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act, and I hope the Minister will address that.
Finally, we are less secure. Today is four years since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and I know we are all in the same place on that. It turned the whole of Europe upside down. The EU is integral to our security, so will the Minister tell me why Canada can join the defence procurement scheme but the UK cannot? What progress is being made on that? It is a fundamentally important issue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Gethins
Let me just make one more point, and then I will take an intervention from the Labour Benches.
We know the importance of food and energy security, and Ukraine, Moldova and others see their future in Europe, so why on earth does the UK not? Eighty per cent of our 16 to 24-year olds want not a customs union, but to rejoin the EU. Seventy-five per cent of Scots want to rejoin, because Brexit has been a failure.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Nobody can doubt the hon. Member’s Europhile credentials, but I do doubt his party’s commitment to unions of any kind. Why else would the SNP spend more fighting a by-election in Shetland than it did fighting the Brexit referendum? When he has finished answering that, perhaps he can tell us why his party spent more fighting the Glenrothes by-election than it did fighting Brexit.
Stephen Gethins
I am glad the hon. Member raised that. In Scotland we campaigned and overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU—a vote that was ignored by his party and by this place as an anti-democratic protest. On the point of how much campaigning was done, the Brexit referendum took place six weeks after the Scottish, Welsh and London elections. In order to make the campaigning period longer, I tabled an amendment to the European Union Referendum Bill so that we could campaign more, spend more and make the case more, but his party rejected it. Its Members walked into the Lobby with the Conservative party, as they often do, to reject that amendment. I tabled an amendment so that 16-year-olds could vote, as they do in Scotland; his party rejected it. The only amendment it endorsed, and I am glad it did, was one that allowed European nationals to have the vote—that one was accepted. Throughout the process, we sought to amend the damage that his party had done under the Labour leader at the time, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).
Stephen Gethins
“Who’s he?” he says. He was your leader over two general elections.
Brexit has failed. Many of those who spoke of democracy have since taken their seats in the House of Lords and will never have to face the electorate again. We even have limitations on discussing and debating the Head of State, as has been happening today on, in fairness, a Liberal Democrat motion. To those who bewail the chaos and failure that has enveloped the UK over the past decade, which has seen us run through six—soon to be seven, apparently, if the Scottish Labour leader has their way—British prime ministers since the Brexit referendum, I say: please, reflect on where we are. We need to rejoin. I will endorse anything that brings us closer to the EU, but we know that anything would be simply less bad.
Ten years on, enough is enough. I am about to listen to all these Members make the case for Europe. I say to Liberal Members, to Tory Members, and to Labour Members in particular: have the courage of your convictions and get us closer to Europe, get us rejoining Europe, and stop damaging the UK.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
Order. There will be a two-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. I will begin calling Front Benchers for the wind-ups at quarter-past 5.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I commend the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins). There is a thirst to discuss this in the Chamber—apart from the shadow Minister’s side; he looks rather lonely.
Cambridge was one of the most pro-remain areas in the UK. I am proud that the Market ward in central Cambridge had the highest remain vote anywhere in the country; I share that view with a passion. That early morning of 24 June 2016 in an empty sports centre in Chelmsford, where the votes in the east of England were being counted, was one of the lowest points of my political life.
I accept that the vote was lost in 2016, but the years that followed have cost us dear. In the science and research field, we have clawed our way back into Horizon, but look at the damage done: relationships broken and ground lost that will take years to rebuild. I am thrilled that the Government will return us to the Erasmus scheme, which, as the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry said, has done so much to enrich lives, although again years have been lost.
As a Food Minister, I saw directly the problems that so many of our brilliant food producers have faced getting their products to European customers, such as all those export health certificates that had to be completed. That is why I am so pleased that the Government are doing the long, hard, painstaking work to build a new SPS agreement. Let me finish this brief contribution on that positive note. If that day in Chelmsford was a low point, the agreement of the SPS process last year was one of the high points. As Food Minister, I was privileged to be with a number of major food companies in the Downing Street garden celebrating that occasion. Pieces of cake with EU and UK flags were a joy to see. That was a sight that would bring joy to so many of my Cambridge constituents who are passionate Europeans. Yes, a decade has been lost but we are now on the right path.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I suppose I should be timid about entering this echo chamber of remainers and remoaners, but here I am. The first thing that strikes one is the utter disrespect for the largest democratic vote ever in the history of this nation. To many in this place, that is a nothing to be swept aside. I say to them, if they are democrats: “Shame on you!”
I am intrigued by the approach of the Scottish National party. The raison d’être of that party is a sovereign, independent Scotland but, as soon as they get that, they want to hand away their sovereignty and independence and subjugate it to the sovereignty of a foreign EU. No doubt they also want to build a Hadrian’s wall international customs border—if they join the EU, and the rest of the United Kingdom does not, that is what they are going to have. Let me tell them what that means, from the experience of Northern Ireland. It means that supply goods from the main market in Great Britain will be subject to international customs declarations, tariffs, paperwork and extra costs. That is what the independence-seeking SNP thinks is the recipe for the future.
We have heard much propaganda today about the alleged failures of Brexit. Yes, it has failed where it has not been given, which is in Northern Ireland, but look at manufacturing, which is probably the area most affected by Brexit. Is it not strange that the UK’s productivity performance in manufacturing has been the strongest of any country in the G7?
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) for his powerful speech in opening the debate.
In June 2016, my constituents voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union, following a campaign in which I and my team worked as hard as we have in any election where my name was on the ballot paper. For the vast majority of residents in Dulwich and West Norwood, the UK’s membership of the EU and their consequential status as both British and European citizens was fundamental to their identity, and their loss by such a narrow margin was viscerally felt.
The loss has turned out to be much greater than the replacement of our burgundy passports with navy ones. During the campaign, we consistently raised our evidence-based concerns that Brexit would harm our country. We were accused of scaremongering, but on every single one of the issues on which we campaigned, the passage of time has proved us right.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
The National Bureau of Economic Research has said that, because of Brexit, the economy is 6% to 8% smaller than it otherwise would be. At the first Black Country Chamber of Commerce meeting I went to, most of the businesses were talking about the adverse effects of Brexit.
Would my hon. Friend agree that the step forward now is to carry on and make the most of the agreement that the Government have made with the European Union, with a view to growing the economy and backing British jobs?
Helen Hayes
My hon. Friend is right. The Office for Budget Responsibility is clear that Brexit has caused a 4% long-term reduction in GDP and has created a structural challenge in UK manufacturing. The export of UK goods to the EU has fallen by 27% and imports have fallen by 32%.
Helen Hayes
I will not give way, because of the number of Members who wish to speak. Some 16,400 SMEs have given up exporting to the EU because of Brexit-related red tape. [Interruption.] I will not give way, because of the number of colleagues who wish to get in.
Our food is more expensive, regulation has dropped, and there was no £350 million a week for the NHS. During the debates that followed the referendum, I took the view that I would prioritise representing my constituents’ views, and that on such an important matter, even if we were losing the argument, democratic representation and plurality of voices mattered. It led me to rebel on a number of votes and to resign from the shadow Front Bench in order not to vote in support of the Conservatives’ Brexit deal.
Brexit drove a huge wedge through the middle of our country. It divided regions from each other, split communities and even families, according to strong and sincerely held views. We do not need to re-litigate those arguments and to keep telling each other we were wrong, or seek to convince ourselves that we can easily return to where we were. However, responsible government demands that we reckon with the reality we find ourselves in. We must acknowledge the immense harm that has been done—that we are poorer and less secure as a consequence of Brexit—and it is right that we seek to undo the damage.
I welcome the steps that the Government have already taken to reset our relationship with the European Union, starting with re-establishing the warmth of our friendship, reopening regular and constructive dialogue, negotiating new deals and rejoining Erasmus+. There is further to go, but we must move forward, step by step, making the consensus, building community and connection, and moving forward in a realistic way, recognising that relationships are mutual, not unilateral, and that there is more to do to rebuild our relationship.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond, and I thank the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) for securing this important debate.
In South Cambridgeshire, the majority of constituents, 60.2%, voted to remain in the European Union. They did so from a clear understanding that our prosperity, freedoms and security depend on and benefit from co-operation with our closest neighbours, but the effects of the Brexit referendum deal have been stark and deeply damaging. Our young people have lost the freedoms that we as their parents once took for granted—the right to travel, work, study, live and love across the EU. Economically, Brexit has blown a £90 billion-a-year hole in the public finances, with around £250 million every single day in lost tax revenue, and an economy now between 6% and 8% smaller than if we had not left, which particularly hits our small and medium-sized businesses.
There are wider issues of security, too. As Dr Paul Browne, chair of Cambridge for Europe, said,
“the world of 2026 is not the world of 2016… Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine shows us that democracy, defence and economic security are one”.
After a decade of working internationally with communities and economies devastated by climate change, I became much more politically active when I realised that Brexit would threaten our environment. Nature knows no borders. Wildlife mates and nests in one country while feeding in another, and the habitats and water framework directives were hugely effective in respecting that. However, we are now diverging from those protections of the nature and wildlife that we all hold so dear. The Institute for European Environmental Policy has found that since Brexit the EU has introduced 28 new or strengthened pieces of environmental legislation that the UK has not adopted. Meanwhile, we have weakened protections in areas such as habitats, pesticides, forever chemicals and fisheries. We must be bolder, rejoin, closer to the EU and—
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I was going to talk about business, trade and many other factors, but let me focus my remarks on young people. When I go to schools and speak to young people across Beckenham and Penge, they describe the significant impact Brexit has had on them. Young people in my constituency and across the country continue to face the brunt of such a consequential decision that they had no say in whatsoever. In January last year, YouGov found that over 75% of 18 to 24-year-olds thought Brexit was a mistake. Behind that percentage are real people whose aspirations and ambitions are being held back.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman find it bizarre that at the moment British citizens can spend only 90 days out of every 180 in Europe, yet reciprocally EU nationals can spend six months in the UK? Does he think that at the next EU-UK summit we could pursue a reciprocal visa travel arrangement?
Liam Conlon
That is something the Government are looking at, and I would welcome the Minister’s response.
This week, I have had the pleasure of being joined by two university students from Beckenham and Penge, Zoe and Isaac, who are in the Public Gallery today. I asked them what Brexit has meant for them in practical terms. Zoe said that although her course offers a year abroad, which is something she has always wanted to do, it is now implausible for her to go because of how expensive it has become given increased mobility, visa and administrative costs. Likewise, Isaac would like to study in the EU after he graduates or to work abroad, but current restrictions mean he is unlikely to be able to do so.
I therefore welcome the Government’s steps to address some of these issues through plans to rejoin the Erasmus scheme in 2027 or indeed through the EU-UK youth mobility scheme, which would give those aged 18 to 35 the chance to study and work for up to four years abroad. Will the Minister tell us how quickly that will be rolled out?
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) for securing this debate.
Almost a decade since we held that fateful referendum, let us look back and count the many and varied so-called “Brexit benefits” that some promised us. As we bask in the glorious position that the UK now enjoys on the world stage, admired and envied by nations that remain tethered to the huge co-operative trading bloc—with its equal standards, paperless flow of goods, shorter passport queues, easier travel, investment infrastructure, tourism, shared intelligence, movement for students and those in shortage occupations, shared research and development, and art and music projects—the stark reality, 10 years on from the infamous and baseless bus slogans, is not really freedom at all. It is not freedom for those of us whose constituencies have so many ties with our continental neighbours—ties that go back centuries and are embedded in this nation’s social, political, industrial, legal, creative and academic history.
My constituency’s very soul—our magnificent cathedral, heritage, people and institutions—are not only British but European. We are practically joined to France. A few days ago, we welcomed the French ambassador and other dignitaries to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the signing of the channel tunnel treaty by Mrs Thatcher and President Mitterrand, in a cathedral built mostly of French stone.
Kent is essentially Britain’s front door to European travellers. Thankfully, as a UNESCO world heritage site, it will always be a thriving and popular destination, but that is despite Brexit. Our easy relationship with the neighbours who could just pop over from next door has changed dramatically. Our economy is based on tourism, agriculture, produce, and our trading relationship. Whitstable oysters supply French restaurants, but that once seamless transaction involved 72 pieces of paper and multiple checks after Brexit. Our farms and local food businesses—
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.
It has been a rather dreary February. Despite looking quite hard, I have not been able to see any of the rainbows or unicorns that we were promised during the debate of the Brexit days, or the millions promised to the NHS. However, let us be realistic and build our hopes for the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) mentioned young people, and of course the vast majority of this House would agree that we want collaboration, shared security, shared prosperity and more jobs. What we need to talk about are the social and cultural consequences of the UK’s departure from the European Union, and we need economic common sense.
The Government have already made great progress in resetting the relationship with the EU after the Tory years of chaos.
Rosie Wrighting
I worked in buying in a retail head office at the time of Brexit. It was an extremely uncertain time. I remember having to stay up quite literally all night to figure out how we were going to move stock from the EU into the UK to protect sales ahead of Black Friday. Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK-EU reset is a real opportunity to offer certainty to businesses that the Conservative party let down at that time?
Catherine West
My hon. Friend knows of what she speaks in the area of trade in the EU and manufacturing in the UK.
The new UK-EU partnership includes an agreement to work towards making agrifood trade easier, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) mentioned. Ultimately, the sanitary and phytosanitary deal will add £9 billion to the UK economy in the long term, but we need to get on with it. We are 18 months into this Parliament. We need to put our foot on the accelerator to fight against food poverty, bring down food prices and help manufacturers.
Let me emphasise that there is so much more we can do to support our creative sector. We need specific commitments on touring to allow artists to travel visa-free and to carry their instruments, equipment and props without prohibitive admin and bureaucracy. A special cultural exemption from the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement would go a long way towards that and I know that is at the heart of the discussions for the Cabinet Office.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
The hon. Lady mentions the trade and co-operation agreement, which was of course meant to remove tariffs. Does she share my concern about companies, such as those in Taunton and Wellington, that do not have to pay tariffs but who have to pay £300 for every cross-border transaction, to have all the paperwork done? That is effectively a tariff, and not the free trade we were promised. Does that not show the lunacy of the way the Brexit decision was carried out?
Catherine West
The hon. Member is completely right that there is far too much unnecessary bureaucracy that did not exist before. If we can develop the relationship with European partners, those creases can be ironed out and we can have much more friction-free trade.
To realise our full potential in tackling global challenges such as climate change, the UK needs to play a fuller part in the latest iteration of the EU’s research and innovation framework programme, FP10, as we did with Horizon Europe 2024. I would welcome an update from the Minister on that point.
Nothing says more about who we are and our place in the world than our relationship with our closest neighbours. The new UK-EU strategic partnership is a great start, but there is lots more to do. Let us not waste this wonderful opportunity.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. Eighty years ago, just after the second world war, my great-uncle Zelia stood outside this Parliament building. He doffed his hat—everyone had a hat in those days—and he said, “She saved us all.” He was a Latvian Jew. He lived in Paris; I was always told he had fought with the French resistance. He certainly knew what Britain had meant to Europe. The whole of Europe knew that.
At that moment, Europe looked to Britain for a lead, but we pulled back. Even when we finally joined them, we developed the habit of blaming Brussels more than reminding people of the benefits. So when the 2016 referendum came, people answered on the basis of what they had been told and what they had not been told. Now, 10 years on, the cost is clear. Boris Johnson promised the NHS £19 billion a year. Instead, we have lost £90 billion a year, every year, in tax revenue.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
My predecessor, Boris Johnson, promised much that never seemed to materialise, locally as well as nationally. My hon. Friend is right in his assertion that we have seen significant economic impacts. Pharmaceutical companies in my constituency talk about double administration and double testing of the exports of drugs now, with the need to go through both the European and UK medicines agencies for approvals. They say that has directly harmed investment and jobs in the UK. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about that?
Ben Coleman
I do. I congratulate my hon. Friend again on replacing Boris Johnson with a much nicer man, who definitely has much better hair. I absolutely agree.
We have to recognise that the swiftest path to growth for this country lies in tackling the red tape that Brexit introduced. I think of a small butcher in my constituency of Chelsea and Fulham, who used to import most of his goods from Spain and Italy and now has shelves half bare because his small distributors just cannot cope with the paperwork.
We do not have that £90 billion in tax revenue any more, and that is money that we need badly for our NHS, police and schools after years of Conservative austerity. I am not dismissing the concerns that drove the leave vote, least of all the feeling of not being heard, but the response that the referendum conveyed has made all those problems worse. If we left to take back control, the evidence is that we simply have much less of it. No wonder that two thirds of the British people, including six out of 10 of those who voted to leave, now say that they want a closer relationship with the European Union, which my Government are pursuing.
The British people deserve better. This country, diminished though it is, but still undefeated, has never shrunk from doing what the moment requires. Let us seize this moment to repair the damage, welcome the reset, act with ambition, optimism and hope, and put Brexit right.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I never inhaled: I always opposed Brexit, and I continue to fight for a closer relationship with Europe. I also recognise that the way the previous Government left the European Union was the hardest of Brexits. They compounded the damage that walking out of the room did to this country, and we see that in our constituencies every single day. I do not believe that anybody voted for 1.8 million fewer jobs to be created in our economy, or for 16,000 businesses to give up on trading with Europe because the basic consequence of Brexit was paperwork. I do not believe that anybody in this country really wanted those outcomes.
Ms Creasy
I apologise, but I am aware of the time available. I also recognise that 2016 was over a decade ago. One of the challenges in this nation is that we have always acted as if the hard part about our relationship with Europe was us deciding what we wanted to happen, and the easy part was going and telling our European counterparts what we wanted to do. In a decade, President Trump has been elected twice, covid has happened, the #MeToo movement occurred and TikTok was invented—not to mention the antics of President Putin. If we are going to get this right then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) is right to argue, we need to get closer to Europe, but, in what we ask now, we have to show them the respect of recognising the damage we did in walking out of the door.
First and foremost, we need a salvage operation for British businesses, jobs, climate and people. That requires looking at the deal that has been done with Switzerland. We must get closer to the single market, because the customs union is not our European counterparts and European freedom of movement. There is so much more that we can do but, first, let us start by respecting those people we disavowed.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) for introducing the debate. I simply wanted to say that, for years, I watched from afar as a normal member of the public in Northern Ireland as this place discussed my, my family’s and my country’s future. I really meant it when I said that Brexit tore my country apart, because it did.
I stand here today as the only elected Member from Northern Ireland who is neither nationalist or Unionist. I am really proud of that, and of the decision that Lagan Valley made. No doubt, others may later say that I am simply a nationalist, or that I am just a vehicle for a populist argument. I find that really denigrating, because Northern Ireland did vote to remain, but that was across Unionist people, nationalist people and people like me who are neither of those things.
We will hear that there are issues with the protocol—of course there are. I sit on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee; we discuss it regularly, and I table written questions regularly. I did not want to leave, because I am British, I am Irish, I am Northern Irish and I am European. I will never choose; do not make me choose. But that is what this did. It ripped away that umbrella of identity, and Northern Ireland has never recovered. Others simply will not let it.
Truth be told, it was such a great burden for so many that I am not sure what the way forward is. Others throw out simple referendums as the cure to it all. I do not believe them. I do not believe the others throwing out simple referendums about a united Ireland as the cure. I do believe that, as other Members have suggested, we have to have something for the UK as a whole, because we simply need to get closer. I just wanted to say that the referendum broke my heart and the hearts of many others, and it caused great unrest and strife. Many of us in Northern Ireland are recovering.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
We know so much now, 10 years on from the referendum, about the economic impacts of the Conservative Brexit deal. I will not spend too much time discussing them, other than to say that they come up every time I knock on a door in Reading that belongs to an owner of a small or medium-sized enterprise. Across the UK, their exports have fallen by almost a third since Brexit. We are now bearing the costs of that.
Yuan Yang
No thank you.
There is much we can now do to mitigate the costs of Brexit for our constituents, including securing a sanitary and phytosanitary veterinary agreement with the EU. I ask the Minister to give an update on the progress of that. Colleagues on the living standards coalition of MPs found that securing such an agreement could reduce EU food import prices by between 3% to 6% in the next few years. That will go a substantial way to reducing our constituents’ cost of living.
In order to move forward, we have to look at where we are now and see how the world sees us. In my previous job reporting on trade from Brussels as a British journalist for a British newspaper, I would often attract wry comments from other members of the European Commission and community about my nationality and the choices that my country made. During the years of the Brexit negotiations, we had five Foreign Secretaries and six Business Secretaries, so no wonder they had some comments about my Government.
Contrast that with the reception that our Prime Minister had at the Munich Security Conference. I was in the audience and heard the spontaneous applause when the Prime Minister declared that
“we are not the Britain of the Brexit years anymore”,
that we must
“build a stronger Europe and a more European NATO”,
and that
“there is no British security without Europe, and no European security without Britain.”
Security does not just mean defence—it means food, energy, and climate and the environment, and I am proud that in my constituency we have one of the last remaining European institutions headquartered in the UK: the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, which will build on its new site. Soon, it will raise the British flag alongside the flags of all its partners.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) for the way in which he introduced the debate. He did forget, though, in his recollections, that we could have had a customs union if he had not abstained on that decision, along with his 35 SNP colleagues. That is a simple fact. Perhaps he can address that in his winding-up speech.
One of the challenges we face as a country is that so many people in the UK feel left behind. They still feel the impacts of the banking crisis and of covid. Both were once in a lifetime but have been exaggerated and amplified by Brexit. The Brexiteers told us that all we needed to do to set our country on a wealthier path was to get rid of the Europeans. I have to say that it is very similar to the argument we hear from Donald Trump about Mexicans and also the argument we hear from the SNP about getting rid of the rest of the UK. All three are wrong for exactly the same reasons.
Now the same Brexiteers tell us that all we have to do to set our country on a wealthier path is to get rid of immigrants—to other them. Again, that is not correct, particularly when we remember that there are about 350,000 immigrants working in our NHS. We all know that the route to prosperity is to work more closely with our biggest trading partners, and for us that is the European Union. I am proud that this Government have taken us in that direction. I do hope that one day we rejoin the EU, but I do recognise that, as others have hinted, that has to come after a manifesto commitment and a referendum. It is not something that any of us want to rush into right now, but I welcome the fact that, day by day, we are getting closer to our European partners.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Our duty in this place is to build bridges, not walls, and yet, since the Brexit vote, we have seen our country pull itself apart day by day because the disruptors who caused the Brexit vote have continued to disrupt our communities. Why is that? They have made our country poorer, they have regressed our economy, we have lost jobs and our services are no longer supported in the way that they were.
We have to build our way back and build our way back fast. Rebuilding the relationships is the first step, but we must move forward, as so many have said, to a customs union, to the single market and ultimately to our membership back in the European Parliament, being rule-makers, not rule-takers. That is what my city voted for back in 2016; two thirds of my constituents voted to remain. It is why we need to come together and reach a decision among ourselves on a pathway to hope once again.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) for securing the debate. In 2016, the British people were offered a vision of life outside the European Union built on easy promises: £350 million a week for the NHS, effortless global trade deals, and all the benefits of membership with none of the obligations. There was no detailed blueprint, no agreed destination and no serious plan. As the still comparatively new Member of Parliament for Surrey Heath, I am acutely aware that my predecessor played a large part in leading us down that track.
Ten years on, we are living with the consequences of those events. The National Bureau of Economic Research estimates that Brexit has suppressed UK GDP by between 6% and 8%, a loss equivalent to around £250 million a day. The trade deals struck with Australia and New Zealand amount to a fraction of 1% of GDP. They do not come close to compensating for the loss of frictionless trade with our largest and closest market, Europe.
Dr Pinkerton
The capriciousness of the United States makes the case for closer economic co-operation with Europe all the greater. This is not abstract. Businesses up and down the UK are grappling with rules of origin paperwork, border delays and lost contracts. Investment is held back. Productivity is squeezed. Growth has slowed.
This is not only about economics. Three quarters of young people voted to remain. A generation has lost the freedom to live, work and study across Europe. We withdrew from Erasmus+. We stepped back from the easy exchange of ideas and opportunity that strengthened our country. At a time of war in our continent, and growing geopolitical instability, stepping back from Europe has not made us stronger. It has left us more exposed.
The Liberal Democrats have always been clear: Britain’s future lies at the heart of Europe. We are unapologetically pro co-operation, pro political and economic unions of all shapes and sizes, and pro-European. We believe that sovereignty in the modern world is strengthened by partnership. Pooling power with allies does not diminish Britain: it amplifies us. That is why we have proposed a new UK-EU customs union—a practical, deliverable step to rebuild economic partnership and provide certainty for British businesses, including those in Northern Ireland.
Last year, the House backed that approach in a vote that, for the first time in years, appeared to nudge the Government into speaking seriously about rebuilding our relationship with Europe. A customs union would remove tariffs and rules of origin barriers, cut border friction, strengthen supply chains and support growth. It is neither the final destination nor the sum total of our ambition for the UK—I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry to our four-point plan—but it is the next step in restoring a close economic partnership with the European Union and rebuilding trust with our largest trading partner. That is absolutely essential in the low-trust environment created by the events of the last 10 years.
Britain was, and will always be, a European country. Our prosperity, security and influence depend on recognising that fact. This is not a debate about the past. It is not a betrayal of 2016, as some would have us believe. It is a test of whether we are prepared to act now in the national interest. It is time to be ambitious for the United Kingdom again. It is time to rebuild a serious partnership with Europe. It is time to deliver growth, widen opportunity and secure Britain’s place at the heart of European economic, cultural and strategic life.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
More than seven in 10 voters in my constituency voted to leave. That was not an accident, it was not confusion, and it was not because they were lied to.
Having spent seven happy years working in the European Parliament, I was not unfamiliar with the EU’s strengths, as well as its faults, but if there was one thing that caused me some hesitation before I decided to campaign for leave, it was knowing that it would be a huge undertaking. Unpicking 50 years of legislation and regulation would clearly be disruptive for many businesses, including many in my constituency, and would use up a lot of Government time for at least a decade. Of course, a global pandemic, a once-in-a-generation energy crisis and the shockwaves of war in Europe have added to the disruption. But to attribute every headwind to Brexit, as some Members have done, may be politically convenient, but it is economically simplistic.
Some Members have spoken about a £90 billion hit. The reality is that, since Brexit, UK GDP has grown at about the same rate as Italy’s, and above that of France and Germany.
Mike Wood
No, I only have five minutes.
For that £90 billion to be credible, one would have to imagine that we would have vastly exceeded the growth of every large European country if only we had stuck to what we were already doing, closer to the framework that those countries with lower growth are still in.
Carla Lockhart
I think the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) has had his say, quite significantly.
The EU is a failing entity and we got out at the right time. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is the continued capitulation of this Government and other UK parties, and a failure to accept the democratic outcome, that has led us to this point—especially the problems we are experiencing in Northern Ireland? Joining the EU is not the solution; it is about a strong Government leading this United Kingdom as a whole.
Mike Wood
The hon. Lady raises an important issue. Last summer, the Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland said that two thirds of the SMEs in Northern Ireland that moved goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland had ceased to do so because of the way EU checks were being conducted. The Northern Ireland protocol says that if the UK experiences diversion of trade, we can take unilateral action. If two thirds of small businesses does not count as diversion of trade, what does? As the record shows, exports to the EU grew more in the five years since we left in 2021 than they did in the six years before the referendum.
The Opposition have set five clear tests for any renegotiation with the European Union: no return to free movement; no new payments to the EU; no loss of fishing rights; no dynamic alignment with EU rules; and no compromise on NATO’s primacy in European defence. Those tests are not ideological; they are the minimum requirement for respecting the 2016 mandate. Dynamic alignment may sound technical, but it means accepting rules that we no longer shape. Budgetary contributions may be dressed as programmes, but they mean sending money back without membership—often far more than can be fairly attributed to the costs caused by our participation. A customs arrangement that restricts our trade autonomy undermines the very sovereignty that voters endorsed.
Brexit was never about isolation: it was about independence. It was about being outward looking on British terms. We now have the ability to strike trade agreements globally. We have joined the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, helping to open access to markets in 11 high-growth economies, from Canada to South Korea and Australia. Many of the bilateral trade deals that we have signed go far beyond the proceeding EU trade agreements, with deeper digital trade and data chapters that are important to so many of the sectors in which Britain is strongest.
Financial market reform has reduced the risk margin for life insurers, meaning that we can promote long-term growth and divert more to long-term infrastructure and green technologies. In agriculture, the UK has moved to environmental land management schemes, based on the principle of public money for public good, to support environmental outcomes instead of just paying landowners to own land. Our duty is clear: to honour the mandate, to defend the sovereignty the people voted for, to work with our allies as equal sovereign partners where we can, and to protect our country’s ability to take its own decisions in our nation’s interest.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
I thank the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) for securing the debate, and other Members for the many contributions today from all sides of the House and all parts of the UK—if not quite representing both sides of the debate in proportion to the referendum result.
I want to cover some of the questions raised regarding the Government’s approach, and reflect on the importance of the vote 10 years on. Whichever side we were on, the Brexit result was the most significant and defining political moment of a generation, not just in terms of our relationship with the EU but in reshaping our place in the world and challenging long-held assumptions about our economic and trading relationships, our security relationships and our diplomatic power and reach, as well as the very ties and bonds that hold together this great United Kingdom of ours—particularly in respect of Northern Ireland, where the referendum result has undoubtedly raised huge challenges, which were powerfully brought up earlier.
Of course, the referendum result also defined the political choices of the last decade, leading not just to the rise and fall of many Prime Ministers but to gridlock in Parliament and, in my view, to an overlooked consequence: the big domestic reforms that the country was crying out for—on special educational needs and disabilities, social care, planning and tackling inequality—were ignored because Parliament and successive Governments proved themselves incapable of doing Brexit and, frankly, anything else. [Interruption.] That—
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Ward
I am afraid I will not give way. That is the silent tragedy of the Brexit decade. It is a mistake we will not repeat.
I have a quick confession: at the time of the referendum I was a youngish political adviser to the relatively new Member of Parliament for Holborn and St Pancras. I remember sitting in his garden the day after the referendum, discussing what on earth we would do next. Suffice to say, he was not best pleased with the result, but he understood its significance and, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) referred to earlier, the importance of respecting that result and finding a way through.
After a short period of introspection, the now Prime Minister sketched out a vision of what he thought Britain should do. In time, this became known as “making Brexit work”. It meant being outside the EU, but being close to it. It meant leaving in an orderly way, while minimising the economic, cultural and diplomatic dislocation that we all knew would follow. It meant co operating where we can, protecting British businesses, supply chains and employment standards and, as he mentioned many times in the House during the subsequent debates, ensuring no hard border in Northern Ireland.
Nearly a decade on, this Labour Government were elected with a mandate to do precisely that. Last year, the Prime Minister hosted the first UK EU summit, where we agreed the first stage: the common understanding and a new framework for UK EU relations.
Chris Ward
I am afraid I will not; I am so sorry.
That first stage includes a new security and defence partnership because, as the Prime Minister said in Munich, there is no British security without Europe and no European security without Britain. As mentioned, it also includes an SPS agreement which will—my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) made this point powerfully—make a huge difference to farmers and food producers. We are also in the process of negotiating access to the EU’s internal electricity market, which will cut bills for businesses and consumers.
We are negotiating the youth experience scheme, which a number of Members mentioned and which I strongly support and called for. I am also delighted that we have negotiated—quite quickly, I think—to rejoin the Erasmus+ scheme, which will benefit more than 100,000 young people. We will legislate for that shortly. We aim for the agreements to be in play by the first half of 2027. The progress we have made in the last 18 months is the basis of the closer relationship that the Prime Minister had in his mind’s eye when we discussed this back in his garden some 10 years ago.
To be clear—I say this proudly and confidently—this is just the start of a new relationship with the EU under this Government. We are no longer, as the Prime Minister said in Munich, the Britain of the Brexit years. We want a closer relationship with the EU and we want deeper integration. We were elected with a mandate to do precisely that and we will deliver it. In line with our manifesto, that will be outside the single market and the customs union and without freedom of movement.
We will not try to relitigate the referendum result, but we will repair the unnecessary national self harm of the deals negotiated in the last decade, and we will align with the single market where it is in our national interest and our sovereign right to do so. We will deliver a partnership with the EU, based on common economic and cultural interests and in the national interest, and turn the page on the last decade of failure.
Stephen Gethins
Huge thanks to colleagues, genuinely, and in particular to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), who came along to represent one particular perspective. I also thank the Minister, but I remind him, of course, that the Prime Minister voted for a referendum on the EU in 2019. I do hope that the Brexit omerta is over, and I gently remind the House that our democracy is no longer a democracy when we no longer have the ability to change our minds. Brexit has been a disaster.
Written Statements
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sale of Telegraph Media Group Holdings Ltd
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
I wish to update the House on the sale of Telegraph Media Group Holdings Ltd.
On 12 February 2026, I issued a public interest intervention notice in relation to the anticipated acquisition of TMGH by the Daily Mail and General Trust plc.
Last week, on 19 February, I made a new order to prevent actions by the parties to the anticipated acquisition that might prejudice the regulatory process or impede my ability to take any action in relation to the merger following the conclusion of the regulatory process.
The Public Interest Merger Reference (Telegraph Media Group Holdings Limited) (Pre-emptive Action) Order 2026 prohibits transfer of ownership or control of the TMGH business without my prior written consent, as well as integration of the relevant businesses or the transfer of key staff between the parties. The order ensures that the TMGH business continues to be managed separately and as a going concern, maintaining its editorial independence, while the merger is under review.
On 19 February I also gave my consent to RB Investco Ltd (which previously sought to buy TMGH) derogating from the pre-existing Public Interest Merger Reference (Telegraph Media Group Limited) (Pre-emptive Action) Order 2024. This derogation provides formal consent for RB Investco Ltd to sell its rights (the so-called “call option”) to purchase TMGH shares to DMGT. The new 2026 order, however, ensures both that those rights cannot yet be exercised, thereby completing the sale, and that necessary legal safeguards are in place to prevent further integration of TMGH and DMGT while the merger is under investigation.
While convention normally requires a period of 21 days between the laying of a statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure and its coming into force, I determined that immediate action was necessary in this instance, given my consent to RB Investco Ltd to sell their call option to DMGT. Any delay in the new 2026 order coming into force would have potentially undermined the regulatory process. For the same reasons, it was also necessary to make and lay the order during the parliamentary recess. In the interests of transparency, copies of the order and the letter confirming my derogation consent were nevertheless published last week on gov.uk.
I will continue to update the House on progress with this media merger case as appropriate.
[HCWS1353]
TV and Video on Demand Services: Regulation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
I am pleased to update the House on essential reforms the Government are making to television and video on demand regulation. These measures mark an important step in the Government’s implementation of the Media Act 2024, and extend vital audience benefits and protections to previously unregulated services. To that effect, the Government will shortly lay two statutory instruments:
The On-demand Programme Services (Tier 1 Services) Regulations 2026; and
The Regulated Electronic Programme Guide (Prescribed Description and Transitional Arrangements) Regulations 2026.
We also intend to lay a statutory instrument, when parliamentary time allows, to designate the television selection services that will be captured by the new prominence regime also introduced by the Media Act.
The way in which audiences choose to watch TV has undergone significant change over the last decade. The growth in popularity of on-demand services means there is now more choice than ever. While licensed television channels must comply with Ofcom’s broadcasting code (which sets appropriate standards for audiences to ensure protection from harm and offence) and accessibility requirements (such as subtitles, audio description, and sign language), many of the most popular video on demand services used in the UK today are not regulated to the same extent as broadcast television, and some are not regulated at all.
Similarly, in general, only TV channels which appear on a regulated TV guide (referred to in legislation as “regulated electronic programme guides”) must comply with Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code and accessibility requirements. Currently, the only regulated EPGs—set at the point the UK left the European Union—are Freeview, Freesat, Sky, Virgin Media, and YouView. The proliferation of smart TVs and growth in the number of unregulated EPGs means that audiences are exposed to an increased risk of encountering harmful content, and are unable to complain to Ofcom if they do.
Legislation is therefore required to ensure vital audience protections and accessibility features apply to newer services that are increasingly popular for audiences. However, regulation must be proportionate to ensure industry is not subject to unnecessary regulatory burdens.
The Media Act 2024 introduced a new regulatory framework for VoD services, including powers for the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to designate ‘Tier 1’ services, which will come under enhanced, TV-like regulation by Ofcom. These services will be required to comply with a new video on demand standards code that will set appropriate standards to protect audiences from harmful content, and a new accessibility code, which will set minimum requirements for accessibility features.
Through the On-demand Programme Services (Tier 1 Services) Regulations 2026, the Government will designate video on demand services with more than 500,000 UK users as Tier 1. We estimate this will bring over 20 of the most popular video on demand services (including Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and Disney+) within scope of the regulations. In designating services with more than 500,000 UK users, the Government have taken a proportionate approach that balances the need for audience protections and accessibility features being available on the most popular services, without placing a disproportionate burden on smaller services which reach fewer people, which may be less able to comply with Tier 1 obligations. Following designation, Ofcom will consult on the new codes, which will be an opportunity for the public and providers to set out their views on the new rules.
The Government will also lay regulations to update the meaning of a regulated EPG, extending vital audience protections and accessibility requirements to newer TV guide services, like Sky Glass and Freely. Any TV channel which can be accessed through a regulated EPG will also be within Ofcom’s remit and therefore required to have a broadcast licence. Furthermore, the regulations will address a regulatory loophole in the existing framework where some TV guide services fall outside regulation despite being easily accessible through regulated services. We estimate that there are 10 EPGs and approximately 70 new TV channels that will be in scope of Ofcom regulation as a result. This measure also supports our public service broadcasters, by extending prominence rules that apply to regulated EPGs to previously unregulated services.
Finally, to support the future sustainability of our public service broadcasters, the Media Act also introduced a new prominence regime, which will require particular TV platforms to carry and give appropriate prominence to designated public service broadcaster video on demand apps. Once commenced, this new regime will ensure UK viewers can continue to find the public service media content they value on demand.
In order to be captured by the new prominence framework, a TV platform must be designated by the Secretary of State via statutory instrument, following advice from Ofcom. Ofcom issued its draft advice on 22 July 2025, which it consulted on, and issued its final statement on 16 December 2025. I can confirm, having thoroughly reviewed Ofcom’s advice and considered all stakeholder responses, that I am minded to agree to Ofcom’s recommended list of designations set out in its final report.
My Department intends to lay a statutory instrument, when parliamentary time allows, to make these designations.
Taken together, these measures will ensure the UK remains at the forefront when it comes to content standards and audience protections, in a rapidly evolving media landscape. However, given the pace of change today and our increasingly fragmented media landscape, we recognise that legislation must continue to adapt to keep pace.
2026 marks 100 years since the advent of television. Yet, despite the vital changes we are making today, much of the legislation which underpins the media landscape was written in an analogue age. The Government will therefore consider what further reforms are necessary to futureproof our regulatory regime, to ensure it continues to serve audiences, support our public service media providers, and allow our world-leading creative industries to thrive, driving growth and innovation across the UK.
[HCWS1354]
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority Direction: Hunterston B Nuclear Site
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
I am today laying a designation direction, which has been given to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority in respect of the Hunterston B nuclear site. The direction reaffirms NDA’s responsibility for the cleaning up and decommissioning of the site, triggering its powers under the Energy Act 2004. The direction has been given jointly with the Scottish Ministers, with the consent of EDF Energy Nuclear Generation Ltd and Nuclear Restoration Services, in accordance with sections 3 and 5 of the Energy Act 2004.
This direction marks the first nuclear site of the advanced gas-cooled reactor fleet that will transfer to Government for decommissioning. This is a historic moment for nuclear decommissioning.
[HCWS1352]
National Farmers’ Union Conference: Sustainable Farming
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
British agriculture employs hundreds of thousands of people, sustains rural communities, shapes the countryside, and contributes billions to our economy.
Today, I wish to update the House on a package of measures to support a productive, resilient and sustainable farming sector, which I am announcing today at the National Farmers’ Union conference in Birmingham.
Since my last update in January, the Government have focused on delivery—moving from promise to practice, and providing the clarity and stability that farmers need to plan, invest and grow.
This is a Government who listen; a Government who act; a Government who believe in British farming. The challenges are real, but so is our commitment.
It is vital that our schemes and policies are grounded in the realities that farmers face. Today’s announcements set out clearer, more predictable schemes and funding that farmers can plan around—with the sustainable farming incentive, grants and capital support shaped directly by farmer feedback.
The new sustainable farming incentive offer
As I confirmed at the Oxford farming conference in January 2026, we will open two SFI application windows this year: an initial window from June for small farmers up to 50 hectares as well as all farms without existing environmental land management revenue agreements, and a further window from September.
Ahead of applications opening in June for those eligible in the first window, we are publishing more information for the new SFI offer in 2026. This includes a streamlined list of actions and information on eligibility for the first window. The new offer has been shaped directly by industry feedback and is designed to support productive, profitable farm businesses while delivering environmental outcomes.
We want as many farmers as possible delivering positive environmental actions, and have an environment improvement plan target to double the number of farms delivering for nature by 2030, so we are introducing a £l00,000 annual agreement cap, with one agreement per farm, to spread funding more fairly across the sector. We are also ending the SFI management payment, so that the budget goes further and is more focused on delivery actions on the ground.
One key feature we are announcing today is that applicants must have a minimum area of 3 hectares to be eligible for the new SFI offer, bringing the scheme in line with recommendations from Baroness Batters’ independent farming profitability review.
£120 million in innovation and equipment grants
Farmers will benefit from £120 million of investment in farm innovation in the financial year 2026-27, including:
£70 million for the farming innovation programme to support practical research and development, including £30 million for the Government’s ADOPT programme; and
£50 million for the farming equipment and technology fund—FETF— to help farmers adopt new technology, cut emissions and boost productivity.
The £70 million in innovation grants announced today form part of the Government’s commitment to invest at least £200 million in agricultural innovation by 2030.
The FETF grant will open on 17 March, and guidance will be published today to ensure farmers and businesses have enough time to prepare an application. We will publish more details on the innovation funding shortly.
Environmental land management capital grants
The latest round of the ELM capital grant offer will open in July 2026, backed by £225 million in funding—50% more funding than was available in 2025. Farmers will be able to apply for funding to plant hedgerows, improve water quality and invest in new livestock infrastructure through the latest round. The offer will help farm businesses invest in infrastructure that supports environmental targets and long-term resilience.
We are announcing this now to enable farmers to be ready to apply and get all the necessary paperwork in place to support an application. Guidance will be available on gov.uk in advance of applications opening. As with last year, we will also be providing regular updates on how much funding has been allocated when the window opens.
Farming and food partnership board
I am establishing a farming and food partnership board, representing a fundamental reset of the relationship between the Government and the farming and food sectors. The first meeting will take place in March. The NFU is confirmed as a member, and we will confirm further members shortly.
The board will oversee the development of sector growth plans, beginning with horticulture and poultry, with further sectors to follow. These plans will identify barriers to growth and profit, including regulatory frictions, examine how costs can be better distributed across the food chain, and forecast and grow market demand through exports, retail, and public sector buying.
Farming road map and responding to the farming profitability review
Over the past few months, we have held workshops, meetings and listening sessions across the country to help us develop the farming road map and ensure it reflects what farmers need on the ground to plan for the future. This engagement activity will continue, and the farming road map will be published later this year.
A clear vision is now forming, built around the themes farmers told us matter most: profitability, productivity, stronger supply chains and environmental sustainability.
Alongside the farming road map, and further to our initial response to Baroness Batters’ independent farming profitability review, we will issue a detailed response.
Animal health and welfare review consultation and poultry biosecurity review
We have funded over 11,000 vet-led reviews to cattle, sheep and pig keepers as part of the animal health and welfare pathway.
We have received a great deal of positive feedback during the roll-out and today I am pleased to launch a consultation on making these vet visits mandatory for cattle, sheep, and pig farmers in England. This is alongside measures to control bovine viral diarrhoea in cattle and porcine reproductive respiratory syndrome in pigs.
In addition, we are expanding the improving farm animal health and welfare service to offer biosecurity advisory reviews for poultry keepers, funded with £390,000 from the Cabinet Office integrated security fund, launching this summer.
[HCWS158]
GP Contract 2026-27
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
General practice is the front door of the NHS, delivering millions of appointments each year and providing trusted, continuous care to patients in every community. The Government are committed to supporting general practice, ensuring it is sustainable and at the heart of a modern neighbourhood health service.
I am pleased to inform the House of the outcome of the 2026-27 general practice contract consultation. The final package reflects commitments in the 10-year health plan, including ending the “8 am scramble”, improving timely access to care, tackling GP unemployment and supporting a shift towards prevention. This builds on recent improvements in patient experience, with the monthly health insight survey by the Office for National Statistics showing that in December 2025, over 75% of people said it was easy to make contact with their GP—up from just under 61 % when this Government came into office.
The 2026-27 GP contract includes a £485 million funding uplift, taking total contract investment to over £13.8 billion. This investment is focused on the changes that matter most to patients: easier access to GP appointments and more GPs working in practices. Through an investment in GP recruitment of circa £190 million per annum via the additional roles reimbursement scheme over the past 16 months, the Government have recruited 3,000 newly qualified GPs, preventing them from graduating into unemployment. Growing GP capacity is the most effective way to improve access and for the first time, £292 million of funding is being ringfenced for a practice-level GP recruitment scheme. We estimate this could translate to 1,600 full-time equivalent GPs. The aim is to increase GP capacity that can be specifically focused on improving patient access.
The contract also includes a new requirement that all patients who are deemed clinically urgent by their GP practice must be dealt with on the same day. Delivery of this requirement is supported by the ringfenced GP recruitment scheme.
The contract also strengthens the role of general practice in prevention and neighbourhood health services, including targeted action to improve childhood vaccination uptake. It supports high deprivation areas where coverage has historically been lower, and ensures all those eligible are invited for lung cancer screening through improved data sharing, enables earlier cancer diagnosis. It also includes a £25 million investment to increase referrals into structured weight management and obesity support services for patients who need them most.
This contract embeds advice and guidance into core activity, supporting delivery of the plan for change by enabling more patients to receive the right care without unnecessary referral. This will help reduce pressure on elective services and help tackle waiting lists, while improving patient experience.
This year, the Department of Health and Social Care widened the consultation to engage stakeholders from across the primary care system including GPC England, the Royal College of General Practitioners, National Voices, Institute of General Practice Management, Healthwatch England, the NHS Confederation and the National Association of Primary Care. This broader consultation enabled constructive feedback from across the system, helping to refine proposals and improve the final contract package for both patients and practices.
This demonstrates the Government’s commitment to working constructively with the profession and system partners, and to ensuring that general practice is supported to meet the needs of patients now and in the future.
[HCWS1359]
Identification of Victims of Modern Slavery: Call for Evidence
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
On 16 July 2025, I announced a public call for evidence on identification of victims of modern slavery. The goal of this call for evidence was to hear views from stakeholders on the definitions of a victim of modern slavery, identification and decision-making processes, and futureproofing the modern slavery system.
Today, I am pleased to publish the report on the summary of responses. The call for evidence closed on 8 October 2025, and the Home Office received 119 responses from those with an interest and experience in modern slavery, including people with lived experience of modern slavery, non-governmental and civil society organisations, local authorities, academics, law enforcement, first responders, parliamentarians, and members of the public. We also ran a series of 10 stakeholder engagement workshops with NGOs, local and devolved governments, first responders, law enforcement, statutory partners, and academics. I greatly appreciate all the responses we received.
Over the coming months, we will carefully consider the evidence received to inform further legislative and policy development to ensure the effectiveness of the system for identifying victims of modern slavery. This includes commitments made to reform the modern slavery system set out in the statement on restoring order and control: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/asylum-and-returns-policy-statement/restoring-order-and-control-a-statement-on-the-governments-asylum-and-returns-policy
A copy of the summary of responses report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk.
[HCWS1351]
Ukraine Permission Extension Scheme: Further Extension
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
The Government remain steadfast in their support for the people of Ukraine in the face of Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion. From the outset of the conflict, the Government have acted decisively and compassionately, offering sanctuary to over 310,000 Ukrainians through the Ukraine family scheme, Homes for Ukraine scheme, and Ukraine extension scheme. This response reflects not only the generosity and solidarity of the British public in providing sanctuary to those in need, but also the Government’s enduring commitment to international humanitarian principles and to standing with our allies in defence of freedom and democracy—an approach firmly aligned with the UK-Ukraine 100 year partnership, which sets out our long-term alliance and shared values across defence, education, and cultural exchange.
Local authorities and civil society organisations have played a vital role in delivering this support, helping to ensure that Ukrainians arriving in the UK are welcomed and able to rebuild their lives with dignity and security.
This Government have continued to honour their commitment to providing sanctuary for those displaced by Russia’s illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Building on the success of the Ukraine schemes, the Ukraine permission extension scheme was introduced to offer eligible individuals the opportunity to apply for a further 18 months’ permission to stay in the UK.
The Government have listened to concerns raised by the Ukrainian community in the UK. To ensure continued stability and certainty for Ukrainians in the UK, it was announced that the UPE scheme will be extended by an additional 24 months. This means that individuals may benefit from a maximum of 3.5 years’ permission under UPE, in addition to any time already provided under the Ukraine schemes. This extension reaffirms the UK’s enduring commitment to supporting Ukrainian nationals and their eligible family members.
This extension will remain fee-free, and those granted permission to remain under UPE will continue to be able to access work, benefits, healthcare, and education.
Processing under the UPE scheme continues to operate efficiently, with the vast majority of applications concluded well within the service level agreement. This reflects the strong performance of the system and the commitment to providing timely decisions for those seeking support.
The Government will also expand the application window. Ukrainians will now be able to apply for the extension within the final 90 days of their current UPE permission, a significant increase from the current 28-day period. This change reflects the feedback we have had from applicants and is designed to provide greater flexibility and assurance, allowing applicants to secure their future in the UK with confidence and ease.
Application
To qualify, applicants must:
currently hold permission under UPE;
be physically present in the UK (or islands) at the date of application;
have been living in the UK (or islands) since being granted permission under the Ukraine schemes, including the UPE. Temporary periods spent outside the UK—defined as absences of no more than 12 months, whether continuous or cumulative —will not count as time outside the UK for the purposes of this requirement.
Applications for the UPE extension must be submitted online. It is essential for UPE holders to apply for the extension before the original UPE permission expires. Not doing so will result in the loss of rights to work and access to benefits, healthcare, and housing. Crucially, it means a former UPE holder will no longer hold valid immigration status and will be in the UK illegally. To avoid this scenario, the Government are taking proactive steps, including targeted communications, and are working closely with non-government organisations and community organisations, such as the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain, to ensure applicants are fully informed and supported throughout the process.
Safeguarding and children’s applications
Children must continue to have adequate care and accommodation arrangements in place. Where a child is not residing with a parent, parental consent will be sought to confirm the child’s living situation. If, on receipt of a UPE application, there is a reason to be concerned about a child, a referral will be made by the Home Office to the local authority where the child is resident.
Where a child is resident in the UK, having been granted permission under the Ukraine scheme alongside a parent or legal guardian who also holds Ukraine scheme permission, the child’s permission under any UPE extension will be aligned with that of their parent or legal guardian. This alignment supports the best interests of the child.
Children born in the UK to a Ukrainian national parent with permission under the Ukraine schemes will continue to be eligible to apply for UPE.
Temporary sanctuary
The Government have always been clear that permission granted under the Ukraine schemes—including UPE—does not count towards settlement in the UK.
Equally, time spent in the UK under the Ukraine schemes does not count towards the continuous lawful residence requirement under the long residence route. This position remains unchanged and reflects the Ukrainian Government’s strong desire for its citizens to return when it is safe to do so, in order to contribute to the rebuilding of their country.
It is also important to recognise the broader implications of long-term displacement. A balanced demographic is essential for Ukraine’s recovery and future stability. The return of its citizens will play a vital role in restoring communities, revitalising the economy, and ensuring the long-term sustainability of Ukrainian society.
Future policy direction
The Government recognise the importance of providing long-term certainty for Ukrainians living in the UK. We are committed to setting out the future arrangements clearly, and a further statement outlining the long-term position will be issued later this year. This will set out the Government’s approach beyond the extension of the UPE scheme, ensuring that displaced Ukrainians in the UK are supported in rebuilding their lives.
In shaping this approach, the Government will continue to engage with the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain and other community representatives to ensure that policy reflects the lived experiences and concerns of Ukrainians in the UK.
The Government remain steadfast in their support for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people, and we will continue to work across Departments to deliver a compassionate and coherent response to those affected by the conflict.
[HCWS1350]
Unexplained Wealth Orders Annual Report 2024-25
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
Today, the unexplained wealth order report for the period 2024 to 2025 will be laid before Parliament. The unexplained wealth order report details the number of unexplained wealth orders made by the High Court in England and Wales during that period, and the number of applications made to that Court by enforcement authorities for such an order.
During this reporting period, five unexplained wealth orders were applied for, all of which were granted. Four orders were applied for by the National Crime Agency and one by the Serious Fraud Office, the first agency other than the NCA to apply for an order.
This is the highest number of unexplained wealth orders applied for in one year since their introduction in 2017. This has, in part, been facilitated by reforms to the orders in the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, which were designed to increase their use. Unexplained wealth orders are intended for particularly high-value and complex cases, which is reflected in their more limited use, compared to other powers. The wide range of alternative civil and criminal powers available to law enforcement agencies to investigate, search for, and seize assets are more appropriate for use in the majority of cases.
Enforcement agencies continue to review whether cases are suitable for a UWO. Copies of the report will be available in the Vote Office, and it will also be published on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS1355]
Court Modernisation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
This Government inherited a criminal justice system on the brink of collapse. Trials are taking longer, hearings are being cancelled, and victims are facing unacceptable delays.
As the independent review of criminal courts concluded, without action, the situation will continue to spiral, far beyond the point of recovery. Investment is not enough; even with record financial investment and uncapping sitting days so that the Crown court can sit and hear as many cases as possible, backlogs will continue to rise.
Only structural reform, alongside record investment and efficiencies can deliver faster, fairer justice for victims. Earlier this month, Sir Brian Leveson published the second part of his independent review of the criminal courts, focused on driving efficiency and modernising the system. Today, I announce several initial measures we are taking forward.
IRCC part 2 interim response
I remain grateful to Sir Brian Leveson and his panel of expert advisers for the review, which highlights many areas where we can make a tangible difference to productivity in the courts.
Listing and AI-assisted listing tool:
Sir Brian makes recommendations to improve consistency across court scheduling, or listing as a whole. The responsibility for listing sits with the judiciary. However, the Government have a responsibility to support them. Sir Brian recommends standardising the listing process and taking a national approach for the Crown court—recommendation 92. We support this recommendation and I can announce that the Lady Chief Justice will publish a national listing framework to clarify the listings process in England and Wales, setting consistent principles for how cases are listed efficiently.
Sir Brian also makes recommendations to harness new technology, and AI in particular, to improve the scheduling process—recommendations 94 and 95. We are exploring how data and AI can be used to optimise scheduling and listing, piloting new tools that could support the judiciary in their decision making. We have begun pilots of the new tool in Preston and Isleworth Crown courts. Learning from innovation and technology in the NHS, we are developing the tools to give listing officers more complete information about how long cases are likely to take. If successful, this could materially ease the burden on judges and help to maximise court resources. Together, these recommendations will take us from local listing on pen and paper, to a national, digital and data-led listing process.
Case progression:
Sir Brian recommends an increase in our case progression functions to speed up court processes and case progression. Building on the recent pilot of a case co-ordinator function in the Crown court, we will create a cadre of specialised staff with delegated judicial powers to focus exclusively on progressing cases. I today announce that we agree with Sir Brian’s recommendation to increase the number of staff undertaking these case progression functions in the Crown court—recommendation 109—and will expand the role to every Crown court.
Blitz courts:
Sir Brian’s review also endorses an approach to court scheduling known by some as blitz courts . This involves intensive scheduling where similar cases are listed together over a short period of time, allowing courts to crack through outstanding cases in a focused way. At the discretion of judges, there are plans to use them in London to help address the rising caseload from April 2026. By uncapping sitting days in 2026-27 and beyond, I will enable judges to run blitz courts more regularly to enable more cases to be dealt with more swiftly. Initially the blitz courts in London will focus on cases involving assaults on emergency workers and then move onto other offences suitable for this focused approach, such as cases involving possession of drugs or commercial burglary.
Remote participation:
Remote hearings, where appropriate, can make the court system work more efficiently. Remote video hearings can avoid the need for the transfer of prisoners and can enable busy counsel to undertake more than one hearing a day. We believe greater use of remote technology can make a substantial difference to a modernised, efficient court system.
Sir Brian s review considers the expansion of online hearings and how best this can be done while maintaining fairness and transparency. While Sir Brian recommends maintaining the presumption for in-person trials, he recommends that other types of hearing should happen remotely.
This Government agree. That is why we are investing in modernised video infrastructure to ensure our courts and tribunals have access to reliable, high-quality technology. We are supporting the work led by the senior judiciary to introduce new judicial guidance to promote a remote-first principle and greater consistency for the use of video hearings. This will enable more hearings to take place remotely, which will save time, money and make the system more flexible. How hearings are conducted is rightly a matter for the judiciary, but it is the Government’s job to ensure they have the tools to deliver justice as swiftly and accessibly as possible.
Prisoner escort and custody services:
Sir Brian made a number of recommendations to address the late arrivals of prisoners to court, which can mean cases are held up or adjourned, wasting court time and delaying justice.
We recognise the problems we inherited in prisoner transfer with delays occurring at prisons, en route between prison and court, and at courts themselves in bringing prisoners to the dock. We are gripping this with the establishment of an oversight body chaired by the Ministers for Courts and Prisons to review prisoner transfer from end to end. This will monitor and drive performance improvements in prisoner transfer across the country.
We will improve how we communicate and share data and monitor Prisoner Escort and Custody Services and the criminal justice agencies’ performance more closely. Taken together, we believe this will ensure we have the right resources in the right places at the right times and mean we are better able to act where services are not meeting expectations.
We agree with Sir Brian’s recommendation that PECS should be enabled to use bus lanes when transporting prisoners. This scheme is in use in Manchester, Bristol, Salford and Nottingham. We will work with the Department for Transport to issue guidance on PECS’ use of bus lanes to all local authorities. In London, where traffic regularly causes delays, we are working closely with Transport for London to reduce avoidable delays and keep the justice system moving.
Vision:
Finally, Sir Brian recommended that the Government should set a single, shared vision for partners across the criminal justice system with clearly defined policy objectives. The Government support this recommendation and I will work with the Home Secretary and the Attorney General to realise this vision.
We are carefully considering the remaining detailed recommendations in Sir Brian’s review, across part 1 and part 2, and will set out a full Government response in due course.
As Sir Brian makes clear, improving efficiencies alone is not a silver bullet to the current crisis. However, improved efficiency and modernisation form a key plank of our plan for reducing the delays and restoring confidence to the justice system. It is only the combination of pragmatic reform, investment and efficiencies that will ultimately deliver faster and fairer justice.
Broader modernisation measures
Transparency:
The Government are committed to delivering the most modern and open justice system we have had. Openness and transparency is key to fairness.
Through the Sentencing Act 2026, we have extended to every victim in the Crown court the right to request a free copy of the judge’s sentencing remarks, giving them a clear explanation of how and why the sentence was reached.
Judges in the new Crown court bench division will also explain their verdicts in open court. Under a reformed system, every magistrates court will have audio recording, putting the decision-making process on record.
In the Crown court, the broadcasting of sentencing remarks has shone light on this crucial stage of the criminal justice process and gives the wider public the chance to see justice being done. We intend to build on this success and enable more judges to be filmed when passing sentence. I will be working closely with the Lady Chief Justice to agree where we can go further and broadcast more in order to increase awareness.
Digitising the civil courts:
Civil courts are where millions of individuals and businesses bring claims and determine disputes every year. A modernised civil justice system can help resolve disputes earlier and save businesses significant cost. We know that the current system has a long way to go. The public is right to expect that civil claims and processes reflect the needs of a modern, digitised society.
That is why over the spending review period, we will be investing over £50 million to progress digitalisation of the county court. In addition, we will invest over £20 million for a new digital system in the High Court.
The civil courts play a critical role in supporting the UK’s £7.4 billion legal service trade surplus. This investment is crucial in ensuring the UK remains a world-leading jurisdiction for international dispute resolution and supporting the ongoing attractiveness of the property and business court as a venue for international litigation.
This investment is not just about big business. It is designed to improve access to justice by cutting complexity and cost, and making it easier to resolve common, everyday civil problems, such as when a business is failing to pay a supplier for goods provided or a dispute between a landlord and tenant over the condition of a property. Over a million claims have now been issued on our existing digital services for making money claims and damages claims. Cases consistently progress three times quicker through their early stages using these modern, user-focused services.
The Government are working with the Online Procedure Rule Committee to develop rules for online proceedings that are simple to use, accessible and fair—fit for the digital age.
Lawtech:
Lawtech is central to the Government’s vision for justice, harnessing new technologies to revolutionise legal advice and dispute resolution. Lawtech is driving growth and has enhanced access to justice by helping individuals and businesses to quickly understand their legal problems. The UK is a leading jurisdiction for the development of lawtech; 44% of European lawtech start-ups are based in the UK.
We are making sure the conditions are right for lawtech to thrive. The Government’s industrial strategy puts legal services and lawtech at its heart. To support UK lawtech, I am committing £1.5 million a year for the next three years to support our growing lawtech sector.
[HCWS1356]
Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Day Allocations
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
Each year, the Government and the senior judiciary work to agree the sitting day allocations and overall funding envelope for His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. This joint approach ensures transparency, supports long-term planning, and enables the system to operate within a realistic and sustainable framework.
Following extensive engagement with the Lady Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals, the Judicial Office, I can confirm that we have reached a landmark settlement for 2026-27. This settlement ensures that courts and tribunals are equipped to operate at, or close to, maximum capacity.
For 2026-27, the Ministry of Justice will provide £2,785 million of total funding—£2,498 million fiscal resource and £287 million in fiscal capital funding. This represents a record investment in our courts and tribunals.
I will continue to increase the allocation in coming years. This settlement provides an unprecedented ability to plan for the long term. While this agreement formally governs the 2026-27 financial year, I have established firm funding commitments through to 2028-29 across all jurisdictions. By providing this three-year horizon, I am enabling HMCTS to plan more effectively, recruit with confidence, and begin to address outstanding caseloads with the stability that only multi-year certainty can provide.
The Crown court backlog continues to rise and stands at over 79,000 cases. My focus, as I have said to the House, is on victims who are being left to wait three, four or five years for their day in court. Central to this allocation, then, is the uncapping of the sitting day allocation for the Crown court for the next financial year, removing any financial constraint on the rate at which HMCTS operates. This will allow the Crown court to sit at record high levels, hearing as many cases as possible, getting swifter justice for victims and tackling the Crown court backlog. Combined with our court reform plans, this investment will help to turn the tide on the open caseload, enabling the system to move to a more sustainable footing over the period.
Beyond the uncapped capacity provided for the Crown court, this settlement delivers significant resources across all other jurisdictions. For magistrates courts, I am funding an allocation of 125,800 sitting days for the next financial year, up from 114,000 in the current financial year, and I am funding increases each year thereafter, with a target of 131,000 days in the final year. I have also set money aside for additional sitting days up to 140,000 in the final year of this spending review period if the system is able to deliver this.
[HCWS1357]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, I will let the Committee know and we will adjourn for 10 minutes. We are anticipating a Division at around 5 pm.
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would exempt basic rate taxpayers in England, Wales and Scotland from the £2,000 cap.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to open proceedings with my noble friend Lord Altrincham on our first day in Committee and to be joined in this group by my noble friend Lord Leigh and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann.
This is not a Bill we welcome. Contributors to research done by HMRC published last year were critical of all the hypothetical scenarios put forward by the Government, including the £2,000 cap, which I believe was seen as the most complicated option presented. This proposal will add to administrative burdens on business, as will become clear when we debate later amendments, especially where people have multiple jobs, start or change employment or vary what they do seasonally.
We are also greatly concerned that it will limit incentives to save, punish normal working people for making prudent and sensible decisions, and reduce pension adequacy. Pensions adequacy is one of the central long-term economic challenges facing this country and, under this Government, it is only set to get far worse. Today we are looking at another small nail in the coffin of such adequacy. Of course, the proposal was not in the Labour manifesto, which I think promised not to raise taxes on working people.
The research by HMRC has shown that employers were seriously concerned that
“changing the pension system could inevitably cause confusion and risk people becoming more disengaged with pensions”.
Against this unsatisfactory background, Amendments 1 and 14 make a simple but very important clarification, which is to exempt basic rate taxpayers from the £2,000 cap. According to the Society of Pension Professionals, one-quarter of the people who enjoy salary sacrifice, and who will be hit by the changes that this Bill will bring in, are basic rate taxpayers. Around 850,000 basic rate taxpayers will be affected by the cap, with possibly greater numbers joining them, as the cap is not indexed. The Minister might dispute those specific numbers, but even he conceded at Second Reading that people earning under £30,000 would be affected by this change.
Not only does this contrast starkly with the Government’s stated ambition, as set out in the Explanatory Notes and by the Minister at Second Reading, to affect only higher earners; it also disproportionately affects lower-paid workers. Salary sacrifice, as we know, allows an employee to give up a portion of their pay so that it is paid directly into their pension. That does not just attract income tax relief, as all pension contributions do; it also enables national insurance contributions to be saved on the amount transferred. So it is the contribution that working people pay every month that lies at the heart of this issue. Higher rate taxpayers continue to benefit from relief related to their tax rate of 40%. Basic rate taxpayers benefit less, since their tax rate is only 20%. We are talking, on Treasury estimates, about 850,000 basic rate taxpayers.
For a basic rate taxpayer, the 8% national insurance loss amounts to two-fifths of the value of their income tax relief. In absolute terms, the marginal cost of this policy is four times higher for lower-paid workers than for those on higher incomes. The problem goes further: this is a harsher blow to certain groups of savers than many had anticipated, particularly those repaying student loans. That is why I very much support Amendment 3 in the name of my noble friend Lord Leigh, which would prevent those repaying student loans from being hit by a double whammy. I will leave it to him to explain the detail.
Graduates begin repaying their loans once earnings exceed £28,745, at a rate of 9% if they are on the plan 2 scheme. If the Bill is unamended, graduates using salary sacrifice will no longer see that 9% effectively redirected into their pension via salary sacrifice once they exceed the £2,000 cap. For those individuals, the effective loss is not just 8% in national insurance but 17% at the margin.
This comes at a time when the newspapers are full of furious comment about the high interest rates—inflation plus a huge 3%—payable on plan 2 loans. The announcement over the weekend by Kemi Badenoch to support a cut in the rate of interest charged on some student loans issued in the decade up to 2023 is therefore most welcome and is a clear step toward addressing this problem, which the Government, distressingly, seem content to live with.
The interaction between that major issue of public concern today and this Bill on salary sacrifice comes through clearly in a comment from the director of the Chartered Institute of Taxation. She said:
“The change will disproportionately affect basic rate taxpayers because they will pay at 8% NIC on contributions over the £2,000 cap, compared with a 2% charge on higher earners. It will also disproportionately impact those with student loans who earn above the repayment threshold, as they will have incurred an extra 9% student loan deduction from their pay”.
At a time when we are urging people to do the right thing—to save, to plan ahead and to take responsibility for their retirement—the Government are choosing to hit lower-paid workers harder. That is the unavoidable consequence of how this policy operates in practice.
Worse still, it falls most heavily on a younger generation who already face higher housing costs, who paid for their university education and who now find work taxed more heavily under this Government’s jobs tax—last year’s £25 billion NICs changes, which we discussed in this Room and which we rightly warned would devastate youth employment. Because that prediction has proved accurate, especially for young people, the Government would be wise to listen to the concerns aired today and outside and make changes to this Bill. It is ironic in a way that we are considering this at the same time as the Pension Schemes Bill, which is designed to improve pension saving and the incentive to save. We are doing the opposite here: making pension saving harder, less attractive and less fair.
Our amendments provide a simple solution for the Minister. By exempting basic rate taxpayers from coming under the cap, we would ensure that the Government’s stated aim is achieved and that we modify what is in effect a regressive tax. Our amendment offers a simple, targeted means of mitigating the harm that this policy will cause to some of the more financially vulnerable people in our society and I urge the Minister to accept it. If he cannot, he should explain to the Committee why his Government are choosing to disincentivise people from taking responsibility for their own future at precisely the moment when state pensions are under significant strain, which is set to intensify in the years ahead. Lower savings today means lower retirement income tomorrow and greater reliance on the state for future needs.
I turn to my Amendments 2 and 15, which ask the Minister a very simple question. What precisely does the Treasury mean by a “higher earner”? Throughout the passage of this Bill, the Government have repeatedly justified this policy on the basis that it is targeted at higher earners. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, described the reforms as “fair and balanced” and said that they,
“protect lower and middle earners”.—[Official Report, 4/2/26; col. 1684.]
Similarly, the Explanatory Notes state plainly that the Bill
“limits the NICs relief available to higher earners”.
Those are the Government’s words, but nowhere in the Bill, in the Explanatory Notes or in the Minister’s speech is the term “higher earner” actually defined.
That is a serious matter, because the practical effect of this policy suggests that it reaches well beyond any intuitive understanding of what a “higher earner” might be. The Minister has already acknowledged that individuals earning £30,000 and below will be affected. Industry experts have warned that those earning between £30,000 and £60,000 are likely to feel the impact most acutely. Median earnings in the UK are around £37,000 and, in London, they are £10,000 greater. Given this, who are these “higher earners” to whom the Treasury refers?
Since the election, we have heard a succession of phrases from the Treasury: working people, ordinary earners, higher earners. The language shifts, but what has remained constant is the refusal to define these terms. When this House considered the national insurance Bill last year, we warned that the burden would ultimately fall on working people. That proved correct; and the same risk arises here that rhetoric about protecting lower and middle earners does not align with the actual distributional impact of the policy, and the Government are allowed to get away with it because they never set the goalposts in the first place. If the Government’s objective is generally to protect those on lower and middle incomes, that objective must be capable of scrutiny. Scrutiny requires definition. Without definition, we cannot assess whether the Government are meeting their own stated aims. That seems a basic requirement of transparency in fiscal policy-making. I look forward to the debate, and I beg to move.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I shall congratulate my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Altrincham and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on Amendments 1 and 2, then I will speak to my Amendments 3 and 16.
This Bill has a number of disadvantages to the economy and society, as it penalises pension saving and retirement security while, of course, leading to higher costs and a higher administrative burden for employers. It may also lead to some employers reducing pension generosity or even scrapping salary sacrifice schemes altogether, so it may well discourage and disincentivise good behaviour. One has to question whether the limited expected tax yield justifies the cost, particularly as we know that behavioural response will reduce the amount of tax generated, and it simply is not fair for many people, disproportionately affecting certain groups such as savers and lower-income earners.
However, the Government cannot argue that it was in their manifesto, because it was not. In fact, it was the reverse—the manifesto pledged no increases in tax, including national insurance. We can argue that it is important that we have a very good look at certain aspects of this Bill and try to point out its shortcomings, together with making some constructive and, I hope, helpful amendments. After all, it looks like some 44% of employees using salary sacrifice for pensions will be impacted by this measure. It is important that we look at the Bill in detail, as the Society of Pension Professionals—SPP—has warned the Government that planned restrictions to salary sacrifice could reduce retirement saving and increase costs for hundreds of thousands of employers and millions of workers. The SPP has warned that the changes are likely to reduce pension savings at a time when government figures already show that 15 million people are not saving enough for adequate retirement; that rises to 25 million if the state pension triple lock is removed.
The Reward and Employee Benefits Association has warned that this Bill will put strain on businesses and push millions of people into poorer retirement. In a survey it undertook, an overwhelming 99% of businesses said the organisation would be affected by the cap and 70% said this Bill would increase the administrative burden. Furthermore, a third of businesses expect the change will make it difficult for them to attract and retain talent. It has been described as a change from sleepwalking into a retirement crisis into speedwalking into one.
I appreciate that all I have said is somewhat of a preamble, but it needs to be said, and it will be said by me only once, although it applies to all the amendments we will discuss today and possibly on Thursday—although I gather the plan now is to curtail debate today if at all practical. Is the noble Lord waving at me? Does he not know either? Fair enough. I always pay attention to Government Whips waving at me.
I turn to Amendments 3 and 16—parallel amendments because of Northern Ireland—in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. They deal with the complications this Bill brings in respect of student loans. I appreciate this is a little technical and complicated and may not be best resolved by debate in this Committee so much as by discussion between all relevant parties before Report. I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for setting me up to explain it all. I will do my best but, as I say, this may be a difficult format in which so to do.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, let me make my declaration. I am a chartered accountant and chartered tax adviser, so such legislation is the thing I live for on a daily basis.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has laid out the ambitions of pensions. Unfortunately, in the first 18 months of this new Government, pensions are seemingly no longer protected as something desirable—that is, something we wish on our population so that they can build for the future and have a good, well-funded retirement.
Let us consider what this new Government have already done. One of their first moves in their first Budget in 2024 was to lay out the framework for bringing private pensions into the net of inheritance tax. As an adviser, I have to say that, when my previous Government introduced a measure to take personal pensions out of IHT, it was a very generous measure, but it has, I think, proved its worth. I was somewhat sceptical— I am one of those people who likes a low tax regime—but having IHT-free pensions was always quite a generous measure. Over time, it has shown itself to be a very good measure, because people are contributing towards pension funds in a way they may not have been encouraged to do. That has to be to the good.
I am sure that I do not need to tell this Committee about a lot of the planning behind pensions and why people do it. The reason outlined by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for exempting lower rate taxpayers from this regime is a good one. I say this as a practitioner: if the thought is that this is some loophole that is massively exploited by the great body of UK taxpayers, that has never been my experience, I am afraid. I do not see levels of salary sacrifice that would be sufficient to have even put this on the radar in the first place, frankly.
Why do basic rate taxpayers pay into pensions? I am afraid that not enough do. Thankfully, the implementation of auto-enrolment under our last Government will, I think, bear fruit as one of the most positive footprints that we left. We will, in time, have hundreds of billions of pounds put aside in good funds. Nest has been a great success, offering a variety of funds that taxpayers can choose, from lower risk to higher risk, and there is even a sharia fund, which was news to me. No matter what, the whole spectrum of the UK taxpaying base in auto-enrolment will be building up a fund for the future. During our time in government, we thought pensions were a good; they will restrict the number of people who may be looking for or needing pension credit in the future, because they have built up a decent amount for themselves.
For the 40% taxpayer, of course, putting aside for a pension is almost a no-brainer, because the tax saving is a good in itself, even if one is putting into a slightly riskier equity-based fund. Because you protected it through a good amount of tax relief, the downside still makes taking a bit of a risk worth while. Again, over time, risk usually means a potentially higher return. For those stuck over that £100,000 to £125,140—whatever it is—threshold for the 60% rate, one does not really need to be a rocket scientist to know that using pension planning to try to get back below £100,000 is a good deal. Beyond that, at 45%, pension planning is a very good way to go. For the higher rate taxpayer, it is so obvious to do that type of pension planning. That follows some of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s thinking that the higher rate taxpayer does not particularly need that additional help, even though I am never one to say that more taxes should be paid.
For the basic rate taxpayer, however, we need to encourage as much as we can. There is not much encouragement from the 20% relief; that is not very dynamic or exciting. Dare I say that if one stays a basic rate taxpayer, the risk of inheritance tax will potentially not fall on that type of family, given that you have two £325,000 thresholds and the relief for domestic property, potentially allowing £1 million for a couple? It is a broad-brush but perhaps reasonable guess that, if one stays a basic rate taxpayer throughout life, the £1 million threshold will probably be exempt from inheritance tax. It is exactly those people who need the help and support.
What we see with this legislation is not any grand plan for pension planning; there is a grand plan to take a little more money from a lot of taxpayers for the benefit of the Treasury. In so doing, I am afraid that this Government are in serious danger of destroying those really good foundations that we laid—with the support of the Labour Party at the time, broadly—in personal planning, particularly in auto-enrolment, and all that good work done over many years.
In support of my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley’s very clever observation, which had escaped me, about the recognition of income for the purpose of calculating income for the student loan, it may be that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury’s interpretation is that there is nothing to worry about and this is already covered and will never be pursued. If that is the case, a statement from the Floor today would be helpful in that regard. Even if there is some ambiguity, which I have no doubt that there is between this multitude of regulations —for national insurance, student loan and taxation purposes—I see no reason why the Government would not adopt this amendment as very sensible. I thank my noble friend for pointing out something that the drafters had perhaps not seen in the first place.
I will be speaking, no doubt, at regular points during the day, but these are my initial observations. The Government should be very careful: they are destroying a very good bedrock, which we created, of pensions that were to benefit many millions of people across this country. This is a small tax-raiser too far, which will bear dreadful fruit into the future.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in the first group but will restrict my comments to Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. This concerns the £2,000 cap in Clause 1, which unfortunately hits a crucial cohort of workers: those going through the gears, where their earnings are moving up from around £25,000 per annum to £50,000. There is a disproportionate impact on the younger end of the workforce—those getting promotions and taking on added responsibilities —whom we as a nation need to encourage to increase their pension contributions, given our rapidly ageing population. This cohort’s life expectancy may be nearer 90, if current trends continue.
There is also a disproportionate impact on our SMEs, which I will address in more detail later. Given the high preponderance of basic rate taxpayers in their workforces, the Bill will, as it stands, make growth, recruitment and retention of staff that much harder, at a time when they are still absorbing the £25 billion hike in employers’ national insurance contributions.
My final point at this stage is on bonus payments, specifically bonus sacrifice arrangements, which are a particular target of the Bill. This really is not smart economic policy, given our need for a performance-driven workforce, where bonuses on merit play a critical role in improving productivity, especially in the private sector. Frankly, they should also feature more, not less, in the public sector.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, clearly there remains a tension within government between the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury. As we heard at Second Reading, the DWP is focused on encouraging people to save more for their retirement, yet the Treasury continues to pursue measures to fill its coffers, while increasing the burden on both employees and employers yet again.
The Minister spoke of protecting ordinary workers yet, in many cases, the Bill does the opposite. It penalises individuals who are trying to act responsibly, and prepare for a secure and dignified retirement, by removing the very tool—national insurance relief—that was put in place to assist saving for a pension. With the average salary, as we have heard, being around £37,500, anyone on that income who sacrifices more than £2,000 into their pension will face an additional national insurance charge of 8% above that £2,000. That will be a penalty and the reality for all basic taxpayers.
It is difficult to imagine that the DWP can view this outcome with enthusiasm. Once again, the Treasury appears to be prioritising short-term revenue over long-term stability, leaving future Governments to address the financial consequences created today. It is precisely these workers—those on modest incomes who are doing the right thing by saving—who need the most support in building their pensions, rather than being pushed towards greater reliance on the state in the future.
For that reason, I strongly support, and I believe the DWP would agree—I have not spoken to the department —Amendments 1 and 14 in the names of my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Altrincham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. Briefly, I also support my noble friends in their Amendments 2 and 15, having heard the arguments this afternoon concerning the definition of higher earners. It is simplicity to me that transparency is essential, as opposed to opacity, which can lead only to confusion. Therefore, I believe that this issue should be tied down.
Finally, I would also like to offer my support to Amendments 3 and 16 in the names of my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. Many graduates, including my two sons, already shoulder a significant and in many cases unnecessary burden in repaying their student loans at interest rates that feel wholly disproportionate. It is not until they are paid about £66,000 that they start to pay down the interest. There are few graduates—probably even fewer in the current hiring climate—who reach this sort of pay quickly. I suspect it takes at least five years —that is the case for one of my sons on the fast track in the Civil Service—and much longer for the majority.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I somewhat understand where the Government are coming from in trying to get rid of salary sacrifice entirely—by the way, it is still available for employees of the House of Commons or the House of Lords for the on-site nursery. One thing that the Government seem to have missed out is that they have not provided a lot of information on how they have reached the figure of £2,000. It feels as if they are looking for £4 billion or £5 billion to pay for things such as getting rid of the two-child limit on universal credit—not child benefit; every child gets child benefit. It feels like a short-term measure, as one of my noble friends has just pointed out, to hit certain policy objectives before the next general election. The challenge here is the long-term consequences of where people are putting into their pensions today. The other thing the Government do not seem to have considered is that it is not usually employees who decide the percentage that they are required to contribute to the salary sacrifice scheme. That is normally decided by the employer.
More generally, we are starting to see this awful approach of people on rather modest earnings reducing the amount of money they put into a pension for the future, with all the knock-on costs that other noble Lords have pointed to, but I would go further. How much money is paid towards housing costs and similar is increasing at a significant rate, so it becomes this odd sort of choice where people are trying to do the right thing. Admittedly, this may currently benefit lots of people. That is why Amendment 1 is so important, instead of “How can I take from Peter to pay Paul?” We know the other significant cost of pension tax relief is to make sure that we do not have doctors and consultants reducing their number of hours. So those sorts of policy changes have already been made, and this Government decided not to do that, even though it applies to bankers and all the other people who earn significant amounts of money.
Before Report, I think it is worth the Government setting out in more detail where they got their figures from and why they have ended up at this point instead of just, fairly glibly, saying this will not affect earners. We need more detail. The information put forward by HMRC is basically an insult to everybody reading it by trying to suggest that somehow it gives us a proper tax impact and information notice. It really does not. If we approached this in a more evidence-based way, there would start to be more support and understanding of what the Government are trying to achieve. The Government are trying to find some more money, but at the moment it feels as if they are hitting younger people, people still at certain parts of their career who are already stretched, and this is the way that they are able to make a contribution to their future. As has already been pointed out, it may not be so good for higher rate—and that is okay; people make policy choices when they vote for parties, although, as my noble friend Lord Leight of Hurley pointed out, this was not in the manifesto. I would be grateful to the Minister if he could commit to a more detailed assessment to share with the Committee before we return to this on Report.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I support the Bill. It is an eminently reasonable approach to the difficult financial situation in which we found ourselves when the Labour Government took office. No one likes increases in taxation—it is easy to say “No, no, no”—but given the outcome of the election, some increase in taxation was required.
I listened to the debate with interest, including the points raised on student loans in relation to Amendments 3 and 16. I do not understand it, but I hope that my noble friend the Minister does and that he can give a satisfactory response.
I am a bit concerned when people talk about the Bill “penalising” people. Taking away an advantage struggles to be a penalty. The idea of salary sacrifice makes no sense; it is regulatory arbitrage and a sort of kludge that has no real justification. It is also unnecessary. The idea that the pension system will suffer greatly from the removal of this particular tax relief is fanciful. Some people regard the golden age of pensions as having been 10, 20 or 30 years ago; virtually no one then had salary sacrifice and yet schemes boomed and people saved for retirement. We cannot sustain an argument that providing an adequate pension for most people requires this form of salary sacrifice, particularly when £2,000 is being allowed.
As I said at Second Reading, I disagree with the idea that this is, in some way, a mortal blow to pensions— I may exaggerate slightly, but there was continual suggestion that this was a severe blow to people’s attempt to provide themselves with a decent pension. It is interesting that people who are arguing to keep this salary sacrifice are those who, at the same time, oppose the triple lock, and yet the triple lock is doing far more than this would do for people on low incomes to secure an adequate income in the future, so I do not accept that argument about impact.
The important issue is that this bit of tax relief on pensions should be seen in the context of the overall tax relief on pensions. What is the right level overall of providing relief through the tax system for pension provision? We all know it is substantial; it is enormous. If you count all the different forms it could take, it comes to about £90 billion. When the scheme has matured, this will take away £2.5 billion. That is why I said at Second Reading that it is marginal; it is not crucial for the future of pensions.
The issue of tax relief on pensions is controversial. Think tanks love a report on tax relief on pensions. None of them is proposing an increase in tax relief on pensions, yet this is the way that we are heading. The Government’s figures—which no one has disputed—suggests that more and more people will seek more and more salary sacrifice to get more and more tax relief on pensions. Yet when the think tanks look at these issues, they say, “Well, no, it should be targeted towards the lower paid”. If anyone thinks that this will cause problems—I am looking at the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer; I think the Liberal Democrats have supported, or toyed with, the idea of having a flat-rate tax relief on pensions—I suggest that moving to a flat-rate tax relief on pension contributions will cause an absolute nightmare.
There is one point here that I accept. My noble friend the Minister can take it as a helpful suggestion rather than a criticism, but the use of the term “higher earner” could have been judged better. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that I have a spreadsheet, which calculates the impact that people suggest this measure is going to have. Of course, the 2% and 8% feature means that there is a kink in the line of the relief that you get from salary sacrifice because, up to a certain level, you pay 8% contributions through national insurance and you are getting the relief at 8%. Then, after that, it is 2%. It is not that the Government are seeking out people to charge more money; it is the structure of the system.
Let us look at the figures. I sometimes have problems in these debates when other speakers quote figures because it is difficult to understand them without seeing them in writing with some explanation. I think that, in general, there should be a ban on quoting figures in these sorts of debate. However, I am going to quote some figures. The median level of contributions to a pension scheme is 5%—that is, between 4% and 6%—on median earnings below £40,000. Now let us take the higher figures: someone paying employee contributions of 6% with earnings of £40,000. They are using salaries in full on their contributions. For them, the change will be an extra £32 a year. Those are the figures we are talking about for those on median earnings and those on median contributions.
As has been mentioned, bonus sacrifice is clearly a separate issue. This is where the legislation is required. It is being exploited in these circumstances. The bonus should be enough. The bonus is of great value. Some people in the City get vast bonuses. The idea of using that money to exploit this illogical tax relief through salary sacrifice is abhorrent.
I support the legislation. The term “higher earnings” could have been handled better but the whole issue—people on median earnings paying very little more and complicating the system in order to remove basic rate taxpayers; perhaps my noble friend the Minister can tell us about the impact it would have on income—has been over-egged; that was, I think, the phrase I used before. This is an eminently reasonable measure to address the country’s financial problems.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord said that he cannot see the sense in this. Why do we have this incentive in the tax system? The answer is that it is the role of government to incentivise good behaviours, which include saving for your retirement, trying to climb the ladder and trying to do better for yourself, not least because, in so doing, you reduce your reliance on the state in later life. That is the sense of the salary sacrifice process.
This Government have perpetrated a series of attacks on youngsters at the start of their careers, graduates and people making a start in their working lives. The Renters’ Rights Act has driven up rents. The Employment Rights Act has made it harder for businesses to take a chance on somebody who may be unqualified or changing role. The Government are putting youngsters into unemployment with the jobs tax. Now this slim Bill will add many more cases—I am going to list them in a minute—of intergenerational unfairness. Let nobody say that Labour is on the side of the youngsters who want to get on.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I made my views on this Bill fairly clear at Second Reading, so I am going to try to observe the discipline of not repeating my Second Reading speech. I am sure that I will not be absolutely 100% on that, but I am going to try.
I want to look first at this group of amendments. Amendments 1, 2, 14 and 15 put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, are particularly relevant because I do not think that at Second Reading we came away with a clear understanding that basic rate taxpayers were going to be significantly caught by the changes in this Bill. The focus on higher earners— I agree very much that we need “higher earners” to be properly defined—leaves us with a mistaken impression. I hope very much that the Government will provide some degree of clarity—the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, called for the evidence—on who is impacted and how they are impacted. We ought to have that information in front of us. I will be troubled if this captures people on basic rate tax, given the pressures that they already face.
I would like to focus much more strongly on Amendments 3 and 16, because I do not think that at any point at Second Reading we addressed the impact on graduates repaying student loans and the impact on their take-home pay. I want to thank a gentleman called Tim Camfield who did some calculations and forwarded them to me because, as I worked through his calculations, it seemed to me that he had to be right. He wrote in the context of reading a response from the OBR to what I understand was an FOI in which it said that it did not believe that the Bill had any impact on student loans. It seems to me that very evidently it does and we need to know that. If the Government do not intend it and are going to have a workaround that will prevent it, then frankly we need to know that as well.
We all know that students have been under extraordinary pressure and that the Government openly have frozen the starting repayment threshold, but this, in effect, if Tim Camfield and others are right, would be a backdoor, further blow to this group. Whenever people say “student loans” and you are a Liberal Democrat, it is important to say—and I do not want to give a speech on our new policy—that my party recognises its role in creating the student loan repayment scheme. But frankly, the scheme is so changed, and graduates are under such pressure, that we now recognise that it is broken. I will not go through our policies—they are extensive—to completely reform that system.
I look now to the Minister to give us some real clarity, both on who is impacted and how extensively—how a normal person might read that as being an ordinary worker on a relatively modest income, rather than just a higher earner—and on the issue of student loans. I have some information on the distributional analysis that I will use in group 3 but, on the principle of trying not to repeat myself constantly, I will wait until then.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, prompted as I am by my noble friend Lord Mackinlay, may I just take a moment to remind the Committee that I am a member by qualification of the Chartered Institute of Taxation and have received very helpful briefings from it?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to respond to the debate on this first group of amendments. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed.
This first set of amendments, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, seeks to exempt basic rate taxpayers from the Bill. I have listened closely to the points raised and the concerns expressed during this debate. The Government have ensured that the measures in the Bill do not affect the majority of basic rate taxpayers. Around 74% of basic rate taxpayers currently using salary sacrifice will be protected by the £2,000 cap, and almost all—95%—of those earning £30,000 or less will be protected. The small number of basic rate taxpayers with contributions above £2,000 will continue to benefit from employee national insurance relief, worth £160 a year, in addition to the full income tax relief that they receive on their pension contributions. Of the small number basic rate taxpayers who are impacted, half will face an annual additional national insurance contributions liability of less than £50.
While we recognise the intention behind the amendments laid by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, exempting basic rate taxpayers would, in practice, be operationally challenging and add significant further complexity to the tax system. That is because the tax system can confirm which band an individual is in only at the end of a tax year, when reconciliation of their income tax liabilities has taken place. Adding complexity to the system would also likely lead to an increase in costs for employers, as they would be required to bear the burden of identifying the full extent of their employees’ potentially multiple sources of income.
This leads me to the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, which seek clarity on the basis on which the Government consider certain employed earners to be “higher earners” for the purposes of the national insurance charge, as well as how the contributions limit reflects that assessment. The Explanatory Notes set out that the policy rationale is to limit
“the NICs relief available to higher earners on employer pension contributions made through salary sacrifice arrangements whilst protecting lower earning pension savers by introducing a £2,000 threshold. Most employees and their employers who make typical pensions contributions via salary sacrifice will be unaffected”.
This is indeed the effect of the Bill. Some 87% of pension contributions made via salary sacrifice above £2,000 are forecast to come from higher and additional rate taxpayers. Some 74% of basic rate taxpayers using salary sacrifice will be protected by the £2,000 cap, and almost all—95%—of those earning £30,000 or less will be protected.
Let me turn lastly to the amendments in this grouping tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. They seek to exempt salary sacrificed pension contributions over the limit from being included in student loan repayments definitions to employees making student loan repayments. The salary sacrifice changes made through the Bill equalise the national insurance contributions treatment of salary sacrifice above the cap with other types of employee pension contribution, which are counted as earnings when calculating student loan repayments.
There may or may not be good arguments for or against that, but we do not consider this Bill an appropriate vehicle through which to amend the basis of student loan repayments. The basis of calculating income from student loan repayments is set out in separate regulations, and we do not believe that this Bill should seek to vary that. It is also the case that, of employees making contributions via salary sacrifice, younger people are much more likely to be fully protected by the £2,000 cap than those over the age of 30. Some 76% of those in their 20s who use salary sacrifice are protected by the cap, compared to half of those aged 30 and above.
In the light of the points I have made, I respectfully ask noble Lords to withdraw or not press their amendments.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased that we have begun Committee by addressing this issue and grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley, who seemed to be saying—I think with support from outside bodies—that the Treasury’s financial estimates were over-optimistic. That may, of course, be true of the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, has kindly given us, which we will obviously need to have a look at, on the effect of the change.
The difficulty as I see it is that the policy remains vague. Its impacts are largely unknown and the income group it is intended to capture is undefined. The Treasury’s assessment of how it will operate in practice has been inadequate. It is a complex mechanism by which to raise a relatively modest amount of revenue and does not take effect until 2029. It is a tool, if not a very sensible one, designed to make the Chancellor’s sums add up, rather than a longer-term policy. Even if the Government succeed in raising anything like the figure set out in the Treasury note, the projected yield declines sharply within just a few years of implementation.
There is also an issue of definition. I think the potential cost is greater. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said, there is a risk that middle and lower-income workers, and those paying basic rates of tax, will be drawn into scope. After all, this is a dynamic situation—we will come on to discuss whether there are ways of tackling that—but it could have serious consequences, and we would need to come back to the point about pension saving, long-term adequacy and, ultimately, future liabilities for the state. There is also an issue about irregular payments—“bonuses” was the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough. The majority of bonuses, in my experience, are small, as I know from my time at Tesco, but they can be used usefully to invest in pensions.
The absence of any safeguard in the Bill to prevent basic rate taxpayers being captured is a significant omission. If the Government are confident that such individuals will be protected, they should be willing to put that protection in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, rightly supported the need for transparency, and of course Amendment 2, which requires Ministers to define “higher earners”, would achieve just that. Even the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, agreed that there was a “kink in the line”.
Her Majesty’s Opposition are very concerned about the unfair impact on those struggling to pay their student loans at a rate of interest which is impossible to justify. The Government must look seriously at how to mitigate this, as my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley explained with his customary vim, and to do this in the Bill—not promise to do something elsewhere. This is a big issue that has been raised and it has to be solved. We are very sympathetic to those with big debts, which they will have to pay off under the loans scheme, so a way needs to be found to help them.
There is an ambiguity, as my noble friend Lord Mackinlay of Richborough said from his position as a tax expert, and we need to listen to him. He also warned of its damaging implications, on top of those already introduced for IHT on pensions. This is part of a wider attack on pensions which it is important to do something about if we are to tackle the problems of long-term pension sustainability.
I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but I may need to come back to this on Report, as it is at the heart of the acceptability of this Bill.
Lord Leigh of Hurley
“(6DA) Contributions to pensions where employees are not offered alternative compensation are not to be treated as optional remuneration arrangements.”Member’s explanatory statement
Where an employee has the option of a cash allowance or additional pension contribution, that would be an optional remuneration arrangement. But where no cash alternative is offered then there is clearly no optional arrangement and this amendment would therefore make it exempt.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
The purpose of the Bill is to catch salary sacrifice schemes. As we discussed in the previous group, this is where an optional remuneration arrangement has been made, but there are instances when an increased pension could be offered to an employee and no option is offered for the cash increase in salary. That is the area that I am exploring in my amendments.
In these circumstances—according to the Labour Party’s manifesto, the drafting of the Bill and all the Explanatory Notes—I do not think there is an intention to change the national insurance treatment. Indeed, this is clarified in the policy background sections of the Explanatory Notes on the Bill issued by the Government. This amendment, tabled by me and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, seeks to make that clear and cannot be seen as controversial.
Amendment 4 is easier to explain than Amendment 3, so let me have a go. I accept that Amendment 3 is not easy to understand, and I am not sure I understood the Minister’s response to it. It would be very helpful if, before Report, he could clarify whether he agrees that, as I suggest in Amendment 3, the definition of earnings will be affected by the Bill, and whether the Government will address that issue.
The Bill is predicated on the definitions of optional remuneration arrangements. They can include company cars and—as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, said—assisted places in nursery, medical insurance and other areas, but the Bill makes it clear that we are focusing here on salary sacrifice. The reason for my amendment is that there may be some people who achieve an increase in pension contributions but not through salary sacrifice. In my view, an optional remuneration arrangement has not been properly scoped or defined for the purpose of the Bill.
Perhaps it is easiest to understand this concept when thinking about a new employee. Such a person will be negotiating their compensation with a potential employer. Let us say they are offered a salary of £50,000 and a £5,000 pension contribution. They might feel that this is insufficient payment and seek a higher salary. The employer could refuse that on the basis that all people of that rank in their organisation receive a sum of £50,000 and they have no flexibility—but they may offer an increased pension of £10,000 rather than £5,000 to reach an agreement. How is that negotiated figure of £10,000, which was previously £5,000, to be treated? What if the employer said, “I will reduce the salary to £45,000 and give you £15,000 in pension”? Is this an optional remuneration arrangement, particularly with a prospective, rather than actual, employee?
Similarly, let us look at termination settlements. An employee may receive a lump sum in lieu of any other claim and might be offered an excess amount over the normal £30,000 to be paid directly to the pension scheme. Is that an optional remuneration arrangement?
Let us consider something perhaps closer to home for the Minister: cases where collective bargaining takes place. There might be two offers on the table: one is for a 5% increase in pay but will keep employer pension contributions at 8%, and the other is for a 4% increase with an increased employer pension contribution of 10%. If the collective bargaining unions agree on the latter, are we to assume that this is an optional remuneration agreement? I would assume not, but it is not clear.
In the negotiations of remuneration, what if a person agrees with an employer that they will not take any increase in salary but they want a greater pension payment? That is not salary sacrifice—which is in the heading of the Bill and peppered throughout the definitions used in the Bill and the Explanatory Notes—but does it qualify as an optional remuneration arrangement?
This is a probing amendment to try to get some clarity into the Bill. Clarity is needed because there is so much in the Bill that, frankly, does not seem to have been considered as it relates to people’s working lives.
Amendment 33, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann—and, yes, in this group—deals with the very difficult situation where a person has a number of employments. It seems a bit disappointing that the Bill does not address this obvious problem. Perhaps the draftsman had only one job—I do not know. National insurance contributions are typically calculated weekly or monthly for most employees, and calculated separately by different employers, assuming such employees are not part of the same group; if it is all one group company, it is done by one head office, typically.
The question arises: how will the £2,000 limit be applied across different periods and employments? This could be covered in regulation later, I suppose, which seems the Government’s favourite approach to much of legislation, but it is right to discuss this in Committee and encourage the Government to put their thinking cap on now to try to get it right so that there can be proper consultation and scrutiny before the legislation is enacted.
Where employees are paid monthly, should that employer apply 1/12th of the £2,000 to each month’s salary-sacrificed earnings or wait until the month in the year in which that amount has exceeded £2,000? Likewise, as the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, questioned, what happens when an annual bonus is paid? Does that distort the £2,000, which I assume is for the year to 5 April? The bonus could be paid in May or June, completely distorting all the figures. If an employee changes employment part way through the year, how does that work in practice? Does the amount sacrificed in the old employment carry over to the new employment, or should the employee benefit from two separate caps, which will be the requirement for information to be passed from one employer to another? How will HMRC cope with this? Currently, no information exchanges are available.
Then, of course, there are a number of us—I include myself—who hold down more than one job at a time. I declare that interest, although I am not caught by the Bill. Will the £2,000 annual cap be split between each employment, or can employees benefit from two separate caps so that each employer can offer £2,000—which might encourage some slightly unexpected behaviour of people taking lots of jobs, or with subsidiaries or associates, as a clever avoidance trick? There is already incentive within the NI system to do this, as separate allowances exist for separate employers.
We also have to think about financial privacy here, as information would need to be shared across different employers. I raised earlier the problems facing us where an employee does not actually sacrifice salary but still makes a pension contribution, and it is not clear what happens if an employee enters into a bonus waiver in exchange for an increased employer pension contribution. It is complicated, because the employee has no legal rights to the bonus, so there is nothing to sacrifice. What is the Government’s view in these circumstances?
All in all, one can see an administrative nightmare all around. It would be extremely helpful if these issues could be addressed by the Treasury in guidance, setting out the basis on which the Treasury considers how the Bill will apply before it comes into force, hence my amendment.
While on my feet, I support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, which seem pretty clever to me. I am somewhat annoyed I did not think of them myself, because it is pretty obvious when you read his amendments that it must be right—I am supposed be the chartered accountant—that there should be some spreading to allow for circumstances where one year was not a good year and another was. That seems only fair. I beg to move.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendments 4A, 4B, 17A and 17B, and the associated review clause, Clause 29A. I will also speak to support Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley.
Taken together, these amendments try to address the practical workability of proposals for employers with employees who have multiple employments and fluctuating income, and to ensure consistency with other parts of the taxation system while being consistent across Great Britian and Northern Ireland.
How easy it must be for the huddles of Ministers and civil servants sitting in their little meeting pods in that ground floor cafe at 1 Horse Guards—or perhaps dialling in from home, having taken the dog for a walk—to tinker with their spreadsheets and to come up with policies viewed through the lens of their personal experiences but which do not stand up in the real world. We have new tax policies that have damaged the national economy and growth. This Bill in particular, however, damages incentives for individual employees and companies for which they work; these are incentives to work hard, to climb the ladder, to improve yourself and to save for a secure retirement, and incentives for employers to attract the best talent.
As we have heard, it is not just the people on 100 grand that this policy affects—although it raises their marginal tax rate to 70% if they are paying off a student loan—it affects a whole raft of people. With the minimum wage now set at over £26,000, millions of ordinary hard-working people—the sort of people this Government say would escape higher taxation—will now be snared in this net, as the Daily Telegraph has reported. It amounts to a new tax on workers; this much we know. But my amendment focuses on the potential unfairness to a particular type of hard-working employee that makes it nearly impossible for their employers to administer it: an employee juggling several jobs.
How do the Government intend to deal with this and make fair the practical unintended consequences and perverse outcomes? Let us take the example of the employee who works several jobs. How will her employer know when or if she has maximally sacrificed her two salaries without reference to the other? That point was made very ably by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley. The noble Lord also identified the privacy issues that come with this—which I wish I would have thought of.
Let us take another example, of an employee engaged in seasonal work who wants to save monthly into a pension on salary sacrifice. How does he set his regular contribution at the start of the year without knowing whether he will bust his allowance later on? In his winding on the previous group, the Minister said that you will never know the band until the end of the tax year--well, quite.
What about the employer who wants to do the right thing by his graduate employees and knows how difficult the job market is for them right now? Let us say he wants to attract the best talent by offering accelerated repayments of student loans by way of a salary sacrifice opportunity. We have a colleague in this House who is a graduate, and his graduate loan is running away; he is paying off £400 a month and still the debt is getting larger. We must help these people.
What about the youngster saving for a pension? As I said at Second Reading, my daughter’s boyfriend is no fat cat; he is living in a flat share with people he does not know in Brixton—I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, ever knocked on his door as I invited him to do at Second Reading. But ask his opinion on this and he will say that instead of improving his own financial security—and perhaps that of my daughter in due course—by reducing his dependence on the state in later life, his ability to save for his future and to progress now is weakened. These are practical and personal examples; each of them damages that incentive to work hard and save hard. That is bad enough.
However, this Bill further discriminates against the private sector worker who needs to save for his own retirement under the direct contribution system, when public sector employees have the taxpayer pitching in another 20% to their pot. The ham-fisted way this Bill ignores the real-life complexities for these real-life people and their real-life examples that exist outside the comfortable, monthly-paid final salary pension world shows how the Treasury views these things through its own particular lens.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
Perhaps I may make some comments on Amendment 33 put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and my noble friend Lord Leigh. My noble friend recommends that there be some Treasury advice on this. I do not think Treasury advice is good enough. Surely we are in the thicket of drafting legislation. Let us have those rules very open and clear within the legalisation before us.
I am confused about what is intended here. It is intended to be a £2,000 limit for the employee across all employments? At the wind-up of the previous group, the Minister, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, quite correctly said that there would be excess complication in the system proposed by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s amendment because an employer would have to know about their employees’ tax arrangements and whether they had rental income or income from other employments or investments. That was a very reasonable observation by the Minister. However, this legislation is, as it stands, somewhat silent on a similar complication that would exist across multiple employments.
There is an attempt to smooth out monthly variations in the directors’ arrangements for national insurance calculations, because directors are obviously able to adjust their income a bit more fluidly. I am sure that the Minister is aware that if a normal employee has a very big bonus, potentially in one month, the monthly threshold for maximal class 1 deductions for national insurance will be breached for that month and there will be technically an avoidance of national insurance, because the following month, when employment income goes back to a normal level, full national insurance would be taken. For those able to manipulate their income—and I use that advisedly in a broader sense, but directors can have a little more influence on how they are remunerated—there is a procedure within legislation to iron out those peaks and troughs on an annual basis.
Accepting within the tax and national insurance legislation that a normal employee should be able to benefit from a big peak one month and avoid national insurance, is it the intention that across multiple employments that £2,000 per year will be available to each employment? I think that, as the Bill stands, it does, and I welcome that, because it almost matches what happens in other national insurance legislation applying to an employee. However, it will not be good enough simply to have Treasury advice post-legislation. I would rather that that be clarified today so that we can discuss it further and amend as appropriate on Report. However, my thanks, as ever, go to my noble friend Lord Leigh and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for highlighting the point in question, because it is what life is all about. Currently, it is not uncommon for people to have a multitude of employments.
The main things that I want to discuss on this group are the amendments put forward by my noble friend Lord Fuller—Amendments 4A, 4B, 17A and 17B —which all cover aspects of a similar theme. Call me simplistic, or perhaps old-fashioned, but I would prefer there to be similarities in different parts of the tax system. We have accepted in the tax system the three-year carrying forward of unused pension contribution relief within income tax. It used to be £40,000 a year; now, it is £60,000, and it remains unaffected thus far by two Budgets. I do not want to give Chancellor Reeves any ideas for the future but that sum of £60,000 seems to have survived two Budgets, so perhaps we may live in some hope. In income tax regulations, we have a situation where you can carry forward three years of unused relief, so, in year 4, one could—if one had sufficient income and this was a sensible thing to do in the tax regime in which one found oneself for that year—make a contribution of £240,000. The Treasury is very comfortable with that and, so far, there have been no efforts to amend that in the Budgets we have seen.
I go back to our discussion of the basic rate taxpayer, who may have multiple employments, who may be between employments and who may have both good and bad years. It would seem to stand to reason that we should have a similar idea of carrying forward to allow that sum of £2,000, as it currently stands. Obviously, I would rather it were higher; other amendments laid by noble Lords seek to amend it to £5,000 or £10,000, but I am talking just about the £2,000 limit. I know that my noble friend Lord Leigh gave some examples from real life but there may be situations where, for whatever reason, a pension contribution or a salary sacrifice cannot be made because the taxpayer—for example, a student, and potentially a newly employed one at that—simply needs the cash that year and is prepared not to have the tax and national insurance relief.
Again, this would be neither a difficult nor unusual situation. Someone’s child may be getting married, or they may need private healthcare because the NHS is not providing what is needed. Whatever it is, there are a multitude of real-life situations where cash may be king for a year. Following the income tax arrangements, surely it cannot be unacceptable for that small £2,000 limit to go forward for three years in exactly the same way so that the national insurance shield—that is, the benefit of making a contribution—is at least maintained for years when it was not needed.
Drawing on my professional experience, I can be absolutely sure that many of these brought-forward years are never used. They are used on a “first in, first out” basis, so year 1 carries forward to year 4. If it is not needed to be used, that falls out of bed, then you have years 2 and 3; in the fourth year, if any years are unused, you are carried forward to year 5, whereafter year 2 disappears. It is extremely rare for the full carry-forward to be used. The amounts involved in this sensible carry-forward measure proposed by my noble friend Lord Fuller seem very reasonable and not that costly for the Treasury, whose demand in all this has nothing to do with pensions but is about raising cash. I ask the Minister to look at this carefully—not today, obviously, as I am sure he will say no to most everything—on Report, to see whether we can consider this matter more carefully.
Finally, I go back to the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Leigh and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. If there is an intention behind the multiple employment arrangement, let us please see it in the Bill, not just in guidance from HMRC at a later date.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, first, I need to declare my interests as set out in the register as a non-executive director of a pensions administration company and as a board adviser to a pension provider.
I believe that the Bill is premature—the extent of the amendments being proposed to it is evidence that it has been rushed, and I do not quite understand what the rush is, given that the policy is not intended to start until 2029. I must admit that I immediately thought at the Budget, when the measure was announced, that it was simply a means for the Chancellor to find some revenue to make the books balance in the way that she had hoped. That is not necessarily a criticism, I just felt that it seemed to be the reality. Then suddenly, a few weeks, effectively, after that Budget, we get the primary legislation.
I apologise to the Minister because I have enormous respect for him and I know that he has a very difficult task. I think he understands very well a number of the points we are making, but so many of the issues we are covering here do not seem to have been thought through. The list of potential banana skins and uncertainty seems to be growing by the day, and the practical issues simply have not been recognised, let alone resolved, as has already been evident. We will come to more as we go through Committee.
Let us just consider the risks highlighted in some of the amendments. For example, Amendments 4 and 17 from my noble friend Lord Leigh, to which I have added my name, are trying to clarify what is actually caught by the Bill. If an employer increases workers’ pension contributions, will it automatically be assumed that that was in some way a salary sacrifice? The employer may just have decided to increase its contributions for some other reason. How will we know? How will anyone know?
The uncertainties do not stop there. What about Amendment 33, to which I have also added my name? If someone has multiple jobs, how will anyone be able to track the salary sacrifice pension contributions made through a tax year? We will come on to what happens when someone changes jobs.
We saw in the previous group the effect on student loan costs for students. I know the Minister said that can be dealt with elsewhere in regulations because those student loan rules are set in other regulations, but if they are not in the Bill then they will be caught, it seems to me. I did not hear an argument that says they will not be.
Who is responsible for compliance? Who is responsible for reporting to HMRC? Again, we have heard about the problem with privacy. They are just the uncertainties that we are trying to sort out with some of these amendments.
Then we have the unknowns, which seem to be skirted over. We certainly know that take-home pay will fall for a number of workers who currently get salary sacrifice, either by the 2% or the 8% of the national insurance contribution offset they will potentially lose. Employer costs will rise.
I have huge respect for the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and all the calculations he does, and I recognise that, in some ways, the amounts of money, as he correctly calculated, perhaps seem rather small to us. However, as an economist, I know that decisions, incentives and behavioural changes occur at the margin. It is marginal changes, however small, that can make a significant overall impact over time. If employer costs are rising because they are paying extra national insurance on the pension contributions that they have always been making, it is bound to affect future pay rises and employment levels. We have no modelling of how much that impact might be.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I spend most of my time in these debates about tax relief on pensions defending the existing system, because the people I tend to mix with regard that tax relief as grossly unfair. It obviously gives far more to the higher paid than the lower paid, and that is why there is widespread discussion of having flat-rate tax relief on pensions. If we were starting from scratch, I think we could do that, but we are not. We have to start from where we are.
Where we are is in having extremely high levels of, effectively, government subsidy for people to save for retirement, but that begs the question: what is the right level of tax relief for pensions? Does it just happen to be that we have alighted at the correct level, or is that an issue we are not allowed to discuss? Putting words into the mouth of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, he seems to be adopting the argument: “The more the merrier—let’s increase it by even more”. No, there is a genuine question here. What is the right level of tax relief to encourage people to save for their retirements? It is a reasonably practical debate and, on this side, we have come to the conclusion, possibly as an interim measure, that it should be a bit lower than it is currently. That certainly does not justify the doom and gloom about this particular change—I have made my point several times.
I am no longer a small business person, but for 30 years I was and I employed people who had multiple jobs. It is not a new issue. There is nothing new about the idea of employers having to cope with the complications of the national insurance system for people who have multiple jobs, particularly where, even with two jobs, their total income is more than the £1,250 that it is at present. It is not a new issue that employers are going to have to deal with. In principle, there is an additional complication; they have to sort out where the £2,000 limit applies. However, it is reasonable to expect employers to undertake those tasks. To be honest, I do not think that an ice-cream salesman is really a genuine example, but I may be wrong.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I take my territorial designation from Gorleston-on-Sea. When I was a boy, there was nothing better when the sun was out than going down to Della Spina’s, the ice-cream place. It is not just about ice cream; there are stately homes and all sorts of things that work with the weather. That is why I chose the example of the umbrella salesman or the ice-cream vendor. There is a whole part of the UK economy that depends on the weather. We have the most unpredictable weather, there are the most turbulent income and costs associated with that, and that boils down into variable emoluments. It is not just the market gardener or the farmer; it is the people involved in hospitality or whatever. To say that it is trivial demeans the pubs, the restaurants, the stately homes and that wider part of the visitor economy, which is particularly visited on the coast and in coastal communities. I wonder whether the noble Lord would like to reflect on the somewhat dismissive way in which he put that huge part to one side. Millions of people work in these sectors; they would be disadvantaged by the Bill and that needs to be recognised.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I accept the noble Lord’s reprimand. I was actually making another point, which is about how many ice-cream salespeople are operating salary sacrifice arrangements. That may not be immediately germane. In fact, the remarks that the noble Lord just made support my point. Those part-time employees and part-time employers are already having to cope with the problems that arise from multiple employments and how the national insurance system is not, in truth, tailored very well for those circumstances. I accept that.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
I would like to assist the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on multiple employments. For an employer faced with an employee with multiple employments, which is not uncommon, it has no reference at all to the individual employer—it is of no interest. An employer runs a payroll scheme only for the amounts that that employer pays that employee. If there is a second employment, it is for that employer to deal with how much they are paying that employee. There is no interaction between the employers to say, “Do a management of NIC”. This goes to the heart of the problem with Amendment 33.
There is only one example where an employer has to take any notice of multiple employment, which is when their employee may have a second employment that is above the ceiling for paying the maximal national insurance. That is where you have a system of form CA72A, which is supplied by the employee to the DWP. The DWP may not actually do anything about it; I have found in most cases in my professional career that the DWP seems to lose the paperwork and the employee has to make an after-year claim for the excessive NIC that has been deducted. That is the only example where the second employment may receive advice from the DWP to say, “Ah, only deduct 2% from this employee because they are paying maximal amounts on a primary employment”. I wanted to clarify the current situation across national insurance administration for double or triple employments. I hope that is of assistance.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Yes; I thank the noble Lord for his advice. As I said, I have operated the system myself, and so he is really just making my point: the structures are there to deal with multiple employments. It is not being introduced to the issue by this particular measure. Obviously it would be more complicated with this measure—I accept that, and I look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s response on that issue—but it is not a new issue.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, as with the previous group, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, made a comment on what he thought was Lib Dem policy; it might be—I am just not sure. We have discussed simply kicking out all this complexity and having a flat rate of relief on pensions. After listening to the last debate, I think that that has probably accumulated a lot of votes from around this Room, because the complexity that we have had described under this group of amendments is absolutely extraordinary. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, referred to the banana skins, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, talked about it being a nightmare. I am troubled that all of this is being left to consultation with the industry and to future regulation and future guidance, as if it can all be absolutely sorted with a bit of quiet attention. But we have heard the problems of how you deal with the many cases where people have multiple employers.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay, made it clear that it is a relatively small handful of people who at present have to be dealt with through the Department of Work and Pensions to make sure that there is not a complexity. However, this would now apply to all kinds of people across a very wide range of activities and income. Trying to deal with the complexity of all these measures and delaying that has got us very disturbed. It is a bad principle for legislation. It is not that there is not a role for regulation and guidance, but that essentially should just be doing the finesse on a policy that has been clarified, whether it is in primary legislation, through evidence put before Parliament or through Statements made by the Ministers.
I think we have a real concern that this is going to turn out to be absolutely unworkable. The consequences of that, both for public finances and for individual decisions made by people, probably means that this legislation will collapse at some point. We ask the Minister to go back to the department and make it clear that clarity is absolutely necessary. If there are problems here that can never be reasonably and sensibly resolved, they should be recognised at this stage.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak first to the amendments in this group that stand in my name and then to those tabled by my noble friends. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, helpfully outlined a list of banana skins or uncertainties from her experience, such as the cost of changes in employment contracts and payroll software and of dealing with employees concerned about the change. She was right to ask whether we need to legislate so rapidly given the complexities that seem to be thrown up by today’s useful debate.
My amendments, Amendments 5 and 18, helpfully supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, chiefly concern the principle of parliamentary oversight. Nothing is more central to our work. Under Clauses 1 and 2, the Bill quite properly provides that regulations reducing the £2,000 contributions limit must be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That is right. If the Treasury lowers the cap, Parliament must be given the final say. What the Bill does not provide is affirmative scrutiny where the Treasury alters the methodology by which the cap is calculated or applied. That omission is significant because new subsections (6C) and (6D) do not deal with minor technical points but determine how the policy will operate in practice for thousands of earners whose pay patterns do not fit a neat monthly model.
Let us look at new subsection (6C). It permits regulations to prescribe an equivalent contributions limit for those paid weekly or at other intervals. That phrase “other intervals” is remarkably broad. It covers shift workers, contractors, seasonal workers, gig economy participants, those on irregular pay cycles and those with multiple employments. People in these forms of employment make up a large and growing segment of the modern labour market, yet the detail of how the limit will be translated for those individuals is not in the Bill. It is left entirely to regulations and consultation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said. The annual cap is scrutinised in primary legislation, but, inconsistently, the translation of that cap into weekly, irregular or non-standard pay structures, the arrangements when an employee moves and other detail of importance to both workers and those operating payrolls, are to be set out later in regulations without the same degree of parliamentary approval. These points can be material in terms of compliance costs and fairness. In other words, those whose circumstances fit most neatly within the annual framework benefit from full parliamentary scrutiny, while those whose pay patterns are more complex do not. We submit that if the methodology by which the cap is applied to those workers is altered in a way that materially changes who pays and how much, that is a policy decision and one which requires greater scrutiny from your Lordships’ House and the other place.
The same concerns arise under new subsection (6D). There, the Treasury is given powers to determine by regulation when amounts treated as remuneration are deemed to be paid, in prescribed cases to treat a figure other than the amount foregone as remuneration and to calculate that alternative figure in such manner and on such basis as may be prescribed. These are extremely broad powers. They allow the Treasury not merely to administer the cap but to redefine how remuneration is attributed and calculated for NICs purposes. If such methodological changes can be made without returning to Parliament for affirmative approval, the House will have ceded oversight of important mechanisms that determine the real-world effect of this new policy.
My amendments simply make the point that where the method by which the contributions limit is calculated or applied is altered, Parliament should have the opportunity to approve the change. The Committee is currently scrutinising the Bill line by line. We are examining the consequences. It would be inconsistent if, once enacted, substantial changes could be introduced through regulations subject only to the negative procedure. If the Government are confident that any such changes would be technical and uncontroversial, they should have no objection to subjecting them to affirmative scrutiny.
These provisions will affect real employers and real employees. They will determine compliance burdens, payroll calculations and the effective tax treatment of pension saving. They are not trivial matters. In short, where the substance of the policy shifts, Parliament should be asked to approve that shift. I hope the Minister will recognise that this is a sound and serious constitutional point and give it proper consideration.
Amendments 4 and 17, tabled by my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley, make an interesting case. The Government’s policy intent, as set out in the Explanatory Notes, is to apply a national insurance change where pension contributions are made pursuant to optional remuneration arrangements—in other words, where an employee has chosen to forgo cash pay in return for an employer pension contribution. However, there are some workplace pension arrangements where no such option exists: the employee is not offered a cash alternative, there is no choice between salary and pension, and the employer contribution is simply part of the structured remuneration package.
In these circumstances, it is difficult to see how the arrangements can properly be described as optional. There is no alternative compensation available and there is no optionality. The amendment therefore makes clear that where no cash alternative is offered, the arrangement should not be treated as an optional remuneration arrangement for the purposes of the new NICs charges. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether arrangements with no genuine cash alternative are intended to fall within the scope of the Bill. If not, I hope he might look favourably on this clarification.
My noble friend Lord Leigh’s Amendment 33 makes a further important point that the Bill should not come into force until the Treasury has published clear guidance setting out how the contributions limit will apply in cases of multiple concurrent employments. This is a matter of basic administrative clarity and fairness. The question about two caps for two jobs came from my noble friend himself, and it would be interesting to know the answer.
My noble friend Lord Mackinlay doubts whether guidance is the right route, and wants to know what the arrangements will be today, with amendments to the Bill if we believe—in the light of the answers—that that is needed. We certainly need clarity, a change to the scrutiny of regulations to the affirmative, and perhaps guidance when we have the answers.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 4A in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller. As drafted, the Bill introduces a flat £2,000 annual limit, above which salary sacrifice to employer pensions will attract national insurance. It is a hard cap. But real earnings do not operate in neat annual instalments; for many people, remuneration fluctuates significantly from year to year. Without any carry-forward mechanism of the kind well articulated by my noble friend Lord Mackinlay, which is apparently not very costly, the Bill creates a cliff edge. An individual who sacrifices modestly for several years but has a single high-earning year will be treated as if that year existed in isolation. That is not how pension saving works elsewhere in the tax system.
The pensions annual allowance regime already provides a three-year forward framework. Amendments 4B and 17B would align the national insurance treatment with that established precedent. The alternative amendments, Amendments 4A and 17A, simply provide the Treasury with a permissive power to introduce such a mechanism. They offer flexibility should Ministers be concerned about immediate fiscal implications.
Amendment 29A would require an independent review within 18 months of implementation. The Bill introduces a new compliance framework affecting payroll systems, remuneration design and pension planning. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable that Parliament should require evidence of its real-world impact, particularly on fluctuating earners and on employer administrative burdens. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, that the extra burden of complexity on employers can be dismissed, particularly now we have heard that currently there is so little interaction between second and third employers. We want fewer burdens, not more. Enough is enough, and I look forward to a proper and detailed response on these very important technical points.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I begin by addressing Amendments 4 and 17, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. These amendments relate to the technical and operational detail of the legislation, including the definition of “optional remuneration arrangements” and procedure. I fully understand the concern underlying them, which is to ensure that the Bill operates in a targeted, proportionate way and does not inadvertently affect ordinary employer pension contributions. The Government share this objective and I am grateful for this opportunity to clarify our intent.
The Bill before the Committee already relies on the established definition of “optional remuneration arrangements” set out in the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003; this is the same framework that has applied since the optional remuneration arrangement rules were introduced in 2017. Under that definition, the rules apply only where an employee is given a choice—for example, a choice between receiving earnings or receiving employer pension contributions instead. This includes salary sacrifice arrangements, where an employee agrees to a lower cash salary in exchange for a pension contribution, or situations where an employee chooses pension contributions in place of a cash allowance.
Importantly, the Bill does not affect employer pension contributions where no such choice exists. Where an employer makes pension contributions as a standard part of the remuneration package and there is no alternative of cash or earnings available to the employee, those arrangements do not fall within the definition of “optional remuneration arrangements” and are, therefore, outside the scope of the Bill. In those cases, standard employer pension contributions will continue to be fully exempt from national insurance contributions, exactly as they are now. Nothing in this legislation changes that position.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
May I ask for some clarification? The Government’s intention is to try to encourage higher pension contributions. If an employer decides to increase their pension contributions, how would one know that that had not been at the expense of some salary they might otherwise have paid? Would it just never be caught? Can we safely assume that increased employer pension contributions will not be caught unless there is some official paper that says, “This was instead of salary”?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I suppose I would ask the noble Baroness: who does she mean when she asks, “How would one know”? Who is “one” in that instance? HMRC? That would be reported to HMRC, would it not?
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
As what? It would just be an increase in pension contributions because the employer has decided to increase the amount they will provide for their staff from, say, 6% to 8%. It is nothing to do with what they are paying the staff; it is not the result of negotiation. Their standard contribution was 6% and is, perhaps, going to 8%. Some people might be concerned that that would be considered by HMRC as an optional arrangement because the pensioning contribution has gone up, although that may not have been intended. The Government’s intention is, I hope, to get employer contributions to increase.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The example given by the noble Baroness is not a salary-sacrificed pension contribution. What she is describing is exactly what you would want to happen. Surely you want the pension contribution to go from 6% to 8%.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I do not understand where the problem is, because that is a good thing.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
The issue is that there seems to be a risk. Can we somehow—I am not quite clear how—clarify in the Bill in case HMRC might decide that that is caught by the Bill?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am happy to take this away and look at it, but I cannot see any way in which that would be the situation. Employers presumably increase their pension contributions all the time. That is a good public policy outcome. There is no way in which that would be caught by these regulations. I have made that extremely clear in what I am saying.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, I will ask the question in a slightly different way, which may flush out what I think we are trying to get there. Say, for instance, that there is an inflationary rise by an employer every year—there always has been and, one would have expected, always will be—and, in the world post this legislation, the employer has decided not to give a salary increase, for the first time ever, but the equivalent amount has gone into an additional employer contribution to a pension. If HMRC was to come in and investigate the payroll records of that employer, would it conclude that this was a contrived arrangement that fell within this legislation, or would it just be something that the employer can do, which the Minister seems to be describing as being perfectly good and dandy?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
It is a perfectly good outcome if the employer increases their contribution into an employee’s pension. That is something we want to achieve. On specifically how HMRC would view that, I am very happy to take that away, but I do not believe in any way, in what I am saying, that that is the intention of what we are doing.
I will finish what I was saying. In those cases, standard employer pension contributions will continue to be fully exempt from national insurance contributions, exactly as they are now. Nothing in this legislation changes that position. For these reasons, the Bill already draws the correct boundary by relying on a well-established and familiar legal definition. It targets only those arrangements where an employee is given a choice between cash and pension provision, and it does not interfere with ordinary, non-optional employer pension contributions.
I turn to Amendments 5 and 18 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham. These amendments relate to parliamentary scrutiny and procedure. I agree with noble Lords about the importance of maintaining strong parliamentary scrutiny, particularly where changes could affect individuals’ national insurance liabilities. That is an important principle and one that the Government share. That is why the Bill contains a series of safeguards to protect scrutiny and transparency.
The Bill explicitly provides that, where regulations are used to reduce the generosity of the £2,000 limit—that is, where changes would lower the contribution limit and thereby increase the amount of earnings subject to class 1 national insurance contributions—those regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure. This ensures that any change which tightens the policy or increases liability is brought before Parliament for full scrutiny and approval.
By contrast, where regulations are made simply to implement the policy, to set out administrative arrangements or to increase the £2,000 limit, thereby resulting in less national insurance being payable, it is standard practice for those regulations to be subject to the negative procedure. That approach reflects the well-established distinction between substantive policy changes and regulations which deal with administration or confer additional relief.
This is not a new or novel approach. It follows the established precedent for regulations made under the existing powers in Section 4(6) and Section 4A of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and the corresponding Northern Ireland legislation. In those cases, regulations of an administrative or beneficial nature have routinely been subject to the negative procedure.
I also note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has carefully scrutinised the powers in the Bill, including the proposed level of parliamentary scrutiny. The Committee has confirmed that there is nothing in the Bill that it wished to draw to the special attention of the House.
Taken together, these provisions ensure an appropriate and proportionate balance: robust parliamentary oversight where the policy is made less generous, and a well-established, efficient procedure for setting out administrative detail and making changes that operate in favour of contributors.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Before the Minister moves on, would he consider making an affirmative regulation on the very first occasion? The discussions that we have had this evening show that there is quite a bit of complexity here, and that has compliance costs for employers and employees. It seems odd to take the precedent of the social security Act on something new and difficult. I wonder whether that would be worth considering. Perhaps the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not have the benefit of the experts here who have explained some of the problems. I am sure the Minister cannot say anything today, but could he at least have a look at whether the first such regulations could be by affirmative resolution, which is a practice that I have encountered with lots of other Bills that we probably worked on together?
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
Can we just let the Minister reply to that?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I have set out very clearly which will be approached with the negative procedure and the affirmative procedure, and I do not think it is our intention to deviate from that very clear precedent.
Amendment 33, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, relates to the operability of the contributions limit for those with multiple concurrent jobs. Amendments 4A, 4B, 17A, 17B and 29A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, also relate to operability of the contributions limit, with a focus on those with fluctuating earnings and their employers.
I fully understand the concerns that noble Lords have raised about how this measure will operate in practice, particularly for those with more complex employment arrangements and irregular patterns of remuneration. While the Bill provides the necessary powers, the full operational detail of the £2,000 cap will be set out in regulations that are yet to be published. The purpose of this two-stage process is to ensure that when the cap is introduced, it operates effectively across a wide range of real-world circumstances, including for individuals with multiple jobs, complex payroll arrangements, changing employment or fluctuating remuneration patterns over the course of a year.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
Is the Minister’s understanding of the Bill that the £2,000 threshold will be in the entirety of a single employee or across each employment? At the moment, with NI regulations the employee benefits from different thresholds in each employment that is held. That means that with less than £12,570 in each multiple employment no employee national insurance is paid at all. Is the intention for it to be £2,000 in total across any number of employments, or £2,000 per employment?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
That intention will be set out in the regulations once we have fully consulted relevant employers.
Lord Fuller (Con)
There is a transfer of risk, of prejudice, from the individual, who is responsible under the current arrangements, to the employer. That has not been fleshed out at all. If you have a salary sacrifice that is processed by the employer, all of a sudden that employer trespasses on the duty at the end of the tax year for the employee to put in his tax return. There has been a muddying of the water here between the employee and the employer. I know we are going to come back on Report, and I hope we will get it done in a day, but the Government should lay out their approach to this and state where the liability sits and where the penalties may be applied for honest mistakes made in that interface between the employer and the employee. That is not at all clear, and it should be.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his further thoughts. The carryover feature—
Baroness Kramer (LD)
I do not want to be problematic here, but I wonder whether the Minister can understand that we are looking at a very different Bill and very different implications if the £2,000 contribution limit is per individual across a range of employments, or per job, and perhaps they have three or four. It is a fundamental difference, and while the details of how things would be done in the future and the operational issues may well have to wait for regulation, guidance and consultation, it seems to me that that core issue defines this Bill, and we should know that before we complete its passage.
Lord Livermore
Obviously, I hear what the noble Baroness says.
The carryover feature of the pensions annual allowance, referenced in the justification for the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, sets the maximum amount of tax-relieved pension savings an individual can build up in a tax year without triggering a tax charge, which for most people is £60,000. The carryover feature is intended to accommodate one-off irregular spikes in pension saving or defined benefit accrual. The annual allowance carry-forward requires individuals to hold or obtain accurate records to track usage and eligibility and is not intended for day-to-day retirement planning. The Government do not consider it suitable to introduce a similar mechanism in the context of the cap on national insurance contribution-free pension saving in the Bill.
Before the detailed regulations that support the introduction of this change are finalised, HMRC will work closely with employers, payroll providers and software developers to ensure the policy operates smoothly for businesses and individuals. This engagement is not a formality. It is a necessary step to ensure that we collaboratively identify the best and most workable way to apply the £2,000 national insurance contributions-free limit, minimise administrative burdens and avoid unintended consequences, particularly for those whose earnings are spread across more than one employment.
Taking the time to engage properly and test implementation options is the best way to ensure that the policy works as intended from the outset. That is why the Government have committed sufficient time to work with stakeholders, up to and including the preparation of the important guidance for operation that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, has raised in Amendment 29A.
On Amendment 29A, which proposes a reporting provision on the administrative cost borne by employers, I note that, upon the introduction of the Bill to Parliament, a tax information and impact note was published by the Government, setting out the impact of this policy’s operationalisation on employees and their employers. Supporting those who will implement this change within their organisations is vital, but we do not agree that that support should take the form of additional reporting requirements.
In light of all the points I have made, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, this debate has been very helpful because it has sort of blown a hole in the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, summed it up rightly: what has happened is that the Government started with the answer and then tried to find the question. In other words, they were desperately looking to find £4 billion from somewhere and came up with this random salary sacrifice idea. Why salary sacrifice? Why not say that NI on pensions does not apply over X amount and limit it that way? I am afraid that the Bill just does not work.
For example, in the case I raised about a new employee where an employer is negotiating over X amount of salary or Y amount of pension, is that a salary sacrifice? The Minister could not answer that. On the £2,000 cap, the Minister could not answer. He could not answer on the collective bargaining point or whether a bonus applies. On how we deal with multiple employments, I do not think that was satisfactorily answered. I also think that the spreading point was not satisfactorily answered.
I take the point that this provision is not scheduled to come in until April 2029. I respectfully make the point that we might all be busy then on other matters but, given that the earliest is April 2029, is it not right now to pause the Bill, work constructively with us and many others who have much greater knowledge, certainly than people on this Bench, and to think through how we might find a constructive way forward? Just hoping that we might get it right in regulation is bypassing democracy. It is the purpose of the House of Lords to examine Bills, make constructive suggestions, identify and highlight holes and issues, and seek to amend them. It is fair enough that this is what the Government want to do, but they have to be clear as to how it works before the Bill goes through.
I suspect the Government will find fierce opposition to the Bill as it is on Report from a large number of people in the House, so one would hope that the Government will pause, reflect, consider and consult—on the Bill, not in regulations—to enable us to get this right. The Minister is very good at putting himself in our shoes and has done so to some extent, and I hope that he will do so again in respect of these amendments. I particularly hope that Amendment 29A comes in, so that a future Chancellor can produce a report. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 4.
Lord Altrincham
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and another in the name of Baroness Neville-Rolfe would uprate the £2,000 cap by the percentage change in the consumer price index during the period before 2029-30, and would require the cap to be uprated by the same percentage as the change in the consumer price index each year thereafter in Great Britain.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
I thank the Minister for his customary courtesy in hosting our Committee and for his patience with us as we move to group 3. I will open on this group, which is on contribution limits and indexation, and comment on those after the Division.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their patience. I will resume the opening of group 3, on contribution limits and indexation, and will comment on Amendments 6, 13, 19 and 25 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. We also have a wide range of other amendments, many of which speak to the same set of concerns. I will not address the other amendments in this group in great detail, therefore, but I want to note that I am glad that the same issue has been largely echoed not only on this side of the Committee but across it.
We have already debated the principle of whether this measure is wise, but even those who are broadly sympathetic to the Government’s intentions ought to look carefully at what will happen if the £2,000 cap is left to stand unindexed year after year. The answer is that the Government will end up taxing people twice: once through the cap itself, and again through the quiet, insidious effects of inflation. The Government have chosen £2,000 as their figure. Let us take them at their word that this is intended to protect those on low and middle incomes while bearing down on very high earners; that is what the Minister has told us, in effect, and we should judge the policy against its stated purpose.
The problem is this: a cap that is not uprated in line with inflation does not stay in the same place. It moves, and in one direction only, pulling more and more people into its reach as wages and prices rise while the threshold stays frozen. We have seen this story before in our tax system. We know precisely how it ends. Fiscal drag, by any other name, is still fiscal drag, and, when it operates on a cap that limits pension saving, it is particularly harmful.
Consider an employee today contributing 5% or 6% of a salary that sits just at or above the threshold. Over three years of even modest inflation before the cap comes into force in 2029, then year after year thereafter, that same real-terms contribution will be clipped a little further each time. The worker has not become richer in any meaningful sense. They have simply been caught by a fixed line in the sand that the Government have chosen not to move. A number of different options set out in this group could mitigate this, such as raising the cap by different amounts or applying a percentage. I would like to hear from the Minister what impact these would have. For now, I believe that our amendment on uprating by CPI is the most realistic, but all have some attraction.
Given the complexities of administration already discussed—and apparently reflected in compliance costs in the years running up to the introduction of this new regressive tax—there may be a case here for providing for sensible indexation from day one. When we reformed salary sacrifice in government, we decided to continue it uncapped for pension purposes for a very good reason: we need to incentivise people to pay into their pensions to improve retirement adequacy and, indeed, to build a habit of saving. Sadly, the Bill goes in the opposite direction.
I appreciate that pensions adequacy will be debated more fully later on in our proceedings, but it is too important not to be addressed at this stage. If an increasing number of people find themselves caught by a cap as they sacrifice what are, in real terms, ever more modest sums through salary sacrifice, the inevitable consequence will be a reduction in retirement saving, affecting, as we have already discussed in Committee, people on modest earnings or, as the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, mentioned, the cohorts over £25,000. Absent any uprating mechanism, the policy will steadily draw in those on lower and middle incomes, penalising individuals, in effect, for doing the responsible thing and saving for their retirement. As we made clear at Second Reading, improving retirement adequacy ought to be a central objective of government policy, not something undermined by it.
We must also be candid about the long-term implications. When people save less today, the shortfall does not disappear; it re-emerges later as a greater pressure on the state and, ultimately, on future taxpayers. I remain unconvinced that the Treasury has properly grappled with these behavioural and fiscal consequences, and the increasing cost of unfunded future retirement liabilities. The Government are taking significant risk with long-term savings behaviour by making even marginal changes, as was noted by my noble friend Baroness Altmann, or the expected behavioural changes by employees and employers noted by the OBR. I look forward to the contributions from other noble Lords with amendments in this group and the response from the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, my Amendments 8 and 21 seek to simplify the changes to salary sacrifice and link it to NIC, which is a tax that will be applied to the pension contributions. I note my interest in the register as an employer who currently runs a salary sacrifice scheme for our auto-enrol pension scheme.
In my Second Reading speech, I talked about the attack on the middle-income employees, and this amendment seeks to make a small adjustment to those middle-income earners. I support other amendments in this group in principle, especially those trying to increase the limit. I would welcome a higher limit than the one I am proposing, but this is a practical change and will help many. I tried to create equality by increasing the NIC free limit for all employees up to a proposed limit of £50,000 to £170,000. This NIC threshold would allow them just to pay 2% on salary sacrifice pension contributions. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and my noble friend Lord Londesborough mentioned this inequity in their speeches at Second Reading, and it has also been mentioned a lot this afternoon.
As the Bill currently stands, anyone who has a salary of £40,000 or above and who is making salary sacrifice contributions of 5%, which is the auto-enrolment employee contribution, would start paying national insurance at 8% up to the national upper earnings limit—of which the current annual threshold is £50,270. At this amount, employees would then only be charged at 2% for further pension contributions. This amendment seeks to increase the limit to that figure of £50,270, thereby removing inequity for some employees paying 8% on their pension contributions and others paying only 2%—the majority being higher earners.
Another benefit of the Government linking it to the NIC threshold is that when they wish to make changes to the threshold—to freeze them or increase them, subject to fiscal requirements of the economy—it would automatically change the NIC-free contribution within salary sacrifice, meaning they do not have to make any specific changes to the limit. It would also allow the NIC non-contribution to automatically increase with some sort of link to inflation and wage growth.
It could also help with the implementation of these changes as it would simplify some of the changes for software developers, with all national insurance already set up in the programme. As we covered in the last group, the Government could treat salary sacrifice in the way NIC deductions are currently calculated—on either a weekly or monthly basis. This, however, does not cover someone with several jobs and how it will be applied to them. I look forward to the Government’s research, and possibly some clarity before Report.
A further small benefit is that it would make it easier for employees to try to calculate their take-home pay and what pension payments they can make on a monthly basis to help plan for the future. The amount this amendment would save for employees paying NIC is a maximum of about £41 a year—as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has covered—but these small amounts, if put into savings, would grow to a large amount by retirement age. Also, small amounts will make the running of a family home better.
Employers will still pay the bulk of the NIC to be collected, with this being 15% on these types of pension contributions. The maximum charge for employers will be about £77 a year, so not of significance with regards to what is trying to be raised by this change. The Government set out that this change was to focus on higher taxpayers, and this amendment would ensure most basic taxpayers would not have to pay NIC on their salary contributions. It would also solve one of the issues mentioned in Amendment 1 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
Will the Minister say where the £2,000 NIC-free amount come from? We know it was based on independent research commission by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. We know that three hypothetical options were offered to employers for feedback and that the response was that, of the three options, £2,000 would have minimal impact on business. How did the researchers produce this £2,000 figure as it appears to be an arbitrary amount?
This practical amendment does not change the principle of the Bill or what the Government are trying to achieve. It closes a loophole for some who are making pension contributions without paying NIC. This change does not change the focus from removing the allowance from the target group—higher rate taxpayers and additional taxpayers—who, according to the Minister, account for about 87% of salary sacrifice contributions. The estimate of the sum raised by this change will not reduce significantly.
Finally, this change would support workers and working families in the UK, who are the target of the Government. I very much hope the Government will have a positive approach to this amendment, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
I will speak in support of my Amendment 9, as well as the amendments to which I have added my name, Amendments 7 and 20.
I have proposed my amendment so that—if we are to go through this exercise, which I hope we will not—no basic rate taxpayers would be likely to be caught by the measure. If the minimum contribution on which they can have national insurance relief is £10,000 a year, they are unlikely to be caught, unless they get a very large bonus. I hope that we will be able to deal with some of these issues.
The reason for suggesting a £10,000 per year pension contribution is based on the minimum amount that the very top earners are able to contribute to pensions. Under the tapered annual allowance, for example, £10,000 seems considered to be, if you like, an acceptable level of pension that is not egregious in some way.
My preference would be that, if we are to go down the route of capping the national insurance reliefs available to anyone who is paying into a pension, we do that in the way that I have just suggested, which is the same as one does with tax relief. If you pay in more than £60,000 a year, you do not get any extra tax relief; but if you pay in, for example, more than £10,000 a year, you do not get any national insurance relief on the amounts on top of that. That would be so much simpler.
I stress to the Committee that I believe that the Government and the Minister have not realised the complexity—the sheer scale of the administrative tasks—that will be involved if the Bill proceeds as it is. I liked the idea suggested by my noble friend Lord Leigh to put this on hold and do the work that we are trying to get the Government to do straight after the Bill passes before we finish and finalise the legislation, so that we have a better idea of what we are doing.
I also have a lot of sympathy with the approach that the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, has outlined. We all seem to be trying to make the Bill operate in practice in a rather less difficult, complicated and costly administrative manner. The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, to which I added my name, on £5,000 are just another way of trying to square this circle. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts.
I must confess that the idea of inflation linking this limit, if we were to get it, each year would probably just add to the complexity of an already incredibly complex set of changes that we are thinking of making to the Bill. We would not know, from one year to the next, what the new limit will be, because it will not be £2,000 or £10,000—I hope we will not end up there. I hope the Minister understands the spirit in which I am trying to suggest the £10,000 figure and the people I am trying to help: the basic rate taxpayers. I really do fear that they will have a much worse pension outcome if this goes ahead.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, this is the group of amendments on which I have been the most focused. I will not repeat my Second Reading speech, in which I talked about the importance of growing pension savings to fuel the growth agenda, but the Government must realise that this policy just does not align with that. However, I hope that the Government are beginning to understand that life today is long and it is not easy to put aside enough from the working years to achieve a decent retirement without depending on the state. According to the Resolution Foundation, changes made under the Bill will hit at least half of those who use salary sacrifice, affecting a large number and a wide range of households.
Different noble Lords, as we see in the amendments here, have proposed different increases to the contributions limit. Amendments 7, 10, 11, 20, 22 and 23 are in my name, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, for signing some of them. The core of my amendments would increase the contributions limit from £2,000 to £5,000, preferably with a further annual increase linked to RPI. I confess that there is not a lot of science behind my choice of £5,000, but running it past people who deal with pensions, I began to think I had hit a sweet spot with that figure. The response was that it would support people making the rather difficult choice of what to do with their money and provide a little more of an incentive to save in a pension rather than to spend.
As part of this process, my colleagues in the other place were able to obtain some research from the Commons Library, using PolicyEngine and its interactive dashboard. That work is not definitive but it provides a useful picture of the distributional effects of raising the contribution limit. An uplift of £5,000 would give the greatest gains to the two top income deciles—we would all expect that. But just a shave behind those two deciles, the next highest gainers are the second decile, which is not, I expect, the result that the Government would have predicted. This group would have within it a cohort of young people, probably in their early to mid-20s, perhaps one pay rise into their careers, still willing to live in shared accommodation and to live quite frugally, and not yet trying to pay off student loans, get a mortgage or support children. Surely this is the group that any Government should target to get into saving for a pension in a big way.
Early investment enables a pension pot to grow, but it is a narrow window. As people move into the age of families and mortgages, they cut or even stop pension savings, and women are even more affected if they reduce work to care for children. Only later in life do people return to significant savings and by then it is very late in the day. Frankly, we should make sure that they also have strong incentives to save at this point in their lives to avoid sharp drops in living standards in old age. I think the Government have looked at earners as if they belong to fixed blocks: low earners, middle earners and high earners. In reality, most people’s profiles as earners and savers change as they go through life, and the incentives therefore have to be shaped to maximise and to meet that profile.
Some of my amendments would increase the £5,000 contribution limit annually by RPI. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, discussed increasing the £2,000 limit by CPI. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, considers this an additional complication but, frankly, we have to tackle this issue of frozen thresholds, which in eras of inflation have just such a negative impact.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 6, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, which I have signed, and to Amendments 7, 11, 20 and 23, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Altmann, to which I have also added my name. I am broadly supportive of all the amendments in group 3, including the very practical suggestions that we have just heard from my noble friend Lord de Clifford.
I will start with the very reasonable proposal in Amendment 6 to uprate the £2,000 cap by the percentage change in the CPI. I will not get involved in CPI versus RPI, which has just been very well covered by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. Without one of these mechanisms, we are allowing inflation and fiscal drag, as the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, pointed out, to diminish the real contribution value of what will be for many significantly reduced salary sacrifice. These amendments address that and I believe they are hardly controversial.
Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is more material in terms of the numbers, changing the contribution limit from £2,000 to £5,000, but, again, it has my support. My overarching concern about this £2,000 cap is that it will compound the existential problem of inadequate pension provision in this country. I encourage the Minister, if he has not already done so, to read carefully the latest report from the Economic Affairs Committee, Preparing for an Ageing Society. On that committee, I sit with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, although we are both about to be rotated off, and one of us possibly removed entirely from this place—but that is a separate issue.
During the inquiry, expert witnesses warned us that, despite the success of automatic enrolment, we are in a situation where we have created an awful lot of small pension pots that are hard to find, hard to keep track of and, crucially, do not add up to enough, including those pension plans deemed to be in the upper quartile. UK people currently outlive their pension savings by about eight and a half years and, of course, the gap is even greater for women. As life expectancy increases, this problem will only grow worse.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group either increase the level of pension contributions exempt from national insurance or seek to prevent fiscal drag. Both aims are very welcome. In many respects, the higher the exempt amount, the better; on the face of it, Amendment 9, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, is the most attractive in that regard. Although it does not provide protection against fiscal drag, she did explain why. That said, assuming inflation remains under control, it would take many years for average contributions to reach the equivalent of £10,000, one hopes, just as it would take a fair amount of time—half, obviously—to reach the £5,000 level proposed in Amendment 7 by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and others. Both would, however, offer meaningful support to average earners who receive a windfall. My noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley addressed the issue of bonuses earlier. Those earners may wish to act prudently by making a significant one-off pension contribution, without being caught by this punitive tax charge.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, offers a simple and workable approach, which he explained, yet this modest uplift would not be free of any fiscal drag, as we already know the basic tax rate on which the salary sacrifice threshold will be based. However, the amount would move if the tax bands increased—if only. I fear that, in the long term, this would work against the very employees the noble Lord seeks to protect, but it is better than the £2,000 mentioned in the Bill.
Finally, I turn to the amendments designed to counter fiscal drag, a mechanism that, as we all know, is one of the least transparent ways in which Governments of all colours raise revenue. Who does it fall upon most heavily? Once again, it is the middle and lower earners of this country: the teachers, nurses, engineers and shop owners—the list goes on—the people on whom the nation depends. Yet the Bill risks penalising them for doing exactly what we encourage: saving responsibly for a decent pension in retirement. The amendments in the names of my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Altrincham anchor the thresholds to the consumer prices index, while those in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, use the retail prices index, and we have just heard why.
However, taken together, this group of amendments is of real importance and I support them all, to a greater or lesser extent. We have to try to move this absurdly low number. Each of them, in different ways, seeks to protect the middle and low earners who are trying to do the right thing and save for their futures.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, I support a number of the amendments within this group. Obviously, the one that catches my eye the most is the one in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, which proposes the highest increase to £10,000. But I am very reluctant that we put into legislation more figures that become fixed and then become fiscal drag in future.
I write a regular column in the Money section of the Daily Telegraph—I am not sure it is declarable for this particularly, but it is on issues of tax. I wrote an article just a couple of weeks ago on inheritance tax. The threshold has been fixed at £325,000 since 2009, and I say with no great enthusiasm that we had 14 years of government, from 2010 to 2024, where we did not increase that. The Government with the blue flavour have not been good at increasing and uprating thresholds in line with inflation.
As has been said quite widely, it becomes the quiet hand that just increases more money to the Treasury in a fairly underhand way, you could say, because the Government have done nothing new: they have simply sat with the legislation that they have and, lo and behold, the magic of inflation cuts in and more money is raised from the same tax. If the 2009 threshold of £325,000 for IHT had been uprated to today, it would now represent £569,000, reflecting that in parts of the country, a house at £325,000 in 2009, which was intentionally free of inheritance tax, is not free of inheritance tax today. With this legislation, we are potentially implementing a fixed £2,000, which, with fiscal drag and inflated or inflating wages over time, will drag more and more people into the net.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has said in glowing terms during the course of this debate how good pensions are. I have no doubt that everyone in the Room thinks that pensions are a good thing. Unfortunately, it seems that that good thing is being whittled away. It does not take much for people to change their behaviour. I am concerned that the £2,000 threshold will mean those on the edge will only ever make a £2,000 salary sacrifice. They will not, under any circumstances, particularly if they are a basic rate taxpayer, ever go to £2,001—with an additional pound —or beyond. They will simply have smaller pension pots, as was very adequately described by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, in his good contribution.
There is the magic of compounding—I believe that Einstein even called it the eighth wonder of the world. It is the magic by which, just with plain inflation, £1 is put away in a very dull, FTSE-based equity plan—or even, should one wish, into government gilts over a very long period—and it goes up. By receiving just 4% or 5% of interest per year, those small pounds from years ago become very big pounds by the time one comes to retirement. As the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, very ably said, people have small pots. Even with the great success of auto-enrolment, those pots still remain pretty small; they are not quite enough to supplement a long retirement as people live longer.
I support the good things that the Minister said about pensions. There always seems to be a bit of a cover from a Government who say “Well, only 26% of people will be caught”—I think the Minister said 74% of basic rate taxpayers will not be caught—as if that 74% is more than half and so we need not worry. I am afraid that I do worry about the 26% who will be caught and may do different things—namely, they will not put money away for their savings. For administrative ease, I think the higher the better, so that we do not implement into our tax and national insurance legislation yet another fiscal drag that gets worse and worse over time.
The plea repeated by many in Committee today is to pause and wait, because this will not come in until 2029. Our wide-ranging debate has highlighted a lot of flaws and problems. One of the big flaws seems to be that the Minister who has drafted this legislation remains a little unclear, dare I say it, whether this applies per person or per employment. That seems to go somewhat to the heart of what we are debating. I would almost suggest that we draw stumps and come back another day when the Minister is clear on that, after having asked somebody—I suppose someone in HM Treasury—what is intended. Is it £2,000 per person or per employment?
On the basis of that ambiguity, however, I recommend that we have an uprating to £10,000 at the highest level. Given all the uprating measures that noble Lords have described today—whether an inflationary index is applied or a flat £5,000 becomes the new base level, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, proposed—I am afraid that the £2,000 threshold is looking very threadbare. It drags far too many basic rate taxpayers—the normal end of taxpayers—into its potential net. The danger is that they will not save and will not grow their own pots into the future. People on low pension income in the future will become reliant on the state.
What we are doing here is trying to get a bit of sugar today into the Treasury coffers. A sugar rush, where the future will have to be paid for as more people fall into pension credit and other forms of retirement benefit payments, could so easily be avoided by introducing every measure we possibly can, here and now, to get people saving for their own future.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, it is worth reminding ourselves that this legislation was prompted by a document published in May last year with this eye-catching title: Understanding the Attitudes and Behaviours of Employers Towards Salary Sacrifice for Pensions. It concluded:
“All the hypothetical scenarios explored in this research”,
including the £2,000 cap, were “viewed negatively” by those interviewed. It said that the changes would cause confusion, reduce benefits for employees and disincentivise saving for a pension. The report came to the conclusion that, of the three proposed hypothetical options for change, the £2,000 cap was no more than the least bad option.
As has been discussed here, even the OBR has stated that, in the first year in which this measure bites, there will be an estimated revenue of £4.48 billion from the Bill, but it will drop in the next year to £2.6 billion. That is a massive fall in revenue. Should HM Treasury not be worried about this? Should it not be asking itself, “How can we bring in something that leads to a drop in revenue of 50% in year 1?”? The taxpayer wants to know. Could an assessment be done of whether this is likely to be the case in some of the scenarios set out in these amendments—in particular, the £5,000 and the £10,000? I do not know this, because I do not have the resources to do that, but I suspect that, although bringing the cap in at £5,000 and £10,000 would not lead to the £4.48 billion in year 1, it would lead to a much more consistent figure in the subsequent years, for the long-term benefit of the country. As my noble friend Lord Mackinlay said, it will be a bit of a sugar rush and will force people to make most unfortunate changes in their patterns of savings, which the Government cannot be keen to see happen.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
First, I will address Amendments 6, 10, 11, 13, 19, 22, 23 and 25 in the names of by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, and the noble Lords, Lord Altrincham and Lord Londesborough. These amendments seek to uprate the cap by the percentage change in the consumer prices index or the retail prices index. The Government agree on the need to keep the level of the cap under review to ensure that it continues to meet its policy objective: keeping the cost of salary sacrifice tax reliefs on a fiscally sustainable footing while protecting ordinary workers. However, we disagree with the approach set out in these amendments because it would be inconsistent with the approach taken in respect of other pension tax reliefs, which are not routinely indexed with inflation.
For example, in 2023, when the previous Government made changes to the annual allowance, they increased it by a set amount rather than indexing it; the annual allowance was otherwise not routinely uprated or index-linked. The Government are taking a pragmatic, balanced approach to ensuring that the cost of tax relief on salary sacrifice pension contributions remains fiscally sustainable. The future level of the cap in the next decade and beyond is for future Budgets in those decades.
This leads me on to Amendments 7 to 9, 20 and 21 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady Kramer and Lady Altmann, and the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Londesborough. These amendments seek to increase the cap beyond £2,000. It is important to consider the level of the cap in the wider context of the objectives of this change, which are about keeping the tax system on a sustainable footing while protecting ordinary workers. Without reform, the cost of this tax relief is now set to almost treble in cost, from £2.8 billion to £8 billion, with the vast majority of the benefit going to higher earners because around 62% of salary sacrifice contributions come from the top 20% of earners. Although some tax experts have called for pension salary sacrifice to be abolished entirely, the Government are taking a more measured and pragmatic approach.
As I said earlier this afternoon, the £2,000 cap protects 74% of basic rate taxpayers using salary sacrifice. This means that three-quarters of those earning up to £50,270 a year who use salary sacrifice will be protected by the cap. Almost all—95%—of those earning £30,000 or less who use salary sacrifice will be entirely unaffected by the changes. Some 87% of salary sacrifice contributions above the cap are forecast to be made by higher and additional rate taxpayers. Increasing the level of the cap in the way proposed by these amendments would cost additional money and would undermine the objective of putting this tax relief on a sustainable footing for the future. Such changes should also be considered in the wider context of pension tax relief, which amounts to more than £70 billion each year; that spend will be entirely unaffected by this legislation.
In the light of the points I have made, I respectfully ask noble Lords to withdraw or not press their amendments.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, as many noble Lords have made clear in their remarks on this group, the policy as currently drafted operates as a rather untargeted tax. Introducing indexation by RPI or CPI—described by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, as the goose and gander amendment—would be a straightforward and proportionate step that the Government could take now to mitigate what I can only assume is an unintended consequence. We on these Benches would also support the higher limits proposed by noble Lords and noble Baronesses today to mitigate behavioural changes that may undermine the objectives of this initiative or the Bill entirely.
The Minister has heard a range of constructive proposals this afternoon as to how this issue might be addressed. I very much hope he has listened carefully to the strength of feeling across the Committee and that he will give serious consideration to adopting one of these solutions. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(5) The amendments made by this section do not apply where the employer—(a) is a small or medium-sized enterprise, or(b) is a charity or social enterprise which meets the conditions in subsection (6).(6) The conditions are that—(a) the employer meets the definition of a small or medium-sized enterprise in section 465 of the Companies Act 2006, and(b) the employment is carried out wholly or mainly for the purposes of that charity or social enterprise.(7) In this section—“charity” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Charities Act 2011;“social enterprise” means an undertaking which—(a) has as its primary purpose the achievement of social or environmental objectives, and(b) principally reinvests its profits for those purposes;“small or medium-sized enterprise” has the meaning given by section 465 of the Companies Act 2006.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment exempts small and medium-sized enterprises, and small and medium-sized charities and social enterprises, from the provisions of the Bill in Great Britain.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak first to Amendments 12 and 24, which would exempt small and medium-sized enterprises, charities and social enterprises from the salary sacrifice pension contribution cap introduced by the Bill. I also welcome Amendment 27, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, requiring a review of the ability of SMEs to recruit and retain staff.
Small and medium enterprises have been hammered under this Government. They have introduced policies that will cost businesses £25 billion annually in tax compliance alone, according to the firm Together Accounting. Their previous NICs hike added a further £25 billion burden and there are business rate hikes, minimum wage increases and the Employment Rights Act. Is it any wonder that 52 businesses per 10,000 are entering insolvency, nearly double the rate from just five years ago? The Federation of Small Businesses reports that 63% of businesses now cite tax as their primary concern. Business confidence has plummeted. This is something that I have spoken about many times, and the Conservative Party stands with small businesses. They are the lifeblood of our communities, our jobs market and our economy.
Our amendment tries to shield SMEs and charities from what is effectively yet another damaging tax by exempting them from this policy. Given the onslaught SMEs have suffered under the Government, the rationale for this needs little explanation. SMEs operate on thin margins, often without sophisticated accounting mechanisms or payroll and accounting teams. They will be disproportionately affected by this policy and should be exempt.
Turning to charities, before the Budget was even confirmed, the Charity Finance Group ran a survey of the sector specifically on the question of salary sacrifice. It found, and I urge the Committee to note these figures carefully, that 81% of charities reported that the salary sacrifice change would have a negative impact on their ability to offer competitive benefits to staff. Nearly seven in 10 had already started to reduce headcount or expected to do so in the near future, and that was before this further measure. It is not surprising that they are worried, as in my experience charities often have more complex employment arrangements: seasonal working, moving jobs, and weekly rather than monthly pay. They also often have much less sophisticated payroll systems.
CFG warned explicitly that, for charities operating on tight margins, salary sacrifice has been a critical tool and a way both to support staff and to achieve meaningful savings on employer national insurance at the same time, stretching limited resources further while enabling employees to build better pension provision. To cap that mechanism is to remove one of the few cost-efficient tools available to organisations that cannot increase prices, raise equity finance or easily diversify their income when grant funding or public contracts do not keep pace with costs.
The wider context of what has happened to charities under the Bill matters here, too. Last year, on Report, the House of Lords carried amendments to the then national insurance contributions Bill that would have protected small charities with revenues under £1 million from the main NICs rise. However, the Government rejected them, and we have seen what happened there. The Government have said that they want to build a stronger economy and a thriving civil society. That ambition is not well served by a policy that removes from smaller employers and civil society organisations one of the most effective tools that they have to compete for talent and support their people in saving for retirement.
Amendment 26 asks that, within 12 months of this Act coming into force, the Government commission and lay before Parliament an independent review of its impact on small and medium-sized enterprises, including administrative costs, compliance burdens, employment costs and the ability of SMEs to attract and retain staff—and, crucially, that this be assessed in the context of the cumulative changes to employer national insurance since July 2024.
Time and again, the Government’s approach has displayed a worrying lack of understanding of how small firms actually operate, how thin their margins are, how sensitive they are to cumulative costs and how easily confidence can be shaken. We saw it with the previous national insurance hike and in the rushed recalibration over pubs, and we see it all over again in this Bill and the rush to pass it when the vital detail is still to be settled. We know that the revenue collected will almost halve in the second year of implementation, so there will be lots of new compliance costs and an uncertain future.
If the Government are confident that this measure will not materially damage SMEs, they should welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that through an independent review. If they are serious about growth, entrepreneurship and avoiding further damaging U-turns, they should look at the cumulative picture. Given the scale of pessimism now facing the small business community and the stakes for employment and growth, I urge the Government to accept this amendment. SMEs do not trust the Government to act in their interests. If the Treasury were to adopt such an amendment—as well as the associated one for Northern Ireland, where there are so many SMEs—perhaps this trust might start to be rebuilt. I beg to move.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have added my name to all of the amendments in this group. Again, I think that they are very important. I am pleased to have added my support for my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lord Altrincham and Lady Kramer—if I may call her my noble friend—as well as for the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Londesborough. All of them are picking up on the huge risks that are being posed in terms of additional administrative costs, burdens and complexity for small and medium-sized businesses, charities and social enterprises, which, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe explained, have already had so many extra burdens placed on them.
I reiterate that I hope that the Minister will recognise that we need this analysis and this type of work before we make the primary legislation that we are considering here, rather than afterwards. I also hope that, if the Minister does not have ready answers, modelling or analysis that would address the issues these amendments are trying to understand in more detail, we can, as we have heard before in Committee, put some of this on hold until we have a better understanding of what the real-world impacts will be.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 12 and 26, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, to which I have added my name. I am also supportive of Amendment 27 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, to which I should have added my name; I apologise for not doing so.
I spoke in the previous group about pension inadequacy. This is especially true for employees in our start-ups, scale-ups and SMEs in general. So the exemptions proposed in Amendment 12 get my full support. I should declare my interests as a chairman, investor and adviser to a range of start-ups and scale-ups.
There is an element of Groundhog Day here: some noble Lords will remember that I tabled a similar exemption on behalf of SMEs in last year’s NICs Bill. With the invaluable support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, we achieved a majority of about 100 on Report. At that point, we issued some fairly blunt warnings in relation to jobs; I am afraid that those warnings have been borne out by the employment figures, especially at entry level and in part-time roles among SMEs. These same employers, who are struggling both to create new jobs—look at the vacancy numbers—and to sustain existing ones, face yet more complications and costs in the area of national insurance contributions. Increased burdens at a time when we desperately need to generate per capita economic growth are not well timed.
Some noble Lords will have read the recent letter a couple of weeks ago from the FSB—the Federation of Small Businesses—to the Chancellor of Exchequer. It made for particularly grim reading. More than a third—I emphasise that—of employers among SMEs plan either to shut down their companies or to reduce output due to higher employment costs, increased business rates and increased energy costs. If we want to protect our vital SME ecosystem, we need to stop punishing them—I say “punishing” because it is appropriate, as these are punitive measures—and complicating their business of employment.
In the light of what I have just said, there is a clear need for a review of the impact of the Bill on SMEs, as is outlined in Amendment 26, which also gets my full support.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group in the names of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and others—in fact, quite frankly, most of the noble Lords currently in Committee.
These amendments speak directly to the reality facing SMEs and charities, which are organisations that form the backbone of our economy and social fabric. These employers have already endured a succession of rising costs—I have a few to add, so I will go through them again—such as higher national insurance, changes to inheritance tax, increases in the minimum wage, new obligations under the Employment Rights Act, business rate adjustments and the continuing shock of energy prices. A handful of sectors have received modest relief but, for most, these pressures fall straight to the bottom line. The cumulative effect is profound.
Charities are no better placed. They are all under extraordinary strain, yet they provide services that the state itself cannot easily replace. How do these organisations continue to operate if further costs are piled on them? My noble friend mentioned the outrageously appalling numbers.
There is even more concern when donors are typically being more hesitant, due to the overall sentiment in the country to donate. This is not merely short-sighted; it risks creating far greater financial and social pressures for future Governments. The Bill adds yet another cost: it raises employment expenses at a time when many organisations are already stretched to breaking point. It undermines their ability to offer competitive pension packages, often one of the few tools available to attract and retain skilled staff. There is a high chance that these businesses will simply withdraw salary sacrifice schemes and may simply withdraw themselves from the market.
Implementation is scheduled for 2029, which gives these operations time to review the situation, which is, as we have heard, very complex. Many SMEs do not have HR teams to manage new thresholds, payroll changes or contract revisions. They will be forced to pay for external support that they can scarcely afford in the current climate. This is not a policy that encourages growth; it is one that diverts time, money and energy away from the very activities that drive economic vitality. This is on the basis of companies that employ on an annual basis, but what happens if they take on shift and seasonal workers who may have more than one occupation, which we have already heard quite a lot about? The complexity merely increases ever more, as does the expense, if the company is prepared to continue with salary sacrifice schemes at all.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
I have had the privilege of putting my name to Amendment 27 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer; the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has added her name to it as well.
I own an SME business, and this Government’s changes to NIC have significantly affected it. Of the 8% rise in salary costs to my business in the past 12 months, 25% of that figure—or 2%—was the NIC change. The changes proposed would increase that further.
This amendment seeks a review of the effect of the change on SME businesses and on employment rates within SMEs. SMEs are the bedrock of employment in this country, as was covered by my noble friend Lord Londsborough. The addition of this pre-profit tax does nothing to encourage growth, investment or employment. This review is very much welcome to identify any changes within SME businesses, to ensure that we remain healthy and can create opportunities for growth and jobs for all generations, especially the young.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, I normally do not support measures that carve out certain sectors from others in the normal weft and weave of enterprises in the country, but I support this one, particularly Amendments 12 and 24 which seek to carve out small and medium-sized companies under the Companies Act 2006 and charities and social enterprises. I think a tipping point has now been reached, particularly on the back of the Employment Rights Act, increased national insurance and higher minimum wages, particularly those applying to younger employees.
We are seeing that already with the highest rate of NEETs—younger people out of work—than I think we have ever seen before: 700,000 at present. What always happens under a Labour Government is certainly happening. It usually happens over a longer period—over the full five years of a Labour Administration—but it is happening very quickly within their first 18 months. Levels of unemployment are higher than we have seen. We now have higher rates of youth unemployment than the EU average. In days of old, we used to point our fingers over the channel, laugh at the level of youth unemployment over there and wondered how on earth they got it so wrong—but no more. The finger-pointing is now coming from that side of the channel to us, wondering how we could be so stupid so quickly. I think that tipping point has been reached.
A reality for small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly the smaller ones, is that they do not run their own payrolls; they contract out their payroll requirements to payroll bureaus. It is very commonplace. I would say the tipping point could be even up to 50 employees, where the company will pay a bureau to do all the complicated stuff—processing the real-time information, taking in the coding notices, working out the statutory sick pay—that comes with running a payroll. Smaller and medium sized enterprises want to get on with the business they do. Whatever the business might be—whether a retailer, a pub, a printing company or whatever—it does not particularly want to add to the administrative burden internally and deal with the cost of it, so they tend to outsource it.
My thoughts on these amendments might be a little different if we knew—and I will say it for a third time today—whether this £2,000 threshold measure applied for the employee across all their employments or across each employment. If it does apply to the employee across multiple employments, then the payroll bureau way of doing things becomes extremely complex. It will have an additional burden to speak to the payroll bureau and the tax office for the details of the employee’s other employments. Until we have an understanding of what that really means within this legislation, I think we are a little bit out at sea.
However, there are other things going on in the employment market at the moment. We have one sector that is growing quite well in terms of the employment numbers and the number of new employees: the public sector. It is about the only sector that is growing, and of course it does not really do much for the GDP of the nation because every penny has to come on the back of proper profits and taxes that are derived from the private sector.
As someone who was once involved in the SME sector, I know that there is often a competition going on between a potential employment available to a good and skilled potential employee in the market. They have the choice of going to the public sector, which gives six months of paid illness leave and another six months of half pay—there are not too many questions asked. There is lots of working from home and lots of other lovely benefits—such as an accumulating index-linked pension—which few in the private sector can match anymore. The days of the final salary pension really only exist in one place, and that is now in the public sector. Therefore, the SME sector has a struggle to recruit, especially when the market is good.
A skilled employee, when given the choice of working in the public sector with all those benefits or working in the private sector—where the pension, sickness benefits and holiday benefits are not so good, and the requirement to worked damned hard is different in expectation—will choose the public sector. There is a conflict going on in employment. The one thing that small businesses might be able to offer, however, is a better pension provision, and these measures will stop that. It is the one thing they can use to attract a good employee. To deprive the small business sector, charities and those in social enterprises of the opportunity to offer a little bit of gold plate in the employment offer to a very good employee is a very backward step.
For perhaps one of the first times, I actually support these amendments because employment rights and running payrolls have become so complex, and there are more and more burdens for businesses, which are negatively impacting them. A carve-out for smaller enterprises under the measures proposed by Amendments 12 and 24 are to be supported because the backs of small and medium-sized enterprises are breaking, and they need support that, I am afraid, this legislation does not provide them.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, as we discussed at Second Reading, the Federation of Small Businesses has warned that the impact of the Bill could meaningfully disadvantage small businesses. In a way, I look at social enterprises and charities as, essentially, a subset of the SME sector. Big businesses can often devise ways and perks to reward people that are simply not available to SMEs, so they can dampen the impact of the Bill on their workforces and widen that competitive gap.
As a consequence of that, I thank the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for signing Amendment 27 in my name, and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, for saying that he would have signed it. Frankly, when these noble Lords give warnings on what will happen and what is happening in the small business sector, I really hope that the Government are listening because, unfortunately for our economy, their track record has a real history of being correct, and those warnings need to be taken seriously.
As other noble Lords have said, SMEs are already under pressure. I am not going to repeat the saga of the burdens on them, but we have to recognise that this is a time when we absolutely need small businesses to accelerate their hiring, especially of young people, and make serious investment in productivity and growth. Once again, this is another measure where I can see no alignment between the Bill and the Government’s industrial strategy or growth policy. It seems to pull in completely the wrong direction.
Amendments 12 and 24 would straightforwardly exempt SMEs. Amendment 27 in my name would give the Government a chance to make their case, in a sense, because it would require a detailed review within 12 months of the Act being signed, which is obviously long before the Act will come into force. The review would target the two issues that we have said are so critical—SME recruitment and retention—and would also look at this matter in the context of the cumulative impact, particularly of NICs changes since this is a NICs Bill. It seems wise to encompass a look at these two NICs changes as being linked and entangled in the way they impact on small businesses.
I do not want to take up much more of the Committee’s time, but it is important to stress that this is not the time for uninformed decision-making; that has been echoed through group after group of amendments. I am not rejecting the other amendments but Amendment 27 would be a relatively modest way for the Government at least to do something that begins to put evidence before Ministers and Parliament.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. First, I will address Amendments 18 and 24 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, which would exempt small and medium-sized enterprises, charities and social enterprises from the Bill.
The Government agree on the importance of supporting small businesses and ensuring that they are not unduly impacted by these changes. Small and medium-sized enterprises are far less likely to offer pension salary sacrifice than larger businesses. According to Nest Insight, around 33% of small businesses offer pension salary sacrifice to their employees, compared with 83% of large businesses. In addition, employees of small and medium-sized enterprises are far less likely to have contributions exceeding the £2,000 cap; only 10% of employees in SMEs have pension contributions through salary sacrifice exceeding the cap. Exempting small and medium-sized enterprises in the way suggested by the amendment would therefore introduce significant additional complexity into the tax system and would be disproportionate given the limited impact that this policy is expected to have on these businesses. The Government are engaging with employers and other industry stakeholders ahead of these changes coming in.
Similarly, Amendments 26 and 27 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, and the noble Lords, Lord Altrincham, Lord Londesborough and Lord de Clifford, would require a review of the impact of the Act on small and medium-sized enterprises. As I have already said, the Government agree about the importance of supporting small businesses. The changes in the Bill will mainly impact larger employers, which are much more likely to use salary sacrifice and to have employees who are contributing above the £2,000 cap.
More widely, the Government are delivering the most comprehensive package of support for small and medium-sized businesses in a generation through the small business strategy, unlocking billions of pounds in finance to support businesses to invest and removing unnecessary red tape. Ahead of the cap coming into operation, the Government will continue to work closely with employers, payroll administrators and other stakeholders to ensure that the changes are implemented in the least burdensome way for businesses of all sizes currently using salary sacrifice.
In the light of the points I have made, I respectfully ask noble Lords to withdraw or not press their amendments.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, if the Government truly wish to support SMEs and charities, they should not press ahead with a measure that those enterprises have told us—I gave a great deal of evidence, and we have heard this from others as well—will damage them, increase their operating costs and complexity and reduce their ability to offer options to their employees. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, put the case well.
The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, with his unique experience of SME businesses, reminded us of the dire situation facing SMEs, with significant numbers closing down, as one can see on almost any high street. My noble friend Lord Ashcombe emphasised the cumulative effect and rightly added energy prices to the problems that SMEs and charities are facing. The Bill will raise employment costs at a time when companies are already stretched to boiling point.
The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, illustrated the problem with information drawn from the impact of NICs on his business, which I found particularly compelling. He is very keen to have the hope—I think that is the right word—that will arise from the proposed review. My noble friend Lord Mackinlay reminded us of the large number of NEETs who are out of work, as well as of how we now have higher youth unemployment than the EU, generating what he referred to as a tipping point.
My noble friend rightly raised—I hope that the Minister will come back on this—the key unanswered question of whether the £2,000 cap will apply per employee across multiple employments. We must have an answer on that because it will make a great deal of difference, especially to smaller operations. I am impressed by the fact that, for the first time, my noble friend has agreed to support a carve-out for SMEs and charities, on which I have campaigned for the past 11 years.
The Minister and I have often exchanged views on SMEs, but this is an opportunity for him to make a concrete change to the Government’s policy on this matter, do something to show that the Government listen to SMEs and small social enterprises and provide them with a bit of relief from the mountain of complexities piled on them. I urge the Government to think again and make a positive change to the Bill in this area. It would not be expensive, but it would protect jobs and businesses, help our economy and, above all, reduce compliance costs for both this vital sector and the officials who are taxed with policing the changes and gathering revenue.
Lastly, I reiterate my support for the review of SME recruitment and retention proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, in the light of the cumulative NICs changes that we have seen over the past 18 months. Like her, I hope that the Government are listening. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but we will, I think, want to revert to the position of SMEs and charities when we come back on Report later in the spring.
Baroness Kramer
“Calculation and publication of lifetime pension values(1) The Secretary of State must calculate and publish illustrative projections of the lifetime value of pension savings before and after the changes made by this Act.(2) For the purposes of this section, “lifetime value” means the total pension income an individual is expected to receive over their lifetime.(3) Projections must—(a) be based on clearly stated assumptions, and(b) include examples covering a range of income levels and pension entitlements.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require the publication of illustrative lifetime pension outcomes.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will try to be speedy. The amendments in this group in various ways would require that the work to assess the impact of the Bill on pension savings and pension incomes is done and put before Parliament. My Amendment 28 would make this a responsibility of the Government. Amendments 29 and 30 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Neville-Rolfe, would require an independent review. These three amendments have different degrees of detail and emphasis, but I suspect they can easily be redrafted to cover all the key elements.
It seems to me that behind all these amendments sits a basic question: did the Government do their homework? If they had, they could pretty much hand us everything we have requested tomorrow morning. I fear that this has been another off-the-hoof policy where the Government poorly understand the consequences, and I think that needs to be exposed and dealt with. It is true that implementation of the policy is not until 2029, probably the other side of another general election, but, frankly, that is not an excuse for doing this wrong, for not having the evidence and for not making it available. That is what I think every amendment in this group seeks to achieve in a different way. I beg to move.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 30 has a simple purpose: to ensure that before the Act is commenced there is an independent review of its impact on pensions adequacy—which we have been talking about again and again through this Committee—saving behaviour and on those repaying student loans, and that Parliament must see the findings before the provisions take effect.
Pensions adequacy is one of the central long-term economic challenges facing this country, and under the Government it is set to get far worse. The Institute for Fiscal Studies’ report Adequacy of Future Retirement Incomes: New Evidence for Private Sector Employees could not be clearer. On current trends, around four in 10 private sector employees saving into defined contribution schemes are projected to undershoot the Pension Commission’s replacement rate targets. Even using a far more modest minimum living standard benchmark, a substantial minority are not on track to reach it.
The IFS also makes a crucial point that, since the Pensions Commission report 20 years ago, lower returns on saving and longer life expectancy mean that the savings rates required to hit adequacy benchmarks are higher than previously thought. In other words, the adequacy challenge has intensified, not diminished. Yet what are the Government doing in the Bill? They are altering one of the key mechanisms through which many working people build their retirement savings without any independent assessment of what that will mean for adequacy.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this group of amendments is, once again, trying to do the work that needed to be done before we had this Bill. All the proposals are important, in my view. Mine is a version of what we need to find out. I genuinely believe that this needs to be done independently of government because there are so many elements that government may not or seems not to have considered.
Effectively, this is another tax increase. At the margin, it can only make pension provision worse. It cannot improve it at a time when we are supposed to be trying to help people have better pensions going forward. It can only, at the margin, as I say, deter employers and employees at the current levels of provision and encourage reduction.
The Society of Pension Professionals has pointed out that 290,000 employers are using salary sacrifice in this country at the moment. We know that there is an expected saving in 2029-30 of £4.8 billion and a further saving of £2.6 billion in 2030-31, but even with those figures, the OBR points out that the revenue raised is subject to uncertainties related to the potential responses to the change. We have heard an awful lot about the potential responses to the change today and it is inevitable that, although the Prime Minister stressed in March 2025 the Government’s commitment to reduce employers’ compliance costs by 25%, this Bill alone will significantly increase the cost for those employers who have been using salary sacrifice as a way of helping their employees have a better pension outcome.
Pensions administration is already a problem that has been swept under the carpet for far too long. We know that the pension rules are ridiculously complicated and that data errors abound. If we continue to have these ongoing changes or salami-slicing of the tax advantages that pensions have, rather than one holistic review of how we provide pensions and incentivise both individuals and employers to provide for themselves in later life, then we will never end up with the kind of system we need. We will continue to add complexity to an already extraordinarily complex system.
I hope that my suggestion of a review, which would include what this Bill would do to the use of salary sacrifice as a whole by employers, will again signal to the Government what the likelihood seems to be. Given that the Bill already foreshadows future changes, employers who are currently running salary sacrifice will start to realise just how complicated it will be to adapt to the measures of this Bill. They will then think, “Are we going to have to go through this all again if the limit changes or if some other change happens? We’ll just abandon the idea of salary sacrifice altogether, and perhaps those who are already contributing more than the minimum will cut back to the minimum”. We need to be very mindful of this kind of change and whether we can have a holistic overall view of pension provision in the private sector, in particular, and the way in which we incentivise employers and employees.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 29 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. She has just summed up a lot of my issues, so I will keep this brief because it is late.
I will come from the perspective of one limited experience: my business. The success of auto-enrolment is fantastic, and the salary sacrifice scheme has really helped. I have 18 and 19 year-olds saving for a pension; it is only small amounts, but it really helps them. The other thing is that those who are slightly better paid find it so easy to increase their pension contributions and then pull them down again when they need their funds. I believe this Bill will be a disincentive to those people who are trying to save a bit more.
Therefore, I support this amendment, which seeks to check that we do not lose the advantages that auto-enrolment has brought to SMEs and has forced employers like me—I think back when we instigated ours—to bring in pension schemes. There is real value to that. The experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, in pensions is a lot greater than mine, so I welcome a review, especially an independent one. It is so important that we start saving for our pensions. My noble friend Lord Londesborough came up with some statistics earlier and the report from his committee is important.
Those are the reasons why I support this amendment. It is essential that we continue to review how people save for their pensions.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate.
I turn first to Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, which seeks the publication of illustrative projections of lifetime pension saving values before and after this change. The Government do not agree that this amendment is necessary to provide the required information on personal pension saving outcomes. The impacts of the measures in the Bill, including on employees and employers, are already set out in the tax information and impact note published alongside the Bill’s introduction.
Additionally, the Government published a policy costing note, which includes detail on the tax base and static costing as well as a summary of the behavioural responses expected by individuals and employers. The Office for Budget Responsibility has set out impacts in its economic and fiscal outlook, making it clear that it does not expect a material impact on savings behaviour as a result of the tax changes made in the Budget. Similarly, there are already a number of existing tools and services that individuals can use to understand their personal financial position and estimate their potential retirement income.
Amendments 29 and 30, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lords, Lord Altrincham and Lord de Clifford, would require the Government to take advice examining the impact of this change on employers, pension adequacy and workers’ pay. They also seek to make commencement of the Act conditional on the publication of an independent review of its effects, including on pension adequacy. The impacts of this measure have already been set out across the range of usual publications for changes to national insurance; these include the published tax information and impact note and policy costings note, as well as the Office for Budget Responsibility’s economic and fiscal outlook.
These amendments raise a wider point about the role of salary sacrifice in the pension salary saving system, particularly in relation to incentivising saving and improving pension adequacy. It is important to place this measure in context. Salary sacrifice existed in the 2000s and early 2010s, yet, during this period, there were falls in private sector pension saving. The key factor that has led to an increase in saving in recent years, as many noble Lords have noted in this debate, is automatic enrolment. As a result of automatic enrolment, more than 22 million workers across the UK are now saving each month.
Although all of us here share a commitment to improving pension adequacy, many groups at higher risk of under-saving—including the self-employed, low earners and women—are not the most likely to benefit from salary sacrifice. Only one in five self-employed people save into a pension, but they are entirely excluded from salary sacrifice. Low earners are most likely not to be saving, but higher earners are more likely to be using salary sacrifice. Many women are under-saving for retirement, but many more men use pension salary sacrifice.
The pensions tax relief system remains hugely generous, and there remain significant incentives to save into a pension. The £70 billion of income tax and national insurance contribution relief that the Government currently provide on pensions each year will be entirely unaffected by these changes.
Given the points I have made, I respectfully ask noble Lords to withdraw or not press their amendments.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(2) The provisions of this Act, other than this section, may not come into force unless and until the conditions in subsections (2A) to (2C) are met.(2A) The Secretary of State must undertake an independent review of the impact of this Act on employers.(2B) The report must in particular consider—(a) the direct and indirect costs incurred by employers as a result of this Act,(b) the effect of the Act on employer pension contributions and the use of salary sacrifice arrangements,(c) the additional compliance costs necessitated by this Act, and(d) any consequential impacts on employment practices, workforce retention or remuneration structures.(2C) The Secretary of State must publish the report of the review and lay it before both Houses of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes commencement of the Act conditional on the publication of an independent report on its impact on employers.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
There is agreement on my side that we will go on for a little while after that.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Sorry—I was advised that there is no agreement beyond 7.45 pm.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
It has been agreed with the clerks and everyone that we will go beyond that to 8 pm so that we can try to get it all finished.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Well, I have been told that there is no agreement beyond 7.45 pm. I do not have a Whip in here.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
We will stick with 8 pm. If we start now, we will be able to finish it by then; if not, we will not.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
Allow me to offer my help to the Committee. As I understand it, it is possible for this Sitting to continue until 8 pm.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, my amendment in this group seeks to make the commencement of this Act conditional upon the publication of an independent review of its impact on employers.
The Government’s decision to cap national insurance relief on salary sacrifice pension contributions at £2,000 per year has been presented as a measure targeted at higher earners, but the reality, as those of us who have spoken to businesses up and down the country know, is rather more complicated than that. This is not simply a matter of adjusting the tax affairs of a few well-paid executives. This measure hits employers directly and in ways that Ministers have not thus far adequately costed or explained. For small and medium-sized enterprises in particular, the costs are not trivial. Many have structured their entire remuneration and pensions offerings around salary sacrifice arrangements. They have done so because it is administratively straightforward, it benefits their staff, and it has had the backing of the previous Government as a sensible way to encourage workplace pension saving. Those businesses now face not only higher employer national insurance costs but also the compliance burden of unpicking arrangements that may have been in place for years.
Let us be plain about what this means for a small business. We are talking about firms with perhaps 20 or 30 staff, businesses that do not have large HR departments or in-house tax teams. They will need to review every employment contract, revisit their payroll systems and, in many cases, seek professional advice to understand their new obligations. What is particularly troubling is that we have not seen from the Government anything approaching a comprehensive assessment of these impacts. We know that HMRC consulted last year, but it got a dusty answer. The OBR has produced some high-level revenue estimates, which do not reassure us, and we know from the Treasury note that it expects this measure to raise several billion pounds by the end of the Parliament. But what we have not seen, and what employers and employees alike are entitled to expect, is a proper independent analysis of what this means in practice, especially for SMEs and middle-income employees.
There has been no serious attempt to model the indirect costs, the effect on employer pension contributions, the likelihood that firms will scale back their own contributions to compensate for higher tax costs, or the impact on workforce retention where salary sacrifice has been used as a recruitment and benefits tool. The OBR itself has acknowledged significant uncertainty in its projections, noting that revenue yields are highly sensitive to behavioural change—a very important point—and yet the Government press ahead without the evidence base one would expect for a measure of this scale.
My concern—which is shared by a range of voices in the pensions industry and in business groups and among those who have looked carefully at the measure— is that, in restricting salary sacrifice without proper analysis, the Government risk undermining the very pension-saving behaviours they claim in other contexts to support. As the ABI has put it, savers and the pension system need stability. What we should not be doing is swapping pension stability for short-term revenue raisers.
The Minister has cited a number of statistics on the numbers whom HMT anticipates will be affected, but these fail to recognise that the Government have almost no idea of how employers and, therefore, employees would respond and be affected by those changes. As I have already mentioned, the OBR has said that there is a high level of uncertainty over the size of the behavioural response. If an employer stops offering a salary sacrifice because of the compliance costs and complexity, as many of them have warned they will, then every one of their employees will be affected. So how can the Minister say that 74% of basic rate taxpayers will be left unaffected when HMT has no idea how the organisations employing them will react to the Bill? Indeed, the detail is still unclear. The point many noble Lords have raised stands: the Bill brings a great deal of uncertainty, and the Treasury does not understand the wider effects of what it is proposing—thus my wish to delay commencement until we have a clearer view.
I welcome Amendment 32 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, which references the OBR’s supplementary forecasts. I do not want to steal her thunder, but the issues this forecast raises are numerous. Of particular concern are the behavioural changes that it anticipates. The OBR estimates that behaviour reduces the 2030-31 yield by around 48% compared with the static figure. Employers are assumed to redirect pay growth into employer contributions, employees are assumed to shift into relief at source or net pay arrangements, and there are additional pass-through effects into wages and profits. In other words, nearly half the static yield depends on assumptions about how employers and employees respond. The options open to employees and employers are numerous, and they have three years to think about it.
Another serious concern highlighted is that HMRC does not hold comprehensive data on salary sacrifice usage. As we understand it, the modelling used by the OBR relies heavily on ASHE survey data and historic APSS 107 returns to estimate bonus sacrifice behaviour. The OBR therefore assigns this measure a medium-high uncertainty rating with particular uncertainty around behavioural responses and the size of the bonus sacrifice base. This policy is uncertain. How will it affect savings, how will it affect behaviour and, significantly, how much will it raise and for how long?
I know others may have questions for the Minister, but the new arrangements come into operation in 2029-30 and, as we have all been saying, there is time for more questions to be asked and answered and for more work to be done. I hope the Minister will look at these various amendments positively. I thank the Deputy Chairman for his clarification on timing, and I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has relieved me of the burden of trying to explain the primary clause within my amendment, which would require a formal review and report on the OBR supplementary forecast information release. As she said, this came out on 5 February, I understand in response to an FoI request, which, frankly, is no way to provide information to Parliament. As she said, it concludes that behavioural response to the measure—and that is key to the impact that this Bill will have—is highly uncertain. The further detail that she provided is so similar to what I would have provided that I am not going to repeat it. I thank the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for also signing this.
The other part of the review would cover the operational remuneration arrangements and the impact on pension adequacy and salaries. I know the Minister thought he covered this issue, but I think he could tell that in the Room uncertainty continues. Further clarification is needed around this issue because employers are going to be looking for that. This is an opportunity to provide it.
I have to say that I do not think I have ever seen an OBR report that is so filled with the word “uncertainty”. Obviously, it stands behind what it has written, but it does not feel like a report that has been written with a great deal of confidence. That confidence needs to be in place for Parliament to act on legislation.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
I have the pleasure of supporting the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. At Second Reading, I raised behavioural change and the OBR’s forecast about the drop in income is essential. Employers will look to find the most tax efficient way to make pension payments, and therefore we need the OBR to make sure that it accounts for these payments. As an employer, although it will increase administration, if there is a saving to be made, we will look for opportunities to pay pension payments in alternative ways. We covered that earlier, and the Minister gave a little reassurance that employer pension contributions may be acceptable and will not be counted as a salary sacrifice. As an employer, that would be welcome.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
I will very briefly add one question about the OBR forecast. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said at Second Reading that she found the timing “weird”. I certainly find it extraordinary that we have a five-year forecast of which the first three years are irrelevant—they are zero—and then we have a 48% fall in the second year. This begs the question: where are the forecasts for years three, four and five? If we are following this trend, we have a fireworks display. As the noble Lord, Lord Altrinchan, said, the Government should not be indulging in short-term fiscal levers. Where are the forecasts for those years? These measures do not actually come into effect until the financial year 2030.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I will first address Amendment 31, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham. I agree on the importance of transparency on the impact of this policy, including on employers. However, an additional publication is not necessary to achieve that objective. A number of documents have already been published in line with the usual practice for national insurance contribution changes, which comprehensively set out the impacts of this measure, including on employers.
The tax information and impact note was published alongside the introduction of the Bill. This sets out the number of employers expected to be impacted by this measure, the one-off costs—including familiarisation with the change, the training of staff and updating of software—and the expected continuing costs, including performing more calculations, and recording and providing additional information to HMRC, where salary sacrifice schemes continue to be used. This equates to a one-off £75 and an ongoing £99 per business per year. The Government also published a policy costing note, which includes detail on the costing of the measures, including the tax base, static costing and a summary of the behavioural responses expected by individuals and employers.
The Office for Budget Responsibility published its economic and fiscal outlook, which provides the OBR’s independent scrutiny of the Government’s policy costing. The OBR also published a supplementary forecast note, which provided additional information that it received in last year’s Budget to further increase the transparency of this measure. Taken together, these publications already provide an appropriate and comprehensive assessment of employer impacts.
On Amendment 32, the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook and its supplementary forecast—
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way. He has mentioned up to five different publications where this information may be found. Is it not possible for the Government to bring it into one place, so that we can actually see what the information is?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, as I have already said, it has been published in various places, and I do not see the need to bring that into one place, as the noble Lord asked.
On Amendment 32, the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook and its supplementary forecast publications set out how behavioural responses have been considered in certifying the costing. Some of these behavioural assumptions were also published in the policy costing note accompanying the Budget. The supplementary forecast information was drawn from analysis and data supplied to the OBR by the Government ahead of Budget 2025, in line with the standard process by which the OBR scrutinises and certifies costings. The Government’s published costings therefore already reflect these behavioural effects, and the OBR has certified these costings in the usual way. Given that the material reference is already publicly available and has been fully reflected in the certified policy costings, it is not necessary to review the OBR’s supplementary forecast.
If the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, will forgive me, I will write to him with the answer to his specific question. In the meantime, given the points I have made, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate—a shorter debate than we probably needed—and I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for drawing out so clearly the scale of the uncertainty that we are facing here.
The Minister has referred to various costings and has described them as conventional, but the truth is that the tax impact notes that have been published are inadequate, as indeed were parallel information notes published last year when we were discussing the national insurance changes of £25 billion. As a result, the consequences we are now seeing in the economy were not, to my mind, adequately flagged up.
However, where a policy is acknowledged by the OBR to carry medium to high uncertainty, and where almost half of the projected yield depends on a behavioural response that is not known in advance, I think the data that we have is incomplete. It is therefore reasonable to pause and require an independent assessment, and we have time for that. The alternative is that the Government legislate blind and then ignore the impact of the measures they take, as they did last year. In this case, of course, it will be a long time before we know the impact, because the measures will come into play in 2029-30.
In matters of pension saving and employment costs, stability and predictability are essential. If the Government are confident in their policy, they should have nothing to fear from the independent scrutiny that we have proposed. But time is late; we have reached the witching hour, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
I thank members of the Committee for the expeditious way they have dealt with this Bill in one sitting. I also extend our thanks to our colleagues from Hansard, who have been able to stay until we concluded. The Committee’s proceedings on the Bill have been completed.
House of Lords
Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
To ask His Majesty’s Government how they plan to use the Post-16 education and skills white paper, published on 20 October 2025, to promote and deliver a culture of lifelong learning.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the post-16 White Paper sets out our plan for giving people of all ages the skills and knowledge that they need to succeed and we need in order to develop a workforce that supports growth and national renewal. Through a range of policies and reforms across government, including the introduction of the lifelong learning entitlement, we will take a system-wide approach to promoting a culture of lifelong learning.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that response. I know she is aware that tomorrow marks the 60th anniversary of the launch by the then Arts Minister, Jennie Lee, later Baroness Lee of Asheridge, of the White Paper which led to the establishment of the Open University. That institution stands today as one of the finest legacies of any Labour Government. The 1966 White Paper emphasised that student enrolment should be open to everyone. This was referenced in the post-16 White Paper comment that there should be “no place or person” excluded from further education. Does my noble friend agree that more flexible pathways into and through higher education are necessary, as well as improved adult skills, that these are critical for economic growth, and that the Open University has a major role to play in this?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I strongly agree with my noble friend’s comments. I recognise the enormous contribution that a previous Labour Government made through Jennie Lee with the establishment of the Open University—and the contribution that the Open University has made in the last 60 years to enable people to learn in a way that suits them throughout their lives. It has transformed many people’s lives. As my noble friend says, we need to learn from that, not just in terms of our higher education but in how we can use the lifelong learning entitlement to enable people to learn throughout their lives—in further education and through independent learning providers and HE, supported by student finance. In the modern world, with a changing workplace, it is crucial that we enable that to happen and it is right that people have those opportunities.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, the lifelong learning entitlement was intended to usher in a skills revolution. But I fear that it will turn into a pea-shooter initiative unless the funding, the eligibility of which is restricted to level 4 and level 5 courses, is widened so that students can take level 7 courses. Will the Government set out what plans they have to do that?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It is important that we introduce the lifelong learning entitlement in a relatively restricted way, enabling us to build for the future. The key requirements, which I was addressing yesterday, are to provide flexibility for students at levels 4, 5 and 6. Those are the first priorities that we have set for the lifelong learning entitlement.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, the lifelong learning entitlement was the number one recommendation of the Augar review back in 2019, so one cannot say that implementation has been very rapid. Can the Minister give us any progress information on how many providers are proposing to offer modular provision, and on the consultation on break points in degrees, which would make it easier for people to study without having to undertake a complete undergraduate degree?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am very happy to write to the noble Baroness, and I am kicking myself for not knowing the numbers which will be in a position to offer modular provision in January 2027. We have taken quite a careful approach to ensuring that those which are able to do that will be offering high-quality courses at that point. We have had a very good response to that.
We are working now to determine how, as the noble Baroness says, we can enable there to be break points in degrees so that people can, at both level 4 and level 5, in some ways bank the learning that they have done and then possibly return to it later in life. I know she will push me to say that it is also important that we expand the numbers of students who are taking level 4 or 5 courses on their own as well.
Lord Addington (LD)
Following on from the emphasis on level 4 and 5 courses, what are we doing to encourage parents and pupils to accept that going on to level 4 and 5 courses after A-levels is a socially acceptable option, and one which schools should encourage? This cultural barrier is clearly one that has to be scrambled over.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right. When we were talking yesterday about the opportunities provided by V-levels and T-levels, I also talked about the way in which they would increase the numbers of people who would take level 4 and 5 courses. We all have a responsibility to show the credibility and the currency that both vocational and technical education can provide for young people.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, this year marks the 20th anniversary of Unionlearn, which my noble friend Lord Blunkett should take a good deal of credit for, and which, at its peak, together with union learning reps, helped a quarter of a million workers into learning for the first time. Many of them would never have gone through a conventional classroom. Can my noble friend the Minister say what progress there is for supporting Unionlearn and enabling it to get back to helping more working people back into learning in the workplace?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. I can remember the contribution made by the union learning fund to support trade unions to enable the development of skills in their workplaces. It is a real shame that the last Government removed the funding from it. I can tell my noble friend that this is something that, relatively recently, we have been discussing within one of the two departments that I operate within. We are thinking about how we can get some of those benefits back and ensure that trade unions are able to contribute in a way in which they historically have done, to not only the representation of the workforce but the development of the workforce.
Baroness Rawlings (Con)
I declare my interest as a former chairman of King’s College London. What discussions have HMG had with the principals and vice-chancellors of universities on this subject?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I chair an advisory group on how we can develop and deliver the lifelong learning entitlement, which is well attended by vice-chancellors. I talk about the opportunities for lifelong learning whenever I get the chance.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, we support the Government’s White Paper objective that higher education reforms will drive economic growth. But that will work only if degrees benefit both students and the taxpayer. Does the Minister agree that there are currently too many degrees which contribute to neither growth nor positive outcomes?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Although the noble Earl did not revert to the language that some of his colleagues have used about university degrees, I share the view that, if we are expecting both young people and the state to invest in higher education, it needs to be of high quality. That is why I support the Office for Students in its current work to have a better definition of “quality” for higher education courses and why we have made it clear that we will want to link future increases in tuition fees to that measure of quality.
Baroness Rafferty (Lab)
My Lords, I too commend the work of the Open University in opening access to higher education. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that there is a targeted pathway in place to reduce the numbers of young people not in employment, education or training?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I can absolutely confirm that to my noble friend. Since my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions took on the role, it has been a key priority to tackle the 900,000 young people who are neither earning nor learning. That level is far too high and has been in existence for far too long. That is the reasoning behind the investment this Government are making in the youth guarantee, for example.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree that lifelong learning needs to be based upon a strong foundation, which has at its heart valuing education. That means that all parents should ensure that their children get into school, stay in school regularly and value the education that is on offer.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. That is why we celebrate the 5 million additional days that children have been in school over the last year. In our schools White Paper we set a further challenging target to get young people back into school and attending full-time. The noble Lord is right that we need the support of parents to do that.
Quantum Technology
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure the UK is able to optimise the opportunities arising from quantum technology.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy and Net Zero and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK’s national quantum programme has seeded a world-leading emerging sector. The Government are increasing investment from £1 billion in the last decade to £1 billion over the next four years. This funding will accelerate deployment of quantum sensors, networks and computers, turning the UK’s research excellence into industrial impact. It will also build the skills base, infrastructure and international partnerships necessary to cement the UK’s leadership position in what are game-changing technologies.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, the UK has an extraordinary opportunity when it comes to quantum: a potential 7% increase in productivity by 2045. That is some £212 billion. Does the Minister agree that the Government need to go further and faster in skills; in accepting all the recommendations of last year’s quantum taskforce; in scaling, to make bigger bets right across the quantum stack; and in driving demand, with government as an efficient, effective first customer—in short, being bolder and going deeper? The benefits to the UK economy can be measured in the billions.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The short answer is yes, and noble Lords will hear more about that shortly. All those things are critical. We have a good skills programme. There was a good report in July last year to deal with that. We are looking at options, including the use of procurement to make sure that this technology is pulled through.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, with the leading position that the UK has in quantum computing, what plans do the Government have for translational research, particularly in the areas of drug discovery, pharmaco- kinetics, next generation imaging and compute power, which will be needed to deliver on artificial general intelligence?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The noble Lord asks an important question. Quantum computers will be best for quantum problems. Drug discovery is a quantum problem, so it is exactly the sort of area for which this will be useful. We have five hubs specifically looking at both basic science and translation: a biomedical sensing hub dealing with imaging and other areas, including blood testing; a sensing, imaging and timing hub in Birmingham; an integrated network hub in Edinburgh; a quantum computing hub in Oxford; and a hub on position, navigation and timing. These are all about pulling the technology through in due course.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, given the worrying flow of some UK quantum companies taking money from or moving abroad, particularly to the US, in search of additional funding, is my noble friend the Minister confident that we are doing enough to map where in the UK the expertise is? It is important to us for national security, apart from anything else, that we have our own sovereign capability. Are we mapping it as well as we can and do we have an early warning system, such that we can intervene when some of these newly developing companies are thinking of going abroad, so that we can give them the support, funding or whatever else they need to stay in the UK, where we need them to grow?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
My noble friend asks an important question. There is no doubt that UK quantum companies look pretty attractive at the moment. We have a good idea of where those companies are, what their skills are and what is going on across the quantum space, but I believe there is a need to have all the levers in place to make sure that these companies stay in the UK. Yes, that is about funding, but also about regulation, procurement and giving the signals that can leverage the investment that these companies will need, as many of them are getting up to very significant valuations.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will take the Lib Dems then come to the Conservative Benches.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, quantum technology clearly has profound implications for our future national security, including for the secure communications on which we all rely and for potential future threats to cryptography. How are the Government working to ensure the alignment of the national quantum strategy with our cyber and national security strategies? What assessment have the Government made of the UK’s sovereign capability in key parts of the quantum supply chain?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
There are two important parts to that question. First, it is necessary to make sure that all existing data go through into post-quantum cryptography—in other words, into things that cannot be broken by quantum computers. That process is being led by the National Cyber Security Centre, which is working with businesses and trying to get them into place to have that ready, but it is not a short-term project. It will take quite a long time to get all that done. Secondly, the race is on to make sure that we are at the very forefront of getting a working, scaled quantum computer, because that is what will give us an advantage in all these areas. We work very closely with the security agencies across all this.
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)
Will the Minister acknowledge that our theoretical physicist community, which is powerful and underpins so much of the sensible things the Minister has been saying, is feeling considerable anxiety at the moment because of the scale of the cuts proposed by UKRI to the Science and Technology Facilities Council? Will he urge UKRI to publish an impact assessment of its proposals?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I absolutely acknowledge the concern of a particular branch of physics—particle physics and astronomy—which has historically been placed under the Science and Technology Facilities Council. That is a bit of an odd situation, because it means its funding is traded off against facilities. That is exactly what is being looked at, at the moment. My number one priority for UKRI is to protect and grow investigator-led, curiosity-driven research, because that is the very thing that will give us the advantage in 10, 20 or 30 years. There is a very clear instruction that we are going to protect that. At the moment, UKRI is looking at the impacts of potential changes to funding, but no decisions have been made on that yet. I recognise the problem.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, quantum technology is possibly, indeed probably, the most disruptive and transformational technology yet invented by mankind. Thankfully, with our world-leading science base, the UK already has the second-highest number of start-ups working in this sector. Thankfully too, we definitely have a considered embryonic national strategy, which the Minister has outlined. Nevertheless, is it not inevitable —we can see it happening already—that the UK will soon be outspent by the US, China and the EU? Do we not need continuously to recalibrate our strategy?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The noble Lord is right. About 11% of all companies in the world in quantum are in the UK. We are second in investment, but this is a race, others are spending huge amounts of money here and many of our companies look pretty attractive. That is why we have a series of programmes, not just funding at the front end to keep grant funding and other support but thinking about how we get pull-through into procurement. That is what will keep these companies here, allow them to grow here and allow them to have the export opportunities. I look at this on a daily basis. This is a critical technology, a big growth opportunity for the UK and one where we have years of advance progress putting us at the leading edge. Over the past 60 years or so, as a country we have not done well at making sure we scale and keep companies and new technologies. We must do everything we can to achieve this in quantum.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, to build on the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Birt, quantum technologies will at some point, probably soon, enable a huge range of new capabilities across our lives, including in defence, healthcare, commerce and scientific research. So significant, broad and complex will be the impact that I suspect we will look back with nostalgia at the relative ease and simplicity of regulating AI. Can the Minister share what plans the Government have to regulate quantum and what steps, if any, have been taken so far?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The first thing to say is that I think AI and quantum will come together, so the two technologies will be extremely powerful. We commissioned some work from the Regulatory Horizons Council, which has produced the world’s first approach to regulating quantum, very much in the line of regulating use, not the development of the technologies. That has led to a series of fora where regulators are getting together to discuss this. It is something that we are at the leading edge of, but it is very early days for knowing exactly what that regulation should look like. I am sure this House will have many views on that subject.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I think we have been lulled to some extent by the fact that quantum has taken a long time to get to this point. The Minister replied to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, that money has been accelerated from £1 billion over 10 years to over four years, but does he not recognise that the rate of progress has accelerated even further? Should the Government not go back and look again at even more acceleration? If not, we will be passed.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I can assure the noble Lord that I look at that every day. I am looking at ways to make sure we unlock more private sector capital to get this acceleration. This is at a stage where these companies need to grow as private sector companies. We need to help that. We need to unlock the masses more capital than government could or should give to make that happen.
Prisons: Education
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the provision of education in prisons.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
The provision of prison education is not good enough and budgets have not kept pace with rising costs. I am determined to improve the quality of education by driving up classroom attendance, expanding access by embracing digital learning and strengthening partnerships with employers such as Morrisons, FirstGroup and Marston’s to provide training and jobs on release. Work to improve reading in prisons is a priority and I am pleased to let your Lordships know that Lee Child is our first prison reading laureate.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I am sure we can all agree that education will play a crucial part in trying to reduce the incredibly worrying reoffending rates. The Minister has been very kind in giving me detailed responses to Written Questions. I am sure Members will be concerned and worried, in relation to our education programme providers, that at Feltham 60.2% of education programming was not provided and at Wetherby 44.9% was not provided—and so it goes on. Can the Minister assure us that the programmes will be fully provided by the contracted provider? Will we get a rebate on the money that was not provided? Finally, do we have any means of inspecting the quality of provision and the quality of delivery?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. He is absolutely right and I am looking at this on a daily basis. I walk past too many classrooms in prisons that are not full. Some are only one-third full. If I owned an airline and my planes were one-third full, I would not be doing very well. Recent Ofsted inspections have been encouraging, but we need to make sure our prisons are far more stable. When they are 99.9% full, the priority is not education, unfortunately, but it should be. It is a combination of having more stable prisons, working with our education providers to create a more stable environment to get more men and women out of their cells into education, and developing in-cell digital learning.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the Conservative Benches next, then we will go to the Labour Benches.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of the Minister, but can he explain why we continue to release prisoners early without requiring or securing a measurable improvement in literacy and numeracy?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
This is the final question that the noble Earl will be asking me, because today is my 600th day in the job and his penultimate day in your Lordships’ House. I thank him very much for his contribution. There are too many people coming in and out of prison, especially in female establishments. The average number of days spent in a female prison that I have been to recently is less than 45, which is not enough time to give people training. The staff we have in our prisons do an incredible job educating men and women. Anna Fellingham, who is the librarian at HMP Frankland, was recently praised by the inspectors for her creative writing courses for all abilities. It is the time that our educators spend with prisoners in stable prison environments that is going to make the difference. We want people to leave prison not just being able to read and write but having the skills for a job on release, so that when they get out, they do not come back.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
Does my noble friend agree with me and the University and College Union that this is the time to make a clean break with the outsourced delivery of prison education and to bring it back in-house to be run by the Department for Education, for the benefit of prisoners and as a public service rather than for profit? Hundreds of jobs look like being cut and we hope this would stop that. Can he make an intervention to ensure that we do not lose more prison educators, whom we clearly need? I thank him for the warmth with which he speaks about prison education, but we need to keep them in and it should be an in-house service.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My noble friend knows we have had a mixed model of education in our prisons for nearly 30 years. What is important is that we support our educators and support staff in prisons by getting prisoners out of their cells into classrooms so they can do the fantastic work that they do. For me, the focus is on the right kind of support for the right prisoner at the right time. Prisoners and prisons differ, so we need to make sure we target it in the right way. But when we talk about education and we think about classrooms, we also need to think about workshops, because getting skills like dry-lining, bricklaying, and painting and decorating is just as important in many ways, and probably more important to many prisoners, as going to the classroom, which many of them had a bad experience of when they were younger.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
I was encouraged by the Minister’s previous comments. I was going to ask about vocational education and whether the impact of that is being measured. Clearly, all education matters. At a recent visit to HMP Styal, I was particularly impressed by the work of The Clink, which sadly has shut after 10 years. How can the Government invest better in partnerships in that vocational sphere?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate. Styal is my local female prison that I have been going to for probably most of my life, so I am well aware of the challenges but also the opportunities there. The partnership model is something that I have been doing for 25 years, encouraging businesses, volunteers and charities to go into prisons, work with prisoners and give them skills. I am pleased that a number of companies are opening up workshops—Iceland, for example, has recently set up establishments—but, unfortunately, we have 72 workshops that are vacant at the moment. One of my priorities is to fill those workshops, not just with organisations coming in but with internal prison industries. We manage to make everything in a prison cell apart from the TV, the duvet and the pillow, so there are more things that we can make. We are trying to do more work across government to make things, give people skills and help the economy.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will know that neurodivergent people are disproportionately represented in prisons; a 2021 review found that the figure was up to 50%. So educational needs are higher but, unlike in mainstream education, there is no incremental budget to deal with this. What are the Minister’s Government doing to empower tutors to meet the special educational needs of prisoners with neurodivergence, so that they can come out of prison equipped to live a life without crime? Will the Government commit to solving the complexities of data collection? Without understanding the scale and nature of the problem, it will be very difficult to address it.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I shall address those two separate points. Data collection is something that challenges me every day, along with vetting. As someone who has run a business where I had all the information at my fingertips, I find it frustrating, as I know other colleagues do, that we do not get all the information we need to manage—but that is something that I am working on.
On neurodivergent prisoners, we have made big strides in appointing neurodiversity managers in prisons, but also in focusing not just on classrooms but on the environment where prisoners are. Some of the most inspiring work that I have seen in prisons recently is on autism wings, where staff are heavily trained to support these often vulnerable and challenging prisoners. When they do, the prisoners’ behaviour completely turns around and they go from being challenging, often violent prisoners to being those who really engage with the regime and get the skills they need.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, among the challenges to successful education in prisons are excessive hours spent in overcrowded cells and the lack of internet access alluded to by the Minister. What plans do the Government have to address both those challenges in the context of prison education?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
There are some good reasons why we do not want internet everywhere in prisons, but 90% of the English estate now has digital learning in its cells in various ways: Launchpad or Coracle. My vision is that we need to go much further with that, as well as offering a much wider curriculum on iPads or computers in cells, because that is an increasingly popular way for prisoners to educate themselves.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, today is my noble friend Lord Attlee’s penultimate day as a Member of this House, so I take this opportunity to thank him for all his hard work and wish him well.
The manifesto pledged the Government to work with prisons to improve offenders’ access to purposeful activity. Last week the Minister informed the House that access to in-prison education can reduce offending by up to nine percentage points. Why then has the Minister approved a prison education settlement that will cut core national education in prisons by 25%?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The noble Lord is correct that it cuts the actual provision: the budget we have has gone up, but you just get less value for money. This comes back to my aeroplane theory: I want the aeroplane—that is, the classrooms—to be full. However, we are doing more than that. We have a working-week trial in five prisons, where prisoners will be out of their cells for most of the day. This comes back to the point that we need to run stable regimes in our prisons, so we can have a regular drumbeat of education and purposeful activity. That can make the difference between people getting the skills they need and them leaving prison with no skills—and, when they leave with no skills, it is pretty obvious what happens.
Student Loans: Review
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the student loans regime.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, given the inherited fiscal situation, we are making tough but necessary decisions to protect both taxpayers and students. It is right that those who can afford to repay their student loans do so. The system remains heavily subsidised. Lower-earning graduates are always protected by the cancellation of any outstanding loan and interest at the end of their repayment term. The Government continuously review student finance to ensure that it remains fair, sustainable and supportive of students from all backgrounds.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I am grateful for that. At the moment, a student leaving with an average debt of £53,000 has to earn £66,000 per year just to cover the interest on the debt. The deputy leader of the Labour Party recently described that as “egregious”. The Budget made the situation even worse by freezing the thresholds for students from 2027. A month ago, the Chancellor described the current regime as “fair and reasonable”, but not a lot of people agreed. Does the noble Baroness think the leader of the Opposition might be on the right track by suggesting capping loans at RPI?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I know the noble Lord would not want the suggestion to be made that the level of debt impacts on the amount anybody repays in any given month, because, of course, that is wrong. As I have already identified, the majority of students do not repay the whole of their loan, so they already receive a considerable subsidy from the state. I am sure there are noble Lords in this House who feel slightly aggrieved about being accused, as the leader of the Opposition did, of presiding over a scam in developing the current plan 2 student loan system, but it is important that we maintain the protection for students and graduates that the student loan system creates while being open to thinking about how we can mitigate its burdens on students and those who are repaying their student finance.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of how the increasing burden of student debt will influence young people’s decisions not to go to university, particularly for young people in regions of the UK where average salaries are really low? Are we going back to a situation where attending university will be just for the wealthy?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
No we are not, and nor should we, which is why we have made increasing access and participation a major pillar of our reforms of higher education. Despite the student loan system, we have seen an increase in the numbers of young people going to university. We now need to close the gap between those who come from advantaged backgrounds and those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, which has stubbornly remained. The student finance system removes any upfront fees from students to ensure that anybody who could benefit from higher education can.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, the student finance system is broken. Students face soaring repayments that they never signed up for. May I suggest, for instance, that public sector workers—doctors, nurses, teachers, members of the Armed Forces, civil servants, and so on—who will never earn the eye-watering salaries of the private sector, have their loans written off after, say, 10 years of public service? Meanwhile, how about a complete revamp and building a cross-party consensus on what a fairer system would be?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
To be clear, once again, the level of debt does not determine the level of repayments that students make. To suggest that it does confuses and misleads those thinking about going to university. I take the point that has been made recently about the pressure of student loan repayments. As a Government, we have had to set priorities in the 18 months we have been in power. We have chosen to stabilise the finances of our universities, introduce maintenance grants, increase the maintenance support for students, take action to reduce the unacceptably high numbers of young people who are neither earning nor learning—let alone getting the chance to go to university—and reverse the decline in young people starting apprenticeships. That is a pretty fair set of priorities.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, in England alone, outstanding student debt now stands at £270 billion and is forecast to reach £500 billion by the late 2040s. With respect to the nation’s balance sheet, how much of this total debt do we realistically expect to be repaid? What, therefore, are the net liability implications for keeping to our fiscal rules?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As a Government, we recognise and support the public subsidy that the student finance scheme implies for students. For plan 2 full-time borrowers who started their courses in 2022-23, for example, we expect that only 32% of them will repay their loans in full. This is therefore a public subsidy for those individuals and for realising the broader public benefits that higher education brings, not only for those who have the opportunity to go through it but for society more broadly.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, I am glad to hear that my noble friend the Minister thinks that changes could be made to the system to make it fairer. However, does she agree that it is not sensible to think that there was a golden era when everybody went to university without worry? I went to university during a time when there were maintenance grants, but there was huge pressure in those times, particularly on people from lower incomes whose parents could not afford to put the top-ups in. We need to remember that when we consider the changes that need to be made. If she can make it fairer, that is good, but do not imagine that there was some previous time when everything was wonderful.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very important point. I went to university without a student loan, but I was part of only 14% of young people who were able to benefit from higher education. That figure now stands at more than 50%, and we need a student finance system that recognises that. I reiterate that the Government are making changes to student finance. We will reintroduce student grants and we are increasing maintenance loans for students. We are therefore opening up the opportunity for more students from lower-income backgrounds to get the benefits that higher education brings.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham put it so well, Rachel Reeves says that the student loan system is “fair and reasonable”; Lucy Powell, on the other hand, says that the system is “unfair” and “egregious”, while Bridget Phillipson says that it is not a priority for the Government. With three contradictory views on a review of student loans, is it any surprise to the Minister that, according to the latest Ipsos survey, over two-thirds of the country
“do not have confidence that the Government is running the country … properly, competently or seriously”?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I wonder whether the noble Earl has had the opportunity to discuss with some of his colleagues whether they believe that the system that they introduced is a scam. This is a system that was introduced by the previous Government. Plan 2 is no longer in operation for students starting today. Finally, if the leader of the Opposition is trying to suggest to students that they will repay less through a cap on interest, she would, of course, be misleading them, because that would not be true.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, the Sutton Trust, which has done wonderful work in this area, has shown that students who cannot afford to leave home do worse in their studies and throughout life. Will the Minister give student maintenance top priority and make it open to everybody, as it was in my time? I hope she will be brave enough not to shy away from the possible need to cut university places, have some mergers and make sure that we are not oversupplied with courses and universities that are not worth the money that students are paying.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Baroness that reducing the numbers of people who can benefit from higher education is the most effective way to address this issue, although I agree that we need to address the cost of living crisis that current students face. That is why we are increasing the support available through maintenance loans, and it is why this Government will reintroduce the maintenance grants cut by the previous Government.
Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill
Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the scrutiny, due diligence and expertise of noble Lords during the debates on this legislation. This Bill is a huge step forward. By unlocking the potential of sustainable aviation fuel production in the UK, we can significantly reduce aviation’s greenhouse gas emissions, grow the economy and support green jobs. Your Lordships’ input as this Bill has progressed through this House has meant that it leaves this place in better shape.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, whose engagement and scrutiny of this legislation has been welcome, particularly on HEFA. I am sorry about the acronyms—this Bill is particularly full of them. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have been exemplary in their engagement on the Bill. I thank them for their continued scrutiny, and in particular for making sure that transparency is at the forefront of the Bill. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, whose amendment to the Energy Act paved the way for the first consultation on a revenue certainty mechanism for SAF. His expertise on this subject has been invaluable.
The Bill will now ensure the Secretary of State can enter into revenue certainty contracts only where the supported SAF is produced at a facility in the UK, which was always the Government’s intention. In addition, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for the expertise and clarity he has brought to our discussions on power to liquid and feedstocks more generally. Finally, I extend my personal thanks to all the officials who have supported me, including the Bill team, legal colleagues, the drafting team in Parliamentary Counsel and others who have been involved in its successful passage.
I look forward to seeing this Bill pass. If we are to create the jobs and attract the business investment Britain needs, we must grow aviation and grow it sustainably. This Bill does just that. I beg to move.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, before I say a few words, I would like to declare my interest, as listed in the register, as non-executive chair of RVL Aviation. I thank the Minister and the Government for continuing the sustainable aviation fuel regime that we set out, the revenue certainty mechanism and the investment in UK industrial production of sustainable aviation fuel. I thank him for listening carefully to the points made by colleagues in Committee, and for bringing forward appropriate amendments on Report. Finally, I thank him for responding to a number of points I made by committing to keeping the House informed as government policy develops in this area. I am very pleased to support the Bill as it makes its way on to the statute book.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
I welcome the passage of this Bill. It will result in a slight increase in costs as far as the training sector of aviation is concerned, but that is a small price to pay for the overall benefits.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords of my interest as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis. I will briefly thank the Minister and his team for their time in all our meetings and for their collaborative approach during the passage of the Bill. In particular, the accommodation we reached on the exclusion of hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids fuels—HEFA—from revenue certainty mechanism support, and the helpful response of the Minister to the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Harper, on a Statement in Parliament if that were to be changed, meets the intent of my amendments and that of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. This will provide important clarity for industry and focus support where it is most needed in de-risking the more immature technologies.
It has been welcome to see rare cross-party support for a Bill in the energy space, and I hope we can carry forward that collaborative spirit on future energy Bills in the next Session.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, as we reach the final stage of this Bill, I say a huge thank you to the Minister and his team of officials. They have been incredibly open to discussion and have genuinely listened to our concerns throughout this process. I hope the Minister agrees with me that our discussions on reporting and monitoring will help to ensure that the impacts of the legislation are understood thoroughly as it is implemented, including by government, the sector and other stakeholders. This level of engagement has been vital in making sure that it is practical and ready to work in the real world. This legislation will provide the clarity and confidence the industry needs to finally get the wheels turning on sustainable aviation fuel.
I thank Adam Bull in our Whips’ Office for his support and hard work behind the scenes. I thank my noble friend Lord Russell for his immense work and support on this Bill. Ultimately, our goal is to see the aviation industry embrace a cleaner future. This Bill is an important step forward, making sustainable aviation fuel a common reality rather than a distant goal and ensuring that we can stay connected while significantly reducing the sector’s environmental impact. I look forward to seeing this legislation put into practice and seeing a much higher proportion of sustainable fuel in the sector in the years to come.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, despite the applause from all sides of the Chamber for this Bill, I am afraid it remains a very troubling piece of legislation. It has been described by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, effectively as a piece of net-zero legislation, but, as I have insisted throughout its passage, this is not net- zero legislation. The net-zero effect in relation to sustainable aviation fuel was achieved by the SAF mandate put in place 15 or 16 months ago, which requires airlines to mix in an increasing amount of HEFA, and, increasingly, other fuels, over time. That is what will make the contribution to net zero.
This Bill is in fact a piece of industrial policy. It is based on the premise that somehow, because we will consume SAF, we need to be a world leader in producing it. Despite my pressing the Government repeatedly, the Minister has not been able to offer any reasons for thinking that we have a comparative advantage in this field and that we should dedicate resources to it. The Bill’s means of doing this is by piling subsidy upon subsidy. It really is, as I say, very troubling.
Through this Bill, we are now guaranteeing a floor price for SAF producers, and the risk is being transferred away from them. That risk is being transferred down the chain to airlines and their passengers. We on our side sought a commitment from the Government to be transparent about the likely impact on fares. Instead, they, along with the Liberal Democrats, chose to shield the travelling public from the dangerous knowledge of what they will actually pay for this policy over the years ahead. Much of what matters to make this Bill work is in fact saved for secondary legislation and indeed for commercially confidential negotiations between officials on the one hand and the shark-toothed lawyers of the international investor sector on the other. It is a recipe for success—I am sure the Minister would want to say that.
Despite all that, I cannot fail to thank the Minister for his now reliable courtesy and helpfulness in the passage of this legislation, in working with the official Opposition and other noble Lords, and in his responsiveness. I also thank his officials, who have been very helpful and have responded rapidly and efficiently when we have had questions for them. I am grateful to all those people for doing that.
I pay particular tribute to my noble friends Lord Harper and Lord Grayling for their contribution in the debate, but also to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, with whom I worked on certain amendments. We have achieved some improvements to the Bill as it has passed through your Lordships’ House. None the less, the best solution for this Bill would be that it is never called upon or used, and that we procure sustainable aviation fuel for use in our airline industry from the cheapest and most efficient source, whether that be produced here in Britain or elsewhere.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords and I commend the Bill to the House.
Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister promised to clean up politics, yet we have had the Cabinet Office investigating one of its own Ministers before belatedly referring the matter to the independent adviser. The process has been conflicted from the outset. The Cabinet Office investigation was conducted by the propriety and ethics team, PET—a team to which a former Labour Together staffer was appointed. Does the Minister agree that such an appointment to PET was plainly unwise, and is the person in question still in that position?
We are told that the Minister in question must remain in post while the independent investigation takes place. Can the Minister here cite where within the remit of the independent adviser it says that he cannot be investigated while suspended as a Minister? Will she set out to the House the precise terms of the referral to the independent adviser and whether the investigation extends beyond Mr Simons’s tenure as a Minister?
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
Good afternoon. I thank the noble Baroness for her questions, of which there were several. Let me see whether I can assist her with some of her concerns.
First, I place on record my thanks and the thanks of the Government to the civil servants who have so diligently undertaken their work. The noble Baroness will be aware that civil servants are bound by the Civil Service Code, and that therefore all their actions are impartial. Given some of the questions, it is important that we do not cast aspersions on their impartiality or their ability to do their roles without fear or favour.
On the appointment on a former member of staff from Labour Together to the team, I would like to clarify that the post in question sits within the wider propriety and constitution group, not in the propriety and ethics team. That member of staff had nothing to do with the fact-finding exercise that was undertaken by the Cabinet Office.
To confirm the process, what has happened is a fact-finding mission by the propriety and ethics team, the findings of which were discussed with the Prime Minister, with the recommendation that the independent adviser on ethics undertake a process. Sir Laurie Magnus is now undertaking that process, and I would expect him to report soon. Noble Lords will be aware that all his publications are placed in the public domain, so we will all be able to read his recommendations.
On the role of the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, I hate to say it but the clue may be in the name: it is on ministerial standards. Sir Laurie Magnus can investigate only Ministers, as has always been the case. There is no such thing as a suspended Minister; there is a Minister or not a Minister. Therefore, he is undertaking an investigation into the Member in the other place as a Minister.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the serious questions about the behaviour of Josh Simons, who is now a Minister, and the inappropriateness of his pursuit of particular journalists are now under investigation, and we support that investigation. I want to ask a wider question about the transparency of funding for third-party campaigns. Why on earth was Labour Together so protective about its funding and will we now be told where its funding was coming from? Will the Government take the opportunity of the elections Bill, now published, to ensure that third-party campaigns are caught by the requirement for transparency of funding? This is a question across the spectrum, as the Minister will remember. The Free Speech Union, for example, recently took out an emergency injunction to prevent its funding being leaked. In a democratic society, we should be told where these third-party campaigns are getting their money from.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a genuinely important point that we have discussed in recent weeks. He will be aware that the elections Bill has now been published. I should declare that I have, historically, been responsible for a third-party campaign, HOPE not hate, and that, until the general election, I used to run Index on Censorship. The noble Lord will appreciate some of my concern about recent events. To be clear, the questions pertaining to the actions of Labour Together are a matter for Labour Together, not a matter for the Government. It is an independent organisation, subject to its own governance structures, and noble Lords will be aware that it has its own reporting arrangements. On the wider point, it is something that Members of your Lordships’ House will be discussing in great detail when the elections Bill is in front of us.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot begin to express how appalled I am that attacks should have been made upon independent journalists investigating a matter which was a legitimate matter to be investigated by the media. I should declare immediately that I am on the high-level legal panel that advises the Media Freedom Coalition, a global coalition of 51 countries that are seeking to protect journalists. It is quite shocking that any person holding a leadership position should be attacking journalists, when we know that independent journalism is fundamental to democracy and our security, and absolutely something that this Government and any Government should be protecting. I really am concerned at how thin this investigation might have been—it did not go deep enough. The funding has been raised, and what the funding is about, but I am asking the representative on the Front Bench to explain to us how deep this investigation was. This goes to the heart of our democracy. Attacking journalists—good journalists—should never take place.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend and I worked together when I was the chief executive of Index on Censorship, and in fact I was a member of the National Committee for the Safety of Journalists under the previous Government, which, under the current Government, is co-chaired by Jess Phillips MP and Steph Peacock MP. My noble friend will be aware that we announced yesterday that the Media Freedom Coalition will be co-chaired by the UK for the next two years. I appreciate and share many of her concerns. The investigation that is currently under way is about the actions of Josh Simons as a Minister. My noble friend will be aware that there are other investigations ongoing, outside government, related to the actions of APCO, and Labour Together obviously has its own governance issues to deal with.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I point out that the Minister has just highlighted the flaw in this process. When the Prime Minister makes a decision about the continuation of Mr Simons as a Minister, will he have just the information provided by the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, or will he look at Mr Simon’s behaviour when he was at Labour Together? As the noble Baroness has just said, his actions in that organisation appear to have been an attempt to smear journalists. If it is found that he did that, that is what would make him not fit to be a Minister. Is the Prime Minister going to look at that when he makes his decision?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I would hope that the Prime Minister will use both the recommendations from Sir Laurie Magnus as well as every other form of information available to him.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, this House does not question the Minister’s commitment to press freedom, but, clearly, we must judge the Government on actions rather than words. Although in this case the threat of legal action does not appear to have been deployed, she will know that the anti-SLAPP legislation is critical to the protection of press freedom. In opposition, her party were very much committed to this legislation, and they have said that they are committed to it, but there are reports that we will not see it in the next King’s Speech. Can she give us an update on that?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness is even more aware than I am that it is well above my pay grade to comment on the contents of the next King’s Speech. But she will be aware that I actively campaigned on the issue of anti-SLAPP legislation alongside many other Members of your Lordships’ House, and I know that my colleagues in the department share similar commitments.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. To answer the point made earlier, when our website was subject to a cyber attack and the names of our, for the most part, small donors—who had donated to campaigns such as defending Hamit Coskun, on trial for burning the Koran—were illegally published by an extreme criminal protest group, we felt we had no choice but to take out an injunction to stop their names being published. It would have been a breach of their privacy.
Two current Labour Peers are directors of Labour Together and were directors when Josh Simons took the decision to fund APCO. Has the Minister taken the opportunity to discuss Josh Simons’ behaviour with those Labour Members?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for bringing that to my attention. I am not aware of the Members of your Lordships’ House to which he is referring, but if he would like to speak to me outside the Chamber, I look forward to that conversation.
Lord Speaker’s Statement
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, before we come to the Statement on the Government’s response to the House of Commons humble Address, I remind the House that various police investigations have been reported in the media in recent days. While none of the cases is currently sub judice, I invite noble Lords to exercise restraint in commenting on specific matters under investigation, and to avoid saying anything that might prejudice those investigations.
Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House and Lord Privy Seal for the opportunity to respond to this Statement.
We are three weeks on from the Motion passed in the other place for this humble Address to be presented to His Majesty, and not a single document has yet been published. We often hear that Ministers are moving at pace, but this time Ministers are moving at an unacceptably slow pace. Transparency delayed is transparency denied. The Government must not drag their feet in complying with the clear instruction of Parliament. Can the Lord Privy Seal confirm that there will be no further slippage in the timetable for publication?
In the other place, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister accepted that compiling the material will take some time and spoke of publication “very shortly” in tranches. But “very shortly” is not a plan. Parliament’s instruction requires urgency as well as completeness, and we will continue to hold Ministers to account for delivering both.
The Chief Secretary also told the other place that the first tranche would be published in early March. Can the Lord Privy Seal clarify what the Government mean by early March? For example, should the House expect publication within the first week of March, and can she confirm the precise date on which the first tranche will be laid?
The humble Address expressly exempts papers that would be prejudicial to UK national security or international relations. These papers are instead to be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee, the ISC. Can the Lord Privy Seal explain what test officials are applying when they decide that disclosure would be prejudicial in each case? Will she also confirm that material identified as engaging those exemptions is being passed to the ISC promptly as it is identified, rather than being held back and sent only once the wider collation exercise is complete, so that the committee can begin its work without delay?
It has also been noted that the ISC’s secretariat is provided by Cabinet Office officials. We unequivocally do not question the independence or integrity of the ISC, but given that the Cabinet Office is also leading the Government’s sifting and handling of material for publication, what steps are being taken to ensure that these parallel roles do not create even the perception of a conflict and that the ISC has the resources and independence it needs to do this job quickly and thoroughly?
I turn to the documents the Government say they are withholding following discussions with the Metropolitan Police. In the other place, the Speaker has been clear that the police cannot dictate to that House what may be required under a humble Address. Will the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal confirm that the Government accept the principle behind that statement—that the duty to comply rests with Ministers, and that any documents withheld because of the live investigation will be published as soon as it is possible to do so? Will she also consider setting a clear backstop for further updates to Parliament so that the process cannot drift indefinitely? More broadly, humble Addresses are understood to be binding resolutions of the House. Does she accept that a failure to comply with the humble Address without proper justification could be treated as a contempt of Parliament?
The official Opposition have called for clarity on what is to be published, what is being withheld, and why. Will the noble Baroness commit to publishing a comprehensive list of the categories of documents within scope, identifying which have been disclosed, which have been referred to the ISC and which are being temporarily withheld—for example, because of the police investigation —together with the reason in each case? If she cannot give a firm commitment today, will she undertake to write to clarify the Government’s position?
We have been patient and constructive, but the public interest in these papers is clear. They must be published in a timely way if lessons are to be learned and accountability secured.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we all now recognise that it was a massive misjudgment to appoint Lord Mandelson to the post of ambassador in Washington. The Prime Minister has already apologised for that. He is not the first Prime Minister to have made such a serious error, and opposition parties should avoid pretending that they are entirely innocent of similar past mistakes. That will persuade the public only that all politicians are aggressively partisan and potentially corrupt.
However, there should be a much wider canvas for this investigation. We need to know not only about the involvement of Lord Mandelson in the Epstein network but how far others in the UK were involved and whether any of the trafficking of young women took place through Britain and British airports. The interaction between a sexual exploitation network and the provision of confidential government information to rich financiers is a potentially explosive mixture. It could deepen public mistrust in not only our political elite but the City of London and its links to New York banks. Then there are the rumours of Russian links with all this. It is vital to demonstrate as much transparency as possible, with a vigorous attempt to uncover what has really taken place.
We recognise the challenge that the vast mass of documents to be examined poses. We also recognise that there will be some areas where national security interests unavoidably prevent full publication—particularly the rumours of Russian links, if they turn out to have some foundation—but we ask the Government to publish and explain to the public as much as possible, in order to rebuild public trust.
I hope the Minister also recognises that the British Government are now in a position where they can and should set an international example of our adherence to democratic accountability and the rule of law. There have already been a number of comments in Washington on the contrast between American and British reactions to this developing scandal: no recent arrests in the United States, reluctant release of heavily redacted documents and an Administration doing their best to deny any involvement, contrasted with the Government and Head of State in London taking the limited British involvement seriously.
Democracy and the rule of law are under attack in the United States and elsewhere. We on these Benches therefore encourage our Government to demonstrate in everything they do in this developing scandal that accountability and the law matter enormously. There is likely to be a lot more still to come out from all these documents that will embarrass the US Government and America’s financial, high-tech and business elites, as well as their counterparts in the UK.
The previous Conservative Government resisted publication of the full extent of Russian penetration of British politics, primarily because its deepest penetration had been of the Conservative Party. We still do not know how far it extended or what lessons we all need to learn. I again encourage the Government to publish a much fuller version of the ISC’s Russia report to alert the public to the threats of foreign interference in British politics that we face, and as helpful background to the sad mixture of money, sleaze and sexual exploitation that Lord Mandelson, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and perhaps other leading British people were caught up in.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their questions; I will try to answer as many as possible. I do not recognise the noble Baroness’s suggestion about delay in dealing with this. There are a lot of documents to be produced. The Government have been very clear that there is no hesitation at all in complying fully and completely with the humble Address. I hope that reassures her.
There is no scheduled timetable but it is important that, with so many documents, we do not wait until we have every document but get them out in tranches. Some of those may be out of sequence, in a sense, but all government departments have been asked to be very clear that all documents must be kept, whatever form they are in, and that information and messages must be kept so they can be fully disclosed.
The noble Baroness asked for confirmation on what is being withheld. Only two areas are being withheld. Information will be sent to the ISC. The Government will make a judgment on whether that information has an impact on international security, international relations and national security. If the Government make that judgment, it will then be given to the ISC to assess. There is a clear process and an assessment of the Government’s judgment on that when it is sent to the ISC. The other issue—which I understand is one document, or maybe a suite of documents—is the questions that were asked of Peter Mandelson by No. 10. That is the information that is currently with the Metropolitan Police. There is obviously a delay in publishing that, but as soon as we are able to do so we will. I take into account the Lord Speaker’s comments that nothing should be allowed to prejudice justice.
The noble Baroness asked what “early March” means. I am tempted to say that early March means early March. I do not know quite how further to describe early March: does it mean 1 March or 2 March? It means early March. It will be published in early March and I expect we will see the information produced in the next couple of weeks or so.
The noble Baroness also raised the slightly curious point about the independence of the ISC, which the House of Commons raised as well. I hope I have not misunderstood—she is shaking her head at me, so perhaps I did—but the ISC has to be able to conduct its work without fear or favour and have the full confidence of the whole of Parliament in doing so. Although the staff are employed by the Cabinet Office, she will know from her experience of the Civil Service how very much they work for the ISC.
Having said that, I understand that there have been discussions about whether those staff should be employed directly by the ISC or whether it is more appropriate that there is a pool of people who work for the ISC and may return to other Civil Service jobs. The important thing is that they have the resources to do their job. I have absolute confidence in the Members of this House who are members of the ISC—the noble Lord, Lord West, the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and the chair, the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, who is behind me, keeping an eye on me—to ensure they do their work fully, completely and properly. I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, will agree.
The noble Baroness commented that the Metropolitan Police cannot dictate to the House and asked whether the Government accept their duty that any documents held should be released afterwards. I have already answered that: they will be released where we are able to do so and where that does not jeopardise any possible further action the police may want to take.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, addressed how all of us can make mistakes. He referred to mistakes by past Governments and by this Government. Indeed, I heard his party leader on the radio this morning talking about mistakes that he had made. When mistakes are made, three things must happen. First, there must be an admission that a mistake has been made. Secondly, how it happened must be understood. Unless you understand how and why it happened, you cannot take the action that is needed to protect yourself and others from making similar mistakes in the future. Thirdly, an apology is required. I will never suggest that no Government ever made a mistake—it is human life—but to understand how and why, to put the wrong right and to apologise are important steps forward.
The noble Lord asked the Government to publish and explain as much as possible. Yes, transparency—particularly in an era of distrust of politicians, which we have been in for some time—democratic accountability, the rule of law, and being as open and transparent as possible are important. Who would have expected, when the Epstein papers, documents and emails were released, that this would reverberate around the world? It is uncomfortable for any Government to find themselves in a position where the information in those emails was completely unknown by them. The sense of betrayal, hurt, anger and upset in seeing those documents and that information is enormous. I assure the noble Lord on that.
The noble Lord says that there are rumours about Russian influence. It is very difficult to do anything about rumours. I worry about rumours. It is evidence that we must work on. Any evidence that can be made available should be made available. However, he will understand, in talking about the Russia report, that it is about finding the balance between transparency and international relations and security. I am grateful for the work that the ISC is doing on this, and generally, as I think the whole House must be, to ensure that it is confident that this balance is right and that it can work with the Government on this. However, the responsibility for national security ultimately lies with the Government.
The noble Lord says that there is further embarrassment to come. I am less worried about embarrassment than I am about not doing justice to the young women and girls who were abused by Jeffrey Epstein. There are times in life when we have to take a bit of embarrassment to ensure that justice is done.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We now move on to up to 20 minutes of Back- Bench questions. It is Back-Bench questions, not speeches.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, raised ISC staff. Their job, and that of the committee, was made incredibly difficult by the previous Conservative Government cutting the budget and interfering with the appointments to the committee. The committee met the Prime Minister last year. This was the first time that the committee had met a Prime Minister in 10 years. Following that, the budget was increased. Negotiations are ongoing about moving the staff outside of the Cabinet Office. I assure your Lordships that those staff are dedicated, hard-working individuals who work very closely with the committee. I ask my noble friend: if the committee requires more resources, will those resources be given to deal with this task?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his point about the staff. I tried to do it justice but, as chair of the committee, he did it much better than I could. It is important that there is no question that the committee and the House have full confidence in the staff and the work that they do. Yesterday in the House of Commons, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister made it clear that there are ongoing discussions. It is important that the resources that the ISC needs are available. I understand that discussions on that are taking place.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, the Leader of the House referred to things we did not know. The problem for the Prime Minister is that he confirmed in the House of Commons that he did know that Lord Mandelson had an ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein after he had been convicted for child sex trafficking, and he still appointed him as ambassador to the United States of America. That is a bit of a problem.
Can I pick up on something that the Leader of the House said about decision-making? The humble Address said that all information in the terms of the Address would be published, except where it was prejudicial to national security or international relations. I understood that the process of pulling together all those documents was being overseen by the Cabinet Secretary, who I understand has delegated that to the Permanent Secretary in the Cabinet Office, and that it would be that official who made the decisions about what was prejudicial and what therefore went to the ISC. The Leader of the House has just said that that decision is going to be taken by the Government, by which we normally mean Ministers. Can she clarify whether the decision about which documents are prejudicial and will therefore go to the ISC will be taken by the Permanent Secretary in the Cabinet Office, who has been delegated that task by the Cabinet Secretary, or by Ministers?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord raises two points, the first of which concerns what the Prime Minister did or did not know. I do not think anybody was aware of the extent of the activities of Jeffrey Epstein and the relationship between him and Peter Mandelson until these documents were released. The other point is the information that the Prime Minister and No. 10 have given to the Metropolitan Police. Questions were asked of Lord Mandelson and the answers that were forthcoming to the Prime Minister were not, as we now understand, the case. The Prime Minister feels that he was lied to by Peter Mandelson then. It is the extent of that relationship that is really important.
On the humble Address, I was talking about government in the widest sense. The Cabinet Secretary has delegated this to the Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office, who will be the person sifting the documents to ensure that the documents sent to the ISC are those that the Government have withheld for reasons of international security and international relations and our national security.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire raised the suggestion we have seen in the press that Jeffrey Epstein’s trafficking victims could possibly have been brought into the UK through private airports. I remember 20 years ago this issue being raised in relation to the victims of extraordinary rendition, in which I am afraid the UK Government colluded. Has that loophole really not been closed? Have there been no immigration or security controls on who comes into this country in private jets?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I do not know whether the case is exactly as the noble Baroness describes it. What I do know is that all evidence is being looked at to see whether there is any evidence of such trafficking. That means going back through records over some time to see what is available. If there is any evidence of trafficking, of course the appropriate action should be taken as a matter of urgency.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal for the way in which she is approaching this discussion and the answers that she has given. Can she confirm the situation about the humble Address? Obviously, it was constructed by the leader of the Official Opposition with a view to perhaps causing maximum embarrassment, but that is the job of opposition, and we should not be surprised at that. I understand that the framing of it potentially covers all diplomatic cables, many of which would automatically be copied to the UK ambassador to the United States. Can my noble friend confirm that part of the task that the Permanent Secretary in the Cabinet Office has been given is to judge whether or not those can be released? Is there not an important principle that releasing diplomatic cables or material relating to diplomatic cables is prejudicial to the interests of this country? Even if that diplomatic cable said what a nice person whoever it was is and that they had a really good discussion, the fact of releasing some, but not all, cables raises the question about those which are redacted. Is that not in itself likely to be prejudicial to the national interest? This is an important process, which requires a great deal of diligence.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My noble friend is right. It is an important process. Our international relations with countries across the world where we have diplomats and where they have provided information in the UK’s national interests may at times be sensitive. The humble Address is quite clear that, where there are issues of national security or international relations, those documents and that information will be passed to the ISC for it to make a judgment. To come back to my noble friend’s point about whether it was intended to be embarrassing, the truth may be embarrassing at times but if it leads to justice and a better outcome then it is the right thing to do. The Government have no problems complying fully with the humble Address.
Lord Redwood (Con)
I welcome the Government’s decision to take this very seriously and to publish in tranches. Given that many days have now elapsed, will the Government publish a tranche tomorrow to show good faith, so that the proper process of scrutiny can begin?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I do not know whether the noble Lord heard my earlier answer. We will not be publishing documents tomorrow but as soon as possible. I imagine that it will be in the next couple of weeks.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
My Lords, the House appreciates that the noble Baroness has had to answer a lot of questions in a short time, but she has not as yet answered the final question asked of her a few moments ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, about whether the Government will commit to publishing a comprehensive list of the categories of documents within scope, identifying which have been disclosed, which have been referred to the ISC and which have been temporarily withheld—for example, because of a police investigation—together with the reason in each case. The more complicated this matter becomes, the more helpful it would be if the Government could give that information. If the noble Baroness cannot immediately answer that question, will she commit to answering it in writing to the noble Baroness and the Opposition as soon as possible?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I have no problem answering questions at the Dispatch Box—it is probably one of the highlights of my day.
I am slightly puzzled by the question, though I will take it back. It seems to me that, if it has already been said what the document is that is being withheld from the Metropolitan Police—that information was announced in the House of Commons yesterday and I have said it here today—and if we then publish a list of documents that are being sent to the ISC because the issues are significant to international relations or national security, does that not give more information that could undermine national security or international relations? There is an issue of transparency, but transparency does not extend to such issues. It has already been accepted that the documents will be sent to the ISC. I will look at this, but the noble Baroness should have faith that if the ISC is receiving those documents then it can look at them. If it is that she wants a list of confidential information that is being given to the ISC, I am not sure that that takes the House any further, or whether that might undermine the work of the ISC. I am not sure that it is a helpful suggestion.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal for the clarity of her answers. Will she confirm that, once the ISC has decided that a document should be disclosed, notwithstanding any concern that the Government may have had about its implications for national security or foreign relations, the Government will comply with the decision of the ISC?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. My understanding is that the exact details of how this will work in practice are still being discussed between the Government and the ISC. Those discussions will be concluded this week, but the Government have no interest in withholding information if it does not relate to international relations or national security. I hope that, if we get it right, the issue will not occur in the first place, but those discussions will take place between the Government and the ISC this week to conclude the terms of reference.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal for her answer. I make the point that the then Opposition moved and invoked an humble Address on a number of occasions during the Brexit negotiations, at very critical junctures. At that stage, it was not necessarily in the national interest to reveal all the information that the Her Majesty’s Government were using.
I just take the noble Baroness back to the report on due diligence. Surely it is for parliamentarians and the wider public to make a judgment not only on the veracity of the due diligence report presented by the Cabinet Office to the Prime Minister but on the Prime Minister’s judgment in what he did with that report. It seems odd, and perhaps the noble Baroness will explain why it was, that a charge of misconduct in a public office is inextricably linked with the release or otherwise of the due diligence report that was presented to the Cabinet Office. Finally, will she say what is an acceptable delay before that very important document on which we will judge the Prime Minister’s judgment is published?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
First, I am not quite sure what the noble Lord’s comments on the humble Address were aimed at. He has heard no complaints whatever from me or from this Dispatch Box about complying fully and totally with the humble Address. I do not think I made any complaints about humble Addresses previously, as the noble Lord implied, so I am not quite sure what he was saying.
I can also tell him that no charges have yet been brought of misconduct in public office. The evidence being looked at has come to the fore, post due diligence and security vetting, from the Epstein files. Nobody in this House or outside it could have had any warning, or a crystal ball or anything, that could have indicated the extent of those messages and what they contained. So, if any charges are brought of misconduct in public office, it will come from those emails that were released. I will wait and let the police do their work on that, to see whether charges are brought against any of the individuals who have so far been arrested.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:59 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 78 / Noes: 246 - Amendment 1 disagreed.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to remove the generational ban for tobacco products in England and Wales by raising the age of sale to 21.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to all my amendments in this group, which is all of them barring Amendment 203. I thank my noble friend Lord Naseby, who has signed all my amendments.
The amendments all do the same thing: they would remove from the necessary places in the Bill the generational smoking ban—that is, the prohibition on tobacco sales to all those born after 1 January 2009—and replace it with a fixed age of sale of 21. In my view, this policy was wrong when it was adopted by my party in government, and it is still wrong now.
In asking noble Lords to support this amendment, I will make six points. The first is in relation to prohibition. A generational ban may sound like a progressive step to protect public health, but it is de facto prohibition, and there remains no evidence anywhere in the world that prohibition of a long-standing legal product has ever worked. In time, this policy will result in the termination of a legally controlled, highly regulated, highly taxed industry, which will be replaced by an illegal, uncontrolled, unregulated, untaxed criminal bonanza.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 203 in my name, which is also supported by my noble friend Lady Walmsley. She is sorry that she cannot be here today because of ill health. I know she is keeping a close eye on us, but I hope she takes it easy and will be back with us soon.
Amendment 203—to change the subject slightly—would require the Government to publish, shortly after Royal Assent, a communications plan to support the implementation of the smoke-free generation policy and to raise public awareness. We know that the ban on smoking in public places was effectively communicated so that those who needed to take action were well prepared to do so and the public knew what the plans were. We want to see the same actions here.
When this amendment was tabled in Committee, it was excellent to hear the Minister strongly agree that such communication was vital. Many of us involved in this debate over the years know from experience how effective public health communication can be. We have played our part in the major advances in tobacco control, from smoke-free public places to changes in the age of sale and plain packaging—and we have had all the same arguments coming back at us. None of those reforms succeeded by chance. They worked because they were carefully planned, cross-party in approach and underpinned by communication strategies that brought the public with them. The Bill is an excellent piece of legislation, far-sighted and potentially significant for our children and grandchildren.
We fully realise how the industry—represented here today, I can see—will, as ever, push back against this measure using every device in the book. We have seen that time after time in this Chamber over the years, with very familiar arguments.
I commend those who have helped to bring about this legislation, from Professor Khan to Professor Chris Whitty, from Rishi Sunak to the current Government. The Bill team have done a fantastic job in bringing together previously fragmented strands of tobacco regulation, seeking to close loopholes so that we create a framework that is robust enough to withstand future industry innovation, which, again, is extremely familiar. This might indeed be one of the last tobacco Bills needing to pass through this House—not that I hold my breath.
This legislation contains a world-leading and genuinely novel policy to help to deliver a smoke-free generation, which the Opposition are also theoretically committed to. It therefore creates a real opportunity not just to implement a new age of sale but to communicate the harms of smoking and promote smoking cessation, just as the ban on smoking in public places did. I therefore welcome the Minister’s comments in Committee that clear guidance will be published and the Government will work to ensure successful implementation. But guidance alone is the minimum requirement, and I hope the Government’s ambition goes further than that.
In 2007, as those of us here then will remember, when smoke-free legislation was introduced, the message was simple, consistent and widespread. The Government did not leave it to businesses and others to explain on their behalf. Stakeholders were identified early, supported properly, not undermined with all sorts of reasons to feel anxious, and given time to prepare. Guidance, signage and materials were ready well in advance. National TV adverts raised awareness. The result was immediate: we saw 98% compliance on day one, accompanied by growing public support.
That approach achieved more than compliance; it changed attitudes. It sparked conversations about the harms of smoking, not the liberties—as if an addiction is a liberty—and encouraged many people to try to quit. That kind of cultural shift is exactly what this legislation should aim to replicate. Although the rising age of sale applies to a specific cohort, a wider objective is to engage the whole population and frame smoking cessation as a shared national endeavour.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I support the 27 amendments in this group, which were so ably spoken to by my noble friend.
Members of the House may not know—there is no reason why they should—that when I came back from working in India and Sri Lanka, both of which are very extensive users of tobacco, I joined an advertising agency on the marketing side. In particular, I was asked to help on the marketing of Gallaher products such as Park Drive and Senior Service. That experience meant getting to know those companies in depth, and I began to understand how the industry operated. Of course, at that point I had no idea that I would become a Member of Parliament some 10 years later, but I realised that this is not a flippant industry. This was an industry employing thousands of people, particularly in skilled areas, and an industry that, as far as I could see as a marketing man, listened to the problems of health.
I am married to a full-time GP, and I have a son who was a GP. I have admired various political parties that ran the National Health Service through the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and onwards. You only had to go into your own surgery to see the effort put in on the ground to encourage people not to smoke. It was not as if the industry ignored it. Pressure was understandably put on, whereby advertising, in which I had a role to play, should be targeted in terms of age and timing. The media at that time was very different. But, on the recommendation that I and my team went through, the industry recognised that it should avoid advertising to young people and took positive steps to that effect.
I hasten to say that I have no financial involvement; I do not have any stocks and shares in tobacco companies. I am only speaking from experience. When I got to the other place as the honourable Member for Northampton South, I continued to take an interest in the industry. I am impressed with the efforts that were made jointly by the industry and various Governments. But I do express huge disappointment to the present Government that, as far as I understand it, they have resisted attempts to talk to the industry in depth, particularly to retailers and the other representatives. They certainly feel that they have been ignored, and that is not a good position to be in.
Leaving that aside, we come back to the central issue of what the Government are proposing and what I and others are proposing. Twenty-one is a sensible age. I did my national service as an RAF pilot from 18 to 20, and then I went to Cambridge. By that time, you can decide for yourself what you are going to do. This idea of a phased introduction is confusing to all those involved.
There is a problem on the ground. I live in Bedfordshire, next door to Northamptonshire. We have a lot of small towns. For one newsagent, roughly 19% of his income comes from tobacco. It is falling, but that is understandable. It is falling because the percentage of the population who smoke has dramatically fallen between the period when I first got involved, in 1964, and today. I do not argue that it would not be better if it had fallen a bit further, but it has fallen dramatically. This is an issue for the retail trade.
Another issue that His Majesty’s Government appear not to be terribly up to date on is the illicit tobacco trade, which is a huge problem today. As I understand it, His Majesty’s Government recognise that only 10% of cigarettes consumed in 2023-24 were illicit. That, in itself, equals 12 billion illicit cigarettes. However, when you dig a bit deeper, the National Crime Agency’s Deputy Director for Illicit Finance, Sal Melki, has stated that the combined law enforcement agencies’ Operation Machinize seized 4.5 billion illicit cigarettes in 2024. Surely that is the area we should be focused on. We do not need new and complicated laws—that is a real target. I do not understand why His Majesty’s Government are not making that a real priority. As it is, the illicit trade is totally undermining our situation.
I had the privilege of working as a junior Minister in Northern Ireland. I am not blaming anybody, but it was my own party that failed to deal properly with the situation in Northern Ireland. I am really upset that we did not do it better, but we did not. It ought not to have happened. But, quite frankly, even if the Government’s wish was to go through, it is not going to happen in Northern Ireland. That is not good. We are part of the United Kingdom; we do not want to have another category where poor Northern Ireland is left out in the cold.
I am not going to repeat the points my noble friend has already made. This amendment that he and I have put down is a simple proposition to replace the generational ban with a minimum legal purchasing age of 21. I plead for the House to think long and hard. I shall certainly be supporting this amendment if my noble friend tests the opinion of the House at the appropriate time.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Murray and Lord Naseby. However, what they cannot avoid is that their amendment, by maintaining the legal sale of tobacco products to persons over the age of 21, will continue the enormous damage to public health and the enormous cost to the National Health Service that is caused by the consumption of this product.
I am not persuaded by the freedom arguments. We ban heroin. We require that people wear seat belts, even if they are over the age of 21 and they may take a different view. If Sir Walter Raleigh were to bring tobacco into this country today for the first time, there is surely no doubt whatever that it would be banned because of its noxious, dangerous character. The Bill contains such detailed provisions relating to legality precisely because this has been a lawful product for so long. I think the Government are quite right in the way they seek to deal with it.
The only other argument of substance presented was from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, relating to illicit tobacco products. But that is an unfortunate consequence of banning any product. We ban cannabis. There is an illicit trade in cannabis, but I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Murray, is a supporter of legalising the sale of cannabis. The enactment of the Bill will do an enormous amount to educate the public of the dangers that this product causes and of the need to ensure that we move forward now to promote public health.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, I want to speak to my interest. About 30 years ago, I was a director of British American Tobacco. I started smoking when I was at school, and I have now been smoking for about 70 years. At the moment, the thought has not crossed my mind that I am going to abandon my enjoyable smoking of small cigars.
Leaving that aside, I recall that when I was at BAT, just as my noble friend’s experience of Gallaher has confirmed, we were desperately anxious to keep our reputation as a company and make sure the dangers of our product were brought to people’s attention and we could protect our reputation. I will not reminisce for too long, but I recall that we lobbied the then Government to make it illegal to sell our products to under-18s. They rejected that idea because of counterlobbying from retailers. We certainly offered no resistance whatever to the widespread publication of the health risks of smoking, which are considerable.
We were often accused of doing dreadful things. People who campaigned against our product decided they had to campaign against the evil organisation that was involved in it. But this was a complete misunderstanding of our attempt to maintain a good reputation. It was, in fact, an extremely well-run company. My opinion is that smoking should not be banned and made illegal if the sale is to adults who are fully informed that they are adding to the risk to their health that motoring and other things already pose to them and decide that the pleasure of smoking involves them taking it on.
I will not repeat all the excellent arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, who put the case perfectly clearly and well—I agree with every word he said. I find the proposition, which was first put forward by my own party towards the end of our last period of office, a quite extraordinary one. It is going to be found that shopkeepers are making an illegal sale if their customer is a day older than the legal limit imposed by Parliament. I assume that in 60 years, somebody like me will be required to go into a shop taking my birth certificate, saying that I am 85 so can legally buy a cigarette, whereas if I was 84 years of age it would be an illegal act to engage in this transaction. I cannot see how shopkeepers are going to comply with the law except by demanding some proof of date of birth and continuing to demand that proof as the legally entitled purchasers steadily grow older and older. I am sure it is well intentioned. It is another attempt to reinforce the already very successful efforts we have made in this country to reduce the incidence of smoking. But it is faintly ridiculous and slightly preposterous, and, given the history of the decline of smoking in this country, it is quite unnecessary.
The most important point that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, makes to those who might be faintly neutral in this debate is that it will stimulate organised illegality. It most undoubtedly will. He made the arguments for that, but I remind the House of the best example in my lifetime. Until about 30 years ago, betting on racehorses was legal only on the course, and there was a firm law saying that you could not place a bet on a horse—it was strictly illegal—unless you were actually at the course.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, for the first time in my life, I will publicly disagree with my noble friend Lord Clarke. I will speak briefly but very strongly against this group of amendments, which would simply defeat the object of the Bill: to introduce a generational ban and achieve over time a smoke-free country.
Less than two years ago, a generational ban was the policy of a Conservative Government, and the then Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, described it as one of his proudest initiatives. In that Parliament, on a free vote, the vast majority of Conservative Members of Parliament supported the Bill, as did 28 out of the 30 members of the Cabinet. All the arguments that we have heard this afternoon were put forward at that time, listened to and discounted. In this Parliament, the measure passed with a majority of 415 to 47, so it is fair to say that the Bill has broad cross-party support, and it is popular outside. It has a clear objective of reducing the burdens of smoking on the economy and the NHS.
I will leave it to others to deal with the argument about illicit tobacco and the Windsor Framework; I just want to tackle the libertarian argument, following the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I listened to all the libertarian arguments when a Conservative Government made it compulsory for motorcyclists to wear crash helmets. We heard the arguments about well-informed adults being aware of the risks. Nobody would now reverse that piece of legislation. We heard the same arguments on compulsory seat belts. Both those measures were introduced by a Conservative Government. We heard the same arguments about smoking on public transport, on trains and in pubs. Yes, there is a libertarian argument, but in my view there is a much broader benefit in moving to a smoke-free country.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in favour of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. I will concentrate on one narrow area—one of the practical aspects of this generational ban—which, as my noble friend Lord Clarke highlighted, is the inevitable difficulty of age verification in stores. I am sure the Minister will soon argue that age verification is a well-established practice and therefore should present no particular difficulty, but the implications of the Bill in a few years’ time are profound, as my noble friend noted.
Judging the difference between an 18 year-old and a 40 year-old by eye is not especially difficult—although at this point I note that there are a number of Peers on the Government Benches who regularly claim that even that is impossible in the case of asylum seekers. But how is a shopkeeper supposed to judge the precise age of someone who is apparently 40 years old in a few years’ time? Is he 40? Is he 39? Is he 40 in 364 days? I am sure that we will soon hear the argument that the point is actually somewhat moot, because that 40 year- old born after the 1 January 2009 will have never smoked or shown any desire to smoke because of the Bill. But that is simply not a credible argument. As my noble friend Lord Murray noted, the generational ban is a de facto prohibition, and one does not need to be a dedicated student of history to know that prohibition of any kind has never worked. Indeed, it serves to make whatever is being prohibited more desirable, more glamorous and more edgy. Plenty of people will still choose to smoke.
In effect, the state will therefore be asking shopkeepers to both comply with and police the law at the same time. To put some statistics around this, the Association of Convenience Stores represents 50,000 local shops, petrol forecourt sites and independent retailers across all locations. Last year, it reported that there were 57,000 incidents of violence against people working in convenience stores. Some 87% of store workers reported verbal abuse and 44% reported hate-motivated abuse. The top three triggers of this violence epidemic were encountering shop thieves, enforcing age restriction policies and refusing to serve intoxicated customers. Does the Minister think this will get any better when the shopkeeper has to ask two middle-aged men for their passports—or, indeed, an 85 year-old for his birth certificate?
Today, I read that the British Retail Consortium has reported that there were 1,600 incidents of violence and abuse per day in shops in the year 2024-25. That is down from the previous year, but it is still a staggering number. It is welcome that the Crime and Policing Bill will make assaulting a retail worker an aggravated offence, but that is, I contend, highly unlikely to make any difference at all to the number of incidents around age verification, which are inevitable. I am sure the Minister will also refer to the increase in police numbers and neighbourhood policing officers due by 2029. That is also welcome, of course, but I note that the previous Government bequeathed more police officers than ever before in this country, and that did not have a noticeable impact. The simple fact is that this measure will inevitably cause more trouble, and the Government will be unable to do much about that. It is ludicrous to pass a law that will provoke the breaking of other laws.
My noble friend Lord Murray’s amendments would achieve the Government’s aims without causing this needless aggravation. The Government’s own impact assessment states that a one-off increase in the age of sale to 21 would be just as effective in the short term at reducing smoking rates, compared with a generational smoking ban. The Government should change tack and accept my noble friend Lord Murray’s amendments.
Lord Rennard (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I oppose Amendment 1 and the associated amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, because I believe wholeheartedly that a country free from the harms of tobacco would transform the public health of this nation and prevent huge amounts of human suffering. We heard from the noble Lord about the reversal of the planned policy in New Zealand, but we did not hear an explanation for that. The explanation is quite simple: there was a change of coalition parties following a general election. One of the new coalition parties feared the drop in revenue to the Government as a result of the policy being introduced and a reduction in the prevalence of tobacco smoking, which surely proves the point that that party accepted that such policies as this would be effective.
We have heard about the wonderful, kind-spirited nature of the tobacco industry in caring for young people, but not enough about the many decades of deceit, in which that industry knew full well the links between its products and lung cancer, and covered up what it knew and lied about them, as it lied about tobacco smoking of a second-hand nature. This is not an industry which we can trust for a remote second.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
May I ask what evidence the noble Lord has for that? I well remember, when I was on the board of BAT, that we acknowledged the health risks. We were accused of somehow denying it, but the people with this bizarre conspiracy theory were never able to produce any examples of our denying it, because we did not, and we did not oppose warnings and labels on packages. It is just part of the mythology of the more extreme fringe of well-intentioned anti-tobacco lobbyists.
Lord Rennard (Non-Afl)
My Lords, with respect, I am not part of any extreme fringe, and the views I have enunciated are shared almost entirely by the medical profession in this country. For decades, the tobacco companies had evidence that tobacco was linked to lung cancer, yet they kept denying until it was proven by showing the number of people with lung cancer who smoked and the number of people with lung cancer who did not. The industry hid that as it fought tooth and nail against such things as plain packaging with many bogus arguments. This is the most deceitful industry in the world.
We have heard about the cliff edge problem, but it is one that we have now. At 17 years and 364 days, you may not buy tobacco, but you can on your 18th birthday. With these amendments, that would change to being able to buy tobacco on your 21st birthday, but not after 20 years and 364 days on this planet.
My experience of being orphaned at 16, and finding my mother, a heavy smoker, dead in her bed as a result of hypertensive heart disease, with smoking obviously a key factor in her death, has driven me, ever since then, to support people trying to quit—that is most smokers, in my experience—and to prevent the tobacco industry promoting addiction to its lethal products. The Bill proposes a world-leading policy of which we should be proud, and we should not make it less effective, as proposed by many amendments in this group.
Raising the age at which someone can legally be sold a cigarette works in terms of reducing tobacco consumption. It may not be 100% effective, but that is not a reason to try to make it less effective. We know that raising the age of sale in England from 16 to 18 in 2007 reduced smoking rates among 16 and 17 year-olds by 30%. In the US, when the age of sale was increased from 18 to 21, the chance of a person in that age group taking up smoking fell by 39%.
The tobacco industry employs the most deceitful and dangerous lobbyists in the world. Their role is to try to protect its enormous profits and persuade more people—in particular young people—to take up the deadly habit in order to replace the 50% of its consumers whose lives are shortened by smoking tobacco.
One argument we hear from opponents of tobacco control legislation is that it represents a so-called nanny state. This is a term that I feel is really used only in the media. The phrase does not resonate with the public, who are highly supportive of tobacco control legislation. I hear laughter, but polling shows that 68% of the public support the smoke-free generation. The Chief Medical Officer has been clear that there is no freedom in addiction. Many people start smoking as children and become addicted almost immediately. Two out of three people who try just one cigarette go on to become daily smokers, and three-quarters of smokers say that they would never have started if they had the choice again.
It is also important to be clear what this policy does and does not do. The rising age of sale does not remove any current adult’s ability to buy tobacco; it simply phases in a high minimum age of purchase for future generations. That is a proportionate approach. By contrast, accepting these amendments would mean that those aged 18 to 20 who already smoke would suddenly be unable to buy tobacco legally—a far more intrusive step.
Smoking remains one of the greatest preventable burdens on our public services and our economy. It is responsible for up to 75,000 GP appointments every year. It costs the country approximately £27.6 billion in lost economic productivity. It costs the NHS almost £2 billion annually and local authorities nearly £4 billion a year in social care costs. That is money we do not have, and which could and should be spent on improving health, not managing preventable harm. The number of people—
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that this is Report stage of proceedings. His speech is a bit on the long side. Can he bring his remarks to a close, please?
Lord Rennard (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I hear some responses from the Benches next to me who disagree with this. I hope, however, that they will consider carefully the arguments that I am making, and those that come from the Minister shortly.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, I rise to support my noble friends’ amendments in group 1, not to defend tobacco, but to defend common sense, public safety and the livelihoods of tens of thousands of small shopkeepers who would be most harmed by a policy that looks simple on paper but is deeply dangerous in practice.
First, the burden on retailers and communities is real. Small shopkeepers already face unprecedented levels of crime and intimidation. The Bill would force them to enforce a moving legal threshold every year, placing the full weight of policing on their shoulders.
We heard an awful lot from the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on guidance. I am listening to my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom describing what the shopkeeper would have to do, and I would love to see what the Government guidance will be for that shopkeeper. When they ask, “What is your age? When were you born? Prove it.”, how on earth will the shopkeeper be able to deal with people in their 20s, 30s and 40s when trying to stay on the right side of an ever- changing law?
The implementation of a generational ban on tobacco sales will have profound, unintended consequences for shopkeepers, law enforcement and retailers—to the benefit of organised criminals—across the UK for years to come. That is not hyperbole; it is a sober description of the risks we are being asked to accept with this.
Secondly, the policy will drastically expand the illicit cigarette market and hand control to organised criminals. Everybody knows the stark evidence—even though HMRC will never admit it—that illicit tobacco loses the Treasury £3.5 billion per annum. Some 25% of all cigarettes sold are illicit and cheap, and the price differential drives consumers to illegal sources in pubs, clubs and under-the-counter sales.
This ill-conceived generational ban—admittedly, a stupid idea from the last Government—will create a permanent cohort of consumers who cannot legally buy tobacco, and where demand exists, supply will follow. That supply will be by criminal networks. Let us look briefly at Australia as a sign of what will unfold in the UK. Organised crime gangs dominate the illicit tobacco market in Australia, which has led to arson, violence and the takeover of local markets by criminal gangs.
Thirdly, enforcement capacity is already stretched to breaking point. Trading Standards and other front-line agencies have lost staff and lack the resources to police a complex, ever-changing age rule. Enforcement bodies are underfunded and under-resourced; adding a perpetual generational rule will only widen the enforcement gap and shift the burden to retailers and local communities, who will be unable to cope. When enforcement fails, the law becomes a paper shield for criminals and a real threat to honest businesses.
What is the sensible alternative? It must be setting the age at 21, as set out in my noble friend’s amendment. This is not a retreat from public health; it is a pragmatic, enforceable measure that achieves the same long-term outcome for young people while avoiding the catastrophic side-effects of a generational ban. My noble friend set out in detail from the Government’s own impact assessment how raising the age to 21 would achieve the same long-term aim.
A minimum age of 21 is clear, static and much more easily enforceable. It allows retailers to train staff once and apply a consistent rule, and it reduces the incentive for criminal markets to exploit a permanently excluded generation. It also aligns with international practice and with the Republic of Ireland’s own policy direction, reducing cross-border legal friction.
Finally, we must pair any age change with stronger enforcement and support. If we raise the age to 21, we should simultaneously strengthen fixed-penalty regimes, resource trading standards and Border Force properly and invest in targeted education and cessation services. Enforcement must be credible—it is not at the moment. Everybody knows that you can get illegal cigarettes in any pub or club in the country. We need stepped penalties for repeat offenders, licensing powers that bite and better funding for the agencies that will be asked to do the work.
All of us in this House and Parliament share the aim of reducing smoking, but good ends do not justify bad, unworkable means. A generational ban risks destroying small businesses, empowering organised crime, overwhelming enforcement and creating legal chaos. A minimum legal purchasing age of 21 is a proportionate, enforceable and effective alternative that would protect public health without the catastrophic unintended consequences. If we come to a vote, I urge the House to reject the generational ban and support a measured, evidence-based approach that combines an age limit of 21 with robust enforcement and support for cessation. I support my noble friend’s amendments.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and he persuaded me that, at the end of the day, we are dealing with a question of health, not choice. I will give an example. Colin Bennetts, Bishop of Coventry from 1998 to 2008, died in July 2013 after a period of illness due to cancer. His lungs were filled with deposits of smoke. He said to everybody, “I have never smoked in my life”, but as a youngster he had worked in an office where cigarettes were lit at every moment. Colin, who had not smoked, died of lung cancer. You do not have to smoke to die from it —others sitting near may get it.
I respect the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, but you cannot compare gambling on horses with smoking. Gambling on horses affects only those gambling, but secondary smoking is detrimental to anybody in a place where people are smoking. I do not think these amendments would be helpful. We should stick with the Bill as drafted, because we are trying to protect people’s lives and make them healthier.
I suffered what is called in medical terms a lung infarction, where bits of your lungs do not quite operate. I still have that illness, so every time I go into a place where there is a lot of smoking, I can barely breathe—I have to get out into the fresh air and get it in my lungs. Friends, this is about health. If we do not do this now, then when?
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Cancer Research UK. Given that smoking continues to be the single biggest cause of cancer, it will not be a surprise that I oppose the amendments in this group, which would substantially weaken this landmark legislation. In explaining why, I will respond to each of the six points made by the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth.
First, the noble Lord argued that we do not need more tobacco control legislation anyway because smoking rates are already coming down. That is not correct; Javed Khan has pointed out that, among the most deprived parts of the country, on current trends we will not be smoke-free until 2044. In any event, some in the tobacco industry have come to the same conclusion. I quote from an advert that Philip Morris took out in the New Statesman, no doubt designed to influence people such as us: “Here in the UK, smoking rates are not declining fast enough. None of the home nations are on course to hit their smoke-free dates, and the most deprived communities are lagging significantly behind”. The suggestion that we can just assume that the status quo will produce a benign outcome is incorrect.
The noble Lord’s second argument was that, rather than having a generational tobacco sales restriction, we should instead just move towards delaying the age at which smoking can be initiated to 21. The tobacco industry would doubtless switch its efforts to targeting twenty-somethings instead of teenagers. On the surprising claims we have heard in respect of the behaviour down the decades of Gallaher or British American Tobacco, I simply say to noble Lords: google their internal documents. They have all been disclosed as a result of international treaties and court cases, and noble Lords will see the systematic duplicity, bribery and corruption that has continued across the world in advancing big tobacco’s agenda. Those documents, the internal files, are there: noble Lords can check them out for themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, referred to the Republic of Ireland as an example we should perhaps be following, when it proposed to adopt the age of 21. However, the director of the tobacco industry-funded front organisation FOREST said of the effect of adopting the age of 21 as a tobacco sales restriction:
“If you’re not careful, you’re actually going to make smoking … fashionable again. You’re going to actually encourage young people to smoke”,
on the back of this proposed sales restriction to over 21 year-olds.
The third argument we heard was about the black market. For reasons that are a non sequitur, we have several times heard cited the example of Australia. The amendments in this group relate to changes to the age of sale. There has been no change in the age of sale in Australia. As far as I am aware, it is still 18 and has been for 30 years. So, whatever else is going on in Australia, it has got nothing to do with the amendments in this group in respect of age of sale. In fact, the Australian example tells us that you need rigorous enforcement. Until very recently, there was no retail licensing available for New South Wales, Victoria or Queensland, covering about 70% of the Australian population, and it has only been patchily introduced subsequently.
There is agreement that we need strong enforcement to deal with the illicit trade, but the argument that we should essentially do whatever it takes to maximise revenue for the Exchequer is a flawed one. If that were the case, as we have heard from other noble Lords, we would be legalising and licensing handguns, assault weapons, fentanyl or crack cocaine. The fact is that, when it comes to tobacco control policy, it is not the Laffer curve that we should focus on, it is the life expectancy curve.
The fourth argument has been around the impact on retailers. I accept that there are legitimate concerns, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, has rightly drawn attention to the epidemic of violence and also noted the provisions that will be in the Crime and Policing Bill as one step to attempt to tackle this. But the fact is that the progressive age of sale restrictions in the Bill are an evolutionary measure that will be phased over many years, giving retailers much opportunity to adjust. There are substitutes that they can sell, including vapes, as alternatives to smoked tobacco. Surely, nobody is suggesting that the trump argument should be that we need to sustain the margins of retailers at the expense of 80,000 people who die prematurely from smoking every year.
The fifth argument we heard was around the Windsor Framework. It is fair to say that alternative legal opinions are available. Member states are free to determine the age limit that they see as appropriate on their territory. This does not constitute a trade restriction within the meaning of the EU treaties. In any event, even if a court found that it did, it could be justified on public health grounds. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the Bill has the support of Northern Irish Health Ministers and that legislative consent has been received from the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Lastly, we come back to the liberty argument: the freedom of unborn smokers to become addicted in decades to come. Well, those of us who take the opposite view judge that this is a proportionate response to a great harm. It is a novel piece of legislation; we will need to see how it plays out in practice. One of the government amendments that will be before us on Report will be precisely a report on its real-world effects in the coming years. In the meantime, to weaken what has the potential to be one of the most fundamental health-improving pieces of legislation this Parliament has ever enacted would in my judgment be a grave error.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, who gave a pretty good summary of many of the arguments against this group of amendments. I join him in all that he said. My fundamental motive is twofold. First, I would like to see the eradication of smoking in this country. That is a vision that we should embrace and be proud of. Just kicking the can and putting up the age limit, as this group of amendments seeks to do, would simply extend a very large and unfair addiction that kills two-thirds of its users and that we could all do without.
Secondly, I am very proud that my party was leading on this issue and brought about the generational ban. I remind noble Lords to have a moment of self-awareness. This is a measure that is massively supported by voters, taxpayers, smokers, Conservatives, retailers and even by the tobacco companies which, at least in this country, have a notional commitment to the eradication of smoking. You can judge whether to take that at face value, but that is at least their rhetorical position. So it seems out of date for my noble friends Lord Murray and Lord Naseby to be stalwarts for the permanent establishment of smoking in the face of such opposition.
Lord Bethell (Con)
Noble Lords have, perfectly reasonably, rebutted me on that. But my point is that the modern retail experience does not rely on retailers squinting to try to judge the difference between 21 and 22 year-olds. It is mandatory for almost everyone to produce ID when they are purchasing any restricted product. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, rightly said, it is right that the Government support this regime. I am pleased to see statutory guidance, updated training standards and enforcement tools as part of the Bill.
Regarding stories about the black market, I must express grave reservations about some of the points that have been made in this debate. They remind me more of stories of Arthur Daley and “Minder” than of modern Britain and I am not sure how relevant stories of Australian biker gangs shooting each other are. Just to correct my noble friend Lord Napier, he said that 4 billion—
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend is looking very well on it. He mentioned that 4 billion cigarettes had been taken by the police in 2024. According to HMRC, the number is 24 million. I draw attention to that because there is a lot of loose use of numbers in the description of illicit trade.
Lord Naseby (Con)
The figure that my noble friend quotes is correct from the source that he quoted, but, after further investigation, it was found that the figure I quoted was the correct figure.
Lord Bethell (Con)
If my noble friend is correct, I will absolutely and humbly correct myself. Maybe we could have a drink afterwards and compare notes on that.
On the question of freedom, I too am a passionate believer and fighter for freedom. However, the freedoms I care about are not only the freedom of choice but the freedom not to be impoverished by taxes and not to see my nation, my country, ruined by the health, welfare and productivity costs of carcinogenic, nasty toxins such as cigarettes. The financial cost on ourselves, and particularly on our children, of this industry is absolutely enormous and is still growing, even if the numbers have stalled. So the freedom from addiction and debt should be included in any discussion of what the freedoms are. For those reasons, I will be voting against this package of measures.
Baroness Gerada (CB)
My Lords, I am also against these amendments. I will disclose a conflict of interest: I started smoking when I was 16—and 33 years later, like many of us who start to smoke at that age, because it is a childhood disease, I gave up.
We know and have heard about all the health effects of smoking, but we also have to realise that smoking is an easy addiction to start. I have looked after every addiction—heroin, cocaine, alcohol—and smoking is the easiest. You need only two cigarettes for 80% of people to be addicted, like me, for 33 years, and many people, like me, try to give up.
It is not just addiction that is the problem. It is not even about death, although death is a bad outcome to have. It is also about all the other complications. Like many smokers, I have lost many of my teeth. Our eyesight goes. We have skin problems. Smoking causes all sorts of things.
As a GP for nearly 30 years, I am pleased that I have seen a massive reduction in people with smoking-related diseases. My surgeries used to be full of what we call blue bloaters and pink puffers and full of people with premature heart disease. It is not an accident that I no longer see that in my consulting room; it is because of the hard work of our Chief Medical Officers, the Department of Health, ASH and many others to stop normalising smoking.
On the issue of the black market, there is of course a price differential. Wherever there is a price differential you will get a black market, whether it is diesel, cigarettes, alcohol or whatever. But the Bill is about stopping people starting—as the noble Lord said, preventing the next generation that has not even been born from starting. We have to focus on prevention, which is what the Bill is about.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, called this a world-leading policy. It is world-leading, because no one else in the world has chosen this policy. One wants to know why. At least the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, admitted that this was novel and therefore untested. Can we at least have a little humility by admitting that the Bill is an experiment? It is a risk.
How you do age verification, as rather wittily described by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, is a bit untested. How will we cope with the 84 year-old versus the 85 year-old—will there be a scrap? It is said that it is not going to happen for many years, but I thought the idea of legislators was that you were meant to think about the future, not just tomorrow, and the long- term implications of policies that pass.
Let us be honest: there is no good practice to copy with this Bill. There is no evidence about exactly how it will work or whether it will work. The claims on its behalf are largely based on modelling and speculation, and that is not evidence; it is not scientific. Therefore, the moral high ground and the sense of certainty deployed by those who are enthusiastic about the Bill, and the disdain towards those of us who are sceptical about it, are just a little misplaced.
I therefore request that, as we go through the very short Report stage, because a lot of us have been through a longer Committee stage, we are honest about things such as cost-benefit analysis—what is lost, what is gained—and, rather than moral righteousness, consider whether this is actually fit for purpose, even the purpose of those people who are putting the Bill forward. Whatever the intentions of those promoting the Bill, many of the clauses in it are counterproductive.
I know we are not on this section yet, but as an ex-smoker who started vaping, I am utterly distraught that we now have a Bill that, to all intents and purposes, treats vaping and tobacco as interchangeable, despite a denial by the Government. I do not think that there will be the health gain that is claimed.
My final point at this time—because I will be back —is that it is a little rich to sneer about freedom. Saying the word “libertarian” gives certain people a thrill; they can feel as though they are morally virtuous. I do not consider myself to be a libertarian, despite what Wikipedia says. However, I fully embrace living in a free society. I do not think that freedom is something I should be embarrassed about, nor that saying that people should be given choices about their lifestyles makes you to the right of Genghis Khan, or whatever it is that people are implying—or, worse, in the pay of big tobacco, which is the inference of many of the contributions. At some stage relatively soon, lots of adults—the 84 and 85 year-olds, because these kids do grow up to be adults—will be denied a choice. This Bill affects adults.
People can make choices about whether they take risks in their health. I suspect that practically everyone I know is using those weight-loss injections. To me they are a bit risky—I think, “Are they safe?”—but I am not mounting a campaign yet, because half this House would be out. People say it is worth the risk. A lot of people do daft things such as going skiing—mad; too risky for me. There are all sorts of things. People have been known to have the odd extra pint or eat the odd greasy breakfast. People take risks and make choices about their health all the time.
I do not want more people to smoke, but I also think that, in a free society, we have to give a certain degree of room for people to make choices—even the wrong choices. We live in a free society. Deciding the right and wrong choice is what happens in authoritarian regimes, but in a free society we say, “I don’t think you should do that, but I’m not necessarily going to legislate so that you can’t do everything I personally disapprove of”. We should not even say, “You shouldn’t do that, because I know best for your health what you should and shouldn’t do”. In medical ethics, there are times when you go to your doctor, who says, “Take this”, and you say, “I decline to take that medication; I do not want that intervention”. In a free society, a doctor cannot force you to do what you do not want to do—even the virtuous health professional who we are all meant to revere.
As we carry on this Report stage, can we all show a bit of humility? Living in a free society puts before us difficult moral decisions. There is no necessarily right or wrong. We are allowed to scrutinise a Bill that is put before us without being accused of somehow being evil because we do not go along with the Bill. Just because the Conservative Government, when they were in, and the Labour Government now agree—if that is the basis on which we should not scrutinise, we might as well all go home. I am sad to say that, for some of us, the Conservative Party has had far too much agreement with the Labour Party over recent decades.
Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con)
I am a Conservative Member who, in the other House, voted against this proposition. Does the noble Baroness not share my concern that one of the unspoken nonsenses of this legislation is that far too many young people are already choosing to smoke cannabis, instead of cigarettes that they might legally obtain? That proves that, however we try to legislate or regulate this market, people will do what they choose to do. Virtually no effort is made to clamp down on the illegal smoking of cannabis.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I am allowed to come back on that. All I want to say is that I do not want it to go down in Hansard that I am such a libertarian that I support the smoking of cannabis: I am not Zack Polanski. It is also the case that we have to think of the unintended consequences and the real world and real young people, rather than imaginary ones.
Lord Magan of Castletown (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Murray. We have heard a lot of nonsense from those from whom we would expect to hear a lot of nonsense. It is more surprising that those from whom we would have expected to hear some good sense have most grievously erred and strayed.
The proposed legislation will in no way stop people smoking; it will simply drive smoking underground. Health issues will not improve and highly aggressive criminal involvement in this trade will soar. His Majesty’s Treasury will be denied at least £10 billion a year, which will accrue to the benefit of the criminal underworld. This crass development will turn out to be a disastrous policy swerve. Look at the empirical evidence: prohibition or intended prohibition has turned out to be a disastrous and damaging policy in many parts of the world. This ill-thought-through legislation will have to be repealed in due course. Let us come to our collective senses: the consequences of this proposed legislation will be dire.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I will be very brief. I am worried not about whether it is right or wrong to try to stop smoking but about whether this would work. There is no point in passing laws that do not work, as they are not respected. I think back to the amount of pot that was smoked when I was at university, to all the drugs generally around the place, and to the switch from alcohol to ecstasy and other things when they were cheaper because the price of alcohol had been raised. We tamper around with it, but the problem is much deeper than that: people need to take things to stave off reality a bit, from time to time.
I was not a smoker, because I saw my friends wheezing at school. I tried it; everyone was worried about the amount of chocolate I ate, so I briefly tried smoking. I gave up after my second sore throat and saw no benefit from it. To be honest, this will not be an effective way of stopping smoking, so I see no point in it. It will cause problems with policing. We can handle age verification in various ways, but I will not bore your Lordships with that now. We should not make life more complicated for everyone. They will go on smoking if they are driven to it, and we do not want to make it look attractive, which driving stuff underground does.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
Before I say a few brief words about the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and his excellent speech, I congratulate my former constituent, the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, who made an excellent speech. He spoke for common sense in how we treat adults. We will probably be allowing people to vote at 16 and we allow all sorts of things to happen at a much younger age, yet we do not realise how this generational ban will affect older people making decisions about their own lives and health.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, people take risks all their time. I am suffering from a very sore back, because I took a risk in thinking that, at my age, I could still ski—I found it quite difficult last week. We all take such choices. After the age of becoming an adult, people have to be able to make those choices. We should be spending our time educating young people. I do not want people to smoke—I have never smoked in my life—but I do not see this generational ban working.
To the people who want to see smoking stopped, I point out that, as the noble Lord, Lord Murray, said, this generational ban will end up in the courts. Labour Peers did not listen when people said that the immigration Bill and the legacy Bill would not apply to Northern Ireland. It is clear from what has already been said by many noble KCs, by the European Union itself and by those seven countries that have given detailed reasons that this Bill cannot apply to Northern Ireland, not just because of the Windsor Framework but generally because of the tobacco directive.
If we were really serious about getting rid of smoking, we would ban tobacco altogether. That will never happen, because the Government like having the money that comes in from it. I do not understand how anyone could think that, by voting for something that will take years to implement, no matter what the Government say, we will not land up in court over and again with legal issues. Until the Windsor Framework goes, this will not happen. I have an amendment next week, so I will not go into any more detail on that now. Whether or not you agree with the generational ban, this might be a reason to look seriously at the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, on the age of 21, even if you think that, in principle, adults over the age of 18 should be allowed to make their own decisions.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will briefly sum up for the Front Bench on this interesting group of amendments. Our position is that we support this generational change and welcome the Government bringing it forward. This is not party-political; these ideas come from across the House, and we welcome them.
From our point of view, changing the age of sale to 21 would be tinkering at the edges and would not bring about the change that we all know we need. Nobody who has ever smoked a cigarette or been a smoker would wish otherwise. Imagine for a moment that, today, we were not considering this ban but contemplating introducing cigarettes for the first time. Nobody with a modicum of common sense would ever contemplate introducing cigarettes and allowing corporate companies to sell products that kill half their users. We all need to change this. My own father died of emphysema, and I am sure there is hardly anyone in this House who has not been impacted by tobacco.
This might be one of the most important things that any of us in the House do in our lifetime. It is hard to see another piece of legislation having such a beneficial impact on preventing harm and misery for people in society and helping them to lead healthier and better lives.
We see no insurmountable problem in this legislation. Yes, it is new and novel, and there will be teething problems—I cannot say there will not be—but they are all surmountable. Age verification and ID are commonly used, we need to look after our small retailers and look at how this change will be implemented, and there are other views on the EU question, but this is essential and it needs to be done. We have had conversations about freedom of choice, but we would not allow any young person to pick up a loaded revolver with two chambers and one bullet and give them the freedom of choice to spin it, put it against their head and pull the trigger.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
Does the noble Earl not agree that we would save many lives if we passed a law saying that nobody should be allowed to drive a motor car unless there is a man waving a stick walking in advance of them? Similarly, if we banned electric bicycles, we would prevent a great deal of injuries and possible deaths. We all have to face these kinds of judgments as part of the human condition and living in a society.
Earl Russell (LD)
With the greatest of respect, there are degrees of risk. There is no electric bike or motor vehicle that we have allowed that kills 50% of people who get on a bike or in a car. The noble Lord is comparing apples with pears. The dangers of smoking are known and proven, and are far greater than anything else.
To conclude, we welcome this generational ban. There are particular issues that need to be looked at and the Bill will need to be regularly reviewed, but we will come to amendments on that. This is the most important thing that we must do. It is essential that we make progress to improve the public health of people in this country.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Murray for his amendments in this group and all noble Lords for their contributions to this important and lively debate.
Reducing smoking rates and, in particular, preventing young people from taking up tobacco, with its highly damaging and pernicious consequences, are goals that I believe command broad support across the House. My noble friend’s amendments present us with an opportunity to settle in our minds the best way those goals might be achieved. From our debates in Committee and again today, we know there is a dichotomy of views on that.
My noble friend has eloquently made the case for substantially lifting the age of sale such that the legal purchase of tobacco by anyone under the age of 21 would be rendered impossible. The Government, on the other hand, have proposed the much more radical step of initiating a complete ban on tobacco sales to anyone born after 1 January 2009, thus creating, year by year, a wider and wider cohort of individuals for whom access to cigarettes and other tobacco products in shops will be legally barred.
Neither of these proposals, whether that of my noble friend or that of the Government, provides an absolute block on young would-be smokers accessing tobacco; so long as cigarettes remain a legal product, nothing could. However, if the generational ban can be made to work as intended, there can surely be no doubt that the benefits to public health over the long term will be immense. My right honourable friend the previous Prime Minister arrived at that realisation during the last Government, and the present Government have seen fit to agree with him.
There are two main arguments against the generational ban: one relates to civil liberties; the other is that of practical workability. I will not repeat the points that have been made on those themes, but I acknowledge that what is proposed in the Bill is, by any standards, without precedent in our consumer law. For the first time, a permanent legal distinction will be drawn between two adults based solely on their date of birth. One person may lawfully purchase a legal product while another, perhaps a year younger, may not. This would be not because of any difference in capacity or circumstance but purely by virtue of when they were born. The question people ask is whether in a free country that is right.
Following on from that are the questions around enforcement and general practicability. There are major questions around verification. As the years go by, shopkeepers will need to satisfy themselves that the person in front of them seeking to buy tobacco is 42 as opposed to 41, and so on. That does seem very different from a straightforward age of sale cut-off, which is a rule that everybody understands. Would shops and customers get used to this rigmarole? How easy would it be? As my noble friend rightly said, a number of countries have chosen to adopt the course that he is advocating rather than the generational ban.
I must, however, declare my hand. This Bill, as I have said, is an opportunity—an opportunity to make a transformational change in an area of public health that successive Governments have agreed is one of the two or three most important and far-reaching in our midst. Indeed, I would say that it is the most important. I do not think that the civil liberties arguments stand up to scrutiny for very long when we are talking about the chance of preventing serious ill health across millions of our population. Smoking needs to be made deeply unfashionable. My noble friend’s amendments, although entirely well meant, are unlikely to achieve that scale of health benefits nor that kind of attitudinal change.
There is uncertainty in whatever we decide to do. I am content for my noble friends on these Benches to make up their own minds on these matters. My noble friend, whom I greatly respect, will urge colleagues to join him in the Lobbies if he chooses to divide the House. At the same time, I hope he will understand that it ill behoves me, as my party’s spokesman for health and social care and as a former Health Minister, to pass up what I see as a golden opportunity to do something imaginative and radical, which is why I support the Government in their excellent ambitions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful for the contributions to this debate. I think we can safely say that there is no unanimity of view, as a number of noble Lords have commented. I am particularly grateful for the support from both Front Benches, as has been consistent throughout. I am also grateful for the support of a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Pannick, Lord Young, Lord Rennard, Lord Stevens and Lord Bethell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, and others.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, what an excellent debate showing your Lordships’ House at its best, with superb speeches on both sides of the argument. It would be invidious to list them, so I will not. I thank the Minister for her reply and her tolerance of my points throughout Committee and Report on the Bill.
Three thoughts occurred to me during those speeches. The first related to the point first raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who is a man to whom I listen very carefully. He tried to draw an analogy between my amendment and the ban on heroin, or the requirement for people to wear seat belts in a motor car or a helmet when riding a motor cycle. That is, however, to ignore the fact that there is always a balancing exercise in deciding whether to ban something. One of the factors to consider is proportionality. We know from the excellent speeches we have heard this evening that what the Government propose by the Bill is untested and a gamble, not only with the lives of people who may take up smoking but with the livelihoods of shopkeepers and many involved in the retail trade. This policy is not properly thought through, and I am afraid that the analogy made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, does not satisfy me that my reasoning is flawed.
The second thought that occurred to me as I listened to the speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, is that I am always astonished that they retain the use of “liberal” in the title of the Liberal Democrat party. Having heard their speeches, it is surely redundant.
My third thought was during the excellent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. She said that freedom is not something to be embarrassed about. I very much hope, if the noble Baroness has yet to order her coat of arms from Garter, that she uses that redounding phrase as her motto. With that ringing in your Lordships’ ears, I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Moylan
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that regulations to specify methods of customer age verification must be made by the affirmative resolution procedure.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 3 and 12, which would have the effect that the regulations to be issued in relation to age verification should be made under the affirmative process, rather than the negative process as originally envisaged.
When I tabled these amendments in Committee, the Minister showed what I thought was a hint of favour towards them, so I had the temerity to retable them on Report and lo, what do I find, but that the Minister has added her name to them. With that, I think they require no further argument. They were recommended by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I beg to move Amendment 3 and will move Amendment 12 at the appropriate moment.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My only comment on this group is that we would not support Amendment 26, which would require a fund to be set up for age-verification technologies. If any fund were to be set up—we do not see the need for it—then it should be funded by the tobacco industry. I note with great interest that the Minister has signed the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
I will briefly speak to Amendment 26, which is in my name, about the cost implications for small retailers and convenience stores. It is really a plea to the Minister to make some money available and introduce a grant system which can assist them. Age-verification technology is not cheap. They need to invest in a robust IT system. We need to build up a market for age verification. We also need one that protects consumers’ data and strengthens enforcement without penalising shopkeepers.
I think we all acknowledge that small shopkeepers are already in difficulty; it is not an easy time for them. We should look at anything we can do to help, and I think this would help. A simple act such as this would make it that much easier to ask the difficult question about age verification.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I half support Amendment 26. I would also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.
The introduction of this regressive and untested generational ban on tobacco sales obviously raises the thorny issue of how it will be implemented in terms of retailers checking ages. Following the discussion on the first group, it is worth noting that this is very different from standardised age checks, which we already have, where there can be challenges at 18 or 21 and over.
I would like to quote Trading Standards Wales, which described it as creating
“a two-tier age system for tobacco whereby someone born in 2008 would be legally able to purchase tobacco products whilst someone born in 2009 would not”.
It seems that, for this Bill to work in its own terms, enforcement is key, but it is not clear how that will be practical. Again, to quote Trading Standards Wales:
“Having a two-tier age system means that young people could still obtain cigarettes from older friends or family members that smoke and, it is unlikely that any parties would report each other to the authorities as both would face legal consequences in doing so”.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friends Lord Moylan and Lord Udny-Lister for their amendments in this group. I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendments and congratulate my noble friend on pressing the point.
Turning to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister, I will pick up the cogent points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, because this brings us to the broader question of age verification. Our debates in Committee demonstrated the genuine concerns among retailers that a strict “no ID, no sale” policy could become a serious flashpoint for violence and abuse directed at shop workers—an issue that, I am sure the Minister will agree, cannot be dismissed lightly. There is also a risk of confusion among customers, particularly where different age thresholds already apply across tobacco, alcohol and other age-restricted products; any new requirement must not add to that complexity. The process for purchasing these products should remain clear and readily understood by all members of the public and, crucially, shopkeepers.
Against that background, it would be extraordinary if technology were not to play a part in making that process easier and less potentially fraught. Can the Minister tell us anything about the cost and affordability of such technology? What specific consideration was given to these concerns during the Government’s consultations, and what assessment has been made of the potential impact on retail workers of what could become a cumbersome and confusing set of procedures with, as I have said, the added risk of threats and abuse to shopkeepers? At the very least, is any guidance planned to ensure that new verification requirements do not create a patchwork of conflicting obligations at the point of sale?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions to this short debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for bringing back Amendments 3 and 12, which would change from negative to affirmative the procedure for making regulations to specify steps that may be taken to verify the age of customers.
In Committee I committed to returning with the Government’s response to the recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. We have carefully considered those recommendations and listened to the support within your Lordships’ House, and I can confirm that we are accepting the recommendations in full. Therefore, as noble Lords have observed, I have—I think we can say unusually—put my name to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I can only counsel the noble Lord not to get used to it. I am very pleased to support his Amendments 3 and 12.
I have tabled government Amendment 105. For consistency, I have also tabled Amendment 110 to Clause 76, which is an equivalent amendment that provides the power to specify age-verification steps for Northern Ireland.
Amendment 26, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, would require the Secretary of State to establish a financial assistance scheme for the acquisition of age-verification technology by producers and retailers of nicotine products. I absolutely understand that the noble Lord’s aim is to support retailers—something that I hope the noble Lord heard me saying on behalf of the Government—and to strengthen adherence to age restriction laws. But I say to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—it is important to clarify this point—that the Government have no plans to mandate the use of age-verification technologies to enforce age of sale.
Checking that a customer is over the age of sale is a well-established concept for retailers, and they should continue to take reasonable steps and exercise due diligence to ensure that they do not sell age-restricted products to anyone underage. To provide clarity for retailers on the types of ID that they can use, the Bill provides powers to specify in regulations the steps that may be taken to verify a customer’s age. This includes the types of digital identities that can be used.
On some of the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe—I know that other noble Lords are, rightly, concerned about this—I confirm once again that the Government will work with the retail sector, as we are already doing, to publish clear, workable guidance to support it with these legislative changes. With that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, understands the Government’s position, and I encourage noble Lords to support Amendments 3, 12, 105 and 110.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. Concerning the debate about enforcement, as somebody who in the past had political responsibility for trading standards in a local authority, which is the mechanism by which enforcement of underage tobacco sales is achieved, and having sat through the whole of Report so far this afternoon, I am surprised that there has been no mention of trading standards. Perhaps we will get to this later, but trading standards will need some help as well, because a considerable burden is going to be placed on it if this mechanism of a generational age limit is to go ahead. With that, I am grateful for the support for my Amendment 3.
Earl Russell
“Power to add vaping products or nicotine products to sale prohibitions(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend section 1 for the purpose of adding vaping products or nicotine products specified in the regulations to the list of items in subsection (1).(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend section 2 for the purpose of adding vaping products or nicotine products specified in the regulations to the list of items in subsection (1).(3) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult any persons the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.(4) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the Welsh Ministers if the regulations contain provision which would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if contained in an Act of the Senedd.(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, this group is on restrictions on vaping products. I thank my noble friend Lady Walmsley for her support. We welcome and commend the Government’s ambition to create a smoke-free generation, but if our goal is truly to protect the next generation from addiction and ill health, we must go further towards a nicotine-free generation as well. Big tobacco must not be allowed to re-establish its market through the vaping industry. The Government often speak of delivering the smoke-free generation, yet this phrase does not appear in the Bill.
My amendment has been through a bit of a journey. My original intention had been to amend a general purpose clause in the Bill, but, as I said, there is not one in the Bill. I then planned to add a general purpose clause but, on advice from the Public Bill Office, I instead decided to table this enabling power allowing further controls on nicotine products, should that ever prove necessary.
While cigarette smoking has continued to decline, vaping has increased, particularly among young people. Some 20% of 11 to 17 year-olds have tried vaping; 5% of 11 to 15 year-olds vape regularly, rising to 12% for 16 to 17 year-olds. If you ask any parent or teacher, this trend is unmistakable.
Vaping should be a tool for smoking cessation, not for a new generation of addicts to provide revenues for big tobacco. The provision is modest and enabling. It compels no action but does give Ministers the power, through the affirmative procedure and after consultation with the devolved Administrations, to respond swiftly when new evidence of novel nicotine products emerges. Flexibility is crucial, because legislation often lags behind the innovative curve of the tobacco industry. Without it, as soon as this legislation is passed, we may find new products emerging.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise to welcome government Amendments 14 and 15, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister. I will not go through them in detail, as I am sure she will, but I note that this is a lovely practical example, and all credit to the Government that their campaigning has worked. We heard in Committee from both Action on Smoking and Health and the Mental Health and Smoking Partnership about the need for an exemption in in-patient mental health settings for vaping vending machines. The Government have clearly listened, and this is an example of how this all should work, so let us applaud and highlight that.
I support Amendment 16, which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has just introduced. The ban on disposable vapes is clearly being widely, almost universally, got around. The noble Earl spoke about producer responsibility. Well, we have a profoundly irresponsible industry that is behaving in ways that have serious health and environmental impacts. I spent most of this afternoon hosting an event for the National Association of Local Councils. As soon as I said I was leaving to do the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, the reaction was, “Waste!” That is understandable. Let us look at some figures from Biffa on three recycling facilities, in Suffolk, Teesside and London. Before the ban on single-use vapes came in, they saw an average of 200,000 vapes mixed in with general waste; after the ban came in, that went up by about 3%. There was perhaps a rush of material being sold in that immediate period, but from everything we are hearing, the waste problem is still enormous, and the risk of these lithium batteries exploding and catching fire in waste lorries and recycling centres is absolutely enormous.
We need more action on public health, too. I spoke to a young person today who said, “Well, I’m a bit confused about how vaping relates to health and cigarettes”. Young people are not getting a clear message, and they are being sold these things everywhere. This amendment is saying we need to keep a watch on this and be ready to catch whatever the industry does next, because we know big tobacco is profoundly irresponsible. As the noble Earl said, this is perhaps not the exact way to do it, but we need to make sure we hear from the Government that they are prepared to take action against big tobacco at any time.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I, too, warmly welcome government Amendments 14 and 15, which create an exemption for vape vending machines in mental health hospitals. This was really good to see: it is a humane step and will be very beneficial to patients. It proves that the Government can listen and amend, and I hope there might be more listening and amending, and exemptions, even at this late Report stage. It makes our debates feel as though they can get somewhere. This was an important concession for the Government to make, so I am really pleased to see that.
I have grave concerns about Amendment 7 in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. There is a real danger here that we end up seeing this Bill as a vehicle for a relentless attack on anything to do with nicotine. Unless I am much mistaken, the Bill does not intend—even though this is its effect—to treat all nicotine products in an undifferentiated way. It is aware of Cancer Research’s statement that vaping is “far less harmful” than tobacco and is the most popular tool to help people quit smoking.
But, following on from the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I do not want to say simply that vaping can be considered positive only if it is used as a smoking cessation tool, because people will then undoubtedly—and they do undoubtedly—vape as a recreational habit. Is the Government’s aim, or this amendment’s aim, to tackle dependence on any substance whatever? Nicotine is the one that is named, but will caffeine be next? Where do we draw the line? As far as I am concerned, that should not be what this Bill tries to do.
I worry that this will lead to mission creep in the Bill, which will create a kind of pre-crime. I listened to the noble Baroness and I do not think that we should have a moral panic about vaping: that is the main thing. It is not appropriate for this Bill to start doing a pre-crime anticipation of all the things that might or might not go wrong in relation to vaping. That would be a disastrous outcome of this Bill. So I urge the noble Baroness to avoid the siren voices of those urging her to take it even further down the line of prohibition. I urge her to hold firm to the notion that, although there will be some suggested regulation of vaping, we should not and must not make vaping indistinguishable from tobacco in the public’s eye by treating them as equally problematic through the course of the Bill.
Baroness Northover (LD)
I very much support my noble friend Lord Russell’s amendments, which seek to address the abuse of vapes and other nicotine products. When you go into any local shop or see adverts, you must mentally think that those promoting these should hang their heads in shame. I mentioned in Committee the example from my own extended family, where vaping has been the route for teenage relatives to become addicted to nicotine and, from there, to smoking. So I fully support everything that we are doing to reduce nicotine dependency, and I support my noble friend’s amendments here.
Despite that, we welcome the Government’s amendments that create an exemption for mental health settings, allowing the continued use of vape vending machines. Written evidence submitted to the Bill Committee by, for example, the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust and others made it clear that vape vending machines located in mental health wards are currently a crucial part of delivering effective smoking cessation services. Several trusts using these machines have reported that they provide a safe and straightforward way of ensuring that patients can access vapes when they need them. It is therefore welcome that the Government have listened to this evidence and made this concession.
In England, vapes are now the most commonly used smoking cessation aid, and it is awful that they have been exploited for other purposes. Nevertheless, vaping is recommended by NICE as the first-line smoking cessation tool and is more effective than traditional nicotine replacement therapies. Smoking prevalence in in-patient mental health settings remains extremely high, with estimates of about 50% overall and some studies reporting rates as high as 80% in individual hospitals, so I see why the Government have decided to take this particular measure forward.
Although it is technically possible for vending machines to be stocked with other forms of nicotine replacement therapy, this would not reflect patient preference, and we need to be guided by what works to support smokers to quit. As my noble friend Lord Russell said, that is what vapes should be about. The risks associated with proxy purchasing would seem to be low, particularly in closed wards, but I would be interested to hear from the Minister further on this point and to have clarification on how she envisages these machines operating within the new licensing scheme.
Therefore, although we accept the Government’s amendments in relation to mental health settings, we think that they need to do more to tackle the awful spread of nicotine addiction that we now see among young people. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 13A and 14A only as a means of thanking the Minister very much for her Amendments 14 and 15 in this group. As a number of us argued in Committee, including in particular my noble friend Lord Moylan, there is a strong case for saying that, in a secure mental health setting where staff often find themselves dealing with patients in a high state of agitation, a vending machine dispensing vapes or nicotine products not only would do no harm but could be of considerable benefit to the well-being of the individuals being treated, and potentially to staff as well, as a knock-on effect. I am very glad that the Minister felt able to reconsider this issue in the way that she has.
I confess I am troubled by Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, because, although its stated purpose is to future-proof the Bill, the signal that it sends is perhaps regrettable in the context of current public attitudes towards vaping as a means of quitting cigarettes. A substantial percentage both of the general public and of smokers mistakenly believe that vapes present a greater risk to health than smoking tobacco, extraordinary as that is. The NHS is unequivocal that vapes provide a far safer route to managing nicotine addiction than continuing to smoke. The prospect that they could at a later stage simply be swept into the same prohibition regime risks creating uncertainty, discouraging switching and undermining public health gains. We need to remember that the Bill already contains extensive regulation-making powers in respect of vaping and nicotine products—on advertising, flavours, packaging, display and sale—and those powers are wide-ranging and substantial. So adding a further power of this breadth is, I suggest, unnecessary overreach.
I am afraid that I think Amendment 16 is unnecessary as well. The Bill already contains extensive powers to regulate vaping products, from product standards and enforcement to environmental controls. The Government are already consulting widely and gathering evidence in these areas, and I am afraid I do not think there is any need for the creation of yet another statutory taskforce.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. The Chief Medical Officer’s advice on vapes is quite clear: although vaping is less harmful than smoking and can be an effective quit aid for adult smokers, non-smokers and children should never vape. In the design of policy proposals, it is imperative, we feel, to get the balance right—I say this to noble Lords who raised this point—and we sought to get the balance right between protecting future generations from the risk of vaping and ensuring that vapes remain accessible for adult smokers. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in particular will welcome that.
Amendment 7 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would add a new clause to the Bill to provide a regulation-making power that could be used to add vaping and nicotine products to the smoke-free generation provisions in England and Wales. I understand the aims of the noble Earl in bringing this forward, but I have to say—again, I hope this will be helpful to noble Lords who expressed concerns—that there is a fundamental difference in safety between vapes and tobacco products.
Tobacco is uniquely harmful. Up to two-thirds of deaths in current smokers can be attributed to smoking —so vaping, while it is not harm free, is significantly less harmful than smoking. Given the current research on health harms, the evidence base does not support extending smoke-free generation provisions to vapes or to nicotine products.
Also, to respond to the amendment, the Government should assume new powers only where there is clear justification for future regulatory change. Certainly, introducing a vape-free generation power, as suggested, would be a major step not currently supported by evidence. An age of sale restriction of 18 for vaping and nicotine products is therefore considered proportionate to protect children and young people, particularly as they may be more susceptible to the risks from nicotine use, including addiction.
On Amendment 16 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and to the points raised alongside this by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I hope that I can provide a reassurance that the Government are already delivering a comprehensive programme to tackle youth vaping, strengthen enforcement and reduce environmental impacts, and have the relevant expertise required on these issues. It is our contention that it is not necessary to put this on a statutory footing.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked how we would deal with the environmental impact of vapes. That is an extremely important area. What I can say is, as part of our upcoming circular economy growth plan, to which the noble Earl referred, the task force will consider circular design. That means including cross-government approaches such as would fit this Bill; it will consider regulation of product features and support increased recyclability—and I think that is the right place for it to be dealt with. We have to remember that last June we banned the sale and supply of single-use vapes, and from 1 October this year we will introduce a vaping products duty, which we know is effective at dissuading price-sensitive young people. Furthermore, we have a range of measures in this Bill that will tackle the drivers of youth vaping and allow us to take action on advertising, packaging, flavours and display. To support the development of future regulations, importantly, we have recently conducted a call for evidence to gather views on issues such as flavours, nicotine limits and tank sizes. There are differing opinions on all of these, so I think the call for evidence is the right approach.
The Bill also strengthens enforcement with powers that will enable us to introduce a licensing scheme and product registration scheme. Through our £10 million enforcement programme with National Trading Standards, which I referred to in the previous group, we will fund the vaping expert panel to provide valuable guidance for trading standards professionals on the enforcement of regulations.
We are also commissioning independent research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research. This includes a comprehensive analysis of all youth vaping studies and a five-year long living evidence review that will collate the latest research of vaping. Additionally, last year, we announced a landmark 10-year study that will include in its investigations the long-term health impacts of vaping on young people’s health. I consider that all these will greatly build on to the knowledge base and evidence base that we have.
Amendments 13A and 14A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, seek to exempt sales from vape vending machines in mental health hospitals for patients and staff aged 18 and over. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for raising this issue. As I am sure the noble Lord realises, we believe that the Government’s amendment covers what he is intending to achieve—and I am glad that he is indicating his agreement on that point.
I listened carefully to the concerns raised by noble Lords in Committee on patients in mental health facilities—something particularly close to my heart, as I am the Minister for Mental Health. These patients’ liberties may be restricted in terms of their being able to access vaping products to meet the public health need of helping them to quit smoking or manage nicotine addiction. Adults with a long-term mental health condition have much higher smoking prevalence rates than the general population, and this exemption takes into consideration the concerns that were raised by Peers, for which I am grateful, related to helping those people with a long-term mental health condition to quit where needed and it is appropriate.
In my reflection on these concerns, I am pleased to say that is why I have brought forward government Amendments 14 and 15, and I am very pleased to have the welcome of both Front Benches, as well as the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Fox. These government amendments provide an exemption from the ban on vape vending machines for adult mental health in-patient facilities in England and Wales. To be clear, the wording of the exemption has been very deliberately chosen. It is tightly defined to include only adult mental health in-patient settings and only in areas intended wholly or mainly for in-patients. By its nature, that means that staff will also be able to access these machines, but the exemption would not extend to areas that are not mainly for in-patient use, such as a visitors waiting room or a staff room. I hope that gives some indication to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on how this might work.
We are retaining the wider ban on vending machines to prevent young people from accessing age-restricted products, and to protect the next generation from being hooked on nicotine. I hope that this provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I am thankful for all those who have spoken in this debate and for the Minister’s detailed response.
On government Amendments 14 and 15, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for bringing the issue forward, and I am grateful to the Minister for listening and bringing forward the Government’s own amendments. As the Minister has commented, they have been welcomed across the House; they are compassionate and sensible measures, so they are very welcome indeed.
On my Amendment 7, I tried to explain the journey that I had been on in terms of a general purpose clause. It might be that the wording of my amendment was still a little bit clunky. I want to be absolutely clear: it is not a relentless attack on nicotine, and I am not anti-vaping. The question is where we draw the line on these issues, which is probably for another Bill in future. I absolutely recognise the role of vaping in smoking cessation, but what I do not want is a new product line for big tobacco to create new nicotine addicts and to create future revenue. Where we sit between those two points is perhaps a matter for another Bill, but those issues will at some point need to be addressed. That should not be done in a way that is overly restrictive, but it should also not be done in a way that is overly free in allowing big tobacco to exploit young people and get them addicted to nicotine when that does not need to happen.
Turning to my Amendment 16, I listened to what the Minister said and I welcome the fact that the Circular Economy Taskforce is looking at these issues. We will look at those recommendations closely when they come forward. The Government say they have banned single-use disposable vapes. I must admit that, to my mind, to all intents and purposes, in the real world that is simply not the case. They are still single-use products. All that being said, I welcome the Minister’s response and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Northover
“Transparency of tobacco sales data(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring every manufacturer and importer of tobacco products to publish, on a quarterly basis, data relating to the sale of tobacco products in England and Wales.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may in particular include provision requiring publication of—(a) the volume of sales of tobacco products, broken down by product type, brand and geographical region, and (b) such other information as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purposes of assessing tobacco consumption and its effects on public health.(3) Data published under regulations under this section must be made publicly available in a format accessible to public health authorities, local authorities, and other relevant bodies.(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations obliging tobacco companies to publish sales data, to improve transparency and support public health policy.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 10, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley, would require the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring tobacco manufacturers and importers to provide quarterly sales data to assist public health activities. These regulations may include information about, for example, volume of sales, geographical area and product type.
Tobacco is not like any other industry, as we have been discussing. The products sold by the industry kill around two-thirds of long-term users and the harms are widespread and well-documented. Yet the industry treats its data as a commercial secret, leaving public health authorities in the dark. The information already exists. The tobacco industry holds it. This amendment would ensure that the data are harnessed for the public good.
I note that, although Amendment 10 outlines areas where regulations could be brought, it does say “may”—there is flexibility there for the Government. All that is required is that they make progress in this area. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, noted in Committee that HMRC and the Department of Health currently have access to some data. However, we do not feel that that is sufficient. We have heard from those working in public health that there are gaps which, if filled, would benefit activities on the ground.
Smoking is responsible for deep health inequalities, with modelling from Cancer Research UK, for example, showing a 25-year gap between the most and least affluent communities in this country in achieving smoke-free status. That is a shocking illustration of health inequality, reflected in nearly twice as many smoking-related cancers in the poorest areas compared with the wealthiest. Access to sales data would help local authorities, trading standards and public health agencies target resources effectively, monitor patterns of use and respond quickly to emerging threats.
Other countries do this. Canada’s Tobacco Reporting Regulations require manufacturers to report on over 20 ingredients and 40 emissions, along with sales and promotion data, to assist Health Canada in policy decisions. Australia requires companies to report on sales volumes, product pricing, advertising, promotion, and sponsorship activities and expenditure, alongside information regarding ingredients.
Mandating transparency—we were discussing transparency earlier—is the right step. It holds the tobacco industry more accountable and ensures that public health can act on the evidence, rather than wait for other data sources. For these reasons, I urge the Government to support this amendment and commit to improve transparency for an industry that has avoided accountability for decades. I beg to move.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I covered Amendment 17A, in my name, in Committee, so I will be brief.
Currently, the vast majority of cigarette butts are made of cellulose acetate, and each cigarette butt contains around two straws-worth of plastic. Globally, around 6 trillion cigarettes are smoked each year, with 4.5 trillion butts being littered. In the UK, around 3.9 million cigarette butts are littered daily. That is equivalent to 6,000 cigarette butts being dropped in every parliamentary constituency every day. Each plastic butt can take up to 10 years to break down into tiny fragments or microplastics, and they have polluted the entire planet, from the summit of Mount Everest to the deepest oceans. Worryingly, according to recent scientific research, the level of microplastics being found in human brain tissue samples has increased by 50% since 2016 and is increasing in other organs. Local authorities in the UK spend around £40 million a year fighting a losing battle—money that many would argue could be better spent on vital front-line services. The industry could have made a change, but so far has not gone far enough.
Banning plastic cigarette filters is supported by the public, including smokers. In polling commissioned earlier this year by the Parliament News website from Whitestone Insight, a member of the British Polling Council, 2,000 people were asked for their views on this issue. When asked:
“Would you agree or disagree with these statements? Cigarette manufacturers should be required by law to switch from using plastics in cigarette butts to a fully biodegradable alternative”,
almost nine in 10, or 86%, agreed, while just one in 20, or 6%, disagreed. Interestingly, even among current smokers, the vast majority—77%—supported the change. Support was high across every age group, social group and region. In contrast, asked if cigarette manufacturers should be able to continue to use plastic filters, just 13% agreed. The survey also found that eight in 10 people support the government levy and additional taxes on cigarette brands that refuse to switch from traditional plastic butts, including 51% of smokers. Some 84% of UK adults would support cigarette manufacturers being fined for not switching to biodegradable butts, with the revenues going towards paying for cleaning up the environment.
I do not think that this is a party-political issue. It was discussed by MPs, who voted on an amendment that was supported cross-party, including by Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Reform, independents and unionists. Unfortunately, the Government did not accept the change that was being put forward. If we are going to be serious about how we consider the environment, this could be an important change.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, with whom I nearly always agree, but not on this occasion. The noble Baroness and your Lordships’ House will know that concern about plastics, microplastics, nanoplastics and public health, including the way in which they are penetrating every corner of this planet and every piece of our body, is something I am gravely concerned about. As I will come to later, my amendment calls for banning filters altogether.
Very often in your Lordships’ House, I find myself acknowledging that something that is being proposed is not exactly what I want but would be an improvement. I am afraid that I am not convinced that the ban on plastic filters that the noble Baroness proposes would be an improvement. We had an extensive debate in Committee, which I am not going to reprise, but, basically, we have a problem, in that the term “biodegradable”, which is what is being proposed, is exceedingly unclear and is not defined. There is very clear evidence that these so-called biodegradable filters can take nearly as long to degrade as the plastic ones, leach harmful chemicals and remain in the environment for a long time. Studies have also shown that people who believe that cigarette butts are biodegradable are more likely to litter them. Although this might look like a small step in the right direction, I do not believe there is the evidence to actually take us in that direction.
Amendment 77, in my name, as was extensively canvassed in Committee, proposes to end the environmental and health harms of so-called cigarette filters, compelling the Government to act now and ban all cigarette filters, which have no health benefits, reasonable evidence of health harms and, of course, huge environmental harms, whether they are plastic filters or the so-called biodegradable ones.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the Liberal Democrats for Amendment 76, which explores a consultation on this subject. I am absolutely delighted, for the second group in a row, to say to the Minister that the series of amendments that she has tabled, which mean that the Government are preparing the way for banning filters in the future, is a significant step forward.
However, I want to keep my amendment on the paper to make the case for why this action must be taken now. The problem of so-called guilt-free littering makes the littering problem even worse. Companies that manufacture so-called biodegradable filters continue to make profits only if people continue to consume tobacco; the biodegradable filters proposal is essentially coming from the tobacco industry.
This country has never been afraid of leading the world when it comes to tobacco control. We could be—we hear the phrase world-leading so often in your Lordships’ House—the first country in the world to ban so-called cigarette filters. We could use this as an opportunity to reverse the damage done by decades of industry marketing, raise awareness of the harms of smoking and incentivise smokers to quit.
The World Health Organization has said that it believes a ban on filters would have a significant impact on discouraging consumption. A 2023 randomised controlled trial found that those smoking filterless cigarettes consumed less, and filtered cigarettes were perceived to be better tasting, more satisfying, more enjoyable, less aversive, less harsh, less potent and less negatively reinforcing than unfiltered cigarettes.
I recognise that in Committee the Minister said that she would like more evidence and modelling on this behavioural point. There are now academics working on that very point. I am sure they will be reaching out, and I will make sure that the noble Baroness hears about that as well.
While I agree with the Minister that the long-term solution here is to eliminate tobacco use—that is obviously the ambition that pretty much everyone can sign up to—with 5.3 million smokers still in the UK, 75% of whom admit to littering their butts, there is a strong case for action. I am glad to see that the Government’s position has again shifted on this since Committee. I thank Action on Smoking and Health and my colleagues in the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health, as well as the academics who have been highlighting this issue and moving this forward.
Finally, and briefly, I express Green support for Amendments 10, 204 and 133, and particularly for the suggestion in Amendment 133, which I spoke on extensively in Committee, for warnings on individual cigarettes and cigarette papers. Again, this is a place where we would not quite be first in the world, but we would certainly be in the leading pack of doing something that has been shown to have positive impacts in reducing smoking, which is what we are all after.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 204 in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Crisp, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I thank them for their support for this important amendment. This amendment proposes a “polluter pays” levy on tobacco manufacturers, ensuring that those who profit from one of the most harmful products in human history contribute to repairing some of the immense damage they have caused. The principle is simple and widely accepted: when an industry causes profound harm and reaps extraordinary profits, it should help to meet the costs of addressing that harm.
Given the unambiguity of that harm, it is only right that those who are responsible contribute to putting it right. The amendment would require the Secretary of State, within two years of Royal Assent, to establish a levy on companies deriving income from the manufacture of tobacco products. Its receipts would form a dedicated fund within the Department of Health and Social Care used solely for smoking cessation, tobacco control and healthcare for those suffering from smoke-related illnesses. Regulations would be made under the affirmative procedure to ensure proper parliamentary oversight.
This is not a new charge on consumers. It draws on the vast profits of an industry that for decades has taken far more from the public purse and the public’s health than it has ever contributed. Four companies control over 95% of UK tobacco sales, enjoying monopoly-like power and profit margins averaging 50%, some five times the UK manufacturing norm. Together they make almost £900 million a year in UK profits, and they often pay little corporation tax here in the UK.
Compare that with the cost. Smoking drains £43.7 billion a year from society in England, including a cost of £1.8 billion to the NHS and far more in lost productivity, social care and human suffering. Tobacco duty and VAT raise barely £6.8 billion—only a fraction of the real cost of these harms. The “polluter pays” principle already underpins environmental law and is embedded in gambling reforms, where a statutory levy funds prevention and treatment. It is only logical to apply the same reasoning to tobacco, a product that kills nearly 74,000 people every year in England.
Lord Rennard (Non-Afl)
My Lords, my Amendments 129 and 133 would place a duty on the Government to consult on whether health warnings should appear not just on cigarette packets or the inserts within them but on every single cigarette, by printing the warnings on the paper enclosing the dangerous tobacco. In Grand Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, whose great work on this Bill is much to be admired, said that this was something the Government could look at in future but not something they were looking at now, and that secondary legislation could provide for this in future. I ask: why not consider it now, and why not meet my request for a consultation to begin?
This idea is not new or untested. It was first endorsed by the All-Party Group on Smoking and Health in 2021, and then in the Khan review commissioned by the previous Government in 2022. Canada has already implemented this approach on cigarette papers, with demonstrable impact. Australia followed suit last April, albeit with warnings only on the filters. The evidence gathered for Health Canada examined how smokers and non-smokers responded to cigarettes carrying health warnings directly on them. The findings were striking: cigarettes displaying warnings were consistently regarded as less attractive, while those without warnings were more likely to be seen as less dangerous. In other words, the absence of a warning sends its own message—and it is the wrong one.
I strongly welcome the Government’s decision to introduce pack inserts that direct smokers towards quitting support. I argued strongly for this when we debated the Health and Care Bill. It is a positive and sensible step, but it does not address the problem that the first cigarette smoked is often offered from someone else’s packet. Warnings on individual cigarettes would get to these people in ways that pack-based measures simply do not.
This effect of warnings on individual cigarette papers has been shown to be especially pronounced among younger people. They are more likely to be offered a single cigarette in social settings, as opposed to purchasing a whole packet that already has warnings on it or may have an insert in future. Printing warnings directly on the cigarette would ensure that the health warning is present at the point of use, not just at the point of purchase. Evidence from focus groups in Scotland found that warnings on individual cigarettes were perceived by young people as embarrassing, with the consensus being that it would be very off-putting for young people.
It is sometimes disingenuously claimed that there is no need for health warnings about tobacco as the dangers of smoking are already universally understood. Action on Smoking and Health found in an analysis of its survey data that younger smokers, the very people who would benefit most from this measure, were less likely to be aware of the full risks of smoking. But awareness alone does not change behaviour. The average smoker makes 30 attempts to give up before succeeding. My amendment would help them give up every time they handle a cigarette.
More importantly, it would help prevent people smoking their very first cigarette. The evidence shows that, the greater the range of interventions we deploy, the greater our chances of preventing uptake and encouraging cessation. Different messages resonate with different people, and tobacco remains a uniquely lethal consumer product. We should be prepared to use every effective tool available to reduce the harm it causes to smokers, their families and everybody else.
Finally, I know the Minister has raised concerns about how visible the messages might be and that, in some countries where this has been implemented, they appear only on the filter. The UK could do things differently if we choose, as in Canada. It is often said that a picture is worth a thousand words. If I could display to this Chamber a picture of the effective health warnings on Canadian cigarette papers, it would be easy to see how effective they are. If the Minister cannot accept this amendment today, I hope she will say not just that this measure might be considered in future but that it will be considered now, beginning with the consultation requested.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to two amendments in this group. Before coming to those, I will say a word about Amendment 77 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which I was initially attracted to. Like many other noble Lords, I went to a presentation by ASH, where we listened to health experts explain that filters do not prevent anything noxious reaching the lungs. On the contrary, they have ingredients in them that might be damaging. Far worse, because of the filter, smokers inhale more than they would have done had there not been one, as they think it is safe. It may be that the 25 government amendments achieve in a rather roundabout way what the noble Baroness seeks to do in Amendment 77. We will listen with interest to the Minister when she speaks to her amendments.
Amendment 133 was ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. As I have said before, when I was a Health Minister in 1979, I tried to get the tobacco industry to adopt putting a warning on cigarettes and it declined on the grounds that ink was carcinogenic. This was not an argument I found very persuasive. Here we are, nearly 50 years later, still discussing something that at the time was world-beating, although I understand that I have now been overtaken by Canada.
Amendment 204, spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, sits rather uneasily in this group, which is otherwise about filters, in that it is about the tobacco levy. I want to make a number of points. First, previously the Government ruled this out on the grounds that they consulted on a levy model in 2014. Indeed they did, but this is a very different model from that which they consulted on. Crucially, in the one they consulted on, the levy would have been passed on to the consumer, with all the impact on RPI or CPI. This model has been constructed to avoid that; it would control the price that tobacco can be sold for, leading to very different outcomes from the model consulted on by the Treasury, and would not allow tobacco companies to pass the costs on to consumers as they do at the moment. It would raise revenue. One estimate has been £5 billion. Even if it is a fraction of that, it is money well worth having.
The scheme would not be complex to administer. As the noble Earl said, there are only four manufacturers. The department already operates the PPRS, controlling medicine prices, with far more manufacturers than are involved in tobacco. Crucially, the Khan review, already referred to, which was initiated by Sajid Javid when he was Health Secretary, pointed out that the Government were not going to hit their then target of a smoke-free England by 2030. It recommended the levy—this was an independent review commissioned by the last Conservative Government—and reinvesting the money in media campaigns targeted at those elements of the population who were still smoking.
Finally, I know that the Minister will not mind me reminding her of what she said when a similar amendment was debated in 2022 and passed in your Lordships’ House by 213 to 154. She knows what I am going to say; she supported and voted for that amendment, saying that it would
“provide a well-funded and much-needed boost, and a consultation would allow this proposal to be tested, refined and shaped”.—[Official Report, 16/3/22; col. 297.]
Well, that is what we are asking for today. She did not persuade me in Committee when she gave the reasons why she had changed her mind. Perhaps she can have another go this evening and explain why she will now urge the House to reject what she thought was a good idea four years ago.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, since this is the first time I have spoken on Report, I declare my interest as a professor of politics and international relations at St Mary’s University, Twickenham, where I teach an MBA module on healthcare policy and strategy. I also work with the Vinson Centre for the Public Understanding of Economics and Entrepreneurship at the University of Buckingham, and we sometimes run seminars on evidence behind public health policy.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful for the contributions to this debate. I will start by addressing the government amendments tabled in my name. The issue of filters, as we have heard in this debate, has been raised throughout the Bill’s passage, both in the other place and in Committee in your Lordships’ House. As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, action on filters has been proposed by parties from across the political spectrum.
However, there has not been a consensus on a single approach, and it is that that we have sought to deal with. That is why we are taking a suite of powers to enable secondary legislation to regulate filters, should evidence suggest that it is necessary. Although these powers could enable the banning of filters in the future, they also enable us to regulate filters in other ways, such as regulating their packaging, advertising, display in stores and free distribution.
As the noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to, there is evidence that people incorrectly believe that some cigarette filters make cigarettes less harmful. There is absolutely a risk that this could influence smoking behaviours. The fact of the matter is that cigarette filters provide no protection from the health risks of smoking.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the Government’s intention to take action. On that point, and more broadly, the evidence base about the direct health impact is still in formation. We will explore commissioning further research to understand the harms and, based on that, consider further consultation. For these reasons, we are not able to accept Amendment 76 from the noble Earl.
Since we are taking these powers on filters in the Bill, Amendment 77, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and Amendment 17A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, are therefore not required—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. Should we choose to ban filters, we would indeed be the first country in the world to do so. It would be a significant step, and noble Lords will understand that, before making any such decision, we need to interrogate the issue fully and ensure that all potential consequences are considered. However, we will now have the powers to act through these government amendments if and when the evidence emerges.
Specifically on Amendment 17A, evidence currently suggests that filters labelled as biodegradable can still leach harmful chemicals into the environment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said. There is also evidence to suggest that people who believe that cigarette butts are biodegradable are more likely to litter them, as noble Lords have said.
I turn to Amendment 10, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. I am sympathetic towards attempts to increase transparency of the tobacco industry. I therefore understand why she brought this forward. However, Clause 95 already provides powers to make regulations that could require producers or importers to provide specified information. This could include sales data, as well as market research, from producers of any relevant products within the scope of Part 5, not just tobacco products. This clause also enables us to make provision about when and how the information must be provided, and the publication of any such information. I reassure the noble Baroness that we will consult on these requirements as we develop the necessary regulations.
I am sympathetic to the aims of Amendment 204, tabled in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Crisp. However, as I said in Committee, again in answer to the point the noble Earl raised, we already have a “polluter pays” tax on tobacco in the form of tobacco duties. The UK has some of the highest tobacco taxes in the world. Duty rates on all tobacco products were increased by 2% above inflation at the Autumn Budget 2025. This duty raises about £8 billion a year.
I appreciate that the amendment proposes combining a levy with regulating prices, but the reality is that, because of the ongoing structural decline in the UK tobacco market, we are sceptical that there is the suggested level of profit available in the system. Regulating pricing would also be a complicated and resource-intensive policy to design and implement, and which we believe is unlikely to be successful in meeting its objectives, such as raising additional revenue. It would be challenging to design restrictions that industry could not circumvent, for example, by shifting focus to products not included in the cap or avoiding tax through international transfer pricing. Therefore, as I stated previously, our preference is to continue with tobacco duties—an understood approach which incentivises those who currently smoke to quit and generates revenue that can be put back into a full range of public services.
Finally, Amendments 129 and 133 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support for strong tobacco control. However, with respect to these amendments, we already have the ability to regulate the information provided on products which could enable us to mandate health warnings in the future. We already have some of the most stringent regulations in the world on cigarette packaging, emphasising health harms. They include the requirement for plain packaging and graphic picture warnings on the outside of cigarette packets. We have announced that we are introducing pack inserts to cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco. Therefore, we do not plan to introduce dissuasive cigarettes. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, did acknowledge in his contribution, the Government will continue to monitor the evidence.
I hope that this provides reassurance to noble Lords that the Government are committed to evidence-based policy to tackle the harms from tobacco use and that the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, this is a vital Bill, even if we are seeking to improve it further. We have clearly made progress on filters and there are a number of other areas where progress can be made under the Bill. I note the Minister’s encouraging words in relation to my amendment on data and transparency. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw.
Schools White Paper: Every Child Achieving and Thriving
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking the Government for the Statement and the publication of the schools White Paper, the SEND consultation and the update on teacher recruitment. I also acknowledge the time taken by the Secretary of State and her ministerial colleagues in communicating in particular the Government’s proposals in terms of reforming support for children with special educational needs and disabilities, including taking time to talk to parents. This is a very important and sensitive area, and that is appreciated by all.
The Government have been very clear about their intent with these reforms, but I will ask the Minister some questions, particularly on realigning the incentives in the system. Before the Minister points out any of the mistakes of the previous Government, I will be absolutely clear that there was an issue with the 2014 reforms in relation to incentives. The principles that underpinned the Children and Families Act, which introduced education, health and care plans, were not flawed. The aim of creating a tailored and comprehensive single plan for a child was not a bad one; nor was the requirement for local authorities and partners to jointly commission services and to focus on outcomes and participation of children; and nor was the extension of rights and support into further education and training, so that young people with SEND were better prepared for adulthood.
The problems came with the incentives, which ended up unintentionally pushing parents to seek specialist and, in many cases, very expensive support for their child. Every one of us, as a parent, would seek the best possible support for our children, but it ended up driving up costs in a way that no one anticipated. I hope that the Minister can set out how the incentives will work in the proposed system, because the existence of earlier intervention support, which is very welcome, does not equate to parents believing that it is sufficient for their child.
It would help to understand how the department and Ministers have thought through the incentives for parents and for mainstream schools to intervene and improve outcomes. If the Minister could walk us through an example, it would be very helpful. Perhaps she could expand on the plan set out on page 84 of the consultation to redirect more money into the core budget and say how much the Government anticipate will be taken out of education, health and care plans to make that happen.
I would also be grateful if she could set out how confident the Government feel that the new funding for inclusive mainstream provision and for the specialist workforce will be sufficient. At first sight, the figures do not look sufficient when one thinks about them at an individual school level, although I appreciate that they are very large in relation to any negotiation with His Majesty’s Treasury. Unless they are sufficient, parents understandably will seek to revert to specialist support as the only route to adequate help for their children.
The same is true when one looks at the numbers set out in the document in relation to the specialist workforce, where I see that the plans of the previous Government, particularly in relation to educational psychologists, are being continued at a rate of 200 a year. I appreciate that it is difficult to recruit and find these staff but, again, they need to be there in sufficient numbers.
I apologise if I missed this in the document, but I wonder whether the Government considered using approaches that I think are used quite frequently on the continent, where funding is given to a local area and all schools can benefit from provision for the children with the most complex needs where no individual school has sufficient children to make it viable to support them. Finally, will the Government be piloting these approaches to test how they work in practice, so we avoid unintended consequences?
Apart from incentives, can the Minister address some of the concerns that have been expressed by parents who are worried that their rights will be eroded? I hope that this will be an opportunity for the Minister to reassure those who are listening. There are many areas that have been highlighted: I will pick just a couple. First, education, health and care plans were set with a legal test of whether it “may be necessary” for provision to be secured through a plan, not whether a child has “complex” or “severe” needs. That appears to be changing. The document says that education, health and care plans
“will be developed with the setting, and in consultation with parents, after the Specialist Provision Package and placement decisions have been made”.
The Minister will know that parents are worried about that.
Finally, can I give her the opportunity to answer the question that her colleagues have so far declined to answer? Could any child who currently has an EHCP lose it in future?
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the first thing to say is that I have been asking for this to come out for a long time, so I thank the Government for getting there eventually. The document does accept that it is a difficult and slow process that we are starting, and anybody who kids themselves that it is not will be doing a disservice to everybody involved. We are talking about 2030 for getting some structure in place. You have to train people, to get other people used to being told that they are operating differently in the classroom, and to get schools to re-incentivise, with an inclusion strategy and individual support plans. This is a cultural shift which will take real effort and time to push through. If we accept that, how will we make sure that everybody in every school understands that they have a duty and the ability to identify and tell parents what the problem is? That is where it all starts to go wrong.
At the moment, there is a disincentive for anybody to be identified by a school as having a special educational need, because you have got a budget that comes from the main school budget, which means you have got a choice between four kids getting their dyslexia support or help for autism or ADHD, or the roof leaks. How is that to be squared? It is not just more money; it is the allocation of money, and it is the duty. If you have an individual plan going through, are you flexible enough to allow that to be implemented?
There has been an acceptance in this Chamber every time I have spoken that you do not work harder; you work smarter. Individual groups will have a different take on this. I am a dyslexic, and I declare my interest as the president of the British Dyslexia Association. I use technology and I work with people who use technology—I declare my interest as the chairman of Microlink PC. The incentives I have there and the problems I square up to are different to those in the autism sector, which is probably one of the most vocal groups. How are we going to work these two in together? How are we going to have the flexibility to allow a school to actually undertake these different types of approach?
If you have that, if you make that an incentive, you stand a chance of getting a better situation, but only if you have identified that you can get the right help to the right person. Take dyslexia—I will cling to mother and talk to the one I know about. If it is not just the English teacher but the maths teacher who realises bad short-term memory means these individuals will not remember formulas and equations, bring those two together so everybody knows you will work differently. You can go into dyscalculia and others. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, is not here but she has actually raised this and done a great service in bringing it further forward. When these groups come through, how are we going to get the capacity into the school to identify and bring it forward?
The reassessment of all plans and support structures when you get to secondary school is a natural break—you go from acquiring basic skills to acquiring knowledge to pass exams. But how are we going to make sure that is not something where somebody says, “Right, you are doing this here”; it should be about how you continue, not how you stop. There is a fear, and it has become very apparent. I recommend the “Woman’s Hour” podcast if noble Lords want to have a definition of the fear that has come out about this. How are we going to deal with that? These are the sort of questions we are going to have to start to answer today and carry on with.
I welcome the approach here, but unless you actually get a more coherent pattern that reassures those who have fought to get their EHCPs, spending time, blood and not a little money on them, what are we going to do? Can we also have a commitment from the Minister that the Government will be looking at how to remove lawyers from the system? In many cases, there are a lot of very second-rate lawyers who have taken this work on and are milking the system. We cannot go back to this. We cannot go back to this situation where only the articulate and well off are getting the help they need.
I applaud the attention towards subjects like sport and music, because it helps with special educational needs if you have got some positive attitude towards them. How are we going to bring this together? How is the flexibility and that inclusion pathway going to be put down so that the rest of this can be put on? If you get that right, you stand a chance of making a real improvement here. If we do not have that and we do not have the identification capacity, you will not achieve that much.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, our White Paper, Every Child Achieving and Thriving, sets out our ambition to improve the lives of all children and young people, combining the support they receive at home with a school experience that is challenging, enriching and inclusive.
First, we will broaden children’s experience of education with a knowledge-rich curriculum, smooth the transition between phases, and introduce an enrichment entitlement for every child and accountability changes that promote breadth.
Secondly, we will ensure that children who have been sidelined for too long are fully included. We want every child to have the best start in life, with support available earlier and locally. Deprivation funding will be targeted to boost outcomes for the most disadvantaged children, and we are launching two place-focused missions to provide a blueprint for national change. Our ambitious SEND reforms will support mainstream inclusion so that children can access help without waiting for lengthy assessments or having to engage with lawyers—including from our £1.8 billion Experts at Hand programme, wrapping professionals such as speech and language therapists around schools, and removing the incentive that both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have identified for parents, who are desperate for the support that they need and want for their children, to have to fight through a lengthy process to get an education, health and care plan. But for those with more complex needs, new specialist provision packages, designed with experts and parents, will define the support required. All this is backed by £7 billion more for SEND in 2028-29 compared with 2025-26.
Thirdly, we will move from children and communities withdrawing from school to engaging with a new pupil engagement framework. Improved behaviour and attendance support and clearer information for parents will help strengthen relationships between families and schools.
Finally, we are building the strong foundations needed to deliver this change—more expert teachers, better training and improved maternity provision, deeper school collaboration through a trusted model and innovation powered by data, AI and regional RISE teams. These reforms, shaped by the largest national conversation on SEND, put children, families and inclusion at the heart of our system, and together they will ensure that every child in every community can achieve and thrive.
To give more detail on the incentives and funding point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, we have been clear that we will reform the system through the addition of £4 billion over the next three years, including the £1.6 billion for the inclusive mainstream fund, because we must get to a position where more parents feel confident that their children are receiving the support that they need in schools, alongside their friends and as part of their communities. We will provide £1.6 billion for that fund over three years, with over £500 million per year over the next three years to mainstream schools and other educational settings. That fund will give schools and other education settings direct responsibility over funding to empower them to deliver for children and young people with SEND. Over time, there will be a rebalancing of funding from the high needs budget into schools’ budgets, in line with new accountability arrangements—funding in schools where it needs to make the difference.
In addition, our £1.8 billion fund will enable there to be what we are calling Experts at Hand—speech and language therapists, educational psychologists, occupational therapists and others supporting children and teachers before the point at which children need to get to have an education, health and care plan. That funding will provide, for example, the equivalent of 160 days’ worth of support in a secondary school and 40 additional days in primary. We will expect schools to work in groups in order to ensure that, where it does not necessarily make sense or is not possible to provide that provision in one school, they can work together in order to ensure that that provision is available.
The key point here, as we think about education, health and care plans, is how we move to a system where children will not need an education, health and care plan to get support in the first place. Although, to be clear, education, health and care plans will remain for children with complex needs, they will be based on evidence-driven, expert-determined, specialist provision packages, which will enable better and more effective commissioning by local authorities of the provision that is most likely to provide support for children. They will back up the education, health and care plans, which will remain for those children with complex needs.
We are clear that we need to transform the system before we change the EHCP system. That is why we have been clear that no child will have their EHCP renewed before 2028-29 and that it will be only those children who are currently in year 2 or below, who will come to the end of their primary, at which point it would seem appropriate to review their education, health and care plan. Many of them may well continue with that plan; for others, the transformed system and the development of individual support plans for every child with special educational needs may provide a better opportunity at that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, is right. We need to train people and teachers in order to be able to deliver the inclusive education that is at the heart of this reform. That is why we have already announced the £200 million additional support for every teacher and educator, from early years through to colleges, to get training in special educational needs and the type of teaching required to support children and young people. That is why we will make additional support and practitioners available in early years to help to identify those children who need additional support, and it is why we will invest in research to find the most effective ways of doing that throughout the system.
To conclude, our ambition is clear: to build an education system that enables every child, wherever they live and whatever their needs, to achieve and to thrive. These reforms will deliver earlier support, stronger inclusion, broader opportunities and higher standards for all. They are shaped by parents, grounded in evidence and backed by significant investment. Most importantly, they place children at the heart of every decision that we make. Working together, we can create a system that is fairer, more ambitious and fit for the future. That is how we will ensure that every child can achieve and thrive.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, I know from my work as an MP how sensitive this issue is and how important it is to families. I used to represent a constituency that the Minister will know very well.
There are concerns that we should not ignore. A number of eminent clinicians and psychiatrists are now raising concerns that the expansion of diagnostic labels to conditions such as autism and ADHD is causing children with the most severe and complex needs to be overlooked. Given that one in three EHCPs is now given for autism and that the number of children overall with SEN is rising, does the Minister think there is any validity in these concerns? If she does, will she look at it? What is the response? Will the Fonagy review look at this issue specifically as well?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that I know that constituency very well, having proudly represented it for 13 years—although I am afraid that the history of Worcestershire’s approach to special educational needs has not always been as effective as we would want it to be. There is a challenge to be made to local authorities to ensure that they are stepping up to the mark, given the considerable additional investment that we are putting into the system.
On the point about diagnostic labels, the important thing is that we should not be waiting for a child to receive a label to determine whether they have needs that need to be met, both through more inclusive mainstream teaching and through additional support being provided within schools. Even when we get to the specialist provision packages, they will be determined not by labels but by the needs that children have in order to make progress.
On the point about overdiagnosis, we need to be careful. The Secretary of State has been clear about that. He has commissioned further research into the nature of the diagnosis, particularly in the areas of mental health and other learning difficulties. That is an appropriate thing to have done.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend will agree that great teaching is vital to great schools and great childhoods. We both shared the pleasure of working at the chalkface for many years. What will the Government do in the months and years ahead to ensure that great teachers stay in the profession and that they themselves achieve and thrive?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right—and also about the joy that teaching brought to us both. That is why, alongside the White Paper, we published the implementation plan for delivering an additional 6,500 specialist teachers in our secondary schools and colleges. It is why, through the already improved pay for teachers, we are providing incentives for them to stay; why we are continuing to look at the working conditions that teachers operate under; and why, for example, the White Paper extends maternity pay for teachers from a pretty low base. Using all those things, and the support for teachers to do the job that they love even better, we are already seeing some progress in keeping more teachers in the classroom. We will continue to ensure that we focus on that.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome this document. It is very important and ambitious, but it is not without risk. The way in which the Government have consulted on it—and, in a way, taken their time—gives us the best possible chance of making a success of it. I hope that is the case.
I have two questions, which I hope the Minister can address. First, on the extra money going into the system to support SEND, I very much welcome the work that the Government plan to do on a new formula for supporting children from disadvantage. Will the way the SEND money goes into schools be part of that review and go in with money in the normal way, or will it take a different route? Will the details of that be announced? Secondly, I note that the White Paper allows local authorities to set up trusts. There is a quirky sentence, I think in chapter 5, which says that these local authority trusts will not be allowed to intervene or get involved in the day-to-day running of the school. That is not my impression of what happens with trusts at the moment. Will the rules that surround a local authority-led trust be exactly the same as the rules that surround others, or will they be slightly different, as this seems to indicate?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is right that the White Paper proposes a different approach to how we fund disadvantage, recognising that a “yes or no”, free school meals analysis of whether somebody is disadvantaged does not really get to the heart of the nature of that disadvantage. We will consult on that in relation to the money that schools receive for the pupil premium and for the disadvantage factors within the national funding formula, some of which would relate to children with SEND but is not specifically about SEND. The £4 billion additional funding for SEND will be allocated in the way I outlined in my first answer.
On the point about local authority trusts, it is the objective of the White Paper for all schools to be part of a trust. We are clear that, in some cases, there may not be existing trusts that could take on a school. For that reason we will also allow local authorities to set up trusts, but it is not the intention to recreate local authorities through trust provision. That is the reason for the particular arrangements for local authority trusts.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government. As a teacher, I think this is an amazing document and I look forward to talking about it a lot more. Something I particularly love about it is the high expectation of families. A question that comes to me—one of many—is that it talks about experts at hand, wrapping professionals around mainstream settings. I love the fact that the schools are becoming the experts, but it is pretty light on detail. Can the Minister be a little more specific about how this is going to happen?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am glad that the noble Lord recognises the emphasis on families and the relationship between schools and parents. An important element of the White Paper recognises, as I know the noble Lord does from his teaching career, that although teachers make a phenomenal difference to how children succeed, many other factors outside schools also impact on that. That is why this builds on a range of other activities, including those to support children to arrive at school ready to learn and our efforts to tackle child poverty, and brings stronger expectations on schools to ensure that they develop better home-school agreements and communicate consistently.
On the point about experts at hand, this is where I was talking about the additional funding that will enable some of those experts who, I am afraid, are currently spending too much time carrying out assessments or are in excellent special schools but are not able to offer that expertise out to schools, to develop it. Yes, there is work to be done on the design of how that happens, but this is considerable investment to deliver an average of 160 days to secondary schools precisely to get that support to children without them having to go through the torturous process of getting an education, health and care plan.
Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking all the officials involved in producing this very ambitious White Paper and crediting Ministers for their determination to tackle this very difficult issue. I wholeheartedly support their emphasis on early intervention.
The Minister very helpfully set out the plans for the £4 billion of spending that I understand is coming from the department’s existing spending review settlement over the next three years. I wonder whether she could also confirm—or correct me if I am wrong—that the Treasury is providing an additional £3.5 billion in 2028-29 as a one-off payment. Is this funding earmarked to cover the projected £6 billion of deficits that the OBR set out? I would be grateful if she could clarify that for me and tell me if I have misunderstood.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The £4 billion is additional funding over the next three years. The £6 billion that the OBR identified was based on the premise of an unreformed system. That the system is being reformed means that, by the time we get to 2028-29 and 2029-30, we will be operating in a very different system. As part of the local government settlement, we have also begun the process of writing off and taking over responsibility for the money that local authorities have built up from overspending on special educational needs in recent years. Those two things are separate.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I declare an interest in that my diocese has more than 190 Church schools and we educate around 60,000 children, in the total roll across them. The Church of England has already officially welcomed the White Paper and these Benches echo that this evening.
In Manchester, we have been looking at those points of transition—the transition from preschool into primary and from primary into secondary. In the past five or six years, the Bolton metropolitan area has had a project called Children Changing Places, because we recognise that, in those points of transition, children’s academic, social and spiritual development can go backwards, so we have been investing money into those points of transition. I note that both the White Paper and the Minister, in her replies this evening, referred to those points of transition. Might I tempt her to say a little more about how children can be enabled to manage those transitions without dropping back in their various levels of attainment?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate makes a very important point. As an example, we are working on how we can ensure that children are better prepared when they start school with an ambitious target to improve that, and investment in Best Start in Life and childcare to enable it.
Another key transition is from primary to secondary. Too often, key stage 3—the first three years in secondary—is not spent as effectively as it could be. Developing a new programme around the best practice for key stage 3 and really focusing on that will be part of the work of the RISE teams.
Another area where transition is often raised is in relation to SEND and children going from mainstream schools into colleges. We will make better provision for that and expect schools, at an earlier stage, to provide the information that colleges need to help children with special educational needs to thrive.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House of my education interests, in particular as chair of STEM Learning and of the E-ACT multi-academy trust. At some of our E-ACT primary schools in Bristol, we have been investing in speech and language therapy training for all our mainstream teachers in reception and early years. As a result, we are identifying more pupils with special educational needs but fewer are going on to have education, health and care plans. That gives me optimism in the basis for early intervention in these reforms and that it will work.
My question to my noble friend is around the seven specialist provision packages. Getting the detail right on those is crucial to gain the confidence of parents. How can we ensure that the consultation that the department is carrying out will properly include all stakeholders, including those with special educational needs and disabilities?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend has identified the benefits of early intervention, as he says. We need a clearer and more evidence-based approach to what is appropriate for children with complex needs, which is why we are creating a new set of nationally consistent specialist provision packages. They will be designed to set clear expectations of what high-quality specialist provision should offer. They will be developed by experts and tested with families to make sure that they work in real life and reflect the best evidence about what helps children thrive. As I said, they are not based on diagnoses; instead, they will focus on the support that a child needs to learn, communicate, feel regulated and take part in school life. This important work will also be reviewed by an independent national expert panel, which will help to keep them up to date.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, my question relates to the plans for a review of education, health and care plans after primary school from 2030. For children with a special school place from September 2029, there is a promise to keep their place, but their EHCP will be reviewed.
I am drawing on my experience as a governor at a primary school in London that had an autistic unit. When it was created, the assumption was that children would be there for a few years, would get support and would then be able to move into mainstream schooling. That was not the experience. As school years go forward, the curriculum becomes more complex and the social setting of a classroom becomes more complex, and children were not able to make that progression.
If there is to be a review of EHCPs at the end of primary, do the Government have any evidence or data on how many people with an EHCP will lose it? We have to pick up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about parents putting so much time, energy and money into securing these EHCPs and the fear of losing them. What will the benefit of the review be versus the cost to parents?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
First, to be clear, the majority of children who have an EHCP are in a special school. No child who is in a special school will need to leave a special school placement at any point. Secondly, on the point about bases in schools, part of the investment that we are putting in is to enable more opportunities within schools, to develop the type of bases that will provide specialist support for children but enable them to stay in mainstream schools in their communities, alongside their friends.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that these changes are desperately needed. The system is currently broken and we need to see change. I press the Minister on the issue of the pupil premium, a scheme designed for funding to follow disadvantaged young people. If any review is undertaken of how that money is allocated, can the Minister assure us that it will be done in a transparent way so that we know which people may lose out? Can the Minister commit to at least trying to protect funding for care-experienced young people when it comes to the pupil premium?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
This is not about how we cut the money that is available for disadvantage; this is about how we ensure that it is spent in a way that recognises that not all disadvantage is the same. We will be maintaining—in fact, we have increased—spending on the pupil premium. In relation to the overall review of the funding formula and the way in which we allocate the pupil premium, all of that will be subject to consultation, which will be starting this summer.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this initiative and the document—they are brilliant. However, I want to ask about the children who might have to attend a special school because of their particular needs and the challenges that they face. As somebody has already mentioned, one of the problems that local authorities face in the overspend on this concerns some of the special schools that we already have, which are profit-gouging. They are overcharging huge amounts of money for our most vulnerable children. We know that there are excellent special schools in the sector run by charities, social enterprises and, indeed, some of the private enterprises, but it is clear that those making vast profits need to be dealt with. I welcome the investment that has been proposed, but I would like to ask my noble friend the Minister about the transition that will happen. Will new powers be needed for local authorities and others, to make sure that we do not leave children and parents vulnerable because of the schools that are having to be dealt with?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. There is excellent work going on in our special schools, in the state sector and the independent sector. However, it cannot be right that there is a differential of three times between that which is charged in independent special schools and that which is charged in state special schools. Where that reflects highly specialised provision, that is legitimate, but where it is feeding private equity and, as my noble friend says, focused on profit, it is wholly wrong. That is why we will improve the regulation of independent special schools and, using the specialist packages that we are developing, create price bands indicating what local authorities will pay for children to go there. We can then be clearer that the money we are spending is delivering outcomes for children and not profits for private equity.
Baroness Debbonaire (Lab)
My Lords, my question has been partly answered. I thank my noble friend the Minister for bringing the Statement to the House and for the White Paper. I would like to press her a little more on that very topic. While it is absolutely right that these schools not be run for such profit-gouging as has been mentioned, how will needs be assessed in the case of children with very complex needs who are currently in specialist education that is well-run? I declare an interest, in that my nephew works with those children.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Children in special schools, either in the state sector or in independent special schools, will be there by virtue of an education, health and care plan. They will keep that education, health and care plan if they are in a special school. That will now be reinforced by clearer evidence and recognition of what the best practice would be for those children. Part of that evidence will be informed by the excellent work that is happening within special schools. If we can also get some of the expertise in special schools into mainstream schools through the £1.8 billion investment and the “expert at hand” provision then we really will have made sure that we are making the most of the excellent work that happens in our special schools.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Udny-Lister
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the new definition of heated tobacco product is included in the age of sale and other regulations covering vapes and nicotine products.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of my amendment to Clause 10 is simply to ensure that heated tobacco products are explicitly addressed within the age of sale framework. I am strongly of the view that, when Parliament seeks to regulate a product, it must define it clearly. As other noble Lords have repeatedly mentioned, there is still a high level of inconsistency and ambiguity in this Bill, which renders it fundamentally flawed unless many of these amendments are supported over the next few days. Both retailers and trading standards officers require certainty when it comes to product classification, and a clear statutory definition would avoid later confusion, reduce the overall risk of litigation and strengthen accountability, which must remain the overriding purpose of this Bill if it is to stand any chance of delivering what I believe is the Government’s intended result. In the interest of making the Bill workable on the ground, I hope that this minor change will have your Lordships’ support.
My amendment to Clause 11 mirrors the approach that I have taken concerning Clause 10. I am again asking for consistency so that, where vaping products are referenced, heated tobacco products are dealt with explicitly. We cannot pass legislation through this House where there is ambiguity. I fear that, if these points are ignored, the Bill will lack the clarity required to make it practically enforceable. As such, we in this House will be placing a grave, unfair burden upon those in enforcement. Furthermore, we will be creating unfairness for compliant businesses, which comes with the not inconceivable risk of pushing retailers towards the temptation of rogue and illicit trading. We need to legislate coherently across product categories rather than allow voids to undermine the objectives that the Government are seeking to achieve.
I will speak now to Amendments 87, 89, 90, 101, 113, 189 and 190 in my name. I wish to ensure that the phrase “or consumed in any other way” is removed and that a clear definition of heated tobacco is inserted. It is important to note that heated tobacco does not burn tobacco; it heats it. This is important as evidence indicates lower toxicant exposure compared with that of most cigarettes. If future adult access is to be prohibited, this decision must be based on proper assessment and evidence, which is lacking at this time. The purpose of Amendments 189 and 190 specifically is simply to insert some precision into the Bill. These amendments replace “consumed” with “smoked” and remove reference to heated tobacco devices. I put it to your Lordships that “consumed” is excessively broad. Through slightly better drafting, we can protect businesses, enable better enforcement and protect the courts from uncertainty. I beg to move.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, for helping to differentiate products and for having some precision in the way we discuss these issues. I have been concerned throughout about a one-size-fits-all approach. I do not think it helps anyone. It certainly does not help in relation to health, let alone retailers and so on, as has been described.
Heated tobacco should not be conflated with vapes, but it should also not be conflated with smoking cigarettes or tobacco in that sense. As the noble Lord explained, heated tobacco products are heated, not combusted. That means that, although they might have some degree of harm, there is a body of evidence that shows that there is a huge reduction in harmful products from heating tobacco rather than smoking tobacco. This matters to me because a lot of people use heated tobacco as a smoking cessation tool, as a form of giving up smoking.
When I have raised issues concerning the evidence on heated tobacco, I have been told that the problem with that evidence is that it is based on research produced by the tobacco industry rather than by independent researchers. I point out that, none the less, it is scientific evidence and can be tested as such, whoever pays for it. But if there is some concern about the evidence, I encourage the Government to consider how they can fund research into the very different types of product we are talking about, rather than simply dismissing any evidence they do not like the look of because of who funds it. We need to have a sense of proportion and should not treat all products the same. As I say, I therefore reject the one-size-fits-all approach. We will have much better legislation if these things are clarified on the face of the Bill and we all know what we are talking about, and do not just lump things under the single heading of “harmful and dangerous”.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments relates to heated tobacco and its inclusion in the Bill, and in particular the rising age of sale. It is essential that the measures in the Bill apply to all tobacco products without exception. We have learned repeatedly that, where legislation leaves loopholes, the tobacco industry exploits them. We saw this with cigarillos—products defined as cigars but designed to resemble cigarettes, evading plain packaging with the flavour and pack size rules, as we discussed in Committee.
The Bill is a chance for truly comprehensive legislation. I am particularly concerned about Amendment 89, which would remove the phrase
“or consumed in any other way”.
That would leave the door wide open for further innovation from the industry to continue selling tobacco products here in the UK. The regulatory powers in the Bill must be broadly defined, including powers over packaging and presentation. This is not overreach; it is future-proofing based upon our past experience. Without it, we invite industry innovation designed solely to sidestep regulation and undermine public health.
Heated tobacco products should not be conflated with vapes. Vapes can be and are recommended for smoking cessation, following evidence, including a Cochrane review, showing that they are a helpful tool for smokers. Heated tobacco products do not meet that standard and are not recommended by NICE. They are used by fewer than 1% of people in the UK, yet awareness of them is rising, particularly among young people. Alarmingly, nearly one-quarter of 11 to 17 year-olds are now aware of these products, and that may well be the result of their marketing in supermarkets and online.
I therefore welcome government Amendments 217, 218 and 219, which ensure that the comprehensive definition of a tobacco product applies from the moment the Bill comes into force. That will help to address the ongoing and unacceptable advertising of heated tobacco products in supermarkets and elsewhere. If we are indeed serious about creating a smoke-free generation, all tobacco products, including heated tobacco, must be included without ambiguity or exception.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend has tabled a number of amendments on heated tobacco products. Although there may be some concern about what is behind them, they raise important questions that I am afraid the Government have yet to answer with any real precision.
As I noted in Committee, there appears to be some evidence that individuals who switched from conventional cigarettes to heated tobacco products show lower levels of exposure to harmful chemicals than those who continue smoking. I am just comparing them to cigarettes, not to vapes. To be clear, I do not suggest that this settles the question of harm—these are relatively new products, and the long-term evidence base is still developing—but it means that the Government cannot simply treat heated tobacco products as interchangeable with conventional cigarettes without explaining why they refuse to consider their relative harm compared to cigarettes. I am talking about not absolute harm, but relative harm.
There is also the practical question of where these products may be used. The position on indoor and outdoor spaces remains, as far as I can tell, unclear. Heated tobacco does not produce combustion or sidestream smoke in the conventional sense, and yet it is not obvious from the Bill how the Government intend to address that distinction—if they intend to address it at all.
More fundamentally, can the Minister explain what specific evidence underpins the decision to include heated tobacco in the generational ban? I am sure all noble Lords accept that current evidence shows that vapes are relatively safer than smoking. It may be that vapes are relatively safer than heated tobacco, but as yet, we have not seen definitive evidence. Unfortunately, as noble Lords have said, much of the research on heated tobacco is funded by the tobacco industry. I can understand the concern there. I hope the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but there is no definitive independent research on the relative harms of heated tobacco. If there is definitive research, can the Minister write to noble Lords with links to the relevant academic papers? I think we saw one link to a meta study that was not very good, but there has been no meaningful in-depth research.
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend, who told me that when they tried vapes to quit smoking, it unfortunately did not do the job for them. When they went back to their doctor, he said that he was not supposed to do this, but he suggested heated tobacco as a relatively less harmful alternative. While he hoped his patient might have switched from cigarettes to vapes, since this had not happened—we do not live in a perfect world—he preferred his patient to use heated tobacco to going back to cigarettes. Once again, this was a practical approach based on relative harms.
I completely understand the concern that, if we overpromote heated tobacco, we might find that smokers switch to it rather than vapes. Given that the policy rationale rests substantially on reducing harm—we should be looking at absolute harm and relative harm— I would welcome clarity on whether the Government are satisfied that the case for treating heated tobacco like cigarettes is proven. It will be interesting to see that distinction between heated tobacco and cigarettes. Is the science still sufficiently uncertain to warrant a more cautious approach?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I appreciate the contributions made in this debate. I will start by addressing government Amendments 217, 218 and 219, tabled in my name; I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for her support.
The Bill updates the definition of a tobacco product in legislation relating to promotion and advertising, and in Scottish legislation, to
“a product consisting wholly or partly of tobacco and intended to be smoked, sniffed, sucked, chewed or consumed in any other way”.
Those last few words,
“consumed in any other way”,
are the key ones. What does this definition do? It ensures that all forms of tobacco products, regardless of how they are consumed, are captured by this legislation, including—this is important to the points raised by noble Lords—any future novel tobacco products.
These amendments bring forward the commencement of this updated definition to the day of Royal Assent, rather than two months after Royal Assent. That is because the Government’s view is that all tobacco products currently on the market are already captured in the current definition, so it is appropriate for this future-proofing amendment to come into force at Royal Assent because there is no change to the law for which notice would be required.
Amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, seek to redefine how heated tobacco products are captured within the Bill so that they are no longer treated in the same way as other tobacco products. These amendments also seek to prevent provisions being extended to heated tobacco devices in the future.
On the points raised by the noble Lord, as well as by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, the Bill deliberately defines tobacco products expansively and includes heated tobacco. The reason for that is that there is no safe level of tobacco consumption and all forms of tobacco are harmful.
On the points raised about evidence, there is evidence of toxicity from heated tobacco in laboratory studies; the aerosol generated by heated tobacco devices contains carcinogenic compounds. Unlike vapes, there is limited evidence that heated tobacco can support smoking cessation, despite what is claimed by the tobacco industry. On the matters of evidence raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, as has been set out by all four UK Chief Medical Officers in a technical note to noble Lords, any suggestion that heated tobacco products are safe or should be promoted as quit aids in some way is entirely misleading.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, that, through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, we are funding high-quality research into tobacco products. Between 2020 and 2025, £25 million was invested in a NIHR research programme to research tobacco control, and that will help us develop the evidence base. Exempting heated tobacco products from the smoke-free generation policy and other provisions in the Bill would simply allow the tobacco industry to continue to find a way to addict future generations to harmful and addictive products. The Bill is completely geared to go the other way.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked about heated-tobacco-free places. We will return to the whole issue of tobacco-free places when we come to group 16, so I am sure that that will be debated then. I hope that I have been able to clarify the Government’s position for noble Lords, and that the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kamall (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, she talked about research that was done on tobacco products between 2020 and 2025. In that time, was any specific research done on heated tobacco as part of tobacco products?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The specific definition is “tobacco control research”, so it would be strange if it did not include what we know about already, which includes heated tobacco. I will be glad to confirm that to the noble Lord in writing.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
I thank the Minister for her reassurances, although I am afraid that I do not agree with her. However, I accept that we have taken this as far as we can. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moylan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that regulations to specify methods of customer age verification must be made by the affirmative resolution procedure.
Baroness Merron
“(1A) But subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a vape vending machine made available for use in a mental health hospital if the machine is in an area that is intended wholly or mainly for inpatients.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment creates an exception to the offence of having management or control of premises on which a vape vending machine is made available for use. It applies where the vending machine is in a mental health hospital in an area intended wholly or mainly for inpatients.
Baroness Merron
““mental health hospital” means an institution (or part of an institution) maintained wholly or mainly for the reception and treatment of inpatients who—(a) are aged 18 or over, and(b) are suffering from mental disorder (within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983);”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my first amendment to clause 12.
Lord Moylan
“Offence of manufacturing, supplying or offering to supply counterfeit nicotine products(1) A person who manufactures, supplies, or offers to supply counterfeit nicotine products, including tobacco and vape products, commits an offence.(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or an unlimited fine, or both.(3) In this section, “counterfeit” means any product or packaging bearing without authorisation a trade mark identical to or indistinguishable from a registered trade mark.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment strengthens the criminal penalties for the production and sale of counterfeit nicotine products with a view to protecting consumers, upholding safety standards, and safeguarding legitimate businesses from unfair competition. It introduces a tiered sentencing structure, permitting tougher consequences for serious offences.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, in approaching this amendment, I start with a very powerful series of BBC News reports that were broadcast before Christmas—other noble Lords may have seen them. The BBC accompanied trading standards officers—and, I believe, Customs and Excise—on raids of various high street premises in various provincial towns. They were shops that looked like stores; you would call them mini-markets or something like that. They had goods on the shelves—packets of soup and whatever it might be that you might conceivably want to buy—but their business was not actually selling these things, and nobody who went into those shops was particularly interested in buying the packets of soup that adorned the shelves.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am never quite sure whether I should declare an interest in this debate as someone who has smoked the occasional cigar, but on this set of amendments I declare an interest in that I have teenage children. I see their actions, which chime very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has just discussed.
We are in danger of creating a two-tier system—we do this across the board, and I am afraid we in this House are guilty of it—whereby we have excess intense regulation, which affects law-abiding citizens and consumers, and we focus on that, feeling that we have done our job and can sit back and relax, having stopped smoking, drinking or whatever it may be. But the reality is that we simply end up creating a second and entirely unregulated market.
I saw the same documentaries that my noble friend saw and was surprised, but not by the clandestine nature of organisations and illegal groups of pirates supplying illegal cigarettes and vape products under the counter or under the table in a pub—these were shops that were well advertised. In fact, I was quite impressed with some of the branding. Some of them were chains; they have become multinational corporations with headquarters, running an effective illegal system that pays no taxes. Clearly, as these documentaries showed, they had other issues, such as money laundering and very bad employment systems.
In conversations with the Minister, I have been encouraged by the realisation of this two-tier issue. It is not simply in the physical sense; it is also online. The teenagers I speak to say they have never actually bought a legal packet of cigarettes. It would not occur to them: at £20 a packet, they would be better off taking up cigars. Instead, they buy everything online, where there are no age checks. They can usually get hold of somebody else’s credit card, and it is delivered to the house. I find it very alarming that we will spend our time in these debates, and the Government will spend a huge amount of effort on a so-called ban of smoking and nicotine products, while at the same time allowing an illegal market to flourish.
From conversations with the Minister, which I found extremely helpful, I am aware that online sales are hard to regulate because of how enforcement happens at the local level: there is no one authority, although specific authorities will take leads in certain areas. There does not seem to be enough money or focus on this important issue. I am saying this because I care about the retailer and about the end ambition, in some measure, of this overall government initiative. It would be extraordinary if we focused all our efforts on a great sledgehammer to crush legal, law-abiding and decent retailers who are trying to do their job, and law-abiding consumers, without realising that we are creating another monster that needs to be tamed.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
I shall talk about the two amendments in my name. First, the Bill does not provide a deterrent; the proposed fixed penalty of £200 is nothing to those involved in this illicit trading and organised criminal activity. It is obvious that the unscrupulous retailers will simply absorb the costs and just continue with what they are doing.
It is worth mentioning at this point—and I have seen this—that when people are selling illegal tobacco it is not under the counter. You can have a nice card with all the different brands laid out for you to pick and choose from. It is very professional: a serious bit of criminality out there. I might add that I do not smoke, but I have seen it with others. That is why I am seeking through this amendment support to introduce a stepped penalty regime, escalating for repeat offenders and enabling referral to national and enforcement bodies where organised criminality may be involved. If we want to stand any chance of cutting down this illicit trade and the sale of tobacco and vapes, enforcement must have real teeth. Without a stepped penalty regime and referral powers, the Bill and the generational ban will be nothing more than symbolic.
Amendment 63 is on the points I have just made about having a more robust and stepped approach to penalty notices. I want to strengthen enforcement further by introducing a new statutory referral duty where a fixed penalty notice is issued. If the Bill does not confront the organised criminal network, it will just continue. We want local authorities to issue fixed penalties, and then to refer the matter to the National Crime Agency and relevant police forces and to share intelligence, which is key. It is further my intention that this amendment place a statutory duty on the NCA and police to investigate whether organised crime, excise or VAT evasion is at scale or other serious offences are involved.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I wanted to speak to two amendments in this group that are about the opposite ends of the retail spectrum. On the one hand, there are law-abiding shopkeepers who need to be given a certain leeway if they mess up at the start of this legislation. At the other end of the spectrum are those open lawbreakers who hide in plain sight.
I added my name to Amendment 63 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, which is about giving relevant authorities the discretion to issue a warning notice to first-time offenders. Because this is totally novel and internationally unique legislation, enforcement will be important; but because this is a bit of an experiment, some leeway has to be given to allow it to settle in without criminalising people unnecessarily.
Fixed penalty notices are precisely designed to enable offenders to avoid criminal prosecution and reduce the burden on the courts. That is how they are usually used. I am just worried about the overcriminalisation of shopkeepers via this Bill; it is important to be proportionate and allow that discretion. Allowing trading standards officers to issue warnings to first-time offenders would promote the idea that shopkeepers can learn what the rules are and find out that they have had their warning. I am sure that many initial breaches are likely to be unintentional, and a warning will help a business to understand the rules and allow them not to repeat the mistake, and so on. Therefore, fines are reserved for repeat or serious offences; that is an important way in which to approach this.
In relation to an earlier amendment about communicating what the Bill will do, although I do not necessarily agree with it, it is obviously important that people understand the implications of the Bill when it becomes law. If it passes, which it will, there will have to be quite a steep learning curve for all sorts of different parts of society.
I want to draw attention to something called Local Vape Action, which has just been launched in Maidstone in Kent. It is a local partnership involving retail shops working with the local community and doing education, engagement and enforcement. There are initiatives happening locally where people are trying to say, “We are the good guys; we are the people who are compliant; we’re trying to keep to the rules”. They are trying, for example, to improve the appearance of high streets, making sure that legitimate vape retailers—not the ones that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, described—want to take some responsibility for not being the rogue traders. I think that is to be commended.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted to have the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on my earlier amendment on the communications strategy, and that she has come around to my point of view on this. It clearly is vital that we have an excellent, proactive communication strategy in relation to this new policy, as I argued on the first group.
These amendments seek to ensure that penalties for offences are fair and proportionate. I am very sympathetic to Amendment 60 from the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, which looks like a very useful attempt to take a stepped approach to fines; it seems a very reasonable way to go about this. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says about that, and why she feels, if she does, that it is not necessary or appropriate.
We believe that Amendment 63 is not necessary, as the ability to give warnings already exists. On Amendment 17 on counterfeit products, I am delighted to return the compliment to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who says that she does not like to have unnecessary new offences, by telling her that we understand that this is currently an offence under the Trade Marks Act and that offences under that Act are automatically lifestyle offences, meaning that a proceeds of crime application can be used to remove criminal earnings. Maybe the Minister can comment on these various amendments.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, my noble friends Lord Moylan and Lord Udny-Lister benefited this debate by coming forward with their amendments in this group based on their extensive experience in local government. I warmly welcome Amendment 17; counterfeiting nicotine products is not a victimless crime. It undercuts legitimate businesses that are already operating under considerable regulatory and financial pressure.
Let us be clear that the cumulative burden placed on small businesses, regulatory or otherwise, is already substantial. These businesses, as other noble Lords have said, are already playing by the rules. They pay their taxes and comply with an ever-increasing, complex regulatory framework. It is simply not fair that they should find themselves undercut by operators selling counterfeit products outside that framework entirely.
Beyond the commercial harm, there is a serious consumer safety dimension. Counterfeit nicotine products are unregulated, untested and potentially dangerous. I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government share the view that the robust criminal penalties for counterfeiting are not only appropriate but essential. I would be grateful to hear what steps are being taken to ensure that enforcement capacity exists to make sure that these penalties are meaningful.
At earlier stages of the Bill, I know there were some concerns about the capacity of trading standards, for example. The sum that the Government have made available for local trading standards is to be welcomed, but some still wonder whether it will be enough or whether it is a drop in the ocean.
My noble friend Lord Udny-Lister’s amendments reflect a sensible approach to fixed penalty notices. A step penalty structure that treats a first offence differently from repeated non-compliance is surely right. While some local authorities may already have discretion to issue a warning instead of a fixed penalty for first-time offenders, as my noble friend has raised, it is important that first-time offenders are not treated unduly harshly given the complexity of some of the regulations that these small retailers will have to face. I hope the Minister, if she feels that she cannot accept the amendments as they stand, can say some positive things about them.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a helpful debate on an issue that concerns us all in this Chamber.
On Amendment 17 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, I agree with his desire to take robust action against counterfeit products—I am sure we all do—but I cannot accept the amendment simply because I do not believe it is necessary, not because of specific objections. I heard his invitation for me to continue as I started, but, unfortunately, I cannot do so for this amendment. We believe it is not necessary, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, because protections against trademark infringement are already a matter for existing legislation.
On the point about necessary legislation addressing counterfeit products, which I accept, I say to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that the Trade Marks Act 1994, as we have heard, already provides significant penalties for breaching these rules. They include: on summary conviction, imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both; or, on conviction on indictment, a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or both. These are significant penalties.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
In terms of duplication, I argued on the Crime and Policing Bill that it was probably not necessary to legislate for assaulting a shop worker to be against the law, as assaulting anyone is. I asked why there was a specific point about shop and retail workers and was told that this would make a special case of shop workers to emphasise their vulnerability. The point about duplicating laws has never held the Government back before, because they keep doing it.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I must admit that I have a different view. Where we already have legislation covering the specific points we are talking about, as we have here with the Trade Marks Act 1994, there is no reason to go further. The legislation is already working. It is fair to raise the example that the noble Baroness gave, but I do not share her view on that duplication, as it was important specifically to identify shop workers. Maybe we just need to disagree on the duplication or otherwise of legislation.
While trademark protection is not a matter for the Bill, powers in Part 5 will enable the Government to introduce regulations relating to packaging, product safety and product registration. Those who breach these regulations following their implementation may face significant penalties of up to two years’ imprisonment, a fine or both. The penalties broadly mirror the penalties provided by the noble Lord’s amendment, albeit I accept he proposes a slightly higher maximum term of imprisonment of three years instead of two.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raised legitimate points about the scale of the illicit market and also potential connections to other illegal activities. On that point, HMRC and Border Force’s joint illicit tobacco strategy sets out the continued commitment to tackle and disrupt the organised crime groups behind the illicit tobacco trade, a commitment supported by over £100 million of new funding.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, that is a disappointing response. I repeat that my amendment does not rest on any claim that this Bill is going to make a bad situation worse. I do not want to get into that argument. It is a bad situation already. We should be willing to acknowledge that perhaps it is worse than we realise—especially those of us who do not spend a lot of time on provincial high streets and in working-class areas where this happens and is widespread. We need vigorous tools to deal with it.
I entirely accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said about the need for nuance in how enforcement is carried out. I am aware of the enforcement code that regulators use, including trading standards, because I have worked with it. One wants to be lenient to the honest shopkeeper who muddles up a 40 year-old with a 41 year-old. However, it is not possible to sell counterfeit goods accidentally. You know if you are selling counterfeit goods—it is a deliberate action—especially if you have them stashed in the attic and under floorboards. You are not making an honest mistake when you sell them. We need to be very hard on these people.
My noble friend Lord Udny-Lister has got something, in arguing for a gradation of fines and punishments that will bite harder on people who are repeat offenders or more serious offenders. The Bill misses a trick on that.
On this side—and, I suspect, if they reflect on it, in other parts of the House—there is concern that the Government have not got this element of the Bill right and that they will have to come back to it. The ideal thing would be if they came back to it before the Bill was enacted, at Third Reading, perhaps with something along the lines that my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister produced. It is possible that they could put it right later when they discover that they have made a mistake, but that is much more messy and would not have the desired effect.
I am disappointed. The Government will have to return to this, and the sooner the better. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Earl of Lindsay
“(3A) Regulations made under this section may not prohibit the display of tobacco products in any premises, or part of premises—(a) which are exempt from the prohibition on the display of tobacco products under regulations made under the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002, in so far as that exemption relates to specialist tobacconists, or(b) which are operated by a specialist tobacconist.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, connected to another in the name of the Earl of Lindsay to Clause 14, would preserve the existing exemption for specialist tobacconists from tobacco product display restrictions in England and Wales. Their effect is to ensure that the regulation-making powers in clauses 13 and 14 cannot be used to remove or circumvent that long-standing exemption, whether directly or indirectly through changes to existing display regulations.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 18, 19, 127, 147, and 192 are in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn. In the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I declare my support for the spirit of her Amendment 126, although I am seeking to tackle the issue that she is addressing in a slightly different way. I declare an interest as president of the Charter Trading Standards Institute. However, these amendments are not CTSI amendments; they are very much my own.
I have tabled these amendments in a constructive spirit, as part of what I hope will be recognised as a good faith effort to identify an evidence-based, proportionate and workable solution for handmade cigars within the Bill’s existing architecture. As I have previously said, I unequivocally support the Government’s objective of reducing youth smoking and protecting future generations from smoking-related harms. Nothing in this group of amendments seeks to undermine this. It is rather that the proposed amendments seek to ensure that, in pursuing that objective, we do so in a manner that is proportionate, evidence-based and fair to a small number of lawful, specialist businesses.
Handmade cigars are fundamentally distinct from mass-produced tobacco products. They are also fundamentally distinct from mass-produced, lower-priced, machine-made, small format cigars and cigarillos, all of which occupy a very different segment of the market. This distinction matters in market characteristics and, most importantly, in the evidence base relating to youth uptake and public health.
Handmade cigars are artisanal products. They are individually crafted, higher-value, relatively expensive, premium products. They are sold almost exclusively through specialist tobacconists and other distinct retail channels to informed adult consumers. They are not impulse purchases. Of overriding importance is that handmade cigars are not inhaled, and they are consumed infrequently and not habitually. They are often associated with special occasions or celebratory moments, and are an important feature of the UK’s hospitality sector.
There is no credible evidence that handmade cigars contribute to youth uptake or act as a gateway to nicotine addiction. The last time detailed UK data on cigar usage was collected, it was found that the overwhelming majority of cigar smokers were over the age of 25, with most being over the age of 35. Handmade cigars therefore occupy an entirely different segment of the market, in price, consumer profile and usage.
Their production is uniquely different, which brings me to our Amendments 127 and 147. Handmade cigars are low-volume, high-variety, artisanal products, manufactured in small batches, mostly by producers in Latin America and the Caribbean. There are over 1,300 individual product lines, almost all of which are packaged manually. Requiring bespoke standardised packaging specifically for a single market such as the United Kingdom is simply not practical or commercially viable.
As currently drafted, the Bill would enable the Secretary of State to impose the standardised packaging regime to handmade cigars in the same manner as to mass-market cigarettes, et cetera. Such a measure ignores known risk profiles and market characteristics, and certainly does not represent sound evidence-based policy. The certain outcome of this is that handmade cigars would disappear from our market altogether, along with the long-standing specialist retailers whose businesses depend upon them and, of course, their employees.
These two amendments, therefore, would exempt handmade cigars from the retail packaging regime, accompanied by a tightly drawn statutory definition of what constitutes a handmade cigar. They recognise that the policy rationale for plain packaging in the context of high-volume, youth-sensitive products does not translate to artisanal, individually crafted cigars sold in specialist premises to adults. They acknowledge that imposing such measures on the handmade cigar sector is totally disproportionate when there is no evidence of youth uptake, no discernible public health gain, but the strong likelihood of catastrophic operational and economic burdens being placed on small, compliant, law-abiding businesses.
These facts would have become evident had there been a more comprehensive and focused impact assessment. The impact assessment produced by the department, which runs to 164 pages, makes just three mentions of cigars, with no quantification of the likely economic impact to businesses trading in these products, no small and micro-business assessment, and no discussion of alternatives.
In speaking to these amendments, I ask the Minister whether she can confirm that the Government’s response, which has been pending since January 2025, to the call for evidence to inform potential future regulation of standardised tobacco packaging will confirm that handmade cigars will retain their status quo, as exempted from the introduction of plain packaging.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for her highly engaged approach to these issues facing small specialist tobacconists in the niche handmade, hand-rolled cigar industry. I also appreciated the assistance of her officials at the Department of Health, who have been sitting through a very long debate and must be wondering when it is going to end; I think this is the last group. They demonstrated a high level of understanding of cigars, their impact on health and the effects this Bill could have on the people involved in the specialist industry. I really do appreciate that. We have had a hugely successful, open dialogue around what is a very important issue.
I believe from my conversations with the Government that they do not want to destroy this important cottage industry of mainly small family-owned firms—which, I might add, attract a huge amount of tourism to this country and are world class in their standards of service and compliance. They sell a product which is not associated with childhood smoking, and they are not at risk of contributing to the remorseless rise of vapes, snuses and other nicotine delivery products. Wonderful shops like Davidoff, Fox, Sautters and Cgars, to name a few, employ hundreds of people and give satisfaction and happiness to thousands more.
It is very important that we accept the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Lindsay to protect these stores, especially those in the cluster of St James’s Street. I know we will come on to this later, but I would particularly welcome comments from the Minister on guidance to local authorities in this area, which reflects a number of the points in these amendments, as well.
The issues around packaging are also surprisingly important to the industry. We are not asking for anything other than a commitment to the continuation of existing legislation, which protects how speciality tobacconists display cigar products and can trade new and, importantly, vintage cigars. These products have to be stored and distributed in cedar or cedar-lined wooden boxes, which cannot be changed at source. It is important for noble Lords to understand this; they have to be transported in a certain way, in a certain type of box. It is not simply about moving them into some other type of packaging; and the packaging cannot be changed at source, since they predominantly come from important trading partners such as Cuba or the Dominican Republic, which do not have the capacity to change the packaging to enable us to have plain packaging.
By the way, the boxing and labelling system also helps ensure authenticity. This follows the discussion we had about counterfeiting earlier.
It is also important to recognise that these boxes and how the cigars are packaged are a far cry from packaging that advertises or that is targeted at children. It should be noted that health warnings are already applied to all these boxes. I stress that we are not looking for a carve-out or loophole with these amendments; we are looking simply for the continuation of a sensible policy to allow a niche industry of speciality tobacconists, with important trading partners, to exist and continue its trade as planned. This fits in with the express quotes from the Minister that, in effect, preserving the status quo as it stands today and rolling it forward is part of the Government’s agenda. We respect that and find it enormously helpful.
There is overwhelming evidence that going back on this original legal commitment would mean the end of the specialist cigar industry, so if we introduced plain packaging, it would be devastating for this important area of our economy and would have no benefit to the overall plan of making Britain smoke-free either.
I went to inspect the offices of Hunters & Frankau, which is the main importer of Cuban cigars, to see how a ban on ordinary box packaging could be implemented. If your Lordships saw the hundreds, if not thousands, of product lines in this Indiana Jones-like warehouse—I must say, when I had a chance to tour those storerooms, it was a very happy moment for me—your Lordships would see that it is totally impractical to bring in some type of plain packaging, given the way these authentic handmade products are sourced and distributed.
Canada and Australia have been quoted as having brought these measures into place. They are very different markets, so I do not think they are comparable in reality. In actuality, it has led to the almost total collapse of the handmade cigar industry as a result of the reduction of lines from many hundreds down to a few tens. The effect has not been on large multinationals or big tobacco; it has been the closure of many small businesses. Family-owned tobacconists and specialty suppliers have closed as a result. Needless to say, the consumer also suffers.
Finally, I would be grateful to hear confirmation that the Government have no plans to go back on previous legislation that allowed for a very small number of sampling rooms in this country—I believe the number is fewer than 30. These are not to be confused with so-called cigar lounges, of which there are many, which are predominantly outdoor areas, albeit with some type of heating and sometimes roofing. The investment in these humidors, which is what they are, with sampling rooms attached, has been significant. Several major hotels have integrated them into their business model. They are part of the supply chain of handmade premium cigars and to disestablish them would cause significant unnecessary harm.
I reassure noble Lords that at no point will these actions create a loophole for big tobacco. I am very aware that that has happened in the past, with flavourings, cigarillos and so on. Protecting these characteristics will not see an increase in youth smoking. I think we are all agreed on that. No one I have met, even those who are most fanatical about this Bill—some people are, and I do not disrespect that—wants to see an end to our specialist tobacconist industry today.
These are small, family-owned businesses, which behave impeccably, are drivers of tourism, create income for the Exchequer and behave extremely effectively in providing a niche community with cigars. To have clear commitments about these important matters from the Minister at the Dispatch Box would allow the industry to continue to be a highly responsible part of British retail. It would allow these small, family-owned stores to continue to drive footfall and income for this country. It would be a fair way to treat the adult, free-choosing, occasional cigar smoker into the future too.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, as we have already heard, the amendments in this group seek to carve out exemptions for specialist tobacconists, particularly when it comes to cigars. I will focus primarily on Amendments 126, 127, 147 and 192. I begin by focusing on what cigars actually are. They are often described—and we have heard them described—as luxury or artisanal goods, but they are, first of all, carcinogenic tobacco products that are harmful to human health.
I support the Government’s approach, as the Bill stands, to comprehensive tobacco control regulation that ensures that future generations do not become addicted to any form of tobacco. We have heard arguments that their use is infrequent and primarily among those over the age of 25. Indeed, the absolute numbers show that the majority of cigar smokers are over 25, but that reflects population size. In reality, among smokers—this is a really important point—the younger someone is, the more likely they are to be smoking cigars. Toxic influencers such as Andrew Tate actively promote cigar use to a young, predominantly male audience, linking cigars with power, wealth and success. We know how quickly this kind of influence can spread and be taken up if we leave loopholes for it.
As we have already heard, cigars have traditionally benefited from carve-outs of regulation on things such as pack size, flavours and packaging. Were we to change that now it would open the door to future innovations, as some of the proponents of these amendments have already acknowledged, with, for example, cigarillos. Action on Smoking and Health data shows that these are popular among young people who smoke: 35% of 11 to 17 year-olds have tried them in 2024 and 2025. We must not leave space in the Bill for innovation by the merchants of death, which I am afraid these amendments do.
Although I understand the intention behind the amendments that refer to plain packaging, I do not support them. The suggestion is that plain packaging will be fatal to the industry. I note that New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Ireland and Uruguay all apply standardised packaging to all tobacco products, including cigars. Data from Canada shows that, since that has come in, there has been only a very minor drop in the sale of cigars, in line with traditional long-term trends.
It is also important to note that the power to introduce plain packaging for cigars is not new. It already exists under regulations introduced in 2015 by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition and implemented by a subsequent Conservative Government. The Government issued a call for evidence on this in November 2024.
Finally, I will touch very briefly on smoke-free places and cigar lounges. I do not support Amendment 192. Yes, the customers may choose to be in that space, but the staff may not have a realistic practical choice about being there; it may be the only job they can get. We do not want workers exposed to second-hand smoke under those kinds of conditions.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Walmsley signed Amendment 126, to which the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, referred. It seeks, above all, to ensure that all small retailers are treated fairly. I am sure the Minister will be addressing this.
Moving on to cigars and cigar lounges generally, I do not see why these should be exempt. In Committee, we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, about a new cigar lounge in Sheffield which has opened near a school. A public health team at the council made representations saying that it had serious concerns about the impact of the lounge, particularly in an area where smoking causes great health inequalities, but it was powerless to stop this. As we have just heard, having staff working indoors in these lounges seems to go against the very intention of the original smoke-free legislation, which was to protect staff from the harmful impact of second-hand smoke.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lindsay’s excellent and persuasive arguments in support of the amendments in his name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, who is not in his place, cannot be bettered, so I shall not try to, except to say that I support them.
Regardless of one’s attitude to smoking, there is a general recognition of the important role that specialist tobacconists play. They are small, highly regulated businesses that serve a discerning adult clientele. They are not engaged in the mass-marketing of cigarettes, nor are they driving youth uptake. Specifically, handmade cigars are not cigarillos. Premium handmade cigars are luxury products, purchased occasionally at a considerable cost by informed adult consumers. I was surprised to learn in Committee that they attract overseas visitors, who spend huge amounts of money here in the UK because these handmade cigars are packaged and marketed in a way that is unique to the United Kingdom. It is difficult to see how such establishments constitute a meaningful threat to the Government’s stated objective of reducing youth smoking and creating a smoke-free generation.
I stress that many of the criticisms made of cigars are made of cigarillos, but it is important that we distinguish between cigarillos and the unique products that are artisan cigars, whatever one thinks of them. I do not smoke; I think smoking is a disgusting habit. I do not drink alcohol; I think drinking alcohol is a terrible thing. But I am a liberal and I do not seek to impose my views on other people. It is important to distinguish between handmade crafted cigars and mass-marketed cigarillos, which may well be attractive to young people. I believe that cigarillos should be seen in the same light as cigarettes.
Since the introduction of the Bill, there has obviously been enormous anxiety among specialist tobacconists around the country about what the Government might choose to do to their day-to-day businesses. These amendments will, I hope, provide the Minister with an opportunity to reassure the sector. There is real concern that if plain packaging regulations were to be imposed on hand-rolled cigars, this would constitute an almost instant death for every specialist tobacco business. We heard about other countries where plain packaging has been imposed, but the UK continues to attract people who want to buy the packaging and all the marketing around it, whatever we may think of it.
For the good reasons already stated, these businesses enjoy special dispensations from the provisions of the law which apply to the generality of tobacco retailing. These dispensations are well founded, well understood and respected across the supply chain. As far as I am aware, they have not been abused. Many of the complaints about the uptake of cigar smoking are in relation not to these types of cigars but to cigarillos. This area of tobacco retailing is so niche that it is irrelevant to the vast majority of smokers. There is no reasonable case for the Government to choose to exercise powers to impede, restrict or otherwise alter the day-to-day lives of those involved in this specialist sector.
To be clear, I am talking about packaging. I am not referring to any of the amendments concerned with cigar lounges. I understand the concerns that have been expressed about workers who may not wish to be exposed to cigars but have no choice but to take that job and be exposed. I am talking about specialist tobacco manufacturers and retailers. Obviously, any attempts to restrict these businesses would involve some consultation with the Department for Business and Trade, so I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the Government have no intentions to restrict the specialist manufacturers in this way and to make their businesses unviable.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. On Amendments 127 and 147, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and Amendment 126, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I have listened to the points that have been raised by noble Lords, not just today in the Chamber but in engaging outside the Chamber, which I have been pleased to do, and I have listened to the calls for handmade cigars to be exempt from packaging provisions in this legislation.
I remind the House, as I have had to remind noble Lords in other discussions, that the powers to regulate the packaging of all tobacco products are not new; they already exist. They were first introduced under the coalition Government as part of the Children and Families Act 2014. At the time when the powers were introduced, the Government of the time rightly recognised the need to ensure that these powers applied to all tobacco products, future-proofing the legislation, so introducing an exemption for handmade cigars now would weaken what is in effect long-standing legislation. I remind noble Lords that one of the points about the Bill is to bring together legislation that is in other areas into a Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which is what we are doing.
As I have said on a number of occasions, all tobacco products are harmful. That includes cigars and those marketed as premium or handmade. When burned, all tobacco products release toxic compounds that pose a risk to the user. In fact, research has found that some toxicants, including carbon monoxide and certain carcinogens, are higher in cigar smoke than cigarette smoke, and of course the toxicants that are found in tobacco smoke in cigars increase the user’s risk of developing diseases such as cancer, heart disease or respiratory disease. As the four Chief Medical Officers of the UK set out in their technical note to noble Lords, any suggestion that cigars are substantially safer than other tobacco products is not accurate.
Given the health harms of all cigars, it is appropriate that they are in scope of the legislation and that the Government retain our current ability, introduced in 2014, to regulate the packaging of all tobacco products. Moreover, exempting product categories is likely to lead to exploitation by the tobacco industry, which will always find a loophole to exploit. For example, following the ban on menthol cigarettes in 2020, tobacco companies began marketing cigarette-like menthol-flavoured cigarillos.
I shall provide some assistance on the points being raised today. As I said, I have heard concerns from noble Lords about future packaging restrictions that could impact specialist tobacconists more significantly than other retailers, and concerns about potential unfairness arising from that. I can say, as I have said before, that it is absolutely not this Government’s intention for any future packaging requirements to put any small businesses, including specialist tobacconists, out of business. Our intent is that any future packaging regulations make the health harms of these products clear while minimising the impact on businesses.
The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, asked about future regulation on packaging. If that is to be the case, further impact assessments will be prepared in advance, including the economic impact of any proposed regulations. The policy proposals for any packaging requirements will be a matter for consultation, and all businesses—including, I am sure, specialist tobacconists —will want to respond and will be welcome to. I want also to be clear that the Government will consider the impact any policy proposal has on small businesses, including specialist tobacconists, via future published impact assessments, as I just said. It is important, however, despite these points, that the Government retain their current powers to regulate the packaging of all tobacco products, as any carve-out would potentially create loopholes for exploitation, as other noble Lords have expressed concern about.
Amendment 192 from the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, seeks to maintain the existing exemption to allow individuals to sample cigars and pipe tobacco indoors in an enclosed and ventilated area in a specialist tobacconist shop. The Government are, as noble Lords know, committed to protecting people from the harms of second-hand smoke, which is why we launched a consultation on expanding smoke-free places on 13 February.
On the point the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made, there are a number of exemptions to the current smoke-free legislation, including an exemption for sampling rooms—not smoking lounges, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, referred to—in specialist tobacconists, providing certain criteria are met, as outlined. The Government do not intend to remove this existing exemption for specialist tobacconists. The consultation explicitly states our intention for the exemption to remain.
Finally, Amendments 18 and 19, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, seek to maintain the existing exemption for specialist tobacconists to display tobacco products. There are several exemptions to the current tobacco display legislation, including an exemption for specialist tobacconists. In England, this allows specialist tobacconists to display tobacco products as long as they are not visible from outside the premises. The Government’s intention is not to remove this existing exemption for specialist tobacconists. This will be reflected when we consult on future display regulations later this year.
It is important that the Bill balances the public health aims with any disproportionate impacts on businesses, including specialist tobacconists. However, we will continue to monitor this niche market to ensure that it is not targeting young people or exploiting the existing exemptions. I hope that, on this basis, the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the thoughtful answers she has given to the various points my amendments have raised. I am also grateful for the time she allowed for discussions between Committee and Report to understand the issues better; my thanks to her. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Johnson of Lainston and Lord Kamall for the support they have offered for these amendments.
Before coming back to what the Minister said, I say to the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Northover, that there is quite a lot of confusion over the statistics relating to cigars as a generic category. I remind both of them that my amendments deal solely with handmade cigars, not with cigars as a single generic whole.
As I said, handmade cigars are not inhaled. They are relatively expensive compared with other smoking options. A lot of cigars out there on the market are machine made; some of them are small enough to be cigarillos. The statistics about young people indulging in cigar smoking almost wholly relate to people who are smoking not handmade cigars but other types of cigar.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I am very aware of the hour, but I just had a quick look online and saw “Andrew Tate’s favourite cigars”—exactly the kind of very expensive products that the noble Earl is talking about. That is what is being promoted to young men in particular.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
I remind the noble Baroness that very expensive cigars are usually unaffordable to young people, which is why the vast majority of cigar smokers are over the age of 25 and most of them are over the age of 35. The statistics bear that out.
I am grateful for all the interest that these amendments have inspired. Most of all, I am grateful to the Minister for the very thoughtful response that she has given and for her undertakings that it is not currently the Government’s intention to remove certain practices that allow the specialist tobacconist sector to continue. These are important because, despite what has been suggested, I re-emphasise that handmade cigars are not inhaled or habitual. They are almost solely associated with occasions such as Christmas and birthday parties and the up-market hospitality venues. For the continued survival of the almost always family-owned specialist tobacconist, continued access to handmade cigars for those types of events and occasions is extremely important to maintain. The Minister’s assurances will be valued by all those in the handmade cigar sector.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and my amendments to clauses 62, 80, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 120, 122, 123 and 124, would ensure that the effect of a person’s action is considered by reference to what it will be, rather than what it currently is (for consistency with the mental element of these offences).
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group are government amendments relating to the advertising provisions. They are in large part technical in nature, but they have a clear and important purpose: to stop the advertising and promotion of products that risk addicting a new generation to nicotine. They also ensure that the regime is clear and capable of being enforced fairly and consistently across all settings, whether online or offline.
We know why we are here today. In 2025, more than 1 million children reported having tried vaping. We have seen the brightly coloured and cartoon advertisements that have clearly appealed to young people. The Bill delivers on this Government’s mandate to stop the blatant advertising of vapes to children while continuing to support adult smokers to quit.
Government Amendments 20, 99, 111, 148, 150, 154, 156, 158, 160, 162, 164, 167 and 170 to 172 are minor and technical amendments. They simply update the wording across the clauses that create offences relating to free distribution, advertising, brand sharing and sponsorship. These amendments will ensure that the offence is committed, for example, as soon as an advert is published, which may not have been the case in some circumstances. That means that, for example, if a leaflet with an advert is put through a letterbox, the offence arises when it is delivered, not when the resident eventually reads it.
I have also tabled Amendment 165, which restores specific exceptions that already exist in current law. These make it clear that intermediaries—companies such as TalkTalk or BT—that provide passive internet services such as internet access cannot be liable for advertising offences in certain circumstances. This does not reflect a change in policy. The Bill does not intend to change the circumstance in which passive service providers may be liable. However, to put the matter beyond doubt, these amendments explicitly protect providers of passive services who have no ability to control, publish or remove adverts if they satisfy the circumstances prescribed in the exceptions.
Government Amendments 173 to 174, 179, 180 to 183, and 185 to 187 make it clear that the product placement provisions in Part 6 are not retrospective. They restate the existing law in relation to tobacco, and ensure that the new restrictions apply only going forward and do not affect programmes made before they came into force. This means that broadcasters or on-demand programme service providers will not be required to review or edit existing programmes. Finally, Amendment 184 removes now redundant amendments to video-sharing legislation that was repealed by the Online Safety Act 2023.
I turn to what is perhaps the most substantive amendment in this group—Amendment 166—and Amendments 175 to 178 on the public health defence. In Committee, I explained that the Bill already allows public health authorities to take certain steps to promote vapes as a means to quit smoking. Noble Lords raised important questions about how this applies to pharmacists, pharmacies and GP practices that both support smoking cessation and operate as businesses. I listened carefully to these concerns and, in response, I tabled an amendment creating a specific defence to provide clarity on how this will work in practice. This amendment allows businesses to promote non-branded vapes and nicotine products where it is done in arrangement with the public authority for public health reasons. In practice, this means that public authorities will continue to be able to partner with businesses such as pharmacies to run effective public health campaigns that promote vaping for smoking cessation.
We have also replicated this exception for on-demand programme services to ensure that public health authorities can continue to work with businesses to promote vaping for smoking cessation through these platforms. I hope this provides reassurance to noble Lords that healthcare professionals, including pharmacists and GPs, can continue to display smoking cessation materials. It also ensures that others, such as design agencies commissioned by public authorities, will not be caught inadvertently by the offence provisions when supporting this work.
I know that all these matters were of concern to noble Lords; I am therefore, as I said, glad to put forward amendments to tackle these very real points. I look forward to hearing the views and contributions of noble Lords in this debate, and I hope I can count on their support.
Baroness Northover (LD)
From these Benches, the Minister can count on our support.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, the hour is late and, given that some of my noble friends have left the Chamber—no doubt to enjoy a very expensive handcrafted cigar—it is left to my noble friend Lord Effingham and me to offer the opposition. If I had any temptation to call a Division, I can see that I am outnumbered.
I thank the Minister for tabling these amendments. I know that many of them are technical, but some are very important. I particularly welcome Amendment 165, which provides sensible protection for internet service providers acting merely as conduits, caching services or passive hosts. They are not really active in this space. They do not initiate, select or modify the content transmitted across their networks, and it would not be fair or practical to render them criminally liable for material of which they have no knowledge and over which they exercise no control.
Similarly, Amendments 166 and 178 ensure that legitimate public health campaigns are not inadvertently caught out by the advertising offences in the Bill. Where a person is acting in accordance with arrangements made by a public authority and for the purpose of promoting or protecting public health, it would be wrong for them to face criminal liability.
Finally, we welcome Amendment 183 because it ensures that the new restrictions do not apply retrospectively to programmes that were already in production before the new rules came into force. I suppose this is all a very long way of saying that we welcome the amendments from the Government.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am delighted to receive the support of both Front Benches, either in a few words or in a few more words. This is to fulfil a mandate to stop the blatant advertising of vapes to children, while continuing to support adult smokers to quit. I therefore commend the amendment to the House.